mrdecibel,
It would be fruitful to discuss on another level why I think EQ is important. I recall you saying that when you made recordings, you found the EQ helpful No component CREATES detail--the ideal is to reveal the detail that is present on the recording, and not obliterate it through distorted electronics, speakers, etc. I think we agree on that. For that, your Luminous passive is just about the best. But we should consider psychoacoustically how a listener perceives music and sound in general. Suppose the choral conductor tells the male singers to belt it out louder than the female singers. At that point, the female singers will be still singing their part at the same volume level, so the microphone will still pick up their sound just as detailed as before. And the waveforms of the female higher freq will still be seen on the waveform of the complete music, but they will be more submerged and harder to tease out. So the listener will perceive that the higher frequencies of the females are lessened and the enunciation of the female words will not be perceived as well. The total information will still be there, but the HF will be perceived as lessened, with lessened detail at those freq. There are many reviews of components where it is said that one item sounds more flesh and blood and the other item sounds more detailed but more skeletal. We are all making the choice between these 2 types of sound with every component, whether it is a speaker, electronics, cable, etc. Of course, nothing is pure skeletal and nothing is pure soft flesh, so every component falls within the spectrum between these 2 extremes. The EQ is just a convenient way to offer different positions within this spectrum. By the way, I have tried bypassing the Rane not by pressing the 2 bypass buttons, but by removing it completely and plugging the Benchmark DAC straight into the power amp, which would probably be comparable to using the Luminous between the DAC and power amp. In this experiment, I noted a more transparent overall sound, but the higher freq and overall life were greatly reduced compared to using the EQ with my boosted HF settings at 10 Khz and above between the DAC and power amp. (Of course, the filters are not sharp, so there is some boost down into the midrange.) These were for modern recordings with full range freq, not musically wonderful old recordings. Technically using no EQ would reveal more overall info, but psychoacoustically it is nowhere near as satisfying as hearing the relatively increased info in midrange to HF using the Rane. All speakers have major deficiencies in trying to sound like the real thing, so I just use the EQ to get the speaker to have the tonal balance and thrilling clarity that I hear close up. If I preferred a laid back tonal balance, I would adjust the EQ differently, or maybe not use it at all, and be happy to use the Luminous alone with the power amp.
Try the tone controls of your humble stock car radio system. Set to flat, it is really bad. Then increase the treble by just +1, and you will find that you hear more in the music and hear better enunciation of the announcer's voice. The tonal balance won't disturb you much, if at all. Then try increasing the treble to +2, all the way to +6. At some point you will hate the skewed tonal balance, so maybe for you the optimum setting might be +2. For me it is +6. At +6, I can hear the obvious skewed balance, but I accept it in return for the much increased detail I hear. The system is so dull and muddy without the treble boost so I find +6 is ideal. If I then transplanted the electronics into my electrostatic speakers, I might find that +2 would be the optimum setting.
It would be fruitful to discuss on another level why I think EQ is important. I recall you saying that when you made recordings, you found the EQ helpful No component CREATES detail--the ideal is to reveal the detail that is present on the recording, and not obliterate it through distorted electronics, speakers, etc. I think we agree on that. For that, your Luminous passive is just about the best. But we should consider psychoacoustically how a listener perceives music and sound in general. Suppose the choral conductor tells the male singers to belt it out louder than the female singers. At that point, the female singers will be still singing their part at the same volume level, so the microphone will still pick up their sound just as detailed as before. And the waveforms of the female higher freq will still be seen on the waveform of the complete music, but they will be more submerged and harder to tease out. So the listener will perceive that the higher frequencies of the females are lessened and the enunciation of the female words will not be perceived as well. The total information will still be there, but the HF will be perceived as lessened, with lessened detail at those freq. There are many reviews of components where it is said that one item sounds more flesh and blood and the other item sounds more detailed but more skeletal. We are all making the choice between these 2 types of sound with every component, whether it is a speaker, electronics, cable, etc. Of course, nothing is pure skeletal and nothing is pure soft flesh, so every component falls within the spectrum between these 2 extremes. The EQ is just a convenient way to offer different positions within this spectrum. By the way, I have tried bypassing the Rane not by pressing the 2 bypass buttons, but by removing it completely and plugging the Benchmark DAC straight into the power amp, which would probably be comparable to using the Luminous between the DAC and power amp. In this experiment, I noted a more transparent overall sound, but the higher freq and overall life were greatly reduced compared to using the EQ with my boosted HF settings at 10 Khz and above between the DAC and power amp. (Of course, the filters are not sharp, so there is some boost down into the midrange.) These were for modern recordings with full range freq, not musically wonderful old recordings. Technically using no EQ would reveal more overall info, but psychoacoustically it is nowhere near as satisfying as hearing the relatively increased info in midrange to HF using the Rane. All speakers have major deficiencies in trying to sound like the real thing, so I just use the EQ to get the speaker to have the tonal balance and thrilling clarity that I hear close up. If I preferred a laid back tonal balance, I would adjust the EQ differently, or maybe not use it at all, and be happy to use the Luminous alone with the power amp.
Try the tone controls of your humble stock car radio system. Set to flat, it is really bad. Then increase the treble by just +1, and you will find that you hear more in the music and hear better enunciation of the announcer's voice. The tonal balance won't disturb you much, if at all. Then try increasing the treble to +2, all the way to +6. At some point you will hate the skewed tonal balance, so maybe for you the optimum setting might be +2. For me it is +6. At +6, I can hear the obvious skewed balance, but I accept it in return for the much increased detail I hear. The system is so dull and muddy without the treble boost so I find +6 is ideal. If I then transplanted the electronics into my electrostatic speakers, I might find that +2 would be the optimum setting.