Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

My pleasure!

@tlcocks Thanks for posting the link. Very interesting read. 
 

Jeremiah

Sometimes I think that's exactly what I need for less than stellar recordings. Shrieky vocals especially are where I long to adjust.The ability to adjust subwoofer equalization has given me very positive results, so why not tweak the upper mids too.The possibility of degradation is why I hesitate and my negative prejudice to be honest. But this thread has inspired me to do some research and open my mind. It does no good to wish all of my favorite music should be remastered by Analogue Productions;-)

I have a vintage Kenwood that I use mainly when doing needle drops via my Sugar cube SC-2+.  Just a light touch of added low end seems to fill out some bass-shy records.  The rest of my system is dialed in well enough that I don't need it for listening.  Nor do I use the base and treble controls on my McIntosh preamp.

https://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/692cello/index.html
 

For my thoughts on equalizing, they are best reflected in the above read. Great stuff!

And yes, I’m equalizing RECORDINGS. not gear. Excellent recordings obviously require less or no adjustment 

I would like to elaborate. I compare the two in the context of bass and or treble tone shaping. Not semi surgical cuts. Mainly modest boosts. While I’ve not compared the two with frequency cuts, I certainly find a huge sonic advantage with the aforementioned pro studio gear in the context of boosts in bass or treble. 

Any piece of equipment that improves the music to YOUR EARS is a good piece....My system is $30 K and I use a LOKI MINI when I need to for certain recordings that need a little EXTRA something......EQ's don't improve your hi end system.....they improve the RECORDING that you are listening to....Thru your hi end system. Once audiophiles understand this fact.....it makes owning an EQ plausible.

The typical "mine is better than yours" argument. Yours still has no remote ☹️

The bashing of equalization as a tool is ignorance but the use of equalization as a solution is ignorance too ... Equalization is a useful tool not an acoustic solution ...It help alleviate some problem but do not solve any acoustic problem by itself alone ...

I use EQ after establishing the right equalisation levels with my modified headphone because so good they are , they are not perfect, no headphone is , and can be too far at some spot from the Harman curve and my ears ask for such slight improvement ... It could be the same thing in a room for a form of DSP , the best DSP is the BACCH filters , eveybody needs this one knowing it or not because this DSP is an acoustic solution with no trade-off ...

 

@tattooedtrackman I did reply. Not sure what happened. I'll look again now. 

If you want ultimate SQ for an equalizer with minimal or no noticeable degradation, well then…

listen, the Schiit EQ products are, well, sh-t sounding. Sorry, but if you use them and think you’re hearing state of the art EQ you don’t know what you’re missing!

That unit seems to have no remote. A no go for my need.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-charter-oak-peq-1.969510/

Thread 'The Charter Oak PEQ-1'
 

there are better products than Loki and Lokius!  See link

Many audiophiles do have a negative view of equalizers and it is at their own loss. Kind of like I stubbornly refused to go into streaming for years, being the "analog is the best way kind of guy". So glad I grew out of both these preconceived notions.

I have the Loki Max. It runs all my digital end, CDs, streaming, tuner and DVD player. It obviously is a huge help in tuning poorly recorded music and there is plenty of that. However I tend to listen to well recorded music so I do not use it very often. The sound going through it while in bypass mode is not affected at all. Great unit. I also run the Puffin on my secondary TT for the same reasons. My primary TT is the only thing running pure as I only play well recorded vinyl on it.

@dinov + 1 👍

Absolutely, I have tone controls on my McIntosh C2300 preamp in my main system and I use an SAE 1800 Parametric equalizer in one of my vintage systems.

@hilde45   Hello. I DM you a few times. Didn’t get no response. I’d like to try that older until out that u don’t use anymore. Looking forward to hearing back from u. 

I recently purchased a Lokius and find it quite useful and unobtrusive.

The Max could put the Room Treatment Cabal out of business. It's amazing and... hey...fun? Anybody have fun anymore? I’ve been using EQs of various types in pro work for decades although not in my main hifi rig as that’s traditionally been a sacred "less is more" audio geek space. Having become a fan of the original Loki (I use one for headphones and another in a video rig) as a very well designed thing that is astonishingly transparent unlike anything I’ve used before, It was easy to get a Max. You need stereo EQ? Get a couple of ’em, or maybe the less expensive ones...problem solved. As discussed in another thread, I improved the operation on my Max by adding cool little "chicken head" knobs that I can see from across the room even in low light (white knobs on a black Max)...seriously...the best and most effective cheap tweak ever, and they’re 100% vegan and recyclable (threw that in). Also they look cool. If you get a Max and don’t install chicken heads please don’t tell me as I will take it personally and be sad.

Funny that some think having an EQ isn't "audiophile" or that it adds something unnecessary to the audio chain but they're happy to use mono blocks and a pre-amp instead of an integrated or receiver. But I suppose those aren't "audiophile" either. 

Colorful language aside, I agree with deep_333. Anyone who has participated in the recording process can attest to the fact that not all masters are reflective as to what the artist intended. The goal of hearing exactly what is recorded is a fool's errand. Make it enjoyable to your ears and use every tool possible to achieve that goal. I still use my Soundcraftsmen AE2000 equalizer/analyzer in my audiophile system. I find the spectrum analyzer very helpful in determining just what frequencies are recorded out of balance.

