Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

I use dedicated audio gear. Not computer savvy and exclusively stream Qobuz. Is the BACCH preamp as good as you approach?

Which route you go?

@scottwheel ,

https://www.theoretica.us/bacch-dsp/

I will report my impressions on skyline M3D vs my Charter Oak as soon as I can. M3D ships TODAY. I can hardly contain my excitement!Looking forward to it!

. I finally decided to order a Lokius just to take a tentative first step. If the results show promise then maybe move on to something else with more fine tuning.

“ So @scottwheel , you have a BACCH preamp?  And obviously you like?  I may try this before playing with DEQX.  we are in the golden age!  So much good technology! “

I have the BACCH4Mac which runs through an RME Fireface UCX II digital interface and a Mac Mini CPU. Saying I like it does not put the proper perspective on it. Once you have lived with it there is no going back. Conventional stereo and Dolby Atmos simply sound broken in comparison 

I will report my impressions on skyline M3D vs my Charter Oak as soon as I can. M3D ships TODAY. I can hardly contain my excitement!

So @scottwheel , you have a BACCH preamp?  And obviously you like?  I may try this before playing with DEQX.  we are in the golden age!  So much good technology!

Yes. The over compressed loud rock records are also harder to make sound “right” even with the analog studio EQ I use. Back to DAW and true remaster better, but I’ll never do that. Miro forte there. Great discussion!

incidentally, for said rock albums described above, I STILL think they sound better than flat doing post production analog EQ. There’s just less headroom to play with. Potential for distortion with too much boost. 

@mirolab Good to hear your experiences. I totally agree about over-compression. I've pretty much given up buying modern rock and pop releases because of them being over compressed and over eq'd. It's like a cheap wine, a big burst of fruit and then....nothing.

An alternative to having an equaliser in the system is to take the recording into a DAW and remaster it oneself.

@yoyoyaya Yes, I do this on occasion, but it's more of an offline project, rather than simple pleasure listening.  One group that I really love is Jamiroquai.  They've produced 8 CDs from 1993 to 2017.  But... they have a "sound" that is very rolled off in the highs.  As much as I love their music, I don't love the dark sound.  I imported all the CDs into my DAW, and it was very interesting to notice the increasing loudness as the years went by. The latest two CDs are sadly over-compressed.

So THEN....  I "remastered" my Jamiroquai catalog to a sound that is to my liking, and I goosed the loudness of the early records, just a bit, without sacrifice.  For this I used digital plugins, of which I have many.  Most likely I used Eiosis AirEQ, and the Sonnox Limiter for increased loudness.  The newest album from 2017 is already too loud and bright, and is beyond any repair!!  I love the music though.  

It makes me sick to my stomach that we've been given this gift of tremendous resolution and dynamic range in CDs and HiRes audio, and yet the music is being distorted and compressed into 6 or 7 dB of dynamic range.  But that's a topic for a whole-nuther thread!  

“ @scottwheel , what digital system do you use? “

I use a few DSP plugins that are modeled after old classic analog equalizers for flavor and I use the internal EQ on my BACCH SP for correction

I am seeing a fair amount of discussion on the BACCH SP in this thread. I will chime in with my opinion on it. I think it is arguably the biggest breakthrough in spatial audio playback since the invention of stereo. But the BACCH works best when room interaction with the speakers and listener are minimized. The goal of the BACCH system is to extract the spatial cues on the recording as completely and accurately as possible. To do this the spatial cues of the listening room need to reduced as much as possible for optimal effect. While I am in favor of EQ as the final application of frequency response corrections as much correction as possible should come from the speaker design and room acoustics. EQ is best used for room target curves and flavoring for personal preferences. 

@scottwheel was commenting specifically on DIGITAL EQ. your MQ112 (for those catching up) is ANALOG

@tlcocks All i use is the MQ112. 

And @tattooedtrackman , do you use digital EQ as well as the analog MQ112?

@scottwheel , what digital system do you use?

@scottwheel. I feel the same way. I also feel that is DOES NOT degrade my system in any way. Actually I feel it ADDS more to it in every way. 

100% in favor of digital EQ

I have experience only with mechanical room tuning not electronical...

I will use a dsp as a tool for room correction but not and never as the main acoustic corrections ...

Then i believe your friend Ed ...

No acoustician work a room with only a DSP correction ...

No DSP can replace room acoustics mechanical controls, only refine it thats all ...

There is a scientific reason for this : the ears/brain work in their own way which workings cannot be replaced by a Fourier set of linear maps ...

