Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

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

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.

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. 

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!  

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!

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!!  

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!

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

“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. 

“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. 

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. 

@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 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.

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 

@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.

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.  

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.

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. 

“mere inclusion of an analog studio mixer ”

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

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?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

@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.

“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. 

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.”

"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!

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. 

@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. 

“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. 

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... 😁😊😎😋

Does anyone know the answer to my question?

@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. 

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. 

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

And crossover 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@tlcocks wrote:

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

Did a demo ever materialize at poster @mijostyn?

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

An open mind is always a good outset.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is indeed many views about equalisation...😊

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

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

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

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

@tlcocks wrote:

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

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

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

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

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