Why not external EQ / Crossovers for HT or Stereo?

Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
Internal software solutions like Audyssey and Dirac Live have been the go to for those looking to tweak the sound of their systems to accommodate ones room for the ultimate sound quality and balance. I understand that this comes in very handy for multi-channel amplification and speakers for HT but let's suppose one has a AV processor versus a receiver and or just wants to EQ for Stereo only? Why not use multi channel external EQ and not use internal digital processing like Dirac or other processing? There are fantastic low cost EQ one being the Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ1502HD 15-band Stereo Graphic Equalizer with FBQ Feedback Detection?

Taking it a step further one sees outlandish priced speaker systems with crossovers, so why not use external EQ and bypass the crossovers? I see this as a great solution for DIY systems especially with separation of drivers being not all in the same box. I would think one can create an amazing low cost speaker system using external EQ vs software based EQ and crossovers. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Taking it a step further one sees outlandish priced speaker systems with crossovers, so why not use external EQ and bypass the crossovers? I see this as a great solution for DIY systems especially with separation of drivers being not all in the same box. I would think one can create an amazing low cost speaker system using external EQ vs software based EQ and crossovers. Thoughts?
You can't use an equalizer, neither a graphic or a parametric EQ to act as a frequency divider between drivers in a speaker system. Among the reasons why this cannot be done is the fact that an equalizer is limited to the so many dBs either in boost or trimming. You you can't protect a tweeter with a 12 dB trimming at low frequencies which it would still receive, and you would blow it almost instantly.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
An EQ isn't what you want between drivers and it really does not make sense anyway. What you are talking about is an active crossover which would replace the passive one in a speaker and allow you to tailor that blend.

An EQ is meant to adjust out response issues, however I find the majority of people I've ever seen use one aren't using it for that. I used to use an EQ in the car back in the day, but more or less an EQ is for adjusting the sound to your taste, which is not what it was intended for. Parametric EQs automatically correcting room response issues are far more effective and they do still allow for the user to manually adjust if needed, though again, that becomes more preference than your ear actually being able to hear a problem in most cases.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
A lot of people don't use Auto Room Correction (Audyssey, DIRAC, ARC, Trinnov, etc.) and just use manual Parametric EQ. I'm one of them.

People use whatever works best for them or is most convenient that can get them great sound.

But I think the issue is that many people do NOT get the great sound they are looking for and rely on auto room EQ to help them achieve that sound.
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
A lot of people don't use Auto Room Correction (Audyssey, DIRAC, ARC, Trinnov, etc.) and just use manual Parametric EQ. I'm one of them.

People use whatever works best for them or is most convenient that can get them great sound.

But I think the issue is that many people do NOT get the great sound they are looking for and rely on auto room EQ to help them achieve that sound.
My thoughts as well I find I use the room correction typically only for watching movie and TV content not music. When I worked for touring bands the PA system had numerous EQ for the variety of cabinets which had designated drivers. Maybe the mains had cross overs but I don't recall. I just remember the EQ being used both at front of house and monitors for L&R and for subs.
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
You can't use an equalizer, neither a graphic or a parametric EQ to act as a frequency divider between drivers in a speaker system. Among the reasons why this cannot be done is the fact that an equalizer is limited to the so many dBs either in boost or trimming. You you can't protect a tweeter with a 12 dB trimming at low frequencies which it would still receive, and you would blow it almost instantly.
I have seen it done though where a cross over for tweeters has everything rolled off outside its capabilities.
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
One key thing to keep in mind for RoomEQ systems like Dirac and Audyssey (and some but not all others) - is that they do more than just EQ.... we generically tend to refer to them as Room / Speaker EQ but perhaps the most important thing they do is impulse / phase response correction.

In terms of pure Speaker EQ, there are some complexities to incorporating an external EQ ( you need appropriate line levels out of the AV processor, and then power amps for the speakers ... so lots more components and cables than with a "simple" AVR)... but it is absolutely possible.

On the other hand - many of the better AVR/AVP based EQ setups, also allow for manual EQ should the user want to take that path - you sacrifice any sort of impulse/phase response adjustment that Dirac/Audyssey do, but you do have full manual EQ control.

