[Exacoustatowner]

How about for someone with hearing loss? I am down 8-10 db from 1K all the way to 8K-(limit of test)-in an oddly flat manner-and I assume more rolled off in the higher frequencies. I have hearing aids to correct this in everyday speech-but they are NOT good for music-and are limited to 9Khz.  
I bought an ART EQ 355  31 band Graphic EQ (designed for live performance use and PA). I am able to boost 1K, 1.25, 1.6, 2, ,5, 3.25, 4, 5, 6,8, 10,12.5, 16 Khz to roughly match my loss. Nice to hear cymbals clearly again! The audible distortion added is small but noticeable to my ears. The real problem is that the sound stage collapses to what I perceive as half. Listening to a trio-it's as if they all move close together on the stage.  Even with all sliders set at flat.
My source is an OPPO BDP-105D.
On the STRONG recommendation of another HFer I ordered a higher end EQ. Rane DEQ60L and an unbalanced to balanced transformer (my AMP has no balanced inputs-although the Oppo BDP-105 D has balanced outputs. So I'll go XLR from Oppo to Rane DEQ60L-then to the converter to RCA unbalanced in.. My music sources are CD, SACD, BluRay Audio.
 
My listening tests are via HiFiman HE-560 headphones.  A) was directly from the Oppo (well reviewed built in HP amp), B) from my Yamaha RV657 hp out C) Oppo-to ART 355 to Yamaha RV657 via RCA unbalanced.
Results- the EQ restores my hearing loss fairly well while adding a hint of "mud"-but seriously reducing the width and depth of the soundstage, Imagine a jazz trio performing on a small stage in an small venue as compared to putting them in a small bathroom!  The Yamaha without the EQ did not obviously change the sound stage-although there sound quality took a tiny hit-only noticeable to me on repeated A/Bing of the same 10 seconds of music. I could live with it! But the tiny soundstage-not so much. 
Without EQ the sound is still good-if quite SOFT. Cymbals, violins, female voices sound a bit too laid back.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  How about for someone with hearing loss? I am down 8-10 db from 1K all the way to 8K-(limit of test)-in an oddly flat manner-and I assume more rolled off in the higher frequencies. I have hearing aids to correct this in everyday speech-but they are NOT good for music-and are limited to 9Khz.  
I bought an ART EQ 355  31 band Graphic EQ (designed for live performance use and PA). I am able to boost 1K, 1.25, 1.6, 2, ,5, 3.25, 4, 5, 6,8, 10,12.5, 16 Khz to roughly match my loss. Nice to hear cymbals clearly again! The audible distortion added is small but noticeable to my ears. The real problem is that the sound stage collapses to what I perceive as half. Listening to a trio-it's as if they all move close together on the stage.  Even with all sliders set at flat.
My source is an OPPO BDP-105D.
On the STRONG recommendation of another HFer I ordered a higher end EQ. Rane DEQ60L and an unbalanced to balanced transformer (my AMP has no balanced inputs-although the Oppo BDP-105 D has balanced outputs. So I'll go XLR from Oppo to Rane DEQ60L-then to the converter to RCA unbalanced in.. My music sources are CD, SACD, BluRay Audio.
 
My listening tests are via HiFiman HE-560 headphones.  A) was directly from the Oppo (well reviewed built in HP amp), B) from my Yamaha RV657 hp out C) Oppo-to ART 355 to Yamaha RV657 via RCA unbalanced.
Results- the EQ restores my hearing loss fairly well while adding a hint of "mud"-but seriously reducing the width and depth of the soundstage, Imagine a jazz trio performing on a small stage in an small venue as compared to putting them in a small bathroom!  The Yamaha without the EQ did not obviously change the sound stage-although there sound quality took a tiny hit-only noticeable to me on repeated A/Bing of the same 10 seconds of music. I could live with it! But the tiny soundstage-not so much. 
Without EQ the sound is still good-if quite SOFT. Cymbals, violins, female voices sound a bit too laid back.

I've no idea if anyone is interested-but assuming SOMEONE might benefit-at some future date…. Tonight I got the XLR balanced cables for use with my soon to arrive Rane DEQ60L. Out of curiosity, I connected my Oppo to the ART 355 with XLR cables-(while the out to the Yamaha was still RCA unbalanced.). Evidently, the soundstage collapse is somewhere in the RCA IN to the EQ. With the XLR in-the soundstage is nearly unaffected. 

 

[Whitigir]

I am confused....how does rca cable to EQ make soundstage collapse ? Bad cables ? I have only experienced noisy and humming from cables which affects the SQ in an ugly way....but soundstage collapse by the cables is something I have not experienced.

