Why are consumer EQ devices rare?

[andreasmaaan]

I agree with Ray on the usefulness of EQ! I just don't see the point in spending more than a few hundred on a DAC.

(I actually have spent more than a few hundred on a DAC, but that's precisely because it has extra features I use.)

 

[GGroch]

.....I think also that if you’re in the market for a DAC that costs more than a couple of hundred dollars, you’re not so likely to be in the market for EQ.

Your probably right or more would exist...but to the OP's original question...Why?
As pointed out earlier, many high end audio buyers are fine with EQ/tone modification if it is called tube rolling, or Digital Filter Selection in a DAC. DSP is gaining audiophile acceptance, but seemingly only if you use it to compensate for room and speaker anomalies, rather than adjusting for preference, music and or video genre, volume, or hearing impairment.

A related concept is the deletion of "loudness" contour adjustment from consumer gear. I understood the reason for loudness contours was based on science, our hearing being less sensitive to certain frequencies depending on volume.

The loudness button found on old receivers never made sense (and generally sounded terrible) because you could not adjust it for speaker sensitivity or room size. Yamaha however had a rotary control you could set once by ear. If the theory behind loudness is valid, then shouldn't that be at least an option in DSP programs?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Your probably right or more would exist...but to the OP's original question...Why?

I’m overgeneralising here, but I’d say the high-end DAC market is likely to be made up mostly of people who would like to think that their device is as pure as possible. The industry is telling people that things like a sample rate below 96kHz or an anti-imaging filter with pre-ringing well above the audio band could have devastating effects on their systems’ sound quality. I doubt this market is going to want by and large to willingly add distortion to their systems (unlike its in the form of tubes or final that have been marketed as warner or more natural than anything digital or solid state).

 

[Tks]

I’m overgeneralising here, but I’d say the high-end DAC market is likely to be made up mostly of people who would like to think that their device is as pure as possible. The industry is telling people that things like a sample rate below 96kHz or an anti-imaging filter with pre-ringing well above the audio band could have devastating effects on their systems’ sound quality. I doubt this market is going to want by and large to willingly add distortion to their systems (unlike its in the form of tubes or final that have been marketed as warner or more natural than anything digital or solid state).

I don’t see how adding creature comforts like RME did could ever remove from the value-added portion of devices in that price range and higher. Same thing with the Dx3 Pro, why would a wireless module work against it if it can be disabled if you feel this weird “purist” paranoia?

I’m seeing a few posts saying folks buying high end aren’t the same folks that would want EQ for example. Personally speaking, getting graphic parametric EQ on every device I think would be great. You do't have to run it, but if having it + having a device that measures at top spec.. I simply cannot fathom why someone would say no to something like this.

I especially can’t fathom why manufacturers are drudging along with respect to coming close what the RME DAC can do. I literally want to buy the device due to things like the insane amount of DSP + creature comforts like a remote, and a nice display. In my personal opinion, unless you’re making your enclosures out of platinum, any manufacturer that isn’t battling on price, will soon be battling over secondary things like features around a good performing product. Especially with DACs and the chip specs we’re seeing of soon to release products that will sport them.

A decently priced, and well measuring DAC will always sell. But a DAC or DAC/AMP that sells for in the thousand+ range that doesn’t offer anything more than what a Schiit Modi offers simply wont fly for long seeing as how Topping and friends are actually adding latest standard tech like Bluetooth in their products and nice UI/UX componentry (aka creature comfort feature sets as I’ve mentioned prior).

I simply don’t see much for manufacturers that don’t move into the software sphere in more ways. In the same way Nokia and Blackberry didn’t survive the smartphone revolution with their power as it once was. The only thing left if you don’t want to compete in that sphere, is to sell products that have precious materials that cost more than the tech itself.

Edit: mobile spelling errors

 

[Hipper]

As software equalisers seem to be the thing, how would I place some suitable software between a CD Transport and DAC using balanced XLR cabling? I'm look for a PEQ of some twenty filters per channel and a GEQ to use as sophisticated tone controls.

Currently I use a Behringer DEQ2496 in this position but I want more PEQ filters.

