Parametric Equalizers

[Tomorrow]

I'm reasonably new, so please direct me to the proper link if there is one. I'm most interested in what little I've read here about parametric equalization. It seems like HT or even 2 ch music without it is like cake without icing. Am I correct in this analogy? What am I missing?! Is using one of these a good way to taylor speakers to what sounds best to me? (Can it turn a hamburger into a steak? JBL's into B&W's?)

Are there good and bad stand-alone equalizers? Would you direct me to the good ones, please?

As always, your wisdom is most appreciated, gents and ladies.

[Rob Babcock]

I've used parametric EQ on my subs for years and I'll never go back. I suggest a Behringer- it's cheap and very flexible. A bit tricky to set up 'til you get the hang of it, but very powerful.

[WmAx]

I'm reasonably new, so please direct me to the proper link if there is one. I'm most interested in what little I've read here about parametric equalization. It seems like HT or even 2 ch music without it is like cake without icing. Am I correct in this analogy? What am I missing?! Is using one of these a good way to taylor speakers to what sounds best to me? (Can it turn a hamburger into a steak? JBL's into B&W's?)

Are there good and bad stand-alone equalizers? Would you direct me to the good ones, please?

As always, your wisdom is most appreciated, gents and ladies.

Get a Behringer DCX2496. It's a very well made, top performing device. It is both a parametric equalizer and a 6 channel DSP crossover -- so if in the future you want to go active -- you have the option to start using the crossover functions.

-Chris

[newfmp3]

the Behringer DCX2496 looks interesting, but is it overkill?looks more like a musician's tool with it's rack mount option, and those speaker connections.

seems simple parametric eq's that used to be a dime a dozen are hard to come by these days. At least one that works with todays digital receivers, or am I wrong?

I have an old kenwood 7020 graphic eq that works great, but when I switch to the new 3805 I don't think i can use it if I need to.

[QED]

For subwoofer applications, try this one:

http://www.rane.com/pe17.html

only $399

or this one:

http://www.atlantictechnology.com/system_sp8000.htm

$600

[trw005]

I'd like to get a basic (graphic?) EQ too. I have an Audio Control D-10 thats 25 yrs old but I'm hesitant to put in my new digital system due to its age. 10-12 bands is all I need too. Want full range not just sub. Suggestions?

[WmAx]

For subwoofer applications, try this one:

http://www.rane.com/pe17.html

only $399

or this one:

http://www.atlantictechnology.com/system_sp8000.htm

$600

The DCX is only $250 USD, and is far more powerful than either of the two products you linked.

-Chris

[WmAx]

the Behringer DCX2496 looks interesting, but is it overkill?looks more like a musician's tool with it's rack mount option, and those speaker connections.

seems simple parametric eq's that used to be a dime a dozen are hard to come by these days. At least one that works with todays digital receivers, or am I wrong?

I have an old kenwood 7020 graphic eq that works great, but when I switch to the new 3805 I don't think i can use it if I need to.

As I stated, the DCX is a tool with potential for future applications. If you want a lower cost and simpler unit, Behringer also makes a $100 device(digital parametric): Behringer DSP1124P

If you want an analog device, refer to: Behringer ULTRA-Q PRO PEQ2200

BTW, I recommend Behringer products here because they are the only ones that I know of made to very high quality standards/parts and at a low price. If you want to spend considerably more, you can find crossovers and equalilzers of equal quality from other makes.

-Chris

[WmAx]

I'd like to get a basic (graphic?) EQ too. I have an Audio Control D-10 thats 25 yrs old but I'm hesitant to put in my new digital system due to its age. 10-12 bands is all I need too. Want full range not just sub. Suggestions?

The Behringer DEQ2496 is a digital graphic and parametric equalizer. However, if you prefer slider controls(the DEQ2496 has a digital screen and scroll wheel), the DEQ1024 is also digital, but has slider controls to mimick the control of an analog device. However, this unit has 31 bands.

-Chris

[Buckeyefan 1]

The Behringer DEQ2496 is a digital graphic and parametric equalizer. However, if you prefer slider controls(the DEQ2496 has a digital screen and scroll wheel), the DEQ1024 is also digital, but has slider controls to mimick the control of an analog device. However, this unit has 31 bands.

-Chris

Chris,

Aren't these eq's primarily for bands and pa systems? Do they work well with home audio? The prices are fantastic. My brother has a some nice equipment, but he uses it for his acoustic and electric guitars. I noticed some of the models are 3/4 years old. Do they have any new stuff out?

[WmAx]

Chris,

Aren't these eq's primarily for bands and pa systems? Do they work well with home audio? The prices are fantastic. My brother has a some nice equipment, but he uses it for his acoustic and electric guitars. I noticed some of the models are 3/4 years old. Do they have any new stuff out?

