Behringer DEQ2496 Ultracurve Pro Equalizer

[timbley]

My earlier idea using the ToneGen to adjust by ear can give some intersting results, with certain things sounding more live, or vivid. But the overall effect of something being out of whack is noticeable after coming back the next day and listening with fresh ears.

So after reading earlier posts over again, I went to Guitar Center and picked up one of the Behringer microphones to use with the EQ. For starts, I tried using it from the listening position with the RTA on average, moving the mic. around slowly. This showed me the general dips and bumps in my listening area without confusing me with the sharper peaks and dips that vary every couple of inches.

I noticed that the RTA showed a need for some boost right around the crossover frequency, (which I had figured out earlier), and that bass was too strong in a pretty wide swath peaking at around 40 hz and falling off rapidly below 40, but still being too strong up to 80 hz. Lee mentioned that the RTA reads too strong below 100hz due to the alogrithms used, but that there were work arounds. I'd be curious to know what those work arounds are.

Another thing that interested me was that the response looked extremely flat through most of the RF-7's tweeter range no matter where the microphone was.

For now, I went ahead and reduced the bass and tried to make the RTA look flat over the entire band, excluding the extreme highs and lows, which taper off. A couple of days of listening to this setting suggests that it's a real overall improvement, with vocals and strings sounding more natural. The bass is certainly lean now, but still present.

The directions say that in average mode, RTA noise correction is applied. I don't know exactly what that means. Could that mean that it corrects for the overly high readings below 100hz? If I set the RTA to look at the white noise generated by the Behringer, it shows a nice flat response across the entire range with the RTA set to average.

I don't understand why flat response tends to sound too bright at the listening position. Does it have to do with the direction that the sound is hitting our outer ear?

Thanks,

Tim

[mikebse2a3]

Hi Tim

A couple of thoughts about your questions on the readings on the RTA and what your hearing.

(1)We are using the MIC and RTA to try to analyze and visualize what we are hearing but we need to keep in mind what we measure with a MIC and RTA "doesn't always corelate" with how our ear/brain would analyze and interpret the same sound.

(2)The above fact is why I believe the ear has to be the final judge when it comes to adjusting the EQ. The RTA and

Auto-EQ helps us to see where potential problem areas might be but the ear needs to judge if thats what we really perceive.

So if after listening for a while your ears are telling you that the bass is say a little lean then you should feel free to correct for that observation.

mike

[timbley]

----------------

On 1/1/2005 4:46:38 PM Jim E wrote:

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.

----------------

Thanks for this post Jim!

I went ahead and tried the 3db/octave roll-off you suggested. YES! I liked it. I didn't think a big improvement could be so simple. I've experimented a little and have come up with a full spectrum slope that is very shallow maybe 1/2db/octave, with a steeper, 2db/octave slope starting at 2kHz added as well. The music has popped to life with these settings.

I'm finding the broad range slopes are getting me the results I want much more than trying to apply localized bumps or dips based on the mic. measurements and the RTA. Localized effects can make the RTA look flat, but they sound odd to me. The only localized effects I'm applying are the notch at 42hz for the primary room boom, and a slight 2/3 octave dip around 5k, which seems to make violins sound more natural in the higher notes.

[timbley]

----------------

On 2/15/2005 11:48:23 PM mikebse2a3 wrote:

Hi Tim

A couple of thoughts about your questions on the readings on the RTA and what your hearing.

(1)We are using the MIC and RTA to try to analyze and visualize what we are hearing but we need to keep in mind what we measure with a MIC and RTA "doesn't always corelate" with how our ear/brain would analyze and interpret the same sound.

(2)The above fact is why I believe the ear has to be the final judge when it comes to adjusting the EQ. The RTA and

Auto-EQ helps us to see where potential problem areas might be but the ear needs to judge if thats what we really perceive.

So if after listening for a while your ears are telling you that the bass is say a little lean then you should feel free to correct for that observation.

mike

----------------

Thanks for the pointers Mike.

I've been working quite a bit with this thing over the last couple weeks. Re-arranging my room in an asymmetrical manner has largely eliminated the bass boom at 40 hz, while also improving the stereo imaging. Hanging heavy curtains in strategic places, and moving furniture and acoustic panels around has helped with the midrange and treble, which looks smoother on the RTA. The RTA and microphone are keeping me busy!

