mikebse2a3

Guys I moved some post from DeanG's Trachorn 400 thread in Update and Modifications section because it was kind of Highjacking the Trachorn Thread. Also See the pictures(I wasn't sure how to move them) that Dean posted in his Thread to see what started this conversation about EQ uses and measurement methods. mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/30/2005 5:00:29 PM Hey Dean I noticed you are using your MIC in a Horizontal position for measurements but I'm pretty sure it is best used in a Vertical Position. Have you tried it both ways? I use a boom style MIC Stand I bought from Guitar Center for about $20 or $30 dollars and works very good for me and gets most of the MIC Stand away from the MIC for better measurements. I have liked using the Auto EQ between 100Hz and 5KHz and adjust frequencies above and below manually and thats worked very good for me also.I did notice alot of boost on your settings above 10KHz. Whenever I have run into the RTA/EQ calling for this much boost I try to listen and see if thats what I really hear going on in those bands and I usually come away with the impression that it is usually a measurement quirk at least in the very high frequency range. Either way I usually limit any boost to about 5db(Most adjustments for me have required less than 3db) and any cuts using the PEQ(FOR ROOM MODES) to about 8db say with a bandwidth of 1/8 or 1/10 octave for example. I have also mostly used mine with the MIC at my dedicated listening position since this is the only position I listen critically from. Thanks for posting this, its interesting to see how others are using the Auto EQ and RTA and MIC Position to make adjustments. mike ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DeanG Posted: 7/30/2005 5:22:19 PM I was hoping you'd post. Everything you brought up is stuff I was wondering about while I was driving into work. I noticed there wasn't an across the board correlation between the uncorrected response and how/what the AutoEQ function adjusted/compensated. It's interestestng, AND frustrating. I can't decide what hate more -- Ohm's Law, or acoustics. The boost above 10kHz is odd looking, but it does seem to correspond to what we know about the K-77's response. "...and any cuts using the PEQ(FOR ROOM MODES) to about 8db say with a bandwidth of 1/8 or 1/10 octave for example." I haven't gotten that far yet with the thing. I have a lot to learn. "I have also mostly used mine with the MIC at my dedicated listening position since this is the only position I listen critically from." I kind of had the idea that it wouldn't work well using it like that. I got the idea from your Behringer thread, as well as Al. Are you doing it with the dual mono setting, or the one channel/copy? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/30/2005 5:49:24 PM Yes my listening position is off axis of the K77 and so I do use a slight boost of about 1db to 2db in its range but I just don't believe it would be a good idea to try and boost it alot because of power/mechanical limits of the K77s and also if you feel the need to boost the K77 much their are probably other issues like maybe to much absorption or absorption in the wrong places in the room for example and also the need for diffusion in the listening space(Any Room I've ever used has benefited from diffusion for increased clarity and to keep the sound better tonally balanced. I also use the Room Correction Curve feature and the slower modes when using the Auto EQ and again this is with the MIC at my listening position and have had very good results in my small room and a friends room which has Cathedrial Ceiling and very open large space say approx: 40'by 30' and large openings to other spaces. Anyway I have to go now but it would be a good idea to discuss this more and hear other peoples experiences EQing their rooms so maybe we all can learn more about this complicated job of measuring and correlating that to what we are hearing. mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/30/2005 5:59:25 PM Dean said; I kind of had the idea that it wouldn't work well using it like that. I got the idea from your Behringer thread, as well as Al. Are you doing it with the dual mono setting, or the one channel/copy? -------------------------- Dean I found early on that adjusting each channel seperately didn't work very well for the most part so I always use stereo mode for all settings and I guess if a persons speakers where seeing to very different enviroments say like side walls for example you might tweek one channel slightly different but you would have to be carefull because we are adjusting the first arrival sounds as well as the room sound reaching us and something is very unnatural if you mess with the first arrival sound to much so that is why I suggest small adjustment mostly because larger adjustments indicate the need for other type of acoustical treatments or repostioning of listening positions for a couple of examples I can think of quickly. I've got to go but I would like to continue this dicussion later Dean!! mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/31/2005 2:39:55 PM Hey Dean I was looking at your RTA uncorrected response picture and noticed the levels displayed where in the -70db to -80db range and you where showing considerable response even in the 25Hz and below range. You might be picking up interfering background noises at this low level if you are using this level for pink noise testing normally. I have noticed alot of low level low frequency background noise in my room which doesn't bother my listening but would certainly throw off measurements if test are run at this low a level. One interesting thing that an ETF(ENERGY/TIME/FREQUENCY)Computer PROGRAM first showed me and the RTA also shows it was that I always knew I didn't like listening while the washer or dishwasher was running in the other end of my house. Sometimes I would just get listener fatigue for no apparent reason till one day I was doing some measurements with the ETF program when I saw what looked like a room mode at about 120Hz that continued for many milliseconds when the washer kicked on. The RTA Display will also show this problem while they are running with constant noise centered around 120Hz and others frequencies also that showed they where creating a constant low level background noise which had proved to be very irratating without really calling attention to itself otherwise when I was listening to music. Needless to say nobody washes clothes or dishes when I'm listening to music now. Use the RTA with no other sound in