Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

We’ll done equipment/room matching and treatments should eliminate the need for equalization or other electronic tomfoolery. However if you so desire then go nuts, and fiddle to your hearts content. Firm believer in system and room matching and that HT has no place in my home at all. 

@tlcocks 

The PEQ in the processors I mention above are GUI style ganged controls. You adjust them on you computer and they can be used on the fly. 

@mirolab 

I do not use a separate Equalizer. All digital preamp processors have EQ capability of one sort or another. The ones I have used and use currently have EQ in several different forms. The first is your typical parametric EQ but with frequency and Q selection and the second is via Target curves. Parametric EQ can be done on the fly whereas Target curves are designed to address specific problems. As an example some recordings might have a tendency towards sibilance. So I programmed a target curve with a Gundry dip in it. I have a base target curve that tells the system how I want it to sound from an amplitude perspective. 

Preamp processors available now are the MiniDSP SHD, The Anthem STR, the DEQX Pre4 and 8, and the Trinnov Amethyst. They range in price from $1500 to $13,000. 

@mahgister I actually love your idea of tuning the speakers to the room.  Any good designer knows that the low end is EXTREMELY room dependent, and not every speaker is perfect in every room, or in every position of any room.  Your tuning-straws are a great idea, if probably a bit unsightly!  My oldest speakers are B&W Matrix 801-S2's, and I love them to death.  In my music room, with slab foundation, the low end is tremendous, and I needed to put them on 8" stands to tame the bass.  Then I flipped the furniture 180, and on the opposite wall, they sounded like a disaster.  I moved them to my living room with raised wood floor, and they sound PERFECT on the floor with no stands.  So how can a speaker designer align a low end response that will work in all rooms?  It's impossible.  

@tlcocks Yes I know of the MAAG eq, and I asked the designer if he'd make a version with ganged controls.  He said no.  So I will not buy a MAAG, but the Skyline M3D is very MAAG-like in its design.   

Thanks very much for your understanding and kindness ...

You are right for your observation  about the "cat" in my book ...😊

@mahgister , I found your last post very interesting and informative as well. More than one way to skin a cat!

I believe it is advertised as ‘environmental’ or room corrective, yes?

My only curiosity about MQ112 is room correction with an assumed non narrow notch non Q or center point selectable analog and not digital filters. Not sure how this works for the needs of room correction. But I guess the ear tells all. Just gotta listen. 

@mahgister , I found your last post very interesting and informative as well. More than one way to skin a cat!

Glad you started this thread as I wasn’t aware of the Mac unit. I have room modes causing some boom that available speaker placement options won’t cure. I’m curious about its utility as it seems to be in the ballpark as the JL Audio CR-1 and the recently discussed Charter Oaks units. All vs room correction. Anxiously waiting…

I use electronical equalization only for my modified headphone to reach nearer the Harman curve ... I equalize the headphone itself setting the EQ. once for all not the recordings ...I want to hear the recordings the more possible as it was intended bad or good , or not bad nor good as it is often the case through my headphone or speakers as i intended to design them first once for all by my modifications tailor made for my ears filters ...

I use mechanical "equalization" for my speakers by varying the number of straws made of plastic or bamboo inserted and folded into one another varying then their volume and lenght from few inches to 2 feet out of the porthole of my speakers ... The tuning process is analogue to a piano tuning process by ears ... 😁 total complete transformation of the speakers on ALL ACOUSTIC FACTORS ...It change even the measured original specs from 80 hertz to under 50 hertz ...Tuba sound is gorgeous in Gabrieli music for brass ...I will not need a sub for my small acoustic room in near listening ... Each one of us has his needs and musical choices for sure ...

I will not deliver a photo because some brain who ignore acoustic will mock me as a "tin foil hat" as it was the case in the past here ...😁

My post is to submit to the purist that the root of any equalization, analog or digital is grounded in Helmholtz mechanical work .... Even speakers are resonators ...

My post is also that we audiophiles are not just subjectivist or objectivist fetichist, but we can also experiment with our ears/brain with basic acoustics concepts at no cost ...

My system astoundingly good for his price cost for headphone+speakers+2 dac

+1 amplifier a total of 700 bucks ...And each component is well chosen and well embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically ... ...

I will not need an equalizer costing double the price of my system at all then to play with because i dont need one ...I equalize the gear once for all never the recordings ...

Then the right question is not about using or not using equalization... The right question is : where do come from the electrical/electronical process of equalization ? It comes from some hearing theory and from some mechanical experiments ...We must know that and learn that first ...And use it as experiment ... It is what i spoke about when i say that acoustics rule the gear not the reverse .... And our ears structure and working are part of the acoustics science by the way ...Knowing Fourier theory by reading the manual of an Eq. is not enough ...Because our ears/brain filters trained by his evolutive history biases work in his own non linear time real territory domain ...Not in the linear Fourier maps so useful are they technologically ...

