Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

Mike, sounds great!  This Thursday?  I’ll reach out privately!

Question:

electrically speaking, can I run balanced equalizer into a tube amp and boost the signal without damaging tubes or amp?  Cannot find a definitive review of this topic anywhere online. 

@tlcocks wrote:

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.

"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context. If it works for you (and others), great. I know how much work has gotten finding into a proper tonal balance in my setup, and suddenly introducing a component with a distinct sonic flavor of its own would tip that balance and likely necessitate a re-tweaking in several areas.

Which is also to say: you may need an analog-based studio mixer to provide the sonic juice to make things fall into place for your ears; others - preference and all in mind - can make it happen via other means. 

That’s obvious to sound engineers.

To them these consoles are a necessity in the first place, and where they can will get the best. I take it they're mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. 

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.

And again, lots of factors can be at play here for whatever sonic impressions you may have had with these setups and their different tone curve implementations that isn't necessarily reflective on the use of DSP itself.  

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. 

Optimizing acoustics and speaker placement is always an important and necessary outset. As for digital room in both the amplitude and time domain, try it out (the DRC FIR software comes recommended, and works well via Convolution in JRiver, though I don't currently use it). Myself I have no passive crossovers between the amps and speakers to mess up proper interfacing between them, so having crossover duties done actively prior to amplification on signal level with a quality DSP and direct connection between dedicated amp channels to their respective driver sections is a very transparent/sonically benign way that leaves vital sonic parameters to be intricately worked out here. As for your idea with analog-based tone curving to top it all out - well, why not? You only get the wiser with experience. I'd opt for less layers in the signal chain presently with only a digital crossover that handles it all, i.e.: sans digital room correction and passive crossovers. 

it’s important not to conflate bass and treble tone shaping EQ with room correction.

No arguing here. 

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

On this we don't agree however. It depends on the implementation and DSP device. 

Does anyone know the answer to my question?

My room embedded mechanical equalizer grid is made of Helmholtz resonators and Helmholtz diffusers, they modify the pressure zone grid of the room by their location.

No DSP analog or digital can do this...

Listener envelopment (LV) ask for more than single frequencies response modifications from the gear ... It ask for the room pressure zone modification and adress speakers/room coupling...

Acoustics rules not the gear...

it is not practical for living room and wife. But i cannot change acoustics truth because of my wife convenience... 😁😊😎😋

“I take it they're mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. ”

maybe in mixing. In mastering (most similar to our use case) analog is still felt to be superior. Although the gap is closing. Read threads on Gearspace if you want to educate yourself on what goes on in the studio. As opposed to making assumptions. 

@mahgister , your ‘natural’ method, while impractical and unsightly to wives, is certainly fascinating. I have no doubts you are maximizing sonic returns on the gear you have. 

Yes. I mention it for information only and for those who have an audio dedicated room only for experiments..

 A single straws change S.Q. in my experiments .. 😊

My wife will divorce if i tried these set of experiments in a living room and she loved me ..

 I use with success three analog EQ. for sure  but basic one unlike yours  though very well implemented for my needs ..

@mahgister , your ‘natural’ method, while impractical and unsightly to wives, is certainly fascinating. I have no doubts you are maximizing sonic returns on the gear you have. 

"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context. 
 

you are missing the point a bit. The best analog EQ boxes are simply amazing sounding and extremely musical and resolute. Many a mastering engineer says just passing a signal through the box set on flat but EQ in makes everything sound better. With the right box, you can make your system sound whatever way you want tonality wise all the while enhancing the hi fi charteristics we all pay attention to: timbre, image specificity, staging, resolution, PRaT, etc. The term “color “ loses its negative connotation in such a context and the term actually becomes irrelevant. Great and right sounding is great and right sounding. Period. You don’t know until you’ve tried. I can tell you that with one of these EQs picks, fret slides, breathes, pedal clunks, all the micro and macro resolution is there in spades. And for all of you with the Loki Max thinking you know what I’m talking about, you don’t. You think you’re hearing what you should be getting, but you have no idea. LM has been in my system and fell woefully short of my PEQ-1. Returned it the next day. Piece of “Schiit” in comparison!