The DCX2496 and DEQ2496 use the same standard DAC/ADC stages, buffer stages, etc., that several very expensive digital studio recording equipment pieces use. It is more than capable of use in audiophile home systems, though some might(unjustly) dislike it because of the price(too low?) and/or brand name. However, the DCX and DEQ have found their way into many audiophile systems regardless, as can be seen with a search on Audio Asylum. The only issue that may arise when using these devices in home applications, is that you may need to insert a voltage divider (potentiometer or just an L pad resistor network) between the output of the pro gear and the input of the consumer gear that it feeds. The pro gear balanced lines use a voltage level that is higher than standard consumer unbalanced lines. You might get some clipping of the amp/preamp inputs that you feed with such gear if you don't use a voltage divider. I use a potentiometer(attenuating about 10db per channel) on each of the 6 outputs of my DCX2496, in order to limit the voltage to each of the amplifiers it feeds.

-Chris

[Rob Babcock]

I've found the Behringers work exceptionally well for music & HT. I have to qualify that, though- I don't use mine full range, just on the low-pass feeding the subs. Is it transparent enough to use full range? Beats me...

[rschleicher]

The way I like to think about it is that graphic equalizers, with a series of fixed bands, are useful for correcting for speakers that don't have a flat response. Whereas parametric equalizers are better at correcting for room problems, such as nulls and peaks at specific frequencies due to room resonances. This is because you can adjust both the center frequency and the Q-factor of each filter. On the other hand, proper set-up of a parametric equalizer is much more complicated, and is greatly aided by automatic frequency response measurement and analysis programs, etc.

[warnerwh]

Recently I became a dealer for AV123. They have a new digital parametric equalizer of high quality for 399 called the Rdes+Rocket Digital Equalization System. It has very easy to use software and is extremely versatile. The bass in your room has modes that are caused by the dimensions in your room and the long wavelengths of bass make bass your biggest problem. Like Rob said "he'll never go back" to not using one. The muddiness of some of your bass range actually has a deleterious effect on your midrange. Cleaning up your bass will make your system sound much more accurate and be more enjoyable. No snake oil here, pure physics. I'm actually surprised a product like this wasn't made for home theater and audio enthusiasts a long time ago.

One other thing people forget is the ringing from bass. This you need bass traps for. Bass trapping will also help tame the peaks in your room. Once you hear the difference you'll be surprised. Bass traps can be made rather easily and inexpensively or you can buy them. Do a google. The one thing I really like about this site is the emphasis they've placed on room acoustics. For most of the thirty years in this hobby I didn't, nor did many other people, worry about acoustics but it's effect is profound.

The bottom line is that your speakers and their position and room are the major contributors to the sound you hear. Work on those and you'll be glad you did.

[jeffsg4mac]

I just bought a Behringer
Ultracurcve Pro (http://www.behringer.com/DEQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG) The RTA combined with the PEQ are awesome. I have smooth clean bass like I have never heard. for only 299 plus 49 for the mic it is a powerful piece of equipment.

[funk-o-meter]

Parametric EQ was pretty much invented by George Messenberg. He's also a legendary producer (Little Feat,The Trio,Aaron Neville,Earth Wind and Fire, Carly Simon, Garth Books, Lyle Lovett) who also builds his own gear. His quite an innovator and has his own line of high end audio gear. Here's a link to his site and you can read all about him, he's fascinating.

http://www.massenburg.com

But back to the topic at hand. The parametric EQ is the most power form of EQ and is used on every mixing console of note. Usually its 3 or 4 band of "fully parametric" EQ. That means each band has a gain control, a frequency center control and a "Q" control. Thats the part that controls the width of the curve that is either boosted or cut. It's usually measured in octaves. Its a totally liberating form of eq. I pretty much refuse to use any console that doesn't have at least two bands of parametric EQ. You can do anything you want with it. Not true for any other type of eq. Its invaluable. I've been using one on my home stereo for years. I use a nice Vintage Ashley EQ that I traded off a studio tech years ago. Its 4 bands per channel, and its big and blue. It sounds pretty good. I modded it with better op amp chips a few years back. You can use it to tame peaks, boost weak areas, add air, roll off the very lows to help your amp work better in the other areas and all kinds of great stuff.

Adding any extra circuit to a signal path will change the sound slightly. EQ's (especially cheap ones) are no exception. And they do have a sound. Usually the polishing you can do with an eq makes up for the little change in timbre that can be detected and you'll never turn it off. Its like M.S.G. for your sound. I haven't used the Behringer on a reference system. I usually use nicer high end stuff like Massenbergs gear or vintage API's or Pultecs. Or the Ameks that are build into my board. I've used them and they work, but be warned, they do affect the sound by just haveing it in the chain. On a sub though, you probably won't ever hear it.