the room and see what your noise background levels look like. In my case I often see noise from other parts of the house like washer, dryer,TV, air conditioner for some examples. Anyway I would suggest you run the pink noise level at least 20db to 30db above background levels and I actually think it would be a good idea to run test levels closer to the average listening levels you use although this can get pretty fatiguing after awhile. I was thinking maybe we could start a thread where we could discuss things like this and limitations and possibilities of using an EQ and also different measurement methods that can be tried, like MIC placement for example because depending what we are trying to measure about the room/speaker and differences in room/setups would require different poistions to be used.I'm learning about all this also but I am learning what is begining to work best for my situation and using this EQ, I just wish I had more time to play with it. mike --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DeanG Posted: 7/31/2005 3:37:43 PM DeanG In Need of Therapy Great post Mike, thanks. Man, I'm SO frustrated. I go from someone who feels like they know what's going on most of the time to feeling like a total imbecile -- this stuff is freaking complicated! I moved my mike to the seating position, and set it up the way you advised. Of course the readings were considerably different, but coincided with something I'm very familiar with. I realize that's a bit cryptic, but if you shoot me your email I'll send you something that will explain it. Today I played with the PEQ, which I think is pretty cool. I had some good luck using it instead of the GEQ because the new readings had broader peak areas as opposed to individual spikes. DEQ is next, and I like the idea behind that one. The thing I find myself doing is second guessing everything I do. I sit, and it sounds good -- but I think, "Well, it sounded good before too!". How in the heck does one know what is right!? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Al Klappenberger Posted: 7/31/2005 6:09:11 PM Guys, One big mistake people make with equalizers is trying to put the mike at the listening position. It doesn't work! Where Dean has it positioned in the picture is the correct place. You also have to set the left and right speaker setting identical or your stero image will go all to h___ too! Al K. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/31/2005 10:43:42 PM ---------------- On 7/31/2005 6:09:11 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: Guys, One big mistake people make with equalizers is trying to put the mike at the listening position. It doesn't work! Where Dean has it positioned in the picture is the correct place. You also have to set the left and right speaker setting identical or your stero image will go all to h___ too! Al K. ---------------- Al I have to disagree on the MIC Placement Point and using the listening position definitly works for me. It makes a difference what I'm using the EQ for and this determines where I want the MIC placed. If I wanted to EQ for certain problems I have identified in the speaker then close MIC placement would be important. If I want to use the EQ for problems(*A ROOM MODE for one example) that are associated with the listening position then the MIC needs to be located there, otherwise "How would we measure and know what we are hearing at that location and any correction that using the EQ might correct"? Now when I measure at the listening position I try to be carefull of interference from say my listening chair or back wall for instance. I will usually fold a very absorbant blanket on the chair and maybe a pillow where my head would be located to block reflections from the back wall(It is To CLOSE TO MY LISTENING POSITION) that could cause interference with my measurements. I use diffusers on the back wall and when I listen to music also I actually use the pillow behind my head to block the early back wall interference I would receive from them and this technique allows me to still achieve all the benefit from the use of the diffusers on the back wall. It is actually a very good idea to measure close to the speaker as well as at the listening position to compare the changes that are happening as we move back into the room and away from the speaker so a person can learn how the sound is being changed at the listening position due to the room interference and thus what action we might use to treat these changes. *Also before anyone says anything( like "Bass Traps should be used for Room Modes" for one example) I think most of us know that Room treatments placed properly should be one of the first things done but sometimes due to circumstances beyound our control thay cannot be used or even with them some problems might still be best treated with an EQ used properly for better sound. I definitly believe like you that for the most part the speakers should be adjusted together not only because it can screw up the imaging but also the modal response of the room can change when using multiple sources and this should be taken into account. mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mikebse2a3 Posted: 7/31/2005 11:36:10 PM Deang said: Today I played with the PEQ, which I think is pretty cool. I had some good luck using it instead of the GEQ because the new readings had broader peak areas as opposed to individual spikes. ------------------------ Dean as you get use to the PEQ you will really appreciate its great ability to fine tune the correction needed in some areas. I actually use it to correct for some problems and then run the Auto EQ with the PEQ active so that it will take into account my PEQ corrections. Sorry if this is begining to hijack your thread on the Trachorn though. Also did you get my e-mail address? I never recieved the e-mail you mentioned sending me. mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deang said: Today I played with the PEQ, which I think is pretty cool. I had some good luck using it instead of the GEQ because the new readings had broader peak areas as opposed to individual spikes. ------------------------ Dean as you get use to the PEQ you will really appreciate its great ability to fine tune the correction needed in some areas. I actually use it to correct for some problems and then run the Auto EQ with the PEQ active so that it will take into account my PEQ corrections. Sorry if this is begining to hijack your thread on the Trachorn though. Also did you get my e-mail address? I never recieved the e-mail you mentioned sending me. mike