Exciting!  Can’t wait to hear!

Looking forward to your impressions in your home system

Just came back from my MAC dealer. I demoed the MQ112. Was Very impressed. I purchased it. I’ll be hooking it up later today and be back with my review within my system. 

@mirolab , have you ever heard the Maag EQ4M?  It is renowned and revered in mastering circles for its air treble shelf section. It’s always available with a 30 day return on Amazon, and I’m always tempted to try it. I never do though because 1) I love the CO and 2) it doesn’t have dual stereo controls like CO and Vintage Skyline. 

I’m excited for you. I wouldn’t think you can go wrong with the McIntosh. Great products. Please listen first though. As stated previously it’s lacking in upper octave controls. If that’s not important to you then it’s likely an amazing product. 

Also even though I have never owned any McIntosh gear I have no doubt that they are are high quality built unit. Seems to be a much better quality than the Schitt Max. And I’m sure it will out live it also. And will fit nicely with my Audio Research Ref system. The Schitt Max looks like more of something someone would put in a midfi system or use with headphones. Not knocking that or the Schitt Max at all but all in all I believe the MAC will win the place in my High end system. 

I am really looking forward to hearing this MQ112 along with purchasing it tomorrow. I have also been reading about and watching videos on the McIntosh MEN220 Room Correction System. It’s very interesting and maybe one of my next and final purchases to bring out the best of my room and system. BTW. My system is in my profile if anyone is interested in what I have. 

@mirolab   I definitely will update as I really on figuring I will be really liking the McIntosh MQ112. Also I really do like this feature that it has. It’s has a tilt knob. What is does is works at the centered frequency point. When turned counterclockwise the tilt control works by boosting all the frequencies below the tilt frequency ( Bass signals). While attenuating all signals about the tilt frequency ( treble signals ). When turned clockwise the tilt control boosts all frequencies above the tilt frequency and attenuates all frequencies below the tilt frequency. So sometimes u just use the tilt to hear and have those changes without touching any other frequency knobs. There is a great video on utube about an hour long on this unit. Very detailed and discussed by a McIntosh owner and from a McIntosh dealer that I am goin to see tomorrow morning and most likely purchase it.Really looking forward to demo this. 

I find low level listening is a great test of the fidelity of the presented material. If it remains very engaging and such at low levels you probably have good gear. 

@mijostyn , thanks for your last very informative and interesting post.  I often use a bit less treble at low volume. Interesting the volume effect on tonality 

@tattooedtrackman , can’t wait to hear about your impressions of MQ112!

Yes. I’ve often wondered what that Weiss digital hardware piece sounds like. 

An honest question to @mijostyn :  

You are pushing the superiority of Digital EQ...  So what model Digital EQ would you recommend?  I mean one that has knobs or sliders that I can enjoy adjusting easily and 'on-the-fly'.  The only one I can think of would be the Weiss mastering EQ, but it's $6500, and is Digital I/O only.    

@tattooedtrackman Please report back to us your impressions of the Mac MQ112!  It appears to have finer intervals down low, better for room corrections, but sacrificing control up high.  I share @tlcocks concern about the leap from 3k to 10k, and that the 10k band may not have the air we seek.  I never understood why the top band is a peak, rather than a shelf.  

The PEQ-1's HF band is 15k-20k-50k switchable, and the M3D high-shelf is 2.5k-5k-10k-20k-40k switchable.  Those controls put Mac's single 10k band to shame.  The Mac has a Tilt control, so that's cool.   

@tlcocks 

Treble like bass is a moving target all because our ears change their frequency response with volume. My last processor had dynamic loudness compensation. It changed both bass and treble relative to the volume following Fletcher - Munson curves. It was very spooky. The system sounded the same regardless of volume. Before that I adjusted the volume to the best compromise for that specific recording. Some recordings sounded better at lower levels, others sounded much better turned up. I am sure everyone has had the experience of a recording that sounded somewhat dull until you turned it up then it sounded fine. The problem with the dynamic loudness compensation was that it could not accommodate to any specific recording, only volume. The end result was that I still wound up making adjustments manually. I made life easier by programming a series of target curves matching the F-M curves which I can select manually depending on both the recording and the volume.  