But please do buy one and learn how to use it, you'll feel very liberated cause you can shape the eq any way you want if you know how.

cheers

[WmAx]

Adding any extra circuit to a signal path will change the sound slightly. EQ's (especially cheap ones) are no exception.

Of course, any sound difference will be measurable, if it exists. I'm sure that many very low cost(but also very poorly designed) equipment has audible noise(s) and/or distortion(s) in normal use. But this is not true for a properly designed device. The Behringer DCX and DEQ digitals are cheap priced -- but to audibly change the signal? Nothing to suggest that is true, except for the filtering and other effects that you control/program with the device(s). These two(cheap) examples, at least, use components that are far beyond known human auditory thresholds of detection of distortion(s) in musical program.

I haven't used the Behringer on a reference system. I usually use nicer high end stuff like Massenbergs gear or vintage API's or Pultecs.

"Nicer"? That's totally open for interpretation. What do you mean? Nicer looking? Nicer name? Nicer percieved(imagined) sound? In fact, if the units you refer to are older designs(analog), the Behringer units that have been referenced are probably considerably better, in function/versatality and measured performance.

-Chris

[funk-o-meter]

I mean "nicer" (I know, not proper grammar) stuff as in more "musical" sounding to my ears. Of course wide open to interpretation as you mentioned. These are pieces that have become classics in the recording industry. And for good reason in most cases. In some cases they have very obvious effects on the sound that are very pleasing and unique to that unit. In other cases, they are simply transparent and accurate. I'm not a guy who can get down to the serious technical stuff about how they are build and the like but there is very perceivable unique characteristics to say the Pultec EQP-1 that I imagine most anybody can hear if they have a decent ear (which would be most of us if we're here in these forums). And I wish I had one at home on my stereo. This happens not because it's been designed any better (30 years ago) or worse, but because of whatever reason, it wound up sounding the way it does. It would seem that if you'd designed a EQ (or any other piece of gear) fairly well that it would sound like most any other EQ that was design fairly well, but in many cases, they sound different.

In the case of the Behringer, I'm sure the audio is handled by some op-amp chips at some point in the schematic. These will usually have an affect on the tone. Small, but audible. If you had a system which already employees similar op-amps such as lots of receivers, then you probably wouldn't notice any change at all in the sound if you add another one. But if you were running a real high end system that was squeaky clean and clear as glass and you hooked that little guy up, you might very well be able to hear a difference as now all your audio is being feed through a few $4 op-amps and all kind of filters. I seem to be able to hear more effect on the mid-highs and highs than in the bottom, but some times I can hear it. Sometimes. Changes in the noise floor are also a possibility. I've got a few of the Behringer "Autocom" and "Composer Pro's" (compressors) that I use lots for live mixing in clubs and such and the "Autocom's" add quite a bit of background hiss when they're in. I've used the para-metrics many times on bass and acoustic rigs and I think their great for the buck, but I think one of George's units would probably sound better. I do like those little guys though and I might well wind up with one of them on top of my receiver if my Ashely ever buys the farm. The other component that almost always has a "sound" is ADC or DAC converters. If you've got a sweet rig and you throw one of those little digital EQ's in your chain, then you've just added a ADC, some software algorithms, a DAC, and maybe some op-amp chips to your chain. Definitely not something an audiophile could stomach in his/her wicked expensive tube mono block rig. I do however really like those Behringer digital EQ's. I especially like the Ultracurve. Sure its got op amps and extra converters, but the benefits out way the drawbacks. Give me one of those things and I can make any mediocre P.A or stereo sound at least %20 better. Way more in some cases. I've got 2 : )

I say, if you have an average HT setup, with a nice receiver you bought at BB or CC then go for it, you probably won't hear any change and you'll love the control and you'll get used to being able to tweak the be-Jesus out of it and you'll get so used to it you'll never turn it off. But if your one of those guys who buy expensive interconnects for your $10,000 setup cause you like the way they "sound" then I wouldn't put those little op-amps and converters in your chain, you'll probably hear them.

keep the funk flowing....

funk-o-meter

[MacManNM]

I mean "nicer" (I know, not proper grammar) stuff as in more "musical" sounding to my ears. Of course wide open to interpretation as you mentioned. These are pieces that have become classics in the recording industry. And for good reason in most cases. In some cases they have very obvious effects on the sound that are very pleasing and unique to that unit. In other cases, they are simply transparent and accurate. I'm not a guy who can get down to the serious technical stuff about how they are build and the like but there is very perceivable unique characteristics to say the Pultec EQP-1 that I imagine most anybody can hear if they have a decent ear (which would be most of us if we're here in these forums). And I wish I had one at home on my stereo. This happens not because it's been designed any better (30 years ago) or worse, but because of whatever reason, it wound up sounding the way it does. It would seem that if you'd designed a EQ (or any other piece of gear) fairly well that it would sound like most any other EQ that was design fairly well, but in many cases, they sound different.