---------------- On 7/31/2005 6:09:11 PM Al Klappenberger wrote: Guys, One big mistake people make with equalizers is trying to put the mike at the listening position. It doesn't work! Where Dean has it positioned in the picture is the correct place. You also have to set the left and right speaker setting identical or your stero image will go all to h___ too! Al K. ---------------- Al I have to disagree on the MIC Placement Point and using the listening position definitly works for me. It makes a difference what I'm using the EQ for and this determines where I want the MIC placed. If I wanted to EQ for certain problems I have identified in the speaker then close MIC placement would be important. If I want to use the EQ for problems(*A ROOM MODE for one example) that are associated with the listening position then the MIC needs to be located there, otherwise "How would we measure and know what we are hearing at that location and any correction that using the EQ might correct"? Now when I measure at the listening position I try to be carefull of interference from say my listening chair or back wall for instance. I will usually fold a very absorbant blanket on the chair and maybe a pillow where my head would be located to block reflections from the back wall(It is To CLOSE TO MY LISTENING POSITION) that could cause interference with my measurements. I use diffusers on the back wall and when I listen to music also I actually use the pillow behind my head to block the early back wall interference I would receive from them and this technique allows me to still achieve all the benefit from the use of the diffusers on the back wall. It is actually a very good idea to measure close to the speaker as well as at the listening position to compare the changes that are happening as we move back into the room and away from the speaker so a person can learn how the sound is being changed at the listening position due to the room interference and thus what action we might use to treat these changes. *Also before anyone says anything( like "Bass Traps should be used for Room Modes" for one example) I think most of us know that Room treatments placed properly should be one of the first things done but sometimes due to circumstances beyound our control thay cannot be used or even with them some problems might still be best treated with an EQ used properly for better sound. I definitly believe like you that for the most part the speakers should be adjusted together not only because it can screw up the imaging but also the modal response of the room can change when using multiple sources and this should be taken into account. mike

Dean you have e-mail just list Klipsch for subject so I want delete any of your email by accident. Talk to you later. mike

Hey Dean I was looking at your RTA uncorrected response picture and noticed the levels displayed where in the -70db to -80db range and you where showing considerable response even in the 25Hz and below range. You might be picking up interfering background noises at this low level if you are using this level for pink noise testing normally. I have noticed alot of low level low frequency background noise in my room which doesn't bother my listening but would certainly throw off measurements if test are run at this low a level. One interesting thing that an ETF(ENERGY/TIME/FREQUENCY)Computer PROGRAM first showed me and the RTA also shows it was that I always knew I didn't like listening while the washer or dishwasher was running in the other end of my house. Sometimes I would just get listener fatigue for no apparent reason till one day I was doing some measurements with the ETF program when I saw what looked like a room mode at about 120Hz that continued for many milliseconds when the washer kicked on. The RTA Display will also show this problem while they are running with constant noise centered around 120Hz and others frequencies also that showed they where creating a constant low level background noise which had proved to be very irratating without really calling attention to itself otherwise when I was listening to music. Needless to say nobody washes clothes or dishes when I'm listening to music now. Use the RTA with no other sound in the room and see what your noise background levels look like. In my case I often see noise from other parts of the house like washer, dryer,TV, air conditioner for some examples. Anyway I would suggest you run the pink noise level at least 20db to 30db above background levels and I actually think it would be a good idea to run test levels closer to the average listening levels you use although this can get pretty fatiguing after awhile. I was thinking maybe we could start a thread where we could discuss things like this and limitations and possibilities of using an EQ and also different measurement methods that can be tried, like MIC placement for example because depending what we are trying to measure about the room/speaker and differences in room/setups would require different poistions to be used.I'm learning about all this also but I am learning what is begining to work best for my situation and using this EQ, I just wish I had more time to play with it. mike

Dean said; I kind of had the idea that it wouldn't work well using it like that. I got the idea from your Behringer thread, as well as Al. Are you doing it with the dual mono setting, or the one channel/copy? -------------------------- Dean I found early on that adjusting each channel seperately didn't work very well for the most part so I always use stereo mode for all settings and I guess if a persons speakers where seeing to very different enviroments say like side walls for example you might tweek one channel slightly different but you would have to be carefull because we are adjusting the first arrival sounds as well as the room sound reaching us and something is very unnatural if you mess with the first arrival sound to much so that is why I suggest small adjustment mostly because larger adjustments indicate the need for other type of acoustical treatments or repostioning of listening positions for a couple of examples I can think of quickly. I've got to go but I would like to continue this dicussion later Dean!! mike

Yes my listening position is off axis of the K77 and so I do use a slight boost of about 1db to 2db in its range but I just don't believe it would be a good idea to try and boost it alot because of power/mechanical limits of the K77s and also if you feel the need to boost the K77 much their are probably other issues like maybe to much absorption or absorption in the wrong places in the room for example and also the need for diffusion in the listening space(Any Room I've ever used has benefited from diffusion for increased clarity and to keep the sound better tonally balanced. I also use the Room Correction Curve feature and the slower modes when using the Auto EQ and again this is with the MIC at my listening position and have had very good results in my small room and a friends room which has Cathedrial Ceiling and very open large space say approx: 40'by 30' and large openings to other spaces. Anyway I have to go now but it would be a good idea to discuss this more and hear other peoples experiences EQing their rooms so maybe we all can learn more about this complicated job of measuring and correlating that to what we are hearing. mike

Hey Dean I noticed you are using your MIC in a Horizontal position for measurements but I'm pretty sure it is best used in a Vertical Position. Have you tried it both ways? I use a boom style MIC Stand I bought from Guitar Center for about $20 or $30 dollars and works very good for me and gets most of the MIC Stand away from the MIC for better measurements. I have liked using the Auto EQ between 100Hz and 5KHz and adjust frequencies above and below manually and thats worked very good for me also.I did notice alot of boost on your settings above 10KHz. Whenever I have run into the RTA/EQ calling for this much boost I try to listen and see if thats what I really hear going on in those bands and I usually come away with the impression that it is usually a measurement quirk at least in the very high frequency range. Either way I usually limit any boost to about 5db(Most adjustments for me have required less than 3db) and any cuts using the PEQ(FOR ROOM MODES) to about 8db say with a bandwidth of 1/8 or 1/10 octave for example. I have also mostly used mine with the MIC at my dedicated listening position since this is the only position I listen critically from. Thanks for posting this, its interesting to see how others are using the Auto EQ and RTA and MIC Position to make adjustments. mike

I've seen a pair of EV T350 tweeters go for upwards of $500 on E-bay alone!! I believe those alone would be worth getting them. mike

Joe Thats Just A Beautiful Site!!! You Don't Happen To Have A BookCase Full Of Marantz 8B or 9 do you??? mike

If anyone is interested a friend of mine has some McIntosh MC30s on ebay Item: 5793342338 These where recently checked out by Terry DeWick and sound very good. mike

---------------- On 7/26/2005 9:36:44 PM RAPTORMAN wrote: I got it from Agon. There is no manual. Thanks ---------------- I'm not familiar with this preamp but just a thought that you might be able to download a operating manual from the manufacture's webb site if they have one. mike

Hey Dean I really appreciate all your post on the things you try with crossovers and your Khorns. Are you still using the K77-M tweeters with this setup? And are the tweeters mounted to the side of the Trachorn? Looks like the Trachorn is shorter than the K400. If that is the situation I wonder how much the sound has changed due to changes in dispersion and interaction changes between woofer/squawker/tweeter in the crossover frequency ranges due to path length differances and the tweeter being placed horizontally of the Trachorn. It really isn't just a comparison between the K401 and Trachorn but also a change in the way all drivers/crossovers are blending and any dispersion changes created by these changes. Now I'm not taking anything away from the Trachorn I'm just pointing out there are alot of things at play here and I will be real interested in hearing more about this Modification as you get more time with it. Wouldn't it be real interesting to try ALK's Extreme Slope Crossovers with both Horns in this setup? And I wonder which one might offer the most bang for the buck. mike Edit: I see you are using the K77-M. Man sometimes it sure takes awhile for me to compose a post,I started after your first post!!!

dragonfyr said: Not all reflections that exist within the area defined as Image Shift and Echoes are to be absorbed. Reflections within the rest of the defined areas are not as simple, and a well-behaved decay relationship becomes desirable, as well as addressing the non-linear frequency composition of the component reflections. Within this range specific reflections are treated, not the entire field. And a simple set of instructions to absorb &/or diffuse is not easily stated in 25 words or less, as the particular environments usage will determine the particular treatment. Thus, questions of space utilization (music, conference, lecture, multipurpose, theater, sports, etc.) become a critical determining criterion. Moreover, while the various behaviors are quite well understood, a simple one-size-fits-all treatment may not result in the desired improvement in all but the most grossly misaligned acoustical spaces. -------------------------------------------- I haven't seen it mentioned often but one option I'm thinking of trying is to "Redirect" the first reflection points(Mirror Image Points)of the left/right side walls in my small listening room instead of absorption or diffusion of these areas. I have found absorption doesn't work well in a small room and diffusers used in small rooms is also complicated by the small spacing created in small rooms.(ie: to early reflections from the diffusors due to the small space). So I'm asking in your experience would redirecting an interfering reflection point also be an appropriate(Better?) option as opposed to absorption or diffusion so that its energy can be of a benefit to the listener by being delayed and then introduced at a proper point in time? mike