At this point I would repost what @dgarretson said on page 10 to further build upon what I just said:

”

I have nothing to add to this interesting discussion except for another vote for the Manley Massive Passive. I purchased the latest version with switching power supply, initially to complement a custom speaker with a Purify 6.5" mid woofer and matching passive radiators that handle LF boost well enough to produce high quality bass to 30hz. Over time I’ve used all bands of the Manley with excellent results.

After break-in and experience on how to optimize its relatively complex and sometimes counter-intuitive controls, the Manley piece has become an essential component. It is a bit fiddly to tweak, and once set up properly, wants mostly to be left alone. It has a clean, open sound with tube characteristics that don’t sound "toobie." No hiss on top.

Of course it is well vetted by mastering pros-- which encouraged me to skip past lots of cheaper solutions.

I’ll add that at this level of performance, a studio equalizer is a seductive and cost-effective opportunity to improve a system without endless component and cable swaps. Perhaps an endpoint.

Esoteric K-O1x w/Rubidium clock>SOtM>AtmaSphere MP-1 or Goldpoint balanced passive>Pass XA-160.8 monos or modified BAT VK-75SE.”

“Question:

electrically speaking, can I run balanced equalizer into a tube amp and boost the signal without damaging tubes or amp?  Cannot find a definitive review of this topic anywhere online. “

I talked to two sound engineers and got my answer. The answer is yes I can without any risk to tubes or equipment. 

@tlcocks wrote:

“I take it they’re mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. ”

maybe in mixing. In mastering (most similar to our use case) analog is still felt to be superior. Although the gap is closing. Read threads on Gearspace if you want to educate yourself on what goes on in the studio. As opposed to making assumptions.

What’s so assumptive re: the quoted part of mine other than what’s clearly laid bare by me already? "I take it .." should give you a clue. And btw. I was not referring to which of the two were "superior" sounding.

"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context.

you are missing the point a bit. The best analog EQ boxes are simply amazing sounding and extremely musical and resolute. Many a mastering engineer says just passing a signal through the box set on flat but EQ in makes everything sound better.

Ah, a magic equalizer box then. Seriously, I’ll happily leave it to you and others to be thrilled by the mere inclusion of an analog studio mixer in an existing setup sans knob turning. Whatever floats your boat. And yet more seriously: maybe myself and other compadres don’t know any better here, just like a bunch of audiophiles (and that includes you as well) don’t know any better in regards to other aspects in home audio reproduction.

With the right box, you can make your system sound whatever way you want tonality wise all the while enhancing the hi fi charteristics we all pay attention to: timbre, image specificity, staging, resolution, PRaT, etc. The term “color “ loses its negative connotation in such a context and the term actually becomes irrelevant.

Now the knobs are turning, right? And that’s just it: "With the right box.." also applies to a DSP unit, the proper implementation of which you don’t seem to know or care about, because "analog" has become the buzzword to trump digital (and conversion steps) almost by its wording alone. A quality DSP unit is a tool in the very same manner of sound "molding" you’re outlining with an analog iteration, and what a DSP might (or might not) give up in ultimate sound quality by comparison it can easily reel back in with its plethora of adjustment possibilities, and also their precision and context of configuration (active vs passive).

Keep in mind that my (and others’) context of using a DSP is fully active configuration avoiding passive crossovers (with all that entails). What you should know is that active config. is about optimizing the amp to driver interfacing - which is hardly trivial, to say the least - and from this better outset "timbre, image specificity, staging .." etc. are extremely important aspects to hone in on as well, and which we can do even more elaborately with a DSP. Forest for the trees, as they say.

Great and right sounding is great and right sounding. Period. You don’t know until you’ve tried. I can tell you that with one of these EQs picks, fret slides, breathes, pedal clunks, all the micro and macro resolution is there in spades. And for all of you with the Loki Max thinking you know what I’m talking about, you don’t. You think you’re hearing what you should be getting, but you have no idea.

