Update:
So, I had the amp (Sim Audio Moon W-5) maintained, diagnosed by some pro techs. There were some minor fixes, but nothing major wrong. The tech commented he had rarely seen such a well-built power amp. Sonically, his work translated to a minor improvement, but nothing along the lines of what I had been looking for. I subsequently found a couple of good buys on equalizers on eBay, and went for it (lots cheaper than a McIntosh pre/amp solution). I ended up with a dbx 1231 graphic eq, and an Ashly PQ-26 parametric. Both are pro-level gear (studio). The dbx arrived first, and it clearly made a difference, but the difference I got was an improvement, but not understated/subtle/natural sounding. Some harshness/fatigue/artificiality was present. Still, I considered this a promising step forward.
The Ashly PQ-26 was another story--significant differences were possible without incuring harshness or over-brightness. Wow. I still need to get the parametric eq dialed In a bit, and I wish it had "shelf" settings, but again, wow. Natural-sounding improvements are the hallmarks of a good parametric, and the Ashly did not disappoint. I put the Ashly between the power amp and the pre. It’s amazing. Recordings of music I love, but which have serious sonic quality issues were improved greatly. I’m really getting what I have been seeking at this point. I’ll either sell the graphic eq, or put it into another system in a different room. The Ashly is a keeper. Ran as much of the cabling as possible through balanced cables (Audience 24se and totem). I am deeply pleased with results so far. The Hawk speakers are responding beautifully.
Before trying the eq approach I read a bunch of cogent threads, so I established preferences before buying. My insights:
1. Eq is ok for meeting my particular needs--some hi Freq. hearing loss, and the quality and nature of my many recordings (CDs) have huge variation, suggesting some eq may be appropriate at times, and the Ashly has hardware bypass for purists.
2. For any eq gear intended for audiophile use, choose pro (studio) gear over consumer-grade gear. The I/O options are different (1/4" TRS instead of rca), but the balanced (XLR) option provides wonderful sound.
3. Parametric eq gives more control and has far less of a negative impact on fidelity vs graphic eq.
4. Though I thought about "tuning the room" with the eq, I decided to go with my ears over quantitative analysis via an RTA. RTAs give you a balanced/flat sound at one point: where you put the mic. I often listen from several spots in the room, so the RTA route made little sense (there seems to be some consensus in the forums on this--I agree strongly). The Hawks are also designed to be good for listening from multiple positions in the listening space, from what I’ve read.
5. I spent a lot of time on cabling, using swapped cables as expensive tone controls. Mistake. I needed to achieve big differences in hi freq. sound, and an eq gave me what I needed to achieve this, surprisingly, without destroying the quality of the listening experience, for example, by introducing harshness, overly bright highs, or quick-onset listening fatigue. Cool.
Thanks again to to all who advised me on this issue. Please feel free to comment/reflect on this development.
BH
