# Behringer FBQ2496 or DSP1124P



## Guest

Wondering which BFD one should I get FBQ2496 or DSP1124P? What do you think? Thanks.


----------



## brucek

The 1124P is cheaper and has multiple programs, but the specs are better on the 2496.

brucek


----------



## RazorX

brucek said:


> The 1124P is cheaper and has multiple programs, but the specs are better on the 2496.
> 
> brucek


Do you see a compelling argument for choosing one over the other? 

The price difference seems to be only ~$60 so that isn't a deal breaker for me.

It would be nice to have the flexibility of the multiple programs on the DSP but I'm not sure if I would use them. I also like the idea of having the better specs of the FBQ but I'm not really clear on the real world advantages of these superior specs. I'm honestly not sure which is a bigger advantage for me or for my use. 

I will say I would prefer to not have to wait for a replacement EPROM if I picked up a DSP with the 1.3 firmware. 

I am going to call the local Guitar Center and some other Behringer resellers in town tomorrow and I would love to grab whichever model they have in stock and start playing with it this weekend but I thought I would check in here before making the purchase. I don't want to grab whatever is available locally if there is a valid reason to go with the other model and/or be able to pick the right one for my needs if both are available locally.


----------



## brucek

> Do you see a compelling argument for choosing one over the other?


I would choose the FBQ for the better specs and no issues with the firmware..

brucek


----------



## RazorX

Thanks brucek.


----------



## OvalNut

I was in your same position, and chose the FBQ2496 for the better specs. Excellent unit, no regrets whatsoever, GREAT results.

Tim
:drive:


----------



## RazorX

Thanks for all the responses guys. 

I called all the shops around town that sell Behringer products this morning and nobody had either model on hand so I went ahead and ordered a FBQ2496 online from Same Day Music. 

I also ordered an "M-Audio MIDISport UNO 1x1 MIDI Interface with Cables and Connectors" at the same time. Their prices were better than local, there is no tax, shipping was free, and they have both products in stock. This made my decision pretty easy. 

I did pay an extra $4 for 2 day shipping though. The total cost for both items and 2 day shipping was $194 and I should have it in my hands by Wednesday at the latest.


----------



## cburbs

brucek said:


> I would choose the FBQ for the better specs and no issues with the firmware..
> 
> brucek


What are some differences between the two? 

I am looking at getting one of the above but not sure which one to go with. If you buy a DSP-1124P will the Midi communication work or is it ? on which firmware it has on it?

I want this to be as simple as possible. I have played with Room EQ.....


----------



## brucek

> What are some differences between the two?


As stated above, the 1124P is cheaper and has multiple programs, but the specs are better on the 2496.

The midi works fine on the 1124P as long as it has V1.4 firmware. No way to tell that without access to the front panel.

brucek


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

cburbs said:


> What are some differences between the two?
> 
> I want this to be as simple as possible. I have played with Room EQ.....


The FBQ isn’t nearly as precise as the BFD, at least as far as available bandwidth settings are concerned (only 1/3 as many increments as the BFD in the subwoofer range). That would be a deal breaker with me. 

That said, no one I know of has complained that they weren’t able to get good results with it.

If “simple” is your main priority, then it’s probably the one you want, since it will work with MIDI.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## OvalNut

Let'a be genuine though about just what this coarseness of adjustability really means:

With the FBQ, the smallest increment you can go down to is 0.017 of an octave to dial in your target frequency. At 80hz, that relates to 0.90hz. At 20hz, that relates to 0.20hz. This gets you well within 1hz of your target frequency, with also still having control of gain and bandwidth.

I'll take that flexible level of adjustability any day, and add onto it the markedly better electronic capabilities of the FBQ2496 over the DSP1124P to ensure I get the purest, truest signal possible. 

When I can get all that and am able to EQ my sub to +/-1.5db from 15-85 hz, I'm good. :bigsmile:

... my $0.02


Tim
:drive:


----------



## brucek

> I'll take that flexible level of adjustability any day


I guess Waynes concern is that the BFD continues to offer 1/60th bandwidth divisions as the bandwidth increases. The FBQ lowers the amount of selection as the bandwidth increases.

Here's a short chart comparing their bandwidth selections (with the BFD converted from BW/60 to decimal octaves that the FBQ uses).

