[325xi]

Anyone tried to use Behringer DEQ2496 for room correction, with a decent system?
Any impressions? How much does it degrade the sound? Any fuzziness?



On AA someone posted positive feedback about it used in digital domain...

 

[JensL]

Yeah, I'm using it for my Onkyo/Mirage hometheater, and when used correctly, it makes for a very nice improvement.
I have connected it using the analog ins and outs, and can't detect any significant problems soundwise.
If used digitally, it's supposed to be almost none degradation.

But, as for all EQs, you should apply less corrections than you think, and preferably only adjust for peaks/blooms, and not try to add EQ for dips.

I managed to tame some hefty bass-blooming in my livingroom with the DEQ2496, and this really helps all of the frequency range.
It's got a really good realtime-analyzer too. The DAC is supposed to be quite nice.

All in all a worthwhile and very entertaining tool, which needs to be used sensibly.

 

[325xi]

Anyone has any idea how to explain Behringer's pricing? They are very well built, use high quality parts, have tons of features, they don't originate in China - how comes SRC2496 costs $125US???

If Lavry or Benchmark pricing is typical in pro audio, then Behringer would costs about 10 times more then it does... Or it's just 10 times worse then aforementioed Lavry and Benchmark?

 

[JensL]

Heh....good questions. Lots have wondered the same.

Behringer have gotten some critique regarding build quality on some models, and haven't got a very good reputation amongst professional soundpeople.
Also, some have claimed that Behringer have reverse-engineered designs, and sold them cheaper because they didn't have the development costs.

However, some Behringers seems to be well-liked, and the DEQ2496 is one of them. I've seen lots of people praising the sound they get for the bucks.

Lavry and Benchmark should be better built, and I'm sure they use more expensive parts here and there, but I doubt that they are 10 times better.
However, I haven't heard either, only the DEQ2496.

 

[InSides]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi They are very well built, use high quality parts, have tons of features, they don't originate in China - how comes SRC2496 costs $125US???

Well... all in all, you would have to ask yourself why would your primary use for the equipment be. This other item in question [SRC2496] is a sample rate converter with the DAC functions added as an afterthought - note that the SRC2496 is a successor of the SRC2000 that doesn't even have analog outputs, only digital I/O.

However... it might serve as a glimpse in the world of balanced DACs - even though it is servo-balanced [I am not exactly sure what this means - but the single reply I got from Garbz suggested it maybe using opamps for the inverted signal].

The Behringer devices generally present good value - and the current price points might suggest Behringer is trying to regain ground lost to other manufacturers due to issues presented above - but they are slowly increasing their prices - the SRC2496 here costs ~$200.

As for my experiences:

At one point I thought of using a combination of three Behringer devices in my speaker setup - because they are readily available for purchase here. Also, that combo has had some very fine feedback on Audio Asylum... and most of these devices are out of stock.

This is what I had in mind - listed in order of the signal chain, from source to preamp:

1. SRC2496 - de-jitter, upsample, digital patchbay [AES, S/PDIF and TosLink].
2. DEQ2496 - graphic equalization, room correction.
3. DCX2496 - active crossover with direct D/A conversion.

The units were to be linked using AES/EBU, preserving the signal in the digital domain up to the D/A conversion in the crossover. The DEQ2496 and the DCX2496 share the same DACs, both superior to those in the SRC2496. For my headphone setup, I would use the balanced analog outputs of the DEQ2496.

I have been receiving reports claiming very good results with the aforementioned combo, and have heard one system that used the DCX2496 in a Linkwitz-Riley configuration with a pair of Canton Carat Reference speakers, and the results were stunning [ad least to these tin ears].

Note that now we are reaching a price point of $1000 for the three devices, and the only way for me to accomodate that is to cancel out my vinyl upgrades, and that wouldn't do.

At the end of the summer, though, I should be able to part with such amounts of cash to test this out.

 

[Max F]

I use a DEQ2496 that is fed digitally from my Sony 595 cd player. Digital out to my digital receiver (Panny xr55). I love it! Very useful for taking out bass peaks in a crappy room like mine (a room full of corners). I use the parametric EQ to take down peaks below 250 hz. I also use the graphic EQ to add a slight room curve and to have a nice rolloff of the high freq (>12 khz or so). I also use the behringer feedback destroyer (1124) as a digital EQ hooked to my subwoofer. Subwoofers should always be EQ'd! Makes a huge difference.

By all means, try to take out those bass peaks in your room. Bass will tighten up greatly and you'll be really hearing and feeling that way a kick drum should sound. Be very careful when using the DEQ to EQ beyond the bass region (>300 hz) - it can drive you insane

Very easy to make things sound worse. If you have patience, you can make this work well too. Takes lots of time and experimenting. Also, i only used the auto EQ (RTA) for fixing the bass after i took out the peaks with the parametric EQ (each channel has separate settings for parametric and graphic EQ). I didn't care for the auto eq setting above 300 hz. So I kept both channels the same for any changes that i made (for my own preference) above 300 hz. Many people have said they've had good luck with the auto EQ for the entire spectrum (20hz-20khz). To me the separte settings for each channel (speaker) sound strange (exept for the bass) above 300 hz. As always YMMV.

 

[Max F]

Also the DAC in the DEQ2496 is OK. I don't have alot of experience here, but i can say that the DAC was slightly better than the Sony 595. I was using the DAC on the DEQ until i got my Panny xr55. The digital receivers make great DACs. They are essentially power DACs. So i now have digital out from the DEQ to the Panny and couldn't be happier.

 

[InSides]

Quote:

Originally Posted by InSides Note that now we are reaching a price point of $1000 for the three devices, and the only way for me to accomodate that is to cancel out my vinyl upgrades, and that wouldn't do.

OK. Just checked Music123, and at this point, you can get the three devices for slightly below $700, so I stand corrected in regards to my statement above.

Aren't you guys lucky you do not have VAT.

 

[thomaspf]

I also use the DEQ2496 for dealing with resonances <300Hz. I use it completely in the digital domain and it makes a big improvement in my room.

I have a fairly decent setup and find that it does more to improve the sound than adding artefacts, so I have it always enabled. I only tested the built-in DAC shortly and it is nothing to write home about.

Getting the filters dialed in can be a bit of a pain so expect to spend some significant time experimenting.

Cheers

Thomas

 

[utep10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325xi Anyone has any idea how to explain Behringer's pricing? They are very well built, use high quality parts, have tons of features, they don't originate in China - how comes SRC2496 costs $125US??? If Lavry or Benchmark pricing is typical in pro audio, then Behringer would costs about 10 times more then it does... Or it's just 10 times worse then aforementioed Lavry and Benchmark?

I found the DAC in the DEQ2496 at a smilar level to the SB3 DAC on a brief listen. Good performance for the money, but certainly not on the level of the DAC1 for resolution and soundstage.

 

[thomaspf]

I have never heard an SB3 but the analog outputs on my Behringer have an audibly high noise floor and simply sound poor.

I would stick to the digital domain. It uses the same DSP chips as everyone else and the libraries for the DSP processing come of the shelf as well. It is a great deal for the mony in that function.

Cheers

Thomas