[WireNut]

An EQ with at least 4 presets via remote would be fantastic. Hard part is finding one with unbalanced ins/outs.
 

[Russtafarian]

Don't let balanced gear spook you. Properly wired XLR adaptors are inexpensive and work just fine.

http://www.markertek.com/Connectors-Adapters/Audio-Adapters/XLR-to-RCA-Adapters/Neutrik-USA-Inc/NA2FPMF.xhtml

http://www.markertek.com/Connectors-Adapters/Audio-Adapters/XLR-to-RCA-Adapters/Neutrik-USA-Inc/NA2FPMF.xhtml

Russ

[WireNut]

Russ thanks,

Any specific brand/type of EQ you like?
I'm going to try and keep the cost around $300 max

I'm not familiar with parametric equalizers, never used one before

   

[Russtafarian]

First off, DO NOT buy a graphic eq.  Way too many filter circuits in the signal path, many of which you won't use.  For that matter, there probably isn't an analog eq box worth considering under $1k.

So at that price point you are looking at digital eq.  If you are completely computer-based, start with the eq options in programs like Jriver or Pure Music.  Later on you can add VST software plug-ins to do more sophisticated eq'ing.

If you're looking at integrating an eq box into an analog system, I recommend the miniDSP units:

http://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-2x4

http://www.minidsp.com/products/opendrc-series/opendrc-an

The mini DSP units are extremely versatile and sound as good as anything else at this price point.  They are PC adjustable via a USB connection. 

There will be a learning curve with whatever eq you get, so be prepared to do some research and experiment on your own.  Here's a brief article by mastering engineer Steve Hoffman to get you started:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/dhinterviews/HoffLesson1.htm

This article does a great job of explaining eq and showing how to use it.

http://www.presonus.com/community/learn/equalizer-terms-and-tips

Russ

[*Scotty*]

Having used the EQ function of JRiver19MC to minimize the more objectionable aspects of some recordings, I noticed that the instruments in the recording still didn't sound right. The relationship of the single instrument to the rest of the instruments in the ensemble still sounded disjointed because the reduction in level roughly centered on the frequency of the instrument didn't actually turn down just the single instrument but the entire level of the recording at that frequency which includes all of instruments present. This leaves the original problem of the level or EQ of the instrument in the mix intact, just a little less noticeable or irritating. To me applying EQ after the fact in my listening room sounds like the bandaid it is.   It is a poor solution to a problem that shouldn't be present in the first place.
 I use EQ, but I am seldom overjoyed by the sonic results.  Where it has been very successfully applied has been in cases where the bass extension has been rolled off after the finial mix-down, then it is a simple application of an inverse EQ curve to restoring the recording  to more or less flat response.
 It,'s more of a necessary evil rather than universal cure all. I have actually had better results from players other than JRiver19MC. Without using an equalizer both XBMC and uLilith both do a better job of rendering problematic recordings more listenable than JRiver does using an equalizer. YMMV
Scotty

[JohnR]

Were the unprocessed tracks you heard always superior sonicly?  Just curious.

Hi Eric, I don't believe I said the unprocessed tracks were superior sonically. I don't think I said anything in that regard, in fact.... But, the purpose of the processing applied was to improve the final mix, not (necessarily) individual tracks, and the point of my comment (building on Davey's) was that what you get on your CD is not what the microphone heard. Of course, there are exceptions to varying degrees but most recordings have a lot of processing applied before you get them.

[Russtafarian]

If someone wanted to jump into the realm of mastering lab analog stereo EQ for their home system, this is the kind of unit to consider.  Not cheap, not as flexible as digital, and no presets.  But, it will sound more musical than any digital box at or below this price point.  And it's got all the right features to tweak the mix in the areas that matter most.  With practice, a couple quick adjustments is all you'd need to sweeten any recording you played through it.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/XfilterRack?utm_source=gearnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gn20131120

Russ

[WireNut]

Russ,

I watched the video. Nice unit, like the Class-A circuitry. It's on my want list. Thanks for the tip  .

 

   

[WireNut]

Russ,

 You've got me really interested in the Xfilter rack. Looking for something similar but a little cheaper turned up nothing. I checked out Rane,DBX,and Manley Labs but they don't have anything like the Xfilter Rack. The all class A circuits in the Elysia products set them apart.

 I could probably spend more on a new preamp or dac and still won't get the results that the Xfilter can do for some of my LPs/CDs. Putting it in my preamps tape loop would also be an easy way to remove it when not needed. Only thing is, my tape loop is unbalanced but I guess adapters would work okay or I could make new RCA to XLR cables.

Gotta save some money.....




     



 

[WireNut]

Russ,

 Not only is the Xfilter a signal processor it also acts as a crossover in some ways. Back in the 80’s I had a JBL B460 sub. It needed an external crossover that provided 6db of boost at 35Hz. The Xfilter can provide that. I’m about to ignore the audio purist in me and get back to my roots. After all, many recordings need re-processing IMO and I think the Xfilter is just the ticket I need to enjoy my system even more.

[JLM]

Yes, old enough to remember tone controls, but 31 bands of adjustment is way better than 2.  Doesn't that make sense?

I've used a Behringer DEQ2496 (professional gear with XLR in/outs) for years.  Scott Endler's elegant mod of the DAC transformed the unit (which, with spotty build quality and complexity, is the biggest complaints of the piece).  I started out using it as a DAC and to replace the simple baffle step filter in my single driver speakers (so as a purist I could have a direct connection from my mono blocks to each driver).  I'd used my RS spl meter to set the levels, but finally thanks to YouTube learned how to use the accompanying microphone to calibrate it better.  Now having flat frequency response is a revelation (and nothing you could have done with tone controls).  My only source is my computer, so if I get the itch to try a new DAC I'll probably add PureMusic and eliminate the Behringer.

[marpe]

WireNutz,

I thought I would jump in here from the DEQX HDP3 thread I posted yesterday:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=119255.msg1279785#msg1279785

I will paraphrase and expand the EQ parts:

Using digital EQ almost makes my whole music and video collection listenable.  In fact, the less theory I read (and believe) about EQ at home, the more I am enjoying my music.

I have the ability to vary EQ for each and every track I play (as required, many (70%) do not require any action).  A far cry from the no EQ audiophile days of yesteryear.  Now I don't have to suffer thin recordings followed by bloated ones, screechy vocals followed by distant singers.  I used to think that was what accurate was supposed to sound like.  What a maroon.  As if any recording engineer knew what my playback system and room was going to be... 

Now I can enjoy all my early transistor mixed 70s music with early digital 80s music as well as tube mixed 1960s tunes.  All the old RIAA compromised tunes can now get the bass lift they need to sound full and solid.  Even today's fully compressed pop music can sound amazing.  The DEQX has allowed me to make them all listenable and tuneful.  This has been a significant improvement to my music enjoyment.

I have set up 4 bass EQ settings and use them constantly for variable bass lift/cut in 3db increments (-3, 0, 3, 6) centred at 30hz and starting at about 120 hz, with almost no effect at 200hz.  The parametric EQ I have set up for more judicious tayloring.  Specifically I have the mid eq set at 3.5khz, 1 octave wide, 1 db increments (max is 9) - to handle sibilance on those CDs where the recording engineers forgot to replace their hearing aid batteries before mixing.

I also have a treble control set at 5khz (used to cut excessive highs or boost dull recordings) and the bass control set at 100 hz is never used (I use the 3db presets mentioned above).

So from an EQ perspective I can make my speakers sound like almost anything I want to (freq balance wise). I can't change their normal harmonic character, or the room modes that come with my house.  Don't let eq experts tell you otherwise.  If you have a peak or null at 60 hz - you can eq it a bit but the mode or null is structural - you needs traps, seat positioning, sub positioning, etc to truly manage those.

On top of an EQ device, DEQX is also my preamp, DAC, electronic crossover.  So no analog interconnects - except one set to each poweramp channel (RH, LH, RL, LL).  So no, the EQ does not cause extra audiophile grade distortions due to extra wire, interconnects, analog op amps, phase delay, etc .  Of course I need no stinkin' EQ in the form of oil & film caps, flat ribbon coils or sand cast resistors in my speakers; you know, those yucky passive power robbers, phase delayers and veil producing EQ things in the direct signal path of almost all audiophile grade speakers.  My drivers are directly connected to the amps.  The ribbon mids are soldered to speaker wire so there is no binding post of any audiophile grade at that connection. 

So I have a BDP-1 sending FLAC digits to the DEQX and then it sends analog to a tube poweramp for the Carver Ribbons (190hz high pass) and analog to a transistor amp for 11" Eton woofers (200 hz low pass).  Did I say I could choose from over 15,000 tracks and EQ each of them without getting up?  Gluttony.

[WireNut]

Marpe,

 I like your setup. It’s a lot different than my bi-amp system with all the interconnects/passive top MTM cabinets. I tried PC audio one time, built a new PC for it also, but the MP3’s I was getting at the time where all over the sound spectrum so I scraped out the whole thing. I might try it again someday with all Flac or wave files.

 I can’t afford a DEQX or the Elysia Xfilter at this time but I did run across a cheaper alternative from PE. I’m sure they are op-amp based and two are required for stereo but they do appear to have the same features as the Elysia Xfilter. I might pick up 2 of these and run them thru my preamps tape loop so I can switch them out when not needed. I think that will work . I have so many old LP/CD’s that I like but the recordings pretty much suck and need help.

Rolls RPQ160b: The nice thing is they have RCA Ins/outs so no adapters will be needed.

http://www.parts-express.com/rolls-rpq160b-rack-mount-4-band-parametric-equalizer-1u--245-1172?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=B_MFG_RS_Products_Exact&utm_group=245-1172_E_G100-200