Also with Dirac or with Audyssey (on current generation Denon) - you have the ability to tailor the target curve to your hearts content - ie: you can work within the room eq system, to do manual adjustments.

Given the capabilities and the pricing, in many/most cases, a manual and separate EQ box is simply not justifiable.... you can do the same job for less money in an AVP or AVR....

The processing capabilities and value, is why many stereo fans, have opted to go for an AVR - even if using external amps with the AVR.

There is a lot of tech for the money in most mid market high value AVR's.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Internal software solutions like Audyssey and Dirac Live have been the go to for those looking to tweak the sound of their systems to accommodate ones room for the ultimate sound quality and balance. I understand that this comes in very handy for multi-channel amplification and speakers for HT but let's suppose one has a AV processor versus a receiver and or just wants to EQ for Stereo only? Why not use multi channel external EQ and not use internal digital processing like Dirac or other processing? There are fantastic low cost EQ one being the Behringer Ultragraph Pro FBQ1502HD 15-band Stereo Graphic Equalizer with FBQ Feedback Detection?

Taking it a step further one sees outlandish priced speaker systems with crossovers, so why not use external EQ and bypass the crossovers? I see this as a great solution for DIY systems especially with separation of drivers being not all in the same box. I would think one can create an amazing low cost speaker system using external EQ vs software based EQ and crossovers. Thoughts?
I think you just earned the cockamamie idea of the year award, that's my thought.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I think you just earned the cockamamie idea of the year award, that's my thought.
For which idea?

Using External XO for speakers? Using External EQ?

Or for thinking about buying anything from Behringer (which I would never do either)? :D
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
I think you just earned the cockamamie idea of the year award, that's my thought.
It was a question to understand if there is alternatives that would provide a possible better solution to Room Corrections software. Not a cockamamie Idea. Geeeze...
 
Hattrick17

Hattrick17

Junior Audioholic
One key thing to keep in mind for RoomEQ systems like Dirac and Audyssey (and some but not all others) - is that they do more than just EQ.... we generically tend to refer to them as Room / Speaker EQ but perhaps the most important thing they do is impulse / phase response correction.

In terms of pure Speaker EQ, there are some complexities to incorporating an external EQ ( you need appropriate line levels out of the AV processor, and then power amps for the speakers ... so lots more components and cables than with a "simple" AVR)... but it is absolutely possible.

On the other hand - many of the better AVR/AVP based EQ setups, also allow for manual EQ should the user want to take that path - you sacrifice any sort of impulse/phase response adjustment that Dirac/Audyssey do, but you do have full manual EQ control.

Also with Dirac or with Audyssey (on current generation Denon) - you have the ability to tailor the target curve to your hearts content - ie: you can work within the room eq system, to do manual adjustments.

Given the capabilities and the pricing, in many/most cases, a manual and separate EQ box is simply not justifiable.... you can do the same job for less money in an AVP or AVR....

The processing capabilities and value, is why many stereo fans, have opted to go for an AVR - even if using external amps with the AVR.

There is a lot of tech for the money in most mid market high value AVR's.
Thank you. I was just curious if there were other solutions that would work that may provide more audio plus for the listener than just banking on Room Correction software.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Spartan
Thank you. I was just curious if there were other solutions that would work that may provide more audio plus for the listener than just banking on Room Correction software.
There is one costly solution: Just hire the musicians or singers to perform in your listening space. :p
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi

I think he means crossovers that have EQ functionality.



Others have used minDSP crossovers with Dirac Room EQ.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Not posted on this thread but on others there is a pretty good amount of people who do.
There is always good engineering and bad engineering. That has always been true. The fact is that the crossover, whether active or passive, has to be designed specifically for the drivers of the speaker speaker. It is an arduous process. I know as I have been designing speakers, and therefor their crossovers, for years. So I have experience and form, and have posted my results of the measurements many times on this forum. So honestly I really don't think you have anything useful to bring to the table in terms of crossover design. If you really understood the engineering issues involved, you would understand just how ludicrous you post sounds.

On this forum we try hard to give people correct and useful information. That also means coming down hard on nonsense.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.

I think he means crossovers that have EQ functionality.


Others have used minDSP crossovers with Dirac Room EQ.
They are active crossovers.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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