Equalizer update

[Orpheus]

They gave me a pretty big discount on the XLR to RCA cables, too, I spent just 4 dollars more than gerG spent on the raw materials for making his cables.

actually, they would probably have giving you all the cables for free if you bugged them enough, + a discount on the piece itself. (it kinda depends on how little commission the guy's willing to accept on the deal. different people will give you different deals... and managers can give you the best deals--i used to be friends with all the managers... everytime i walk in, we get right down to business. i say, "what can you give me?" and they know i want the bottom line.)

heh he...

but hey, you guys are kinda getting me curious now. i usually look down on the behringer stuff, but you guys seem to really like it....

have you compared it to other EQ's? how 'bout some higher-end analog EQ's? does it stack up?

[Steve999]

I have an old Yamaha analog EQ with a 108 db signal to noise ratio (purportedly) that I had been really happy with.

With the Behringer DEQ 2496 it's a whole different ballgame, though, you get 64 memory presets for your beloved settings and you are making all the changes in the digital domain so you're not adding any noise. You get 10-band parametric EQ (graphically represented) and 30-band (1/3 octave) graphic EQ, and shelving EQ options with which I have custom-made my own treble and bass controls suited for particular headphones (I feel the balance changes from recording to recording so these are extremely handy) in addition to the custom curves you can make.

I also plan on making my own loudness control with the dynamic EQ settings. The real time analyzer is way cool (I had no idea my recordings had so much full-spectrum 20 hz to 20 khz activity in them!), too bad I don't do acid.

I also use the stereo image option for extremely effective and adjustable bare-bones crossfeed on old jazz and Beatles recordings and the like.

As far as sound quality, I just can't find anything wrong with it (and I am obsessively picky) on the best modern jazz and classical recordings.

The real time analyzer is nice too for showing you the noise floor on your equipment, I suspect it would help you hunt down any hum or noise defects in your equipment as well. I was a little surprised at the noise floor on my NAD receiver (-90 db or so from what I can figure).

I had returned a pair of AKG 240S's at Guitar Center and they sold me a guitar for my son at cost (my son was pretty brutal on my guitar) recently so I was feeling pretty grateful, so I didn't bug them about the price. $300 is the going rate on the internet, so that was good enough for me. And I saw similar cables selling for twice the price at B&H photo, and I remembered reading what gerG had spent on the raw materials, so I wasn't in the mood to nitpick, especially since the guy was so helpful and was so insistent about the return policy. It was all a good deal. The thing is a steal at the market price anyway. I've only scratched the surface as to its capabilities. As far as getting the most out of it, gerG is the man.

Originally posted by Orpheus
but hey, you guys are kinda getting me curious now. i usually look down on the behringer stuff, but you guys seem to really like it....

have you compared it to other EQ's? how 'bout some higher-end analog EQ's? does it stack up?

[ooheadsoo]

I've heard of a lot of DIY'ers who are using behringer products for cheap active crossovers and equalization. This sounds pretty sweet. Maybe there's even a cheaper model that still has the important features...anyone know?

[Steve999]

You can get this for about $180 - $200:

Review of Behringer DEQ8024

The reviewer obviously knows a lot more about it than I do, and it makes a very interesting read. Apparently it was selling for $600 - $900 dollars three years ago. Unlike the DEQ2496, it doesn't come with digital ins and outs, although you can pay extra for a digitial I/O add-on.

I'd strongly recommend the DEQ2496 for $120 more though, with digital ins and outs and a dizzying array of options. Obviously, 'cause that's what I opted for.

Originally posted by ooheadsoo
I've heard of a lot of DIY'ers who are using behringer products for cheap active crossovers and equalization. This sounds pretty sweet. Maybe there's even a cheaper model that still has the important features...anyone know?

[agile_one]

Great writeup and photos, gerG. Thanks for all the helpful info. Now I'm thinking I've gotta have one of these in front of the Grace 901 - just when I thought my wallet was safe for a while - thanks a lot

[gerG]

Yeeks, I forgot about this thread!

Steve, I have an 8024 at work, and it simply cannot compare with the 2496, either in sound quality, or in user friendliness. The user interface on the 2496 is almost like something Apple would come up with, it is just plain telepathic.

By way of update, I consider the DEQ2496 my only really essential piece of headphone gear. The differences between sources, amps, and cables, and even headphones, becomes a secondary issue with this thing around.

Personally I have had terrible experiences with analog equalizers. The bands interfere with each other, and the phase shifts will destroy the sound of good cans. The DEQ is nothing even similar. As an additional benefit, mine is not even in the signal path. It resides completely in the bitstream. Imagine, a system without a single interconnect or (friggin) RCA connector. Hmmm... I am tired of typing that. From now on I will just refer to them as FRCA connectors, k?