What tells you I haven’t tried and heard something else to know about what’s "great and right sounding"? You obviously don’t know any better about the specifics and my experiences with active DSP implementations via very different setups, so quit the arrogant and condescending barking from your local standpoint.

LM has been in my system and fell woefully short of my PEQ-1. Returned it the next day. Piece of “Schiit” in comparison!

Yeah, well - what can I say that I have not said before.

Yeah but notice I’m not slamming or poo pooing DSP. I am simply speaking to how beautiful the right analog implementation sounds. Your talk about my experience condescending though. Again, I was impressed by BACCH and am open to hearing the manner of DSP you implement. Again, don’t conflate tone adjustment (broad) with room correction (narrow). My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me. 

You confuse passionate as arrogance. I have yet to meet a DSP advocate as passionate here as I’ve been. That should tell you something. But I’ll admit I’ve only done some bass and treble shelf boosts and compared them instantaneous A-B to my analog piece and all the digital implementations were sonically inferior. Flat 2-D lifeless. Not unlike how people compare solid state to the holographism of tubes. But listen, hey, I admit I haven’t heard the best DSP has to offer. But I want to. 

And I do read about shootouts on Gearspace with mastering engineers comparing the best plug-in digital emulations of classic analog designs, eg Knif Soma or SPL PQ, and they say similar to my observations on my own system but with a smaller margin of difference. But mastering is broad stroke. DSP great for narrow filter in mixing. I am quite sure if you don’t have a Luxman amp with tone controls and you want to adjust tone for differing recordings in your hi fi system that analog is a better chance at retaining the hi fi characteristics of the straight signal. I have no doubts though that the best digital will eventually eclipse analog for adjusting tone. Technology marches on. Look at AI. It’s inevitable. 

My guy locally says even the best DSP for room correction leaves a slight haze and grain to the mids. I want to hear on my own though. 

Sorry so excessive here. Again just my passion coming out. Let’s just leave it at I need to hear what you’re doing and you need to hear what I’m doing. Fair enough?

“mere inclusion of an analog studio mixer ”

One more thing. It’s not a mixing EQ. It’s a broad Q MASTERING EQ

Oh, and Charter Oak PEQ-1 reviews from 2010 call it a “magic box”. Literally. Sounds a bit more serious when a studio engineer says this, huh?  And don’t call that arrogant. Am simply responding to you own condescension.  I know am asking for you to react. Wanted to say that earlier but forgot. Sorry. Posting these in between sets at the gym. (Couldn’t wait til home😆). Let’s call a truce, hopefully. 

Wait a minute I’m confused I thought that interconnects, power cords and speaker cables were tone controls? Now you guys have got me all confused! Why would change albums certain albums with sound better with certain power cords, so I wanted to listen to that album I would switch them to the ones that sounded better and then switch them back when I was done.

EQ is indispensable tool. However, plain analog one is hard to make, they all introduce phase errors. Try using pure digital, in digital path before your DAC. MiniDSP SHD accepts digital signals and can be Dirac or just PEQ. Avoid extra analog-digital transitions as much as possible.  

@tlcocks No, you will not damage anything. At worst you will hear lots of distortions of you raise eq level too high so tubes or transistors start clipping. This is another danger or EQ - if you raise some frequencies too much, your amp will produce more distortions in those bands.

Thanks. Since I always adjust short of audible distortion I believe I’m fine as you say. That’s what 2 sound techs have said as well. Regarding phase shift, @mirolab much earlier in this thread addressed how minimum this plays into things. He’s got his own studio for mixing and mastering in his home. I’d defer to him. I like the sound of analog EQ much better than the tools you mentioned. However there are the best of the digital applications which studios use which I haven’t heard. So I can’t compare 

I have seen this discussion before, but I also have owned a Lokuis, which I loved, but sold once I bought an Accuphase C-260 Control Amplifier with a 4 band presence control. I love having the option to fine tune some poor recordings. Nice to have the equalizer integrated into the preamp. helps reduce the number of  connections.