I wonder when I'll get tired of this and call it good enough.

Looking at the RTA's got me thinking. I've been contemplating replacing the drywall in my room with something like BAD panels and replacing the insulation behind it with rigid fiberglass, thereby making all the walls into bass panels/diffusors. Maybe the ceiling too. And maybe I could drill hundreds of holes in the floor, cover it with carpet, and apply a 2 foot layer of rigid fiberglass under the house?

I won't be doing any of that soon, but I'll bet it'd work wonders!

[mikebse2a3]

"I wonder when I'll get tired of this and call it good enough"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Tim

I don't know about you but I've been at this hobby for 33 years and it still stirs my curosity and especially the Room/System Integration aspect of it.

The RTA of the Behringer is a great tool for seeing the Energy Spectrum of the sound(Music as well as Test Signals) and it helps me to better understand how best to deal with the problems I hear. I find the EQ sections are also great for learning about and exploring for sound problems.

I feel the RTA alone is worth the purchase of the Behringer. I'm not aware of any other device(maybe some one else does?) with the resolution and quality of the RTA of the Behringer for the price.

Tim do you find as I have that you understand the strengths and weakness of your system/room better because with the RTA you can visualize what frequencies you are hearing and corelate that with the problems you hear and have you been surprised what frequencies where actually involved?

I've discovered a number of times that the Energy was actually in an area of frequencies I hadn't suspected by just listening alone.

mike

[timbley]

----------------

On 3/5/2005 5:01:05 PM mikebse2a3 wrote:

"I wonder when I'll get tired of this and call it good enough"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim do you find as I have that you understand the strengths and weakness of your system/room better because with the RTA you can visualize what frequencies you are hearing and corelate that with the problems you hear and have you been surprised what frequencies where actually involved?

I've discovered a number of times that the Energy was actually in an area of frequencies I hadn't suspected by just listening alone.

mike

----------------

Yes, I have been suprised by where the frequencies for some instruments are. Recently I've been disturbed by the sudden squealing of a picolo when it reached the higher notes on Shostakovich Symphony No. 5, Telarc CD. I set the Denon to repeat the problem area, and could see by the peak hold function on the Behringer that the picolo was just barely rising above the rest of the orchestra at somewhere around 4k to 5k. I tried to suppress that area, which made it squeal less loudly, but still it changed tone into a squeal. I figured this same effect was causing me some problems with the violins sounding strange. EQ could make it less noticeable, but not really solve it.

Turns out the solution was to take the grills off the RF-7s! I really think the grills cause some problems in the higher frequencies. The picolo sounds smooth, and violins sound smooth and natural to me with the grills off. The RTA doesn't look any different either way as far as I can see.

I don't think I would have figured that out without the Behringer. I had no intention of ever taking the grills off. I would have assumed there was some resonant peak in the speaker at that frequency, or that something was peaky about my receiver. The RTA showed me that really wasn't the problem, forcing me to look elsewhere.

The RTA has consistently showed a sort of pointy spot around 9k, and also a peak around 650hz, both of which I wouldn't have suspected. OTH, it verifed a slight dropout around the crossover frequency, which I had always suspected.

[timbley]

Well, I'm still playing around with the Behringer DEQ, moving the speakers and furniture here and there. I'm really having fun, and making progress.

I'm starting to think that it might be a big mistake to use the auto EQ, or even to try to adjust EQ using the RTA, when both speakers are playing simultaneous pink noise in stereo mode. The response through the midrange and treble can look pretty gnarly in stereo mode. Turn the balance knob all the way to just one speaker or the other, and it looks a whole lot better.

I've read elsewhere that one of the big problems with stereo is that simultaneous sounds from each speaker interfere with each other. It's even been suggested that there should be a divider down the middle of the room all the way up to near your nose to keep the sound waves from each speaker from interacting with each other. WAF very low. An argument in favor of mono?

