Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

EQ digital or analog is a tool among other tools ...No singular tool alone is the solution...

The solution is complex and implicate all tools: room mechanical controls, speakers controls by analog and/or digital tools and the necessary revolutionary BACCH filters too which can regulate for the best the relation between speakers/room and ears/brain ...

No tool replace the other tools ...

For the time being there is no audio A.I.

It will come soon anyway ...

It’s far and away the BEST EQ discussion forum ever. Avoiding the boring diatribe of audiophiles bashing EQ in general, one. And two, we have a resident expert on the digital side with @mijostyn and a resident expert on the analog side with Miro. 

@mijostyn 

i stand to LEARN the most from you, by the way, as you are deep into the digital side of high end. As much or more as I am the analog side. And your equipment is top notch. So bear in mind while I call have called you out on your condescending nature at times, as Miro has, that I like you and want a healthy exchange of ideas and can learn a lot from you. I do think digital eventually can eclipse analog for the top octave one day. Your systems are top flight and maybe you know something I don’t. That’s why I’m always open minded. I also think even the greatest hi fi systems can benefit from EQ due to the aforementioned inherent flaws which are numerous as eloquently laid out by @mahgister. I feel once playing with hi fi gear that there’s more “bang for the buck “ exploring best EQ solutions as opposed to continually upgrading equipment in the chain. If I were very rich I’d do both. But I am not. 
I am really really enjoying this forum!

@mijostyn  

understand and your comments duly noted. A question and a comment. If there were a 13,000 dollar Chord processing preamp utilizing its proprietary 104 bit processor, would its EQ sound better than what you’re using?  Phrased differently, how does Chord s 104 bit algorithm compare to floating point 64 bit in similarly priced similarly powered systems, if it existed?  Isn’t 104 better than 64, or is programming a digital EQ not that simple?  (That’s all one question, really). Comment:  headphones DO NOT sound as natural timbre wise as loudspeakers. You are right. But like anything else, if you work hard enough at finding it, a very rare few do. My HEKse is known in head fi circles to be one of the five or so best opened backs on the planet. Trust me it comes close to loudspeakers. Lastly careful with slightly disrespectful comments which are simply unproven such as headphone enthusiasts tend to have lower fi loudspeaker systems. That is uncalled for, I think. 

I'm very happy for you too!Your first impressions have me researching EQ options more seriously now. There's only so much that can be practically done to fix my room.Thank you for posting.

I hate headphones by the way. I do not like the way the music is presented. It is very unnatural. It is interesting to note that people with the very best systems do not use headphones. I should also note that people who live in apartment buildings might have no choice. I’ve been there and hated it, I suspect my neighbors also hated me😈

I dont like headphone too ... Save my AKG K340 modified and optimized the only one hybrid design ever working for 45 years ...It is like owning a set of speakers with subs... If the recording is good the sound create an out of the head experience and the timbre is completely natural which 2 aspects were not at all in any of the other headphones i used in my life ...And anyway with the BACCH filters the headphone experience will not be far behind the speakers experience ...The K340 give me a bit of it already with his 2 innovative technologies inside the complex shell chambers ...

Room acoustics are very important and most rooms require some sort of management depending on the type of speaker used.

Room control is a misnomer. It is really speaker control. It repairs and adjusts things that are totally immune to room management like group delays and the variations in frequency response between the two channels. Then there is making the system sound the way you want it to.

First acoustics is way more than just room acoustic controls , especially more than room acoustic thought by the average consumers ...

Room control is not a misnomer , because it is not to be confused with the speaker control ... You forgot that the room could be transformed optimally in his acoustic content with not only diffusive surface and reflecting or absorbing one but also with Helmholtz tuned resonators distributed on specific pressure zone and you forgot that we can modify the geometry and modify the topology related to some specific chosen gear and listener position ...This is room controls ...It serve not only the speakers specs by optimizing them but the Ears/ head/ brain location ...

Dont forget that the ears/brain live in his own non linear time domain in a room and this time domain concrete territory is not exactly the same as the linear one of the Fourier mapping ... The ears/brain dont obey Fourier laws but infringe on them as revealed by their own workings when measured ...Room acoustic controls and equalization controls go then together, ONE DO NOT REPLACE THE OTHER ....But even these two are not enough ... we need more controls than speakers and room controls ...

