Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

I will “buy and try” so long as a return policy for full refund.   
Yes, ears (listening) first priority. In the end that’s all that matters. Psychoacoustic theory, Fourier, charts, graphs, timing vs amplitude, crosstalk…the lists goes on but all largely mentioned here…all important tools but ultimately in and of themselves can not be assumed in their implementation to create the “perfect “ acoustic experience. (We all know stereo is inherently flawed.)  No one here has elaborated more on this than @mahgister   “The proof is in the pudding.”  I believe everyone here has a trained ear and is an astute listener. Or they wouldn’t be here in the first place. Trust your ears and LISTEN to new applications. Explore by listening.  
I am willing for the love and fun of the hobby to try a BACCH filter preamp and or DEQX system in my home. @mijostyn , are you willing to try a MQ112 or better yet a piece like Miro’s Vintage Skyline in your home?  I will bet you’re not. I see you as @mahgister does. As somebody who placed the ultimate trust in the digital tools and theory behind them first and the listening second. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure you’ve got good listening ears. Be adventurous and try a different approach and you might be shocked that there are other and for some recordings (particularly older classics) BETTER ways to hear them. 

@tlcocks 

I am 70 years old and have been doing this since I was 4 years old when my dad got me a Zenith portable for my 4th birthday. He already had a serious system for the day based on Bozak B302A loudspeakers. He had an Ampex tape deck and over 100 pre recorded tapes. I paid my way through medical school installing high end systems in the homes of very rich people. I got all my own equipment at salesman's comp. I have already been through every permutation you can think of including analog equalizers. I am one of 120 people who are going to beta test the Pre 8 (we get one at 1/2 price). It should be showing up any day. If someone wants to bring a Skyline to my home I would be happy to plug it in. I am certainly not going to buy one. Progress does not like going backwards and I am not sentimental. 

Knowing what a state of the art system/room is capable of is totally a matter of experience. Many of us have heard some very expensive systems and most of them do not perform at the level I am talking about although they may be very impressive. I might also add that the very best systems I have ever heard were not hyper expensive except one, an HQD Levinson system. It does not matter how good your ears are if you have not experienced the best. Try explaining what Foie Gras taste like, you have to try it to understand. 

@mahgister 

Theories are just that. In the end people decide and they are not rushing to get one of these systems. I never said that "mechanical control", more appropriately called acoustic control of the room is not important, it is very important. Without it you are finished in terms of creating the best system. Most important to acoustic control are the dimensions and configuration of the room. The room has to be designed for sound reproduction to get the best results, although using something like a DEQX or Trinnov can help a lot there are problems they can not manage. For instance, great bass throughout the room is very difficult to achieve. The DEQX and Trinnov can only give you great bass at the listening position. Every place else there is either too much or too little. With a good room and the right speakers you can get very even bass throughout the room varying only a few dB. The less these units have to correct the better. 

We all love music. The love of music has little to do with being an audiophile. Most music lovers are not audiophiles. Most music lovers are not hyper acute listeners. Most audiophiles do not have a lot of experience listening to multiple systems. Maybe they have gone to a show, but not one of the best systems I have ever heard was at a show. Like most things in life, experience is everything. 

tl, there are always better ways, it never stops. There are also a lot of dead ends like 8 track tapes. Analog equalizers are one of those dead ends. Like vintage turntables they are going to show up on the market and sentimental people will buy them hopefully at a good price. I'm sure they can make some systems sound better, but they are nowhere near the last word. I am extremely adventurous, a very early adopter. I have been using DSP in my system for 30 years. I have been using subwoofers since 1978. Both are now exploding onto the market as all good things will. 

I appreciate that you come back of what you already said like "room acoustic mechanical tuning" does not exist , to be fair you said exactly said "room tuning" does not exist few days ago ...

But how could we call mechanical tuning of each Helmholtz resonators integrated and specifically located in a room acoustic control design which ask for more than just panels on a wall , diffusive or absorbing or even reflective one distributed in some way ?

I called it room tuning and you said that this does not exist , not conscious that the mechanical ancestor of electronical EQ, is the prehistoric Helmholtz resonators existing even in ancient Egypt for what is called "room tuning" ... This is what inspired my simple experiments ..

Anyway thanks for recognizing fact...

I myself recognise evident fact as the utility of electronical equalisation tools being it digital or analog because i use the two for my system as necessary ...

My only point was that these tool not being mechanical dont solve all acoustic problems and do0nt replace room acoustic but participate in it as tools integrated to the system or not ...

😊

@mahgister

Theories are just that. In the end people decide and they are not rushing to get one of these systems. I never said that "mechanical control", more appropriately called acoustic control of the room is not important, it is very important. Without it you are finished in terms of creating the best system.

@mijostyn have you tried in your extensive and impressive past putting a professional mastering equalizer in your chain?  You said you tried analog but didn’t elaborate. What analog EQ did you try?  As you well know, not all analog EQs are created equal. Incidentally I am a doctor too. I’m a family practitioner. What are you?

The ONLY system I’ve ever heard that I preferred flat over miy setup EQd  (and I’ve heard many) was in Audible Images dedicated showroom which Ed meticulously crafted to be as close to perfect as possible. The system was Dan d’Agostino amplification driving Sonus Faber Olympica III’s. The end to end full spectrum extension was unrivaled. The sound reproduction was more pristine, detailed, airy, dimensional, tactile, dynamic and FUN ENGAGING than anything I’ve ever heard. It’s the ONLY system that caused me to take pause with mine. The ONLY. @mijostyn i am willing to BET you have not tried certain renowned for air band professional mastering applications in a home hi fi. I KNOW you haven’t because after 6 f@cking pages of this you refuse to comment on the specific topic. You have had a lot to say, but I’ve never heard you say “I have tried adding air to my recordings” with a Knif Soma or a Manley Massive Passive or a classic Pultec design EQ or a Charter Oak or a Maag or a Skyline or Chandler, Maselec, Millennia, Avalon.  The list goes on. Until I’ve heard you specifically say it, then you haven’t done it. So stop being arrogant in putting down things you haven’t tried.