In the case of the Behringer, I'm sure the audio is handled by some op-amp chips at some point in the schematic. These will usually have an affect on the tone. Small, but audible. If you had a system which already employees similar op-amps such as lots of receivers, then you probably wouldn't notice any change at all in the sound if you add another one. But if you were running a real high end system that was squeaky clean and clear as glass and you hooked that little guy up, you might very well be able to hear a difference as now all your audio is being feed through a few $4 op-amps and all kind of filters. I seem to be able to hear more effect on the mid-highs and highs than in the bottom, but some times I can hear it. Sometimes. Changes in the noise floor are also a possibility. I've got a few of the Behringer "Autocom" and "Composer Pro's" (compressors) that I use lots for live mixing in clubs and such and the "Autocom's" add quite a bit of background hiss when they're in. I've used the para-metrics many times on bass and acoustic rigs and I think their great for the buck, but I think one of George's units would probably sound better. I do like those little guys though and I might well wind up with one of them on top of my receiver if my Ashely ever buys the farm. The other component that almost always has a "sound" is ADC or DAC converters. If you've got a sweet rig and you throw one of those little digital EQ's in your chain, then you've just added a ADC, some software algorithms, a DAC, and maybe some op-amp chips to your chain. Definitely not something an audiophile could stomach in his/her wicked expensive tube mono block rig. I do however really like those Behringer digital EQ's. I especially like the Ultracurve. Sure its got op amps and extra converters, but the benefits out way the drawbacks. Give me one of those things and I can make any mediocre P.A or stereo sound at least %20 better. Way more in some cases. I've got 2 : )

I say, if you have an average HT setup, with a nice receiver you bought at BB or CC then go for it, you probably won't hear any change and you'll love the control and you'll get used to being able to tweak the be-Jesus out of it and you'll get so used to it you'll never turn it off. But if your one of those guys who buy expensive interconnects for your $10,000 setup cause you like the way they "sound" then I wouldn't put those little op-amps and converters in your chain, you'll probably hear them.

keep the funk flowing....

funk-o-meter

So I guess your saying an op-amp can't sound good? Or I guess what you really mean is that your super sensitive ears are far superior to us humble mass-market cattle.

I suppose you are one of those guys that buy expensive interconnects? They do make a HUGE difference you know.

Just to let you know, true audiophiles don’t use eq’s, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1. So I doubt anyone will be inserting one of these into his system.

As far as the ADC’s, and DAC’s, as long as the sample rate, noise level and cutoff filters are good, nothing will be lost / introduced.

[WmAx]

I mean "nicer" (I know, not proper grammar) stuff as in more "musical" sounding to my ears. Of course wide open to interpretation as you mentioned.

Unfortunately, human perception is prone to error. Therefor, listening to something in an uncontrolled set of circumstances and/or not attempting to measure and coorelate the response to known auditory perception research will result in conclusions with a high probability of error.

These are pieces that have become classics in the recording industry. And for good reason in most cases. In some cases they have very obvious effects on the sound that are very pleasing and unique to that unit. In other cases, they are simply transparent and accurate.

I don't see anything different about the general professional sector as compared to the general audiophile sector. Both are prone to the same perceptual error(s) and/or bias(es). It does not appear to matter if this concerns a $10 wire vs. $1000 wire in the audiophile world or a $200 mic pre vs. a $2000 mic pre in the pro world. Imagination(s) run wild.

It would seem that if you'd designed a EQ (or any other piece of gear) fairly well that it would sound like most any other EQ that was design fairly well, but in many cases, they sound different.

If they sound different, then they will measure differently.

In the case of the Behringer, I'm sure the audio is handled by some op-amp chips at some point in the schematic. These will usually have an affect on the tone. Small, but audible.


Virtually every piece of studio equipment that deals with an audio signal has op amps. But op amps are not a detriment. Modern op amps of high quality have signal performance that is nothing short of incredible. The Behringer units I specified use JRC4580 opamps as the ADC and DAC buffers. This is a standard, low cost and very high quality operational amplifier. BTW, no one has ever demonstrated the audibility of op amps when the measured performance was below known audible thresholds.

If you had a system which already employees similar op-amps such as lots of receivers, then you probably wouldn't notice any change at all in the sound if you add another one.

By this logic, then op amps should never be a problem. How many op amps do you think the signals travel through within the studio(mixer stages, ADC and DAC buffers, mic preamps, etc.)? Do you think that most studio equipment wastes money/design effort on discrete line signal amplification/buffering as opposed to cheap/simple solution op amps?

