Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

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. 

@mirolab , what did Mike say to you regarding the transparency of the peq1?  I checked out your Skyline unit. Looks compelling!  Of the two units, which treble and bass filters sound better, putting aside transparency?  Lastly, the more expensive studio EQs you’ve owned (Manley Massive Passive, wow) sound much better than Schiit EQs yes? I found them to not even be close. 
my friend, we are kindred spirits!!  I’m so happy there’s another out there like me!

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past.

@mijostyn    This is the kind of negative energy towards EQ that I’ve been railing against for years. Basically you’re telling every mastering engineer in the world that they can’t hear worth a darn. Don’t you realize that pretty much EVERYTHING we listen to has been mastered through (mostly analog) EQs? Unless you only listen to very niche purist recordings of jazz & classical music. Sorry... that’s not me. I don’t like that kind of music. You know that there are EQs that get used specifically BECAUSE they improve the imaging and depth of a recording. I own a Manley Massive Passive, a staple in mastering studios, and it sounds glorious! But it’s too tweaky for casual listening. The casual listener should have a single set of controls for both channels.

@tlcocks  I do own a Schiit Loki, and while it’s nice, quiet, and distortion free, I’m simply too spoiled by much more expensive EQs! For me, the bands are too narrow, but I highly recommend it (for the price). Sadly, most studio EQs have separate L/R controls, and they are not fun to adjust for casual listening. That’s what’s great about the PEQ-1 or my M3D. I can dial in a great curve in about 10 seconds. BTW... I’ve talked at length with Mike Deming about the "transparency" of the PEQ-1, back when it first came out.

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past.

I think this is part of the legendary use of EQ which may not apply today. 31 bands of cheap parts excessively used introduced so much phase shift and noise you can forget about not just imaging but dynamic range as well.

Tone controls and small number of parametric bands can be heavenly though. The use of a miniDSP in line with subwoofers can be a lot closer to perfect than not.

Digital EQ is flat and 2 dimensional compared to high end analog EQ. I’ve directly compared modest curves on Roon and Auralic digital EQ as well as Mojo2 104 bit “lossless” UHD EQ against Charter Oak. The CO beats all 3 easily in terms of all hi fi qualities/ descriptors including image specificity. Particularly in the realm of high frequencies. So I don’t agree that digital is better in terms of image specificity. Minimal phase shift exists with the higher end analog solutions and they just sound way better. At least mastering and home playback. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go read what audio engineers have to say on forums like Gearspace 

@mirolab , have you done any direct comparisons between any pro hardware EQ and the Lokius or Loki Max?

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past. Any major errors in amplitude were controlled at least in part by acoustic treatments. 

Fine control over amplitude is a huge advantage, much finer than any analog method can muster, literally 1 Hz at a time. This can now be done in the digital realm without any added distortion of any type. Certain digital preamps have this capability allowing you to create target curves. I'm sure there are also plug ins that allow you to do this. This is the path to a SOTA system in most rooms. The other path requires incredible luck.

Mike Deming said he designed the unit to be this way. Namely EQ In has some favorable effect even with the dials on flat. I asked because of the above observations. Hence with this unit true transparency is unnecessary. 

To clarify, “true complete bypass “ as I stated above means the tape loop ‘Rec’ button on my Bryston amp is OFF. meaning the unit is completely bypassed. That’s how I ab it. By toggling my amps Rec button on and off. On and the loop containing the EQ is active. Off and it’s completely out of the picture. So further to your point, with the EQ switched to ‘bypass’ , Rec off sounds better (slightly) than Rec in. Like you said, not truly transparent. But who cares if when the unit if switched to EQ In and with all the dials set on flat that that sounds better than my amp alone, Rec out?  I know all this is confusing:

amp rec in and EQ on and flat sounds best. Followed by amp rec out (true bypass). Followed by amp rec in and EQ out. 

