• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What equalizer should I get?

S

stevemk

New Member
Hi everyone,

I know equalizers are sometimes shunned by the high-end community, but since so many high-end components sound different than each other, hardly any can be considered absolutely perfect. Nonetheless, I think EQs offer fun tweakability for those that already have great-sounding systems, and that's just the situation I am in right now.

I would love any suggestions that any of you could provide on a nice sounding equalizer for a very high-end stereo system. The purpose is not to compensate anything, rather to add fun tweakability, nothing else.

I am actually looking for an EQ for a customer, and even if it's one I cannot sell him that's ok by me. His room is damn-near acoustically perfect without any treatment (what a lucky SOB); as a result after 3 days of meticulous placement and calibration his system is easily the best I have ever heard. Granted, he's got Wilson Audio Alexx's for $100k in there, but still... As a final test, room correction didn't change a thing, and a guy from Wilson and our acoustic engineer both said it was freakishly perfect, so the customer is very happy. However, a system this good shows off the imperfections of various recordings quite easily, so he is looking at getting an EQ in order to have some fun.

We do not like the digital EQ built-in to the MX160 obviously, so... What EQ should he get?



For those curious what the guy's system is like...

I recently setup a pair of Wilson Audio Alexx speakers. I also setup a new Wilson Mezzo center on a stand. The customer had McIntosh MC601s powering his Wilson Sasha W/P 1s previously, so unless he ever wants to upgrade the amps to something like Boulder or D'agostino, we are using the MC601s. A newly purchased MC303 is powering his Mezzo and his Sashas as surrounds. He will be getting a nicer 4K projector at some point. Since he's a McIntosh guy, he has an MX160 and an MVP891 Blu-ray player (soon to be upgraded to the new top-of-the-line Oppo 4K-UHD player when he gets the new projector). He mostly plays music from his computer, though; mostly Tidal and hi-res downloads, or just whatever he wants to listen to. He has Transparent XL cabling and power isolation throughout. There is no subwoofer. He's now got a really nice projection screen, as well as a stand-in projector until he gets an upgraded one. There's a Middle Atlantic rack tucked in a closet nearby, etc. etc.

Man, I wish I owned this guy's entire room and system.
 
Register to hide this ad
Welcome to AK! This thread is just for intros - post your question in the right forum for more traffic. Try General Audio Discussion_:thumbsup:
 
I dont see a dedicated tape/EPL loop on that Mc preamp,so your best bet is likely going to be some sorta DSP processor inline between the preamp & amp.

It wont have that "old school" eye candy appeal & fun factor that a traditional GEQ would have,but it should sound a whole lot better than a vintage or modern "pro" style GEQ.

JM2¢

Bret P.
 
Is this EQ to be used for stereo sources or for Home theater, too. If it is for Stereo sources, sell him A MCD550 and a VPI TITAN plug them into a C-52 and use the bypass mode of the MX-160/52 combination. If he wants a little smoother sound look for an old C-40, but then you'll need a MP-100 for a MC cartridge. If he has a good ear and musician training, get him a pair of Klarke-Tekniq parametric Eq's. Then he will have infinite adjustment. Just tell him not to use to much boost in the HF other wise he will have to replace very pricy tweeters. And get with the program replace his 891 with a MVP901 4K player that the 160 will a mate with perfectly. This is a perfect time as Mac has a new update program for the first time for Home theatre products. Another option is to check out the programming of the MX 160 and see if the Room Perfect function has the programming capabilities for Equalization that the MEN220 has.
.
 
Last edited:
stevemk said:
Hi everyone,

I know equalizers are sometimes shunned by the high-end community, but since so many high-end components sound different than each other, hardly any can be considered absolutely perfect. Nonetheless, I think EQs offer fun tweakability for those that already have great-sounding systems, and that's just the situation I am in right now.

I would love any suggestions that any of you could provide on a nice sounding equalizer for a very high-end stereo system. The purpose is not to compensate anything, rather to add fun tweakability, nothing else.

