Equalizer in a Hi Fi system

“Question:

electrically speaking, can I run balanced equalizer into a tube amp and boost the signal without damaging tubes or amp?  Cannot find a definitive review of this topic anywhere online. “

I talked to two sound engineers and got my answer. The answer is yes I can without any risk to tubes or equipment. 

@tlcocks wrote:

“I take it they’re mostly digital by now for a number of reasons, though analog mixers are no doubt easier/more intuitive to use. ”

maybe in mixing. In mastering (most similar to our use case) analog is still felt to be superior. Although the gap is closing. Read threads on Gearspace if you want to educate yourself on what goes on in the studio. As opposed to making assumptions.

What’s so assumptive re: the quoted part of mine other than what’s clearly laid bare by me already? "I take it .." should give you a clue. And btw. I was not referring to which of the two were "superior" sounding.

"Special color sauce" pretty much tells it like it is, and whether such a flavor is a benefit is obviously system dependent, a matter of synergy or personal taste instead of being a desirable trait or character sought in every case and system context.

you are missing the point a bit. The best analog EQ boxes are simply amazing sounding and extremely musical and resolute. Many a mastering engineer says just passing a signal through the box set on flat but EQ in makes everything sound better.

Ah, a magic equalizer box then. Seriously, I’ll happily leave it to you and others to be thrilled by the mere inclusion of an analog studio mixer in an existing setup sans knob turning. Whatever floats your boat. And yet more seriously: maybe myself and other compadres don’t know any better here, just like a bunch of audiophiles (and that includes you as well) don’t know any better in regards to other aspects in home audio reproduction.

With the right box, you can make your system sound whatever way you want tonality wise all the while enhancing the hi fi charteristics we all pay attention to: timbre, image specificity, staging, resolution, PRaT, etc. The term “color “ loses its negative connotation in such a context and the term actually becomes irrelevant.

Now the knobs are turning, right? And that’s just it: "With the right box.." also applies to a DSP unit, the proper implementation of which you don’t seem to know or care about, because "analog" has become the buzzword to trump digital (and conversion steps) almost by its wording alone. A quality DSP unit is a tool in the very same manner of sound "molding" you’re outlining with an analog iteration, and what a DSP might (or might not) give up in ultimate sound quality by comparison it can easily reel back in with its plethora of adjustment possibilities, and also their precision and context of configuration (active vs passive).

Keep in mind that my (and others’) context of using a DSP is fully active configuration avoiding passive crossovers (with all that entails). What you should know is that active config. is about optimizing the amp to driver interfacing - which is hardly trivial, to say the least - and from this better outset "timbre, image specificity, staging .." etc. are extremely important aspects to hone in on as well, and which we can do even more elaborately with a DSP. Forest for the trees, as they say.

Great and right sounding is great and right sounding. Period. You don’t know until you’ve tried. I can tell you that with one of these EQs picks, fret slides, breathes, pedal clunks, all the micro and macro resolution is there in spades. And for all of you with the Loki Max thinking you know what I’m talking about, you don’t. You think you’re hearing what you should be getting, but you have no idea.

What tells you I haven’t tried and heard something else to know about what’s "great and right sounding"? You obviously don’t know any better about the specifics and my experiences with active DSP implementations via very different setups, so quit the arrogant and condescending barking from your local standpoint.

LM has been in my system and fell woefully short of my PEQ-1. Returned it the next day. Piece of “Schiit” in comparison!

Yeah, well - what can I say that I have not said before.

Yeah but notice I’m not slamming or poo pooing DSP. I am simply speaking to how beautiful the right analog implementation sounds. Your talk about my experience condescending though. Again, I was impressed by BACCH and am open to hearing the manner of DSP you implement. Again, don’t conflate tone adjustment (broad) with room correction (narrow). My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me. 

You confuse passionate as arrogance. I have yet to meet a DSP advocate as passionate here as I’ve been. That should tell you something. But I’ll admit I’ve only done some bass and treble shelf boosts and compared them instantaneous A-B to my analog piece and all the digital implementations were sonically inferior. Flat 2-D lifeless. Not unlike how people compare solid state to the holographism of tubes. But listen, hey, I admit I haven’t heard the best DSP has to offer. But I want to. 

And I do read about shootouts on Gearspace with mastering engineers comparing the best plug-in digital emulations of classic analog designs, eg Knif Soma or SPL PQ, and they say similar to my observations on my own system but with a smaller margin of difference. But mastering is broad stroke. DSP great for narrow filter in mixing. I am quite sure if you don’t have a Luxman amp with tone controls and you want to adjust tone for differing recordings in your hi fi system that analog is a better chance at retaining the hi fi characteristics of the straight signal. I have no doubts though that the best digital will eventually eclipse analog for adjusting tone. Technology marches on. Look at AI. It’s inevitable.