Why not external EQ / Crossovers for HT or Stereo?

D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
I have actually used that equalizer a few times and they're all still in operation- they work fine, although I probably wouldn't use one in a HiFi or HT application. Knowing that their stuff usually "works until it doesn't", one is 14 years old and going strong.
I believe there was some popular audiophile mods to that Behringer EQ available, which improved things for HiFi/HT use... (from memory, I looked at it about 12 years ago...)
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
It is amazing this thing can get 3 pages of posts. The fact is, if the OP wants to do it and he likes the audible results then good for him. If he wants to know doing crossover, EQ, RC this way then the simple answer is, he can do it too, but the results won't be the same and won't be good if audio fidelity is the goal. Subjective and objective measurements rarely align, for most people.

If the OP feels doing it his way works for him by his subjective measurements (so call, got to go by the ears....), there is nothing we can say to convince him that it is not the right way, because for him it is the right way, or the better way, for whatever reasons.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I believe there was some popular audiophile mods to that Behringer EQ available, which improved things for HiFi/HT use... (from memory, I looked at it about 12 years ago...)
Really? That EQ sells for only a bit more than $100. Was that from the guy in New Hampshire, who was modding the Behringer A500 power amp and adding more than a grand to the price? I'd pass on that BS.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It is amazing this thing can get 3 pages of posts. The fact is, if the OP wants to do it and he likes the audible results then good for him. If he wants to know doing crossover, EQ, RC this way then the simple answer is, he can do it too, but the results won't be the same and won't be good if audio fidelity is the goal. Subjective and objective measurements rarely align, for most people.

If the OP feels doing it his way works for him by his subjective measurements (so call, got to go by the ears....), there is nothing we can say to convince him that it is not the right way, because for him it is the right way, or the better way, for whatever reasons.
I have met a lot of people who did sound for bands who "used their ears" to adjust the EQ- in most cases, the sound sucked and they didn't know what to listen for. The ones who did, also ran recording studios or the PA/studio departments at some of the better music stores that sold pro equipment. The number of threads and posts on AH that show this inability is huge- human hearing IS NOT more sensitive than test equipment.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have met a lot of people who did sound for bands who "used their ears" to adjust the EQ- in most cases, the sound sucked and they didn't know what to listen for. The ones who did, also ran recording studios or the PA/studio departments at some of the better music stores that sold pro equipment. The number of threads and posts on AH that show this inability is huge- human hearing IS NOT more sensitive than test equipment.
They seemed to think their ears are more trustworthy, they underestimated the effects of bias, and lastly, they
didn't seem to realize even if they really could hear/discern whatever the differences they perceived, that what their ears like, dislike, or everything in between, may not apply to people other than themselves. Why they don't seem to realize all those things..., is a puzzle to me.
 
Last edited:
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
Funny, was thinking just the same for you/your thread....you were in pro audio? Sure doesn't sound like it.
It was a basis of starting a discussion . Not intended to be a debate with your insulting criticism! Sorry you have social and comprehension issues. Please exit this thread,.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
It was a basis of starting a discussion . Not intended to be a debate with your insulting criticism! Sorry you have social and comprehension issues. Please exit this thread,.
How about you explain how you'd use the cited eq as a crossover?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
They seemed to think their ears are more trustworthy, they underestimated the effects of bias, and lastly, they
didn't seem to realize even if they really could hear/discern whatever the differences they perceived, that what their ears like, dislike, or everything in between, may not apply to people other than themselves. Why they don't seem to realize all those things..., is a puzzle to me.
I think it was more cluelessness than bias- this wasn't for comparison, it was live mixes and they were awful. Ever see someone move equalizer sliders all the way to the top and bottom, then find a place that they think is good? I have and it never sounded good.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
How about you explain how you'd use the cited eq as a crossover?
If you're asking about the Behringer 1502, it has a built in crossover for subwoofer, but it doesn't include a HP filter for the rest of the speakers.
 
Eppie

Eppie

Audioholic Ninja
@Hattrick17 While it can be fun to discuss "what if" scenarios there is an expectation that the poster does some preliminary research to see if it makes any sense to begin with.

