Mogami GOLD XLR to RCA 6 foot available on Amazon
Equalizer in a Hi Fi system
Just curious to hear everyone’s opinions on using an equalizer in a high end hi fi system. Was at work tonight and killing time and came across a Schitt Loki max $1500 Equalizer with some very good reviews. What are some of the pros / Benefits and cons in using one. Just curious. BTW. I’m talking about a top of the line. Hi end equalizer. Mostly to calm some high frequencies and some bad recordings.
680 responses Add your response
Thanks tlcocks!The adapters were pin 1and 2 together for signal pin 3 for ground.I did look for Mogami but couldn't locate one.I settled for Monoprice. I'll search harder I guess knowing they exist, lol.I don't want to add a box.More connections are never a good thing. I've been looking at new and used and actually trying to learn more about them by reading on pro audio sites and familiarizing myself with what the various brands have to offer.The API SR24 stereo (less $) and Charter Oak don't look overly elaborate like some others.I don't need a zillion functions. Anyways I will find a pair of Mogami Gold and see how that goes first. |
The cables are ready to go. Full unity gain without any box in between. You don’t want ANY other box in the circuit. If had done all that in the beginning. When I discovered the Mogami Gold and that I didn’t need a box, SQ took a huge leap forward. |
@tlcocks if I can manage to successfully convert from XLR to RCA (preamp) I'm going to go for a pro model parametric eq.After installing an XLR from the dac to the Lokius and realizing a surprising upgrade in SQ I've been experimenting with XLR to RCA adapters and an XLR to RCA custom cables on the Lokius output. Either method works on bypass but really noisy when the unit is on.Next up is to try an Art Cleanbox Pro and hope that eliminates the noise. If not there is a passive converter that includes a ground lift to try -Radial Pro -Iso is the brand I could find.The reason I'm determined to try is because in bypass using the XLR to RCA cables the SQ took quite a leap up which I totally did not expect. It's just a cheap cable that all I'd hoped for was to get the signal through quietly. Yes I could just get a new preamp with balanced connections but I like what I have now so I'll continue experimenting for the time being. The last option is the MQ112 which requires a long day traveling back and forth. The downside of country living:-)The Lokius is a nice little unit but I'd like to find out first hand about broader overlap and fine tuning.
|
Oh sorry. Didn’t know @mbmi @tattooedtrackman are one and the same. My bad! |
@tlcocks I love it 👍 |
Does @mbmi like it? The MQ 112? |
@mbmi , did you ever get the MQ112? I don’t remember seeing your follow up. |
When I purchased my system, I refused to be without EQ, specifically once I auditioned the Wavelet with my Legacy Focus XDs. I could not imagine not have control over poorly mixed recordings, being able to adjust all EQ, room correction, volume and subwoofer setting from my iPad anywhere in the house is absolutely the best feature of this system. |
I just listened the same track right now... Money of Pink Floyd... No sophisticated EQ, only 3 tone controls on my cheap but good tube preamplifier .... 😊 Guess what ? The guitar solo is almost beside me at my left out of the speakers and the soundfield encompass my listening position OUTSIDE of the speakers by right and left and almost behind me ...( in nearfield listening with my 150 bucks speakers heavily modified in a controlled acoustic corner with some crosstalk mechanical control too ) Morality : EQ so good it is dont replace vibrations/resonance control, nor acoustic room disposition nor electrical noise level control nor in my case a good tube pre-amp and a good dac...EQ does not replace my job when i modified the rear porthole of my speakers and the tweeter waveguide and EQ could not replace it at any price even with yours ... And you had listened the BACCH on another system not on yours...😁 Me too it seems listening Pink Floyd i can live WITHOUT the BACCH filters... Tonight i listened my headphone K340 with a SPEAKER LIKE SOUND OUT OF MY HEAD... The point is the BACCH or EQ will improve any system but will not replace the gear design not the acoustic room control nor compensate for the electrical noise floor level, EQ nor BACCH will not repair the damage done by uncontrolled speakers vibrations and resonance...... I doubt any EQ can replace the BACCH filters if we look at how work EQ and how work the BACCH filters... There is no relation they are completely different beast one is an acoustic revolution the other a useful tool ... No EQ can compensate for the loss of spatial information by crosstalk in any stereo system at any price... I dont need sophisticated EQ it seems listening Pink Floyd Money as you described .. I need the BACCH... 😊
|
Pink Floyd Money was one of the BACCH highlights. I’m listening to it now on my loudspeaker system, of course with Charter Oak PEQ1 analog EQ. The guitar l solo in the middle. I closed my eyes and the guitar is emanating from 2 feet left of my left speaker. EQ off and it’s more veiled and 1 foot left of my left speaker. AND I’m tone shaping bass and treble to my heart’s desire. I add more treble than usual to this album. It’s slightly dark. Yes, I prefer my setup to the BACCH any day. But…what if I had both?… |
Thanks... Very honest review and i believe you... By the way i understand you , because i enjoy already a stunning soundfield with spatial qualities to some relative level as described by BACCH reviewers... ( my embeddings controls works well for me + modified speakers+mechanical crosstalk limitation) But i want to buy the BACCH to really achieve it to a really complete level... But as you i can wait...😊 You review confirm my reading studies of it : this is the real deal...
|
I am going to be brief, because I’m tired. But the BACCH preamp is the real deal. It didn’t envelope with regular records as much as I thought it would. But it was something else with binaural Chesky recordings of voices and various sounds. However those recordings were impressive in their panning and sound field anyway even without the BACCH in circuit. For regular music it did a couple of things. It widened considerably the soundstage with the beginnings of a wrap around effect, but never really got behind you. Was nonetheless the less impressive and easily noticeable in vs out. It also seemed to open the music and the dynamics. Kind of took a veil off to make everything sound better. This was a smaller change but still easily noticeable. Can I live without BACCH? Yes, because while it does things differently I get equal amounts of improvement/fun from my studio grade analog EQ. If I didn’t have that I’d probably be buying a BACCH preamp. Mine is a lot easier to use and a lot cheaper though at 2700 dollars 😊 |
Happy new year and thanks for your interesting posts ... We wait for your impressions for the BACCH ... 😊 thanks tlcocks |
Happy New Year all! Over the weekend I did something I haven’t done in 10 years. I moved my speakers all around in terms of distance from front wall and toe in to see if the current longstanding setup is indeed the best. Spent hours trying different distances and toe ins. Indeed my room interacts best with my speakers from the perspective of the listening position exactly where they have been for 10 years. So I guess I got that right in the beginning 👍😊. Now, as setup, I hear appropriate image specificity without things shifting between left and right as tones change frequencies. Vocals are heard as dead center. Bass response is extremely linear and even to my ear without standing wave frequencies or null frequencies to my ear. I therefore do believe I have a reasonably good room and am hearing what I should from my loudspeakers. Not sure what DEQX could do to improve but still want to try. And still will travel soon to BACCH showroom across the state. Oh…and still got the hots for SPL PQ. The looks. Love the red and layout of dials. Gorgeous piece. Have no idea if sounds better than my beloved CO’s. |
Off the topic of equalizers. But am listening to the early 80’s bought vinyl I have preserved ever since of Peter Gabriel’s Security. Great album. The sound is just so much more integrated and musical and real sounding than its digital counterpart, the latter of which side by side simply sounds like a fake copy. It’s really stunning. The timbre and note saturation and fullness of the recording on that original vinyl is SO MUCH MORE SATISFYING. It’s really not even close. |
@lordrootman , what do you think about room and speaker correction with SOTA DSP first (get room physically as right as you can before, actually. And speaker placement). Do all that first. Then would you say it’s ok to EQ tonally with high end analog gear? Or is that too much? |
“I also have no problem spending good money to choose a "better cable" for it's improved physical or cosmetic properties, such as better construction, less tangling, better comfort, ideal length, the appropriate connectors, and microphonics, etc.” slight nitpick here: don’t generalize EQ’s. On the consumer side most are poorly implemented and don’t meet the audiophile standard. You really have to hunt and pay for the good ones, in my experience. Generalizing statements above about EQs is dangerous as it leads audiophiles to assume all EQ sounds bad. Right? They hear one. It sounds bad. They give up. The truth is you really get what you pay for. If you really want SOTA EQ for your SOTA stereo, you have painstakingly demo software or hardware and pay the piper. Just like any hi fi component |
Interesting Read From a Recording Engineer about EQ
On another note, I find it strange how many audiophiles or audio enthusiasts are averse to using EQ to achieve audio bliss with a product that they feel is just a tad too bright or harsh, or needs a little boost or cut in the low end, midrange, etcetera, in order to be ideal for their preferences. I understand that using EQ doesn't make sense if the headphones, IEMs, or speakers will require A LOT of extensive EQ to get them dialed in. But I find that most products are within a +/- 3dB range (and usually MUCH less) in a certain frequency or two to get them dialed in, which is perfectly safe and achieveable with the majority of products we use. I also find it a bit ironic that we as listeners don't want to consider using EQ, but if you realized how extensively at least some type of EQ or spectral balance shaping techniques were used in the mixing & production process of 95% of the music that we listen to, you would be shocked. 