But if you were running a real high end system that was squeaky clean and clear as glass and you hooked that little guy up, you might very well be able to hear a difference as now all your audio is being feed through a few $4 op-amps and all kind of filters.

$4.00 is an outrageous price for an audio line level op amp. The JRC4580 is around $0.25.

I've got a few of the Behringer "Autocom" and "Composer Pro's" (compressors) that I use lots for live mixing in clubs and such and the "Autocom's" add quite a bit of background hiss when they're in.

I specifically limited by response of known well made Behringer products. I do not know the age or components used in these devices you are now referencing. Behringer, several years ago, had many problems in quality control and product reliability that have since been corrected. The devices I specified are recent and use known components. Also, if a product was specifically designed for P.A. or other non refined use(s), it is possible that a transparent SNR was not a much of a consideration in the design process.

The other component that almost always has a "sound" is ADC or DAC converters. If you've got a sweet rig and you throw one of those little digital EQ's in your chain, then you've just added a ADC, some software algorithms, a DAC, and maybe some op-amp chips to your chain. Definitely not something an audiophile could stomach in his/her wicked expensive tube mono block rig.

I have yet to read about a properly controlled blind test demonstrating the audibility of ADC/DAC chain that measured properly. The only audible attritbutes would be measurable(noise, distortion, etc.). I know of at least 2 blind tests that were carried out in the past that resulted in no difference detected when comparing ADC->DAC vs. direct analog bypass. These tests[1][2] were from the 80's and 90's, btw, not using modern digital systems(which are technically superior).


But if your one of those guys who buy expensive interconnects for your $10,000 setup cause you like the way they "sound" then I wouldn't put those little op-amps and converters in your chain, you'll probably hear them.

If one buys expensive wires for the exclusive reason that they like the sound, then they are probably delusional. No evidence to back up audibility of any of these things when they are properly designed and used within their design parameters.

-Chris

Footnotes

[1]
The Digital Challenge: A Report by Stanley P. Lip****z
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario Canada
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

[2]
SMWTMS ABX Test Results
Ampex 16 Bit Delay Line vs. wire
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm

[funk-o-meter]

So I guess your saying an op-amp can't sound good? Or I guess what you really mean is that your super sensitive ears are far superior to us humble mass-market cattle. .

Not at all my friend. I've got op-amps all in my stereo. They don't bother me at all. They might could sound 5% or 10% better if they were nicer ones, but I don't care really. Tons of audio gear, even expensive pro-level stuff has op amps in it. However there are usually a differen't quality of op-amps, and they sound different. Not dramatically usually, but you can hear them if given the opportunity to say... blind test them. I don't really think most of stuff with cheap op-amps sounds bad really, but somebody who's spent loads on their gear probably will. The Behringer stuff most likely has the cheaper op-amps, and might be perceivable in a really nice system. By an "audiophile" (something I don't really consider myself.)


I suppose you are one of those guys that buy expensive interconnects? They do make a HUGE difference you know. .

Nope, I buy decent sturdy ones and leave it at that. I can't really hear the difference to be honest with you.


Just to let you know, true audiophiles don’t use eq’s, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1. So I doubt anyone will be inserting one of these into his system. .

Yea, that does seem to be the case. I understand that back in the days of Dolby Pro Logic, that most of the surround information was coded into the 2 channel audio using phasing and that using an EQ could effect that some. (because lots of EQ's can introduce phasing). I don't guess that's really an issue any more with newe formats like DTS, but I don't know. Anybody?? I've always wondered why audiophiles shy away from EQ's. I guess it's that minimalists argument.


As far as the ADC’s, and DAC’s, as long as the sample rate, noise level and cutoff filters are good, nothing will be lost / introduced.

I used to feel the same way until I compared a few during a session some years back. I was converted. (no pun intended) I'd say there's a big difference in timber especially between a cheap one and a really nice one like an Apogee or a Prism. But however, within the realm of most consumer converters, there's little difference, if any. And I wouldn't say they sound bad these days.

There's a few pieces of gear that I've used over the years that had especially brittle sounding converters. Like the old "black face" Alesis ADAT's. HORRIBLE sounding compared to whats in most peoples CD players and receivers these days. Most I'd say sound fine, but when recording, using poor sounding converters on lots of tracks kind of adds up and contribute to the sound the overall mix has. I can hear those old ADAT's in lots of the stuff Glen Ballard produces. He loves those old things. Most people don't. I can hear it easily. Check out Alannis Morrissett's "Jagged Little Pill" or "Dave Matthews Everyday". Those are both records that Glenn Did. The later especially had a very different timbre to it than the previous Dave Matthews records produced by Steve Lillywhite or John Alassia. I'd say in big part due to him liking to use those old Alesis machines. I'd by a nice DAC for my rig If I was putting together an expensive one. And I always like to have one good one in the studio for overdubs.