I bought the Accuphase C 260 specifically for it's unique  egualizer which can also adjust the frequency range in 2 of the 4 bands. It also pairs well my Accuphase Class A amp. I was sad to give up my tube preamp. but to downsize a bit some concessions were made.

@tlcocks wrote:

Again, I was impressed by BACCH and am open to hearing the manner of DSP you implement. Again, don’t conflate tone adjustment (broad) with room correction (narrow).

I’m not conflating anything here. Broad- and narrowband equalization is bandwidth differentiated, yes, but the simple fact is you’re confined to broadband filters with analog, and I’m not with DSP - meaning, I can do both. And no, less than 1/10 octave filters, and thereby narrowband, aren’t confined to room correction use. Remember? I don’t do room correction with my DSP, but placing notches manually with the aid of nearfield measurements, added to other vital parameter settings, is an essential tool in tailoring the sound, and has nothing to do with room correction per se.

Again, I’m using my Xilica DSP as a digital crossover only, actively, and as such it’s a much more elaborative "equalizer" than an analog device on top of the benefit of optimized the amp to driver interfacing sans a passive crossover between the amp and drivers. For "equalization" I don’t need no an extra device; actively the DSP is the sole tool for this very purpose as the "heart" of the speaker with its function as a digital crossover.

My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me.

If you’re still referring to the Schiit Loki Max, it’s an analog equalizer, not digitally-based. You’re the one who conflates what I do with the "Loki Max guys," but it’s two very different scenarios.

You confuse passionate as arrogance. I have yet to meet a DSP advocate as passionate here as I’ve been. That should tell you something.

Sorry, that doesn’t tell me much. How would you know about how passionate others are in their ventures? You only know what they write.

But I’ll admit I’ve only done some bass and treble shelf boosts and compared them instantaneous A-B to my analog piece and all the digital implementations were sonically inferior. Flat 2-D lifeless. Not unlike how people compare solid state to the holographism of tubes. But listen, hey, I admit I haven’t heard the best DSP has to offer. But I want to.

There’s much more to a DSP than that, not least also acting as a crossover at the same time (we’re talking months of optimizations in my case tailoring the speaker sound from ground up).

My guy locally says even the best DSP for room correction leaves a slight haze and grain to the mids. I want to hear on my own though.

If you’d heard a quality DSP like a Xilica acting as digital crossover actively, you would know the passive speaker iteration with a crossover on the output side of the amp is the less resolved outcome of the two - by a wide margin. There’s nothing "hazy" about the sound here, on the contrary.

Sorry so excessive here. Again just my passion coming out. Let’s just leave it at I need to hear what you’re doing and you need to hear what I’m doing. Fair enough?

That’s the preferable scenario, but it seems you’re based in Florida, US and I reside in Scandinavia, so..

Oh, and Charter Oak PEQ-1 reviews from 2010 call it a “magic box”. Literally. Sounds a bit more serious when a studio engineer says this, huh? And don’t call that arrogant. Am simply responding to you own condescension. I know am asking for you to react. Wanted to say that earlier but forgot. Sorry. Posting these in between sets at the gym. (Couldn’t wait til home😆). Let’s call a truce, hopefully.

An important step communicating is knowing, or trying at least to get bearing on what’s discussed in the first place, and its context. Your use of an analog mastering broadband EQ device is likely as an active component and thus a buffer or impedance matching unit to boot (much like an active preamp), whereas my context is a different one that also involves amp-driver interfacing; it’s hardly an apples to apples comparison, on top of EQ’ing offering different opportunities - depending on the technology involved.

I am well aware that Loki Max is ANALOG. if you’d take the time to read the whole thread, you wouldn’t find me at all confused. 

“There’s much more to a DSP than that, not least also acting as a crossover at the same time (we’re talking months of optimizations in my case tailoring the speaker sound from ground up).”

I am understanding and well aware of this. That’s precisely why I want to find a show room or someone’s dedicated system and room to hear this in action. I’d probably drive or even fly a distance if I can’t find it locally in FL. 

