Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

For mijostyn hearing is only a subjective illusionist...

Psycho-acoustics depth knowledge for sure dont go with this simplistic objectivist claim accusing people for example of super power about their "golden ears" ...

Analog EQ is designed for the ears which stay at the command control; digital EQ is better for him on all counts because for him all aspects of sound are reducible to asbtract Linear Fourier maps ...And with digital EQ most of the time we can put our ears in the back seat ... We "listen" to abstract frequencies plot more than to the concrete music which anyway is misinformed and plagued for objectivists by hearings subjectivist illusions in all case ...😊 It is not even wrong as opinion because for sure ears must be trained by experiments and learnings for acousticians as for musical maestros to be used with trust and confidence ...No need for "golden ears" here only training ...

Most people resort to simplistic ideology because it is easier... Especially educated people when they advocate for a theory over another one...Transhumanism is the better possible exem-ple after materialism and scientism ... This is so because true science is too complex for most people with or without doctorate ... True science must be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in a way or in another... Specialization good for technology and technocracy  may kill knowledge in the long run or create perfect specialized workers slaves for corporations  ... There is an epistemic  trade-off here...  I will stop here ...

Exactly @mahgister !

Same for me ...

I learned a lot about the difference between analog EQ and digital EQ ... Thanks to @tlcocks

For sure i cannot afford this product for my low cost system ... Anyway i am happy with what i had ...But i am interested in this discussion because i like to learn ...

Still mulling it over and appreciative of @tlcocks listing brands to look at.

@tlcocks 

I am a gladly retired FP. 

The shop I use to work with was Sound Components in Miami, FL when Peter McGrath owned it. Peter was heavily into recording and we had all kinds of professional equipment in house including equalizers. I have not used one in my current system. I do not have access to one and I certainly am not going to buy one. 

Flat is boring and usually too bright. I have my own "house" curve that I use. How many target curves have you drawn and listened to? What happens if I boose 4 kHz 3 dB. What happens if I cut 125 Hz 3 dB. What happens if I do both? With a low Q? With a high Q? 

@mahgister 

I do not use the term room tuning. The most significant part of acoustic management is designing the room specifically for sound reproduction then you touch up with treatments as needed. The only acoustic treatment I use in my room which was designed for sound reproduction is 3 floor to ceiling rows of  4" acoustic tiles behind both loudspeakers. These kill the back wave of the ESLs above 250 Hz. Because they are line source Dipoles that is the only first reflection point. There is no rear wall. The room is open to the rest of the house. The nearest solid wall is 75 feet away. 

The quality of music reproduction is not subjective. We may have different ways of trying to describe the experience and there is considerable variation to the live experience, so it is a moving target. If I blindfold you and walk you into a media room and you think you are at a live performance, that is a great system. This only works with certain types of music and requires a live recording. Studio recordings are fun and can sound great but they never convince me that I am at a live performance. The best test for imaging is the string quartet. Attend a live one to get a reference. Then play any one of the Luigi Cherubini string quartets performed by the Melos Quartett Stuttgart. Nr 1 in Es-dur is my favorite. If you can close your eyes and feel as if you are at a live performance you have a great system.