😛 For multitracked music, strategic EQ and tonality shaping with levels are used by mixing engineers to place the various instruments and vocal(s) withing the soundstage from front to back, i.e. Depth and Layering. EQ is also used to bring vocals forward in the mix (or push them back). IOW, EQ is a Very Powerful Tool in the mixing and mastering engineer's toolbox. Yet as audiophiles seeking audio nirvana and the best possible performance from our gear, most of us are afraid or averse to using ANY EQ whatsoever. 😕 In the recording studios these days, you will find that nearly all engineers are using and embracing at least some type of monitor speaker/room correction software (which is primarily EQ-based). In addition, several of the companies that design and manufacture highly regarded studio monitors, such as Genelec for one, are incorporating these types of measurement/analyzer/correction systems built into their products, which helps each engineer to achieve their absolute REFERENCE system for their mixing and mastering work. Again, these are the PROFESSIONALS that are responsible for producing the music that we are listening to on a daily basis. They spend many thousands of dollars on both analog and digital outboard rack-mount EQs or DAW plugin EQs to complete their daily work. I first learned the true importance and the amazing power of EQ in my journey as a high-end car audio enthusiast. In a car audio system, there are at least two major factors related to the proper use of EQ that are major obstacles to achieving a tightly focused center image that does not wander or drift dependent on the immediate frequency of the vocal or instrument as the song plays, in addition to achieving a perfectly linear and balanced Left-to-Right Soundstage. The "Depth To the Stage" (where it begins in front of you), and "Depth Of the Stage" (how deep or forward it projects beyound the speaker positions) is also highly dependent on proper Independent Left & Right EQ, which is absolutely necessary in order to produce a smooth, even, and linear frequency response that corresponds to our preferred Target Curve, AT OUR LISTENING POSITION. # 1. In our vehicles, our Main Listening Position (MLP) is not perfectly centered between a pair of loudspeakers. This presents a huge problem, or should I say, multiple problems. Just try sitting 3 feet to the Left or Right of Center in your home setup, and also closer to the nearest side speaker as well. The SPL from the closer speakers will be significantly higher, AND, any reflections that you hear from the nearest side speaker will arrive much earlier than the opposite side speaker. I think it's obvious that the results will not be ideal, right? 😛 # 2. In a vehicle, we don't have a properly sized or acoustically treated "room" to play those nice loudspeakers in! The highly reflective near-field environment of a vehicle wreaks havoc on the frequency response at our MLP from our otherwise perfectly flat and neutral high end speaker transducers. And all of the reflections that we hear will be EARLY reflections, meaning there is not enough of a delta in time for us to perceive or differentiate the multitude of reflections from the direct sound coming from the speakers. This produces horrible comb filtering and a very erratic frequency response from our otherwise flat and neutral high-quality speaker drive units. That's not a good start! # 3. In addition, each of the speakers in our vehicle cannot be ideally placed on a common baffle, and they usually end up being spread around the interior in seemingly random and non-ideal locations within the vehicle. Again, Each Speaker will be affected differently, dependent on its immediate environment or location (nearby reflective boundaries). # 4. There is another factor that is not so much related to EQ per se, and that is the need for independent "Time Alignment" or digital delay for each speaker so that each one arrives at our off-center listening position in perfect sync, just as they would when sitting in the "sweet spot" equidistant between our home loudspeakers, or headphones/IEMs. Most high-end car audio systems will have a "front stage" speaker set (equivalent to our front "mains" speakers) consisting of a Left and Right set of Tweeters, Midrange, and Midbass drivers, along with one or more subwoofers that are usually placed somewhere out of the way in the rear of the vehicle. Because we sit Off-Center to each Left and Right group of speakers, one side is relatively On-Axis to our listening position, while the group of speakers on the opposite (near) side will likely be severely Off-Axis to our listening position. This will cause a massive difference in frequency response between the Left and Right sides, and this, in turn, will destroy any chance of achieving accurate image placement and soundstaging, as well as a pleasing, balanced, realistic and lifelike spectral balance (tonality). Try playing a full-range mono Pink Noise track in a non-EQ'd car audio system and quickly adjust the Balance control from full Left to full Right. The massive change in Frequency Response from the Left group of speakers will be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the Right group of speakers, and this will be readily apparent at our off-center listening position. To help in this regard, we try and use a combination of speaker drive units that can play an ideal, particular passband with low distortion, and most importantly, without "beaming". Minimizing any beaming (the narrowing of dispersion as frequency rises) helps the On-Axis and Off-Axis frequency response from each speaker to be much more even and linear. We achieve this by using the appropriate Crossover Network Filters on each driver that protect the drivers while keeping them from playing into a frequency range where they will start to "beam". Ideally, we want to maintain a very even and smooth DIRECTIVITY across all of the drivers. Carefully chosen Crossover Filters are also another way to control the summed or overall Frequency Response...IOW, Crossovers can effectively function as "EQ" as well. Remember that our off-center listening position in a car makes the On-Axis and Off-Axis Left and Right frequency response quite different. But minimizing beaming and optimizing for smooth directivity helps to even out the differences in FR between the left and right sides as much as possible. HOWEVER, we will still need LOTS of EQ to optimize and balance this Left vs. Right frequency response. This is due to the highly reflective environment of the car. There is really no way around this in a vehicle listening environment. Still, EQ can only do so much. Because of the unique interior dimensions of each vehicle, (in addition to obstacles such as large center consoles, transmission humps, the steering wheel, etcetera), there will be Cancellation Nulls at several particular frequencies that cannot be boosted or corrected using EQ. For example, if you try to Boost these cancellation nulls, the speakers will just be working much harder without actually producing any more output at the null frequency, and you risk damaging the speaker due to overexcursion or heat. HOWEVER, EQ can be used to Reduce PEAKS in the response, and/or to Lower the Peaks On Either Side of the Null, which effectively smooths out the overall frequency response so it becomes less of a distraction or irritation. The SAME EQ technique can be used on Headphones and IEMs. The internal chambers and cavities in the cups of headphones or IEMs can produce cancellation nulls, as well as peaks in response at particular frequencies. Most modern designers do a very good job at minimizing these effects, but there will always be some amount of resonance or null at one or more given frequency. Use EQ to tame these as much as possible. So in a vehicle, to achieve a lifelike, realistic frequency response that has excellent imaging and a realistic soundstage, we ABSOLUTELY NEED a multi-channel DSP that provides fully INDEPENDENT Left & Right Time Alignment (digital delay), with LOTS of P-EQ bands, and fully adjustable Network Filters/Crossovers for Each Channel. Some such DSP units made for car audio are the miniDSP C-DSP 8x12 & Harmony (with optional DIRAC Live), or various other units made by Audiotec-Fischer Helix or Brax, Audison Forza, Gladen/Mosconi Aerospace, Zapco HDSP-V, etc. miniDSP makes smaller 2-Channel or 4-Channel DSPs that achieve the same goals in home audio systems. Without using extensive EQ in a mobile audio system, there is simply no way to achieve anything close to our home audio speaker system or our headphones & IEMs. But that same EQ can ALSO be used by us as well as studio engineers to effectively shape the characteristics of the sound to our tonal preferences, and also to improve dynamics, impact, soundstaging, realism, and overall musicality. AND if nothing else, PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: Using proper EQ will have a MUCH LARGER EFFECT on the "CHARACTER" or Spectral Balance of your Headphones or IEMs than ANY type of "Upgraded", "High-End" CABLE!!! STOP buying expensive cables to "EQ" your goddam Headphones and IEMs!!! Using EQ effectively is usually MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE, and often times it is FREE, as it's built-in to nearly all DAPs. And EQs or EQ plugins are available for nearly all computer-based music playback software or network streamers. I'm not saying that Cables Do Not make a difference in SQ. I'm just saying that using EQ effectively is a much more LOGICAL approach, and nearly always less expensive. EQ is also INFINTELY ADJUSTABLE, whereas you will be stuck with the specific characteristics or properties of whatever cable you choose, and it may not be exactly what you were hoping for. I also have no problem spending good money to choose a "better cable" for it's improved physical or cosmetic properties, such as better construction, less tangling, better comfort, ideal length, the appropriate connectors, and microphonics, etc. But using CABLES to "EQ" your headphones, IEMs, or speakers makes absolutely no sense as long as the original cables are decent and usable. Engineers in a recording studio DO NOT immediately reach for a different cable when the spectral balance of the sound needs to be altered. They reach for their favorite EQ!
