Does Analog EQ belong in State of the Art Systems?

[Another Johnson]

How does it have USB input?

From the link I provided …

• “USB port allows for recall of your settings via control software on your Mac or PC“
  
  It’s not for signal. It’s for control.
  
  Back in the day I had a Rupert Neve parametric equalizer for studio recording. It was the most transparent I’d ever heard. That was before the “digital supremacy” era.

FIX YOUR ROOM FIRST

Here’s a review.

Neve 8803

Combining the classic Neve sound with a software recall facility, this EQ offers the best of both worlds.

www.soundonsound.com

 

[Robh3606]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Do any of you have measurement capability? The whole idea is to balance the frequency response and shape to a "house curve".

Some of the EQ's have adjustable Q and without some form of measurement you can really see what's going on. You also can't see where to center the filter. Some only offer 2 Q settings and both of which may be "wrong"

If you are flying blind the only thing you are going to accomplish is chasing your own tail.

Rob

 

[Bruce B]

I would say if you are using subs with large mains, I would highly encourage you to look into the JL Audio CR-1 x-over. Completely analog with great build quality!

 

[Another Johnson]

This one is tube based for audiophiles.

DW Fearn VT-5 Stereo Tube Equalizer

2-ch Tube Equalizer with LF Cut, LF Boost, MF Cut, HF Boost, HF Cut, and HF Q Controls

www.sweetwater.com

An earlier discussion on WBF

2 Channel Tone control system

tone control on a two channel reference system ? Sacrilege I say ! Not !!!! This is what I am thinking of doing. Sort of a setup like the venerable Cello Palette system: I would want the EQ controls on a tilt stand using 15 foot xlr interconnects and a long power cord so the eq can be...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Kingrex]

From the link I provided …

• “USB port allows for recall of your settings via control software on your Mac or PC“
  
  It’s not for signal. It’s for control.
  
  Back in the day I had a Rupert Neve parametric equalizer for studio recording. It was the most transparent I’d ever heard. That was before the “digital supremacy” era.

FIX YOUR ROOM FIRST

Here’s a review.

Neve 8803

Combining the classic Neve sound with a software recall facility, this EQ offers the best of both worlds.

www.soundonsound.com

Thats about $2400. The input is not a typical input. It would need an adaptor.
How transparent is the Neve?
How not transparent is the Schiit?

 

[Another Johnson]

Thats about $2400. The input is not a typical input. It would need an adaptor.
How transparent is the Neve?
How not transparent is the Schiit?

From the Neve description:

The 8803’s combination input jacks accept both XLR and 1/4-inch connectors, balanced or unbalanced, at either +4dBu or -10dBV reference levels, while parallel XLR and 1/4-inch outputs integrate effortlessly with most balanced and unbalanced gear.

 

[Tangram]

FWIW, at times I have had a Lokius in and out of my system for a couple of years. It’s a six-band with no remote. I will say three things:

1) In bypass mode, it seems completely transparent to my ears.
2) The knobs need to move quite a bit before an obvious sound difference is heard, meaning very fine tuning is possible. However, because the knobs are small it is difficult to repeat the same settings exactly.
3) Being able to adjust each band using a remote from the listening position, like with the Lokius Max, would be hugely beneficial.

With all that said, I usually find myself using the Lokius when I’ve changed another piece of gear but once I get things sorted to my satisfaction I take the Lokius out of the chain. It’s really most useful when individual recordings need EQ, but I find that fiddling with the settings for different records isn’t my jam.

 

[Robh3606]

With all that said, I usually find myself using the Lokius when I’ve changed another piece of gear but once I get things sorted to my satisfaction I take the Lokius out of the chain. It’s really most useful when individual recordings need EQ, but I find that fiddling with the settings for different records isn’t my jam.

Agree you shouldn't be changing what is essentially a tool for setting a " House Curve" to adjust for individual recordings. EQ should be set and forget.