“An important step communicating is knowing, or trying at least to get bearing on what’s discussed in the first place, and its context. Your use of an analog mastering broadband EQ device is likely as an active component and thus a buffer or impedance matching unit to boot (much like an active preamp), whereas my context is a different one that also involves amp-driver interfacing; it’s hardly an apples to apples comparison, on top of EQ’ing offering different opportunities - depending on the technology involved.”

yes. Fully understand and agree here too. 

I used to have the top of the line DBX equalizer. I no longer need it.

I have two BBE Sonic Maximizers. When used properly - discreetly - they subtly alter the phasing of the signal. The effect is to give more punch at the bottom, more crispness at the top. They have a bypass so I can turn them off easily on the 80% of my LPs that don’t need them.

Used to play around with that one and Aphex. Those work differently as you stated than EQ. High end EQ is more natural and true to life and indeed more resolute. I won’t deny I enjoyed their punchy sound for a while. Did you know FM radio used to broadcast using the enhancement of sonic maximizers?  Don’t know if they still do. That was why FM version sounded more punchy and enhanced than your store bought vinyl or tape or cd. 

My SS Hendyamps Michelangelo is finally shipping to me. Am excited for the new toy!  Will report here after a while once I’ve had some time with it. 

Anyone serious about tone control as hi fi as possible should check out  Hendyamps Michelangelo. It is the first unit to sound superior to my beloved Charter Oak PEQ-1 and will be replacing both of mine. Sound is stupendous, glorious!  True improvements over pure line in for many many recordings. 

Best thing about unit is that any master gain cuts are handled beautifully with no signal integrity degradation. Meaning bigger boosts are handled with aplomb and no where near distorting the line. It is another “magic box” in the analog realm to take one straight to hifi heaven. Chris Henderson builds amazing gear!

Honestly this thing is sickly good. I put all the dials on flat and turn gain way down below unity gain. Going back and forth between hardwire bypass while adjusting amp volume to correct. EVEN ON WELL BELOW UNITY GAIN THE UNIT IS TRANSPARENT. That’s truly remarkable! CO didn’t have 1) the hardwire bypass or 2) the transparency and lack of its own color with bands engaged. MA the better unit!!  

I am taking a shitty recording right now (but love the album) and REALLY punching and shining it up. Better than the CO ever did with album!  Exhilarating!

Just put the MA in my loudspeaker setup. In the Bryston tape loop. It’s dead quiet, completely transparent with hardwire bypass in and tape loop toggled on and off. Couldn’t hear any difference. That’s great. I now know for sure it is transparent in bypass mode. And how do the bands sound on my big rig?  As good or even better than CO in there previously. This equalizer is fabulous. The mids are very smooth and resolute both. Easily 10% better than my beloved CO PEQ-1. Great great tone box!  

As I keep listening to MA in my big rig, I am impressed upon by a couple of thoughts. One is that I have posted too much here and now no one cares to listen to me. The second thought is that that occurring at this point in time is tragic because this EQ is the easiest to use, the most transparent on bypass (completely transparent, like Loki Max and Lokius), with the best sounding band boosts and best signal integrity with master gain cuts (so the signal still pristine but not too hot with band boosts).  In other words, this is a perfect hardware EQ for any hi fi system, no matter the cost, if you wish to alter bass and treble without degrading ANYTHING. Period. Having now heard in my home 5 pro pieces (all valued new at 3-6K) and the Loki Max, I would say two things. 1. I know what I’m talking about. And 2. I seriously doubt, and I mean this, that there is a better sounding hardware EQ on the planet for tone adjustment in your hi fi system. 
Yes, it’s frustrating the crickets. You all know how much I love my Charter Oak. This is the only one that’s better with no drawbacks. 
IF YOU LOVE YOUR HI FI AND WISH YOU COULD ADJUST BASS AND TREBLE FOR DIFFERENT RECORDINGS, YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO TRY ONE OF THESE. If 3200 is in your budget. Front end audio has a 30 d ret policy if you don’t like it. 