 

[JJB70]

I remember when it was an essential component of any stylish stereo system about town to have a graphic equaliser, then a genius decided hifi functionality should be limited to an on/off switch and a volume control and that people would pay more for a less is more vibe. Funny old world.

 

[LF78]

If the source is digital it's better to apply PEQ before DAC (i.e before D/A conversion): when using a PC or similar then there are plenty of software options, otherwise it's possible to insert something like the nanoDIGI between the SPDIF output of the receiver and the DAC.

 

[Morpheus]

I use a miniDSP OpenDRC-DI - digital in/out - in front of the DAC. It's noiseless as far as I can tell, just recalculates digits.

It has PEQ and FIR capability, with 6144 taps, and resamples whatever to 48kHz. ($325)

Add AcourateDRC to measure and create "correction" files for the miniDSP ($85). Or do it yourself for free with rePhase or other software.

All my sources - CD/Oppo/TV/HDRadio are routed through it.


Before/after sample:

View attachment 25644

The "EQ" applied looks something like this:

View attachment 25646

Do you equalize for flat on axis instead of Harman curve or thereabouts..? I have the same unit, but it doesn't sound totally transparent to me. Yes, bias and all, it is still relevant to me..When I insert it in the chain with no processing whatsoever, the illusion of soundstage takes a hit..no noise, no tonal shift, but less illusion of a 3D recreated space, and that totally surprised me, so much that I redid it multiple times in toslink and coax, using different cables, and always found the same..Do you hear that too? After that step back, its two steps forward with the correction that makes it stay in the system with correct tonality , although the diminished 3D still is there wich is puzzling since it allows a better volume and frequency matching from my speakers ( different boundaries). Could that have something to do with the SRC process not being optimal somehow, or aditional jitter introduced my dac can't get rid of?
I don't use Acourate, I measure in REW and usee use rephase for minimum phase filtering. How would you go about implementing some sort of loudsness filtering or something similar for low, late night listening vs normal listening levels..?

 

[RayDunzl]

Do you equalize for flat on axis instead of Harman curve or thereabouts..?

Yes.

I have the same unit, but it doesn't sound totally transparent to me. Yes, bias and all, it is still relevant to me..When I insert it in the chain with no processing whatsoever, the illusion of soundstage takes a hit..no noise, no tonal shift, but less illusion of a 3D recreated space, and that totally surprised me, so much that I redid it multiple times in toslink and coax, using different cables, and always found the same..Do you hear that too?

No.

I hear a big spacial difference between the MartinLogan stats and the little JBL LSR 308, which I attribute to their different dispersion characteristics, and prefer the ML when critically listening in this relatively untreated furnished room.

When just listening to hear something the JBLs play as my daily drivers,

I have HF hearing deficiency, but get no complaints from those that don't.

After that step back, its two steps forward with the correction that makes it stay in the system with correct tonality , although the diminished 3D still is there wich is puzzling since it allows a better volume and frequency matching from my speakers ( different boundaries). Could that have something to do with the SRC process not being optimal somehow, or aditional jitter introduced my dac can't get rid of?

There's SRC at the miniDSP (whatever to 48khz) and internally in the DAC (to 211kHz, a no- integer multiple) here, the change at the DAC associated with removing jitter (if I'm not mistaken).

I don't use Acourate, I measure in REW and usee use rephase for minimum phase filtering.

I played with rePhase before buying AcourateDRC (think Acourate Lite). It's an excellent tool, but labor intensive, and I don't have enough taps in the miniDSP to do what I wanted with the lows. So, I either use AcourateDRC or just shave the peaks off the lows manually and am happy enough.

How would you go about implementing some sort of loudsness filtering or something similar for low, late night listening vs normal listening levels..?

I don't.

Nature takes its course at lower listening levels.

My EQ at the listening position as measured by a UMIK-1 with cal file is flat since when listening critically I'm in the (relatively) flat spot (80-100dBspl) on the old Fletcher Munson curve. I tried EQ to the modern related ISO curve (more bass) and didn't care for the result.