Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

@ellajeanelle For looks AND performance, it would be hard to beat the new McIntosh MQ112. 

mirolab  Thank you, someone recommended that one to me.  Although I know they make good stuff because I had a few components long ago I am no longer into McIntosh.  I know that their newer stuff is more neutral as opposed to their older warmer sound, but their overall looks and voicing are just not my preference. 

I have the Loki...Love it....But I'm ordering the new McIntosh MQ 112...For 3K it's a winner.

tlcocks  No offense to you or anyone but I gave Schitt a try by buying 3 components for a guest room and all 3 had issues of some sort and had to return them all.  Horrible customer service and subpar product in my opinion, and yes I am talking about their so-called top of the line stuff.  The saying you get what you pay for definitely applies to Schiit based on my own personal experience with them.  As far as well regarded, as you mentioned, definitely not to me. Perhaps as paper weights.

To anyone reading this, if you enjoy and are happy with your Schitt products, congratulations and enjoy, just don't try to convince me, because I won't even respond. They have made my permanent "never buy again list", together with other companies which I will not mention for the sake of not initiating a back-and-forth and time-consuming discussion in vain.  Peace...

@mbmi I have had the brand new Mac MQ112 now for about 4 months or so. And all I can tell you it’s a fantastic EQ. And it looks awesome with my ARC gear. Another reason I didn’t want to go with the others mentioned is that they looked very industrial to me also. That alone was a big reason not to buy them. U will be extremely happy with the MQ112. 👍

“Thanks to both of you for the info on the EQ.  I am definitely going to do more serious research into the API equalizers.  It may sound picky, and you can call it girl stuff, but I want them in black and no rack mount ears, or removable ears.  Only one of them will be going on a rack, the others not.  I like everything to match! “

totally get that. My EQ has to look black, full height, and beautiful. Not just sound great. Yeah…that with needing stereo ganged controls leaves, like, 2 units out there that fit the bill!

“tlcocks  No offense to you or anyone but I gave Schitt a try by buying 3 components for a guest room and all 3 had issues of some sort and had to return them all.  Horrible customer service and subpar product in my opinion, and yes I am talking about their so-called top of the line stuff.  The saying you get what you pay for definitely applies to Schiit based on my own personal experience with them.  As far as well regarded, as you mentioned, definitely not to me. Perhaps as paper weights.

To anyone reading this, if you enjoy and are happy with your Schitt products, congratulations and enjoy, just don't try to convince me, because I won't even respond. They have made my permanent "never buy again list", together with other companies which I will not mention for the sake of not initiating a back-and-forth and time-consuming discussion in vain.  Peace...”

Amen, sister!! Offense?? Are you kidding me?!  @ellajeanelle , you are singing to the choir!  I’ve been saying this the whole thread.  You just say it better!  Schitt is sh*t!

@tlcocks Not entirely true TL. Room control is going to change amplitude response across the entire audio band and it will give you a flat system to start with. All the Room Control units I know of also allow users to control amplitude just like an equalizer or by using target curves. Your preference settings will be different after room control is set up.

Understood. Thanks. Room correct to flat. Then impose target curves to tonal preference. The second part for me is the hearing is believing part. If I’m gonna tonally adjust in the digital domain, I’ve gotta hear that it is as 3D and saturated sounding, and as musical, as analog. Gotta hear a DEQX in action. Let me know where I can. You know how to reach me. 

I would like the opinion of those using EQs on whether an EQ can assist with hearing differences between left and right ears.. in my case the left is more deficient than the right that shows minimal age-related decline. I have seen elsewhere that this might be a better solution than a single hearing aide.

Besides needing to differentially apply EQ to left and right, I tend to switch from listening with speakers in front for critical listening to speakers behind me as I work. Therefore, I need a solution that can quickly be set to reverse (mirrored) application. Any advice/guidance would be most appreciated!

I would think high quality EQ would be very useful in this use case. Might sound more natural than compensating with a hearing aid. I admit to knowing more about EQ than hearing aids though!  I believe some hearing aids utilize digital EQ, if I’m not mistaken 

For sure you are right !

