Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

Yes, agreed to all. But I love having hi fi tone controls. I have learned in my experimentation with many different pro EQ’s that some certainly are more appropriate in post production playback than others. I think the less complex EQ coupled with good circuit design and quality parts can lead to a very musical and gratifying listening experience. While more complex instruments with more functions and more filters can be too clinical or analytical. My next steps in my hi fi evolution are trying room corrective digital EQ as I’ve previously mentioned, but at least as important, upgrading speaker cable or even speakers and streaming sources to provide the higher fidelity foundation BEFORE any EQ is dialed in. Luckily, I have had for a while now a SQ that I’m really into in a big way. 

@tlcocks 

No, I do not use a professional EQ in my home 2-ch system.  I have used EQ units (together with several other processors), principally in a recording studio setup, where any "processing effect", can be routed through a patch bay, and be inserted into a signal path.  Of course the studio setting is very different from a home set-up.  In the studio, the "raw" talent sources are always unique/different, so the engineer will select as necessary whatever processing my be required.  This is totally different from the playback of commercially (finished) mastered (analog or digital) music on our home systems.  It's the mastering engineer's job to produce masters that will be highly listenable on MANY different systems.  Whether your system can get the maximum sonic results out of the mastering engineers efforts is dependent on the synergy of the gear choices you make.  As you know, theoretically, if you have well matched speakers, amps, preamp, sources, and even cables, you should be able to experience the result the mastering engineer intended in a sonically pleasing fashion.      

Ok yes. I understand. Makes sense. 

@tlcocks  things like baffle step correction and the crossover is altering FR to blend the drivers.

Food for thought, "The more you limit a driver in the frequency domain, the less well defined it's output will be in the time domain" Stereophile Nov 2004.

My speakers cross over at 2.5 kHz. Dipole tweeters to midrange woofers. I only use a pro analog EQ for tone control. Did you mean somehow an equalizer built into the speakers?  I’m confused. 

If your speakers have a crossover chances are you are using an equalizer.

Having looked now at both manuals, it appears the Trinnov is easier to use and understand. It’s considerably pricier but with that SHOULD come better results sonically. Within the next year or less, I will buy and try a Trinnov Amethyst. 

Thanks Mike

@tlcocks  I think you are better off with a computer connected to it by USB. The ap has a steep learning curve. Using Dirac Live is easy, but getting use to the control functions of the SHD requires some learning as the program was written by Asians and they think differently then we do. I think trying to learn it on an iPad would slow you down. Once the SHD is full programmed to your liking all you need is the remote.

@mijostyn , so I’m looking at manual. You DO need a computer connected to the SHD via wired to use Dirac Live, yes?  iPad only a remote for basic functions?

@tlcocks You can use an iPad with any of them. I did not go with the Trinnov because their bass management was not versatile enough. The DEQX is not ready for prime time yet, but it will be the best of the bunch eventually. MiniDSP uses Dirac Live and it is easy to use. I currently recommend people get a MiniDSP SHD Studio and two high quality DACs like the Benchmarks or the Bricasti M1 if you have the money.  

Thinking Trinnov. You tell me. Also can operate Trinnov preamp from iPad. Like that. Don’t want use computer. 

@mijostyn , which sounds best?  Trinnov, Dirac, or the mini DSP?  I have conversed with the Trinnov dealer and have access. Want the one that SOUNDS best. Price no object. Want good tone curves superimposed on all the microphone measurements based correction. This DSP preamp correction will, once tuned in, be compared directly against my best analog EQ. 
Thanks Mike!

Best,

Tim

@tlcocks  The easiest system to use is Dirac Live. I know people who are using the MiniDSP SHD Studio and two high quality dacs with great success. It also streams and has a built in equalizer. I have personally set up two such systems and turned two rather pedestrian systems into exceptional performers given their price points. 

