Just did a fairly intensive comparison between the CO modest treble boost and M2 modest 104 bit digital treble boost using a fairly cymbals heavy rock track. Did this comparison running straight out of M2 3.5 to headphones as well as running the M2 line level (volume matched) into my Headamp. Did this comparison also using both the Fostex TH900 and the Hifiman HE1000SE headphones. I listened only to the presentation of the cymbals. I also listened through both equalizers flat to see that cymbals very similar that way. Big differences though once both EQs in and compared. The M2 digital EQ, despite its being 104 bit processing, presented the cymbals more truncated or compressed sounding. EVEN AT 104 BIT. on M2 cymbals were rougher and less natural sounding than CO analog. On CO, leading and trailing edges smoother with clearer attack and better sustain than digital. I knew all this already but really had to dig in this time and prove it. Conclusion? No question that analog high end EQ presents treble nuance much better in a treble boost situation than even 104 bit “lossless” (as Chord describes it) digital. So…so long as I have any upper octave rolled off ness at all with my equipment or the recordings I listen to and love then I will stick with my studio mastering analog EQs