-funk-

[Buckeyefan 1]

Funk,

You seem to know your recording engineers/managers. I'd be interested to know who does Blues Traveler and what type of equipment they use. It's probably the best sounding cd I own, and I have quite a collection. It's as close to perfect as you can get.

[funk-o-meter]

Steve Thomson did a few, but they've had different producers record to record. Trina Shoemaker engineered the last one. She's one of my farorites. Done some of my favorite records in the last 10 years. Always wanted to meet her.

[mulester7]

The Behringer DEQ2496 is a digital graphic and parametric equalizer. However, if you prefer slider controls(the DEQ2496 has a digital screen and scroll wheel), the DEQ1024 is also digital, but has slider controls to mimick the control of an analog device. However, this unit has 31 bands.

-Chris
.....MOST interesting thread....I suspect using one these for full-range would depend on how much help/adjustment/correction the full-range speakers needed.....

.....at subwoofer level, which unit would you advise, Chris?....and how do you set up the unit....I mean, what particular perks do you listen for as you adjust the bands, and in what order are the bands adjusted?.....

[WmAx]

.....MOST interesting thread....I suspect using one these for full-range would depend on how much help/adjustment/correction the full-range speakers needed.....

.....at subwoofer level, which unit would you advise, Chris?....and how do you set up the unit....I mean, what particular perks do you listen for as you adjust the bands, and in what order are the bands adjusted?.....

I set up an omnidirectional measurement microphone at the listening position. The microphone is connected to a mic preamplifier and feeding the line-in to a computer soundcard. I have the line out connected to line inputs to the stereo. I measure low frequency frequency response at the listening position with high resolution sine wave sweeps using LspLab software. The DCX2496 connects to a computer via a serial cable. I use the DCX control software to make adjustments via a PC after aquiring the relevant measurements. You can also use the controls on the DCX front panel, but it's easier for me to have a LCD monitor and old PC always set up with my stereo, that can be booted up for quick measurements/adjustments.

If you only intend to use the equalizer for the subwoofer(and don't need further functions such as active crossover for future applications), then I recommend the $100 Behringer DSP1124P. However, I don't think this has product has PC control software. You will need to have a PC set up for measurements or a SPL meter, test CD, pen and a piece of graph paper in order to manually plot the response.

-Chris

[mulester7]

.....damn, you've made a science out of this....thanks.....

[jeffsg4mac]

Lets just end this EQ and audiophile thing right here. Without an RTA and an EQ, be it a graphic or parametric and proper room treatment, there is no way you will ever achieve or hope to achieve a flat response. Its not going to happen; not unless your room is an anechoic chamber. A true audiophile would know this just as he or she would know that esoteric cables are a scam as well. Of course most of us here at audioholics dislike the term audiophile anyway. Just remember the RX Z9 and the 5805 have parametric EQ's on all channels, which is exactly what an audiophile would want if he or she were a smart one :) :D

[mulester7]

.....most people who claim to be an audiophile simply have a lot of money to spend, are told what to buy, and waste a lot of their money.....

[Buckeyefan 1]

I set up an omnidirectional measurement microphone at the listening position. The microphone is connected to a mic preamplifier and feeding the line-in to a computer soundcard. I have the line out connected to line inputs to the stereo. I measure low frequency frequency response at the listening position with high resolution sine wave sweeps using LspLab software. The DCX2496 connects to a computer via a serial cable. I use the DCX control software to make adjustments via a PC after aquiring the relevant measurements. You can also use the controls on the DCX front panel, but it's easier for me to have a LCD monitor and old PC always set up with my stereo, that can be booted up for quick measurements/adjustments.

If you only intend to use the equalizer for the subwoofer(and don't need further functions such as active crossover for future applications), then I recommend the $100 Behringer DSP1124P. However, I don't think this has product has PC control software. You will need to have a PC set up for measurements or a SPL meter, test CD, pen and a piece of graph paper in order to manually plot the response.

-Chris

Chris,

With my 3805, I'm running an analog Audiosource EQ11 between my cd player and receiver. It's a decent 10 band graphic eq that ranges from 30Hz to 16kHz. It does a fantastic job getting rid of muddy bass and helping out with the higher end midrange. I'm wondering if I could hook it up between the pre out on the receiver and the ext in for the front left and right speakers (since it's only two band). Would the Denon recognize it as a processor or an amp (does it even matter)? Would it actually eq the front speakers? The manual doesn't discuss it, but I'd think there would be some type of way to program it to use the internal DAC and then loop everything to the internal amp. Is that how the Behringer digital eq is set up on these new receivers? If that works, I'll be ordering a Behringer real soon.