I'm glad you're enjoying the MA.I do check this thread from time to time and was interested in how this new unit would work out for you. Being a newbie to eqs I remain happy with the API and have no itch to upgrade yet.

  I did get to show it off a couple of weeks ago to a music loving friend. He's a huge Beatles fan so he chose several favorite tracks and really enjoyed how those old recordings could be cleaned up and tweaked a bit.The articulation of Paul's bass especially. Then he wanted to listen to this band and that band,etc.A really fun evening.

It’s whatever works for you. 
 

I used to rely on a DBX back in the 1970s - 1980s. It was among the best in its day. It helped me kill the shoutiness of my Altecs. Today I no longer need nor use it. 

if you would like to try it out before you spend big $$$s, contact me through my website. You may even find that the DBX will do the job. Having been sitting around for decades, it may need new caps. 
 

theaudioatticvinylsundays.com

Thanks @jtcf for the response. And @unreceivedogma, you are right. Whatever works for you. I am just hoping to save any other avid EQers some trial and error, as I’ve made it my sub hobby to explore as many high end hardware EQs as I can. To both of you, happy listening!

@jtcf, I also have had evenings with friends and family like that as well. You know you have gear that is doing something special when this happens. Great feeling!  Enjoy. API is renowned in studio circles and makes great gear. 

Genius quote from Chris Henderson at Hendyamps. When I posed the question of digital vs analog EQ in the studio, this was his response. Enjoy:
 

“Honestly, digital and analog are two completely different beasts.  When you want precision tools that can break the laws od physics, then you need digital.  When you want a tonal enhancement and intangible “mojo” then analog is the way.  I have been a part of the process in designing the Oven and the Michelangelo digital emulations and while the final product is excellent, you are still in the world of trying to make an emulation of something else.  And this emulation is extremely limited by the ability to actually capture all nuance of boiling electrons and quantum field interactions on a fundamental level, which will never produce results that satisfy serious engineers and serious hifi consumers.  It really is that simple. They are amazing products, but it is much like wanting to fly an F-16 fighter jet and then claiming that the high end simulator is the same as flying the actual jet.”

Further thoughts on CO and MA. CO’s mids hold together better with larger bass boosts. No winners here. Calling it a tie. MA sounds better with milder EQ. Both great pieces. 

Oh, and I’m posting on Gearspace forums now. Quite fun, talking analog EQ mojo with recording engineers, some famous. 

@deep_333 
It is true that every recording has been equalized out the wazoo.

However, your audio system should have reached the point where you not only hear the audio engineer's decisions from one recording to the next, but sometimes even the equipment he or she used (I have a jazz musician/composer friend who amazes me with his ability to identify the microphones used), to the point where you might say either "Wow" or "Why did they do that?" Either way, it sounds "accurate", as in, what was heard in the studio, even if it is not a sound that you agree with. It is at that point that the equalizer steps in.

I am at the point where my speaker shelving suffices.

I have two DBX equalizers from the 1980s. One of them was I believe the best that there was at the time. I can sell one of them to you at a steep discount so that you can mess with it and see if it works for you. I haven't used either in decades, so I will have my audio engineer bench test it first to male sure it is functioning as it should and certainly not DOA.

I have made a huge decision. As the MA is a lateral move from my CO in the final analysis. Each has different strengths. I couldn’t stop looking, however, at the Wes Audio NGTubeEQ. So I traded in the MA for it. It comes Monday. It has serious rails of power, all passive bands with custom inductors, SS output as well as tube output. It has all kinds of features I may never use. But I think this thing is the real deal. Oh and it does bells or shelves on all four bands. +/- 15 db each band. Or switch to 5 db mode for finer tuning. Most importantly, it can operate as a stereo program EQ where the right controls are slave to the left and auto adjust to your left settings in real time perfect level matched. It arrives Monday and I cannot wait! 

Great thread thoroughly enjoyed reading the past couple days.

Really hope it continues...

Hats off to you tlcocks for your steadfast contribution providing so much informative and logical content on this somewhat controversial topic. Myself i can relate to things you are explaining, admittedly more in a isolated discerning way, as i have virtually zero personal experience with such EQ`s. Coming more from a stand point of simply being `aware` the digital i am listening to could/should be better regardless the quality of system. I actually have one of the more up there hi-end digital systems here in Australia.

Have attended many events tried endless combinations of equipment cables tubes tweaks etc  over many years trying to reach the most pleasing balance which to be fair has often been quite satisfactory - but again - still always KNOWING deep down it could/should be better. Not in a technical way more in a natural way with what `I` find pleasing.

I still remember the first time hearing my fathers vintage Sansui 555A integrated amplifier as a teenager with efficient speakers. It has always stayed with me since. These amps seem to have have a nicely deployed integrated EQ (at least compared to so many others vintage or modern amps) specifically with it`s  `loudness` switch nicely elevating 50Hz & 15kHz.

Using the bass treble(especially treble) dials (albeit set at different frequencies) are just not the same thing sounding rather ordinary even dirty and distracting. But the loudness switch here brings a more vibrant natural delicate sparkle where female vocal/snare/cymbal in particular seem to benefit. Also more overall sweetness with  a more rich full sound and more enjoyable punchy detailed bass than it already has. 

This pre/EQ simply makes most recordings sound more pleasing to the ear especially with classic rock (my favorite) even if it does somewhat restrict areas of my systems potential. Funny because most `audiophiles` would never dream of inserting such old `inferior distortion box` into the chain. From personal experience i always prefer it in rather than out - even in 100K + system. In fact, imo, this vintage unit kind of shines in this situation and connected to carefully selected hi-end cabling/AC delivery. Exclusively not used for amplification only pre/EQ.

Oh and out of curiosity i also loaned a shiit Lokius a while back and yeah returned the thing post-haste  as my old rust bucket(not really) Sansui with it`s mere loudness switch simply sounds better! To this day i still often use this recapped Sansui not only for it`s inviting rich tone but yes mainly the loudness EQ function as described.  

Obviously my situation using this less than ideal EQ method is not comparable to what tlcocks has been experiencing with CO and other pro EQ`s, which atm i can only imagine, but again, even from such little experience i just instinctively KNOW what he is saying is true accurate and that i will really appreciate something like the CO - even without first hearing.

In the end you, tlcocks, have thoroughly inspired me to seek out a nice pro EQ for my hi-end system, and my audio journey, with little doubt i shall one day finally, safely, put away my old Sansui `distortion box` and end up much more thoroughly enjoying my system.

So big thanks with respect to you -such effort/perseverance - and of course all who have contributed to this fun thread so far. Looking forward to more!!

Pete

Also really looking forward your impression and comparison of the Wes ng TubeEQ. This thing looks frigging AMAZING  

Just 1 quick observation, and i know it`s only YouTube and also early days, but so far listening to demo`s of the Wes ng i just don`t YET hear the same HF purity and sparkle as i hear in demo`s with the Charter Oak where HF always seems to sound pretty damn nice!  But don`t want to judge anything on this so i shall eagerly await your own real life observations which i think i can trust. 

Pete, THANK YOU for your kindest of words!  Yes this whole thing when implemented correctly is a great passion of mine. Using this gear really opens up the too often boxed, sterile sound of the straight signal. I listen to a lot of rock and for this genre I cannot live without high end EQ. It’s that simple!  Yes, the loudness switch on my old Kenwood integrated was a gem as well. I used it ‘on’ while putting a JVC 10 band in the tape loop back in the 80’s, and that is what started my journey that I’ve been on ever since. Many years ago I resurrected that exact 80’s stereo and compared it sonically to the CO Bryston combo. As much as I loved that old stereo, the modern day set up blew it away. Even without a loudness switch!  So I would say to you thank you, and you’re on the right track. I will provide feedback on the Wes next week. Very much look forward to doing so!