Equalizer in a Hi Fi system


Just curious to hear everyone’s opinions on using an equalizer in a high end hi fi system. Was at work tonight and killing time and came across a Schitt Loki max $1500 Equalizer with some very good reviews. What are some of the pros / Benefits and cons in using one. Just curious. BTW. I’m talking about a top of the line. Hi end equalizer. Mostly to calm some high frequencies and some bad recordings. 

128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xtattooedtrackman

@mirolab , what did Mike say to you regarding the transparency of the peq1?  I checked out your Skyline unit. Looks compelling!  Of the two units, which treble and bass filters sound better, putting aside transparency?  Lastly, the more expensive studio EQs you’ve owned (Manley Massive Passive, wow) sound much better than Schiit EQs yes? I found them to not even be close. 
my friend, we are kindred spirits!!  I’m so happy there’s another out there like me!

@mirolab 

I'm not railing against EQ. I railing against analog EQ. It does not matter how well you think you can do it analog. I can and do do it much better digitally.  You might consider trying it sometime. 

A question as it pertains to analog EQ like Loki(s).  Is any (if any) phase shifting at the band used an on/off effect with a setting other than zero, or is phase change relative to the level used?  Also, if EQ is operating on the whole input (not left/right) would you hear any possible phase shift that degrades imaging? L/R channel phase changes seem obviously an issue.

To blanket say that digital EQ doesn't affect phase or have "any artifacts" seems a stretch.  I suppose it's possible if the design of hardware and any algorithms account for it with the highest level of effort.  In my previous life, with algorithms that work as DSP, and not even in real time, but as a computer run in background (all the time needed), any spectral processing still had a phase change. 

Wouldn't this assumption be on par with "ones and zeros are ones and zeros"?

I have a wife….and the main HiFi is in the livingroom….therefore I EQ…..Ive been a hugecfan of EQ since my sound reinforcement days. I recently biught a Buchardt i150 integrated amplifier for three reasons…a superb sounding PREamplifier, a full blown parametric digital EQ, and digital room correction. Having been in thecHiFi industry for over 50 years, Im here to tell you that this unit is simply amazing. Ive taken absolute horrible, DIY speakers with cheap components and using REW on a computer with a reference microphone made them sound as good as any higher end speakers I own. And as far as what it does to a nasty room situation, cant be equaled. In my office and my hobby room im using Loki four band EQs. Just a little tweaking to make those systems sing.

@mijostyn it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Digital can never compete with analog for example in lifting treble air bands to give life to a dull recording. Ask any studio engineer. Read online if you don’t believe me. Now, if you are not tone shaping but instead attempting room correction EQ then yes, digital is better. I think to generalize, for surgical cutting digital is easily superior. Again, it depends on what you are trying to do. I only use EQ to spice up a dull recording. That means high end tone shaping. That means bass and or treble lifts. In this context analog wins EVERY TIME.