audyssey dynamic eq vs Behringer eq

[greggp2]

I've read quite a few threads where recommendations for Behringer eq's are suggested. Can someone please tell me what the difference is between going with a Behringer eq or a high level Audyssey Dynamic Eq system?

I have a Arcam AVR350 which has no auto EQ settings. It does allow me to adjust bass and treble for each speaker as well as tone. For me, the easiest thing is to get a computer to tell you what it thinks are the best settings based on your acoustic environment. While I think my ability to differentiate good sound from bad is good, I have trouble listening to something and saying, ok, the front left speaker needs more treble and the front right needs a little more bass.

What are the advantages and disadvantages over each of these? The Audyssey system is very expensive, but seems to help you calibrate using the computer and auto testing. The Behringer eq is very affordable, and seems highly recommended.

Please help me decide which, if either is really necessary and how to implement a Behringer if it does the same thing.

Thanks...

 

[bandphan]

With the dcx, you still need to take readings to know where to apply filters. REW or room eq wizard is freeware that i use inconjuction with the dcx. Aud would be simplier to use and take less time to setup.

 

[greggp2]

So, would I need a mic for a laptop and does it need to hook into the DCX, or do you take readings into the computer and then just manually apply them to the DCX? I'm fine with doing that, in fact, I like monkeying with my system... I just want to be sure that making the adjustments is doable and not a very difficult task.

With the dcx, you still need to take readings to know where to apply filters. REW or room eq wizard is freeware that i use inconjuction with the dcx. Aud would be simplier to use and take less time to setup.

 

[WmAx]

The DCX is far more powerful(so far as the options you have for user settings and multiple operations/functions), but it's manual. You have to use separate software on your PC, measure the response and figure out the settings with the PC and then program the DCX. The DCX has many abilities and extreme flexibility. BTW, you can also link multiple DCX units and one will act as the master controller while the others act as slave units; this allows you to increase the number of channels to however many you need.

The Audessey is for automated/easy set up. It does not have even a fraction of the abilities of the DCX. But it's automated. The user has to do very little.

-Chris

 

[bandphan]

I cant link the rew page on my crackberry but google it (the page is on the hometheater shack website) yes you will need a mic, a spl meter, and a computer. With the dcx2496 you have Software that can be downloaded, so once the measurements are taken, you can entre them into the dcx software and transfer them thru a serial cable to the dcx unit. There are many that couldnt live without this solution and swear that nothing comes close to it. However it takes time to setup.

 

[greggp2]

It sounds like the Behringer is the way to go. I'll likely order one and figure it out. With all the support on this site, I'm sure I can make my way through it. I guess if I run into a real bind, I'll see if I can bribe you into coming to my place, or me to yours. I live in Weston, so we are neighbors..

Any recommendations on where i should buy the DCX2496 from? WMAX, I have a feeling I'm going to be picking your brain quite a bit as well. Also, will my Macbook be able to be used or do I need a PC?

I cant link the rew page on my crackberry but google it (the page is on the hometheater shack website) yes you will need a mic, a spl meter, and a computer. With the dcx2496 you have Software that can be downloaded, so once the measurements are taken, you can entre them into the dcx software and transfer them thru a serial cable to the dcx unit. There are many that couldnt live without this solution and swear that nothing comes close to it. However it takes time to setup.

 

[WmAx]

It sounds like the Behringer is the way to go. I'll likely order one and figure it out. With all the support on this site, I'm sure I can make my way through it. I guess if I run into a real bind, I'll see if I can bribe you into coming to my place, or me to yours. I live in Weston, so we are neighbors..

Any recommendations on where i should buy the DCX2496 from? WMAX, I have a feeling I'm going to be picking your brain quite a bit as well. Also, will my Macbook be able to be used or do I need a PC?

I recommend sources based on my experiences with customer service. As such, I recommend www.zzounds.com as your purchase source. They have provided me with outstanding resolve in past experiences. Please note that zzounds.com will price match virtually any internet retailer. So use their price match policy (their is a link for price matching on the product page) to score products at high discount.

The DCX can only be linked to a PC running Windows. Not Mac OS compatible.

