A properly designed convolution filter using Audiolense is like a Trinnov on steroids …. Hire a pro like Mitch Barnett to design the filter, don’t try doing this yourself or let a high end dealer that is not an expert set it up. You must run the convolution on a computer that will have enough computing power to run this. But even a Roon NUC should be more than enough, and orders of magnitude better than what an audio or HT processor can do. You’ll be shocked how much your system will improve.
Does Analog EQ belong in State of the Art Systems?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
i might be shocked. but mostly don't care that much right now. my Trinnov in my separate Home Theater room in my house (my 2 channel room is in my barn) is for the occasional movie i watch once a month.
how great or pedestrian my Trinnov is at ultimate dsp is not the subject matter of this thread. maybe this Audiolense has a multi-channel Home Theater application that surpasses the Trinnov? not my focus these days. if my comment about the Trinnov is out of date, and it's no longer the king of multi-channel then fair enough. can the Audiolense do 3D Remapping of channels? which the Trinnov can do easily. which fixes my Home Theater room shape and unique issues. which for multi-channel optimization i need.
the Trinnov also has a powerful one step optimizer and special 3D mic that does a complete set-up for your system.
the Trinnov is the right tool for that job. is the Audiolense mature enough to have those uses worked out? or is it more a general tool?
but really anymore i'm not paying close attention to that subject.
which may or may not have anything to do with state of the art 2 channel.....which is this thread.
Last edited:
Audiolense is a software package that runs on a Mac or PC and it analyzes your room and outputs DSP filters. It can be multichannel, but in my case, it was used to design the convolution filter that runs on Roon for two channel. You mentioned that Trinnov is EQ on steroids. I agree. It’s a huge improvement over what we had previously. I use Dirac. It’s probably not as good as Trinnov, but in my application it works great and seems good enough for home theater.
The point I was making is simply that the gap between Trinnov and older EQ methodologies is huge. , but there are even more powerful technologies available today. Audiolense is just one. And the gap between Audiolense and Trinnov or Dirac is significant.
It always surprises me how many of us, me included for four decades, are willing to spend lots of money and time on products and strategies that are compliant with what I’ll sarcastically call Generally Accepted Audiophile Principals, GAAP. And the founding father of this GAAP was probably Mark Levinson when he introduced us to the ML1 and ML2. But we forget that GAAP is controlled and devised by the high end industry, which is in the end a business that exists to make money. Mark is probably the best salesman I’ve met, and he sold me a bunch of equipment. But he’s not a brilliant engineer or scientist.
We’ve been told DSP is bad, that it kills the life of our system, that it sounds unnatural, that analogue is better …. Well, this was true for many years, but it’s simply not true today. DSP today can do calculations in real time that result in precision that greatly exceeds what is possible in a real world analogue product.
All I’m saying is you have not really experienced DSP if you haven’t tried what’s possible when you hire a real professional, like Mitch Barnett, measure your room, and have Mitch design a filter for you. The filter can run on most any computer. I find it works great running on my Roon NUC, but there are other ways to implement this. You need to buy a calibrated microphone, but these are not expensive. And you need to pay Mitch for his time, but this is also very modest by audiophile standards. The whole thing will cost less than a couple thousand for a two channel system, and it may take 5-10 hours of your time.
dsp is not 'bad' and as i said i'm not anti. it does not kill the life. but dsp is not 'free' either. any time you process a signal and do a adc/dac conversion, a degree of musical essence is lost. it depends on the particular system purity whether that difference is a negative. and adding more math to that beyond the minimum losses more. OTOH maybe something else is gained or added or fixed. so it's a trade-off. one that IMHO the best 2 channel systems don't need. but many can benefit i'm sure.
i've invested in the very best analog sources and invested highly in my room and devoted much effort to achieving system and room sonic balance in an all analog approach. so throwing away that purity is not a choice for me.
when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. but a hammer is not always the right approach. in and of itself, a hammer is not bad.
as long as i invest in ultimate analog sources, and a top level and highly tuned room, not going down that road. but who knows maybe the net gain from dsp is in my future journey. i do follow my ears. if i hear magic from it sometime then anything is possible. if i get a chance to hear Mr. Barnett's work i will pay attention.
Last edited:
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
I own a Trinnov and have used AudioLens. Both are outstanding.
