Has anyone ever made an audiophile quality equalizer?

I liked this one:
Review here: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/278/index.html

 

I love that AD!!

Would the SAE have been this one? A very nice sounding parametric with memory presets as a bonus.

 

Well, to resurrect or not...

I'm trying to 'fix' a situation and thought an eq could be the resolution.

This would be for use with a home system. Nothing fancy, main source is vinyl via either a Systemdek IIX or Pioneer PL-630 turntable. Going through a Pioneer SA-9800 integrated amp with 1 combination of two sets of speakers. Pioneer HPM 100's or Large Advents.

As intrinsic as I might want things to be, I accept math as the true reality of inanimate objects.

I recently had a hearing test just to see where my numbers are. I found everything is normal, and some frequencies are still perfect. This has me asking about ways to even out my auditory sensory's ability, provide me with more source material, all without broad sweeps of slope that may or may not improve my existing frequency ranges. I hope that makes sense...

I hear the upper frequency really well, and volume increases with treble grate on me quite easily. I still hear 1kHz perfectly in both ears, and I don't have any decline until the 4k band. So, treble boost/cut on a broad sweep & slope isn't effective enough. On the opposite side, my 250Hz is at 20db, so effectively at the bottom of what's considered "good hearing," yet by 750Hz I'm back to 0db, or perfect.

Hopefully folks can see my dilemma... my current controls don't offer changes within frequency ranges I need a volume boost at, nor enough control to cut where I need it to even out the entire spectrum. My thought is a 30+ band eq can offer me exact control over the ranges I'm trying to make even. Effectively customizing db's for my exact hearing capabilities and opening up the source material.

I've read a life's worth of folks talking on how well they hear, and yet, never get tested. To me, that's blowing hot air.
Has anyone used specific fact data about their own hearing abilities for gear?
Will a PA type eq be better than other options?

Thank you!

 

have you looked at the dspeaker antipode.

I don't have one but as I understand it, you can define the response curve to suit.

Not the same as freq bands but may give you what you need.

 

-----
Bary, glad to see you visiting again.

 

Although to my old ears the EQs in my Sony Sound Forge sound good to me, but I tend to not use them much. Try to keep stuff as I recorded it. I know that Dr. Kal has spoken favorably about the auto eq's in may home theater processors for room correction, but that may not be what you are looking for.

 

Don't get you hopes up, that post was from bdiament,Jan 9, 2010

 

---------------
Forgot to notice that. I have been hoping.

 

Well I've a good experience with the Behringer brand. Got a Dualfex Pro so long ago I don't remember exactly when; performs beautifully and has never broken down.

 

as mentioned Z-systems. I have a rdq-1 must be 15 years old limited to 24/48 aes-ebu and coax ins and outs. Pretty much worthless today but sounded good in the day and not cheap.

 

To the OP and anyone interested in a real nice quality Parametric EQ for the home system, get yourself a Yamaha YDP 2006 and never look back. I have and use two of them in my 2 channel system with excellent results, these are from the pro audio world but can easily be intergrated into a home system. Dead quiet and real accurate!!!

 

I am not sure if real audiophile cares for equalizer ...

 

No they don't but, a real audiophile will want his sound quality as clean as he/she can get it. That means acoustic treatment and Eqing!!!

 

Presbycusis. We all get it with age. . Just ignore it. I have a dip at 4K too, which is by far the most common. My Klipsch speakers take care of it with a slight bump around 4k on its freq response. I have an eq and yet I never touched the 4K control, even before owning the Klipschs. You don't really NEED a flat freq response all over the spectrum, unless your room is fully treated, which is rarely the case. Or you could get one of those DSP thingies that eq your signal according to the reflections a mike take, then boost the freqs around 4K . With the hearing loss at that freq., you'll prolly feel the boost grates your ears.

 

What does it cost?

 

When they were new I think the price was close to $10,000.

 

Didn't know that the two words - audiophile and equaliser - could be legitimately used in the same sentence?! In the UK, equalisers are considered taboo; in fact tone controls on an amp are often frowned upon! I think that the 'nasties' introduced by equalisers and the usually heavy handed approach to sound shaping that they provide aren't considered sufficiently 'audiophile' to bother with.

 

The Cello Audio Palette was the only real audiophile equalizer made.

 

I've been thinking about this EQ thing lately. The other day I played a record that was a little light on the bass so I bumped up the bass on the 3-band EQ on my integrated Marantz. Upon doing so, I thought about the problems a friend of mine was having with the general frequency balance of his EQ-less audiophile rig and how much better his system sounds with an EQ. I've never had a setup where I was concerned with having the least amount of elements in the chain and keeping the sound as pure as possible; put simply, I've always used integrated amps. It's not as if I have a scoop EQ on all the time; my EQ is usually off but it is nice every once in a while when I want a little more bottom or top.

It's not as if I think someone should rely on an EQ to fix more universal frequency imbalance issues with their rig, but I wonder if having a major concern for the 'purity' of a system with minimal high-end components can actually be problematic for individuals who aren't 'experts' in acoustics, electronics etc.? In other words, is it possible that the more 'customization' that's done without having a good understanding of the science, the more likely one is to venture away from decent frequency balance?

 

Went to the Stereophile review - $6,500 in 1992.
I guess one might still be out there used for a good price.

 

I take it they are no longer made? Like 2x, I wonder if the fanatic minimization of stuff in the signal path really makes sense. People have different rooms, different system issues, and music with different strengths and weaknesses. The other day I was listening to a du Pre cello sonata which at times in my room on my system had too much bass. It would have been nice to turn that down a couple of db.

 

I saw a used one that sold for $4,600, doesn't seem to be in production now.

I agree that minimalization yields big rewards for most gear & I also agree that I would like the option to retune occasionally with a good equalizer.

A lot of Levinson gear, at least to me, seems to have been touched by the almighty, with a few corresponding upcharges, & with their cost no object philosophy negates my mere mortal preclusion for minimalization.

 

And yet it's accepted practice to use different sounding cables to EQ a system.

 

I agree. I feel like the point is that no audio reproduction is ever perfectly 'flat' in theory anyway.

 

I never really understood the anti EQ thing. Every recording studio I have been in uses EQ to flatten out the room.

ZU; Yes the great ZU! Used a Neve EQ module in their demo at T.H.E Show 2014.

Some LP's you want to listen to may have problems that EQ helps.

It's nice though to be able to totally take it out of your listening chain at will if you don't need it on everything.

I have one system that really sings with a little smile curve since the speakers were a little lacking in extension at the frequency extremes.