@jymc , do you have one that you use?

tatooedtrackman

First of all, I become irritated with information being based on these pages which boils down to primarily opinion.  Schitt was one of the first companies to recently re-introduce EQ toys into 2-channel home stereo.  Schitt is a consumer audio company who builds functional products perhaps for the hobbyist.  However, such a product (Loki max) falls far shorts of professional grade mastering EQs.  I know MANY who have invested tens of thousands (and some who've invested 6 figures) into their home 2 channel audio systems.  I believe you are selling yourself short if you fail to focus some of your research on professional fully balanced EQs used in professional recording and mastering studios.  Yes, they are more expensive but not financially out-of-reach for those who are already purchasing $25k turntables, DACs, streamers, mono block amplifiers, etc.   Neve, Chandler, BAE (to name a few devices) that come with high quality external power supplies, undoubtedly produce the best sonic results.  Pro EQ modules will not increase the noise floor in your system.  And the cardinal rule is that EQ should always be used "gently" so as to not destroy the musicality of your system.  Lastly, using EQ is a much more "precise and surgically appropriate" way to subtly tweak problem frequencies, versus spending thousands on changing out interconnect cables, power cables, etc as a means to achieving EQ changes (of sorts) on a hit-or-miss level, as many audiophiles often do.  I know of people who have gone so far as to change out their speakers due to their use of an overly bright amplifier, and vice versa. That is a very expensive way to achieve "imprecise" EQ changes that may not result in being close to the sound you are looking for.  

@mijostyn ,Mike, do you recommend any other DSP processing services/ software that’s nearly as good as DEQX and can be demoed in Florida?

Thanks,

Tim

I would love to hear what you’ve accomplished thus far. Also, if you ever come to know of someone in Florida doing what you’re doing with DEQX and can demo it then please let me know. I wish you the best of luck with your continued success with DEQX. 
I have had a great deal of fun exploring the various analog boxes. My curiosity over DSP remains strong though!

@tlcocks  It has and is still more of an adventure than I would like. We just got another update and it is improving. A lot of it is my fault. My system, because of its dipole line source nature, is difficult to measure the way their system demands. At this time I am having great success using its crossover and EQ to correct the speakers manually with the room control section on bypass. The DACs and sonic character of the unit are first class. Streaming Qobuz with Volumia is faultless. I got an old Shure V15 V MR and put a Jico SAS/B stylus on it. The MM phono stage sounds great although it could use a couple of dB more gain. 

From my experience with digital signal processing and target curves since 1996 I know exactly what I want to see and hear. I use both my hearing and amplitude measurement to adjust the EQ. I could never get what I want to hear without it. 

@mijostyn , any updates on your DEQX adventures?

I still though stand by my conclusion that CO PEQ-1 is a MORE MUSICAL sounding equalizer. Which, in the end, trumps detail/ resolution for me. 

Have reached new heights of audiophilism with the aforementioned Alice In Chains album with Wes in big rig. For 6 K you should with decent hi fi gear be able to get this album, which is recessed cymbals and decreased bass kick and forward mids due to loudness wars/ studio compression, to sound great. It’s even greater than before with the use of tube output combined with use of gain and iron pad dials. Great great feature on Wes. You turn up the gain say 3 dbs to slightly overdrive the tubes then iron pad attenuates that extra output. The end result is more resolute saturated mids and better bass heft. Meaning not only does it sound better but you can back off a tad on bass gain, always a good thing with EQ in general. AND every new move you make can be directly instantly compared to your last setting with the stored presets. 
And more importantly, I can be EXTREMELY exacting with listening and instant A-B comparisons as I sit in my listening spot with my Bryston remote and go back and forth with tape loop monitor button, toggling between the sound of my source > DAC > preamp > amp (purest way possible, true true bypass I call it) versus source > DAC > preamp > EQ (active) > amp. Note that pressing ‘Bypass’ on the EQ, the circuitry in this nomenclature looks like this: source > DAC > preamp > EQ in bypass > amp. 
I have been an utter mad scientist for days now with this thing, but what I’m getting out of it is incredible.

I have put the Wes Audio NGTubeEQ in the loudspeaker system. It’s even better there. Has SOTA resolution and musicality. Endlessly tweakable, if so desired. You can sonically sculpt the sound anyway you want with incredible fidelity. That’s what you get for 6 K in the hardware analog EQ department. Kudos!

Yep. Back to Charter Oak after all weekend with Wes. CO is with a sweeter air band, a tighter punchier bass and an overall more euphonic lovely sound. However it’s less of a detail monster than Wes, being essentially more rounded. I have always said the CO turns my solid state into the best sounding tube sound you’ll ever hear. It’s a very sophisticated sound. Beautiful sheen and gloss. Can’t honestly say which unit I like best. Both. For different reasons.

Am enjoying the heck out of this instrument. It is a joy to equalize with such a precision high end device. It is so clean and accurate. BUT…I still love the CO sound!  I love both of these equalizers!  The CO is more rounded but more euphonic. The bell curves on it sound beautiful. The CO has an air of sophistication to its sound that’s hard to deny. I will never get rid of my two. 
I am now playing with tube mode on the Wes and have emulated my same settings but backed down on the bass Q width. Treble filter identical. NOW, this mode sounds really great!  Such fun! 

