But the MP will sound king! Read in the Audiogon thread. Someone there described their MP use in hi fi system. I’ll try to find it and re postThe 'virtuality' of PC-based EQ also makes things a little less immediate in terms of feedback than I like (and this covers the majority of DSP-based outboard systems as well, simply by the nature of the UI). At the same time however, something like a Massive Passive isn't practical in my mode of use... so I stick to plugins.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who equalizes their High-end Audio systems? And why or why not?
- Thread starter bdh
- Start date
I found it on page 10 in that thread:
“
I have nothing to add to this interesting discussion except for another vote for the Manley Massive Passive. I purchased the latest version with switching power supply, initially to complement a custom speaker with a Purify 6.5" mid woofer and matching passive radiators that handle LF boost well enough to produce high quality bass to 30hz. Over time I’ve used all bands of the Manley with excellent results.
After break-in and experience on how to optimize its relatively complex and sometimes counter-intuitive controls, the Manley piece has become an essential component. It is a bit fiddly to tweak, and once set up properly, wants mostly to be left alone. It has a clean, open sound with tube characteristics that don’t sound "toobie." No hiss on top.
Of course it is well vetted by mastering pros-- which encouraged me to skip past lots of cheaper solutions.
I’ll add that at this level of performance, a studio equalizer is a seductive and cost-effective opportunity to improve a system without endless component and cable swaps. Perhaps an endpoint.
Esoteric K-O1x w/Rubidium clock>SOtM>AtmaSphere MP-1 or Goldpoint balanced passive>Pass XA-160.8 monos or modified BAT VK-75SE.”
“
I have nothing to add to this interesting discussion except for another vote for the Manley Massive Passive. I purchased the latest version with switching power supply, initially to complement a custom speaker with a Purify 6.5" mid woofer and matching passive radiators that handle LF boost well enough to produce high quality bass to 30hz. Over time I’ve used all bands of the Manley with excellent results.
After break-in and experience on how to optimize its relatively complex and sometimes counter-intuitive controls, the Manley piece has become an essential component. It is a bit fiddly to tweak, and once set up properly, wants mostly to be left alone. It has a clean, open sound with tube characteristics that don’t sound "toobie." No hiss on top.
Of course it is well vetted by mastering pros-- which encouraged me to skip past lots of cheaper solutions.
I’ll add that at this level of performance, a studio equalizer is a seductive and cost-effective opportunity to improve a system without endless component and cable swaps. Perhaps an endpoint.
Esoteric K-O1x w/Rubidium clock>SOtM>AtmaSphere MP-1 or Goldpoint balanced passive>Pass XA-160.8 monos or modified BAT VK-75SE.”
Use plugins that emulate classic analog beasts. Eg Maag EQ4M. SPL PQ. Millennia NSEQ4. Etc. Hendyamps Michelangelo is AWESOME plug-in that came out for pros in last 2 years. Read more on Gearspace.Any recommended plugins? I wanna try a few out.
Certainly the quality of EQ is important... and just because its outboard and digital, it's not a guarantee of quality. I've found whatever algorithms in use with both the superceded and current Behringers (the 8024 and 2496) to be somewhat flawed for example. It doesn't appear to be just a matter of the way the system handles cumulative gain (or reduction). What you are ultimately paying for with these systems as a user, you have to bear in mind, is primarily about software and the ability of the hardware to handle it.
Generally speaking I guess analog equalisers work better for 'audiophile' (i.e. subjective) equalisation as there are less glaring issues with the sound when you get things wrong. I use plugins from Algorithmix (Blue, Red and Orange) which has good rep for mastering and suits the way I use EQ's, particularly for headphones.
I used to use a Behringer 2496. While I was happy for a while, when I moved on to pro analog it was a game changerCertainly the quality of EQ is important... and just because its outboard and digital, it's not a guarantee of quality. I've found whatever algorithms in use with both the superceded and current Behringers (the 8024 and 2496) to be somewhat flawed for example. It doesn't appear to be just a matter of the way the system handles cumulative gain (or reduction). What you are ultimately paying for with these systems as a user, you have to bear in mind, is primarily about software and the ability of the hardware to handle it.
Generally speaking I guess analog equalisers work better for 'audiophile' (i.e. subjective) equalisation as there are less glaring issues with the sound when you get things wrong. I use plugins from Algorithmix (Blue, Red and Orange) which has good rep for mastering and suits the way I use EQ's, particularly for headphones.
Exactly correctGenerally speaking I guess analog equalisers work better for 'audiophile' (i.e. subjective) equalisation as there are less glaring issues with the sound when you get things wrong.
Whazzzup
Headphoneus Supremus
Here’s the title just in caseysI think the thread is intended to stimulate responses from people who DO use equalizers. Correct me if I’m wrong
Who equalizes their High-end Audio systems? And why or why not?
Whazzzup
Headphoneus Supremus
What’s wrong with the flavour and tone as it was intended? No direct feelings about eq thoBut to indulge you, FLAVOR, tone, while retaining technicalities
Last edited:
RADI0HEAD
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Posts
- 461
- Likes
- 390
Precisely why I don't use eq.What’s wrong with the flavour and tone as it was intended?
What’s wrong with the flavour and tone as it was intended? No direct feelings about eq tho
Nothing, but it can always be better. And that is the only way around physical limitations for deficient bass and peaky treble. I eq all mine to the same target and they all sound different and keep their unique traits.
Recordings esp rock pop diverge radically. Hence the need for recording dependent tone shaping. Like using bass and treble knobs. Just higher end controls that don’t degrade. It’s just my opinion. I respect not EQing as well.What’s wrong with the flavour and tone as it was intended? No direct feelings about eq tho
Whazzzup
Headphoneus Supremus
How does eq make it better than it was intended? Physical limitations? Why do you have insufficient bass and peaky treble? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.Nothing, but it can always be better. And that is the only way around physical limitations for deficient bass and peaky treble. I eq all mine to the same target and they all sound different and keep their unique traits.
Whazzzup
Headphoneus Supremus
Nothing against tone shaping, but folks don’t need to constantly adjust tones, if they were happy with the source? But to each their own. I’m just answering the question, well with a questionRecordings esp rock pop diverge radically. Hence the need for recording dependent tone shaping. Like using bass and treble knobs. Just higher end controls that don’t degrade. It’s just my opinion. I respect not EQing as well.
Near bottom page 9
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)