So at small bandwidths they're the same. Then the FBQ gets a bit less selective. I don't personally think it's a problem, but you get the idea anyway...









brucek


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> With the FBQ, the smallest increment you can go down to is 0.017 of an octave to dial in your target frequency. At 80hz, that relates to 0.90hz. At 20hz, that relates to 0.20hz. This gets you well within 1hz of your target frequency, with also still having control of gain and bandwidth.


Anyone have a translation for that? :scratch:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## OvalNut

Very funny Wayne. :dunno: I mistakenly misunderstood your concern about the only 1/3 as many increments as the BFD in the subwoofer range as a concern about being able to target a specific frequency, rather than as bruce explained your concern regarding bandwidth precision.

My bad, but I'll still take the FBQ for it's clean electronics.


Tim
:drive:


----------



## wirepuller

So does this break down to the FBQ having a slight edge in clarity of signal and the 1124P has just a little better adjustability? Did I understand this correctly?


----------



## brucek

Yes, you understand correctly...................


----------



## Splotto

Hello:

What about the DEQ2496? Does it perform the same tasks?

Splotto


----------



## tomacco

I really find it amusing the lengths that people will go through to get "perfect music". Let's take a CD with vocals only. The singer uses a mic whose wire crosses numerous other wires (with perfect shielding off course) to end up at a mic pre-amp. The pre-amp feeds an amp, which in turn feeds a mixer, and the recording engineer does his magic by sliding around numerous slider switches to kill unwanted tones, enhance the tones he thinks the public is going to buy into, and deliberately leave certain frequency bands untouched. This is then subject to magical DSP algorithms to produce a CD. This is all done with equipment which uses hundreds of op-amp, which purists eschew.
Now you buy the CD at the store and pass it through a CD player, pre-amp, amp, and finally the greatest source of distortion, the speaker, which must now interact with environment (read room) to which it is subject. And the humor lies in the fact that you don't know what the source (i.e. vocalist) sounds like, yet you're making all these adjustments.

While there is some tongue 'n cheek in this Email, you've got to analyze which aspects are serious, and which aspects have you doing a lot of silly things, and wasting your time and money.



brucek said:


> Yes, you understand correctly...................


Could you translate that difference into what I would hear?

I apologize, but I forgot to ask the quintessential question: with so much equipment available, which equipment would be considered a 'modest start', that could be built upon, or used in some other ancillary way as your collection grew. I know: "how much ya wanna' spend?".


----------



## imbeaujp

Hello tomacco,

I think that you are right when you said that many recording studio use many processing and conventional equipments. To my ears, I think that 70% of commmercial CD's are bad recordings. There are some company that uses hi-fi components and really cares about minimal audio modifications and uses minimum micophones and mix down. One of thoses is Chezky Records.

JP


----------



## tomacco

Where does the ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 fit into all of this?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

It’ll work fine, as long as you don’t mind paying twice the price of a FBQ and nearly four times what the BFD costs. It has some features that we really don’t have a need for, hence the price.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tomacco

Thanks for that cost-savings advise - I am in your gratitude (and it's gonna' make my wife happy). I've read the back & fourths between you and others. You all seem to have convincing arguments, and accordingly, leave me tortured trying to make up my mind.

I'm interested in subduing bass, although I haven't even bought the sub yet, but I anticipate trouble. Any suggestions on a sub for a bedroom?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> Any suggestions on a sub for a bedroom?


Sho’ ’nuff: I’d give my right hand for a SVS SB12, ’cept that I need it! It’s not cheap, but you didn’t specify a price range. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tomacco

Hi Wayne: In my world, there seem to three die-hard houses: SVS, Velodyne, and HSU (in that order). My friend has a $3,000 Revel. We'll count him out because he's not a real person. By my count, SVS has a resounding lead. 

Thanks, my guess at your answer was right (probability was on my side this time). 

I didn't state a price, because my wife never gave me one. Hmmm, I wonder what figure she's working on?



tomacco said:


> Could you translate that difference into what I would hear?