You will love CO in your system. Actually, my headphone chain is higher fidelity than my loudspeaker system. So I’m taking my time soaking up the best SQ I’ve ever heard on headphones for a bit longer. But the Wes will be checked out in the big rig though. Don’t worry!  Actually, I’m afraid it’ll sound so amazing there that I’ll be inclined to go a little crazy and buy one for there too!  Uhhh, then the divorce and the REAL cost begins!!

Enjoyed reading that and Dirt(Rooster!!!!) is one of my fav albums so i totally follow what you are saying. Really happy Wes is working out for you and i hope CO works in my system which should also be motivating for me to one day try Wes too! 

Looking forward your impressions hooked up to big system.  

Yes, the NGTubeEQ is something. I am currently listening to Alice In Chains - Dirt on it. I have chosen with this album, as I’ve always done with it, to get very aggressive with the U shape. I’ve never though enjoyed cuts with any equalizer, either in bands or master gain. I have always found that that sounds worse than boosts with a high quality EQ. This new EQ is no different in this respect. Essentially I build two tone dials with the EQ. Bass and treble. That’s how I like to do it. Others may do it differently. The challenge with this method is clean boosts without distortion or blurred mids from phase shift. My CO has always done this unbelievably well. Now back to the album Dirt. The Wes does it even better with extreme settings. There is zero distortion that I hear. Zero phase shift that I hear. The best way I can state it is it’s as if the band took a time machine to the modern day, and mixed and mastered all over again in the studio with one of the best studio engineers. The album is modernized. It is rich, layered, textured, nuanced. It is full throated. The mids have taken zero damage. IT DOESN’T SOUND EQUALIZED. No artificial etch. No blurring. No phase shift. It sounds DEEP too. Not 2-D like many digital algorithms impose. Or cheaper analog solutions impose. THIS EQ IS THE REAL DEAL. I’m fairly flabbergasted. It sounds BETTER in all audiophile respects when engaged as compared to true bypass. Is it louder?  Yes, because I’ve not cut master gain, which even on this unit denigrates SQ. The key point here is thankfully I don’t have to because 6 grand buys you rails of power and massive headroom. Oh, and all comments are wrt the SS output. Not tube output. Don’t like the tube output. Stock tubes are JJ. I can and will do better and one day roll them. I’m in no hurry though, with what I’m hearing!

And a big thank you once again to tlcocks who single-handedly is responsible my latest audio acquisition Charter Oak PEQ-1

Can`t wait to hear CO in my 118db horn system. I am expecting huge failure (noise?) or either huge success, due to several reasons, mainly since there is so much inherent/available headroom within this system.  

That Wes EQ just looks STUNNING one of the best looking pieces ever imo and with so many features and possible settings. If sounds on par with CO, as Tim states, and i for one believe him, then this really must be a sure upgrade for him. Albeit a bit pricey but hey...

So congrats to you too Tim! 

And a big congratulations goes out to @petieboy12003 for his purchase of that 2018 Charter Oak which he and I verified that Mike Deming made. I now have played with enough EQs, including the most recent Wes Audio, to say with assurance that Pete just bought one of the very best sounding hardware equalizers on the planet. As I suspected and have now proven you have to spend 6 K to get something that sounds like my beloved CO. No wonder I’ve been so in love with this piece for over 10 years!

I have been demoing the Wes Audio NGTubeEQ the last 3 days. It is Uber expensive but what you get is a super clean sounding unit with all the musicality of my Charter Oaks, in other words amazing SQ. It is finicky at first as a full parametric with a gazillion permutations on how to set it up. I won’t lie. It has been 3 full days of intensive tinkering to get it dialed in. Now that I have it dialed in I can say it sounds utterly amazing. As it should for 6 grand. But the greatest thing about this unit is that you can give it huge bass boosts if necessary and it won’t distort the line like the CO sometimes would with loud compressed rock recordings. For 6 K the Wes is bulletproof against this kind of distortion. Love it!

Pete, I have info from Mike, if you’ll reach back out to me in private 

For all the unit’s rails of power and with it using passive circuitry and high quality inductors, it should be able to do air band with aplomb. 

Pete, I sure hope the person you spoke with re the Wes is wrong!  You and I are cut from the same cloth when it comes to HF air band!