 

[bigshot]

The cable won't do that. It is probably a grounding issue.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

I am confused....how does rca cable to EQ make soundstage collapse ? Bad cables ? I have only experienced noisy and humming from cables which affects the SQ in an ugly way....but soundstage collapse by the cables is something I have not experienced.

It's not just one cable vs another. I assume it's something to do with the electronics between the unbalanced RCA in and the equalizer circuitry. It may be something is introducing phase distortion-that is absent when using the balanced XLR in. I'm far from being an electronics expert-but if one was to look at the schematics of the RCA input vs. the XLR input-they may see something that would degrade the signal more via the RCA input.
My example was a trio- two guitars with a singer in the middle. When using the RCA In circuits of the ART 355 EQ-they sounded like they were pushed together in a tiny room. When using the XLR IN to the ART EQ the wide stage that I hear when I had the ART 355 out of the signal path-was restored.
Poorly designed circuits can certainly degrade signal quality. Bear in mind that absent the ART 355 EQ, I was and am connecting my Oppo to my Yamaha Receiver via RCA in-which is all it has.  My other comparison is to the Head Phone out (unbalanced!) of the Oppo. Which also has a wide soundstage.
EDIT: after listening to classical (The Firebird) I have to say that the soundstage partly restored-not completely.

 

[bigshot]

The difference between balanced cables and regular cables is the way the ground is handled, if I understand it correctly. There is no reason they should sound different unless your cable run is halfway down the block.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  The difference between balanced cables and regular cables is the way the ground is handled, if I understand it correctly. There is no reason they should sound different unless your cable run is halfway down the block.

I agree. I think I am being as clear as mud! A picture might help. On the back of the ART 355 EQ are Balanced In/out and Unbalanced In/Out. My source (Oppo 105D) has both RCA and XLR OUT.  My A/V has only RCA In. Today I got XLR cables for the first time.. So I tried connecting the Oppo OUT to ART 355 In with XLR. The collapsed sound stage I was hearing-expanded on my test tunes. The guitarists on either side of Tierney Sutton moved apart-and she was no longer sitting in the lap of the guitarist on the right. Still not quite as good as with no ART EQ.
Whatever circuits are on the other side of either the Balanced or Unbalanced Inputs do not perform equally-with this particular piece of equipment. 
So Oppo to EQ via RCA sounds constrained vs Oppo to EQ via XLR. Quite dramatic  Switching between fancy RCA cable and cheap RCA cable that came with an old VCR makes no difference.
Oppo RCA OUT directly to the A/V RCA IN-does not squish the guitarists together in the middle of my noggin.  Oppo via RCA to ART EQ and RCA OUT to A/V squishes. I have to assume the squish
happens somewhere on the other side of the pretty RCA connectors.
 

 

[bigshot]

I haven't found that with my Rane equalizer. Maybe the one you got has defective RCA out.

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  I haven't found that with my Rane equalizer. Maybe the one you got has defective RCA out.

I just got finished listening to the Rane EQ that arrived today. I spend 6 hours listening to Jazz and Classical. MUCH better than the ART 355! No fatigue-good separation. It has no RCA out or in. I had to use a transformer to connect to my A/V. I could not listen to the ART 355 for long periods.

 

[bigshot]

Great to hear your problem is solved! One thing you might notice is that some graphic equalizers tend to drift a little bit, even really good ones. I don't know if it's with the weather or what, but you may have to tweak your settings every month or two.

 

[dprimary]

When going between unbalanced and balanced connections the wiring of the connectors is not always the same. On most modern equipment the + connection of the unbalanced signal will go to the tip of a TRS plug or pin 2 of a XLR. The - connection is where it could be vastly different. On some equipment - will go to the ring or pin 3, others it will go to the same but then you need to tie the ring to the sleeve or pin 3 to pin 1. Others you connect to the sleeve or pin 1.  In the case of Rane they have good documentation. In professional audio, engineers have often pointed others to the Rane tech note 110 http://www.rane.com/note110.html
It is about the best primer of audio interconnection practices, and issues. They only give 24 different examples of typical cable connector wiring. If you mess with older (pre 80's) equipment there can be even more possibilities. There was not a standard in balanced professional equipment till around the mid 1980's.  Klark Teknik is one company still has some pin 3 + equipment, for example the DN360 graphic eq (about the best graphic made) was a staple mains and monitor eq for decades so they never changed it, everyone knows the polarity is reversed on them. Sadly it looks that Klark Teknik has stopped make parametric eq's. Most of the system eq's has moved to large programable DSP processors which be complete overkill for a  HiFi system.
 