Both are efficacious for addressing level, timing, phase and (gross) frequency response issues. Both are highly transparent. And neither will yield great results in the hands of an amateur - experienced experts get a LOT more out of those than any of us are likely to achieve on our own.
That being said, both impose a “tax” and the audiophile decision is whether that “tax” outweighs the very real benefits. I go back and forth between using Mitch’s filters, Trinnov, and nothing when listening to two channel music via my (new) Cascade wi/Director. The filters “fix” some issues that I hear when not using them, but not using the filters offers some “clarity” that I miss when using them. In my system I find using DSP, or not, more a case of “different” than “superior” and depending on my mood and priorities at the moment choose one over the other.
In prior settings where the room wasn’t purpose built I found the benefits greatly outweighed the “tax”.
Both are efficacious for addressing level, timing, phase and (gross) frequency response issues. Both are highly transparent. And neither will yield great results in the hands of an amateur - experienced experts get a LOT more out of those than any of us are likely to achieve on our own.
That being said, both impose a “tax” and the audiophile decision is whether that “tax” outweighs the very real benefits. I go back and forth between using Mitch’s filters, Trinnov, and nothing when listening to two channel music via my (new) Cascade wi/Director. The filters “fix” some issues that I hear when not using them, but not using the filters offers some “clarity” that I miss when using them. In my system I find using DSP, or not, more a case of “different” than “superior” and depending on my mood and priorities at the moment choose one over the other.
In prior settings where the room wasn’t purpose built I found the benefits greatly outweighed the “tax”.
Last edited:
Analog EQ is part of the RIAA equalization curve in our phono preamps, it is part of the IEC equalization curve in our reel to reel tape machines. Analog EQ (in form of voicing - which is EQ) is integral to the passive crossover networks in our speaker systems.
Analog EQ is already basic to the operation of almost every system - we just don't see it and therefore assume it's not there.
Additional EQ in the form of outboard EQ devices does no more harm, if properly implemented, than the EQ which is already in the signal chain. There are far more impactful things to worry about than EQ in a modern system like the basic acoustics of the room.
Analog EQ is already basic to the operation of almost every system - we just don't see it and therefore assume it's not there.
Additional EQ in the form of outboard EQ devices does no more harm, if properly implemented, than the EQ which is already in the signal chain. There are far more impactful things to worry about than EQ in a modern system like the basic acoustics of the room.
Assuming the "EQ which is already in the signal chain" does some harm, as you suggest, then "additional EQ in the form of outboard EQ devices" will add additional harm. Additional devices almost certainly exact a penalty, however small, in transparency, at least. I think the question is whether, on a net basis, one nonetheless is happier with the sound.
Where did I say that the existing analog EQ does any harm? I didn't say that - don't put words in my mouth. How a particular piece of gear affects the overall comes down to the implementation and design of each piece of gear in the chain. While simpler is generally better, that is not necessarily and always the case, and it certainly can't be taken as dogma that adding something like an EQ is going to reduce 'transparency', even a little bit. A more nuanced way of looking at it is more like a bad EQ is bad, in the same way that a bad amplifier is bad or a bad tape machine is bad. A well designed one would be as transparent any any other piece of gear in the chain.
Heck, following the logic of this chain would lead to the conclusion that a table radio would be the best reproducer of all because of it's lack of things like EQ and other imagined evils.
Putting words in your mouth? I'm going by your words.
If outboard EQ "does no more harm" than onboard EQ then that means -- or at least implies strongly -- that onboard EQ does some harm. If you aren't saying that onboard EQ does some harm then the sentence makes no sense.
I think that it's more of a case of my not being clear. I was just illustrating that "EQ" is present all along the signal chain whether we like it or not, and banning an external EQ from the chain for no particular reason beyond dogma makes no sense, given that we are already using them, unseen. EQ's are no more likely to cause a loss of 'transparency' (whatever that is) than a power amplifier, pre amplifier, speaker, tape machine, or turntable.
There is no reason why any class of signal processing gear should be considered out of bounds for inclusion into even the best systems - provided that the EQ or whatever is well designed. Anything we include into a system should be well designed - and I'm not implying that only the most expensive gear possible is well-enough designed.
I'm also not into DSP EQ for your whole system. If you are heavily into DSP I'm wonder why you aren't using the Bach system?