@mirolab , thanks for saying the ‘better’ word. I totally agree with everything you say!  And yes, you are right that the Charter Oak is not truly transparent. But with Cardas cables and all balanced circuitry the EQ actually sounds better, yes now I said better, with it engaged and all the dials on flat than true complete bypass. But yes, it has its own sound. With great cabling I prefer that sound over true bypass. And when you start turning the dials, well, as you know the results are amazing. Yes, the right EQ does mean BETTER for those many records that suffer. You and I are on the exact same page. Will look for your current Vintage EQ on Reverb. 😊

I like my Loki Max. Sonic
ally quiet with no hum or hiss. I like powered XLR and RCA outputs usable at the same time. The adjustments do bot allow crazy adjustments. Its been left on 24/7  with no ill effects.

Memories: I remember installing an equalizer in my car adjusted to a “M” setting.  I also recall my friends home equalizer which had me staring mesmerized by light bar indicators moving up and down to the music.  Hmmm, never thought of searching for a working vintage equalizer…

I love EQ, and have several studio eqs, but I really only keep one on the output of my phono preamp, for eq'ing vinyl playback. My eq of choice right now is the Vintage Audio M3D Skyline.  It's a 6 band EQ with very wiiiide bands for minimal phase shift.  Plus it has hardwire bypass, and has balanced I/O only.

@tlcocks  I owned the Charter Oak PEQ-1 for several years when it first came out.  I loved the sound of the bands, and the way it operated, but the unit was not totally transparent, even when in bypass.  It's not a true hardwire bypass.

@sudnh  So having an EQ is not high end?  REALLY?  So what about all the mediocre vinyl pressings that I have, that I can make sound amazing by restoring the lost low frequencies, or re-shaping the highs??  Am I supposed to suffer with mediocre playback in the name of purism and following your "high-end" rules against EQ?

Yes, I've read years and years of Stereophile and Absolute Sound diatribe, and always hated that they vilifyied EQ.   Look.... I know I've got a great system with good room acoustics, because when I play well recorded, well mastered records, my system sounds perfect.  But when I put on a record that has about 5 dB of lows rolled off to accommodate 20 minutes per side, why should I have to live with that? I know I can make it BETTER.... Yes I said it.... EQ can make it BETTER, even though I am putting more circuitry in the signal path!  Sorry if that offends the purists.  (actually.... No.... not sorry).    

I use a DBX Driverack 360 and love it. If you’ve never heard of it, pls take the time to research it. You won’t be disappointed. 

@hartf36 +1 

Funny that some think having an EQ isn't "audiophile" or that it adds something unnecessary to the audio chain...

On the contrary, I'm inclined to DEFINE an "audiophile" as someone who, among other things, recognizes the utility of an EQ.

@sudnh I second that respectfully that u are also totally wrong. Check out my system and tell me if it’s anything less than a hi end audio system. 

@sudnh , respectfully you’re wrong. You can make less than perfect recordings on hi fi gear sound better EVERY TIME without sacrificing transparency with the right high end analog hardware EQ, of which we’ve elaborated on many here. Simply put, you are wrong. I’ve run blinded ab tests on multiple people in my house with the above setup and they chose the EQ IN EVERY SINGLE TIME. And my gear is quite hi fi, trust me. 

If you have or think you need an equalizer then you do not have a high end audio system. 
I think the same with all dsp’s I’ve heard so far as well. Adding fake distortion. 

if I have a musical instrument in a room once it’s tuned it always sounds great. 

you can acoustically treat the room. That is ok.  

Just go with your ears! As you age you will become less perfect in your hearing, and thus less competent at listening. And not everyone was born with a perfume nose where their ears are to start with (perfect pitch anyone? How many can tell the tt rpm is running at 33 and 2/3? The idea is to please yourself! Go ahead, EQ that John Denver, I won't judge....  No, really optimize YOUR listening experience.