[funk-o-meter]

Just use a Tape loop for that. Unless they've stopped putting those on the newer receivers.(?) Tape out's (play) to EQ in's, then EQ out's to tape in's (record).Then you can switch it in and out at will. You might have to use either 1/4" to RCA cables or adapters to get in and out of the EQ unless they're putting RCA in's and out's on the EQ's. And the EQ probably operates at +4 and not -10 impedance, but it won't cause you any problems. It might even have a switch to let you choose. Parametrics can be intimidating, but when you get used to them, you'll love it. I do at least.

[mulester7]

"I've always wondered why audiophiles shy away from EQ's"

.....Funk-O-Meter, I've always felt it adds emphasis to the accuracy of their speakers, which is usually where they've dropped the most money....you know, the +/- db rating from top to bottom of the speaker....

.....you obviously have a good amount of experience in recording studios.....do you have experience running a compressor on vocals with home audio?....a compressor really brings vocals to life in a studio as per blending's sake, imo......

[Buckeyefan 1]

Original question:
With my 3805, I'm running an analog Audiosource EQ11 between my cd player and receiver. It's a decent 10 band graphic eq that ranges from 30Hz to 16kHz. It does a fantastic job getting rid of muddy bass and helping out with the higher end midrange. I'm wondering if I could hook it up between the pre out on the receiver and the ext in for the front left and right speakers (since it's only two band). Would the Denon recognize it as a processor or an amp (does it even matter)? Would it actually eq the front speakers? The manual doesn't discuss it, but I'd think there would be some type of way to program it to use the internal DAC and then loop everything to the internal amp. Is that how the Behringer digital eq is set up on these new receivers? If that works, I'll be ordering a Behringer real soon.
__________________

Just use a Tape loop for that. Unless they've stopped putting those on the newer receivers.(?) Tape out's (play) to EQ in's, then EQ out's to tape in's (record).Then you can switch it in and out at will. You might have to use either 1/4" to RCA cables or adapters to get in and out of the EQ unless they're putting RCA in's and out's on the EQ's. And the EQ probably operates at +4 and not -10 impedance, but it won't cause you any problems. It might even have a switch to let you choose. Parametrics can be intimidating, but when you get used to them, you'll love it. I do at least.

A tape monitor? Doesn't have one. The new receivers have tape in and out on the back panel (rca), but there's no switching on the receiver. That's why I was thinking you have to use it like an external amp. Here's the back of my unit.
www.usa.denon.com/catalog/photo.asp?s=home&p=AVR-3805&f=AVR3805%20Back.jpg&c=2

[WmAx]

Chris,

I'm wondering if I could hook it up between the pre out on the receiver and the ext in for the front left and right speakers (since it's only two band).

This is reciever specific. If the amp allows you to externally loop the rear pre out to the external amp inputs, then this would be the ideal way. If not, you will have to use the tape loop monitor(if this modern reciever has that function). I'm also not sure(if there is a tape loop) if the reciever would operate in all modes(digital inputs) and still use the equalizer if it was connected through the tape loop. Also, if you ever use Doly Pro-Logic, it probably will not work correctly with an E.Q. in the tape loop. You need to check these options using your current equalizer.

The manual doesn't discuss it, but I'd think there would be some type of way to program it to use the internal DAC and then loop everything to the internal amp.

Too much of a variability between models/manufacturers for me to know. My favorite type of reciever was always the one that had physical loop/shorting bars on the back, coming out of pre outputs, then feeding directly back in to the direct amp inputs. You could easily do anything you wanted with these.

-Chris

[WmAx]

With my 3805, I'm running an analog Audiosource EQ11 between my cd player and receiver.

I was reading the manual for your Denon 3805. It seems that this reciever has a built in parametric equalizer that you can manually program. So, if it's just an E.Q. that you want, there is one available(buried?) in the set up configuration.

-Chris

[funk-o-meter]

I've not tried what your asking, with the pre-out power-in configuration. Sounds like it should work. If you've got one in the processor, use that one !

[Buckeyefan 1]

I've not tried what your asking, with the pre-out power-in configuration. Sounds like it should work. If you've got one in the processor, use that one !

The internal eq doesn't have the same macro adjustments as the Audiosource. I have the internal eq adjusted quite a bit right now, but running the Audiosource between the cd and amp cleans it up even more. I'll try the pre-out to ext. amp in tonight and let you know what happens. I'll call my insurance agent and drop the deductible on the homeowners too. :rolleyes: I'll also call Denon. The techs usually know what their talking about, but usually tell you not to jimmy rig things which could void warranties. Imagine that.

[WmAx]

The internal eq doesn't have the same macro adjustments as the Audiosource. I have the internal eq adjusted quite a bit right now, but running the Audiosource between the cd and amp cleans it up even more. I'll try the pre-out to ext. amp in tonight and let you know what happens. I'll call my insurance agent and drop the deductible on the homeowners too. :rolleyes: I'll also call Denon. The techs usually know what their talking about, but usually tell you not to jimmy rig things which could void warranties. Imagine that.

