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

@tlcocks wrote:

Wrong. A great analog studio EQ can and does add its own special color sauce if you will which can be all improvements, no drawbacks.

"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context. If it works for you (and others), great. I know how much work has gotten finding into a proper tonal balance in my setup, and suddenly introducing a component with a distinct sonic flavor of its own would tip that balance and likely necessitate a re-tweaking in several areas.

Which is also to say: you may need an analog-based studio mixer to provide the sonic juice to make things fall into place for your ears; others - preference and all in mind - can make it happen via other means. 

That’s obvious to sound engineers.

To them these consoles are a necessity in the first place, and where they can will get the best. I take it they're mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. 

Ive yet to hear DSP as room correction, as speaker timing corrective, or as crossover function. I have only tried some tone curves with Roon and Auralic DSP among others similar to that. And Neutron media player. All digital parametric. But just bass and treble custom tone curves. Not all the above.

And again, lots of factors can be at play here for whatever sonic impressions you may have had with these setups and their different tone curve implementations that isn't necessarily reflective on the use of DSP itself.  

As I mused on this previously, I will muse on it again. I wonder what it would be like to optimize the room first, then do room and speaker timing correction with DSP. Then lastly have an analog piece that is great sounding for bass and treble shaping which has hardwire bypass for full circuitry bypass when not needed. 

Optimizing acoustics and speaker placement is always an important and necessary outset. As for digital room in both the amplitude and time domain, try it out (the DRC FIR software comes recommended, and works well via Convolution in JRiver, though I don't currently use it). Myself I have no passive crossovers between the amps and speakers to mess up proper interfacing between them, so having crossover duties done actively prior to amplification on signal level with a quality DSP and direct connection between dedicated amp channels to their respective driver sections is a very transparent/sonically benign way that leaves vital sonic parameters to be intricately worked out here. As for your idea with analog-based tone curving to top it all out - well, why not? You only get the wiser with experience. I'd opt for less layers in the signal chain presently with only a digital crossover that handles it all, i.e.: sans digital room correction and passive crossovers. 

it’s important not to conflate bass and treble tone shaping EQ with room correction.

No arguing here. 

The former is better sounding (by far) with analog. The latter is only properly executed with DSP, with its minute amplitude options and infinite possibilities with narrow notch filtering

On this we don't agree however. It depends on the implementation and DSP device. 

My room embedded mechanical equalizer grid is made of Helmholtz resonators and Helmholtz diffusers, they modify the pressure zone grid of the room by their location.

No DSP analog or digital can do this...

Listener envelopment (LV) ask for more than single frequencies response modifications from the gear ... It ask for the room pressure zone modification and adress speakers/room coupling...

Acoustics rules not the gear...

it is not practical for living room and wife. But i cannot change acoustics truth because of my wife convenience... 😁😊😎😋

“I take it they're mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. ”


maybe in mixing. In mastering (most similar to our use case) analog is still felt to be superior. Although the gap is closing. Read threads on Gearspace if you want to educate yourself on what goes on in the studio. As opposed to making assumptions. 

@mahgister , your ‘natural’ method, while impractical and unsightly to wives, is certainly fascinating. I have no doubts you are maximizing sonic returns on the gear you have.