-Chris

 

[bandphan]

Im in Weston all the time as my daughter lives in the CC. In addition to the eq functions, the crossover is far better than almost anything in avrs.

 

[WmAx]

Bandphan has a good point. The crossover in the DCX is NOT like that in an AVR. The DCX has a vast selection of crossover slope types (Butterworth, Bessel, Linkwitz-Riley, etc.), crossover rates (6db, 12db, 18db, 24db, 48db), phase and ability to specify nearly any frequency for the crossover point. In addition, you can assign different slopes, rates, phase and frequencies to the highpass and low pass sections, allowing one to match asymmetrical situations(which is actually almost ALWAYS the case in reality), where the slope rate is different for the mains vs. sub(s). The DCX gives the potential to integrate the subwoofers with mains for music reproduction purposes as a seamless system. Not usually something possible given the primitive xover in even the best AVRs.

-Chris

 

[greggp2]

I also live in the CC, small World. I typically only use my sub for HT. All my music listening is done in 2 channel, but it sounds like the Behringer will give me the greatest flexibility. I have an SPL meter already. What type of Mic do I need? I also have a PC laptop, so I should be ok there too.

 

[lsiberian]

I also live in the CC, small World. I typically only use my sub for HT. All my music listening is done in 2 channel, but it sounds like the Behringer will give me the greatest flexibility. I have an SPL meter already. What type of Mic do I need? I also have a PC laptop, so I should be ok there too.

an SPL meter will work. but you will need to adjust the numbers for LFE. SVS has a list of the adjustments to use.

Once my subs and speakers are built. I will get a DCX. I can't wait. It's one of the best upgrades you can make.

 

[GlocksRock]

If you use REW, it has a file that you can load that already has the corrections for the radio shack spl meter, just get the correct file for your particular model of meter. I think I may consider getting one of these eq's at some point, that is if it's not too difficult to setup and use.

 

[jostenmeat]

I've read quite a few threads where recommendations for Behringer eq's are suggested. Can someone please tell me what the difference is between going with a Behringer eq or a high level Audyssey Dynamic Eq system?

AS makes at least 7 products last I checked. I have no idea how limitless the DCX is, but I bet it would have a certain # of presets? So, then, you could try your best in approximating the algorithms of Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. You'd most likely have to do several presets for the different volume levels you will use your HT with.

The highest level of AS is the SEQ. The real issue for most is the lack of tweaking for personal taste. Otherwise, their techs accomplish what they set out to do. Even the super-consumer-friendly XT version that I got in a $600 receiver still applies hundreds of filters. I could one day add a SVS ASEQ1 perhaps, with yet another sub, and have them in phase, and have more processing power on hand.

I have full confidence that WmAx can use that unit to put most any other to shame. I have little confidence that I could. In fact, I'd give myself a 50/50 chance of making it better or worse. I'm not sure that I can successfully be proficient with audio test equipment, know how to correlate data sampled at various locations and interpret the findings, and then be able to build filters that would yield the desired results.

Each time you get new furniture, put up more treatments, tweak your speaker positioning, you will have to recalibrate your settings. Tweaker's paradise I suppose.

If AS can't even do a fraction of what the Behringer can, I really have no idea what I'm missing. OTOH, there are those who DO know what they are doing, and have found AS still be superior to their own tweakings, yes even with Behringer products, and others who have found roughly the equivalent results.

All that said, I encourage you to try the Behringer. It will only educate you enormously, and only then can you even really compare for yourself the different paths available.

Fortune favors the brave. Good luck, and have fun!

 

[greggp2]

Thanks. I like messing with my setup, but at the same time, I don't want it to become so cumbersome that I won't know what to do, or how to take advantage of what the Behringer could do. If it had an Auto Eq, I'd likely just run that an be happy if it sounded better. The Auto EQ's I've played with though, have been on AVR's and I am constantly having to correct cross overs and levels on them after checking what they set up...

I'll likely go the Behringer route, unless someone has a better suggestion...

AS makes at least 7 products last I checked. I have no idea how limitless the DCX is, but I bet it would have a certain # of presets? So, then, you could try your best in approximating the algorithms of Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. You'd most likely have to do several presets for the different volume levels you will use your HT with.