Dean, I have the dbx Driverack Pro as well. It can do most of the things that the Behringer can do, but not as easily, and it will not allow digital input or output (a HUGE oversight). otoh it is a very nice digital crossover, so it does triamp duty, as well as the occasional K1000 + sub gig. If you are still wavering, consider that you can feed a digital input into the DEQ, then run a balanced analog out to one setup, AND a digital output to the Grace, at the same time! This leaves the analog output fro the player free for yet a third system. Fun!


gerG

[gradofan]

gerG helped convince me to by the DEQ (actually, I bought it solely bc he has good judgment and recommended it), and it's a knockout piece of gear! I've had it for a week or so, and it's amazing how much better my Senns sound when I eq them flat. Tight, deep bass helps me get deeper into recordings. There's a veil in the midrange, and gerG's eq settings fix that, plus they fix the highs. All in all, awesome stuff.

I can't wait to try the Grado SR-325s with the DEQ -- if the results are as good as they've been with the HD-600s and Ety 4Ps, I'll probably end up keeping them! (I was *really* about to dump those cans, and now they have a shot at redeeming themselves.)

Everybody who's reading this post, you owe it to yourself to try some good eq. And with a good return policy, it might not even damage your wallet. But I can't promise that, because you'll probably give the DEQ a permanent place in your system, like I have. And with the amount of gear I'm going through right now, that's a pretty big compliment.

[ooheadsoo]

Great, gerG! Now I'm conflicted over whether to get a tube preamp first and get rid of my passive preamp or to get this DEQ! Why is my life this difficult?!

[Steve999]

Wow, I'm glad I opted for the DEQ2496 instead of the 8024!

gerG, have you explicitly posted your graphic EQ 1/3 octave settings for the HD580s (or HD600s), or would one be left just to infer from the graphs you have posted what the settings are?

I agree, the interface of the DEQ2496 is incredibly intuitive. You just have to get your hands on it to understand how brilliantly the controls are laid out.

After the kids went to sleep, I played with the DEQ2496 for about three hours straight last night. I ran opticals in and out in addition to the analog cables and used it both ways. I spent a good amount of time fiddling with my HD580s. It's amazing, after a while, I a/b'ed the results using the "bypass" feature, and I liked the sound of the EQ tweaking so much better, it was like, who would listen to THAT, when they could listen to THIS? But I guess that's inevitable when you are suiting to taste with really the only obstacle being the learning curve of understanding how to use an incredibly flexible equalizer with infinite possibilities at your disposal, and what the different frequency ranges do to the sound. It's a fascinating learning experience.

I also value highly what I use as the "crossfeed" (variable 10-step image compression that seems to be tonally neutral) too, I am finding it very rewarding. I notice if you want to get really hyper about it, this feature allows you to treat the bass frequencies differently than the upper frequencies in a second menu, because of differences in imaging of bass frequencies. I haven't gotten to that one yet, I kind of like it without messing with the bass management feature anyway, I think, and I'm not sure if the bass settings are meant for use with image compression as much as for use with the image expansion features.

Originally posted by gerG
Yeeks, I forgot about this thread!

Steve, I have an 8024 at work, and it simply cannot compare with the 2496, either in sound quality, or in user friendliness. The user interface on the 2496 is almost like something Apple would come up with, it is just plain telepathic.

By way of update, I consider the DEQ2496 my only really essential piece of headphone gear. The differences between sources, amps, and cables, and even headphones, becomes a secondary issue with this thing around...

gerG

[gerG]

Steve and Gradofan, I am glad you guys are having fun. It really is a high value component, considering that it can make changes anywhere from subtle to gonzo. Unlike most components, if you don't like a particular sonic character, you are not stuck with it.

Honestly I had sort of given up on advertising equalization as a solution. It wasn't catching on, and it gets really annoying hearing someone singing a one note tune. However, now that you guys have heard the light, I will post some curves. I also have a few guidelines that I have worked up. The main one is to keep the curve smooth, and avoid large steps band to band. Most good headphones have reasonably smooth response, and the eq curve should reflect that.

ooheadsoo, sorry to add to your wallet's misery. Talk with gradofan about the merits of tubes vs eq.

This is going to make for some fun discussions!


gerG

[Steve999]

gerG, I sort of stumbled on that main guideline of yours last night, I created bass and treble controls with the parametric shelving, and two broad (I think the setting was "2" or "3" octaves) symmetrical parametric bands centered at about 1 khz and at about 250 hertz, to smoothly heighten or lessen the midrange or midbass. These four adjustable parametric curves make only broad, smooth adjustments and seemed suited to improve the sound of most any headphone in my collection. I just used them like four tone controls. Obviously, the possibilities are limitless, so I just sort of had to jump in.

Anyway, I would be keenly interested in your general guidelines and in as specific settings as possible that you use for your HD580s or HD600s, as the case may be (I think this is probably the only headphone we have in common).

Edit: gerG, I also have the V6s, as you apparently do. Gradofan, I have the SR60s if you want to compare notes on Grado EQ'ing.

Double edit: I believe I have read in Bangraman's posts that he has and frequently uses a DEQ2496, and WmAx has recommended the DEQ2496 so he may have one as well (I came across their posts while I was researching whether to get one)...Their posts were in the headphones forum. They might not hang out in this part of Head-fi much and might not know about this thread. Perhaps we should invite them to party?