You use tone controls for individual recordings

Rob

 

[Tuckers]

I think it bears mentioning that EQs for the Pro market are absolutely not made to be neutral, just the facts products. They are built and bought for imparting a certain color, attitude, and editorial, while performing their EQ. If you spend any time reading about analog EQs from manufacturers and users it is more about crafting a sonic palette (i.e. imparting a fat wet sound, others a 70's console vibe etc). This includes Manley's and Neve's etc. I've sought far and wide for analog EQ to replace the digital EQ I have, with a ton of research, I am looking into a few possibilities, I have a few on hand, but have not tested them out.

 

[Another Johnson]

I think it bears mentioning that EQs for the Pro market are absolutely not made to be neutral, just the facts products. They are built and bought for imparting a certain color, attitude, and editorial, while performing their EQ. If you spend any time reading about analog EQs from manufacturers and users it is more about crafting a sonic palette (i.e. imparting a fat wet sound, others a 70's console vibe etc). This includes Manley's and Neve's etc. I've sought far and wide for analog EQ to replace the digital EQ I have, with a ton of research, I am looking into a few possibilities, I have a few on hand, but have not tested them out.

Really, the non debatable answer is “No. If you need equalization, you’re not done yet.” Playback is different from performance and recording. In the latter, you’re creating something after your own vision. In the former, truth is only found in perfect reflection of that creation.

But that doesn’t mean that EQ can’t be a fun sandbox to piddle in. Honestly, I’m surprised that digital EQ is excluded from the discussion here. If you’re going for EQ, you’ve already bastardized your pure system.

FWIW, on integrateds and preamps McIntosh often builds in a bypassable multi band equalizer. You can play around and see what you think. You can even create your own Loudness Contour. When you’re done playing, sell the McIntosh and go back to your favorite.

 

[Gryphon8]

I agree with you Ron, coming from a purist's sense. I built a Heathkit EQ back in the very early 80's & it had very, very low distortion (THD) rate of like .005%. But I too agree with you about where is the signal passing & what adulteration is taking place. I tend to go with the 1st option purist route, but maybe a bit of trial & error would get you to the promised land?

 

[Tuckers]

“No. If you need equalization, you’re not done yet.”

I disagree to a degree. I think using EQ as an additive and corrective element in a finished top flight system might do more harm than good to reach ultimate transparency. However when talking about ultimate fidelity, where the end user is skilled, they may find that a few fine adjustments gets closer to their version of reality than the kit can do, no matter how dear. In my case, using EQ removes two elements that add significant distortion in the signal chain - a passive crossover, and a speaker cabinet.

However, for my system, I would NEVER add a digital conversion when using an analog front end, hence the quest for an analog EQ so I can setup my analog system again.

 

[Another Johnson]

I disagree to a degree. I think using EQ as an additive and corrective element in a finished top flight system might do more harm than good to reach ultimate transparency. However when talking about ultimate fidelity, where the end user is skilled, they may find that a few fine adjustments gets closer to their version of reality than the kit can do, no matter how dear. In my case, using EQ removes two elements that add significant distortion in the signal chain - a passive crossover, and a speaker cabinet.

I don’t disagree … but who are you (or I) to tell someone else what they might like to try?

 

[Tuckers]

However, for my system, I would NEVER add a digital conversion when using an analog front end, hence the quest for an analog EQ so I can setup my analog system again.

I would not serve a zinfandel with sole meuniere either. Just gauche! Lol

 

[jjhf1234]

I like what some speaker manufacturers do and allow for simple resistor swaps but the old Cello preamp/eq always intrigued me.

 

[PGA]

I like what some speaker manufacturers do and allow for simple resistor swaps but the old Cello preamp/eq always intrigued me.

Having owned a Cello Palette, channel to channel tracking was pathetic, but it did sound ok …

 

[PGA]

Tried this in my system before going full tilt DSP. It’s quite good. You will be surprised what a small tilt applied to a wide spectrum does to change how your system sounds. It’s extremely well made and transparent.

BAX EQ — Dangerous Music

Stereo Mastering and Mix Bus Shelving Equalizer with Stepped Controls

www.dangerousmusic.com

 

[Mcsnare]

Thank you. I think the most interesting one for our purposes is the Manley Mid-Frequency EQ.

Manley Mid Frequency EQ — Manley Laboratories, Inc.

