Schiit Loki Max?

I am pretty in the same boat as you and i concur with the way you express it about EQ...

Just a correction about "timbre" which is not only tonal balance or spectral envelope but also "Time envelope" and onset of the sound etc to described it briefly :

From wiki ...

1. Range between tonal and noiselike character
2. Spectral envelope
3. Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")
4. Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)
5. Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration

Then the timbre experience to be set rightin a room or in headphone  ask for more acoustic factors to work with than just tonal balance ...

One view -- the one I hold -- is that some kind of rather precise, fixed EQ will be needed to make many systems sound the most natural. Certainly in the bass, and sometimes higher up to correct quirks of the loudspeakers or headphones.

THEN, one has to deal with the different approaches taken in producing different recordings. Some producers will use EQ or microphones that do not sound accurate. In many cases, broadband EQ like the early Cello devices and the new Schiit ones will be able to make substantial improvements.

One could call the first kind of EQ timbre correction and the second kind tonal-balance correction without objection from me. Still, if one is wrong, the other will be wrong, almost by definition, since timbre is largely the balance of harmonics, i.e., tonal balance in some sense. That is to me not worth much discussion, being mainly semantics. My main point is that pinpoint EQ and broadband EQ are two different items and for two different purposes.

This video and the others on this youtube site explain well all the factors at play and in the right order... I discovered it few weeks ago and i arrived in my own way "groping in the night" of my listening experimentsfor 2 years to the same conclusion about the value of these factors and their ordering...

The reason why your brain lock first in tonal balance and PRAT is simple and normal... It is impossible to experience a sound perceived Timbre naturalness without having through your system settle all necessary parameters for a minimal quality threshold experience of tonal balance and PRAT... If not timbre experience cannot be otherwise than inaccurate and artificial...Most people dont recognize Timbre imbalance and one of the reason is that they never experience it in a good speakers/room or with headphone  to begin with... And for sure we must know how a piano and a voice must sound in various locations in real life ...

Then when all is optimal and timbre experience is minimally good, then and only then you can tune your speakers/ room and work with its many acoustic parameters for more in term of Spatial soundfield : ( a)improving imaging, (b) soundstaging and (c) holographical volume ratio of the sound sources and the listener envelopment factor... These three are called "immersiveness"...

In this video they say the same thing better than me because they are acousticians, and i am only an experimenting amateurs ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DseAu4LPPWQ&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_A5BFgnV1w5wNNfnks3u0oL&index=51&t=1499s

You are definitely right!

I suspect I’m simply less aware of timbre than tonal balance.

What I’ve noticed is that tonal balance and PRaT are the first things my brain locks onto and evaluates before turning its attention to timbre, sound staging and even resolution.

I’m not sure why this is so.

Do you have any ideas regarding why different listeners prioritize aspects of SQ differently?

You are not sloppy but i must be right on something!

😊

@mahgister 

You are of course correct in your assertion regarding timbre and tonal balance!

If my words implied otherwise, that was sloppy thinking on my part.

If someone cannot hear on the spot the huge difference in timbre between these three cellos,then it very possible that he at least need EQ. for sure to optimize his system but more probably a new headphone or improving his system and improving acoustic in the room...And for the test the listener not only must hear differences but identifying why the no1-2-3 are better in the micro tonal playing dynamis on the spot too...

EQ help to optimize and compensate for some aspects of our system limitations  yes, but it will not give by his own power a completely natural timbre perception if the system is not right to begin with or almost right or if the room acoustic is not well done or at least not bad even if there is no acoustic treatment... And the recording cd or files  to take the test must be minimally good for sure as our friend stuartk pointed out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TXdkcE09lk

You are right...

I forgot that i listen ONLY to acoustic instrument...Mostly... Then i must undertand that people MAY AND CAN "play" with it to compensate some cd recording flaws...Not because their audio system exhibit flaws,...I confuse my system experience with all others... 😁

But i must say to correct you that it is impossible to experience natural Timbre sound with an overall bad tonal balance... Then timbre experience encompass for his optimal perception and ask for overall tonal balance... But because  you said it and explained it to me  very well , i am wrong then refusing to others the necessity to play with it to accomodate some recording flaws and not so much audio system flaw as i wrongly claimed in a too hasty manner ...😁

Myself i used E/Q only to correct tonal overall balance of my dual drivers headphone for a better timbre experience... I dont mind some flaws time to time in recording...Most of my files are classical or jazz always acoustic instrument ... I did not listen to pop , rock, heavy metal nor electronica... but i must admit that all people are not like me then i was dogmatical 😁forgetting that there are recording problems in many musical genres..

i thank you for opening my eyes and rightfully correcting me...

I wish you the best from my heart...

«Saying that you are never dogmatical is being dogmatical »--Groucho Marx🤓

@mahgister

Forgive me but I’m having difficulty locating my experience with EQ within your framework... so I must use my own framework in this case.

For me, it’s not so much about timbre as it is about overall tonal balance-- most often the highs are too forward or sometimes the lower mids are lacking clarity -- imbalances due to the, at times, frustratingly-inconsistent SQ of compact discs.

The more resolving my system becomes, the better all CDs sound but their individual differences are also more apparent. They do not sound uniformly wonderful.

While I do not keep glaringly poor-sounding CDs in my collection, there are some that only require small EQ adjustments in order to eliminate otherwise distracting flaws that inhibit, as you might say, "immersiveness". This is not typically an issue with acoustic music genres but can certainly be an issue with electric instruments.

I hope this makes sense, despite being presented within a different framework.

Equalization is necessary sometimes for some speakers; in my case for my very special headphone; then "purist" are deluded...

I use some for my headphone AKG-K340...It is an hybrid with two cells a dynamic one and an electro-acoustic one, and to reach optimal S.Q. i must tame a precise frequencies range in the middle band and at the two extremities, i boost the top highs and the deep bass... The result is more natural timbre for all instrument and voice... Hybrid headphone are too complex and costly to design well for profit and good sound said to me a big headphone company designer , that said a lot, and are too picky to drive well with any random amplifier in my experience ... The K340 is the only success and flagship for an hybrid ever... It change my life after the sad fateful lost of my acoustic room...

I dont use EQ. as a toy at all for different nusical genre or styles  and i never touched  it again after the listening month experiment where i set it right to optimize my K340...I use EQ. to optimize TIMBRE perception once for all  and this acoustic factor had nothing to do with  listening to various musical genre...

If someone use it as a toy it may be fun for sure but for me that means this audio system had an unsolved problem ... Because well designed system in optimized room need EQ only for improving timbre, and compensate for some speakers limits as in my headphone drivers case, it did not replace passive acoustic treatment not mechanical active control of the room ... ( in my room i was using mechanical equalization)

My EQ is integrated in my dac as a very basic tool it is not a sophisticated equalization as the Schiit product, but it does the minimal  work i need ...

«The only "purist" i trust has a double personality, he bi-locate around my head»-- Anonymus acoustician 🎧