I found an MQ112 to listen to. The catch is dealer and I cannot get our schedules together before Xmas. Gotta wait. @mbmi , I also look forward to your listening impressions. Specifically if either of you MQ112 owners have any words of description for that last 10k band, as to its qualities in a boost situation, id love to hear. 10k is too low to really impart air. Unless it’s a shelf and boosts everything above it. Don’t think it’s a shelf.
Equalizer in a Hi Fi system
Just curious to hear everyone’s opinions on using an equalizer in a high end hi fi system. Was at work tonight and killing time and came across a Schitt Loki max $1500 Equalizer with some very good reviews. What are some of the pros / Benefits and cons in using one. Just curious. BTW. I’m talking about a top of the line. Hi end equalizer. Mostly to calm some high frequencies and some bad recordings.
739 responses Add your response
@tlcocks why do you say not t@stonyb3165 said?
|
Absolutely yes to using equalization for room correction but in this day and age DSP is the most powerful tool to do this best, not analog eq technology that was the best one could do practically say 10-20 years ago or so. If you have a good quality system to start with, corrections for room acoustics is the missing link in most cases to reference quality sound and modern DSP tools provide a much more powerful, cost effective and flexible way to tackle room acoustics properly, though for the less technically inclined, a good old fashioned parametric equalizer could probably do the job.
To the best of my knowledge graphic equalizers with fixed ranges lack the flexibility to precisely do correct room corrections in most cases in that each room is different and graphic Equalizers lack the flexibility needed to do the job correctly. |
I have had a dbx Driverack 360 for about three years. It has a Wizard that will automatically sets your parametric eq at 14 different levels, sets your roll off points for them as well. Phase control for your mains and subs, a graphic eq, adjustable slopes for your roll off points, sub-harmonic synthesizer and on and on. It has a DAC I don’t use and am embarrassed to say until a few months ago, I didn’t use the auto wizard, but instead thought my ears could set it manually. You can set delays on your subs or mains. I love it. My son also bought a similar unit and loves his too. Don’t count this one out, until you try it. Besides my phono cables, I use all XLR cables which plugs right into it. This may dissuade some of you. There are adapters made that convert RCA to XLR. |
@tlcocks Question. As u know I have the MQ112. What I don’t understand is when u all talk about DSP what is that. Also analog and digital equalizer. What is the difference. And what is the MQ112 ? Digital, analog ,DSP ? |
@tlcocks Ty. Could u please explain what each one would be used for ? That’s the only thing I’m not understanding. And so even if my listening is only digital meaning cdp and I have an analog equalizer is that ok ? |
All digital signals MUST get converted to analog by the time they hit your speaker wire. Now if you’re wireless…can all occur in one box. @tattooedtrackman , tell me your components and cables. By the way, I don’t know where on Audiogon to find everyone’s gear list. And I don’t know how to post mine. |
@tlcocks Audio Research Ref 750s mono amp. Audio Research Ref 6SE pre amp. Audio Research Ref 9 cdp. All Straight wire Crescendo XLR cables. |
This example shows my family room response curve that represents the room’s acoustics. Every room is different in this regard. You can see peaks and dips at specific frequencies. To correct those, an equalizer has to be able to target the frequencies where the peaks/dips occur. Most graphic equalizers are designed to target pre-determined frequencies per band. That kind of equalizer can change the tone of the sound but cannot address a specific room’s acoustics which is a primary factor that distorts what you hear relative to what was recorded. A parametric equalizer can be set to address specific frequencies so that is a better solution. Then you have DSP which provides the ultimate flexibility in changing what you hear. DSP is a computer program that works with digital audio signals and. applies algorithms that can automatically determine what needs to change and then create the specific equalization and apply it to the digital audio signal to adjust it for the room. Whereas with a traditional graphic equalizer you can adjust specific frequencies but you cannot do that in a manner that properly addresses the variations that a specific rooms acoustics creates. Hope this helps to understand the differences.
|
@mapman , there has been great discussion on this subject matter earlier in the thread. I believe both digital and analog have their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. See pages prior. |
@tattooedtrackman , so in your chain your Audio Research cdp is your dac, which converts the code read off the disc to analog waveform. The rest of your chain is analog. Your MQ112 must go in between your preamp and amp. Perfectly super set up😊 |
@mapman Thank you for showing me that. I do remember reading that in priors.