I will trust more analog EQ too than this panels behind my ears...These panels are like my wood foldable screen, a device i used in my room , i could not use it without a balance between absorption-reflection-and diffusion in the room and on the foldable  screen... ...

And hearing aids use digital EQ for creating tailor made hearing aids for specific frequencies loss...

Psychoacoustics rule audio in any form...

I would think high quality EQ would be very useful in this use case. Might sound more natural than compensating with a hearing aid. I admit to knowing more about EQ than hearing aids though!  I believe some hearing aids utilize digital EQ, if I’m not mistaken

I was/am interested in the McIntosh MQ112 equalizer.  I saw the Skifiaudio video on this unit and one thing that struck me was internally, the unit incorporates op-amps.

I was looking for a fully discrete unit without op-amps.  

I'm not sure about incorporating op-amps into my system.  According to the video interview, the unit was really intended for McIntosh owners that have older systems without equalizers or tone controls.

I'm still thinking about this one.

enjoy

@minorl   I went to Skyfi audio and purchased this a few months ago. I told him what I had in my audio system. My system is ARC Ref 750s mono blocks. ARC Ref 6SE. ARC Ref CD9. B&W Matrix 800s. Mac MQ112 eq. Straightwire Crescendo tri wired speaker cables and XLR interconnects. 4 Audioquest Dragon PCs. 2) HC and 2 Source. This Mac MQ 112 is phenomenal. It’s just exactly what I needed to tame the high frequencies and not so good cd recording. I can’t recommend this MQ 112 enough. It’s an awesome unit that also looks beautiful with all my ARC gear. That was also very important to me as I did not want anything industrial looking. With or without mounting brackets. 

Okay, that's a pretty darn good system.  

Thank you for the recommendation.  I was concerned with adding op-amps to the signal path, but hmmmmm, might be worth a try.  

Thanks much

enjoy

vacountryboy It's very simple. Just take a look at your audiogram printout. It will show what frequencies you are deficient in on each ear as well as the decibel loss.

Then just find an equalizer that covers those frequencies and boost those frequencies by the same number of decibels to match the deficiencies on the printout, while leaving the remaining bands centered (not boosted or cut).

I added a McIntosh MQ112 to my system last night. Between a Benchmark HPA4 and AHB2. So far, so good. The intention is to use it more or less like a loudness button. I had a Dangerous Music BAX EQ for a few weeks, but one of the switches developed a problem. (Returned to Sweetwater for refund.) Apart from that, I can recommend the D. M. BAX EQ, especially for its separate controls for L and R channels. And the fact that (apart from the low and high cut filters), it is a shelving EQ. So why not try another D. M.? Fair question. I don't have a great answer. I did try an SPL Vitalizer after the D. M. Lots of fun. Might be worth a try. At low volumes, worries about "high fidelity" seem a bit ridiculous to me, if pushed too far. The SPL has a hard bypass. I don't recall if the D. M. does and I haven't experimented yet with whether signal passes through the McIntosh with it powered off. Again, though, I have no complaints yet about the MQ 112. It was between it and an API 5500. (Allegedly hard/true bypass also.) Could have gone either way. And I might still.

Yeah, I still wanna hear that MQ112. Good stuff!

I scheduled a hearing test, at 75, I’m sure they will find something, if nothing else I am guessing one ear slightly different than the other.

Any equalizer that is single band is going to make same adjustments for both speakers.

I advocate Dual Band (L&R separate adjustments), and 31 bands of adjustment

6.8.10.21. 31 bands gives you more precision for both your space and your hearing with no aids in, or aids in. 31 bands gives individual control of 1/3 octaves

I bought/returned one that had no detents at zero position of each slider.

I chose DBX 2231 /dual Channel 31 Band with Detents.

One advantage is that it is 3U 5-1/4" high, thus the sliders are ’taller’, more precision adjusting the sliders.

