Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

@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. 

It’s funny. Whenever I rent a car I observe people’s tonal preferences on mid fi car systems by seeing where the last driver set the bass and treble. It’s almost always the case that both are jacked way up or maxed out. Hell, as a youth I did this with my old school stereos. You might easily say these are inferior systems and you would be right. Be there are lessons to be learned in the observation made. Why do people like smiley face EQ on mid fi systems?  The answer is they are trying to improve perceived fidelity or realism with the limited stereo and tools they have. So adding bass gives more depth and weight to the sound. Fair game. Adding treble is an attempt to give more sense of air and space between instruments. Another fair attempt with the limited situation. So on cheaper systems smiley faced EQ is an attempt to get closer to hi fi. But it’s merely an approximation,  not as good. 
now, move on to the fully formed images of instruments in a high fidelity system. Rich full bass. Deep wet but fast note saturation. Great height depth width of soundstage. Snappy, accurate transient response. Now to that base ‘painting’ if you will you then add to your average recording REAL air and space with a studio EQ analog air band and a touch more well textured controlled but detailed bass bell or shelf (your preference). Now you’re really cooking!

The magic lies in adding a judicious amount of high end studio EQ to an already very hi fi mids base. The combination is absolutely addicting!  You are essentially continuing the mastering needs of that recording specific to YOUR system on the post production playback side. A true case for the cello palette Levinson theory in the article i cited much earlier in the thread. 
I almost liken all of this to cooking up a beautifully palatable recipe. That’s why I call it special sauce. It’s uber hi fi through ‘cheating’, I often joke!  Lotta bang for the buck here!

Years ago, I came across the term "corrective technologies". At the time, it was used in the context of home automation, but the presenter added that we apply "corrective technologies" to many things. Auto mechanics fix things that are poorly engineered, or just worn out. Doctors correct things in the body that are not working as they should. ER rooms fix things that can be the result of very poor judgement (possibly by others). Yes, there are hearing aids for hearing loss. And equalizers for frequency abnormalities.

To use medical terms, there are "acute" and "chronic" sonic issues with our systems. Acute issues are there temporarily. Chronic issues are 24/7, always present, reminding us that our system is not quite perfect -- yet. BOTH of these conditions can be helped with the right solution. But getting us to the finish line may require slightly different "corrective technologies."

Solutions can be multi-faceted in that a "one and done" may not get us all the way there There’s also the aspect of applying the right tool/technology to the problem. We don’t call the demolition crew to tear down a structure when an Kitchen cabinet upgrade is the desired outcome.

Many here have suggested working with the room, first. I think this is a valuable consideration. Maybe the FIRST consideration. IF the room is an issue, room correction will help tremendously with those "chronic" problems. But, also calm the effect of those "acute" issues (recordings?) thus minimizing their impact. Perhaps to the degree where you "take the exit" and you’ve reached an acceptable performance level. I’d also look at out sonic "warts" in the system such as the components themselves, cabling, power delivery, etc. I fully understand this could cause a case of "mission creep" where a perceived simple one component solution could grow expoentially. But, if you find the solution is in one of the above, then it is evidence that you found the right solution, as opposed to to putting a bandaide on a problem, thus masking inherent problems in the system/room.

So, if all the above points to the direction of an EQ, I would go with separate L/R controls as some have suggested here. Remotes controls are cool, and convenient and allow you to do instantaneous comparisons from the "money seat". (The seat where the person with the money sits.)

There was some mention of tone/level controls in vintage speakers. I am a proponent of conserving the looks and function of vintage gear. I also like to squeeze as much performance as I can out of these vintage pieces. Our practice is to bypass tone controls and replace them with high quality resistors, experimenting with values until we get a flat measured response (and, extended listening tests). These, invariably will provide less dynamic compression, improved detail and focus, and wider/deeper soundstage over the factory tone controls.  It’s nice that the manufacturers of the day thought through the problem of their product being placed in a variety of environments and allowing some user correction (or, personal taste). Modern speakers have gotten away from this for a reason(s). We don’t see speaker fuses on receivers these days, either.

There are no right or wrong answers to the OPs question. Just a matter of the application of "corrective technologies" to provide the best sonic bang for the buck;.