The highest level of AS is the SEQ. The real issue for most is the lack of tweaking for personal taste. Otherwise, their techs accomplish what they set out to do. Even the super-consumer-friendly XT version that I got in a $600 receiver still applies hundreds of filters. I could one day add a SVS ASEQ1 perhaps, with yet another sub, and have them in phase, and have more processing power on hand.

I have full confidence that WmAx can use that unit to put most any other to shame. I have little confidence that I could. In fact, I'd give myself a 50/50 chance of making it better or worse. I'm not sure that I can successfully be proficient with audio test equipment, know how to correlate data sampled at various locations and interpret the findings, and then be able to build filters that would yield the desired results.

Each time you get new furniture, put up more treatments, tweak your speaker positioning, you will have to recalibrate your settings. Tweaker's paradise I suppose.

If AS can't even do a fraction of what the Behringer can, I really have no idea what I'm missing. OTOH, there are those who DO know what they are doing, and have found AS still be superior to their own tweakings, yes even with Behringer products, and others who have found roughly the equivalent results.

All that said, I encourage you to try the Behringer. It will only educate you enormously, and only then can you even really compare for yourself the different paths available.

Fortune favors the brave. Good luck, and have fun!

 

[jostenmeat]

Thanks. I like messing with my setup, but at the same time, I don't want it to become so cumbersome that I won't know what to do, or how to take advantage of what the Behringer could do. If it had an Auto Eq, I'd likely just run that an be happy if it sounded better. The Auto EQ's I've played with though, have been on AVR's and I am constantly having to correct cross overs and levels on them after checking what they set up...

I'll likely go the Behringer route, unless someone has a better suggestion...

Yeah, I think the crossover advantage is by far the biggest the Behringer has over AS, at least the versions that I am familiar with. No idea what Pro or SEQ can do with that. Well, that's just how it appears to me.

However, I think the implementation of AS by different manufacturers plays a role here. You can always adjust xover after calibration with AS. Still, the point is that receiver's xovers are utterly elementary compared with the Behringer.

I don't see why you couldn't use both. I'm sure there are issues I am overlooking, however.

 

[nibhaz]

I can pretty much guarantee that AS is better than any auto setup you've ever used in a receiver before.

I’ll post back in about a half hour as gather my thoughts concerning this question… which a very good one by the way.

 

[nibhaz]

Warning Long Post

All right, here is my full disclosure concerning this matter. I’ve only seen and read about the DCX, no hands on use. I’ve been around Audioholics long enough that I know the DCX is one powerful and flexible piece of equipment that WmAx loves. I’ve played with REW in the past, but would not consider myself adept by any means. I’ve set up two different systems with AS-XT in different rooms.

I think that we can all agree that these two products are completely two different beasts; they require two different levels of knowledge and equipment. I would also propose based on what I know is that these two products are attempting to arrive at two different solutions. Which product would be best depends on the user’s knowledge, resources, and listening habits.

In regards to the OP the DCX seems, from my prospective seems to be geared to EQing for one position. I’m quite sure that the DCX is the best tool if you want to EQ for a single seating position and you use omni or quasi-omnipole speakers, or if you use listen to direct radiating speakers with you head in a vice. (Move a mic a few inches and see is you get the same response from your room)

AS on the other hand plainly states that its purpose is to arrive at the best EQ for multiple seating positions. Instead of having a single ultimate sweat spot, you now have several pretty darn good sweat spots.

Well that’s my take on the basics differences, but what about actual use?

In order to fully utilize the DCX you are going to need a microphone, a cd or other means of producing test tones, some type of measurement software, a compatible soundcard, and a computer most likely a laptop, unless your desktop computer is in your listening room. Yes, you can use a Rat Shack meter and graph paper but seriously, if you’ve spent this much money on your system to care about these things are you really going to do this?

So what kind of microphone should you use? Free-field or Pressure field? Do you have the corresponding correction curve for your microphone? These are real questions that I don’t know the answer to, but would defiantly want to know before I jumped down the DCX rabbit hole. Hopefully I’ll learn the answers in this thread.

Now what if you are using the DCX and you want your system to sound its best in more than one position, do you simply take multiple samples in multiple positions and then due a simple average? (This is why I think graph paper is out of the question) Is there a mathematically superior way to calculate the room’s response across multiple positions, and do I have the ability to actually do the math?

So what about AS? Well, it sure isn’t as flexible as the DCX, and defiantly doesn’t require to much technical knowledge, and comes with the equipment you’ll need. It pretty much does what it says it will do and that’s that. But that might be the problem, AS gives a couple of target curves (room response) to choose from and that’s it. If you don’t like the results from the options you have then your pretty much SOL.

However AS’s newer technology is doing some more than just room correction, and that’s were Dynamic EQ comes in. Think of it as an advanced loudness button. It changes the EQ based on your listening volume. AS claims that the EQ adjustments are based perceptual research so even WmAx should be able to appreciate that.

For me AS, has worked and didn’t require a serious layout in time or money. So, I am happy for now. I’m contemplating the Infinity Kappa build so a DCX my be in my future, and then maybe a I’ll sing a different tune. I hope this thread goes a little while so I can learn more.

AS links, my contain marketing BS
MULT EQ
Dynamic EQ
BassXT

"Official" Audyssey thread. @ AVS over 13,000 post, but one of the Audyssey founders participates so there is some real knowledge in there for the brave
How AS calculates mulitple postions.

 

[lsiberian]

AS makes at least 7 products last I checked. I have no idea how limitless the DCX is, but I bet it would have a certain # of presets? So, then, you could try your best in approximating the algorithms of Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume. You'd most likely have to do several presets for the different volume levels you will use your HT with.

The highest level of AS is the SEQ. The real issue for most is the lack of tweaking for personal taste. Otherwise, their techs accomplish what they set out to do. Even the super-consumer-friendly XT version that I got in a $600 receiver still applies hundreds of filters. I could one day add a SVS ASEQ1 perhaps, with yet another sub, and have them in phase, and have more processing power on hand.

I have full confidence that WmAx can use that unit to put most any other to shame. I have little confidence that I could. In fact, I'd give myself a 50/50 chance of making it better or worse. I'm not sure that I can successfully be proficient with audio test equipment, know how to correlate data sampled at various locations and interpret the findings, and then be able to build filters that would yield the desired results.

Each time you get new furniture, put up more treatments, tweak your speaker positioning, you will have to recalibrate your settings. Tweaker's paradise I suppose.

If AS can't even do a fraction of what the Behringer can, I really have no idea what I'm missing. OTOH, there are those who DO know what they are doing, and have found AS still be superior to their own tweakings, yes even with Behringer products, and others who have found roughly the equivalent results.

All that said, I encourage you to try the Behringer. It will only educate you enormously, and only then can you even really compare for yourself the different paths available.

Fortune favors the brave. Good luck, and have fun!

The advantages of a Behringer are numerous, but it can also be used along with AS. The goal of the behringer is to integrate the mains with a sub. This isn't that difficult to accomplish. In fact it's really fairly easy. EQ isn't rocket science. It just is + and - DB over certain frequencies with the goal of flattening the response. Preference of sound depends on the person listening not AS or EQ.

The Behringer performs other functions as well, but I think you are just scaring yourself out of buying one or have better things to do with your time.

For those of us with plenty of time on our hands. And who enjoy getting dirty in our setup a DCX 2496 is a dream.. Yes I'm a tweaker.

Most philes would love a DCX and go crazy with it. Most normal folks should stick with AS.

 

[lsiberian]

All right, here is my full disclosure concerning this matter. I’ve only seen and read about the DCX, no hands on use. I’ve been around Audioholics long enough that I know the DCX is one powerful and flexible piece of equipment that WmAx loves. I’ve played with REW in the past, but would not consider myself adept by any means. I’ve set up two different systems with AS-XT in different rooms.

I think that we can all agree that these two products are completely two different beasts; they require two different levels of knowledge and equipment. I would also propose based on what I know is that these two products are attempting to arrive at two different solutions. Which product would be best depends on the user’s knowledge, resources, and listening habits.