Many people advance the treble trying to get more "air." Some of this is audiophile euphonics. Some a response for suppressed treble in the speaker/room combination. The odd thing is I have not noticed older people advancing the treble to make up for their declining hearing. Owning Sound Labs speakers I opted for Atma-Sphere MA2s given their reputation for driving Sound Labs. Nobody has ever mentioned lack of air or depressed treble. Although the midrange and midbass are glorious I found the sound to be somewhat dark. Low and behold even with the brilliance control turned all the way up the treble started to roll off above 12 kHz and by 20 kHz was down 20 dB. This is all because of the very low impedance of the Sound Labs at higher frequencies and the highish output impedance of the MA2s at 1.5 ohms. Sound Labs will go all the way to 20 kHz flat with the right amp. Fortunately for me the DEQX has a 4 way crossover and the Sound Labs has both a low frequency and high frequency transformers which can be biamped. The current plan is to drive the high frequency transformer with a Bricasti M25. 

Update >.Just made an appointment with my local McIntosh dealer to audition the MQ112 tomorrow morning at 9 am and they also have 1 last one in stock and there are apts all day and Friday for demos booked to hear the MQ112. So if I do like what I see and hear I’ll be bringing it home.

It’s really not like that for me. It’s fancy bass and treble dials. I never touch 3 of the six dials. Center point switches for bells are always left the same. If I’m sitting on the couch and wanna get more bass or treble (or less), it’s nothing to get up and turn a dial or two and sit down. Totally worth it when Bryston and CO combo sound that darned sweet together. Almost everything I play sounds amazing. 

The Max is a very well designed and executed piece of gear that they could charge more for I suppose...Schiit is often disregarded for being inexpensive, although my experience with the original Loki and their small headphone amps made me a believer (original Freya from 2017 also...NOS GE tubes last forever). Note that in my system the frequency sweeps of the Max are more than enough "high quality" EQ for my needs. I rarely need it at all, but when I do want to sweeten a mix, hear cymbals buried somewhat, or bring up bass...it's all there...from the comfort of my chair. I simply don't need wider bands of EQ, although maybe some do. So get up and adjust it and run back to the couch to see how it worked. Nothing wrong with a little exercise.

Its specs are impressive though. SNR 115, for example 

MQ112 tops out at a center point of 10K. Not high enough. The magic occurs when you pick up subtleties of the 12-16K area and the favorable harmonic textures of the higher order Supra aural frequencies as well. Watch the video online about Mike talking about the 50K switch on the PEQ1. Granted, this is dubbed as a room corrective EQ.  Which generally doesn’t apply to such ultra high treble frequencies, so no surprise.  No, while I’d still hear it because 10K done right with the correct Q sounds good, this probably not an equalizer for me. 

@wolf_garcia , your experience with LM jives with mine. Our observations are not discrepant. I just love the ability to dial in more treble that’s top shelf treble at will. Gonna say though…bass lifts are better also with my CO. Not just treble. Again, I’d say about the LM that it’s very transparent, bands are more narrow, it’s less powerful than pro studio, and in simply words the treble is less airy and beautiful than some pro gear. 

Last nite I had the Fontaines playing on my Fostex as opposed to my HEKse because less sound leak. Wife working next to me. She loves Fontaines. She said let me listen. Previously she’s only heard the Fostex through the Chord Mojo2. Then she wasn’t impressed. She’s got a good ear and picked up on the annoying treble spike at about 6K.  This time she heard through the Headamp Charter Oak. She raved about the sound, stating if sounded amazing. I asked her how the treble sounded this time. She said amazing. Now you tell me with a straight face that air band treble lift on digital sounds better than analog. Yeah, right!

MQ112 very interesting looking!  Would love to hear. Don’t like one thing though. Looks like second to last filter, lower treble, is 3K. That’s really upper mids. Would prefer 5K, or even 8K there

@wolf_garcia @tlcocks I was reading and looking at videos of the the Mcintosh MQ112 and really do like it very much. I’m very interested in this now. Not too bad for 3k. Looks very simple to use also.And it is 8 bands as of 6 for the Max.  It came out this last month also I believe. I’d really like to demo it if that possible before I make the purchase.Does anyone know more about this ? Also it looks like it’s a much better made / high end gear  unit also than the Max. Well after all it is Mcintosh. This will be my first ever Mc if I get it. Wish it had a remote thought. Can’t have everything I guess.

I've been using the Max between the preamp and power amp and having bypassed it by simply unhooking it to see if it had any impact on the signal, I determined that it doesn't degrade anything. It's a great sounding piece of gear, works beautifully, the remote is really fun, and I suggest to anyone interested in system EQ to try one of these. YOUR ears will let you know what's what. I've rejected well regarded items here and there when the reality of what they do doesn't square with other opinions or reviews, but the Max hold up. It's somewhat more subtle than other digital or analog "pro" EQs I've used (and owned) over many decades in the pro studio, live music, and audio geek worlds, in that if you "dime" any frequency it adjusts an appropriate amount and doesn't pull too hard..seemingly less dramatic than studio EQs I've used. Also it's important that "chicken head" knobs are applied or your not gonna have as much fun.

https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/room-correction/MQ112

I love the tape loop insertion as opposed to placing the EQ between the source and amp. Tape loop allows for that “true bypass” that ultimately you want for comparing your settings to no equalizer

Yeah, all balanced for me. No adapter or extra box. My Cardas are pseudobalanced, special pin scheme so they are playing at full unity gain when connecting to the single ended tape loop in the Bryston. Works perfectly. 