@tattooedtrackman , if you make such a change, it may prove very exciting and gratifying for you. 
 

@mijostyn , thanks for your comments. Your knowledge base in the digital realm clearly goes beyond mine. I just know what sounds great and what doesn’t and have hit upon an equation that works for me. I have had many say my approach sounds seriously good, so I guess I’d simply say just be open minded is all. My speakers are old. They are Martin Logan Montage dipoles. They are entry level hi fi but were favorably reviewed in Stereophile. And I’ve heard them on seriously great amplification at Audible Images in Melbourne compared directly against 12,000 dollar Sonus Faber Olympica speakers. Ed the dealer there and myself were shocked that the didn’t lag very far behind. But they did. And when I update the speakers I will really have a killer sound. Honestly, the pro studio CO has upped my game so much that I simply have been complacent in replacing them as the SQ is already phenomenal. 

@tlcocks 

You have to pardon my sense of black humor. I have to use hair spray or it sticks strait up. I'm too old to look like Maynard James Keenan. 

Which Martin Logans are you using? They and your room are the most important part of your system. I assume you do not play vinyl? 

I will have a DEQX Pre8 shortly. I will be biamping the Sound Labs using a Bricasti M25 to drive the high frequency transformers above 5000 Hz using the crossovers in the Pre8

Oh, by the way Mike Deming generation CO sound SUBLIME. the newer CO models with the dull faceplate to differentiate them still sound better than the Loki Max

@tattooedtrackman , you’re missing the broader point that MANY pro EQ sound equally as good. In other words, try @mirolab ’s Skyline Vintage unit. It is 300 dollars LESS than the Loki Max. And based on my very favorable listening experiences with the Avalon and Millennia units (both of which sounded better than Loki, easily), that you’d do great with @mirolab s recommendation. I will likely try it out of sheer curiosity. As I’ve done with other studio EQs. I’m very very passionate about this approach. For a decade now. The sound of a good studio analog EQ in your chain will blow your mind. Also of huge advantage is the dual channel control of his Skyline. Super easy adjustments on the fly like Loki. But better sound

A while ago I bought an old Technics SH-8020 from the early 80s. It was fairly cheap and still works like a charm. It has 12 bands (l+r) and starts very low (16 and 32 Hz), which was important to me. It basically showed me that I need a sub and ever since I bought one of these I didn´t use the EQ anymore. That is until last week, when I felt like fiddling around a bit again. And just bringing up some bands half a dB makes a great difference.

Sure, it has no remote, but for dialing it in I used two long RCA Cables and sat down where I usually listen.

I definitely do recommend trying an EQ. It´s fun, it makes listening more fun! And maybe using it will point you to a real „weakness“ of your system. And it will probably help you to get out most of the gear you have.

@tlcocks U know I was seriously gonna look into the PEQ 1. But from what u mentioned about to stay away from the newer units and to only look for the older models definitely makes me feel different now about that. What is your sense of posting great reviews of that if now they are the older models only and probably very hard to find. I’ll stick to the Schitt Max and will have a remote that way I don’t have to keep getting up or down from my ez chair. Huge feature for me to have. ( remote with EQ +1. 

I will however acknowledge digital EQ is advancing rapidly.  Have heard of the expensive DEQX products forthcoming. Would love to try that someday 

@mirolab , please tell me if your Vintage Skyline piece has better sounding bass and treble bands than the CO. If so, I may buy one. 

@mijostyn , just read your entire post. No need to insult. The hair spray part was uncalled for. I have told you my experience playing extensively with analog vs digital high end EQ. My experience differs from yours but agrees with @mirolab and a gazillion sound engineers who post their mastering experiences all over the internet. Again, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But please don’t be insulting. It is beneath you. I have PLENTY of hi fi listening experience, a well trained ear, and I’m telling you the way I do it is superior SQ playback for many many recordings than what you’re used to hearing. 

It does not matter how well you think you can do it analog. I can and do do it much better digitally. You might consider trying it sometime.