|
@tlcocks Question. All the Equalizers you are mentioning and now the DW Fearn VT 5 all sound very good from what u are describing. BUT aren’t they wouldn’t they be more appropriate- useful in a mastering studio professional use more then for at home audio ? As also they look very industrial more for studios than for home. |
I have nothing to add to this interesting discussion except for another vote for the Manley Massive Passive. I purchased the latest version with switching power supply, initially to complement a custom speaker with a Purify 6.5" mid woofer and matching passive radiators that handle LF boost well enough to produce high quality bass to 30hz. Over time I’ve used all bands of the Manley with excellent results. After break-in and experience on how to optimize its relatively complex and sometimes counter-intuitive controls, the Manley piece has become an essential component. It is a bit fiddly to tweak, and once set up properly, wants mostly to be left alone. It has a clean, open sound with tube characteristics that don’t sound "toobie." No hiss on top. Of course it is well vetted by mastering pros-- which encouraged me to skip past lots of cheaper solutions. I’ll add that at this level of performance, a studio equalizer is a seductive and cost-effective opportunity to improve a system without endless component and cable swaps. Perhaps an endpoint. Esoteric K-O1x w/Rubidium clock>SOtM>AtmaSphere MP-1 or Goldpoint balanced passive>Pass XA-160.8 monos or modified BAT VK-75SE. |
@tattooedtrackman , as long as they are electrically compatible with consumer hi fi, why not look at the whole field for all their diversity and choices? Some are more appropriate than others certainly |
@dgarretson , right on the money! Exactly! |
Most problems many audiophiles solve by "upgrading" at high cost, can be solved by room acoustics, tonal analog control and DSP as the Choueiri BACCH ... These three aspects of one solution have something in common : they are ground in the human hearing specifics... They are not tool you use once for the gear pieces ... They are permanent acoustics elements integrating all the others factors in one hearing experience ... |
@dgarretson , I have checked out your gear. Wow. With that quality and a Manley MP in between pre and monos, I can ONLY IMAGINE what kind of insane SQ you are hearing. And with your ability to bend a curve, on such a hi fi rig, you can pretty much make most recordings sound any way you want! |
@tlcocks , thanks. I ventured into the Manley analog equalizer for home use by thinking of a Cello Palette, but stripped of the often degrading presence of OP amps. (Never heard one, however, so no harm no foul.) It is interesting that Mark Levinson, who began with the notion of hi-end audio as "a wire with gain", ended up marketing an equalizer preamp... Also, though not inexpensive, the Manley piece reflects the value proposition of pro studio gear, without the price-to-market premiums typically associated with high-end home audio. Which leads me to question of what’s inside the new McIntosh piece. I haven’t found any details. Has anyone looked inside? |
@dgarretson If u go on utube and search for McIntosh MQ112 Ski Fi audio. They have a video about 50 min of the MQ112. At the end of it they show u the inside. Also I do not see your system in your profile ? |
@dgarretson Oh ok because tlcocks said he checked out your gear. |
@dgarretson Dont understand what u mean. >McIntosh : But where the money went into this design is clear. |
@tattooedtrackman Look at the SkyFi video at 49:00 and see what circuitry $3000 buys you, and then look at the Massive Passive video, and look at what $6000 buys you. There is certainly more than twice as much going on in the Manley unit! I'm not putting down the MQ112 at all.... I'm actually considering one! I got my MassPass used over 10 years ago, for around $2700. It sounds gorgeous, but you need 2 hands to drive it. You really want ganged controls for stereo program eq-ing. @stonyb3165 Proclaiming that a Loki Max is all "ANYONE" needs is a bit presumptuous. You could have just said "is all I need". Other people may have different needs, or sense of aesthetics. The Loki Max would look stupid in @tattooedtrackman beautiful system. The MQ112 looks perfect!!
|
@mirolab Understood. Let talk about aesthetics. The Loki Max TO ME looks extremely cheap and small, not blending in well with my system. The Massive Passive is I’m sure a phenomenal piece of equipment but way to big and way to industrial looking for my taste. If I had a recording studio and doing mixes etc I’d definitely buy one. And I agree that what u said “ The MQ112 looks perfect in my system And sound beautiful. That is all that I needed. IMO. |
In this video the reviewer prefer a chinese EQ with tube to the Lokius...At less than half the cost... 130 bucks versus 299 bucks ... Diverse needs and diverse opinions indeed ... My system cost speakers,amplifiers,dacs, headphones all included is way under 1000 bucks... I am not interested to pay for a 1000 bucks EQ nor to buy a Lokius at his actual price ... The T8 seems better option at his cost and FOR ME and my system the best option ... Each audio system has his potentials...Mine is limited even if it is already so good i dont need upgrades at all cost ...I am on the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ... It would be ridiculous with my system to buy a Manley EQ at 10,000 bucks ...The owner of the Manley own a system aimed toward what i called : the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...
