Go get out your pitchforks, I’ve done a sacrilegious thing. . .

Good to hear. Glad your enjoying it and thanks for posting 

Shame on you. A public flogging is a more appropriate punishment!

If it's good for you, it's good fir you! Enjoy!

On another forum I read that attaching pennies to the knobs helps stabilize the soundstage.  There was a heated debate of BluTack vs. Gorilla Glue.

So then you haven’t heard it and have no idea. Check. 

👍

@last_lemming 

Based on your outcome it seems both a wise and very cost effective solution. Congratulations.

Charles

I'm not at all surprised you're being ostracized. In fact I wouldn't expect anything else.

Personally I prefer this approach over Audyssey, Dirac and other room correction options that compromise sound quality.

Six bands are not going to be narrow enough to tame the those pesky peaks.

Play white noise or a sweep tone with a quality microphone and use an analytical app to see how the frequency response is being changed.

A man must have his tools to correct that which needs adjustment.

Awwww Schiit….

The high and mighty types looking down their noses at those using EQ are pathetic. Do what makes your system sound how you want it to sound and what fits in your budget. Ignore the snobs, they're part of what's wrong with this hobby.

Enjoy it.

As an early Loki enthusiast I have 2 of 'em (original and "+"). Great and absolutely transparent bit of gear, one for my TV rig and another for headphones and general EQ when needed in my main hifi system. Although the "Max" isn't cheap I bet it's fun to sit there and remote control things...note I also have Heresy IIIs (better mids than the IVs I had for a couple of months) and a Bifrost II.

@last_lemming 

I was drawn to your post to see what responses you promoted.

However, your comment "It’s dead quiet, and I can’t discern the difference in bypass mode either." has me confused. Please can you provide clarification?

The last lemming jumped off the deep end.

I’ve used equalizers for room correction. I’ve settled on a couple Rane ME60s for two of my systems. They do the job -- 30 sliders per channel at 1/3 octave intervals. Great pro build quality with minimal unwanted impact on sound quality.

I've got 2 8024 Behringers...one 'listens' to the room while the other corrects for it.  Both digital, both leave no trace of being in the path.

But I'm one of those heretics' that believe fancy cables are just esoteric eq....*L* 

What are some of the settings that you are using? 

Boosting bass and treble for low volume listening?

Rolling off the top end?

Boosting the midrange for added warmth?

I don’t know why we or some audiophiles shun equalization. Same thing for the dreaded loudness switch that I lived for when I was young. Equalization is liberating. Embrace it and have fun! That’s what the hobby is all about, at least for me. 

I have an original Loki, and I find it useful in my main system as a tone control, mostly for rolling off the highs that hurt my ears on certain recordings, but also for ‘taming’ voices (usually male) that grate a bit, and finally to boost, or quell the bass, again, to ‘tune a track’ or ‘tame an artist (or album).’ If I’m having problems with the room, I’ll use the balance control. Otherwise I’ll ‘adjust my ears,’ if you know what I mean. 
 

I don’t find the Loki to be dead quiet in my main system, a bit of graininess pops up when I switch it into the system, which I attribute to it’s solid-state construction, it raises the noise floor just a little. It is a relatively small price to pay considering its benefits, and especially considering the price I paid for it. I’ve wondered whether or not to step up to the Lokius or the Loki Max. I can switch my Loki in and out with my main system remote, but it would certainly be nice to make adjustments from the listening position. Perhaps then I could join you in employing it for room correction. 🙂

I must admit that I can’t really make sense out of Schiit’s technical explanation of the Loki Max circuit topology except for the description of their fancy inductors, although I am intrigued by the fact that it seems mostly passive. 
 

Thank you for sharing your experience. 

Another convert here.  I have the Max for three weeks now.  It does work well for bad acoustics, no speaker placement options and no room treatments allowed crowd.  Remote presets!  Priceless.  

I have 3 tube preamps, all with tape monitor switches and/or processor loops and a Loki+ which I agree is a useful and sonically uncompromising device. Only one of my preamps has tone controls of its own, and Loki is more subtle in its action, so I prefer it to the built- ins. 
AVA Super PAS, VTL 2.5, Marantz 7C. 

Does it work for all the types of music you listen to on one setting or do you have to keep adjusting with different songs? If so isn’t that too much of a hassle ?

I agree that if your listening room can't be properly acoustically treated because of your wife, the Loki Max would be a welcome addition.  Or celibacy a welcome subtraction. 

@ronboco Asks a great question. I have a Loki also, but am reluctant to fiddle with it from song to song.

@ronboco , Asks a good question.
With albums all being mixed differently, how often do you find yourself tweaking a knob?

Regarding making adjustments for each record, Loki Max biggest selling point is definitely the remote control. Would not ever want an equalizer, but if I did, a remote control to operate it would be an absolute necessity.

@oldrooney I must admit that I can’t really make sense out of Schiit’s technical explanation of the Loki Max circuit topology except for the description of their fancy inductors, although I am intrigued by the fact that it seems mostly passive

I have no inherent opposition to equalizers (Altough I do not utilize one). Seems to me they are like any other audio product in that they can range from poor to excellent performance and implementation. 

The Loki Max offers convenient remote operation. I am curious to know what the actual sonic performance gap between it and the lower cost Loki + model would be. I also wonder how the Loki models compare to the alternative digital room correction approach in terms of bottom-line effectiveness. Loki seems a less complex  and simpler path.

Charles

I've never experienced an absolutely transparent component, can't believe this has absolutely no sound signature.

@ bobpyle

I meant when the EQ is set to flat and switched to bypass mode there is no difference in sound or transparence. Obviously once I start messing with the controls and turn off bypass you can certainly hear all the corrections you’ve made.

To the others asking about do I change it from song to song, no I do not really. The system sounded really great to begin with and only needed minor alterations to the frequency to sound best in the room, so I adjusted the EQ over several songs I know to be high-quality songs and basically left it like that. Now this doesn’t mean I won’t fiddle with the settings ever, but this is what I found to work best so far. 

Thanks for your comments. Your systems look great. Lots of folks love the Loki. I am fortunate enough not to need one.

My past experience was always negative with equalizers… sounds like they are getting better.

@last_lemming

The naysayers kinda crack me up. I mean ALL of the music you listen to and love is EQ’d (also there is no Easter Bunny).

As long as you can’t hear the difference in bypass mode then by all means EQ to your hearts content.

Regards,

barts

Test of transparency is between no Loki in system vs Loki. Assuming no absolute transparency, I can see the tradeoffs being in Loki's favor. As with @ghdprentice  I have no need, have voiced system to sound best with widest variety of recordings. I'd only find system EQ valuable if changing settings by individual recording.

Reading this thread, it seems to me that it is the equalizers who are defensive, whereas the anti-equalizers are either trying to be funny (which is OK in my book but could be provocative to an equalizer) or asking reasonable questions or making reasonable points. My opinion is, if it sounds better to you, do it, but let's not pretend equalizers are completely and utterly transparent.  And beware of putting stress on your amplifiers or speakers when you are trying to correct a major dip in the in-room response, particularly in the bass end of the spectrum.  There is no free lunch.

Lewm,

I couldn’t agree more, but it’s the degree of distortion that is really relevant in broadest sense. If you can’t hear it . . . Well. Just because something adds some level of distortion doesn’t make it bad - tubes anyone. (BTW almost all my equipment had tubes).  Technically EVERYTHING makes a difference, the room being a major contributor, so whether you are buying equipment without EQ’s or with it ultimately the signal passes through thousands of capacitor, resistors, tubes (in some cases), and all the small lengths of wire interconnecting that stuff, the end result is all that matters. Many paths to get there, very few definitively wrong answers, because in the end it’s ALL subjective.

@last_lemming forgive my lame attempt at humor.  I did not realize trying tone controls was so effing serious.

Why didn't you get the MAX?

