3dzapper Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Dean, What are you using for your calibration mike? Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scriven Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I don't know what Dean is using but I purchased the Behringer ECM8000 mike that works with the 2496. It is about $50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjgeraci Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Based on what he said yesterday, I believe that is the one Dean is also using. I guess its time for me to get one of these to play with. Carl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I really dont understand what all the hoopla is about this unit. Seriously, if you can get your system to sound better using this bottom-of-the-line pro audio (yeah, right) product, hopefully its just your room (and not your ears) that have some very serious acoustical problems, none of which can be truly compensated for with this device. Get over it folks. At a cost of a few hundred bucks its just a glorified tone control. And as far as the Behringer ECM8000 mic goes, come on, a $50 non-calibrated mic for taking acoustic measurements? Without a known frequency response (sensitivity curve) for the individual microphone, how are you going to determine how much to add/subtract from whats shown on the display (or software)? If you think this thing is going to provide flat measurement response youre sadly mistaken. These inexpensive devices are targeted towards your average garage band (one guess what determined the price point) and their mediocre sound reinforcement/PA systems used for small lounge/bar gigs, sold primarily through places like Guitar Center. After initially hearing all the poop on here, I even went and bought one! It went back to Guitar Center. If you cant hear the detrimental effects that this cheap unit interjects into your system (even with the bypass switch engaged), maybe youd better upgrade to Blose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee_vr6 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Any printed frequency response graphs of your room Artto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:47:22 PM killerbee_vr6 wrote: Any printed frequency response graphs of your room Artto? ---------------- Yes. On my thread "artto's klipschorn room" in the Architectural topic area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee_vr6 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:48:52 PM artto wrote: ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:47:22 PM killerbee_vr6 wrote: Any printed frequency response graphs of your room Artto? ---------------- Yes. On my thread "artto's klipschorn room" in the Architectural topic area. ---------------- Flat frequency response will certainly sound different than what you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:56:06 PM killerbee_vr6 wrote: ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:48:52 PM artto wrote: ---------------- On 5/18/2005 3:47:22 PM killerbee_vr6 wrote: Any printed frequency response graphs of your room Artto? ---------------- Yes. On my thread "artto's klipschorn room" in the Architectural topic area. ---------------- Flat frequency response will certainly sound different than what you have. ---------------- Yes it will. But anyone who thinks "flat response" equates with superior sound quality needs to learn a little more about what "good sound" sounds like. I've got news for you. It's not "flat". In fact you'll find that virtually all fine concert halls have a rolled off high frequency response. Jazz type night clubs a little less, rock almost no high end. My room was intended to shoot for somewhere in between since I listen to all kinds of music. And there are more important things than flat response when it comes to good sound, live or reproduced. Having a known flat response may be a good thing when mixing or mastering a recording, simply so the engineer can get a handle for what's actually on the recording. It is not to be confused with the frequency response of a fine auditorium were live music is performed or recorded. Furthermore, The microphones I used for the most recent response curves, while being "calibrated" (a matched stereo pair I use for recording chorale/orchestra live in concert), are not compensated for in the raw graph data. The mics have known high frequency roll-off. The oldest response curve that I initially posted was taken with an expensive calibrated B&K mic and McIntosh RTA, using my most commonly listened to source at the time (analog LP, CD had not been introduced yet). I wanted to get a complete picture of the TOTAL system response, room, speakers and playback source since phonograph pickups are transducers, as are speakers. The room has substantially changed acoustically since the first response curve was taken. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. My room/system doesn't need any EQ. And it certainly doesn't need the added noise and loss of resolution that a unit like the Behringer provides. Someone above mentions the Alesis and Rane units. I use an Alesis for my live recording projects. It's "OK". The recording studio where some of my bands have recorded have Alesis and Rane available. The Rane sounds much better than the Alesis, albeit more expensive. Now where do you think that puts the Behringer with all of its addintional "features" at a fraction of the price? Yes, Behringer's gear is a lot of bang for the buck. But it hardly belongs in a system using something like Klipsch Heritage, or even Reference. When I recently purchased a new "practice" bass amp I considered Behringer. Very tempting considering the price. But I went with SWR at twice the price simply because it sounds better, it has "the tone". And you want to know what else? In my previous post I mentioned garage bands and price point. It's all about marketing. Behrigner used to sell "real" high-end, high priced gear. I guess they finally figured out that selling far higher quantity at cheap prices ultimately yields them more profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 artto said: Seriously, if you can get your system to sound better using this bottom-of-the-line pro audio (yeah, right) product, hopefully its just your room (and not your ears) that have some very serious acoustical problems, none of which can be truly compensated for with this device. After initially hearing all the poop on here, I even went and bought one! It went back to Guitar Center. If you cant hear the detrimental effects that this cheap unit interjects into your system (even with the bypass switch engaged), maybe youd better upgrade to Blose. --------------------------------------- Well as the person who orginally started the other thread on the Behringer I would like to say that I take anything I said about this unit very seriously because I would never want to mislead or cause anyone to spend money on something that wasn't good. Since the orginal post many months ago I still stand behind my perceptions and reasons why the Behringer can and will help alot of people to achieve a better sound in most real world room situations. I can honestly say that in my system(with khorns)there is NO ADDED NOISE OR TURN ON THUMPS. Like any equalizer if you don't take the time to become familiar with the unit(or any other EQ) and also how sound adjustments interact with the System/Room on problems that our ear/brain perceives then you will never receive the full benefits that might be avaible to you by using an EQ of very good performance like the Behringer. As far as cost! I have judged the Behringer based on performance not on price. For my money the Behringer performs beautifully and I fill no need to spend more money. I'm sure in time as technology improves and becomes more cost effective units that can work in the time domain as well as the amplitude domain will prove to be even more beneficial. One other thing I love this forum and have tried to be a positive and helpfull supportive member and have talked to some really great people but the above post demonstrates one example of a post that turns me off of this forum and causes me to just say never mind. So according to artto as one of those people who has a bad room(hopefully not bad hearing)and I guess needing to "upgrade" my equipment to "Blose" I guess "my opinions and others" who have heard the real benefits from this unit don't matter much!!!! mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 5:50:56 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: artto said: Seriously, if you can get your system to sound better using this bottom-of-the-line pro audio (yeah, right) product, hopefully its just your room (and not your ears) that have some very serious acoustical problems, none of which can be truly compensated for with this device. After initially hearing all the poop on here, I even went and bought one! It went back to Guitar Center. If you cant hear the detrimental effects that this cheap unit interjects into your system (even with the bypass switch engaged), maybe youd better upgrade to Blose. --------------------------------------- the above post demonstrates one example of a post that turns me off of this forum and causes me to just say never mind. So according to artto as one of those people who has a bad room(hopefully not bad hearing)and I guess needing to "upgrade" my equipment to "Blose" I guess "my opinions and others" who have heard the real benefits from this unit don't matter much!!!! mike ---------------- Just "unqualified" is all. This is a cheapo unit that deserves no place in my system. If you can't "hear it" then the only two possibilties are that your "setup" is far from producing what it is capable of, or your hearing is deficient. Since I know that my hearing is not quite up to par anymore (frequency response curves, both ears, from the audiologist), and since I can hear the difference (and it is not a good thing)............................................ do what you like EDIT: BTW Mike, read my post a little more closely. I, in fact, bought one of these, based on your (and others) recommendation. It has no place in my system. It's just an equalizer with lots extra memory and display features for the price. And I suspect I have far more experience with acoustics and live recording than you or most Forum members have. If that makes my "qualified" opinion offensive, so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 Wow, it's Artto's semi-annual "poop on you" posts. Thank God you came in here to educate and save us from this terrible sounding piece of gear -- I'll run upstairs and yank it out right away!! I don't know what you heard, but it's evident the rest of us are too deaf to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Artto: For those who may not have the priviledge of a perfect or near-perfect listening environment, this component may be of some help. More importantly, several have thought it a well-worth-while addition to their system, where the combination of source/s, preamplification, amplification, and speakers sounded better with than without it. I used to be such a 2-channel die-hard, and decided one early Saturday morning to build the minibox for a center channel. I looked around through some bins, found the parts I needed, and two hours later I realized I was about to completely change the way I had been listening to music for the past bunches of years. Thus, I know the feeling of having a sort of major audio revelation. The Klipsch minibox was easily the single largest impact on our system a component has ever made, and that includes lots of amps (yes, mostly lower power fellas) and I don't even know how many preamps. To deny that things had not quickly changed for the much, much better would have amounted to depriving myself of the truly great fun I have had listening to music since the Lexicon processor arrived. That was a serious expense for us when we got it, but it had everything I was looking for and was in very pristine, mint condition. I just closed my eyes and pulled the trigger, but the sound it provides makes it all worthwhile. Maybe it would be possible to encourage and support new-found and good-sounding system additions, rather than squash them like some poor bug trying to get from here to there. Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 5:50:56 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: the above post demonstrates one example of a post that turns me off of this forum and causes me to just say never mind. So according to artto as one of those people who has a bad room(hopefully not bad hearing)and I guess needing to "upgrade" my equipment to "Blose" I guess "my opinions and others" who have heard the real benefits from this unit don't matter much!!!! mike ---------------- Mike, Let us hear your opinion. Few of the members here who'd listened to Artto's perfect system in his perfect room said that it sounded lifeless and uninvolving. I wish that they were braver and more direct. Don't go away just yet. I'll take your opinion (or Dean's or anyone else's for the matter) way before I'll take his, and I'm not the only one here that will do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Sorry, Dean Someday, when po graduate to Blose ,....er, .. only funnin' i gotta agree with Artto ... that crap don't belong in my system..... $ 2500 Pre > $299 Eq > $2000 Power Amp > $ 2000 Speakers ... just don't make sense ....... the Alesis unit is a stretch .. Rane Yamaha, Ashly ... make products i'm more comfortable with...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 ARTTO... how do you make a frequency responce of your room? One position? 10 positions? 100 positions? 1000 positions? What exotic mic do you use? Lets see the mic calibrated chart first. Then the room charts. Do you use a chart recorder? What type? This is not a flame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbley Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I think Behrigner should remarket this gear for home use, giving it standard RCA outputs, a different look, and of course a much higher price tag so that it will sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 First: artto says (Just "unqualified" is all. This is a cheapo unit that deserves no place in my system. If you can't "hear it" then the only two possibilties are that your "setup" is far from producing what it is capable of, or your hearing is deficient. -------------------- artto another great responce! Lets see now how many people here have reported no problems once the unit was setup correctly.Some people didn't realize there was a sensitivity switch on the back and that cured some audible problems they had when they first installed the Behringer.But the main thing artto is many people here haven't had the problems you mention so is everybody wrong and your right? Also the bypass function you mention sounding so bad according to the manual is acomplished by a relay which connects the input to the output when activated and I can hear it being activated when I use the bypass so basically you are listening to the input/output cables and bypass relay which should cause very minimal signal degration which is how I perceive the sound in bypass mode. Second artto says: EDIT: BTW Mike, read my post a little more closely. I, in fact, bought one of these, based on your (and others) recommendation. It has no place in my system. It's just an equalizer with lots extra memory and display features for the price. And I suspect I have far more experience with acoustics and live recording than you or most Forum members have. If that makes my "qualified" opinion offensive, so be it! ----------------------------------- artto(another example of attitude I can do without) I read your post "VERY CLOSELY" to begin with and very well "Understood" you had bought and tried the Behringer.What I didn't do was make assumptions that you have hearing problems or was unqualified in experience because you had a different outcome than myself and several other forum members who feel they have had very worth while improvements with the Behringer with no bad side effects. artto why do you feel capable of judging me or my experiences when you really know nothing about me? I don't care how many recordingss or anything else you have experience in when you begin to feel like your the "expert" then how can you learn from anyone elses experiences who differ from yours? Anyway for any one who wants to try the Behringer I would suggest as I did in the other thread that you do so with the option to return the unit if your not satisfied with what it can do in your particular situation and be aware there is a learning curve with the unit in how best to operate and adjust the EQs which except for artto I believe everyone I'm aware of has come to really appreciate the benefits of the Behringer in their situations. Neither I, artto or anyone else can tell you what sounds best in your particular situation and taste. mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 ---------------- On 5/18/2005 6:58:06 PM Guy Landau wrote: ---------------- On 5/18/2005 5:50:56 PM mikebse2a3 wrote: the above post demonstrates one example of a post that turns me off of this forum and causes me to just say never mind. So according to artto as one of those people who has a bad room(hopefully not bad hearing)and I guess needing to "upgrade" my equipment to "Blose" I guess "my opinions and others" who have heard the real benefits from this unit don't matter much!!!! mike ---------------- Mike, Let us hear your opinion. Few of the members here who'd listened to Artto's perfect system in his perfect room said that it sounded lifeless and uninvolving. I wish that they were braver and more direct. Don't go away just yet. I'll take your opinion (or Dean's or anyone else's for the matter) way before I'll take his, and I'm not the only one here that will do so. ---------------- Artto's system sounds lifeless and uninvolving with mixes that are lifeless and uninvolving (as a revealing system should do). I remember listening to some very high quality recordings and it was breath taking. In fact, there were some recordings that when I opened my eyes, I got seasick and dizzy because I was completely convinced that I was in a different place...the "smallness" of the room seriously scares the crap out of you when you feel like you're in a wide open space with nothing but a band playing. It's like the world is collapsing in on you. Anyways, though I lack the words to describe it, artto and the rest of you lot are after two completely different sounds. Artto has chosen to go the realism route which narrows him down to a much smaller selection of music (there are all sorts of reason for this narrowing as well). There is another "good sound" where it's all about enjoying the music, but the tricking you into another world isn't as important. I wish I could explain it, but I really can't think of sufficient analogies...the best I can do is that it's like the difference between the khorn and the cornwall. They both cover the same frequency range, but the khorn has a bigger cleaner sound whereas the cornwall is better for straight up cranking it and rocking it out. Artto was simply pointing out that implementing an EQ like the behringer totally destroys the realism aspects. If you think about it, a good recording implies that the engineer was using a well balanced system and was very careful in retaining all the important information. If your playback speakers are relatively flat and you got a good acoustical environment, then I see absolutely no need for an EQ because it's already been taking care of in the studio. Therefore, an EQ that improves the sound implies that there is something wrong somewhere else in the process. Chances are it's probably the source material and the acoustical environment. If there is a problem with the source material, then it would make more sense to remaster the source than to try and find a global system EQ that will compensate perfectly for every recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 Artto's system sounds lifeless and uninvolving with mixes that are lifeless and uninvolving (as a revealing system should do). I remember listening to some very high quality recordings and it was breath taking. In fact, there were some recordings that when I opened my eyes, I got seasick and dizzy because I was completely convinced that I was in a different place...the "smallness" of the room seriously scares the crap out of you when you feel like you're in a wide open space with nothing but a band playing. It's like the world is collapsing in on you. Artto has invested a lot of time and money into his system, and it's apparent he has a considerable amount of experience with this kind of thing. I'm sure it sounds wonderful over there. The irony however is that he uses room treatments, EQ, and