Thanks dragonfyr!!! I especially like the visual of the 3D balloon plots. I haven't seen those before. I would love to see baloon plots of say the crossover regions of the woofer/squawker and squawker/tweeter of the Klipschorn with say 6db crossovers versus say AK-3 or AK-4 and ALK's Extreme Slope. What is amazing is to realize that this represents a very simple situation and to realize that as soon as a speaker is placed in a room you have in effect many multiple sources(REFLECTIONS)(ie:left/right side walls, floor/ceiling and front/back walls interacting with the speaker/speakers causing similar interferance effects). Its truely amazing how complicated the simple act of recreating music in our rooms is and that it sometimes works as good as it does. If you really think about this it should really bring home just how much the room/speaker interaction will determine what we perceive and why so many opinions differ on for just one example "the Khorns sound and imaging ability" simply because No Two Enviroments are the same that we listen in. To me the Room really is the WEAK LINK in our quest for reproducing music in our homes with todays technology. I would also like to say How Much I Appreciate and Miss The Great Work Of Richard Heyser. He was the first to open my mind to how amazingly complicated what appeared to be the simple act of reproducing music really is! Again Thanks for sharing this type of information with us! mike

Dean I did a quick calculation of the impedance of the 5mh inductor. 400Hz = 12.564 ohm 1000Hz = 31.41 ohm 5000Hz = 157.05 ohm Looks to me that the 5mh inductor is mostly affecting frequencies below 1000Hz and I would think removing it from across the squawker will give you a different sound based on a slightly elevated response from 400Hz to around 1000Hz and whatever interaction(constructive/destructive) is created in the woofer to squawker crossover region. When I was changing my AK-2 network to an AK-3 I noticed that Klipsch was increasing the squawker level by abot 2db with the T4 versus the T5 autoformer and also raising/tailoring the frequency levels in the 400Hz crossover region by (reducing the capacitance in parallel with the woofer from a 140mfd to 100mfd) and (the 4mh inductor to a 5mh inductor in parallel with the squawker). So I believe some of the differance in the sound your hearing(good/bad) is also affected by removing the 5mh inductor so I would really be curious what you notice if you reinstall the 5mh inductor and just do the .9mh coil in series with the 13mfd for your bandpass for the squawker. mike

Dean said: The mod necessitates the removal of the 5mH inductor in parallel with the squawker, and then the simple addition of a .9mH air core in series with the 13uF primary capacitor. The inductor is placed between the cap and the input tap of the autotransformer. I come up with a FqL of 403Hz and a FqH of 5246.7Hz. It sounds very good, but I would like to see what the transition looks like to the AK-3's steeper sloped, elliptical tweeter filter. Al? ---------------------------------------- Hey Dean and AL Its been a while since I looked at this but I thought the 5mh inductor in parallel with the squawker is used to deal with the crossover between the woofer and squawker in the AK-3? Since the impedance of the 5mh inductor goes up with frequency I thought it was pretty much out of the way at the upper end of the squawker but was being used to balance the response of the squawkers lower frequencies with the woofer's upper frequencies. If this is the case then could the 5mh inductor be left in the circuit to keep the transition between woofer/squawker the same as was orginally designed? mike