@mijostyn Sheesh... your condescension is deafening! I’ve had a home recording studio for 25 years, and produced/mixed over 2 dozen CDs, and mastered about as many also, as well as re-mastering for vinyl. I have at least 20 different digital EQ plug-ins, so YES I know VERY well what digital EQ sounds like, and they all sound a bit different.

But a digital EQ requires the conversion from A/D-D/A, and if I’m playing back LPs, that’s the last thing I want to do. Plus..... turning knobs is FUN. Pressing buttons on a digital EQ is not nearly as fun as tweaking knobs in realtime to find the sweet spot while playing back.

For mixing and mastering, automation and recall... I use digital EQs all day long... but that’s for audio that’s already in the digital domain. My M3D is for pleasure listening.

Eq’s destroy the phase relationships in the signal. There can be rare times when the benefits outweigh the downside.

@lloydc Destroy? Really? I ’might’ agree with that IF I were listening to a purist 2-microphone stereo recording of of something. But I never listen to any music like that. I listen to studio produced rock, jazz, pop, funk, punk, dance, new age, new wave whatever. Phase relationships be dammned! Look... I mix drum kits with 10 microphones on it... I know about phase relationships, and it’s not the EQ that’s destroying them!  So what do you do when you encounter a recording that is thin in the bass?  Do you suffer with it?  Or do you just never play it again?  That's sad, when more bass is just one knob away!

@tlcocks As for my talks with Mike Deming, he simply felt that the ’coloration’ of the PEQ-1 was favorable in some way, and I disagreed. I have a Great River EQ-2NV, and many times... simply passing a mix through it (set flat) makes it sound better. Same for the Massive Passive (tube EQ). These are studio tools that can make things sound better (sometimes). No, I don’t have an arsenal of gear.... just a cool modest home studio that allows me to be creative.

At the risk of boring you all (skip it if you want) I am going to post my story I had sent to my buddy Geoff at Head Fi about how I got into merging pro EQ with hi fi:

Bottom line is I bought the Loki Max for the headphone chain. But when I heard it against my CO it took me all of 10-20 minutes to conclude it was inferior sonically. So the next day it was shipped back to Schiit and I bought a second CO used but in great condition for the headphone chain from a sound engineer in Austria. Bought it on Reverb. 

So the speakers are Martin Logans. That’s not in there. I use Transparent speaker cable. The short coaxial digital cable connecting my source streamer Auralic Aries is a Bryston cable. As mentioned in the post, I have 1000 dollars worth of Cardas Clear Sky XLR balanced cable connecting the EQ to the tape loop of the amp. 
if you’ll humor me and wade through all of the post, you’ll find a quite respectable and quite hi fi headphone chain. Used same Cardas cabling to insert the EQ between the source and the desktop amp. The HEKse, by the way, are simply AMAZING headphones. The headphone chain honestly sounds freaking unbelievable. Particularly with CO EQ in there. 

Ah @mijostyn …but I did. It’s all laid out in the link with my first post on this thread. I pulled it from head fi. Perhaps you didn’t copy and open. It was a little tricky. It was a thread titled The Charter Oak PEQ-1. I’ll copy all the text and paste it so you don’t have to open a link:

@tlcocks 

I noticed you have not posted your system. What exactly are you using that allows you to make these incredulous statements. 

@h4k4lugi  That is perfectly normal. All subwoofers need some correction because of the room they are in. This is just another reason digital signal processing is so important. tlcocks thinks he can "tone shape" with a tone control. It sounds like he sells hair spray. Amplitude adjustment has evolved over the years from simple tone controls then analog equalizers, which nobody with a good ear would go near, then on to digital signal processing which came into it's own in the late 90's with TacT Audio. Because of the bad rep of analog processing (well deserved I might add) digital processing has had a rough start because people think it has the same weaknesses as analog processing. Far from it. I can hop on the computer and design a target curve with a resolution of 0.01 Hz  essentially telling the processor exactly what I want my system to sound like.  All my crossovers are digital. RIAA correction is done by computer. I can remove any significant pops and tics'.  All signal routing is done by Lynx Hilo, a studio piece that is a DAC, ADC and signal router. It's digital metering with peak hold lets you know when you are getting close to 0 dBFS.  It allows you to adjust gain structure between inputs to maximize gain without clipping. 