Brucek: I'm afraid after some thought, I've resolved that my question is meaningless. I agree that what one hears is subjective. It could sound completely repulsive to me, and like the sounds of an angel to you. So we have to attempt to quantify it. Would a spectrum analyser do that - off course? If so, could someone interpret it - off course. What would an analyser tell you - nothing subjective, off course. Accordingly, my statement "Could you translate that difference into what I would hear? is meaningless. This begs the question "how do you quantify the performance between the FBQ2496 or DSP1124P, besides knobs, switches, and bells and whistles? The answer is certainly not obvious to me.

Best Regards
Eric G.


----------



## tomacco

What about a DEQ2496 for $200 USD? Is that starting to cause you twinge?

Eric G.


----------



## tomacco

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> It’ll work fine, as long as you don’t mind paying twice the price of a FBQ and nearly four times what the BFD costs. It has some features that we really don’t have a need for, hence the price.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Hi Wayne: Would a price of $200 USD for the DEQ2496 make you sit up and take attention?

Best Regards
Eric G.


----------



## tomacco

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> It’ll work fine, as long as you don’t mind paying twice the price of a FBQ and nearly four times what the BFD costs. It has some features that we really don’t have a need for, hence the price.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Hi Wayne: Without getting long and drawn out, which functions might I not use. And other users who have experience with this gizzmo, which functions wouldn't you use. Would thOSE functions be cumbersome, and add frustration to your setup. If this turns out to be a horrific answer, I'll go through the manuals rather than waste your good time.

Thanks
ERIC G.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

tomacco said:


> Hi Wayne: Would a price of $200 USD for the DEQ2496 make you sit up and take attention?


Not really – I don’t need or want one. :laugh:



> Without getting long and drawn out, which functions might I not use.


Sorry, I goofed about that – I confused the FBQ2492 with that other 2496 equalizer, which has a built-in real time analyzer. (Why does Behringer insist on giving the same numbers with different products? Grrr... )

To answer your question, as far as we’re concerned for equalizing subwoofers, you really don’t need 20 filters per channel. But on the other hand, some people will find the MIDI of value. So, for the extra money you get extra filters and a functioning MIDI interface. 

If you’ve read the rest of this thread, you already know that I don’t like the FBQ’s reduced precision compared to the BFD, although I haven’t seen anyone complain that they didn’t get what they wanted from it.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## tomacco

Hi Wayne: I keep a piece of paper by my desk with the P/Ns, because I cant remember them 2 minutes after I read them. Double Grrrr. From my scanty reading, I find the BFD more simple, but using it will tell. Plus I save $112.


----------



## Guest

I want to buy a Behinger Feedback Destroyer for my sub too. The problem is that for some very strange reason the DSP1124P has been discontinued in UK and it is really hard to find. The US version apparently will not function properly in UK either. From what i understand the main differences between the FBQ2496 and DSP1124 are: The MIDI function is more reliable in the first and the second offers multiple channels (as opposed to the 1 that FBQ offers). 

My question is, if i need the feedback destroyer jus for my sub will i need the multiple channels or is just 1 more than enough?


----------



## brucek

> The MIDI function is more reliable in the first


That's the first time I've heard that...



> if i need the feedback destroyer jus for my sub will i need the multiple channels or is just 1 more than enough?


The BFD has two channels. You can drive many subs, but only with two discrete filter sets.

brucek


----------



## tomacco

P-P-S-S said:


> I want to buy a Behinger Feedback Destroyer for my sub too. The problem is that for some very strange reason the DSP1124P has been discontinued in UK and it is really hard to find. The US version apparently will not function properly in UK either. From what i understand the main differences between the FBQ2496 and DSP1124 are: The MIDI function is more reliable in the first and the second offers multiple channels (as opposed to the 1 that FBQ offers).
> 
> My question is, if i need the feedback destroyer jus for my sub will i need the multiple channels or is just 1 more than enough?


Not to be cruel, but I just received my DSP 1124P today. Now I'm gonna' have to work on gettin' a woofer to see if the BFD works. Fix one problem, and another one pops up. It never ends. Once I demonstrate that the 1st channel works, I'm gonna' have to buy a 2nd sub to prove that the 2nd channel works. Sheesh!

Eric G.