I went for Chinese Made Clone (identical, dbx are made in Malaysia, dbx manual in the box). They are a metal box with a power supply, printed circuit boards, identical controls, i.e. same parts.

Amazon (unit already in USA, others ship from China, if problem ....)

EMB Professional Sound System EB831EQ Graphic Equalizer/Limiter with Type 3 NR

@vacountryboy the only issue is when an instrument or vocal is emanating from only from the side where your hearing loss is. If there's no or little information from that speaker to begin with turning the balance towards that side or the levels up wouldn't help.Mono recordings would work of course.

I don't regret buying the Lokius.It was always meant to be temporary, an inexpensive way to experiment.I kept it past the return period to continue trying balanced cables and while considering the next step to a pro model. If the API was available in black or silver it would be unobtrusive in a home system. It's the same standard width as most components at 19" and the "ears" aren't obvious. It's nowhere near as attractive as the MacIntosh EQ though.😍

Op amps are bad as a blanket statement is NOT TRUE. My Charter Oak has op amps in circuit and is the best pro studio EQ hardware I’ve ever had the pleasure of hearing in my home. And I’ve heard several. It’s all in the implementation and the quality of parts used. Like the old saying goes, the devil’s in the details. 😊🎶

No audio pro would attempt to set up a sound system in a venue without using EQ.  Rooms are different and getting decent response in any room usually requires a bit of EQ.   I use the DSP in Roon and a pro audio 32 band equalizer for other sources that costs far less than that Loki and has more control.   The idea of opamps sounding bad is ludicrous.  The recordings you listen to went through dozens if not hundreds of them unless you are listening to nothing but 50+ year old vinyl.

I use a White Instruments Inc EQ 4100 10 Band/Channel, very transparent see here.

Mike

@ditusa that's a lot of knobs to adjust:-) That's not a criticism. Too many for me as a newbie though!Concerning noisy opamps - I can only speak from my limited experience. My API is dead silent.Nary a click or hiss.There's no issue having it stacked on my dac or preamp either.

I know that Schiit admits to experiencing noise issues with the Lokius and recommends to keep it isolated from other components.

@jtcf , I am so happy the API has worked out so well for you. Furthermore, am happy for the others who have dared to try pro analog EQ or MQ112, branching out from the Schiit products, and being richly rewarded!  This has been an illuminating forum for many. I am so glad. 😊🎶

So is Audiogon's search good for ANYTHING??

I really like this thread, purely about equalizers, but if I search discussions for "equalizer" it doesn't find it.... at all!  Even if I type all the words of the exact title "Equalizer in a HiFi system" it does not find it.   Oops... you see my tiny mistake? I missed just ONE tiny space in the title and it did not find this thread.  

This is the exact opposite of computers helping us! 

Wow. Speechless!

@mirolab ,

One more trick you can do, if you know a few words in a thread's heading. Go to google and type like this:

"equaliser in a hifi system" site:audiogon.com

I purposely made the spelling mistake in "equalizer". But Google got me THIS thread as the FIRST hit. That last part is very important. "site:" followed by the specific site you want to search. You might be aware of this, but I thought this might help others.

@milpai  Thanks, that's a great tip. Didn't know that.

But it does make sense.  Many times the official Help within a program is lacking, and I just ask the same technical question in Google and get the answer I need. Very often there's a Youtube video showing me how to use the feature I want! 

@mirolab , you are welcome!

I found another new to ship high end analog pro balanced EQ that has full function stereo ganged controls with stereo link. You can operate in full stereo link from EITHER side, L or R, all the dials. Which is GREAT. it’s by Wes Audio with both tube and transformer balanced output. Super product. Call NGTubeEQ. Cool 6 grand, but looks uber high end. Serious EQ! 🎶😊

So one of my Charter Oaks is in the early stages of age related decline. But it’s still good for now. But naturally, being the EQ freak that I am, I’ve decided on a replacement for it. I’m having Hendyamps build a SS version of their famous tube EQ the Michelangelo. Don’t wanna mess with tubes. I’ve bought it and am just waiting. Absolutely cannot wait to hear it and compare it to my CO PEQ-1 and report to y’all!😊🎶

The Michelangelo is raved about its sonics on Gearspace.  It’s beautiful as well. 2 rack unit height and 19” wide. Same as my CO. All dials are stereo. No left and right dials. Check it out online, if you’re so inclined. 