You mentioned two things in your opening post. One was to replace digital room correction software with an EQ for home theatre. That's just not practical. EQs are generally two channel devices and if someone has a 7.2.4 system we're looking at 13 channels, which would require 6 EQs (7 if you want separate EQ for each subwoofer). Room correction software also does time alignment to take into account the distance from the listener to each speaker. Something an EQ can not do.

Room calibration software includes a calibrated mic and quickly measures all speakers. To due that properly with an EQ requires a measurement microphone, recording software like Room EQ Wizard and taking manual measurements for each speaker. That's a lot more work. There are those that just EQ the bass frequencies as that's the hardest part to get right. Whether you can EQ the main speakers also depends on the directivity index as some speakers can't be corrected with EQ because their off axis response differs too much from the on axis response. Home theatre is very different from pro audio as there is much more reflected sound in a typical residential application than there would be in a hall.

Suggesting the use of EQs for crossovers exhibits a lack of understanding of what crossovers do and how they work. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words. Crossovers provide filtering while EQs just provide sound shaping. You have to apply a high pass filter to the tweeters to prevent damage. Sending frequencies to a driver outside their designed operational range also introduces distortion. An EQ on it's lowest setting does not provide enough cut off to do this.

Applying filtering at the pre-amp stage is nothing new though. Those are active crossover networks vs passive and if you have used PA equipment then you have surely seen these. It would not make sense to use passive crossovers with the power and SPL requirements of a PA. Even the powered speaker cabinets used by many small bar bands use active crossovers with internal amps. Applying this to the home / DIY market is not trivial though. The crossover has to be tailored to each specific pair of speakers, just like passive crossovers. I have only seen variable devices that do this in the pro audio domain, like the DBX 234. Unfortunately you can not take a device like that and use it as an active crossover for home speakers. Those devices are designed for large speaker arrays in large halls. That's very different from what a 2-way or 3-way home speaker requires. That is a whole other topic and I won't go into the details but good crossover design for residential speakers is a lot more complex when you start getting into impedance curves, phase angles and different orders of slopes.

Some companies have come out with programmable digital crossovers though. I've seen these used by UK mixing engineers where they chose their own drivers and then used a programmable active crossover to do the filtering in the digital domain and then drive internal power amps. The digital crossover allows for much easier adjusting and fine tuning of the system to get a flat speaker response. You need the right measurement equipment though to do this properly. There have been some DIY speaker builders that have experimented with digital crossovers but I have not seen many. The software for passive crossovers is easily available and they can be cheap to build, and a passive speaker will work with any amp. Moving to active crossovers is still relatively complex for the DIY builder. That could change with software. It should be possible to design a programmable crossover where you simply enter the speaker parameters and it calculates the crossover points and slopes and phase adjustments but you need a big enough market to drive its development.
 
Last edited:
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
If you're asking about the Behringer 1502, it has a built in crossover for subwoofer, but it doesn't include a HP filter for the rest of the speakers.
If all he meant was to handle a crossover to a sub, maybe, but that's not what he indicated....
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
@Hattrick17 While it can be fun to discuss "what if" scenarios there is an expectation that the poster does some preliminary research to see if it makes any sense to begin with.

You mentioned two things in your opening post. One was to replace digital room correction software with an EQ for home theatre. That's just not practical. EQs are generally two channel devices and if someone has a 7.2.4 system we're looking at 13 channels, which would require 6 EQs (7 if you want separate EQ for each subwoofer). Room correction software also does time alignment to take into account the distance from the listener to each speaker. Something an EQ can not do. Not entirely true. If you use your ears which is the best source of calibrating a room in my opinion EQ works just fine, it has been done this way for decades. Hence why not use EQ for room correction? It can work just fine being 95% of movie content is LCR the rest is fill. Using a calibration mic is a piece of cake and is a nice part of using room correction software. But really do we need to do it this way?

EQ hardware can be done and has been done. It may not be as fast and easy as using Room Correction software but room EQ has been done with Equalizers for decades prior to software. Agreed there are many speakers in a modern HT. Front channel weren't even needed for decades in older theaters. In fact many homes don't need them either if the front L&R can cover center spread. The narrower the spread from L&R the less need for a center channel thus stereo can cover almost audio content from movies.


Room calibration software includes a calibrated mic and quickly measures all speakers. To due that properly with an EQ requires a measurement microphone, recording software like Room EQ Wizard and taking manual measurements for each speaker. That's a lot more work. FYI I am very versed with using room correction software like Dirac Live for over 6 Years. I never just use the final correction that Dirac provides for my room solely. I always tweak using my ears.
There are those that just EQ the bass frequencies as that's the hardest part to get right. Whether you can EQ the main speakers also depends on the directivity index as some speakers can't be corrected with EQ because their off axis response differs too much from the on axis response. Home theatre is very different from pro audio as there is much more reflected sound in a typical residential application than there would be in a hall. Really? It sounds like you never went to a concert in a Basketball or hockey arena!

Suggesting the use of EQs for crossovers exhibits a lack of understanding of what crossovers do and how they work. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words. It was I already apologized for that in this thread. I meant Electronic Crossovers. The header of the Post was jacked up when I created it. Probably due to multitasking and not really proof reading well enough. Yes, that was poorly worded by me when I created the thread again I apologize and do know the difference. Crossovers provide filtering while EQs just provide sound shaping. You have to apply a high pass filter to the tweeters to prevent damage. Sending frequencies to a driver outside their designed operational range also introduces distortion. An EQ on it's lowest setting does not provide enough cut off to do this.

Applying filtering at the pre-amp stage is nothing new though. Those are active crossover networks vs passive and if you have used PA equipment then you have surely seen these. It would not make sense to use passive crossovers with the power and SPL requirements of a PA. Even the powered speaker cabinets used by many small bar bands use active crossovers with internal amps. Applying this to the home / DIY market is not trivial though. The crossover has to be tailored to each specific pair of speakers, just like passive crossovers. I have only seen variable devices that do this in the pro audio domain, like the DBX 234. Unfortunately you can not take a device like that and use it as an active crossover for home speakers. Those devices are designed for large speaker arrays in large halls. That's very different from what a 2-way or 3-way home speaker requires. That is a whole other topic and I won't go into the details but good crossover design for residential speakers is a lot more complex when you start getting into impedance curves, phase angles and different orders of slopes.

Some companies have come out with programmable digital crossovers though. I've seen these used by UK mixing engineers where they chose their own drivers and then used a programmable active crossover to do the filtering in the digital domain and then drive internal power amps. The digital crossover allows for much easier adjusting and fine tuning of the system to get a flat speaker response. You need the right measurement equipment though to do this properly. There have been some DIY speaker builders that have experimented with digital crossovers but I have not seen many. The software for passive crossovers is easily available and they can be cheap to build, and a passive speaker will work with any amp. Moving to active crossovers is still relatively complex for the DIY builder. That could change with software. It should be possible to design a programmable crossover where you simply enter the speaker parameters and it calculates the crossover points and slopes and phase adjustments but you need a big enough market to drive its development. Thank you for your comments. The concept of the thread was to create conversation which obviously I did.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Using electronic crossovers is quite different from using equalizers. Active speakers with electronic crossovers are among the finest in the world. I use active electronic crossovers extensively in my system. Precision in language is basic to making any sense whatsoever.
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
Using electronic crossovers is quite different from using equalizers. Active speakers with electronic crossovers are among the finest in the world. I use active electronic crossovers extensively in my system. Precision in language is basic to making any sense whatsoever.
Yes you are correct regarding differences. However being my thread was worded so poorly I was including the use of both EC and EQ for a HT system or even just a great stereo system, or just a sound bar with subs. I would bet that most people around the world use some sort of stereo and or sound bar for watching movies maybe some have subs as well and tune using the sub and if possible tone controls though I think most Pres and Integrated amps don't have them anymore. Maybe in the UI menu.
Though I like my 7.1.2 System which is built around my Arcam AVR 850 with Dirac latest version as I have mentioned that I tweaked the settings using my ears.