You have to study the documentation of the equipment you have to connect it properly. The inputs often do not connect the same way as the outputs. If you connect balanced to unbalanced wrong it will most of the time it will either sound strange or not work at all. I some cases you could damage the equipment if you run it that way for a long period. 

 

[dprimary]

  How about for someone with hearing loss? I am down 8-10 db from 1K all the way to 8K-(limit of test)-in an oddly flat manner-and I assume more rolled off in the higher frequencies. I have hearing aids to correct this in everyday speech-but they are NOT good for music-and are limited to 9Khz.  
I bought an ART EQ 355  31 band Graphic EQ (designed for live performance use and PA). I am able to boost 1K, 1.25, 1.6, 2, ,5, 3.25, 4, 5, 6,8, 10,12.5, 16 Khz to roughly match my loss. Nice to hear cymbals clearly again! The audible distortion added is small but noticeable to my ears. The real problem is that the sound stage collapses to what I perceive as half. Listening to a trio-it's as if they all move close together on the stage.  Even with all sliders set at flat.
My source is an OPPO BDP-105D.
On the STRONG recommendation of another HFer I ordered a higher end EQ. Rane DEQ60L and an unbalanced to balanced transformer (my AMP has no balanced inputs-although the Oppo BDP-105 D has balanced outputs. So I'll go XLR from Oppo to Rane DEQ60L-then to the converter to RCA unbalanced in.. My music sources are CD, SACD, BluRay Audio.
 
My listening tests are via HiFiman HE-560 headphones.  A) was directly from the Oppo (well reviewed built in HP amp), B) from my Yamaha RV657 hp out C) Oppo-to ART 355 to Yamaha RV657 via RCA unbalanced.
Results- the EQ restores my hearing loss fairly well while adding a hint of "mud"-but seriously reducing the width and depth of the soundstage, Imagine a jazz trio performing on a small stage in an small venue as compared to putting them in a small bathroom!  The Yamaha without the EQ did not obviously change the sound stage-although there sound quality took a tiny hit-only noticeable to me on repeated A/Bing of the same 10 seconds of music. I could live with it! But the tiny soundstage-not so much. 
Without EQ the sound is still good-if quite SOFT. Cymbals, violins, female voices sound a bit too laid back.

Now that you have  the Rane EQ something that might be worth trying is - the Rane has the tone controls low and high are shelving filters with mid being a wide bandwidth peak filter. You might try  boosting the the hi tone control which will boost everything from 10 k to 20k at the same time then fill in 1k to 10k with the 1/3 octave filters as needed. I might change the sound some. Normally I would expect the phase to change less, which would be preferred.  
The Rane is analog controlled DSP so it seems that it "combines"  adjacent filters into in to one filter, which is brilliant. I creates much less phase problems and artifacts then when push a group of 1/3 octave filters up or down on a analog eq. Really what they are doing is giving you a graphic eq interface which is easy to understand but processing it as a more complex filter.  

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  Great to hear your problem is solved! One thing you might notice is that some graphic equalizers tend to drift a little bit, even really good ones. I don't know if it's with the weather or what, but you may have to tweak your settings every month or two.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. 

 

[Exacoustatowner]

  Now that you have  the Rane EQ something that might be worth trying is - the Rane has the tone controls low and high are shelving filters with mid being a wide bandwidth peak filter. You might try  boosting the the hi tone control which will boost everything from 10 k to 20k at the same time then fill in 1k to 10k with the 1/3 octave filters as needed. I might change the sound some. Normally I would expect the phase to change less, which would be preferred.  
The Rane is analog controlled DSP so it seems that it "combines"  adjacent filters into in to one filter, which is brilliant. I creates much less phase problems and artifacts then when push a group of 1/3 octave filters up or down on a analog eq. Really what they are doing is giving you a graphic eq interface which is easy to understand but processing it as a more complex filter.  

Thanks dprimary! I also like how I can use the Settings for Channel 1 for Channel 2. So I don't have to fiddle with both sets of sliders to set the sound for stereo. Also there is Perfect Q and Proportional Q- I seem to go back and forth depending on the type of music I am listening to. Very versatile.
What you point out about the minimizing of phase problems and artifacts seems true to my ears-and manifests in good stereo imaging- the previous EQ had these issues-and was fatiguing which I attribute to higher distortion.  

 

[bigshot]

I think I just bought an RCA to three prong at Monoprice and it worked fine. No problem there.
 
In theory if you find the proper response, everything should sound the same because all music is mixed to a balanced response. The only exception is badly engineered pop music that wasn't mixed on calibrated monitors or mixes by engineers with tin ears. If you keep adjusting, odds are you haven't found the sweet spot yet.