Behringer DEQ2496 Ultracurve Pro Equalizer

[mikebse2a3]

Wolfram

I normally would be very cautious about telling anyone what they might want to do or buy when it comes to audio.I would also suggest to anyone that they should always try to get a trial period with anything there not familiar with.

The reason I'm suggesting you try one for a trial period is because I see a real interest on your part for this kind of unit.I had the same kind of interset and decided it would make alot of sense to see what the newest technology had to offer in EQs especially since I could see how if a unit like this ones capabilitys had a real potential if its analyzing and programing abilities really worked then they could solve some of my system/rooms problems . I hate the idea of taking things back but if it works like they tell you then It seems reasonable to want a trial period to see that it can do what you need and they say.I knew within a few hours use that I would be keeping it which really suprised me because I just didn't expect such an overall improvement in my system.The other thing I really like is the educational ability that comes with using the RTA to really look into the siginal and room responces and visualy see and relate this to understanding what is required for the system/room.To me the Auto EQ feature is very important because it gets you in the ball park very quickly and the easier a unit is to use the more likely you will learn what you need to make the best out of your particular system/room needs are.

I will gladly answer any questions I can for you and If you do pick one up I really want to know how it works out for you also.

mike

[Jim E]

The Behringer EQ looks like a great deal for the money. I have used several of their products and found they perform very well. Quiet, clean and cost effective. Having multiple memory settings is a definite bonus for those who use their systems for both 2-channel audio and home theatre.

I just wanted to throw in a couple of points that may help in EQing your system. There are so many variables involved I cant cover everything but for those who are new a few points could shorten the journey into sonic nirvana. One thing I cannot stress enough, EQ cannot correct for poor setup or marginal components. It is vital that all your equipment including your speakers are working correctly and adjusted as close to optimum as possible.

1) When setting up your system with an RTA determine the correct alignment of the microphone.

Some mics require vertical positioning (capsule towards the ceiling) such as the Beyer MM-1.

The mic should not be placed near reflective objects or near sound absorbing items such as

padded upholstery. The mic height should be about 6 to 10 inches above ear level in a seated

position. A word of warning, use a good quality instrumentation mic. The Behringer mic

looks damn good for the price. Ive seen a few comparisons and it scored well against several

3 to 4 hundred dollar mics.

2) The manual for the DEQ 2996 is quite correct in advising the 100 Hz limit. FFT analysis can

give misleading readings on low frequency. I believe this is due to the sample rates being too

short in relation to the low frequency wavelength. There are workarounds for this but it is a

bitinvolved.

3) Before setting any equalization check the existing response of your system with all controls

set to a flat position. Position all furniture in the room into the normal setup. This is the

time to optimize your equipment. Using pink noise, set the output levels approximately 10 dB

above the ambient noise level. I typically set the output level to 85 dB C weighted. The pink

noise should be fed into the front end of your system. Set the crossover adjustments (or taps)

for the flattest response. The key here is to eliminate any abnormalities in your system and set

a baseline for gain structure and channel balance. The equalizer should be adjusted for unity

signal gain.

4) A subject of debate. What is the correct setting or curve for equalization? Of course being

able to reproduce 20 Hz to 20 kHz is a goal however, listening to a system set flat usually

sounds too bright. It has been my experience that using the THX curve (which was derived from

the SMPTE ISO 2969 specification) works best for me. Simply stated, response should be flat

from 50 Hz to 2kHz rolling off at 3 dB per octave above 2 kHz (plus or minus 2 dB). One a 1/3-

octave display this would relate to -1 dB per step. This is the standard used in motion picture

theatres and dubbing stages by Dolby, THX, Sony and DTS to name a few. In smaller listening

areas the roll-off may be extended out to as high as 4 kHz. Using this curve in a home theatre

setup should give the best sound as all films are mixed on a sound stage that is calibrated to

this standard. To the best of my knowledge there is no modification to the audio on DVD or any

other format from the original film sound track.

Ultimately you will find an EQ setting that works for you. The one I described is a good starting point for home theatre. In my case, it also works well for 2-channel audio. With the advent of DSP based equipment many of the old problems in using equalization have been reduced or eliminated. It is still a good idea to tweak your room acoustics to minimize early reflections and reduce nodal problem areas but EQ will smooth out most of the lumps. Just be careful with extending the high and low frequency response of your speakers. The components do have limits and it is easy to burn out a driver if over driven.

A quick disclaimer, I have never been a straight wire with gain type. Being a tweaker by nature I am only expressing my opinion and personal experience.