----------



## Guest

brucek said:


> That's the first time I've heard that...
> brucek


There have been many reports of people having problems with the MIDI in the DSP1124P. Isnt that true?



brucek said:


> The BFD has two channels. You can drive many subs, but only with two discrete filter sets.
> 
> brucek


What do you mean by BFD? As far as i understand they are both BFD (Behringer Feedback Destroyer) but two different models : one is DSP1124P and the other is FBQ2496.


----------



## brucek

> There have been many reports of people having problems with the MIDI in the DSP1124P. Isnt that true?


When a BFD has the firmware release V1.3, then the midi simply doesn't work. If you're unfortunate enough to get a unit with this rev of firmware, then you need to replace the PROM chip with the V1.4 firmware. I haven't heard about the midi function being any less reliable though. Once it works, it works the same as any other midi. Here's the thread on that issue.



> What do you mean by BFD?


When I say BFD, I mean the FEEDBACK DESTROYER PRO DSP1124P. The FEEDBACK DESTROYER PRO FBQ2496 is usually referred to as an FBQ. Sorry for the confusion.

brucek


----------



## Jack Hidley

If someone wants to supply me with an FBQ and a BFD, I'd be glad to do a full set of measurements with an AP and post the results. Then everyone would have accurate, apples to apples data to compare them.


----------



## Jack Hidley

I've got someone to send me a BFD, now all I need is an FBQ.


----------



## cburbs

Well I received the DSP1124P/cables/etc for christmas gift from my wife - now I just need some time to play with everything. Do I need to read up on anything for the DSP - I have already played around with REW.


----------



## Guest

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> The FBQ isn’t nearly as precise as the BFD, at least as far as available bandwidth settings are concerned (only 1/3 as many increments as the BFD in the subwoofer range). That would be a deal breaker with me.


Just became a member here after hearing about the BFD at AVS forum.

I thought both the FBQ and DSP are BFD products.

Could you please let me know if I am mistaken

Thanks


----------



## Guest

Mupi said:


> Just became a member here after hearing about the BFD at AVS forum.
> 
> I thought both the FBQ and DSP are BFD products.
> 
> Could you please let me know if I am mistaken
> 
> Thanks


oops! someone just answered my question above.
Never mind


----------



## Guest

DSP1124P is still available for $99 at partsexpress

Is there a way to find out if the units have v1.4 or v1.3

If I am not going to use the midi option then does it matter
if it is v1.3 or 1.4

I almost bought the 1124p but before I pull the trigger I wanted to
check here.

In all probability the measurements I make either manually or
using REW will have some errors as I am not an expert in this
topic. So I was wondering if I should care so much about the
accuracy of the FBQ vs DSP.


----------



## brucek

> Is there a way to find out if the units have v1.4 or v1.3


You require access to the front panel.



> If I am not going to use the midi option then does it matter
> if it is v1.3 or 1.4


Nope.....



> So I was wondering if I should care so much about the
> accuracy of the FBQ vs DSP


No, that's not really an issue.

brucek


----------



## Guest

Some folks say that the FBQ2496 has better circuitry than the DSP1124P

Does it equate to cleaner output from the FBQ. I think I am hearing
subtle distorsion from the DSP at higher frequencies even though I am
not filtering them. Is it possible that the A/D, D/A converters on DSP1124P
are not high quality and for $50 more does the FBQ offer better A/D, D/A converters

Also I didnt not see anything in the manual of FBQ about the number of filters
on FBQ. I have the DSP so I know it has 12 filters (presets). If the FBQ has only one,
then I cant have multiple filters like one fot HT, one for movies, one only when
fronts are used for music, one when both fronts and sub is used for music etc.

So other than having 20 bandwidths are there any advantages of the FBQ.
People say it has better circuitry but for $50 more how much better is it
compared to DSP? Will I hear any difference in the sound quality between
the 2, assuming I use same 12 bands on the FBQ also instead of the 20.

Right now the main advantage I see with the FBQ is that it has 20 bands
and using REW I am able to get a better curve than DSP. But if I want a
different filter then I have to reload a new one. Even if I can use the midi and
have the REW download the filter, I still have to do it every time I want to
try a different filter. Where as with the DSP I can enter several of them
one time and just switch them. Has anyone found this to be a major
drawback>


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Lots of questions, I don't know if any one person can answer all of them. 