And room control implicate even some DSP as the Choueiri BACCH filters which cannot replace room control but can optimize it from specific listener position and his mandatory inner ears and HTRF measures ... Any stereo system is FLAWED... Not because the speakers are flawed or the room is flawed but because one aspect of any stereo speakers is UNCONTROLLED : crosstalk ... This crosstalk between the two speakers impede all spatial acoustic information transmission for the two ears/brain of the listener in his specific ideal position as measured in room acoustic control ... The BACCH filters work correcting not the speakers control but the relation between speaker controls and room controls and listener location ...

Then all is not in the world as your obsession with one form of  equalization dictate, the one you bought 😁 ... Room controls exist ( mechanical equalization with tuned distributed resonators among other devices ) as exist speakers controls with EQ and as exist some DSP as the BACCH filters correcting the relation between the speakers and the room various controls and the listener ears/brain location and dimensions ...

@tlcocks 

The Chord Mojo 2 is a cute little DAC/headphone amp. The fastest it can go is 756/32. The Artix 7 field programmable gated array processor is trick in this application because it requires very little power. A 64 bit Floating point processor would roast that little unit alive. You might even burn your hand. It is nowhere near as powerful as a Trinnov Amethyst or the DEQX Pre 8. I hate headphones by the way. I do not like the way the music is presented. It is very unnatural. It is interesting to note that people with the very best systems do not use headphones. I should also note that people who live in apartment buildings might have no choice. I've been there and hated it, I suspect my neighbors also hated me😈 

In short, comparing something like the Chord Mojo 2 to an Amethyst or Pre 8 is folly at best. The best comparison to the Mojo would be the MiniDSP SHD another 32 bit device. 

The Amethyst and DEQX Pre 8 are full function preamps. Both even have phono stages. Both use 64 bit floating point processors so degradation at low volumes is insignificant. This is extremely important for processors that are being used to adjust volume levels at various frequencies. 

@jacobsdad2000 

Room acoustics are very important and most rooms require some sort of management depending on the type of speaker used. 

Room control is a misnomer. It is really speaker control. It repairs and adjusts things that are totally immune to room management like group delays and the variations in frequency response between the two channels. Then there is making the system sound the way you want it to. I boost bass below 100 Hz and attenuate frequencies above 1000 Hz. I have my own "house" curve. I also have a high volume curve which flattens the bass and reduces treble even further. People never realize how loud the system is playing until they try to talk. 

@tattooedtrackman , if that 10K switch is properly implemented you should find benefit out of occasionally boosting it for some records. If you don’t and it’s always flat of cut, then McIntosh didn’t implement it well. Eg too broad a Q hence pulling undesirable frequencies up too, for example. Its center point is too low, so likely tge Q would be narrow and may not sound that natural and good to boost. You never know though. I’ve got a 10K switch in my car stereo that I boost usefully often. I you have hi fi gear, which clearly you do, not sure why you’d ever cut at 10K. Unless a record is unusually bright. I don’t know. Guess I’m a quality bass and treble lover. Adds EXCITEMENT and life. I’m at zero to +3 db for excellent recordings but can be as high as +8 for dull or bass less recordings, usually older. 

Miro, I couldn’t agree more with you. Again, we are kindred souls. Totally agree that most audiophiles have NO IDEA how good a quality treble shelf or broad bell can sound. How well it can integrate with the music and not draw attention to itself and truly open up , beatify, and breathe air and life into a flat or dull record on hifi gear. Why do few know this?  It’s because like you said there are so many poor implementations of bass and treble tone control. You have to go out of your way to find it. Which you and I have. And we’re rewarded in spades!

@tlcocks What do u mean how is the 10k treble band. It’s excellent. I wouldn’t want to go any higher with another frequency knob. It’s more than enough. I usually back it off also. 

Most audiophiles have no idea how musical good Hi & Lo shelving EQ can really sound because it's so poorly implemented on most HiFi gear. 

Many years ago I had an NAD C165BEE preamp.  Only $999, entry level hi-end, I realize, but I was shocked at how bad the tone controls sounded.  Every time I turned up Bass or Treble, it instantly called attention to itself, rather than simply being part of the music.  