Manley's single channel Mid Frequency EQ is the secret weapon for vocal, guitar, snare and all the other midrange instruments that are the meat of the mix.

www.manley.com

Most of the Manley pro stuff is decent but it's quite colored. Transparency is seldom preferred in music production, except in a mastering context and even then, not always. Using that on a hifi is not what I would recommend.
The handful of amazing sounding studio control rooms that I've worked in usually have the main monitors eq'd with an analog 27 band (1/3rd octave) eq - not so much for room correction but to get an already good sounding system to have a very flat freq response. White Instruments or Klark Technik used to be the common ones. The passive, cut-only White eq's are very transparent.
My personal feeling is that DSP is probably the way to go for a home system if, after exhausting all room/acoustical options, you still feel like EQ might benefit the system. The Trinov systems are very good for this and have recently been widely used in studio monitoring. In general, however, our ears will adjust to the nonlinearities of F.R. to a large extent so that an un-eq'd playback system with a minimal signal path can be more pleasing even as an eq'd one may be flatter.

 

[Zuman]

I don't have a state-of-the-art system. Mine is worth about $40k, but it makes me happy and it pleases critical listeners, some of whom have systems that cost 3-5 times the retail value of mine. I have been listening to recorded music seriously for almost 50 years, and I'm not as naive as I wish I were...
I inserted a Schiit Loki Max into my system about a month ago, primarily to attempt to clean up some slight "tubbiness" around 400Hz, most noticeable in exposed vocals. It has worked well, although it took the right combination of 120Hz, 400Hz, and 2kHz adjustments to get it right. I have not noted the loss of transparency or spatial effects that TMallin experienced, although I don't doubt that his system is more revealing than mine.
Fundamentally, though, I don't understand why any attempted solution should be off the table. I don't think that most people use tube gear because it's essentially more "realistic" than solid state equipment: most of us who use it do so because we "like" the way it sounds. We also pick our cables, our racks, our room shape and size, our carpets, and everything else because our tastes have developed an affinity for a type of audio presentation. Yes, we don't want our wine to taste like beer, but there is certainly not just one wonderful Cabernet in the world, with all of the others causing us to become angry and argumentative. We are entitled to enjoy our favorites and pursue them, but that doesn't invalidate other tastes. In other words, I don't think that most of us are truly trying to recreate lab-accurate sound; I think we're trying to create sound that pleases us, and that requires tweaking via a range of solutions.
It wasn't that long ago that some serious audiophiles asked if digital sources belonged in state-of-the-art systems. I think that was the wrong question; it would be better (although rhetorical) to ask if primitive digital belonged in state-of-the-art systems. I'd argue that early digital was incapable of presenting lovely sound that reasonably represented the art of the composer and performer, but today's digital is far more capable.
Similarly, I'd argue that my modest $40k system is more capable of presenting lovely sound that represents the art of composers and performers with the Loki Max included than it was without it.
Is there a point in system and room sophistication and quality at which the Loki Max may detract more than it gives? Possibly. But if that question is to be asked about equalizers, it should reasonably be asked about every component and technology. For example: "Do enclosed multi-driver loudspeakers belong in state of the art systems?"

 

[Alrainbow]

A few thoughts on EQ in the analog domain
sometimes it’s better to lower a freq that’s an issue
fixing the room is apostolate but having an eq any kind can help sort things out
to use EQ as the fix per say for my self dont work as it then changes music track by track.
anyone should agree even the same album has tracks that have a variety of tonal qualities.
if your up to creating an eq per track or genre it’s a wonderful tool.
to draw a line of comparison think HQ player as a digital playback player
it has almost endless possibilities and you come to find out there are many types of cd music used.
while when we pop in a cd it’s all done for us but to the makers ideals.
now consider tape or vinyl they each have big EQ used. while the lps or tape are marked they don’t always Match well.
so tell me how a little EQ creates an issue if used at all.
correct me if I’m wrong but I think there is no pure recording or playback method
People like Bruce really understand this
Kind of like a magician who has an idea how the magic happens
he is one wh I have a very high regard for making great sound but keeping how his own secret.