I almost am starting to think HT is a joke an going back to a great stereo system. Why? The effects are just that effects, not a true representation of reality but a great illusion that is fun. I find in movies most effects are are overstated per volume and tone.. Example is when the T-Rex is approaching does the tone stay the same and the volume is so loud when it isn't close? This is very common practice in many movies. Does it make it more fun yes. But I find it a bit silly when I experience it all the time. Same with a train going by via Doppler Effect. In the movies that is greatly exaggerated. Why if there is no "Oh wow" factor the interest will diminish. . As I mentioned most would agree video content created is 95% LCR adding subs helps if you have L&C speakers that don't reach down to the levels. However those ultra lows for subs are not a real representation of frequencies most hear in the outside world. I don't need Dirac I can use EQ for my room if I want to create a sound reproduction that I enjoy but being I have it I use it. My room is treated very well in my opinion and find I turn off Dirac EQ most of the time especially for music. If I feel the bass sounds a bit out of control I can adjust that outside of Dirac with the AVR850 or trimming levels with my SVS sub app. Though my best practice is to not use subs for stereo being my speakers have great low end range.
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Movies aren't reality. The expectation is willful suspension of disbelief, so it follows along that you acknowledge the audio is not always going to be "real" as well. They are meant to entertain, not be 100% accurate to reality.

Studio music isn't real either. It is spliced together from separately recorded tracks the majority of the time.
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
Movies aren't reality. The expectation is willful suspension of disbelief, so it follows along that you acknowledge the audio is not always going to be "real" as well. They are meant to entertain, not be 100% accurate to reality.

Studio music isn't real either. It is spliced together from separately recorded tracks the majority of the time.
No they are an artform. I get Sci-fi Movies and the value of Surround sound for them that is part of the art form of creating Sci-fi Movies. Documentary or true store movies don't need to have surround sound in my opinion unless it is done to be as close to realism.

Music is totally real on so many levels. . Not sure where that came from? It is an art form like photography, a painting, or a sculpture.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It came from movies being not "real". Just illustrating that studio recorded music is often individual tracks that are recorded individually, often not with the band in the same room or same studio, then layered together. What you hear sounds cohesive and like one song, but often it is essentially fabricated. For the same reason, film sound is an art just as much as music is; ask a sound engineer for film if it isn't art. Sure it is a different skillset than a musician, but art is art.
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
It came from movies being not "real". Just illustrating that studio recorded music is often individual tracks that are recorded individually, often not with the band in the same room or same studio, then layered together. What you hear sounds cohesive and like one song, but often it is essentially fabricated. For the same reason, film sound is an art just as much as music is; ask a sound engineer for film if it isn't art. Sure it is a different skillset than a musician, but art is art.
I understand your point of view. There are many albums and songs that are created recording all the musicians at the same time. I would have to agree the trend for many years was to do as you stated individual sessions. The idea is "we can perfect each track this way. To an extent that has been very good and true. Bands and Artists, use different studios recording parts and combining them individually to complete the song. Too me that is no different than an artist starts a painting in one studio then moves to a new studio and finishes the painting there. The finished product is the creation of the art. Though with music and with movies you can remix and remaster anytime. So in a sense the work is never completed. Unlike a painting or sculpture.
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I think if you ask an artist about a painting or sculpture, they will still have critiques and things they would have done differently or could still improve. No doubt the same is true of music, which is why when an artist revisits a song later or even just playing it live, it is often different. That is why I like to go to concerts, hearing it with slight differences that may just be the flavor the artist felt like that night makes it more interesting.

Sure, bands playing together in one room to record still happens of course, but even back to the 70s, they are separately mic'ed and semi-isolated from each other, recorded on separate tracks. I heard of many artists collaborating during covid where they would just share their part of the track with the other to collaborate and then combined their work into a song. Whichever way they do it, if you like the music, it doesn't matter how they did it.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top