RTA to accomplish this - yet poo poos a similiar approach if taken with a $300 all in one digital interface and decent microphone. His initial post is full of assumptions regarding our use of the unit, and as usual, can't say much without treating us like we're all a bunch of little kids playing with a nuclear weapon. Anyways, though I lack the words to describe it, artto and the rest of you are after two completely different sounds. I can't agree with that one. We are all shooting for realism, and the "best" sound we can get in the environment we are forced to deal with. Artto has chosen to go the realism route which narrows him down to a much smaller selection of music (there are all sorts of reason for this narrowing as well). There is another "good sound" where it's all about enjoying the music, but the tricking you into another world isn't as important. It's not that we are shooting for different things, but that Artto's room is simply tweaked out to the max and so naturally provides very good results -- no one is disputing that (at least I'm not). The issue here relates strictly to the use of a tool that brings better sound for the rest of us "peasents", and does it with a minimul of fuss. As far as sonic degradation goes with the use of the Behringer -- it's pure and utter BS. Check out the review of this unit from the folks at TAS, or spend some time searching through the archives at the Asylum on this thing -- even poor Thorsten Loesch has developed a love affair with it. I wish I could explain it, but I really can't think of sufficient analogies...the best I can do is that it's like the difference between the khorn and the cornwall. They both cover the same frequency range, but the khorn has a bigger cleaner sound whereas the cornwall is better for straight up cranking it and rocking it out. Artto was simply pointing out that implementing an EQ like the behringer totally destroys the realism aspects. The reason you can't come up with a good analogy is because there isn't one. Your K-horn/Cornwall analogy in itself is awful, since it is actually the cleanliness of the Klipschorn that allows it to be driven harder, whereas the Cornwall actually does much better if not driven as hard. As far as an EQ "destroying the realism" goes -- well, that one is kind of over the top. I ain't buying into that one. If you think about it, a good recording implies that the engineer was using a well balanced system and was very careful in retaining all the important information. What about "average" recordings? I guess I should just give up getting good sound with 90% of my music. If your playback speakers are relatively flat and you got a good acoustical environment, then I see absolutely no need for an EQ because it's already been taking care of in the studio. You're really reaching with the studio thing. I mean, seriously. Forget the room for a moment (I know it's hard, but try). Ever see a true response plot for the Klipschorn? How about the response of a T-35 tweeter, or the Klipschorn bass bin? How about plots from a spectrum analyzer of the different networks? Maybe some HF response plots from a pair of older Heritage networks where the caps are acting more like resistors than capacitors? Therefore, an EQ that improves the sound implies that there is something wrong somewhere else in the process. Chances are it's probably the source material and the acoustical environment. If there is a problem with the source material, then it would make more sense to remaster the source than to try and find a global system EQ that will compensate perfectly for every recording. There is always something a bit "wrong" with the acoustical environment AND source material. Since we aren't likely to get involved in remastering all of our music, redesigning our speakers so that they exhibit flat response, or building a padded cell so we can be transported into a virtual acoustic bubble (and this is somehow more "realistic"). Maybe what makes the most sense is using a decent RTA and a decent microphone, that gives us a decent idea of what the acoustic response of our system is -- and then use some EQ and a bit of common sense to fix a few things that can't be fixed with network or gear changeouts/upgrades. It's not very complicated. First you read the manual (which is very good btw), then you set up the microphone. You let the autoEQ function perform its little dance, and take note of what it's "hearing", and where it's making its adjustments. In my room at least, many of the adjustments coincide perfectly with the known deficiencies of the Klipschorn. IOWs, parts of the graph are the inverse of the K-horn anechoic response. You then sit in the chair, listen to music, and make minute adjustments to suit taste. I get excellent sound if it's not in my system. I get better sound if it's in my system. A person can make this into rocket science if they want too, but it's not really necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Nice post, Dean. Apparently, the Dr is Artto's biggest fan. He's also a 21 year old and it makes me wonder how long he's been in this hobby and wether he's heard many (any?) real good systems in that ( short?) period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts