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

I had all 3 Schitt EQs they are extremely useful things if you have the need. The Loki is kind of veiled and you can hear this enough that it greatly limits its use. The Lokius and Max are far far less intrusive. Not like EQs of old. And are very easy to do quick adjustments with. I once tried the max on a full-range driver speaker and it it worked well to increase lower and upper ranges while decreasing a bit of shout. Still, I only insert them into systems on occasion not always in- most systems I run don't require EQ. But I will end with for what they cost these EQs are well worth investigating. 

You pays your money, you chooses your distortions.

I had an equalizer some 40 years ago and couldn't believe the sound improvement when I unplugged it. I am sure they have gotten better over the years, and if you like the way it makes your system sound in your room, more power to you.

Sacrilege would be saying most tube amplifiers are nothing but glorified equalizers. Did I say that out loud? I did, didn't I. It has already passed through any number of analog and digital equalizers, most with cheap by phile standard electronics before it got to you. I would not worry too much about one more. If you are listening to music in a room, you already have the most nasty, colorful, distorted equalizer one can buy, namely your speaker in your room. Worst necessary evil in all of audio. Anyone who shuns an equalizer must plug the speaker cables right into their head. Use that equalizer and use it proudly. It is probably doing far more good than bad.  I equalize. I would be a fool not to. Fixes things that can't be fixed any other way.

I get it. You don’t like EQ’s. Not sure that’s relevant. 

Why would one have desire to add eq to system if not needed, no inherent requirement audio systems have to have extra eq applied via dedicated eq. Therefore, eq would only be effective purchase for me if eq applied to each recording.

If adding eq for system balance, something in system not meeting your sound preferences. One can achieve system balance through various means, I prefer not doing this through add ons. I associate add ons as band aids, this being the need to repair something upstream or downstream of equalizer.

I suppose if I did have need of eq, I'd be far more likely to apply dsp via something like HQPlayer, rather have it in software vs hardware.

My 2 cents on readjusting the EQ for different recordings - I've had little luck with that. I consider that a good thing. When I get the system response correct pretty much everything sounds better. 

Hey, if you’ve voiced your system and there is zero room for improving it or the room then I guess you’re lucky and will never need to upgrade. However, I’ve never been able to achieve perfection, but I got a whole lot closer with one component - go figure! And it only took 5 min.

also for those talking about adjusting for ever song, do you change out cables or equipment for every song?  You know you can just adjust it for best overall sound and forget it. Very easy!

Like some here have suggested you should have done several things before you tried the eq. First off, I would suggest demolishing one end of your house, then rebuild a room with soundproof double walls for a dedicated audio room with top notch wiring and electrical outlets, don't forget power conditioning. Then self flog for buying a house that didn't have the acoustically perfect room. The next step is to plaster all the rooms in your house, including your bathroom with sound absorption  panels. After this, self flog again. Now if no perfect sound from your audio rig, add hearing aids. Another self flog. The last step is the EQ.

I don't know about others, but there is no way I'd go down the path of changing settings for different recordings. Who'd even give it thought?

I guess I don't get it, equalizing system vs equalizing the recording. I don't need to equalize my system as it's voiced to my preference, the recordings another issue entirely.

I can't understand having this tool and then not using it for the greatest variable in one's system, the recording. As with some previous posters, it would drive me crazy having this tool to adjust for every recording, and not using it in this manner would make it worthless to me.

I get it. I guess I’m different, I’ve already set mine and forgot it. 

Had an equalizer in the 80’s and 90’s, tried to use it for each song and it was a waste of time. I’d be adjusting the equalizer during the song and the song was either over or near over and my equalizer would be tuned, so I really didn’t hear the song and back then, most of my music was on vinyl and you never want to play a track on vinyl over and over without damaging the vinyl

What a great number of responses! Hey, whatever floats your boat. It’s your system. You do what you like. My dac has an equalizer. I’ve not touched it. Maybe I will. 

Just because some seemed to inquire, whereas some scoff 'n cough...

Room eq to nominal flat in a sh*tty space as a baseline.
Not bass line, but that's where the sub may get tweaked according to mood.

Since I wear aids, I experiment with matching the eq of the aids to approximating what I hear with them without having to wear them...for a break, or when the recharge is due...

Since I'm the primary listener 99% of the time, it's not a bother to anyone.
(Mostly upper mids to the usual high-end loss...in a memory setting, so it's just a touch away....*S*)

@henry53

Wow, sorry to hear your story.

I needed to buy a house quickly… in a few days… corporate move. We whizzed through homes… the one we chose was big, and had an office, big open area and library / fireplace area on the ground floor (under ground on three sides). The big area I identified as the a great location for my system. This area turns out to be an incredible audio area. It is asymmetrical in every respect… and sounds simply spectacular. My audio guy has installed $200K+ systems for 20 years and said it is the best space he has ever heard.

It is better to be lucky than good. (You can see the space under my USerID. Everything is asymmetrical about it… even the ceiling.

Thanks @last_lemming for clarifying.  Very helpful!

@ Waytoomuchstuff

thanks for the info and vid. I already did the midrange dampened soon after I bought them but I am curious on the soldering required, is it simply soldering to speaker connection wires directly to the crossover?

im pretty handy with a soldering iron, I’ve built my own tube amps and such .

@last_lemming 

Related to my last entry.

Good it works for you. Lose the sacreligious part. And the sacrilegious  part. The religion is suspect. I reserve my pitchfork 

@last_lemming

I like this post. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers here. I can certainly appreciate your affinity to your Loki Max. Tailoring the sound to your liking, effortlessly, and on demand checks a lot of boxes in the plus column.

Klipsch speakers are high on my list of speakers that actually deliver what they promise. I’m quite familiar with Klipsch speakers (I have a mono K’Horn in my loft built in 1958), and have been providing performance modifications to Klipsch speakers for several decades. We recently completed what we refer to as a Level II upgrade on a pair of Forte IIIs. At this level, we focus on keeping the speaker "All Klipsch" with all factory-installed crossover components, drivers and input terminals remaining intact. Dampening horn bodies and speaker frames (including passive radiator), replacing factory cabling with "real" speaker cables, and eliminating spade/lug connections with direct silver solder connections offers tremendous bang for the buck in sonic improvements.

I’’ll save you labor pains and just give you the baby: If you heard a pair of these side by side compared to a pair factory-stock Forte IIIs, I sincerely hope you have on a pair of Depends when you listen for the first time. If taken to a competent shop, expect to pay $700-$800 fo have this work done. (Assuming $200-$300 of the budget for competent speaker cables). If you’re handy with a soldering station, you can do the work yourself. Or, at the very least, a DYI with $20 worth of Dynamat and a couple of hours applying the material in the right places will pay sonic dividends many times the investment.

I am 100% in support of your application of the EQ in your environment. I would also consider (for about half the price of the investment you have in the EQ) extracting a new level of detail, transparency, warmth, imaging, increased dynamic range and less fatigue than you thought possible from your Fortes. You’ve got "big boy stuff" delivering the energy to the Fortes. It’s time to consider a modest investment in a very substantial sonic improvement.

And, I promise, you’ll like your EQ even more than you do now.

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.

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.

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!

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

See my response 4 posts above you. 

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

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

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. 

@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 😀

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. 

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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.

@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

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.

@ 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. 

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

@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

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.

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

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

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. 

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 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. 

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 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. 

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.