This is as i already said why i believe you about analog EQ over purely digital EQ ...

I am not an expert for sure but i know how to tune my room ..

Regarding DSP for speaker and room correction:

The following is from Ed to me at Audible Images in Melbourne FL. I have heard the best sounding system of any showroom in FL at Ed’s. I trust his judgment and his ear absolutely implicitly. The following is what he said. It leaves open the question of the newer forthcoming DEQX vs Trinnov. It seems Trinnov is the best he’s heard. Here it is:

“ Tim,
I have tried room EQ with several different products. Audessy, DIRAC , Room Perfect and the Trinnov. In my opinion the room correction is more destructive than corrective. The Trinnov was impressive in its capability to manipulate the sound in every way. However it did not sound very good. We consistently prefer the sound with the room EQ disabled. I can hear the sound quality change for the worse when it is engaged. I typically hear some grain added and slight glare overlaying the sound. I tend to push my customers into letting me place the speakers and subwoofers where they sound best so I usually do not end up with major issues to deal with. I have used the EQ in some subwoofers in certain circumstances with decent results.
Thanks
Ed ”

Perhaps back to what I originally said?  Get the room right and then tonally EQ to your heart’s desire with a Skyline M3D or other great studio analog tool. This particular approach I’ve been in love with for a decade. There must be SOMETHING right about it!  
incidentally, I will still try DEQX as I said I would so I can hear for myself. Also, I just bought a Skyline M3D from Revive Audio folks. CANNOT WAIT to hear how it compares to my Charter Oak. Thanks for the tip, Miro!

Regarding DSP for speaker and room correction:
 

The following is from Ed to me at Audible Images in Melbourne FL. I have heard the best sounding system of any showroom in FL at Ed’s. I trust his judgment and his ear absolutely implicitly. The following is what he said. It leaves open the question of the newer forthcoming DEQX vs Trinnov. It seems Trinnov is the best he’s heard. Here it is:

“ Tim, 
I have tried room EQ with several different products. Audessy, DIRAC , Room Perfect and the Trinnov. In my opinion the room correction is more destructive than corrective. The Trinnov was impressive in its capability to manipulate the sound in every way. However it did not sound very good. We consistently prefer the sound with the room EQ disabled. I can hear the sound quality change for the worse when it is engaged. I typically hear some grain added and slight glare overlaying the sound. I tend to push my customers into letting me place the speakers and subwoofers where they sound best so I usually do not end up with major issues to deal with. I have used the EQ in some subwoofers in certain circumstances with decent results. 
Thanks 
Ed ”

@pooch2 Thats the way I feel about the Mac MQ112. It’s very simple to use and I love the way it fits into my system. 

I would like to have a remote for the Schiit lokuis, but I like the simplicity of it the way it is. I am sure I would also like the Max with the remote, I am always torn between convenience and simplicity. 1st world problems.

@pooch2 I would have bought the Schiit Loki max if I didn’t hear about the McIntosh Q112. I am very happy with it but it woulda been nice to have a remote. 

I have been using the Schiit Lokuis for a number of years and find it a valuable  item, when needed, and when not - Bypass, Simple.

The right amount of air band in such gear opens up the ENTIRE mix, top to bottom, to better SQ. Timbre improvements too as the missing supra auricular harmonics and highest octave textures that are missing are restored.

Again, sorry the million posts. I’m still impassioned, and when good verbiage to express my listening impressions comes to mind, I have to type it. 

It’s simply intoxicating. I can listen to my favorite music for hours and never get bored. It’s a beautiful thing. 

Charter Oak that I have is a very powerful equalizer. In other words you can boost a treble band up to +19 db with NO audible distortion and the resulting SQ is still hi fi, no significant loss of staging, dynamics or image resolution. While in that scenario of full boost that the treble is obviously too much for most records, it still sound GOOD. Still sweet, clean, undistorted, integrated well with the mids to still sound highly musical. It’s just remarkable. Of course, these are the reasons some sound engineers prefer this as the “final act.”  All I can say is I can certainly see why. 

“I use Electrostatic speakers because their distortion levels are a level of magnitude lower than dynamic speakers if run correctly (no low bass). There are no analog crossovers in my system. RIAA correction is done digitally. I can record vinyl to the hard drive in 192/24 and nobody has been able to tell the difference between the recording and the actual record. Once you are in numbers you can go almost anywhere you want. I use 10th order slopes for the subwoofer crossover, virtually impossible to do in analog. ”

Again, this kind of material stated here tells me you know your stuff, and I’m highly impressed. I think you are on to something as well. I wish I could HEAR your system. I promise to learn more about higher order digital EQ. Right now I’m working through the 1 hour 50 minute video “Understanding the State of the Art of Digital Room Correction” by Accurate Sound on YouTube 

“The vast majority of albums are now recorded digitally and most music is now listened to via digital program sources. It makes no sense to keep going back and forth between digital and analog. In digital you can easily do all the processing without adding any artifact whereas every time you pass the signal through an analog device there is always added artifact. Just a fact of life. However, some people actually like listening to distortion and that is their prerogative.”

This is one of the most hotly contested issues in mastering studios today. The internet is FULL of debate on the merits of passing the signal through a high quality analog circuit to put finishing touches or air on a record. You can call it euphonic distortion. Others call it realism or beauty. Miro says just passing the signal through his Great River (flat) improves the sound. Many studio engineers have said the same online. I know what my ears hear, and I’m AS MUCH excited by what I hear in my system now as I was several years ago when I started with the Charter Oak. The passion says it all. And my previous anecdotes should be instructive as well. Let’s just agree to disagree on this point.  Happy Thanksgiving!

“For $300 you can get yourself a calibrated microphone, computer program and measure your system to see what it is doing. I promise you, you will be very surprised. Flat is a reference point. Units like the DEQX will go there automatically as a starting point. No system/room is flat to begin with and in some cases are so bad even digital EQ can not correct it all the way.”

I have no doubt all this is exactly correct. Well stated

I have indeed had my hearing checked. I hear properly up to 15-16 K. Thanks for the suggestion. No issues there. I correct for ROLLED OFF RECORDS. Your knowledge and insights have stimulated me to look in more depth at room corrective digital applications. Hope your stuffing turns out well!

@tlcocks 

I have played with analog EQ and the units back then did not please anyone present. We did adjust things in sort of an analog way by adjusting the gains on the crossovers, all Mark Levinson designed by Mr Curl. We had no way of measuring back then. USB microphones were decades away. 

I know exactly what my system and room are doing because I measure it and have printed readouts of each individual speaker. Digital EQ is adjusted so that both channels are identical from 100 Hz to 12 kHz. In just about all residencial sized rooms at volumes in and around 90 dB flat is going to have thin bass and the highs will make you wince. There are a few records that were mixed at high volume and sound dull at low levels. The solution is to turn the volume up. If you think flat is not bright I would have your hearing checked or have your system measured, It is rolling off the high end. Many systems will do this depending on the impedance curve of the speaker and the output impedance of the amplifier. This is one big reason some people prefer tube amplifiers. For $300 you can get yourself a calibrated microphone, computer program and measure your system to see what it is doing. I promise you, you will be very surprised. Flat is a reference point. Units like the DEQX will go there automatically as a starting point. No system/room is flat to begin with and in some cases are so bad even digital EQ can not correct it all the way. 

The vast majority of albums are now recorded digitally and most music is now listened to via digital program sources. It makes no sense to keep going back and forth between digital and analog. In digital you can easily do all the processing without adding any artifact whereas every time you pass the signal through an analog device there is always added artifact. Just a fact of life. However, some people actually like listening to distortion and that is their prerogative. I am of the other school and seek to minimize any distortion anywhere in the system I can. I use Electrostatic speakers because their distortion levels are a level of magnitude lower than dynamic speakers if run correctly (no low bass). There are no analog crossovers in my system. RIAA correction is done digitally. I can record vinyl to the hard drive in 192/24 and nobody has been able to tell the difference between the recording and the actual record. Once you are in numbers you can go almost anywhere you want. I use 10th order slopes for the subwoofer crossover, virtually impossible to do in analog. 

In the end the system is adjusted to my preference, by ear. Subwoofer gain is adjusted by ear. Treble roll off is adjusted by ear. However, since I have measure the system I can go to the proper curve automatically without listening. 

Now back to making a turkey stuffing. 

“ Yes I am still loving the MQ112. It is the best accessory that I could have bought to do exactly as it is supposed to do. And I love the looks and quality of it also to blend into my existing ARC components. ”

AWESOME!

Yes. Agree with that totally. My system always makes dull records sound better and more fun and engaging. But you’re right. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig😊. Happy Thanksgiving all!

An alternative to having an equaliser in the system is to take the recording into a DAW and remaster it oneself. The difficulty with any form or post production equalisation, whether permanent or on the fly, is that if a track sounds bad, the problems are usually from the recording and mixing phase. And if the mastering engineer couldn't solve those, one is probably stuck with them. In my experience, you can make a really bad recording sound less bad, but you'll never make it sound good.

@tlcocks Yes I am still loving the MQ112. It is the best accessory that I could have bought to do exactly as it is supposed to do. And I love the looks and quality of it also to blend into my existing ARC components. 

@tattooedtrackman , still loving the MQ112?

“EQ is one thing. Proper room correction is another. I use both in my main system. “
totally agreed

Also I had the smaller Schiit for a minute. It was pretty transparent and subtle. Not sure I’d go $1500 for the expanded version. 

EQ is one thing. Proper room correction is another. I use both in my main system. 

“I also would be willing to bet most studios are using digital equipment at this point. The analog stuff is being or has been phased out except in specialty studios dedicated to analog of which there are a few, not including MoFi😏”

@mijostyn , ALL studios use digital EQ. More for surgical corrections and more in the mixing phase. The mastering stage is where analog EQ really can shine. You read what Watts said. You’ve read what I’ve said. It’s hugely written about online. It’s fact that many mastering engineers prefer the sonics of analog for broad Q tonal sculpting in the final stages of production. And for treble/air sculpting, there are a few standout pieces that are legendary in the treble region. Maag and Charter Oak have been raved about online. You really don’t see such a love like that for different digital platforms. Not for broad Q treble sculpting. Many mastering engineers will use digital to make some of the curves of changes you make but then add the air with the Maag, for example. Probably some of the best recordings involve this approach. These are the kind of things you’ll read if you chose to do so. 

I have no problem with equalizers for adjusting recordings. And despite the conspiratorial (mis)beliefs of those who deny room acoustics and speak of 'the Room Treatment Cabal', an equalizer can only impact the input into a room, not the acoustical output of the room that we hear. An equalizer cannot fix bad acoustics.

Sorry if I get so intense here. But I’m very very passionate about my approach.

I like passionnate person if they are of good faith and open mind as you are ...

And @mahgister , your aptitude in articulating psycho acoustic theory blows my mind! Indeed there are so interesting folks here!

I am not an acoustician... Just a dude experimenting for an acoustic room designed with no money...But i am fascinated by the relation between physical acoustics, psycho-acoustics and not only music but speech and mathematics ...I advised students on reading as a job 😊 ... I was always more interested by links between fields than by too specialized details ...You cannot advise on reading a mathematics student and a poetry student or a linguistic student without making links between their subject and a question connected to a complete other fields to interest them in a book out of their field to stimulate them ...For a mathematic students for example i can use egyptian mathematic to blew their mind or the Archimedes method or many others questions ...

If you were a student in medecine for example i will recommend to you a book not too far from medecine but out of it, and the book would be so surprizing you will be motivated more and you will fall of your chair reading it born again to medecine ... It could be a book on seeds or why not morphology ... Or a method about observing nature ...Or a book about perception .. etc

Retirement was a punishment for me... And here some pay the price of my isolation ...😊

Sorry if I get so intense here. But I’m very very passionate about my approach. I still believe after years of accumulated listening experience with many different hi fi systems that my approach yields a uniquely special and very intoxicating (and yes, very hi fi) sound. 

And @mahgister , your aptitude in articulating psycho acoustic theory blows my mind!  Indeed there are so interesting folks here!

@mijostyn , I am impressed by your aptitude with implementing biamping and crossover techniques. These are things I know little about. I’ll bet your system does indeed sound really great. Probably different than mine. I might could beat you on some recordings that are older and lacking in tonality. But really great more modern recordings I’ll bet with the knowledge you’ve applied that your system really shines😊. I still think the analog air band in hi fi is “magic sauce.”  Well anyway, I’d be cool in a parallel universe to switch systems for a stretch and see what we learn. 
so you were an FP as well?  CONGRATS on being retired. So you’re in Fl as well?  Miami?

The best studio analog EQ 9-13 grand all made with the highest quality parts and would rival the best hi fi gear. Research that too online. This should be obvious. I think, anyway 

“Flat is boring and usually too bright. “

If this is true then your system is not flat. Plain and simple 

“I also would be willing to bet most studios are using digital equipment at this point. The analog stuff is being or has been phased out except in specialty studios dedicated to analog of which there are a few, not including MoFi😏”

@mijostyn , you are frankly in flat out denial over the importance of analog EQ in mastering studios. Please do yourself a favor and research that online. You will see what I mean.