IMO, @audnacious hit the nail squarely on the head, and very succinctly, too:

"A man must have his tools to correct that which needs adjustment."

The more tools you have at your disposal, the better job you can do, regardless of  the task.

No biggie. I got the max because the system is quite nice just as it is and to go and change out a piece of equipment to make a tweak to the sound would be a high stakes (read priced) gamble at this point since I can end up spending thousands and the sound quality might only move laterally once I got the piece of equipment in the house. This isn’t my main critical listening rig, it’s just the rig that I wanna have good tone in timber while I’m doing chores around the house or doing the dishes or having company over; so absolute nuance in timing and soundstage is not required, so I figured, based on the information I had read, at this piece would do what I needed it to do which is tweak specific areas of the frequency response to bring it in line with what I wanted given my limitations. 
 

for instance, I could’ve bought some really expensive cables for the price I paid for the max, and that might’ve worked perfectly, however if I ever move, or ever relocate the equipment , or by another source, I would basically have to start the tweaking process all over again. But with the max it’s just a few tweaks in a few minutes and back to where I was. 

@sns 

I’d only find system EQ valuable if changing settings by individual recording.

Yep. I put a 10 band eq in my system in the 80’s. It caused my Sound Man exp to kick in and almost worked me to death fine tuning every album and sometime different songs. I took it out of the chain within a month and sold it.

But if the OP likes it, then fine with meand I wish him well.........after the flogging 😀

I use a Bellari EQ570 in my system with JBL L100 Classics and a single SVS2000 pro sub.  It has tamed the JBL to my room acoustics and the system is really “fun” to listen to.  I have had this setup for 1 1/2 years and never tire of it.  Running a Mac MA6600 integrated. 

We audiophiles carry our own whips along with us, and we use them to flog ourselves, like the flagellants of the Middle Ages.

@ Last_Lemming:  You couldn't find the proper interconnects to do the job? 

See my response 4 posts above you. 

Smart and practical move.  Well done.  Think for yourself!

hi @last_lemming,  thanks for posting this.  I'm intrigued.  Acoustic treatment in my listening area is simply not an option.   So equalizer could be a possible solution, even though I'm really resistant to add another component in the pipeline.  

Please allow me to ask a stupid question.  Can you use the remote control to power on/off the unit?  I couldn't tell by looking at the pictures.  Thanks!

Over 40 years in this annoying obsession that masquerades as a hobby and I would decry equalises and the like as tools of the devil. Until. I had a music room built, I upgraded my system to what I wanted.  I plugged it all in and disaster, it sounded terrible. I spent two years, hundreds of hours at the local mens shed, built bass traps that half filled the room and spent nights pulling out my hair isolated in the spare bedroom. The bass was uncontrollable. Until. I installed a minidsp between my pre and power amps. Now no bass boom, no walls and doors rattling, no neighbours writing to the council.  Does it decay the purity of the signal, would it measure less brilliantly, I don't give a ? it sounds superb, I can at last feel the bass from my 200 watt hybrid tube amp and 2 subwoofers, hear the unbelievable soundstage created by my Audio Physic speakers, hear levels of detail from my CD transport  and network bridge, tell the difference when I change the settings on my R2R dac. So technical purity and  distortion figures below a bats audible range are great, good music is better.

Xcool,

You can’t turn The unit on or off, however you can turn bypass on and off and you can turn and control all the different EQ settings which also have presets, on and off with the remote.  So basically you can sit in your chair and mess with all the different EQ frequencies to get exactly what you want and then save it to a setting so you can recall them at any time should want to adjust it for something else without ever leaving your chair. And yes all the EQ knobs rotate to the different settings when you press the EQ remote, however the audio signal is not flowing through the EQ knobs as I understand it. 
 

All I can say is I’ve always questioned an EQ in the audio chain, but in this system it only makes it better without compromising all the other things that audiophiles love to cherish so much, and if the EQ does compromise the quality of the signal somehow, I can’t hear it.