Jim

[dubai2000]

Mike and Jim,

thanks for the very informative posts. As written above, I might be able to pick up a slightly used DSP8024 (inclusive Behringer mic) for a good price, but I did some internet reading today and it seems that this unit also pleases quite a few people.

I am sure that optimizing the listening room in itself is a smart idea, but then I have to live with the fact that my listening room is also used as a living-room (i.e. includes sofa, shelves etc.). So possible changes are few (if any).

Of course using such a unit first for a trial period is a smart ides, but buying used, this won't be an option. On the other hand: nothing ventured, nothing gained . Plus I should be able to find some buyer just in case this device is too complicated for me (I admit reading the manual without the unit in front is a bit complicated).

Anyway, if I can collect the necessary cash I shall give it a go (in a 2-channel set-up) - so thanks again for all the input .

Wolfram

[mikebse2a3]

Hi Wolfram

I understand what your saying about your ability to treat and change the room setup around.

I sincerely believe you will realize some very worth while benefits from one of these EQs especially since you have few other options in your living room. I also believe you won't have any problems learning how best to use the EQ once you get your hands on one.

Let us know how things go when you get one.

mike

PS: Still having trouble with the forum banning me so if I haven't responded to anyone that will be why most likely.

[mikebse2a3]

Thanks for the info Jim

So I have Two questions for you.

(1) Why do you suggest the Mic be placed 6" to 10" above ear height?

(2) So far I have read nothing in the info on the Behringer Mic suggesting what orientation to use so I've been using it Positioned Vertically(pointed toward ceiling)since its an Omni-directional type and I seem to be getting good results. But do you know or have info that suggest proper orientation for it?

Thanks mike

[Jim E]

Mike,

Seems you got it right the first time. The Behringer mic is used vertically or to be more precise at 90 degrees to the sound source. This is done because there is a slight pressure build up at high frequency. Using the mic pointed towards the speaker would result in a +3 dB rise at the top end of the spectrum. This would also be true for most 1/4" and 1/2" electret condenser omni mics. For $60 direct from Behringer the ECM8000 is an excellent value. In my opinion this mic is a best bet for home use.

The reason for the 6" to 10" above seated ear height places the mic slightly off axis from the speaker and away from the floor. This is also a good height for those with overstuffed furniture.

Jim

[mikebse2a3]

Thanks Jim

For anyone interested in the Behringer ECM8000 Mic I purchased it from Guitar Center for $40 and also the Behringer webb site has a $15 rebate on it and a $50 rebate on the DEQ2496 equalizer till the end of Jan. in the United States.

Wolfram did you pick up the used EQ?

Vacation over so back to work for me. As I get a chance to get more familiar with the other features I'll try to post anything else I think you might be interested in.

mike

[dubai2000]

Mike,

no, not yet, but we have agreed on the price and once the money has been sent, I shall get a DSP8024 inclusive Behringer mic. Until then I'll keep my eyes open for more of your posts .

Wolfram

[colterphoto1]

Good thread guys. Very good common sense explanations of complex process. I didn't read terribly carefully, but if this unit has 'presets' or memory settings, it more than likely does its work in the digital domain. Audiophiles wishing to keep their signal 'straight' for 2 ch music listening may want to take this into account and tweak their EQ with an analog unit.

Michael

[Jim E]

Michael,

Very true and correct. Many audiophiles and others do not care for digital processing and nothing much is analog about this gear outside of the input and output stages. The EQ is DSP based and is "software driven"...and it is upgradable as well through it's MIDI port. Speaking of MIDI, multiple units could be connected for additional eq's and/or additional processors. In a multi-channel system one could have many settings that could be linked for simplified control.

Jim

[Deang]

Powerful thread. I'm not easily persuaded, but you guys really have me thinking. That in itself is quite an achievement.

[mikebse2a3]

Michael and Jim

FWIW my thoughts are:

After using this Digital EQ I want to encourage anyone interested in trying an EQ "have an open mind toward the many important benefits that this unit has because it does operate in the digital domain.

One of the main reasons I became interested(cautious but with an open mind) in this unit was the fact that it does operate in the digital domain and by doing that there is the possibility (if the design of the unit is done correctly) of reducing or eliminating some of the drawbacks of analog EQs like phase shifts and interaction with adjacent bands.

