Audiophile-grade equalizer recommendations

[Stephen Novosel]

Preliminary Q. Is there even such a thing as an "audiophile-grade" equalizer?

I like the way my system sounds so far as-is so I am not looking to an equalizer to help it fit the room or vice-versa. What I would like to do is, for select tracks, enhance or diminish i.e. highlight elements of those tracks. For example, I never heard before until last night George Harrison's nifty little riff played twice on I Saw Her Standing There even though I've heard that song played ten thousand times over the past 50 years. Paul's vocals and other instruments overwhelm Harrison in the background but if one turns off the right channel, there it is plain as day and creative as heck. Lennon too on Not A Second Time pulls off a creative "blink" upstroke on his Rickenbacker that is barely noticeable on the stereo mix until the right channel is turned off. I love those idiosyncrasies. So that got me to thinking how fun it would be to continue to isolate various players and their performances beyond just turning off one channel. Has anyone else done this, presumably with an equalizer (I haven't used one since the late Seventies). Yes, no? Good, bad?

 

[slipperybidness]

I think that's a good question, I've kind of been wondering that myself, but never had a good reason to pursue it. There may be a lot of people on here that really flame you for wanting an equalizer, but we'll see.

The ones that I was really the most curious about are from dbx. Those seem to be fairly good for a modest price, but I have no experience with them.

https://www.parts-express.com/cat/equalizers/589

 

[ski2xblack]

Is your source material computer based? If so, look into editing software such as Audacity. If not, what sort of tone controls or eq does your equipment offer?

There is nothing wrong with equalization, or simple tone controls, which are quite useful for taming specific tracks. Heck, there is nothing wrong with throwing an Aphex 204 in the mix, if that's your thing, it's just that twiddling around with the knobs for each and every track loses it's appeal after a while.

The PE link is a good place to start. Beware of poor s/n specs on the inexpensive pro-sound eq's from Behrninger and such. The one's that sport the sort of s/n specs that would be considered the bare minimum for home hi-fi use are not the majority, nor inexpensive. I use a Yamaha SP2060, which even used fetch a fair amount of ducats.

 

[Stephen Novosel]

Hi, thanks for the recommendations and links. PE has several units I'm going to try out. It appears as though quite a few folks are using EQs with great success in their home audio setups.

 

[TLS Guy]

Hi, thanks for the recommendations and links. PE has several units I'm going to try out. It appears as though quite a few folks are using EQs with great success in their home audio setups.

With a good rig, I find it hard to believe you would need an equalizer. I only use mine for archiving and remastering vintage audio. Good older equalizers can be had on the used market for very little money these days. The mastering software, including mine also has good Eq and that is what I use mainly now. So people are dumping their analog equalizers, as they have a lot of undesirable side effects, unless you use them very subtly indeed.

If you are having to Eq recent material, then here is something wrong with your rig, and its probably the speakers.

 

[Stephen Novosel]

Thanks for the input but I do want to remain exclusively focused on my initial question. I can tell from some comments that we are drifting. To repeat, has anyone used any mechanism, device, or process to isolate various players and their performances beyond just turning off one channel? If you've used an equalizer, it would be great to hear what you've used and how. It's clear from reading the User Manuals of several of the EQs selling at PE (along with user reviews and YouTube videos) that I will be able to do what I want with an EQ but if anyone has used some other device or method, please share your stories.

 

[KenM10759]

Maybe start with defining the difference between a graphic equalizer and a parametric equalizer. What makes one better or worse than the other?

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks for the input but I do want to remain exclusively focused on my initial question. I can tell from some comments that we are drifting. To repeat, has anyone used any mechanism, device, or process to isolate various players and their performances beyond just turning off one channel? If you've used an equalizer, it would be great to hear what you've used and how. It's clear from reading the User Manuals of several of the EQs selling at PE (along with user reviews and YouTube videos) that I will be able to do what I want with an EQ but if anyone has used some other device or method, please share your stories.

I have used equalizers for 50 years. I have three in my rig right now. I don't have time to go into it now, as I'm leaving for the Twin Cities. Later.