|
Interesting Read From a Recording Engineer about EQ
On another note, I find it strange how many audiophiles or audio enthusiasts are averse to using EQ to achieve audio bliss with a product that they feel is just a tad too bright or harsh, or needs a little boost or cut in the low end, midrange, etcetera, in order to be ideal for their preferences. I understand that using EQ doesn't make sense if the headphones, IEMs, or speakers will require A LOT of extensive EQ to get them dialed in. But I find that most products are within a +/- 3dB range (and usually MUCH less) in a certain frequency or two to get them dialed in, which is perfectly safe and achieveable with the majority of products we use. I also find it a bit ironic that we as listeners don't want to consider using EQ, but if you realized how extensively at least some type of EQ or spectral balance shaping techniques were used in the mixing & production process of 95% of the music that we listen to, you would be shocked. 😛 For multitracked music, strategic EQ and tonality shaping with levels are used by mixing engineers to place the various instruments and vocal(s) withing the soundstage from front to back, i.e. Depth and Layering. EQ is also used to bring vocals forward in the mix (or push them back). IOW, EQ is a Very Powerful Tool in the mixing and mastering engineer's toolbox. Yet as audiophiles seeking audio nirvana and the best possible performance from our gear, most of us are afraid or averse to using ANY EQ whatsoever. 😕 In the recording studios these days, you will find that nearly all engineers are using and embracing at least some type of monitor speaker/room correction software (which is primarily EQ-based). In addition, several of the companies that design and manufacture highly regarded studio monitors, such as Genelec for one, are incorporating these types of measurement/analyzer/correction systems built into their products, which helps each engineer to achieve their absolute REFERENCE system for their mixing and mastering work. Again, these are the PROFESSIONALS that are responsible for producing the music that we are listening to on a daily basis. They spend many thousands of dollars on both analog and digital outboard rack-mount EQs or DAW plugin EQs to complete their daily work. I first learned the true importance and the amazing power of EQ in my journey as a high-end car audio enthusiast. In a car audio system, there are at least two major factors related to the proper use of EQ that are major obstacles to achieving a tightly focused center image that does not wander or drift dependent on the immediate frequency of the vocal or instrument as the song plays, in addition to achieving a perfectly linear and balanced Left-to-Right Soundstage. The "Depth To the Stage" (where it begins in front of you), and "Depth Of the Stage" (how deep or forward it projects beyound the speaker positions) is also highly dependent on proper Independent Left & Right EQ, which is absolutely necessary in order to produce a smooth, even, and linear frequency response that corresponds to our preferred Target Curve, AT OUR LISTENING POSITION. # 1. In our vehicles, our Main Listening Position (MLP) is not perfectly centered between a pair of loudspeakers. This presents a huge problem, or should I say, multiple problems. Just try sitting 3 feet to the Left or Right of Center in your home setup, and also closer to the nearest side speaker as well. The SPL from the closer speakers will be significantly higher, AND, any reflections that you hear from the nearest side speaker will arrive much earlier than the opposite side speaker. I think it's obvious that the results will not be ideal, right? 😛 # 2. In a vehicle, we don't have a properly sized or acoustically treated "room" to play those nice loudspeakers in! The highly reflective near-field environment of a vehicle wreaks havoc on the frequency response at our MLP from our otherwise perfectly flat and neutral high end speaker transducers. And all of the reflections that we hear will be EARLY reflections, meaning there is not enough of a delta in time for us to perceive or differentiate the multitude of reflections from the direct sound coming from the speakers. This produces horrible comb filtering and a very erratic frequency response from our otherwise flat and neutral high-quality speaker drive units. That's not a good start! # 3. In addition, each of the speakers in our vehicle cannot be ideally placed on a common baffle, and they usually end up being spread around the interior in seemingly random and non-ideal locations within the vehicle. Again, Each Speaker will be affected differently, dependent on its immediate environment or location (nearby reflective boundaries). # 4. There is another factor that is not so much related to EQ per se, and that is the need for independent "Time Alignment" or digital delay for each speaker so that each one arrives at our off-center listening position in perfect sync, just as they would when sitting in the "sweet spot" equidistant between our home loudspeakers, or headphones/IEMs. Most high-end car audio systems will have a "front stage" speaker set (equivalent to our front "mains" speakers) consisting of a Left and Right set of Tweeters, Midrange, and Midbass drivers, along with one or more subwoofers that are usually placed somewhere out of the way in the rear of the vehicle. Because we sit Off-Center to each Left and Right group of speakers, one side is relatively On-Axis to our listening position, while the group of speakers on the opposite (near) side will likely be severely Off-Axis to our listening position. This will cause a massive difference in frequency response between the Left and Right sides, and this, in turn, will destroy any chance of achieving accurate image placement and soundstaging, as well as a pleasing, balanced, realistic and lifelike spectral balance (tonality). Try playing a full-range mono Pink Noise track in a non-EQ'd car audio system and quickly adjust the Balance control from full Left to full Right. The