Originally posted by gerG

Honestly I had sort of given up on advertising equalization as a solution. It wasn't catching on, and it gets really annoying hearing someone singing a one note tune. However, now that you guys have heard the light, I will post some curves. I also have a few guidelines that I have worked up. The main one is to keep the curve smooth, and avoid large steps band to band. Most good headphones have reasonably smooth response, and the eq curve should reflect that...

This is going to make for some fun discussions!


gerG

[Steve999]

Just an update --

After playing with it some more, the "crossfeed" (image compression) on the DEQ2496 actually is very good and very flexible. You get eleven steps from no crossfeed to full mono. There's a bass setting, in case the imaging changes affect the perceived bass, of plus or minus 3 decibels. There's also another slider called "shuffle", that "intensifies" the image on a continuous scale, so you can have your crossfeed perfectly dry and pure or a little juiced up. There's also a slider with which you choose the frequency below which the changes in the bass take place. The manual recommends 600 to 700 hertz, but you can pretty much choose any frequency. Of course, this was all designed with speakers in mind, but it seems to work quite well as a headphone crossfeed.


Also, I jotted down some settings I like for my HD580. I've been using the parametric 10-band EQ because I find it easier to work with than the 30-band graphic EQ. So for my HD580s here's what I have, in frequency-gain-bw/oct format:

FREQ GAIN BW/OCT
44.8 : +3.0 : L 6db (increases bass progressively below 44.8 hertz)
251 : -3.5 : 3/2
1261 : +3.0 : 3
6036 : +2.5 : H 12db (increases treble progressively above 6036 hertz)
6039 : +1 : 1

This was done by ear and I'm sure there's room for improvement. Any comments, suggestions, etc., are welcome.

[Orpheus]

about this "crossfeed"... i would like to note, if it's a feature on your EQ piece, it's not the same as your headphone crossfeed. there is no signal being delayed to the other side, to give you a sense of depth. it is merely squashing the stereo image. so, essentially it's just putting things even close to the center of your head...

[Steve999]

About the delay, that may be true, I've thought about that, probably way too much. Here's what I think. We just don't know exactly what it's doing. It has image expansion, too, it's all part of the same continuous "imaging" adjustments. Fact is, I'm more pleased with the DEQ2496 crossfeed than with my Corda HA-1 crossfeed, which I also like very much, mainly because the DEQ2496 features are so adjustable. OTOH, it could be a form of infatuation with my new gear. The HA-1 crossfeed is still ready and able and available.

With the DEQ2496 "crossfeed," you can optionally adjust the bass to be treated differently than the rest of the spectrum (I believe it creates relatively less or more crossfeed [depending on the other settings] in the bass to maintain a believable perception of the bass), and you can adjust the bass plus or minus one to three decibels depending on how the change in imaging affects your perception of the bass, and select the frequency below which you want these changes to occur. This is a problem better overcome by the DEQ2496 than by either the Meier crossfeed (no bass tweaking so bass can seem a little thin when it's crossfed, but the sound is objectively neutral and subjectively pristine) or the Headroom crossfeed (not adjustable and considerably too much extra bass and rolled off treble for my taste).

As to whether the image compression includes any delay, I just don't know -- certainly the unit has the ability to delay a signal, as demonstrated by other features. Further, with the image expansion, there is clearly more going on than just expanding the stereo separation -- this would be obvious to you if you gave it a listen. In fact, if you take the image expansion out past a certain level, you can hear some crossfeed being introduced even as the perceived image becomes wider and wider. Some people might like this, for me it's a bit too dramatic with headphones. So I really don't know what exactly goes on. Additionally, who knows exactly what the "shuffle" (what a weird name) feature does -- whether it includes adding a delay is anybody's guess. The manual says it intensifies the imaging, which might very well include some cross-channel delay to add a sense of depth, no? The shuffle feature is continuously adjustable in intensity, if I remember correctly.

The huge saving grace is it's very flexible and all in the digital domain, suit to taste or don't use it at all, using your ears. Hearing is believing. You can make a very subtle adjustment and it is an improvement to me, or you can make dramatic, even silly, changes.

All this to say, you could be right. It's something I've actually thought about and tried to figure out. Thanks for the feedback. Fun stuff.

Originally posted by Orpheus
about this "crossfeed"... i would like to note, if it's a feature on your EQ piece, it's not the same as your headphone crossfeed. there is no signal being delayed to the other side, to give you a sense of depth. it is merely squashing the stereo image. so, essentially it's just putting things even close to the center of your head...

[Orpheus]

We just don't know exactly what it's doing.

i can almost guarantee you it doesn't delay. it's a stereo compression processor that's designed for live use probably. it has nothing to do with headphone use.

so, no, it's not a cross-feed, not the headphone type anyway.

a headphone crossfeed is designed to move the imaging ahead of you, so you don't get the "in your head" feeling as much. this doesn't do that at all, or shouldn't anyway.

there may be instances when setting up a PA system that you might want to push the stereo image in a bit, and that's probably what this function was designed for.

you can get the same effect on your mixer by having the panning pots turned a bit in from what would otherwise be hard-left and hard-right.