@petieboy12003 , I will get back with you on that unit. Need to research it further 

"I am hoping your YouTube observations with HF with the Wes involved them demoing a treble shelf, not bell"

Yes me too! But we will know all answers soon. There was one guy already responded to me who knows the Wes and other popular EQ`s. He says the Wes won`t really do what CO, MA, Maag etc do in the HF, specifically Air band sound, he said it is not that kind of EQ even though it is extended in HF hmmm.

Me personally i could care less what other features the EQ has. If it does not have the best purest HF then it would be 100% deal breaker for me. 

 So yes it will be very interesting what you determine.

BTW i also love the fact the Wes uses 12au7 and 12at7. Two of my special favorite ever signal tubes belong in these families and i bet would sound great in this unit.

If this thing is capable as good or better HF than these other EQ`s then i would be soooo tempted to buy one too it looks crazy!  But as i said i will trust your opinions before dreaming anything silly hahaha.  

Yes i think we are on the same page and i am on the right track as you say.

Hey there is currently a 2018 PEQ-1 similar to yours on Reverb. Serial 1186.

Any good? 

Last comment, Pete, on your comments on how the treble sounded on the YouTube videos of Mike Deming demoing the Charter Oak. Mike used broad bells for all the bands. No shelf filters. My experience comparing the CO with the Avalon and Millennia EQs was that for HF boosts, bell sounds more natural than shelf. I love that the Wes gives you that option on every band, including HF band. I am hoping your YouTube observations with HF with the Wes involved them demoing a treble shelf, not bell. 

Regarding the YouTube videos, they are somewhat helpful, but ultimately one needs the gear in one’s home on one’s system. Yes, my 2 CO’s have that amazing treble dial, with its sparkle and beauty. The Michelangelo did that really really well also. CO could hit deeper and harder with the bass dials though. Without noticeable phase effects/ mids blurring. The MA could do same up to a point. Really great piece of kit it is as well. 

Pete, THANK YOU for your kindest of words!  Yes this whole thing when implemented correctly is a great passion of mine. Using this gear really opens up the too often boxed, sterile sound of the straight signal. I listen to a lot of rock and for this genre I cannot live without high end EQ. It’s that simple!  Yes, the loudness switch on my old Kenwood integrated was a gem as well. I used it ‘on’ while putting a JVC 10 band in the tape loop back in the 80’s, and that is what started my journey that I’ve been on ever since. Many years ago I resurrected that exact 80’s stereo and compared it sonically to the CO Bryston combo. As much as I loved that old stereo, the modern day set up blew it away. Even without a loudness switch!  So I would say to you thank you, and you’re on the right track. I will provide feedback on the Wes next week. Very much look forward to doing so!

Just 1 quick observation, and i know it`s only YouTube and also early days, but so far listening to demo`s of the Wes ng i just don`t YET hear the same HF purity and sparkle as i hear in demo`s with the Charter Oak where HF always seems to sound pretty damn nice!  But don`t want to judge anything on this so i shall eagerly await your own real life observations which i think i can trust. 

Also really looking forward your impression and comparison of the Wes ng TubeEQ. This thing looks frigging AMAZING  

Great thread thoroughly enjoyed reading the past couple days.

Really hope it continues...

Hats off to you tlcocks for your steadfast contribution providing so much informative and logical content on this somewhat controversial topic. Myself i can relate to things you are explaining, admittedly more in a isolated discerning way, as i have virtually zero personal experience with such EQ`s. Coming more from a stand point of simply being `aware` the digital i am listening to could/should be better regardless the quality of system. I actually have one of the more up there hi-end digital systems here in Australia.

Have attended many events tried endless combinations of equipment cables tubes tweaks etc  over many years trying to reach the most pleasing balance which to be fair has often been quite satisfactory - but again - still always KNOWING deep down it could/should be better. Not in a technical way more in a natural way with what `I` find pleasing.

I still remember the first time hearing my fathers vintage Sansui 555A integrated amplifier as a teenager with efficient speakers. It has always stayed with me since. These amps seem to have have a nicely deployed integrated EQ (at least compared to so many others vintage or modern amps) specifically with it`s  `loudness` switch nicely elevating 50Hz & 15kHz.

Using the bass treble(especially treble) dials (albeit set at different frequencies) are just not the same thing sounding rather ordinary even dirty and distracting. But the loudness switch here brings a more vibrant natural delicate sparkle where female vocal/snare/cymbal in particular seem to benefit. Also more overall sweetness with  a more rich full sound and more enjoyable punchy detailed bass than it already has. 