Ok.  I know this is not a Charter Oak thread. But it’s also not a Schiit EQ thread. I will stop sharing links about this wonderful device. So as not to annoy anyone here by being excessive. I just cannot say enough good things about this piece and felt I should share with the world how well it fits in a home stereo chain. Thanks for listening, and sorry for any over exuberance 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijY9BkNabWk

in full flight in studio. Listen on headphones for best results 

https://gearspace.com/board/reviews/852248-charter-oak-charteroak-peq-1-a.html

good idea what a sound producer says of product

With mine you can turn treble pot up all the way (not that you’d do that) and a symphony still sounds like a symphony. With the max doing that was a noticeable loss in staging and SQ and unnatural sound set in. Change in quality of timbre or artifacts?  Not sure. Big boosts just not as beautiful of clean. Small changes, yes, fine. 

What I DID like about the Max is how transparent it is in flat position. But in boosting bass or treble frequencies to any degree beyond +3 or so (many older recordings warrant that) it just doesn’t have the same chops as a good pro piece has in boosting. But yes, in very small quantities of change it’s a wonderful box. 

The Max is transparent, looks cool, has a remote, and does the job brilliantly. I suggest to anyone considering a Max to read Robert Green's well written Absolute Sound review, as that certainly helped in my decision to buy one. Highly recommended.

Loki => Lokius => miniDSP SHD = FUN & PLEASURE

Isn't that what it's all for?

Actually it was Dirac I wanted to play with but all other stuff was huge fun.  

Mahgister, I am happy to share my experience with this wonderful device. My pleasure!

To all. All good points, but please don’t mistake my Charter Oak for a surgical mixing notch EQ. It is a broad Q tonal adjustment device with broadly overlapping bands used in a mastering setting. It is quite appropriate in a home hi fi playback setup. It is the best tonal adjustment device that I’ve ever heard. Inboard or outboard. I’ll attach a graphic. It’s broad overlapping curves are like classic Baxandall EQs which are the basis for basic bass and treble onboard controls, a 2 band EQ.

 

And don’t forget that I’ve heard BOTH in my hi fi system. Y’all really cannot criticize my approach until you’ve done the same. I’m telling you a 2700 dollar pro EQ sounds FAR BETTER than the Loki max. Both in speaker chain and headphone chain.

I just want to say first  that i believe you completely ...

I will never try it because my system is totally satisfying and cost me 700 nucks ...

The price of this device which seems very pro is 3 times the price of my system which anyway has no evident defect to my ears on headphone or on speakers ...

But i want to thank you for the information which is interesting ...

Page 5 of 7 shows the curves. Thanks

https://images.thomann.de/pics/prod/266092_manual.pdf

And don’t forget that I’ve heard BOTH in my hi fi system. Y’all really cannot criticize my approach until you’ve done the same. I’m telling you a 2700 dollar pro EQ sounds FAR BETTER than the Loki max. Both in speaker chain and headphone chain. 

To all. All good points, but please don’t mistake my Charter Oak for a surgical mixing notch EQ. It is a broad Q tonal adjustment device with broadly overlapping bands used in a mastering setting. It is quite appropriate in a home hi fi playback setup. It is the best tonal adjustment device that I’ve ever heard. Inboard or outboard. I’ll attach a graphic. It’s broad overlapping curves are like classic Baxandall EQs which are the basis for basic bass and treble onboard controls, a 2 band EQ. 

i think you had made good observations cundare2.....

Eq. is a tool , a means used for an acoustic problem but not the solution but only an element of it at best ...

For example i used Eq. for my headphone to push them nearer the Harman curve but without my other modifications this will be useless ...EQ. cannot replace material acoustics...If it is not a cherry on a cake , we mistake the cherry for the cake ...

Also EQ. work with precise frequencies window, unlike other tool which work on all the wall of sound at once ...I use low cost small battery Shumann generators , cheap one , located at specific points and they work amazingly well to made more organic all the soundfield ... Why ? i dont know ...😊

Welcome to you by the way ...