My sacrilegeous question to audiophiles out there regarding parametric equalizer.

If anyone wants to try simple, limited EQ, try the Schitt Loki. $150. You might even be able to return it if not satisfied. I'm tempted to get one for my FM tuner. Not because it sounds bad, it's just that I have such crappy sounding FM stations in my area.

By nature, definition, and design equalizers introduce distortion and also include distortion artifacts that are not intended but which are inescapable, unavoidable, and inherent in they're function and of course there are some who prefer such distortion in they're components, systems, and installations and for those specific people equalizers are an exceptional value in fact the less expensive they are the more they distort! I personally prefer sound as undistorted and genuine as possible and practical so of course there are none of them in my Music Reproduction System except of course RIAA which is essential to the proper function of vinyl and by nature of its inverse function limits the introduction of otherwise inherent and unwanted artifacts.

My McIntosh preamp has an 8 band equalizer. I use it sparingly for particular recordings when I decide they need subtle adjustment for me to enjoy. I return the settings to neutral when that recording is over. I would be very frustrated if I didn't have this option yet I would not add another device if my preamp did not include this functionality.

Dear @tubelvr1 :  "  enhance the bass and detail.."

tube can't honor MUSIC especially at both frequency extremes. What you need is not a parametric eq. but to avoid/disappear tubes from the cartridge signal and instead of that technology buy SS electronics devices/items.

Esay to achieve what you have on mind because the road you are accustom too is the wrong one, no matters what or whom. Try to stay far far away from that " road " you choosed.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

I would not personally use an equalizer......I consider it analogous to altering the colors of an original painting.

I think this analogy is misleading. An 'original painting' is a work of art. A musical performance is a work of art, but a recording of it is a reproduction, which may be excellent or poor, but never the same, or as real. The more apt analogy would be "altering the colors [and dynamics et al] of an art reproduction."

I had a parametric eq, a pretty good one, didn't seem to alter the sound except as I intended (through Quad 63s, fairly revealing of such things). Parametrics are more 'audiophile approved' than graphic eq's, largely because of all the cheap ones that came with rack-systems, usually tuned in a 'smiley face' with absurd boost to bass and treble. Even the good ones were 'octave' equalizers (10-band) which could only alter large swaths of the music.

I had a DBX 20/20 graphic which also 'reads' the output (your speakers + room-effects) compares it to the input signal, and adjusts so what you hear is identical to the original signal. It was good, but gave me little control: I couldn't adjust to what I wanted to hear.

I found my parametric to be similarly limiting: only three frequency 'bands' I could affect.

The best I had were pro 1/3 octave graphic eq's (31-band): two of them, one for each channel. Adjustments had more selectivity, subtlety and finesse.

I haven't tried the newer DSPs. The early ones were awful.

I see no point in being "faithful to the recording"; I prefer "faithful to the music" and yes, I'll be the 'decider'. But that's just my opinion.