I’ll check it out, @mirolab !  Thanks!

Slower less busy tracks with room to breathe leaves better reproduced cymbals on analog. Cymbals really stand out a lot as much better. Reverb, if used, and vocals leading and trailing edges. All better on the analog. Clarity resolution top notch and kills the Chord Mojo2 EQ. But DEQX?  Better?

@tlcocks I finally read your earlier posts, and info on your PEQ-1, and it really makes me believe I had a lemon unit.  Mine was a very early production unit, and I had to send it back initially for a couple wiring errors.  Then months later an op-amp went noisy, and needed to be replaced, so I think my unit was sub-par.  I really did love the way the bands sounded, and the switchability of the center frequencies.  It's something I miss in the Skyline M3D.  If only my PEQ1 had the transparency I was looking for.... which you claim it DOES have!  I think mine was just not a good one.

As for the Skyline M3D... the low end is glorious.... I can really fill out missing lows from my 70's+80's LP's.  I do wish it had a sub-filter.  The high band (labelled Atmosphere) is a high shelf with 5 selectable frequencies, and you can really breathe air into a dark or dry recording.  I'm not going to say the M3D is better than a "good" PEQ1... it's just different.  Also... I broke the seal on the lid to look inside (as I do with everything) and it's very well done inside, and the unit is very heavy for its size.  The only caveat it that it's strictly balanced only.  Do not simply throw an adapter on the output that shorts the (-) to ground.  

Another unit that I bought the very day it came out is the Drawmer 1974.  It's a 4-band parametric EQ with one set of controls.  The unit is quiet and transparent, but the bands simply don't sound all that great, and the high shelf is not "Airy".  It's really more suited to tonal shaping for mixing, rather than for mastering a full stereo mix.  I had higher hopes for it, but at least it has hardwire bypass!  Maybe worth it if you can find one used for a good price.     

Did you see the new Macintosh 8-band EQ that just came out?  

Soooo tempting!!  

The problem is you’ve never heard any of the analog hardware I’ve played with, and I’ve never heard your SOTA digital EQ you have used. I’ve heard a lot of purportedly excellent digital though…

I’ll bet as a digital EQ guy, you never boost treble. Why?  because it would suck. Compel me. Prove me wrong. Give me something to sink my teeth into. 

I think the treble boost is the area that studio analog does best. Listen, I’m listening on headphones to Fontaines D.C. second album right now on headphones with slight bass and modest treble lift. Sounds freaking fabulous. I have stuck the Chord Mojo2 104 bit UHD lossless EQ in the chain and it’s no contest. The fullness and saturation and sustain of the notes just kills the less natural and truncated sounding notes of the digital. EVEN THOUGH IT 104 bit processing. How much better can DEQX or other be?

not only does this equalizer sound fan fabulous but I can just turn a dial like simple tone controls to boost or attenuate. I HAVE TO HEAR THE BEST DIGITAL AND SEE WHAT A TREBLE BOOST DOES TO THE REST OF THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND FIDELITY 

Have NOT tried…meant

Digital still cannot add air to the mix, top octave, without some sonic sacrifice to the mids IMHO. granted have tried the most expensive digital solutions. @mijostyn , which digital EQ does broad upper treble bell or shelf boost best?  Or do you never boost treble?  In home playback, talking. 

@mirolab ,

That's nice. I have a good friend who is a recording engineer. He knows virtually nothing about HiFi systems. He listens to music all day. The last thing he wants to do is listen to more at home.

I really do not want to be condescending but the fact of the matter is the performance of high resolution digital signal processing is so much more advanced than analog signal processing it is like comparing the Kitty Hawk to the SR71. People can like playing around with out of date analog EQ all they want. That is why Howard Johnson's made 28 flavors. Touting it as anything more than an interesting artifact is .....like the manual transmission, misleading and I have a manual 911. I'm not racing anyone with a PDK transmission. 

What is done to most CDs is criminal. 

I usually bump mids on CO half dot. More of a W curve. Only slight mids bump. Done right, the whole thing sounds bigger richer fuller while retaining to my ear all the hi fi qualities of the unaltered base recording. All 3 of mids lows highs sound bigger and better in every respect post EQ. Going back and forth I honest to God cannot hear a lost hi fi quality or characteristic at all. Only better. Timbre of all instruments stay natural too.