In any case, I'm thinking it's a bad idea to try to correcct for stereo interferences since they change quite a bit inch to inch, and will do all sorts of unpredictable things when different sounds come from each speaker. So far my ears are telling me the results of adjusting one speaker at a time are good, with more natural and convicing tone.

Imaging is better in my room with slightly different EQ applied to each speaker. The RTA verified a slightly louder midrange response when the right speaker played that was giving me the impression of female voices being shifted slightly to the right, with male voices generally more centered. Now it's fixed!

[mikebse2a3]

Hey Tim

I appreciate reading about your observations!

I feel kind of like you about the Auto EQ it gets you in the ball park but I've not seen a situation yet where I didn't feel like I couldn't improve on its settings for the sound by using the RTA and a little trial an error.

By the way here is some of my experience from a post on 1/4/05 when I tried adjusting the channels independently:

---------------------------------

"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."

------------------------------

I believe each room/setup is so unique and so many variables come into play that the best we can do is experiment with adjustment till we find the ones that work best in our own specific enviroments/setups. So I do believe like you said there will be times when independent adjustment of the channels will be called for and at the same time other frequencies/problems might require both channels adjustments to be the same.This is just another example of where we will need to trust our ears to decide which is the best method for each problem we hear.

mike

[Colin]

played with GEQ, PEQ and Width, not sure how to get FBD and Auto EQ working yet? a lot of the manual is greek to me, but love it so far...

[timbley]

----------------

On 3/15/2005 11:34:16 PM Colin wrote:

played with GEQ, PEQ and Width, not sure how to get FBD and Auto EQ working yet? a lot of the manual is greek to me, but love it so far...

----------------

I haven't played with the FBD yet. On the Auto EQ, you have to wait a while for anything to happen. It takes it's time, and then never seems to really finish once it gets going. You just have decide when enough is enough.

Anybody else agree?

[mikebse2a3]

Hi Colin

I'm not sure there is much point in the FBD mode(which is using part of the PEQ filters) for our home listening rooms although maybe if you had a situation where we got into a feedback situation with a turntable/room setup combination that you couldn't solve any other way.

I did find in my situation that the PEQ was really usefull for the frequency range approx. below 300Hz. The GEQ offered some improvement in this range but with the PEQ I was able to make very precise corrections for the problems I found in this range.

So far I like using the GEQ and PEQ in combination to correct for the sound problems with my room.

As far as the Width option I have to say it is enjoyable to use on some recordings.

The Behringer reminds me of using a computer the more you use and play with it the better you get with understanding all its features. The Manual begins to make more sense as you get familiar with the Behringer.

mike

[mikebse2a3]

Tim

Yes the Auto EQ keeps tweeking itself so I just look for when things have pretty much slowed down in its frequency adjustments and then end the testing.

I've noticed that with the RTA and especially on the fast settings that the individual frequency bands will vary in there readings which to me is normal for any Pink Noise Test I've done whether with the Behringer's Pink Noise Generator or a Pink Noise Test CD. I just try to observe an average for the amplitude reading I'm seeing for a frequency band and use that to start my adjustment settings.

mike

[timbley]

----------------

On 3/15/2005 11:27:09 PM mikebse2a3 wrote:

Hey Tim

I appreciate reading about your observations!

By the way here is some of my experience from a post on 1/4/05 when I tried adjusting the channels independently:

---------------------------------

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.

" 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. "

-----------------------------

mike

----------------

Mike,

I too have found the same settings on both channels to be the best way to go. It's just this latest room configuration that seems to benefit from a slight suppression of the right channel midrange. My room is small, so my ears may not be able to distinguish the first response from the first set of wall echoes.

I'm curious to know if you or anyone else has noticed smoother response on the RTA when playing pink noise on just one speaker at a time vs. playing both simultaneously.

Speaking of using different EQ per channel in the bass, I decided tonnight to let one speaker carry almost all the bass from 25 to 50hz, while the other carries everthing from about 50 to 120 using the graphic EQ in dual mono mode. So far, the bass seems better this way, and something seems more open about the sound. But the real test is well be to see if I still like it in a couple days. Sometimes problems these settings create aren't apperent to me until I've listened to a variety of music.

[timbley]

Mike,

Do you use the average mode on the RTA? That's the only mode I use, otherwise it's too confusing for me.