Since there are not shorting bars on the back, there must be a mode to select that will disengage the internal pre from directly connecting to the amplifiers.

As for the built-in E.Q. Please tell me: Can you adjust the frequency, Q and gain of several parametric filters? There are two types of E.Q.s in the unit. A standard graphic type and a parametric that you must engage. That is what the illustration in the manual led me to believe. Did you find the parametric one? Or are you just using the graphic e.q.?

-Chris

[Buckeyefan 1]

Since there are not shorting bars on the back, there must be a mode to select that will disengage the internal pre from directly connecting to the amplifiers.

As for the built-in E.Q. Please tell me: Can you adjust the frequency, Q and gain of several parametric filters? There are two types of E.Q.s in the unit. A standard graphic type and a parametric that you must engage. That is what the illustration in the manual led me to believe. Did you find the parametric one? Or are you just using the graphic e.q.?

-Chris

Pgs 28-31 shows how to adjust the frequency, gain, and Q of 57,110,250,510,1.1,2.6,4.8m and 10kHz. You are correct. I do use both.

As far as a mode that disengages the pre to the amp, I can't find it. Page 45 has some info about amp assignments that I don't use.

[WmAx]

Pgs 28-31 shows how to adjust the frequency, gain, and Q of 57,110,250,510,1.1,2.6,4.8m and 10kHz. You are correct. I do use both.

As far as a mode that disengages the pre to the amp, I can't find it. Page 45 has some info about amp assignments that I don't use.

Can you change the frequencies(for example, change 57Hz to 59Hz)?

-Chris

[Buckeyefan 1]

Can you change the frequencies(for example, change 57Hz to 59Hz)?

-Chris

I don't think so. In fact, I'm having a hard time just getting to that screen. The manual is writtin in Japenglish.

[WmAx]

I don't think so. In fact, I'm having a hard time just getting to that screen. The manual is writtin in Japenglish.

If you can not adjust the center frequencies of the filters, then this so-called(bult-in) parametric filter is not very useful. You can't even perform bass correction(s), unless of course, you happen to have only one problem frequency centered at 57Hz(the LF frequency of that filter). LOL.

How is the progress in finding a way to connect an external equalizer?

-Chris

[Buckeyefan 1]

If you can not adjust the center frequencies of the filters, then this so-called(bult-in) parametric filter is not very useful. You can't even perform bass correction(s), unless of course, you happen to have only one problem frequency centered at 57Hz(the LF frequency of that filter). LOL.

How is the progress in finding a way to connect an external equalizer?

-Chris

LOL. 57Hz is a killer, eh?

My sister n law dropped off her three girls for the weekend. Having my two and her three makes for an enjoyable weekend. I couldn't even get near the receiver today. They have in Son of the Mask or something like that. Cute movie.

Right, a parametric eq with set frequencies isn't much help. I'm anxious to play with it after they go to bed - if they go to bed. I reset the processor late last night (and lost all the codes to all my remotes-dammit). What a mess. At least I'm starting from scratch now.

Off to take the rugrats to Cici's pizza. That should be a circus :eek: These kids range in age from 2-9. My wife and I may check ourselves in to a reputable insane asylum by Sunday evening. Put down a few cold ones for me, please :o

[funk-o-meter]

After having a look at the info on your receiver I determined the following.

It looks like your "tape loop" on this tuner is called CD-R/TAPE. Its exactly the same thing and works the same way. Just with a updated name. It must have the capacity to allow all audio playing through the receiver to pass through it or you wouldn't be able to record CD's and such to the CD-R/TAPE your recording too. Make sense? Its got to take the signal from the component your recording from and send it to the CD-R/Tape your recording too and then send it back out and into the receiver so you can hear it while your recording. So, hook up your EQ as described earlier (EQ out to CD-R/Tape in and CD-R/TAPE out to EQ IN) then turn on that component and it should pass anything your currently listening to through this "loop" that you've just created. If you don't' want to try it with the EQ first because cause you feel timid about it (after all who the #$% is this guy telling you it won't blow up your receiver?) then just use a set of interconnects and connect the outs to the ins and test it that way. If you hit the CD-R/TAPE button and you can hear whatever you had been listening too then it works. I'm sure it will. I'm going to do the same thing with my 1603 when I get home. Enjoy.

I'm guessing this might not work with components that you've connected using the the discrete 5.1 inputs, but I've never tried it.

I'm also brainstorming on how I can use a digital out/in method to hook up a digital EQ and bypass 4 conversion stages. Anybody every set up a tape loop type situation using optical ins and outs?