This sort of power is available at a reasonable price in the form of the MiniDSP SHD and SHD Studio. The SHD is $1300 and the Studio is less expensive as it does not have internal DACs. Benchmark Media Systems uses a MiniDSP SHD Studio in it's show room with two of their own DACs. They are very happy with it. It is , however not as flexible or powerful as units like the DEQX Pre4 and Pre8. The Pre8 will cost $13,000 US when it is release in a few months. A group of us will be testing the Beta program shortly. 

I used to be 'against it', then when building folded horn subs 15-20 years ago, became reliant on EQ for LP and correction.

Now, I have a pair of much smaller sealed HSU ULS15's and still use EQ in a narrow way (pun intended)...

Even after treatment, I still have a bump in my frequency response at 2 room modes (45hz and 95hz) which I cut in Roon using 2 very narrow Q EQ filters, -6dB each at those frequencies.    I add nowhere, just these 2 cuts.

Since you can flip the filters on/off in Roon from your iphone/ipad, it's easy to test and adjust.  They definitely help cut both boom and decay and tighten up the response.

Sorry the frustration. Yes have compared directly. It’s in my link on page 1. It’s stated elsewhere throughout. The 3 pro pieces I’ve had in my home are on page 1. I suspect @mirolab has had many more pro pieces in his home. 

Yes. To both. Re read the thread!

@tattooedtrackman

Why not simply try a Lokius first and hear for yourself??????

I’ve yet to read a comment by anyone who’s upgraded from a Loki or Lokius to Loki Max for reasons of SQ. So far, the reasons given have always been associated with ease of use.

@tlcocks

Have you actually compared the Loki Max to studio gear in your system?

If so, could you list some specific pro audio EQ units you’d recommend?

To be clear, nobody can be against or in favor of the hammer ...

A hammer is a tool we must learn how to use ...Understanding craftmanship as we must learn acoustics...

Hammer and saw are no more craftmanship than EQ. is acoustics ...

We cannot be against or in favor of a tool  ...😊 We use it in the right circonstances  in some way...

The question about using or banning EQ.  as tool  is meaningless because beside the acoustic central questions where all tools are necessary at some time in some way with some problems  ...

High end pro audio gear is top flight. No audible noise. 

The benefits for me outweigh these concerns. By the way, the noise with the EQ in with my gear is negligible, un noticeable. On a classical piano solo with EQ in and volume at 50% (very very loud), I don’t hear audible noise

EQ. is useful as a tool not as the only solution , only a part of it ...

The phase relationship is potentially or actually compromised for a reason very deep not many understand well : human hearing was shaped and trained and biased in a certain way by evolution and live in a non-linear time domain of his own which cannot be reduced nor perfectly captured by the linear Fourier tools using abstract concepts which are linearly related (frequencies,amplitude and phase among others) and cannot  describe COMPLETELY  some aspects of concrete experienced  qualitative sound qualities which are perceived in REAL time in specific environment ...

It is why it was proven that hearing beat the theoretical Fourier uncertainty limit more than 10 times times for trained musicians ...

Then you are right there is a trade-off here using EQ. which can be a benefit for sure as any tool but also an impediment or a mask for other acoustic problems waiting to be solved otherwise ...

I then concur with this sentence :

Has anyone mentioned the elephant in the room? Eq’s destroy the phase relationships in the signal. There can be rare times when the benefits outweigh the downside.

I use EQ software (APO 1.2.1) which is noiseless and to my ear the adjustments I made improve over all sound. I have an aluminum tweeter that can cause listening fatigue and a small ajustment eliminates the problem.

Has anyone mentioned the elephant in the room? Eq’s destroy the phase relationships in the signal.  There can be rare times when the benefits outweigh the downside.  But most of the time, there’s a good reason why audiophiles abandoned eq’s decades ago.  And as several have mentioned, 2 sets of extra cables, with an extra box (and power supply) adds noise.  It’s all clearly audible even in a modest audiophile system.
  Less of a problem if it’s an all/digital signal chain. 