I used to have a Sansui equaliser in my system when I was a young man. It was a nice toy, impressed many female visitors. It was not the sound but the magically moving sliders of the equalizer that was most impressive back then. When this did not work anymore, I took the Sansui out of my chain to have it repaired. As the sound was better when the Sansui was out, repair never happened and my analog equaliser journey ended.
You can not compensate valleys or mountains in a frequency response curve with an equaliser if those imbalances are caused by room/speaker interaction. I can easily find the spot in my room where the bass response is at the lowest. It is caused by interference between the reflected wave from the back wall and the wave coming directly from the speakers. An equaliser could not change this.
You can not compensate valleys or mountains in a frequency response curve with an equaliser if those imbalances are caused by room/speaker interaction. I can easily find the spot in my room where the bass response is at the lowest. It is caused by interference between the reflected wave from the back wall and the wave coming directly from the speakers. An equaliser could not change this.
Nothing can compensate for room nulls however they are typically very high Q and are less obvious than peaks. Peaks is where an EQ can help if the peak is close to the defined filter center. More useful would be a parametric with adjustable frequency center and Q.
I have had improvements using analog EQ and the EQ was transparent. They can help so I wouldn't just dismiss them out of hand. Depends on the circumstances.
Rob
My one foray into EQ was years ago with a McIntosh XRT30 loudspeaker. The speaker had many good qualities but the upper midrange simply couldn't be tamed. For some Cd's the speaker sounded great, for other if I turned it up, it took my ear off. So I tried a Manley Massive Passive, a very expensive tube EQ, the best on the market. Well, it definitely totally tamed the XRT30 but the price was a loss of resolution, even when the equalizer was set to zero but still in the system. I finally sold it. I personally would never employ any kind of EQ, whether analog or digital.
However there is one kind of "EQ" that really works. Tubes provide a very pleasing coloration to my ear and i love the McIntosh tube sound. This coloration is subtle but easy to hear but does not veil the sound in any way. I have the best bass and most beautiful midrange and treble with simply superb resolution. There is no veil present. The reference gear allows me mix and match tube vs SS outputs to achieve a perfect blend between my Thor and XVX. There is no edge to the sound.
When you run your signal through an EQ, it becomes only as accurate and has only the fidelity of the circuitry inside the equalizer. This becomes a very significant problem for high end systems with subs and is the reason I run my Thor LP only at 30 Hz. Using the HP filter of the Wilson ActivXO analog electronic crossover in HP/LP configuration will noticeably veil the sound of my system.
When most folks employ subs the fidelity of their signal becomes only as good as the circuitry of the electronic crossover and believe me, this is not good. If you look at Vintage Tubes system using VAC Statement or JoeN's system using Vitus Masterpiece and Alexia V's or Magico M3's respectively you will not discover an EQ, which would be an anathema in their systems.
IMO, buy a speaker known for its neutrality and smooth mid and treble and tailor your sound to the room using passive equalization like room tunes, etc. or tailor the electronics to your taste so that your speaker doesn't burn your ear in the mid and treble.
However there is one kind of "EQ" that really works. Tubes provide a very pleasing coloration to my ear and i love the McIntosh tube sound. This coloration is subtle but easy to hear but does not veil the sound in any way. I have the best bass and most beautiful midrange and treble with simply superb resolution. There is no veil present. The reference gear allows me mix and match tube vs SS outputs to achieve a perfect blend between my Thor and XVX. There is no edge to the sound.
When you run your signal through an EQ, it becomes only as accurate and has only the fidelity of the circuitry inside the equalizer. This becomes a very significant problem for high end systems with subs and is the reason I run my Thor LP only at 30 Hz. Using the HP filter of the Wilson ActivXO analog electronic crossover in HP/LP configuration will noticeably veil the sound of my system.
When most folks employ subs the fidelity of their signal becomes only as good as the circuitry of the electronic crossover and believe me, this is not good. If you look at Vintage Tubes system using VAC Statement or JoeN's system using Vitus Masterpiece and Alexia V's or Magico M3's respectively you will not discover an EQ, which would be an anathema in their systems.
IMO, buy a speaker known for its neutrality and smooth mid and treble and tailor your sound to the room using passive equalization like room tunes, etc. or tailor the electronics to your taste so that your speaker doesn't burn your ear in the mid and treble.
Last edited:
Similar threads