If you can locate one, the DEQX Premate is beyond phenomenal, add’s time delay and sub integration…two other fairly important components when dialing in.  Lyngdorf made a unit, RP-1, if you can find one, another excellent piece.  

I do want to hear an in room demo of one of these DSP preamps. I know the pros talk about professional plugins emulating classic analog designs having gotten closer to their analog counterparts. As mentioned many times here, room correction is something else altogether. I think that’s where I’d want a DSP preamps 

2 weeks until my Michelangelo arrives. Can hardly wait!

Now it’s late next week. Arghh!  Being built now. 

"Equalizing" is typically thought of as more or less elaborative tone controls as an extra measure on top of preconfigured passive speakers, and being able to attenuate a usually limited range of frequency bands. The rub mostly centers on the "extra layer" that is introduced with an equalizer, certainly as a separate component and in the analogue domain, which then messes up with the purity of the signal.

Essentially though an "equalizer" is not defined by what it usually does, how and where it's implemented or is regarded as, but rather its mere function of being able to modify a signal. This can be done in different ways and more or less intricately (/successfully), and in that sense a passive crossover is an equalizer just like a DSP/digital crossover, electronic crossover, acoustics, speaker placement, etc.

As such equalizing doesn't have to be an extra layer, but instead one that can be accessed at the very core of what is already the central "equalizing" device of the speakers; a DSP acting as a digital crossover - that is, replacing a passive ditto between the amp(s) and drivers entirely (lest not forget: the passive XO being a layer in itself that is here eradicated) - can be an extremely elaborative signal modification measure through a range of parameters that isn't only about attenuating a few, fixed frequency bands.

Indeed: why fix with limited aids as an extra, detrimental component addition when you can do it at the heart of the design with what's already there, from the listening position on the fly, and with a much broader range of parameters to boot?

I won’t go into how much better (again) studio mastering analog ideally with a hardwire bypass sounds compared to DSP. Read the whole thread. This war was fought already. It’s actually a great thread. Go back and read if if you’re so inclined. 

@tlcocks wrote:

I won’t go into how much better (again) studio mastering analog ideally with a hardwire bypass sounds compared to DSP. Read the whole thread. This war was fought already. It’s actually a great thread. Go back and read if if you’re so inclined.

I wasn’t aware there was a war to be fought here. So what are you, a guardian of this thread who wants to be right about "studio mastering analog" being the best approach in equalizing, telling everyone who deviates from this line of thinking to put a sock into it?

Maybe you should reread what I just wrote above and think it through in terms of a suggested, different way to approach equalization, i.e.: one that involves a quality DSP - and it needn’t be a DEQX device for that to be the case, even with all the trimmings settings and parameter-wise - as a digital crossover only (with room correction being optional) for fully active configuration with several PEQ’s for each driver section with gain setting in 0.25dB increments, Q, delay, filter types and slopes, presets, etc. A digital platform gives you far more options here, and as an active approach it’s important to note that one avoids an analog layer - between the amp and drivers not least - in the form of the passive crossover.

I skimmed through most of the thread btw., and seeing how a number of people get caught up on analog devices (like the McIntosh one), where looks are apparently also important, it’s quite obvious there’s an understanding of equalization that permeates the way of thinking about it, which - apart from a conservative mindset - appears to be founded in a general disdain towards digital (and thereby DSP) and the fact that most use passively configured speakers. If that was my outset I’d get the speaker/acoustics/placement part right to begin with, and likely avoid any kind of additional, electronic equalization - be it analog or digitally based.