Tim

[mikebse2a3]

Tim said:

I'm curious to know if you or anyone else has noticed smoother response on the RTA when playing pink noise on just one speaker at a time vs. playing both simultaneously.

Speaking of using different EQ per channel in the bass, I decided tonnight to let one speaker carry almost all the bass from 25 to 50hz, while the other carries everthing from about 50 to 120 using the graphic EQ in dual mono mode. So far, the bass seems better this way, and something seems more open about the sound. But the real test is well be to see if I still like it in a couple days. Sometimes problems these settings create aren't apperent to me until I've listened to a variety of music.

-----------------------------------------------------

Tim

First I do use the average setting for the RTA. I feel it gives me the best information for my purpose of room/speaker correction.

As far as a smoother response on the RTA with just one channel question, I have noticed mostly just a change in the readings with some areas smoother and others not as smooth. This makes sense because with two sources playing at the same time there will be constructive and destructive interaction from the two speakers at the MIC location and the room modes levels will change also due to the differance in source locations driving the room differently.

The reason I might use different EQ settings in the bass that I mentioned earlier was to try to compensate for speaker locations or room conditions that would cause the sound from the two speakers to vary noticebly from each other tonally as well as cause the imaging to wonder from left to right as frequencies changes(My Goal Would Be To Have Both Channels Sounding As Much As Possible Identical To each Other At the listening Location). Not sure but seems to me a good way to test your settings for this would be to play a CD with say indvidual 1/3 Octave Bandwidths of Pink Noise through both channels at the same time and see how close the left and right channels track each other tonally as well as how centered between the two speakers the image of the Pink Noise stay as you play the individual 1/3 octave bands from approx. 300Hz down.

Talk to you latter NEED SLEEP

mike

[Colin]

I am not sure the noise generator is loud enoguh, how do I set that before I Auto EQ?

[Colin]

I have analog coax output on my aging CD player, can I use the onboard DAC?

Where is average on the RTA?

How do I know the proper setting on the DEQ?

What does the red LEDs on the clipping meter really mean? is the amp clipping?

[Colin]

Can the aux outputs be used for headphones?

[timbley]

Hi Colin,

If you keep hitting the RTA button, you will switch through the different windows. In one window you will see an option to use the "A" button to set the RTA rate to slow, medium, fast, or average.

You can set the output level of the pink noise in the 1st window of the I/O screen. The "noise gain" indicator is in the lower right corner, and can be set from -60db to 0db. Mine was default set to -60, so you may need to turn it up a bit.

[timbley]

----------------

On 3/16/2005 7:16:09 AM Colin wrote:

I have analog coax output on my aging CD player, can I use the onboard DAC?

Where is average on the RTA?

How do I know the proper setting on the DEQ?

What does the red LEDs on the clipping meter really mean? is the amp clipping?

----------------

You can use the XLR analog inputs on the DEQ. You'll need to get some adapter cables to adapt the RCA outputs of your CD player to XLR, or make some yourself. I think the manual shows a diagram of how to connect the wires.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by what setting you should use. I'm assuming your talking about the RTA response rate. For listening to music, I like to use the fast response setting to see what frequency band things I'm hearing are in. When making adjustments with the microphone, I use the average setting because the pink noise is rather dynamic in the other settings, making it hard for me to visualize what the actual response curve of the room/speaker combo looks like.

The red LED lighting up means that the DEQ has run out of bits, used up all 24. I don't think it will actually clip. It's got a smart feature where it automatically applies compression in the event it's fed too strong a signal - a very nice feature to keep a live performance from being glitched too badly by an accidental improper gain setting. You should only see the red leds very briefly light up from time to time. If they're on a lot, you should probably turn down the gain in the Utility menu a few db so the reds don't come on too often. I think you don't want to turn it down too much, because then you start to give up bit depth, which could degrade the sound. 24 bits is a lot, so I wouldn't be too concerned about turning it down a few db.

I've played with the compression features a little. It surprises me how little I notice when a lot of compression is used. I thought it would sound much worse than it does. The level meters make it obvious how much compression my local FM rock stations use. The level meters never change through an entire song!