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

@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.