GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

Didital Things
Topic: Digital Equalization

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)

Posted by drdna on 02-11-2009

I think this subject should be collected in its own thread. It is interesting that both Romy and I have just got the Behringer DEQ 2496 to try in our systems, so hopefully there will be some data to report here.

It was previously said that the DEQ gave a veiled sound, and Thornsten has said the same thing as well. The question is what sort of veil does it create?

Is it the harmonic structure of digitalization?

Is it the information loss of A-D to D-A conversion?

Is it the unnatural timbre of excessive parametric EQ?

Is there a more specific way to express it than "veiled?"

Further, regarding the "bad" sound of the flat EQ, it is to be expected. The recording we get is already EQ'd by the imperfect microphone frequency response AND then by engineers further EQ based on the imperfect frequency response of their studio monitors. In reality we ask our speakers at home to give a reverse EQ to give a "flat response of the original event" but I doubt it will look flat on the RTA.

This is another reason older mono recordings may have a better sound if your home speaker system is relatively flat EQ, in fact, since there was less EQ in the studio done back then.

Adrian

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-14-2009

I played with this Behringer DEQ unit for a couple hours. What the magnificent machine would it be if all functionalities work! I mean they all work but they all make sound like shit, even this unit in hard-bypass sounds like shit and there is no other word that might identify the DEQ’s sound. Anyhow, I find the Behringer DEQ just unusable. It is a wonderful conceptual toy that has unfortunately no use in more or less serious audio installation. I have many thoughts about tactical and strategic problems of digital EQ generals’ but the example of Behringer DEQ is so poor that it does not even encourage me write more about it.

I have seen a few people proposed a number of modifications of Behringer DEQ unit, like changing DACS, changing output stages and so on. They claim many advantages in sound but looking at the framework of their audio objective, their heavy-metal musical interests and their Best Buy level of sound understanding I do not extend any credit neither to their assessment nor to their modifications.

Anyhow, the Behringer DEQ turned out, as much as its predecessor, to be a big and unusable disappointment. If anyone heard the DEQ then you know why I discard people who drive their ½ million-worth system from digital crossovers.

The Cat

Posted by Romy the Cat on 02-18-2009
fiogf49gjkf0d If you are interested then there is a Yahoo Group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DCX2496/ It has the file section with all circuits …

Posted by custodian on 04-24-2015

My system lives in a small room with poor acoustics. Fact of life until I get round to building the planned perfect music room which has been in design for 5 years and still is just a concept!
Bass end is lumpy so I decided to try various solutions to smooth out the room response. As part of that exercise, I bought digital equalisation equip me t from Z Systems (RDP-1 preamp) and Tact. Any benefit from equalisation was far outweighte in both cases by a loss of soundstage in the image. A reduction to a 2 dimensional picture which I assume is due to introducing another stage of electronic processing.
Best practical solution was to start with a 1hz interval tone and find any localised resonance peaks which I then tried to dampen (doors, mirrors, windows, ornaments etc). Broader peaks were ameliorated with damping panels on the walls and in the corners, all of which had none of the downsides of adding additional electronics to the signal path.

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)