I am actually looking for an EQ for a customer, and even if it's one I cannot sell him that's ok by me. His room is damn-near acoustically perfect without any treatment (what a lucky SOB); as a result after 3 days of meticulous placement and calibration his system is easily the best I have ever heard. Granted, he's got Wilson Audio Alexx's for $100k in there, but still... As a final test, room correction didn't change a thing, and a guy from Wilson and our acoustic engineer both said it was freakishly perfect, so the customer is very happy. However, a system this good shows off the imperfections of various recordings quite easily, so he is looking at getting an EQ in order to have some fun.

We do not like the digital EQ built-in to the MX160 obviously, so... What EQ should he get?



For those curious what the guy's system is like...

I recently setup a pair of Wilson Audio Alexx speakers. I also setup a new Wilson Mezzo center on a stand. The customer had McIntosh MC601s powering his Wilson Sasha W/P 1s previously, so unless he ever wants to upgrade the amps to something like Boulder or D'agostino, we are using the MC601s. A newly purchased MC303 is powering his Mezzo and his Sashas as surrounds. He will be getting a nicer 4K projector at some point. Since he's a McIntosh guy, he has an MX160 and an MVP891 Blu-ray player (soon to be upgraded to the new top-of-the-line Oppo 4K-UHD player when he gets the new projector). He mostly plays music from his computer, though; mostly Tidal and hi-res downloads, or just whatever he wants to listen to. He has Transparent XL cabling and power isolation throughout. There is no subwoofer. He's now got a really nice projection screen, as well as a stand-in projector until he gets an upgraded one. There's a Middle Atlantic rack tucked in a closet nearby, etc. etc.

Man, I wish I owned this guy's entire room and system.
Click to expand...
Rane makes the best consumer EQ's I know of. My Dad has a 31-band unit for his livingroom system. Wish I could afford one.
 
stevemk said:
I know equalizers are sometimes shunned by the high-end community, but since so many …components sound different than each other, hardly any can be considered absolutely perfect.
…The purpose is not to compensate anything…
Click to expand...
Then is such a purpose logic? Isn’t it logic to use EQs to compensate various sound spectrum differences between components, different room acoustics situations or, to some degree, sound material shortcomings?

To my personal experience, various sound spectrum compensation facilities by means of EQs are essential.
 
JVC SEA 80
JVC SEA 70
Two very nice units that sound very quiet 'in circuit' .
 
Last edited:
Portkula said:
Then is such a purpose logic? Isn’t it logic to use EQs to compensate various sound spectrum differences between components, different room acoustics situations or, to some degree, sound material shortcomings?

To my personal experience, various sound spectrum compensation facilities by means of EQs are essential.
Click to expand...

Very rarely (just about never) is an equalizer able to compensate for "various sound spectrum differences between components". Not only that, they are usually unable to adequately compensate for room acoustics. Usually the peak or null a room causes is not centered on any equalizer frequency. Besides, most linear equalizers are almost always set to the standard "smiley face" settings. Unfortunately those "smiley face" settings have nothing to do with actually trying to correct room acoustics.

You have to decide if you want an equalizer to correct room acoustics or use it as a glorified tone control.
 
JoeESP9 said:
Very rarely (just about never) is an equalizer able to compensate for "various sound spectrum differences between components".
Click to expand...
It IS, and very often. Especially for loudspeakers’ objective parameters, that practically never on the market, can offer equivalent acoustical efficiency in the LF range down to 25…27 Hz. And in the rest of the audible frequency range, largely dependent on the acoustical reaction of the room for the chosen listening point.

In the second place, it IS for many microphones.