I use 2 lokius, one each channel for asymmetrical needs.  They have full bypass switch.  Even engaged I cannot "hear" them.  One poster here recently chose Lokius over Loki max based on what he heard.  YMMV.  Having independent L/R is really nice IMHO (listen up Schiit).  

Sasso headed??

Dude, every recording you own has already gotten eq'd out the wazoo. There is no "purity" in any recording you heard in life. So, feel free to eq until your ears are pleased. Some sasso headed mastering technician doesn't get to decide what should sound good to your ears or not...you do!

I had a 15-band EQ in a tape loop of my receiver in my first system back in 1982. I think it was a BSR or ADC. Back then I wanted as many components in the rack as possible....more drivers, more watts, more volume, read the specs, etc.  The system cranked! ...guess I was a wannabe DJ, LOL! 🤘 😎

It’s not something I would add to my system now. It adds another component plus two sets of cables to the equation. I do have some gain/volume and bass controls on my woofers and subwoofer below 80hz that I can adjust as needed, but nothing in main signal path to the mids and tweeters.

Answer: whatever pleases “you”

Some don’t like the idea of adding anything extra in the audio chain from the belief that it can only degrade the signal.  Others may value the adjustability more, and some cannot discern the subjective significant sonic degradation.

I’ve toyed with the idea of dropping in an equalizer such as a Loki or the Cello Palette Preamp equalizer. Worse case I can simply remove from the audio chain.

@dean_palmer +1

Mike

EQ is a tool for a specific goal but never a solution by itself alone ...

I use it for my headphone to go nearer the Harman curve ...But it does not replace the electrical,mechanical and acoustical necessary controls and treatment i also used and put in place with my headphone and speakers/room ..

 

Hifi system yes. Audiophile system no.

I think you can see the difference I am trying to make. With an audiophile system you are trying to achieve the absolutely best sound possible at every level of nuance and detail. All your components are likely to be “straight wire” designs… the ultimate in simplicity to minimize any conceivable effect on the sound. Running the sound through an extra box and attenuating the split signal is going to impact the sound. The better the equalizer the less the impact… but there will be one. Decades ago the impact was very large… it has gotten smaller.

Nothing wrong with good tone controls.  Also worth considering room treatments to tame excess mid/treble and improve imaging.

Equalizers make a lot of sense for a lot of people. No idea why some folks have issues with adding an EQ. Probably same folks who scream all about "pure signal" and then run their music through a tube amp only to distort it anyway, LOL. Some folks cannot simply move speakers and treat their room to get decent sound, so an EQ makes a lot of sense.

 

I put a Loki in my tape loop. Works fine when I need it, otherwise it is invisible, sonically speaking. 

@hilde45 I dm ya just now. 

Why not! I have the earlier version of the Loki which I'm not using. It's virtually new. If you're curious, shoot me a DM and we'll work something out.

You could always try a Lokius first. It's a non remote version of the Loki Max. Not quite all the features, but a close one for much less $$ ($299).

A good unit can be an asset, especially a bypass that helps you hear the differences it makes.

That unit does not have independent L and R adjustments.

It seems like a good choice IF your space is perfectly symmetrical.

You may know, but I am a big fan of Level Controls built into speakers, i.e. ’presence’ for the mid-range; ’brilliance’ for the tweeters. Remote controlled equalizer would be much easier, but I would want independent L/R and a global balance for errant recordings.

Many Vintage speakers had level controls, because the speaker might be used in a too dead or too live space. One speaker might be near a side wall and the other in free space or further away from the other side wall (like my office system). It’s tricky, but separate adjustments can be made to L and to R.

Vintage Receivers had tone controls, many of them dual concentric, adjust both sides together, or each side individually.

Some units hade several tone controls, and then you have the exterior equalizer, various number of bands, perhaps L and R separately.

..................................

You may move to a space that is dead/hard/unsymmetrical: I might first try a unit like this

https://www.rockvilleaudio.com/req231/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAuqKqBhDxARIsAFZELmIHDbyghwlHTxapiK85Q4t-6qrIBsxRaKSMSy5jKTO0Uoc4O3CZurYaAkUgEALw_wcB

and once the benefits are discovered, then move up to a ’supposedly’ better unit. Buy from a source allowing returns, you never know if ’supposedly’ better is actually better.

Of course a Sound Pressure Meter, set on a tripod at seated ear level, combined with test tracks would help find a measured balance, then you have your preferences, or specific hearing characteristics (not-always symmetrical)

make sure it has a bottom tripod screw

https://www.amazon.com/BAFX-Products-Pressure-30-130dBA-Warranty/dp/B00ECCZWWI/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1J5FUQUUV7878&keywords=sound%2Bpressure%2Bmeter&qid=1699275595&sprefix=sound%2Bpressure%2Bmeter%2Caps%2C85&sr=8-3&th=1

this test track CD, tracks 9-38, is terrific

this is the lowest price I have ever seen

https://www.discogs.com/sell/release/7290000?ev=rb

If you don't buy it, I'll buy it for a friend.