The reason FLAT is not always what we want to hear hearkens back to my link earlier in this thread to the cello palette Levinson discussion regarding the fact that not all recordings are created equal 

@rbertalotto , that’s room corrective EQ. Totally different than tone shaping EQ. You COULD do both though if needed. Fortunately my room is good, as the best recordings sound perfect without EQ. 

Want to have some fun...Set up REW and a reference microphone in your listening room. Turn your system on and using your EQ, shape the sound how YOU think it sounds best....Then look at the graph on REW....Now, using REW, and a good EQ, flatten the sound and compare it to what YOU LIKED in the first exercise......This shows that a "FLAT" system is not alway what we WANT to hear....A great hobby this is!

As @mirolab as smartly stated previously, great recordings sound perfect without ANY EQ , so our gear is sound and very hi fi. Again, my comments are regarding on the fly “fixing” of suboptimal recordings. And by the way, why is recalling a stored preset any easier than turning a dial? 

Digital for treble tonal boost is awful. The fact that no one in the world other than 2 of us here on this stream use high end pro analog hardware EQ in post production is why everyone is afraid of treble. Few know what a beautiful thing it can be to use a quality analog air band to open up a recording on hi fi gear. and no, the Loki can’t do this very well. 

@mijostyn , as the old saying goes you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am always (it’s my sub hobby) comparing digital implementations for tone shaping to high end analog for tone control. There’s simply not enough headroom with digital for a bass or treble boost without having to cut master gain. Which always KILLS dynamics and imaging on EVERY digital implementation I’ve tried. In other words, digital clipping sets in far more quickly than analog clipping or distortion. Finally, high frequency boosts have less natural effect on cymbals than analog. Listen, if I’m observing the same thing in post production that the engineers observe in mastering, well then…

@tlcocks 

Tone shaping?  tl anything, and I mean anything you try to do analog I can do digitally better. All I have to do is look at the amplitude curve you prefer and I can mimic it exactly with less distortion. I can store it in a preset and punch it in whenever I want to tone shape. I can set up an equalizer with as many stations as I please and have a different Q at each station. I can make you a tone shaping slider and you can shape yourself silly. The possibilities are endless. Analog is extremely limited in comparison.  

@akgwhiz i agree

@mijostyn it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Digital can never compete with analog for example in lifting treble air bands to give life to a dull recording. Ask any studio engineer. Read online if you don’t believe me. Now, if you are not tone shaping but instead attempting room correction EQ then yes, digital is better. I think to generalize, for surgical cutting digital is easily superior. Again, it depends on what you are trying to do. I only use EQ to spice up a dull recording. That means high end tone shaping. That means bass and or treble lifts. In this context analog wins EVERY TIME. 

I have a wife….and the main HiFi is in the livingroom….therefore I EQ…..Ive been a hugecfan of EQ since my sound reinforcement days. I recently biught a Buchardt i150 integrated amplifier for three reasons…a superb sounding PREamplifier, a full blown parametric digital EQ, and digital room correction. Having been in thecHiFi industry for over 50 years, Im here to tell you that this unit is simply amazing. Ive taken absolute horrible, DIY speakers with cheap components and using REW on a computer with a reference microphone made them sound as good as any higher end speakers I own. And as far as what it does to a nasty room situation, cant be equaled. In my office and my hobby room im using Loki four band EQs. Just a little tweaking to make those systems sing.

A question as it pertains to analog EQ like Loki(s).  Is any (if any) phase shifting at the band used an on/off effect with a setting other than zero, or is phase change relative to the level used?  Also, if EQ is operating on the whole input (not left/right) would you hear any possible phase shift that degrades imaging? L/R channel phase changes seem obviously an issue.

To blanket say that digital EQ doesn't affect phase or have "any artifacts" seems a stretch.  I suppose it's possible if the design of hardware and any algorithms account for it with the highest level of effort.  In my previous life, with algorithms that work as DSP, and not even in real time, but as a computer run in background (all the time needed), any spectral processing still had a phase change. 

Wouldn't this assumption be on par with "ones and zeros are ones and zeros"?

@mirolab 

I'm not railing against EQ. I railing against analog EQ. It does not matter how well you think you can do it analog. I can and do do it much better digitally.  You might consider trying it sometime.