 

[ski2xblack]

That Aphex thingamadoodle I mentioned, in jest I might add, may be just the ticket. It can be used to harmonically embellish certain frequency ranges, making them really stand out in the mix. They will allow you to manipulate whatever you're listening to in real time to your heart's content. I suggest getting one used; they're cheap, and you can recoup your money when you inevitably get bored with it. Here's a sales pitch for your amusement:
http://www.soundoctor.com/aphex.htm

 

[Swerd]

Using graphic equalizers (usually with analog slider controls) in audio playback systems seemed like a good idea in the past, but has fallen out of fashion. Too many people were tempted to use them to boost signals broadly, with unfortunate results. If they are very conservatively used to reduce certain unwanted frequencies, they can help. But more often they were misused.

It's my guess that the back wash in opinion against graphic equalizers led to the 'audiophile' overreaction where any tone control, including simple bass and treble controls, is thought to be as 'evil' as the misuse of graphic equalizers. This overreaction, taken to extreme, led to audiophile pre-amps that had no tone controls at all.

Personally, I'd stay away from used graphic equalizers because those slider controls easily oxidize and get noisy. And they invite the idle user to play with them.

Proper use of more modern digitally-controlled parametric equalizers involve a measurement system to identify the frequencies and band widths of unwanted or offending sounds that can be diminished or filtered out. The graphic equalizers, no matter how many bands it has, involve more guesswork.

This Wikipedia article explains the differences between graphic and parametric equalizers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_(audio).

 

[highfigh]

Thanks for the input but I do want to remain exclusively focused on my initial question. I can tell from some comments that we are drifting. To repeat, has anyone used any mechanism, device, or process to isolate various players and their performances beyond just turning off one channel? If you've used an equalizer, it would be great to hear what you've used and how. It's clear from reading the User Manuals of several of the EQs selling at PE (along with user reviews and YouTube videos) that I will be able to do what I want with an EQ but if anyone has used some other device or method, please share your stories.

The Behringer equalizers do a decent job, but I wouldn't call them 'Audiophile' because of the noise level. I installed one in a bar and for that application, the A/N ratio was OK, but in a quieter place, like the fitness center where I recently installed that same equalizer, moving the sliders above +/- 0dB makes the noise audible if it's above 1KHz. That said, the system isn't being used for mastering CDs/DVDs/BDs or movies, so the ultimate quality isn't necessary but overall, I have to say it works well for the application.

Equalizers that are made for HiFi rigs are less noisy, but they will still add noise if the sliders are raised and in addition to the hiss, distortion increases, too.

Graphic EQs add problems of their own and using these for a high-end system comes with the risk of messing with the overall sound quality. If the equalizer can be described as 'transparent-sounding', it's not going to be $99.

Another issue with using an equalizer with modern equipment is that an AVR isn't usually made for connecting an equalizer, Compressor/limiter, Dynamic Range enhancer or anything similar may not see the signal level or load needed.

For hearing the music in a new way, it can be fascinating but for listening to it as intended by the production, it's usually best to leave it alone. Part of the reason is that we, as listeners, don't have separate tracks to work with and that's where the real changes came from during the mixing phase. Also, it's important to know where each instrument lies in the audio spectrum, to prevent wasted time hunting for the correct slider to adjust.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have used equalizers for 50 years. I have three in my rig right now. I don't have time to go into it now, as I'm leaving for the Twin Cities. Later.

So I have arrived back in the Twin Cities.

Yes, analog equalizers come in 2 favors. The first is the band octave equalizer. In fact often split up into fractions if an octave into 30 bands or more. Common, used to be the 10 and 12 band equalizers. The center frequency of the band can not be changed.

The more complex parametric equalizer allows he center frequency of the bands to be adjusted, and their width and Q.

Now as others have stated they have a high propensity for misuse, with awful results. Basically if the faders are pushed to extremes, or worse one band has a lot of cut and an adjacent one gain then severe ringing starts to occur.

In the analog age of the LP and tape machines properly used they served a purpose. They don't have much value in the reproduction of properly recorded and produced digital music.

So I will tell you what I have used them for and go back in time a little.

The LP was particularly prone, and still is, to rising distortion above 7 KHz and sometimes starting at 5 KHz. In addition some earlier turntables had rumble and the cutting lathes also.

In the fifties and sixties, preamps integrated amps and receivers often had rumble filters.

The UK manufacturers, Quad founded and run by Peter Walker, and Leak run and founded by Harold J Leake, had ways of dealing with the HF problem.

All Peter Walkers preamps had a slope control. This consisted of two controls. One control set the turnover frequency at either 10 K Hz, 7 KHz, or 5 KHz. The other control adjusted the slope after the turnover frequency. It was absolutely brilliant and improved LP enjoyment enormously. Leake had their Varislope, but Peter Walker's was he best. It could also be used to tame tape hiss.

So this gave the push for equalizers that could be inserted in the tape monitor loop.

Now some problems are so severe that more than the slope control is required, but not often.

All my turntables are connected to a Quad preamp, and I would never be without one to enjoy my legacy LP collection.

For more severe problems in the early 70s I bought a Spectro Acoustics 2 10R equalizer. This was a highly regarded unit and they still get snapped up on eBay at a good price. Swerd, you might be interested to know that none of the sliders have ever become noisy. It took Far Eastern manufacture to create that problem.

Now I use that unit so I can switch it in after my switch bus to handle the odd particularly difficult LP or prerecorded vintage reel to reel or cassette tape. I do not have many of the later.

Now I also have a Mackie equalizer than can be switched in ahead of the DAC to my DAW, I use for archiving. For a quick check it is easier than the equalizer in Wavelab. Once I know where to head, after making a Wav. file then I can Eq the whole file at once in a fraction of a second. I can even do a whole batch of Wav, files with the digital equalizer in WaveLab.

The other equalizer is to bring up the last octave a little on my vintage Brenell Mark 6 reel to reel tape recorder. It seems only Herr Willi Studer could design and make tape heads that would extend flat to 20 KHz. All others roll the bass off from a little to a lot. The Brenell has Bogen heads which can benefit from a little lift below 30 Hz. The Far Eastern tape heads are by far the worst in this regard. Their machines were also thrown together and hard to service. So I avoided them.

What an equalizer can not do is what you want, and remove individual instruments. That can only be done of a multitrack master..

 

[mtrycrafts]

The Behringer equalizers do a decent job, but I wouldn't call them 'Audiophile' because of the noise level...

They also have digital EQ. Should be noise free.
Converts the analog to digital nto EQ and back to analog.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... To repeat, has anyone used any mechanism, device, or process to isolate various players and their performances beyond just turning off one channel? ...

I would think that would not be possible to an end user, consumers, to isolate individual players without turning off a channel, if that player is only on that channel exclusively.
I'd think you need to EQ out at the recording studio for that person's channel that was recorded, if a multi channel mixer was used, one for each player.

To EQ out a sound in one channel, you'd be affecting other info in that channel that the EQ is cutting and may not totally cut.

I don't think it is possible what you are after at the end user level.

 

[TLS Guy]

I would think that would not be possible to an end user, consumers, to isolate individual players without turning off a channel, if that player is only on that channel exclusively.
I'd think you need to EQ out at the recording studio for that person's channel that was recorded, if a multi channel mixer was used, one for each player.

To EQ out a sound in one channel, you'd be affecting other info in that channel that the EQ is cutting and may not totally cut.

I don't think it is possible what you are after at the end user level.

No of course it is not possible. Anyone who thinks it is, has not heard of Fourier analysis or what it means.

There is only one sound wave per channel no matter how many instruments. If that were not so a loudspeaker could not function.

 

[highfigh]

They also have digital EQ. Should be noise free.
Converts the analog to digital into EQ and back to analog.

I have seen comments about the DEQ2496 for quite a few years, but don't have any experience with it. Now that the price has dropped, it's a better option.

 

[highfigh]

The only device I know of that removes anything is the Thompson Vocal Eliminator. Never used on and I don't know how well it would work for this, but it won't eliminate or accentuate ONLY one instrument, especially on material that was mixed in the same way early Beatles material was.

 

[ski2xblack]

The Behr DEQ2496 is similar to the Yamaha I have, only with slightly worse s/n specs. Those are great for active rigs, bass management, and system calibration, but they would be a nightmare to use for placating the urge to twiddle with knobs and play with the sound on a track by track basis. I think the OP wants something more simple and accessible to play with, like a graphic equalizer or the Aphex.

 

[MrBoat]

I use an EQ. Thought about mounting it right next to my chair on it's own designated stand. Also use the software one on my pc at times when I am listening to loud music. One amp I have is a little conservative on the midrange levels but heavy enough on the bass to my ears. I was listening to a track the other night, and I could hear the percussionist hitting either a chime, or a triangle. It was quite nice and the percussionist had perfect timing. I would not have found it without toying with the EQ. It may be because I mostly have used full range speakers only. Some speakers can be a bit too warm or too bright. It's nice to have another level of adjustability, even if it's subtle.

The other night I was listening to Mighty Sam McClain. He breaks to let the sax player do a solo and you can hear him in the background being happy with the saxophone player's efforts. When the solo is up, McClain says "thank ya," and then you hear the other horns sweep in really smoothly and it was a beautiful thing to where I was aware of the art of the actual arrangement. And although I could hear it with the system left to it's own devices, I wanted to hear it just a little more. I listened to that same song 3 more times just to do that.

Nobody I know listens to music quite the same way I do. Most of them hardly ever touched the EQ back when it was included on a lot of rack systems where I would adjust it almost for every album, or even some songs. There is also very few people that I know, who I enjoy the way they listen to their music or even the sound of their equipment, regardless how perfect, or perhaps even sterile it is.

The EQ I am using now I am using with another old amp and is an old junker made by Fisher and it has 9 bands for each channel. I cleaned all the sliders with Deoxit and it works well. It doesn't even matter if it's "audiophile quality." Also just hooked up a more modern Denon AVR and still find myself messing with the EQ on the pc, just for the heck of it.

The more I research modern audiophilia, or what qualifies as such these days, I am likely wrong with just about everything I do, but I sure do enjoy it.

 

[omasciarotte]

Hey Stephen,

I know this is an ancient thread but I’ve been looking at analog audiophile EQs lately and I thought I’d mention a few things…

There are, in fact, “audiophile–grade” EQ but they are rather expensive for most folks. Two examples of that are Haniwa Audio’s HEQA03-CI Current Input Equalizer ($20k) and NBS Audio Cables’ Universal Tone Control ($25k). The nice folks at Luxman still include “tone controls” in some of their products. These examples are all built with the same care and attention to detail as any piece of gear at their price points. There are many, many el cheapo analog and digital equalizers but, they sound like what you’d expect given the cost. So, if you have a purely analog system and you want EQ, listen carefully before you buy. If you own a highly resolving rig, most likely you won’t like what you hear.

All analog equalizers exhibit ringing (or frequency localized wide variations in frequency response) and phase+temporal anomalies across the audio passband. It can’t be helped as that’s physics and the innate nature of the reactive circuitry in equalizers. Really crappy EQs also add significant noise on top of all their other problems. Better quality analog EQs are usually of a “minimum phase” design, which means the designer has chosen an architecture that reduces the temporal and phase effects where possible. There are a few notable exceptions, like the Manley MASSIVE PASSIVE which is a (rare) parallel topology. Given all that, there are some analog EQs that are highly respected and widely used and sought after in pro audio circles, like from Manley, Maselec, Neve and GML. Most are rather expensive.

Hardware digital EQ are arguably even worse as they are mostly built to a very low price point, which means real time sample rate conversion coupled with low resolution DSP; a truly deadly combo in term of fidelity. However, software EQs are another matter as there are several ones of exceptional quality and many decent sounding ones that are relatively low cost. Trouble is, they are meant to part of a purely digital playback rig; what is often erroneously referred to as “computer audio.” That’s a whole ’nother can of worms and outside the scope of this discussion.