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. 

tattooedtrackman

Now we are going circular argument, dog chasing tail. . I won’t try to convince you further. Please though, we must not conflate room correction digital EQ with tone control!  You have already said you never boost treble with your digital applications. So I know in that all that I need to know. (Namely that digital treble boost is quite audibly inferior.) I DO like that you attempt to get your amp loudspeaker synergy to a measured flat out to 20khz. That’s obviously ideal for treble extension. The less EQ the better, of course. However, you are just another audiophile who knows everything there is to know about room correction/ phase/timing corrective applications (which is great), but will never know the joys of the analog air band boost. That’s ok 😊. At least Miro knows!

incidentally, I believe digital “tampering” with all these variables creates unnatural sound and more problems than good. Get a good listening room and tonally adjust with an MQ112, Vintage Skyline, Charter Oak or whatever the analog choice and THAT delivers the best sound!  I’ve compared my home experience with 100,000 dollar systems in perfect rooms and prefer mine with EVERY recording, good or bad. 

tlcocks dont be upset ... 😊

read what mijostyn said :

NO analog EQ unit can claim ANY of this. There is literally no comparison. You might as well use an abacus rather than a computer. There is no frequency that analog EQ is even remotely equivalent. As Rob himself suggests, it is the kind of distortion some people find Euphonic. I do not.

Mijostyn dont understand that we can use an analog electronic EQ or a mechanical control of the room , which is a way using tools to transform an acoustic situation to another one by LISTENING as the main guide ...Or we can use a tool and forgetting the territory as he do , confusing it with the map, because we never trusted our ears to begin with and we will never trust them ....Mijostyn brain is mandated to perceive as real the maps he created with his toys ... I myself as you do use some tools to correct and refine our own hearings which stay always at the command post ... We trust our ears ... Not mijostyn, he distrust his ears ...

Not only mijostyn dont understand crosstalk as i demonstrated in the post above , he really believe that spatial information encoded in the sound perception is only a subjective illusion , forgetting how evolution trained the human ears for tracking the sound sources information at the cost of our survival and forgetting that precise speech sound modulations perception is also mandatory for our survival ...

He does not know that evolution did not use only Fourier mapping tools to do this but more complex tools unknown to us in the brain ... It is the reason why hearing can beat the Fourier limits 10 times and more ...

The Fourier limits resulted from the constraints imposed by the linear mapping of the audible territory in a linear abstracted time domain with abstract concepts as frequencies,phase amplitude etc instead of the real perceived qualities , and the ears/brain beat the Fourier maps and cross over them in identification of frequencies because the brain works non linearly in his own time domain...

The brain hear the real qualities it was trained for by evolution , not abstraction ; and the brain is more than a Fourier machine ...From the works of J.J. Gibson in visual perception , Science going toward more ecological theories of perception had established that visual and audible perceptions are not maps created by a computing brain , but participated interacting phenomena not reducible to abstracted linear maps ...

 

Read this :

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 

«We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of 'ecological theories of perception' in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.»

I’m not mad at all. Just adamant that I know what I hear is universally true. I’ve had too many people tell me my stereo sounds absolutely surreal to believe otherwise. You will never ever hear Pink Floyd Echoes from album Meddle cause your friend who’s an avid concert goer to sit bolt upright and state “oh my god, it sounds like you’re in the studio with them!”  
not mad @mahgister , just ADAMANT. By the way, the BACCH concept is fascinating but would have to hear to believe in it of course. 

By the way, the BACCH concept is fascinating but would have to hear to believe in it of course.

For sure you are right ... ...

But the explanation by Choueiri well understood without replacing the listening experience is enough to understand why this is an acoustic revolution for playback system , not a mere toy or gadget ... Choueiri wrote scientific papers in acoustics not marketing articles for digital equalization 😁... His DSP is patented and unique and grounded in psycho-acoustics ...

Anyway when i will bought it it will be without any hearing experience before because i cannot travel and will not be able to go where i can test it ... But i understood what he talk about and it is enough for me ...

 

 

I will “buy and try” so long as a return policy for full refund.   
Yes, ears (listening) first priority. In the end that’s all that matters. Psychoacoustic theory, Fourier, charts, graphs, timing vs amplitude, crosstalk…the lists goes on but all largely mentioned here…all important tools but ultimately in and of themselves can not be assumed in their implementation to create the “perfect “ acoustic experience. (We all know stereo is inherently flawed.)  No one here has elaborated more on this than @mahgister   “The proof is in the pudding.”  I believe everyone here has a trained ear and is an astute listener. Or they wouldn’t be here in the first place. Trust your ears and LISTEN to new applications. Explore by listening.  
I am willing for the love and fun of the hobby to try a BACCH filter preamp and or DEQX system in my home. @mijostyn , are you willing to try a MQ112 or better yet a piece like Miro’s Vintage Skyline in your home?  I will bet you’re not. I see you as @mahgister does. As somebody who placed the ultimate trust in the digital tools and theory behind them first and the listening second. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure you’ve got good listening ears. Be adventurous and try a different approach and you might be shocked that there are other and for some recordings (particularly older classics) BETTER ways to hear them.