Once you've accepted Digital equipment in your audiophile system such as a CD,SACD or other types of digitally recorded music then why would we not have an open mind toward something Like a Digital EQ? As long as a piece of equipment Analog or Digital can pass the signal through itself with the only alteration to the signal being what we asked it to do then I believe it would be wise to have an open mind toward Digital Equipment as well. I would encourage anyone wanting to try an EQ even in there Analog system to not let the fact that its a digital piece scare you away from it.In fact could you imagine what it would cost to have such a high quality RTA, Analog 1/3 octave EQ and a Analog 10 Band Parametric Eq. all with Auto EQ and Memory capabilities which I believe is "extremely important" to assist in sucessfully determing what the best EQ settings will be in our always unique situations.

mike

[mikebse2a3]

Michael

Or anyone else with thoughts or experience on this would be appreciated.

What I noticed tonight when I ran a couple of independent curves on the left and right channels was that I didn't like it as well as when I had both channels with the same response curves.

(This is what I mean by this EQ being so easy to use it invites experimenting which I hope will lead me to a better understanding of how I'm hearing sound in my room)

Now I realize that when we EQ a speaker/room where going to affect the first response as well as the farfield room response(where most of us sit). I believe the reason for this was that by altering the left and right speakers independently that the first response was thrown out of balance for the left and right channel and somehow that wasn't perceived as natural somehow. But when I alter both channels the same at least for the most part the first response is altered the same for both speakers and was better accepted by me. Now I do believe that Adjusting the Left and Right Speakers indepently for different boundry loading say below 200hz or so but leaving every thing else above equal might be of benefit in some situations but in my case the speakers see pretty much the same boundry qualities.

Anyway this was just an observation in my situation and I appreciate anyone elses thoughts or experiences on this.

Thanks mike

[Colin]

mic was still in the sweet spot?

[mikebse2a3]

Hi Colin

Yes the Mic was in the same spot.

One other observation is when you run a curve on just one channel the correction required larger variations of say instead of 3.5db some where 5db to 8db.

I believe when you run just one channel the farfield is less even in this case because you don't have the contribution of the other channel possibly smoothing out the farfield response where the Mic and we are located.

It definitly sounded smoother and measured smoother when both channels where used in the setup with Auto EQ function.

mike

[dubai2000]

Well, I am driven by curiosity and plan to use it in the analogue domain to see if I can't 'optimize' my listening room. Having re-read Thorsten Loesch's review of the older Behringer has only increased my curiosity - and it seems that any 'digital' shortcoming is perhaps less serious than room influences. Yes, I cannot deny certain worries when it comes to adding something digital to a mainly tube driven rig, but then it might just be a better way to integrate my sub (as suggested by a pretty positive TAS review some time ago) - plus I am already combining tube and ss gear and to my ears it does not automatically degrade the sound (and I can enjoy CDs as well). Obviously only trying such a unit will show if I find it beneficial in my circumstances, but until then I am trying to keep an open mind ...and if the seller ships promptly, I should have a new toy in a few days .

Wolfram

[mikebse2a3]

Wolfram said:

"and it seems that any 'digital' shortcoming is perhaps less serious than room influences."

Yes! For most of us the room is the weakest link in the chain. After just a few days with this unit I Lost any concern in using it within my tube based system.

mike

[Jim E]

Mike,

I can appreciate what you are saying. Setting up any room can be difficult with so many variables. One trick you might try is averaging. In setting up auditoriums and theatres I use four mics with a timed multiplexer but the same thing can be done with a single mic. Fire up the RTA and move the mic to several positions in your listening area and observe the display (one channel only). You will most likely find that the RTA will display differently in each location. Copy the readings (boring but very tedious) from several mic locations (ignore any mic position with excessive dips or peaks) and calculate the average for each band. Enter the offset average manually into the EQ and have a listen. Try this on each channel and compare the readings. This process should yield a larger listening area and smoother response.

It takes a bit of time but experimenting is fun is'nt it?

Jim

[dubai2000]

Jim,

the question might be stupid, but when doing what you have described does one (only) stay in front of the listing position or also behind one's favourite sweet spot? Plus there is an opening to right of my listening position, but not to the left.

Wolfram

[mikebse2a3]

Thanks Jim

I believe I got a little lucky with the first few curves I ran and I'm very pleased with those results. But you know how it is I've just got to see how far I can improve things and see how things are interacting which is just fascinating to me so I'm sure I'll be trying different curves and learning for awhile .

On the subject of ignoring excessive dips and peaks is something I have been doing. On a few curves their where one or two freq. where the AutoEQ wanted to correct with up to 8db of boost or cut and I noticed if you tweeked those frequency there really wasn't any real audible improvement with these large corrections so I decided most adjustments that I make will stay within a +/- 4db window because anymore seems pointless and maybe they are caused by things that aren't really that audible to our ears and if they where audible then I believe I would try to hunt down and solve what was causing it with setup and/or acoustical treatment methods.

I really appreciate your advice Jim!

mike