In regards to the OP the DCX seems, from my prospective seems to be geared to EQing for one position. I’m quite sure that the DCX is the best tool if you want to EQ for a single seating position and you use omni or quasi-omnipole speakers, or if you use listen to direct radiating speakers with you head in a vice. (Move a mic a few inches and see is you get the same response from your room)

AS on the other hand plainly states that its purpose is to arrive at the best EQ for multiple seating positions. Instead of having a single ultimate sweat spot, you now have several pretty darn good sweat spots.

Well that’s my take on the basics differences, but what about actual use?

In order to fully utilize the DCX you are going to need a microphone, a cd or other means of producing test tones, some type of measurement software, a compatible soundcard, and a computer most likely a laptop, unless your desktop computer is in your listening room. Yes, you can use a Rat Shack meter and graph paper but seriously, if you’ve spent this much money on your system to care about these things are you really going to do this?

So what kind of microphone should you use? Free-field or Pressure field? Do you have the corresponding correction curve for your microphone? These are real questions that I don’t know the answer to, but would defiantly want to know before I jumped down the DCX rabbit hole. Hopefully I’ll learn the answers in this thread.

Now what if you are using the DCX and you want your system to sound its best in more than one position, do you simply take multiple samples in multiple positions and then due a simple average? (This is why I think graph paper is out of the question) Is there a mathematically superior way to calculate the room’s response across multiple positions, and do I have the ability to actually do the math?

So what about AS? Well, it sure isn’t as flexible as the DCX, and defiantly doesn’t require to much technical knowledge, and comes with the equipment you’ll need. It pretty much does what it says it will do and that’s that. But that might be the problem, AS gives a couple of target curves (room response) to choose from and that’s it. If you don’t like the results from the options you have then your pretty much SOL.

However AS’s newer technology is doing some more than just room correction, and that’s were Dynamic EQ comes in. Think of it as an advanced loudness button. It changes the EQ based on your listening volume. AS claims that the EQ adjustments are based perceptual research so even WmAx should be able to appreciate that.

For me AS, has worked and didn’t require a serious layout in time or money. So, I am happy for now. I’m contemplating the Infinity Kappa build so a DCX my be in my future, and then maybe a I’ll sing a different tune. I hope this thread goes a little while so I can learn more.

AS links, my contain marketing BS
MULT EQ
Dynamic EQ
BassXT

"Official" Audyssey thread. @ AVS over 13,000 post, but one of the Audyssey founders participates so there is some real knowledge in there for the brave
How AS calculates mulitple postions.

Correcting for multiple positions isn't difficult.

One simple way to do it is to average all your readings from various listening positions. The more the better. Just depends on how nuts you are.

Use Excel not graph paper. You have a computer for crying out loud use it.

Compute the averages based off all your listening tests. The more you take the more you will converge to the mean of the listening area. Then apply your corrections to the mean.

FYI you can use both a DCX and AS together. In fact it might not be a bad idea to do so.

A DCX isn't required for a Kappa build as long as you use a 20hz high pass filter such as the fmod. You will still probably outperform whatever sub you are currently using. However it is best for integrating the subs. I'm not aware of an AS that can configure 2 subs. The High Pass Filter is a must.

DCX's are very versatile and can do much more than EQ. So if you still want to EQ with AS then by all means do so. Just use the DCX as a crossover and sub integrator.

 

[Warpdrv]

Can the DCX help you in the time domain....

Time and Frequency correction:

1. The time domain is where many of the problems reside. Parametric and graphic equalizers can only correct for the frequency response and do so in a very coarse manner because they have limited resolution (bands).
2. Further, whether they have fixed or adjustable bands it does not matter because bands cause phase problems that most people hear as "ringing" or "smearing." This is why, after thirty plus years of trying this method most people don't like the results and turn it off.

How does MultEQ address time and frequency problems?
MultEQ filters start in the time domain. They are not just a few parametric bands. Instead they use several hundred points to represent the room response in both the frequency and time domains. The trick is to use enough filter points to get the needed resolution, but not so many that it overwhelms the processor inside the audio component. So, we came up with a way to reduce the number of points without sacrificing accuracy and a way to provide more filter power at lower frequencies where it is needed the most. MultEQ can correct 8 channels by using only a fraction of a single DSP chip. This gives you the best of both worlds: time and frequency correction. Result--room correction that works for the first time ever.