massive change in Frequency Response from the Left group of speakers will be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Right group of speakers, and this will be readily apparent at our off-center listening position. To help in this regard, we try and use a combination of speaker drive units that can play an ideal, particular passband with low distortion, and most importantly, without "beaming". Minimizing any beaming (the narrowing of dispersion as frequency rises) helps the On-Axis and Off-Axis frequency response from each speaker to be much more even and linear. We achieve this by using the appropriate Crossover Network Filters on each driver that protect the drivers while keeping them from playing into a frequency range where they will start to "beam". Ideally, we want to maintain a very even and smooth DIRECTIVITY across all of the drivers. Carefully chosen Crossover Filters are also another way to control the summed or overall Frequency Response...IOW, Crossovers can effectively function as "EQ" as well. Remember that our off-center listening position in a car makes the On-Axis and Off-Axis Left and Right frequency response quite different. But minimizing beaming and optimizing for smooth directivity helps to even out the differences in FR between the left and right sides as much as possible. HOWEVER, we will still need LOTS of EQ to optimize and balance this Left vs. Right frequency response. This is due to the highly reflective environment of the car. There is really no way around this in a vehicle listening environment. Still, EQ can only do so much. Because of the unique interior dimensions of each vehicle, (in addition to obstacles such as large center consoles, transmission humps, the steering wheel, etcetera), there will be Cancellation Nulls at several particular frequencies that cannot be boosted or corrected using EQ. For example, if you try to Boost these cancellation nulls, the speakers will just be working much harder without actually producing any more output at the null frequency, and you risk damaging the speaker due to overexcursion or heat. HOWEVER, EQ can be used to Reduce PEAKS in the response, and/or to Lower the Peaks On Either Side of the Null, which effectively smooths out the overall frequency response so it becomes less of a distraction or irritation. The SAME EQ technique can be used on Headphones and IEMs. The internal chambers and cavities in the cups of headphones or IEMs can produce cancellation nulls, as well as peaks in response at particular frequencies. Most modern designers do a very good job at minimizing these effects, but there will always be some amount of resonance or null at one or more given frequency. Use EQ to tame these as much as possible. So in a vehicle, to achieve a lifelike, realistic frequency response that has excellent imaging and a realistic soundstage, we ABSOLUTELY NEED a multi-channel DSP that provides fully INDEPENDENT Left & Right Time Alignment (digital delay), with LOTS of P-EQ bands, and fully adjustable Network Filters/Crossovers for Each Channel. Some such DSP units made for car audio are the miniDSP C-DSP 8x12 & Harmony (with optional DIRAC Live), or various other units made by Audiotec-Fischer Helix or Brax, Audison Forza, Gladen/Mosconi Aerospace, Zapco HDSP-V, etc. miniDSP makes smaller 2-Channel or 4-Channel DSPs that achieve the same goals in home audio systems. Without using extensive EQ in a mobile audio system, there is simply no way to achieve anything close to our home audio speaker system or our headphones & IEMs. But that same EQ can ALSO be used by us as well as studio engineers to effectively shape the characteristics of the sound to our tonal preferences, and also to improve dynamics, impact, soundstaging, realism, and overall musicality. AND if nothing else, PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Using proper EQ will have a MUCH LARGER EFFECT on the "CHARACTER" or Spectral Balance of your Headphones or IEMs than ANY type of "Upgraded", "High-End" CABLE!!! STOP buying expensive cables to "EQ" your goddam Headphones and IEMs!!! Using EQ effectively is usually MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE, and often times it is FREE, as it's built-in to nearly all DAPs. And EQs or EQ plugins are available for nearly all computer-based music playback software or network streamers. I'm not saying that Cables Do Not make a difference in SQ. I'm just saying that using EQ effectively is a much more LOGICAL approach, and nearly always less expensive. EQ is also INFINTELY ADJUSTABLE, whereas you will be stuck with the specific characteristics or properties of whatever cable you choose, and it may not be exactly what you were hoping for. I also have no problem spending good money to choose a "better cable" for it's improved physical or cosmetic properties, such as better construction, less tangling, better comfort, ideal length, the appropriate connectors, and microphonics, etc. But using CABLES to "EQ" your headphones, IEMs, or speakers makes absolutely no sense as long as the original cables are decent and usable. Engineers in a recording studio DO NOT immediately reach for a different cable when the spectral balance of the sound needs to be altered. They reach for their favorite EQ!
|
“I also have no problem spending good money to choose a "better cable" for it's improved physical or cosmetic properties, such as better construction, less tangling, better comfort, ideal length, the appropriate connectors, and microphonics, etc.” slight nitpick here: don’t generalize EQ’s. On the consumer side most are poorly implemented and don’t meet the audiophile standard. You really have to hunt and pay for the good ones, in my experience. Generalizing statements above about EQs is dangerous as it leads audiophiles to assume all EQ sounds bad. Right? They hear one. It sounds bad. They give up. The truth is you really get what you pay for. If you really want SOTA EQ for your SOTA stereo, you have painstakingly demo software or hardware and pay the piper. Just like any hi fi component |