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]

Equalizer

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 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