Adding an Equalizer

Well anyone "tearing it to shreds" would be talking out of their a**es!
That whole "accurate reproduction" foolishness is fine for the world of professional audio, but for home use it's all bull. And just fyi smart guy, I don't even use that smiley face crap, it sounds horrible!

 

The info you're after might be found in the explanation from the Schiit crew, if you wish to delve into the methods behind the madness.

Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up

 

Just to add fuel to the fire. I had some people over today. 3 guys who love their music. I played them the Yes album. First track only. Firstly via the DSP on a Flat setting and then i bypassed the DSP and used the cd player directly into the amp ( i have two outputs on the player). No one could tell the difference! I then Played George Ezra's Budapest. Via the DSP i used a setting that cuts out a lot of the bass which distorts badly in my room. All three said the track sounded sooo much better via the DSP. Without it the bass "bloom" destroyed the track. I dont have the world's best Hi Fi system but it is far from low end. When needed my DSP is a God send

 

Digital EQ has its sonic downsides as well. I play around with digital software EQs with headphone listening. I have several different software EQ plugins that I can use. Most are parametric style EQs. I also have Sonarworks Reference which comes with EQ presets for several different headphones that get the headphones to sound flat or neutral. Sort of a room correction for headphones. It is configurable to allow you to choose linear phase, minimum phase, or a mixed phase style of EQ processing. Along with other tweaks. When it is doing the full correction EQ I can hear the difference between the linear phase, minimum phase, and mixed phase settings. Difference in soundstage openness, width and depth. Bypassing the EQ gives me better soundstage. Engaging the EQ takes some of that soundstage and imaging away. It also affects the sound I hear from my DAC due to the additional digital filtering the EQ does. Overall I find the EQ to do more harm than good, so I don't use it much.

I do find that doing very gentle EQ with a parametric style EQ plugin can be reasonably transparent. For example, doing just a shelf EQ to reduce bass a little. But the heavy EQ that creates a curve that looks like a roller-coaster ride, like the type of EQ that Sonarworks does to correct a headphone, is not transparent.

 

So in all seriousness is there no one else who just enjoys looking at the pretty display of a graphic EQ?

 

With all due respect, there's a huge difference money-wise between improving your sound with a reasonably priced EQ and spending the amount of money needed to truly and significantly upgrade your system (without using an EQ). I agree that if the money is there, that's the way to go and eliminate any "extras" But we can't all do that, unfortunately. I use a DBX 215S; the difference between not using it and using it is like covering my speakers with pillows and then removing them. If I had the choice ($$$), I'd rather not have to use it, but...........

 

Even with the best, most "neutral" audio equipment, the sound can only be as good as the source. If the source is lacking, you either settle for that,
don't play it, or find some way to adjust or compensate for the deficiencies, such as a high quality equalizer. Options are good, nothing is perfect.

 

I am probably going to invest in the Loki. At $150, if it works as advertised it is a bargain. If it doesn't, I am not out much. Would not do this if it were $750.

 

I am planning on putting a Loki into my system as well. I like the simplicity and quality that their equipment is regarded for.