I have a Manley/Langevin mic-preamp that has Bass & Treble shelfs, each with 2 turnover frequenices that sound amazing.  I'd kill to have THESE tone controls incorporated into a hi-fi preamp.  They gently shape the music without sounding phasey or electronic.  Switchable frequencies is SO important too.  People and/or companies seem to fear knobs and switches these days.  So many preamps today are totally featureless.  I don't get it.  

My name, is Miro.  I'm old, and I like knobs and switches.   

@tattooedtrackman Congrats!!  I hadn't seen your system before, but the MQ112 looks very "at home".  I'm a longtime owner of Matrix 801's, and I've never heard the big 800's.  I do however remember being blown away by the big 808's back in 1985.

You know I gotta ask….how’s that 10K treble band?  Pretty, ugly, or it’s complicated, hehe!

@tattooedtrackman , I’m very happy for you!!

Well it’s been a full day of listening to my system with my new McIntosh MQ112 and I have to say I ABSOLUTELY love it. This is exactly what I was missing and needed for myself. As I said for myself and my listening and hearing tastes in sound. Every time I play CDs I find myself saying what a difference in sound quality in some recording that were too high in frequencies that now I can simply adjust with a knob. Even great recordings can sound even better. What I also really love is that TILT feature knob. It’s a quick fix without even adjusting any other frequency knobs. Plus then if u want and need to can fine tweak the tilt knob with the other 8 band frequencies. I also find myself not getting up and down as often as I thought without a remote but many times once I have adjusted some frequency it is very good for many CDs or recordings. I have to say I give this MQ112 a big thumbs up 👍. It’s also a very nice addition in my system. I also added new photos and updates on my system profile. Check ‘em out. 

No worries. Others are talking when they have time, and I’ve asked plenty of questions, so hardly one dimensional. Sorry to offend. Just really meant the stream is in a different place than it started. Namely, lovers of EQ and their differing approaches. Cheers!

Had my post deleted ok Dude!  Looks like your conversation is very one dimensional, you.

Enjoy it. 

“Us older philes had a negative view of tone controls and qualizers because the older analog versions messed up the image and added distortion. DIgital versions do not do this.”

neither do high end studio analog EQs

Just did a fairly intensive comparison between the CO modest treble boost and M2 modest 104 bit digital treble boost using a fairly cymbals heavy rock track. Did this comparison running straight out of M2 3.5 to headphones as well as running the M2 line level (volume matched) into my Headamp. Did this comparison also using both the Fostex TH900 and the Hifiman HE1000SE headphones. I listened only to the presentation of the cymbals. I also listened through both equalizers flat to see that cymbals very similar that way. Big differences though once both EQs in and compared. The M2 digital EQ, despite its being 104 bit processing, presented the cymbals more truncated or compressed sounding. EVEN AT 104 BIT. on M2 cymbals were rougher and less natural sounding than CO analog. On CO, leading and trailing edges smoother with clearer attack and better sustain than digital. I knew all this already but really had to dig in this time and prove it. Conclusion?  No question that analog high end EQ presents treble nuance much better in a treble boost situation than even 104 bit “lossless” (as Chord describes it) digital. So…so long as I have any upper octave rolled off ness at all with my equipment or the recordings I listen to and love then I will stick with my studio mastering analog EQs

Dude, I’m just saying…fine, you’re free to say what you will, of course 

@mijostyn , Trinnov Amethyst has 64bit floating point processing. Can you in anyway compare and contrast its capabilities vs the Chord Mojo2 104 bit processor?  I know that one it’s face this query seems ludicrous because the Mojo2 is an $800 portable device. But I ask anyway. I’ve used the Mojo2 as a source dac EQ in both my big rig and my headphone chain, and the CO approach sounds better.

@mijostyn , are those designs pre/processor/dac or no dac?

The EQ’ers are now discussing the merits of different designs 

@jacobsdad2000 , we’ve covered this already. To EQ or not. Moved beyond that now. 

@baylinor ,

Us older philes had a negative view of tone controls and qualizers because the older analog versions messed up the image and added distortion. DIgital versions do not do this. 

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.