It IS able, to my personal experience, for a long time.
JoeESP9 said:
…they are usually unable to adequately compensate for room acoustics.
Click to expand...
They are usually able compensate for room acoustics in the chosen listening point, to a certain degree, that is MUCH BETTER THAN NOTHING.
JoeESP9 said:
…Besides, most linear equalizers are almost always set to the standard "smiley face" settings.
Click to expand...
And if you read, on a forum, that somebody having bought a tuner, tested its quality with a screwdriver as an antenna and called the tuner “****”, you’d trust that this tuner is waste?

Who has a "smiley face" while listening for his system in the "smiley face" settings of his EQ, is free to do…
Thus, it is not, for me, an argument.
JoeESP9 said:
…You have to decide if you want an equalizer to correct room acoustics or use it as a glorified tone control.
Click to expand...
Surely, as for the case when you want NO equalizer and NO tone controls at all.

Nothing contradictory to what I said.
 
Many audiophiles only approve of EQ circuits where they don't think or know about them. Such as the EQ in a phono preamp or the voicing circuits built into the passive crossovers of many speakers. Anyway I think that lets the genie out of the bottle and frees audiophiles to EQ as they please free of anxiety. If you prefer EQ fine, if not, fine.
 
Don't fall for the flashing lights and get a cheap eq. The noise floor tends to be too high due to motor noise. Go for a durable but nice and pretty one...



Just remember that when listening to analog, always stay below the puree speed! Needless to say, with digital...higher is ok....

EV3
 
Never had one but... research 'Parametric Equalizers'. It may be what your looking for.

If not, at least you will end up knowing all about them! :)
 
JoeESP9 said:
Very rarely (just about never) is an equalizer able to compensate for "various sound spectrum differences between components". Not only that, they are usually unable to adequately compensate for room acoustics. Usually the peak or null a room causes is not centered on any equalizer frequency. Besides, most linear equalizers are almost always set to the standard "smiley face" settings. Unfortunately those "smiley face" settings have nothing to do with actually trying to correct room acoustics.

You have to decide if you want an equalizer to correct room acoustics or use it as a glorified tone control.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but . . .
I'm fortunate that in spectrum measurements made in my room, my current system is pretty flat in that environment. I still use an EQ in every system but then the "smiley" face is there to kick-in a Fletcher-Munson curve for low-level listening. That's what all human ears need to provide a "flat" response at low sound levels. Most of my electronics have "direct", "straight-line" or "loop" controls to completely by-pass the outboard EQ in the signal path when I want to. A good EQ shouldn't dirty-up your signal. I've used Soundcraftsmen for probably 40-years. My current favorite is the third-octave Pro-EQ 44 with 21 adjustment points for each channel. Remember, too, not to use your EQ to boost the output signal. Zero gain is the goal.
 
I'm a big fan of MiniDSP digital equalizers/crossovers. Granted, my system isn't as high end as the customer's system in the OP's post but it's the most transparent equalizer I've ever used and my system would not be complete without it. They have parametric functions or you can go with a standard 31-band EQ, depending on the plugin you use. They can easily be used with Room EQ Wizard, which is about as flexible as it gets for adjusting for room acoustics with actual measurements (not that that matters so much for the customer here). And they don't cost a fortune either.
 
The problem with adding an equalizer into an otherwise "perfect" system is that when you add active electronics into the signal path, it introduces distortion and noise, which gets amplified. The added noise is most likely going to be audible. The distortion may or may not be audible. With an equalizer there is probably going to be added group delay from the filters which will probably be audible, most likely as an effect on imaging. Without the EQ you would be able to clearly hear the position of each instrument with space around it. Adding the EQ may make the position vague. Having said all that, there is nothing "wrong" with adding an EQ to a system. It is not going to ruin his hearing or do him any permanent harm. I would suggest having the customer live with the system as is for a month or so and get used to the sound, so that he can clearly notice any bad effects the EQ has on the sound. My opinion is that after he gets over the "gee whiz" of being able to play with the sound, he will get rid of the EQ. I say this because if he has good enough hearing that he bought a high end system, he is going to hear the negative effects of the added EQ.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom