speedbump6,
I actually agree with everything you just said. I would love to compare different EQ products, because their electronics would yield different sounds. But the choice of high quality products is limited. I'd love to see someone like Merrill come up with a purist line stage with limited gain, a SOTA volume control, and top grade EQ parts. I am not claiming my Rane ME60 is the best such product--I merely tried it because I was desperate to add EQ when the conductor of my orchestra complained that my recordings in the lousy hall sounded dull and bass heavy. I agreed with him and was unhappy. That was back in 1995, and I came to enjoy the EQ for audiophile listening purposes. I lean away from the tubed EQ units of Manley, but I would welcome other units you may have heard that have the transparency I seek.
There are actually 2 subjects here. One--purity with lack of coloration, and transparency. Two--the role of EQ to bring out HF which brings out more details of higher freq harmonic overtones. On the 1st subject, it is remarkable that the cheap Rane especially with mrdecibel's tweaks is decently transparent as just a line stage without its EQ, although no doubt the Merrill Christine and other SOTA line stages are better for purity/transparency. On the 2nd subject, the EQ with HF judiciously boosted enables more snap and sparkle so that speakers come much closer to those qualities of live music. I have some cherished musical performances on recordings where the mikes are relatively distant and electronics are sweet and tubey sounding, so I get the midrange a little drier and more neutral by slightly reducing the range of 200-800 Hz. Also, don't forget that mikes are transducers with their own electronics embedded, so they are in effect EQ's. That's a big reason why mikes have different sounds which may vary as much as speakers.
So as I explained in a recent post, the slight handicap of the Rane for purity is vastly outweighed by its EQ ability to make recordings and speakers much more lively so that the overall sound is much closer to the gestalt of live unamplified music. Sounds contradictory, and few audiophiles believe this, but my listening experience has taught me all these things.
Slightly another topic, but I wonder whether the single tweeter array of the cheaper Tektons has more HF emphasis than the double array used in more expensive Tektons. In the single array, there are 6 tweeters that cover the midrange, and 1 tweeter that covers above 3 kHz. In the double array, there is the 1 tweeter for above 3 kHz, and 14 tweeters that cover the midrange, so perhaps there is more relative midrange output from the double array. Eric Alexander would know, but I don't want to bother him since I am not ready to buy Tektons at this time.
I actually agree with everything you just said. I would love to compare different EQ products, because their electronics would yield different sounds. But the choice of high quality products is limited. I'd love to see someone like Merrill come up with a purist line stage with limited gain, a SOTA volume control, and top grade EQ parts. I am not claiming my Rane ME60 is the best such product--I merely tried it because I was desperate to add EQ when the conductor of my orchestra complained that my recordings in the lousy hall sounded dull and bass heavy. I agreed with him and was unhappy. That was back in 1995, and I came to enjoy the EQ for audiophile listening purposes. I lean away from the tubed EQ units of Manley, but I would welcome other units you may have heard that have the transparency I seek.
There are actually 2 subjects here. One--purity with lack of coloration, and transparency. Two--the role of EQ to bring out HF which brings out more details of higher freq harmonic overtones. On the 1st subject, it is remarkable that the cheap Rane especially with mrdecibel's tweaks is decently transparent as just a line stage without its EQ, although no doubt the Merrill Christine and other SOTA line stages are better for purity/transparency. On the 2nd subject, the EQ with HF judiciously boosted enables more snap and sparkle so that speakers come much closer to those qualities of live music. I have some cherished musical performances on recordings where the mikes are relatively distant and electronics are sweet and tubey sounding, so I get the midrange a little drier and more neutral by slightly reducing the range of 200-800 Hz. Also, don't forget that mikes are transducers with their own electronics embedded, so they are in effect EQ's. That's a big reason why mikes have different sounds which may vary as much as speakers.
So as I explained in a recent post, the slight handicap of the Rane for purity is vastly outweighed by its EQ ability to make recordings and speakers much more lively so that the overall sound is much closer to the gestalt of live unamplified music. Sounds contradictory, and few audiophiles believe this, but my listening experience has taught me all these things.
Slightly another topic, but I wonder whether the single tweeter array of the cheaper Tektons has more HF emphasis than the double array used in more expensive Tektons. In the single array, there are 6 tweeters that cover the midrange, and 1 tweeter that covers above 3 kHz. In the double array, there is the 1 tweeter for above 3 kHz, and 14 tweeters that cover the midrange, so perhaps there is more relative midrange output from the double array. Eric Alexander would know, but I don't want to bother him since I am not ready to buy Tektons at this time.