The granddaddy of equalizers by Cello, the inspiration for my Loki Max, discussed here. I recognize the argument for keeping the audio chain as simple and pure as possible that audiophiles have been championing for years. I get that. However, I contend that, when done in a transparent way, there is a place for a component in a high end system that deals with optimization of less than ideal recordings.
Absolutely! I had a Loki Max for a spell. . . but I preferred to use the Decware ZROCK2 in my system and returned the Max after three weeks or so. The ZROCK2 just did more for my system needsābut EQ availability is a must for meāI canāt treat my room!
I do question the choice by Cello with their equalization points for the frequency extremes. The choices made for the Loki Max of 20hz and 16khz make much more sense in the real world in my opinion.
Funny. I was just thinking of something like this. Seems you can try and make the room meet the speakersā¦treatments etc
OR
Help the speakers meet the room. My Rose has a built in EQ which when playing with it, seems to result in pleasing results.
Egads, adding a component might rile the audio gods but if the end result is positive, I think I might be forgiven.
I was going to start a thread on who ātweaksā in this manner but maybe folks will respond here. Of course this seems to focus on the recording vs too bright or a āholeā somewhere. But some of my older stuff can be painful.
Any suggestions on modern or just good EQs?
Both Zrock and Loki look pretty awesome. I think either could work. The Zrock is as simple as it gets thoughā¦
Itās an amazing component; I have three, one in each system. There is now a ZROCK3, which has been made with a separate gain control (the gain is increased incrementally with the EQ in the ZROCK2) . . . I have one on order. . . been waiting 8 months. . . still waiting, #24 on the list. Thatās the one drawback, long waits for build and shipment. It was much more effective than the Loki for my purposes.
Thank you. That rules that out! Lol. The Loki looks like a good unit. Not sure there are any other quality options.
The remote is a cool option.
I would like to see the return of equalizers too. Treating my room isnāt possible. Iāve been at this hobby since elementary school in the mid sixties. At 65 my hearing aināt what it used to be. In the 70s there were graphic and parametric EQs. Graphic were a broad stroke at given center frequencies, while parametric were surgical with the ability to vary the center frequency a bit.
I have a Macintosh MA352 w/5 band graphic, which meets my requirements nicely.
I was quite disappointed with the Loki Max. I wanted it to work out. Best of luck.
I feel that the inclusion of a remote is indispensable for making the Loki Max what it is. Itās essential to have the ability to make changes from the listening position. Interesting that the Cello had a stand made for it to be positioned next to the listener. Remote technology is a much better option.
You just did not like it cause it was not Decware! Lol
How cool is a EQ with a remote! Never even thought of that. Crazy they even made oneā¦
No I did not like the sound. Never felt satisfied, remote or not.
Glad you brought up the MA352. How well do you like it? I have not heard much about it and having a tube integrated is something Iāve been looking into. One knock that has been brought up is the EQ nobs can not be set and when you clean the surface they move and have to be reset. For this kind of gear that is a good price point (I think).
I enjoy it emmensly. Yeah, it would be nice to have motorized eq knobs, not a show stopper by any stretch. The polished SS is a pain to keep clean; again no biggie. I like tube and SS hybrid sound, the 2 balanced inputs, how it sounds with my Sonus Faber Maxima Amators. Macintosh has done a wonderful job with the programming of the controls. The quality and fit n finish are exemplary. I moved up from a Unico 90, which is no slouch, with noticeable improvements all around. If hybrid sound gives you a warm n fuzzy I recommend it highly.
These days, I mostly play files using Audirvana Origen. One great feature of Audirvana is the ability to use VST plug ins. Enter the Voxengo Marvel 16 band EQ. It works great, and itās free.
I have a standard EQ curve that provides loudness compensation (since I tend to listen at moderate volumes) and smooths out the roughness of my tweetersā response pattern. Then I have a few alternative curves for problem recordings (e.g., adding further treble boost to the Gentle Giant flat transfers).
Unfortunately, no plug in are allowed when playing DSD files. So, I just rely on the tone knobs on my Marantz Model 30 amp, as imperfect as they are.
My favorite Equalizer of all time (that I have owned):
I traded it in for some more modern (no doubt better) equipment. Helped me off set the cost of my speakers, which I currently use.
Still and all, I would like to have it back in the fold. It was in mint condition (20 years ago!).
Iām curious as to whether any of the respondents to this thread have experience with the various EQ adjustments offered by Roon. I use their parametric eq to boost some of the high frequency bands by 2-3 db.
I used a Soundcraftsman preamp in my system many years ago but mine was in silver. It had lots of bands but always thought having separate adjustments for each channel was a bit overkill. It was my first separate preamp. I used it with a Ampzilla power amp. Didnāt come close to todayās equipment sonically. You certainly could tell it was solid state. Those were the days.
I use the Roon EQ to match the room, set it and leave it. But I bought a Loki Max because I listen 90% of the time to old Grateful Dead concerts, most are 40-50 years old. Each has its own warts, some really ugly and the Loki Max is a quick way to āhelpā hide some of the warts. Note I say āhelpā because it is far from āsolveā, but it helps. When not listening to those old concerts I hit the little switch on the Loki Max to disable it.
