Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past. Any major errors in amplitude were controlled at least in part by acoustic treatments. 

Fine control over amplitude is a huge advantage, much finer than any analog method can muster, literally 1 Hz at a time. This can now be done in the digital realm without any added distortion of any type. Certain digital preamps have this capability allowing you to create target curves. I'm sure there are also plug ins that allow you to do this. This is the path to a SOTA system in most rooms. The other path requires incredible luck.

@mirolab , have you done any direct comparisons between any pro hardware EQ and the Lokius or Loki Max?

Digital EQ is flat and 2 dimensional compared to high end analog EQ. I’ve directly compared modest curves on Roon and Auralic digital EQ as well as Mojo2 104 bit “lossless” UHD EQ against Charter Oak. The CO beats all 3 easily in terms of all hi fi qualities/ descriptors including image specificity. Particularly in the realm of high frequencies. So I don’t agree that digital is better in terms of image specificity. Minimal phase shift exists with the higher end analog solutions and they just sound way better. At least mastering and home playback. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go read what audio engineers have to say on forums like Gearspace 

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past.

I think this is part of the legendary use of EQ which may not apply today. 31 bands of cheap parts excessively used introduced so much phase shift and noise you can forget about not just imaging but dynamic range as well.

Tone controls and small number of parametric bands can be heavenly though. The use of a miniDSP in line with subwoofers can be a lot closer to perfect than not.

Analog Equalization causes havoc with image generation. This is why serious audiophiles steered away from toner controls and EQ in the past.

@mijostyn    This is the kind of negative energy towards EQ that I’ve been railing against for years. Basically you’re telling every mastering engineer in the world that they can’t hear worth a darn. Don’t you realize that pretty much EVERYTHING we listen to has been mastered through (mostly analog) EQs? Unless you only listen to very niche purist recordings of jazz & classical music. Sorry... that’s not me. I don’t like that kind of music. You know that there are EQs that get used specifically BECAUSE they improve the imaging and depth of a recording. I own a Manley Massive Passive, a staple in mastering studios, and it sounds glorious! But it’s too tweaky for casual listening. The casual listener should have a single set of controls for both channels.

@tlcocks  I do own a Schiit Loki, and while it’s nice, quiet, and distortion free, I’m simply too spoiled by much more expensive EQs! For me, the bands are too narrow, but I highly recommend it (for the price). Sadly, most studio EQs have separate L/R controls, and they are not fun to adjust for casual listening. That’s what’s great about the PEQ-1 or my M3D. I can dial in a great curve in about 10 seconds. BTW... I’ve talked at length with Mike Deming about the "transparency" of the PEQ-1, back when it first came out.