Being however my setup context is fully (outboard) active with a digital crossover, I have a very elaborate "equalization" device at hand as an integral part of the speaker system already, and as such am afforded the opportunity to make corrections - if I so choose - on the fly and from the listening position via my laptop.

There is indeed many views about equalisation...😊

I prefer myself my own system/room/ears mechanical equalization with a grid of tuned resonators.

I dont spit on electronical equalisation i used it anyway...

But most people have no idea how powerfully transformative large band mechanical equalization with a grid of resonators could be .

«There is also an adjustable type, called a universal resonator, which consists of two cylinders, one inside the other, which can slide in or out to change the volume of the cavity over a continuous range. An array of 14 of this type of resonator has been employed in a mechanical Fourier sound analyzer. »

Oh I’m not closed minded to hearing it all. I’ve said that many times I want @mijostyn or you or someone to put me in touch with a good demo. Always exploring. The journey never ends. I was impressed by BACCH preamp. I’d love to be impressed by DSP to. Happy to hear and compare!

And no, I’m not guardian of the thread. Just very passionate about what I am hearing with the gear I’ve acquired. A great studio analog EQ in a hifi rig is a sound to behold. And no, they’re not all great. Like anything else to achieve greatness takes time and patience.  When you get to the point that you are not only adding tone but also stage size and resolution as opposed to LOSING those things with cheaper or inferior implementations then it becomes really exciting to listen. Every single time. I WANT to get that jacked over someone demoing a properly implemented DSP and crossover. Still waiting to find that demo. But right now I LOVE what I’m hearing and have for 10 years now. Have other friends here doing it this way and they’ll tell you the same thing. 

@tlcocks wrote:

Oh I’m not closed minded to hearing it all. I’ve said that many times I want @mijostyn or you or someone to put me in touch with a good demo.

Did a demo ever materialize at poster @mijostyn?

Always exploring. The journey never ends. I was impressed by BACCH preamp. I’d love to be impressed by DSP to. Happy to hear and compare!

An open mind is always a good outset.

And no, I’m not guardian of the thread. Just very passionate about what I am hearing with the gear I’ve acquired. A great studio analog EQ in a hifi rig is a sound to behold.

Are you using your studio analog EQ in conjunction with passively configured speakers (your system doesn’t show in the ’Systems’ section)? When you say it’s a "sound to behold" with such a device in your chain, I’m thinking of it as something that must excel in its relative absence of sonic imprinting, and that what you’re really describing is the sound of your setup as a whole with the frequency corrections provided via EQ. Your analog studio EQ doesn’t "create" sound; it merely acts a frequency band equalizer - added to the chain, that is - that as such will have to leave as little coloration and distortion while doing so. If not your EQ device becomes a sonic factor in itself as something that contributes to the sound, and not in a good way.

And no, they’re not all great. Like anything else to achieve greatness takes time and patience. When you get to the point that you are not only adding tone but also stage size and resolution as opposed to LOSING those things with cheaper or inferior implementations then it becomes really exciting to listen.

You’re talking overall implementation here, and that involves every aspect along the way. Price (and frequency corrections) is only a partial factor, until is isn’t.

I WANT to get that jacked over someone demoing a properly implemented DSP and crossover. Still waiting to find that demo.

What setups have you heard with the implementation of DSP (not necessarily meant as a total lineup, but just some examples), and in which capacity were the DSP sections used - merely as a digital crossover, only digital room correction, or both? It’s important to get an overall bearing of the setup contexts here to get fuller picture and what was the deciding factor to account for your less than enthusiastic response to these setups. I would say the DSP’s themselves used in the setups you heard, depending on their specific implementation, are likely the lesser sonic influence compared to a variety of many other factors. It’s about how they’re used, component specifics, and overall implementation.

My own context of DSP usage is a Xilica unit acting a as digital crossover only, so no digital room correction or any passive crossovers between the amps (3 of them, one for each driver section) and speakers. The Xilica XO’s are very transparent, even with A/D to D/A conversion steps, and that becomes apparent not least when comparing their inclusion sans passive XO’s fully actively to the same speakers with passive XO’s instead. With the Xilica’s actively there’s a substantial uptick in resolution and transparency, cleaner transient "edges," improved dynamics and tonality. That’s however also much more revealing for what’s fed to it upchain, with all that implies and the care one must invest with the choices made here.