Hey rplace I believe it would be a good idea to again simplify your equipment setup temporarly till you get the two channel center correct. You might have already done this but if not a first step would be to test both speakers for proper output. If you have a test disc with some frequency sweeps of say 1/3 octave pink noise say from 20hz to 20khz then run this test first on the left channel/speaker then the right channel/speaker to make sure that the midrange and tweeter drivers are working properly.If the midrange or tweeter driver in one speaker isn't working properly it could really throw your imaging off. Now if all drivers sound like they are working then I would suggest you run both channels/speakers with this test and notice if the image of these test frequencies stay centered. Now you will probably notice some pulling to the left or right of center depending on your room reflections interfering with the direct sound from the speakers but the more frequency bands that stay centered the more solid the center image will be. If any group of bands say like in the squawker or tweeter ranges don't display a center image then reversed polarity of the driver or drivers (which crossover do you have? because it is possible to cross up the polarity of the Squawker/Tweeter Crossover of the AK-2 AND AK-3 crossovers with the Bass Horn Crossover section of the Khorn)would be a likely cause. If you still have problems then like others have sugested if your absorption is overdone in the squawker/tweeter frequency range and/or just in the wrong places it can make the center imaging vauge and recessed especially centered vocals and the life and dynamics of the music will suffer also. mike

Seems to me that if I was going to build a false corner it would be a good idea and would also had to the integrety/strength of the corner if a person just added a board across the back corner that would match the width of the tailboard and basically be in parallel with the tail board and would thus seal up the empty space thats behind the tail board and a regular corner. This way there would be no worry about seals. mike

---------------- On 7/6/2005 8:17:50 PM Griffinator wrote: ---------------- And all I've been saying from the very beginning is that, just as you've worked your way up the line through amps, preamps, CD players, and speakers, you'll also discover, if you're willing to take another step, that an upgrade over that EQ will open your sound up in ways you never thought possible. Furthermore, using an outboard DAC off that disc player will blow your mind in all kinds of ways. Yes, it's your money. And yes, right now the Behringer is "good enough" for your purposes. Don't dismiss the posibility that a step up to the Rane RA-20, for example, won't make that Behringer look feeble in comparison. ---------------- Griff I was using an Outboard (anti jitter device) as well as a seperate Tube D/A Converter before I went with the Musical Fidelity CD-Pre24 with its upsampling D/A converter and believe me I'm very happy with this unit. So I'm curious what outboard DAC and why do you think it would be better than the Upsampling DACs already used in this unit? Griff I always have an open mind to experiencing new equipment and I would love to hear many different pieces of equipment(including the Rane you suggest) so that I can form my own opinion of what works best for my system and what I choose to use and spend my money on. What I don't understand is why you think I would dismiss anything like the Rane. I didn't let the Name or Price of the Behringer sway my opinion of the performance I was getting in my system from its use and maybe someday I'll get a chance to hear the Rane also. mike

On 7/6/2005 10:50:52 AM cjgeraci wrote: Tony, I understand where you are coming from - especially with level matching. However, one obvious thing (or caveat) that I failed to point out with respect to Dean's, Chris' and my experience with the Behringer is that I believe we are all using our respective units just after a Peach. And each of us reports quality sound by doing so. One thing that may help is that the Peach has adjustable levels for the amount of output signal it is feeding out - so we can adjust that level if we do not like the original results. My only point is that maybe part of our overall positive may be the nice quality of our preamp, and maybe others with different preamps may not have as favorable as experience as we have running after a Peach. Maybe Mike can chime in here because I do not recall what he is running as a pre. -------------------------------- Good Question Carl!! Maybe this will help others to understand the bases of where some of our opinions have been formed from. Carl I have not had the time to explore all the different ways I could use the Behringer DEQ 2496 in my system, just not enough time. So far I use the Analog Inputs and Outputs of the Behringer. I use the Behringer between a Musical Fidelity CD-Pre24 and my preamp which was a Cary AES AE3 DJH but recently changed to a Cary SLP98L Preamp into either my Cary AES SE-1 2A3 Single Ended AMP or Cary CAD 2A3i Integrated 2A3 Push/Pull AMP into my Klipschorns. I also use acoustical room treatments which consist of ASC TUBE TRAPS AND ASC WALL PANELS and RPG SKYLINE DIFFUSION PANELS. As I have said before my present listening room has been the largest challenge of the Three Rooms/Houses I have installed my KHorns in. Again I have to say I feel the Behringer has held its place in my system and has dealt very well with the audible problems I have identified in my room that the room treatments couldn't completely solve by themselves. The MOST IMPORTANT THING is I enjoy listening more to my music and the Behringer deserves its share of credit for this! mike