This pre/EQ simply makes most recordings sound more pleasing to the ear especially with classic rock (my favorite) even if it does somewhat restrict areas of my systems potential. Funny because most `audiophiles` would never dream of inserting such old `inferior distortion box` into the chain. From personal experience i always prefer it in rather than out - even in 100K + system. In fact, imo, this vintage unit kind of shines in this situation and connected to carefully selected hi-end cabling/AC delivery. Exclusively not used for amplification only pre/EQ.

Oh and out of curiosity i also loaned a shiit Lokius a while back and yeah returned the thing post-haste  as my old rust bucket(not really) Sansui with it`s mere loudness switch simply sounds better! To this day i still often use this recapped Sansui not only for it`s inviting rich tone but yes mainly the loudness EQ function as described.  

Obviously my situation using this less than ideal EQ method is not comparable to what tlcocks has been experiencing with CO and other pro EQ`s, which atm i can only imagine, but again, even from such little experience i just instinctively KNOW what he is saying is true accurate and that i will really appreciate something like the CO - even without first hearing.

In the end you, tlcocks, have thoroughly inspired me to seek out a nice pro EQ for my hi-end system, and my audio journey, with little doubt i shall one day finally, safely, put away my old Sansui `distortion box` and end up much more thoroughly enjoying my system.

So big thanks with respect to you -such effort/perseverance - and of course all who have contributed to this fun thread so far. Looking forward to more!!

Pete

I have made a huge decision. As the MA is a lateral move from my CO in the final analysis. Each has different strengths. I couldn’t stop looking, however, at the Wes Audio NGTubeEQ. So I traded in the MA for it. It comes Monday. It has serious rails of power, all passive bands with custom inductors, SS output as well as tube output. It has all kinds of features I may never use. But I think this thing is the real deal. Oh and it does bells or shelves on all four bands. +/- 15 db each band. Or switch to 5 db mode for finer tuning. Most importantly, it can operate as a stereo program EQ where the right controls are slave to the left and auto adjust to your left settings in real time perfect level matched. It arrives Monday and I cannot wait! 

@deep_333 
It is true that every recording has been equalized out the wazoo.

However, your audio system should have reached the point where you not only hear the audio engineer's decisions from one recording to the next, but sometimes even the equipment he or she used (I have a jazz musician/composer friend who amazes me with his ability to identify the microphones used), to the point where you might say either "Wow" or "Why did they do that?" Either way, it sounds "accurate", as in, what was heard in the studio, even if it is not a sound that you agree with. It is at that point that the equalizer steps in.

I am at the point where my speaker shelving suffices.

I have two DBX equalizers from the 1980s. One of them was I believe the best that there was at the time. I can sell one of them to you at a steep discount so that you can mess with it and see if it works for you. I haven't used either in decades, so I will have my audio engineer bench test it first to male sure it is functioning as it should and certainly not DOA.

Oh, and I’m posting on Gearspace forums now. Quite fun, talking analog EQ mojo with recording engineers, some famous. 

Further thoughts on CO and MA. CO’s mids hold together better with larger bass boosts. No winners here. Calling it a tie. MA sounds better with milder EQ. Both great pieces. 

Genius quote from Chris Henderson at Hendyamps. When I posed the question of digital vs analog EQ in the studio, this was his response. Enjoy:
 

“Honestly, digital and analog are two completely different beasts.  When you want precision tools that can break the laws od physics, then you need digital.  When you want a tonal enhancement and intangible “mojo” then analog is the way.  I have been a part of the process in designing the Oven and the Michelangelo digital emulations and while the final product is excellent, you are still in the world of trying to make an emulation of something else.  And this emulation is extremely limited by the ability to actually capture all nuance of boiling electrons and quantum field interactions on a fundamental level, which will never produce results that satisfy serious engineers and serious hifi consumers.  It really is that simple. They are amazing products, but it is much like wanting to fly an F-16 fighter jet and then claiming that the high end simulator is the same as flying the actual jet.”

@jtcf, I also have had evenings with friends and family like that as well. You know you have gear that is doing something special when this happens. Great feeling!  Enjoy. API is renowned in studio circles and makes great gear. 

Thanks @jtcf for the response. And @unreceivedogma, you are right. Whatever works for you. I am just hoping to save any other avid EQers some trial and error, as I’ve made it my sub hobby to explore as many high end hardware EQs as I can. To both of you, happy listening!