|
In this video the reviewer prefer a chinese EQ with tube to the Lokius...At less than half the cost... 130 bucks versus 299 bucks ... Diverse needs and diverse opinions indeed ... My system cost speakers,amplifiers,dacs, headphones all included is way under 1000 bucks... I am not interested to pay for a 1000 bucks EQ nor to buy a Lokius at his actual price ... The T8 seems better option at his cost and FOR ME and my system the best option ... Each audio system has his potentials...Mine is limited even if it is already so good i dont need upgrades at all cost ...I am on the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ... It would be ridiculous with my system to buy a Manley EQ at 10,000 bucks ...The owner of the Manley own a system aimed toward what i called : the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...
|
@mirolab Understood. Let talk about aesthetics. The Loki Max TO ME looks extremely cheap and small, not blending in well with my system. The Massive Passive is I’m sure a phenomenal piece of equipment but way to big and way to industrial looking for my taste. If I had a recording studio and doing mixes etc I’d definitely buy one. And I agree that what u said “ The MQ112 looks perfect in my system And sound beautiful. That is all that I needed. IMO. |
@tattooedtrackman Look at the SkyFi video at 49:00 and see what circuitry $3000 buys you, and then look at the Massive Passive video, and look at what $6000 buys you. There is certainly more than twice as much going on in the Manley unit! I'm not putting down the MQ112 at all.... I'm actually considering one! I got my MassPass used over 10 years ago, for around $2700. It sounds gorgeous, but you need 2 hands to drive it. You really want ganged controls for stereo program eq-ing. @stonyb3165 Proclaiming that a Loki Max is all "ANYONE" needs is a bit presumptuous. You could have just said "is all I need". Other people may have different needs, or sense of aesthetics. The Loki Max would look stupid in @tattooedtrackman beautiful system. The MQ112 looks perfect!!
|
@dgarretson Dont understand what u mean. >McIntosh : But where the money went into this design is clear. |
@dgarretson Oh ok because tlcocks said he checked out your gear. |
@dgarretson If u go on utube and search for McIntosh MQ112 Ski Fi audio. They have a video about 50 min of the MQ112. At the end of it they show u the inside. Also I do not see your system in your profile ? |
@tlcocks , thanks. I ventured into the Manley analog equalizer for home use by thinking of a Cello Palette, but stripped of the often degrading presence of OP amps. (Never heard one, however, so no harm no foul.) It is interesting that Mark Levinson, who began with the notion of hi-end audio as "a wire with gain", ended up marketing an equalizer preamp... Also, though not inexpensive, the Manley piece reflects the value proposition of pro studio gear, without the price-to-market premiums typically associated with high-end home audio. Which leads me to question of what’s inside the new McIntosh piece. I haven’t found any details. Has anyone looked inside? |
@dgarretson , I have checked out your gear. Wow. With that quality and a Manley MP in between pre and monos, I can ONLY IMAGINE what kind of insane SQ you are hearing. And with your ability to bend a curve, on such a hi fi rig, you can pretty much make most recordings sound any way you want! |
Most problems many audiophiles solve by "upgrading" at high cost, can be solved by room acoustics, tonal analog control and DSP as the Choueiri BACCH ... These three aspects of one solution have something in common : they are ground in the human hearing specifics... They are not tool you use once for the gear pieces ... They are permanent acoustics elements integrating all the others factors in one hearing experience ... |
@dgarretson , right on the money! Exactly! |
@tattooedtrackman , as long as they are electrically compatible with consumer hi fi, why not look at the whole field for all their diversity and choices? Some are more appropriate than others certainly |