Griff I don't think my analogy needs correcting! My point is alot of people want respect something unless it cost a certain $$$$ or has a certain brand name and I believe thats being short sited and closed minded or even a bit insecure to trust their own opinions. The Behringer has proven to be a very good product to alot of people who have taken the time to learn how to use it. To tell these people that they don't know what they are hearing is just wrong. Its been obvious in previous threds on the Behringer that you dislike this company and thats your right but I think when you attack someone or something that you know exactly what your talking about. So Griff "please answer" the real question I asked which is have you actually used and spent time with the Behringer DEQ2496 that you seem so determined to run down? mike

On 7/5/2005 10:51:43 AM Griffinator wrote: I've heard too many Behringer compressors, DSP units, mixers, amplifiers, speaker systems, etc in action vs their counterparts to even consider employing their garbage in my system. --------------------------------------- So I'm curious Griff have you used the Behringer DEQ 2496? I think its important to stay on one point here! Does the Behringer DEQ 2496 Performance Merit what people here have been reporting about using it. My Vote is YES! I even believe its worth its money just for what you can measure and learn by using the RTA alone! Now as far as build quality and other issues you have brought up I can only say that I feel like its a real bargain. Would I choose one of the other brands you mention maybe but only if they proved that they actually could out perform the Behringer to justify their higher cost. To buy from price or name alone just seems foolish to me. If we use your analogy How Many People Wouldn't Use A Klipschorn Because its "OUTDATED" or "DIDN"T COST ENOUGH" for audiophile respect. It just remindes me of people who have talked down Klipschorns but when asked have never heard one or heard it in a good enviroment/setup. mike

Gil Said: The skyline type seems to be doing the same in a different way. Rather than digging holes, it is creating mountains. Maybe the valleys in the mountains are indeed the same as wells. ------------------------------------------------ Gil the valleys are the same as the wells in the One Dimensional diffuser. First www.rpginc.com is a great site for articles to learn about acoustics, their products and their designs. They heavily research and test their designs to see that they actually meet their design goals. RPG also makes a Two Dimensional diffuser called the omniffusor which if you look at it you will see the walls used just like the orginal One Dimensional QRD diffusor. The Skyline has one very beneficial feature because it is a based on Primitive Root Number Theory and that is the "specular suppression of the incidence sound wave" which means that if you use them say at points in the room where you would see a mirror image reflection of the sound source(SUCH AS THE SPEAKER)then the interfering reflection would be suppressed and the energy used to create a more diffuse sound field. The most popular recomended way to deal with these early mirror image reflection points has been the use of absorption but often this can create a dead or unnatural sound. I have been in the process of using some of these panels and so far in my small room I definitly feel it is better to use diffusion than absorption but like any acoustical treatment where they are placed and their distance from source and listener are factors that need to be considered also. mike

Hi Bill I have a couple of sugestions you might try unless you have already done so. I believe it would help you to first try driving the woofer directly to eliminate any crossover problems. If the woofer performs good with this test then begin looking at any connections to the woofer and in the woofer circuit of the crossover. Also it would help to know which crossover network you are running if it does turn out to be the problem. The later networks which roll off the woofer at 12db will have a capacitor in parallel with the woofer and if this is of the electrolytic type it could have become leaky causing a reduction of energy to the woofer. As far as the woofer itself how much resistance does it measure? I believe you should read about 3.2 ohms dc resistance. Also check the soldering on the wires coming from the cone to the hookup terminals of the woofer in case the solder joint has failed. You can also carefully with even pressure try moving the cone of the woofer and listen for any rubbing/scraping sound of the voicecoil as it is moved in and out. mike