But right now I LOVE what I’m hearing and have for 10 years now. Have other friends here doing it this way and they’ll tell you the same thing.

Cherishing the sound of one’s setup is the primary goal. However we get there is up to each of us.

No, demo opportunity never came. I’m in Florida. I’d drive. So sorry my gear is not formally listed. I have listed it like 3 times in this thread. It’s Auralic Aries streamer via high quality Bryston dig coax > Bryston B135 Integrated SST2 with onboard delta sigma 24/192 decoding DAC > Transparent cabling > Martin Logan Montage. The integrated pre has a completely transparent tape loop which houses the Cgarter Oak PEQ-1 connected with four Cardas Clear Sky custom wired RCA to XLR. On the XLR end, pin 3 is grounded to pin 1. Pin 2 is hot. Works flawlessly. 

“ If not your EQ device becomes a sonic factor in itself as something that contributes to the sound, and not in a good way.”

Wrong. A great analog studio EQ can and does add its own special color sauce if you will which can be all improvements, no drawbacks. That’s obvious to sound engineers. If you want to hear it from them do some reading on Gearspace. That’s where I get all my great ideas on EQ. 

“What setups have you heard with the implementation of DSP (not necessarily meant as a total lineup, but just some examples), and in which capacity were the DSP sections used - merely as a digital crossover, only digital room correction, or both?”

Ive yet to hear DSP as room correction, as speaker timing corrective, or as crossover function. I have only tried some tone curves with Roon and Auralic DSP among others similar to that. And Neutron media player. All digital parametric. But just bass and treble custom tone curves. Not all the above. As I mused on this previously, I will muse on it again. I wonder what it would be like to optimize the room first, then do room and speaker timing correction with DSP. Then lastly have an analog piece that is great sounding for bass and treble shaping which has hardwire bypass for full circuitry bypass when not needed. 

@tlcocks I am currently looking at the only great DSP demo I know of and if you are ever in the area you are welcome to hear it. The owner of Sounds of Silence will be over with a friend on Thursday. Perhaps he will comment on this thread. It will be interesting because he is an analog guy and only listens to vinyl. 

I have taken a big leap that has increased the complexity of the situation by an order of magnitude. I am now actively bi amping Soundlabs ESLs. Each transformer has it's own amplifier channel. The DEQX Pre 8 has a digital 4 way crossover. The DEQX software is in a very early state of development which makes life even more fun. I spent 6 hours yesterday running sine sweeps and staring at graphs only to discover that I can not lower the gain on the high frequency amp enough to match the other 4 amplifiers. They have to match perfectly or you are wasting bits and clipping filters. In-line attenuators are coming tomorrow. In the meantime the system is not listenable, the price of progress. Being an immediate gratification type has it's drawbacks. There is no going backwards as the modifications to the speaker back plates is permanent. Damn those torpedoes!

The DEQX equalizer is different than the others I have used. It puts up a graph with a flat line at 0 dB. Anyware you click on the graph the program will bend the line to go through that spot. Then each spot has a lever arm that you use to adjust the Q. It is very awkward at first, but you eventually get used to it and there are no limitations as to what you can do within the limits of the graph. 

“It’s important to get an overall bearing of the setup contexts here to get fuller picture and what was the deciding factor to account for your less than enthusiastic response to these setups. I would say the DSP’s themselves used in the setups you heard, depending on their specific implementation, are likely the lesser sonic influence compared to a variety of many other factors. It’s about how they’re used, component specifics, and overall implementation.”

it’s important not to conflate bass and treble tone shaping EQ with room correction. The former is better sounding (by far) with analog. The latter is only properly executed with DSP, with its minute amplitude options and infinite possibilities with narrow notch filtering

And crossover