I will say that if you're hearing bad things from the DSP at higher frequencies, then maybe you should go with the FBQ. The FBQ has different converters than the DSP, so I guess it's possible that they're better. That said, comparing the two nothing I see in the FBQ's specs screams "better" to me, except for the Crosstalk spec (don't know enough about AD/DA converters to say which kind is inherently better).

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## porksoda

i have the dsp1124p w 1.4 firmware.

I know my dsp1124p has 10 presets each with 12 programmable peq

for the FBQ2496 I see it has 20 programmable peq... but does it only have ONE/NO preset?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Yes as I recall, the FBQ has no presets.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## porksoda

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Yes as I recall, the FBQ has no presets.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


thank you... i was wondering if i should jump ship and get the fbq but i think i prefer having 10 presets, that way various type of curves can be stores at various presets for various listening needs.

Also seems like there maybe no difference between FBQ and BFD sonically at sub frequencies. Once thing i experienced when setting my level to the bfd was i had my sub output in the avr to +10 at my listening level 70db to get some action on the leds.


----------



## Jakeman02

You can get 2 presets out of the 2496 although it's a workaround. Use either 2 Y cables or splitters from the sub and receiver. That way you can connect to both the R and L Channel of the 2496 and use each as a preset. The R and L button on the front will let you switch between them.


----------



## Peter Orrick

Have you actually done this? Several months ago I tried y connectors- I used split input right/left from processor and split right/left outputs to sub. As I remember, one channel would override the other and blank out its (other) settings. I would love to make this work as I have two different locations I sit in the room depending on outside light for reading!


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

See Pg. 6 of the manual, item #13. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Peter Orrick

Wayne-

Thank you, it is right there. What I must have done is hold left-right button too long when switching- that returns it to stereo mode "and the settings from the active channel are automatically carried over onto the other channel".

Peter


----------



## BandidoAzul

I've been researching these two units and one bit of info i haven't come across yet is which of these two units is more accurate below 20hz..

Can anyone show me where this info is located if its in another thread?

Thanks


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

BandidoAzul said:


> I've been researching these two units and one bit of info i haven't come across yet is which of these two units is more accurate below 20hz.


If you’re asking if one of them allows filter settings below 20 Hz, the answer is no. If that’s not what you’re wondering, then: What do you mean by “accurate?”

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## BandidoAzul

Well, just for some more background on my setup, i am using a marathon 5050 and a Fi Q18 190L sealed (1..for now hehe) and eq is the next step in my HT evolution :T
So yes that answers my question of wanting to know if either of these units can be used to shape/boost anything below 20hz..

Thanks


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

If you need filter settings and/or precise control below 20 Hz, you'll need to find a used Rane PE17 or Symetrix 555.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Media BCD

Well first post so be gentle :boxer::hissyfit:

I'm not so much into home theaters than so much into recording and mixing. I'm presently finishing a project studio here and due to space constraint and well not wanting to sleep on the couch until the next millennium.. I was pretty much limited with what I could do with the only room available for the project studio in our house.

Rooms is roughly 14 by 10 by 8.5 foot, treated, and I used your REW 5 program (pretty nice btw) to do a room calibration with a dpa 4006 (couldn't find a calibration file for that mic or how to make one), but I want to push it a bit further for critical listening/mixing, and going through the different options I noticed that I could create inverse frequency responses to be added into graphic equalizers. Not the best thing mind you in a studio environment, but it'll have to do unless I'm willing to suffer the back pain for the rest of my life :help:

So I was wondering this when I was reading the different options available in the eq section. How much destructive are the I/O of the Behringer fbq2496 / dsp114p / dcx2496? Like I said, it's not for watching movies but to actually push a step further the calibration of the mixing room and I'm wondering if placing these in my sound chain will improve or destroy the quality of my sound. Mind you I have always steered clear of the Behringer gear in the past but for this project studio I'm willing to test them if I can get some positive feed back that they will improve and not destroy the quality of my sound chain.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Hey Media,

First, welcome to the Forum!

I don’t know what the caliber of your equipment is, but the first thing to know about equalizers is not to use a cheap one on your main channel speakers. So I‘d recommend taking a pass on either the DSP1124 or FBQ2496. The DCX has lots of positive feedback for home theater use – that should translate well to a studio environment, but it’s probably overkill for your needs.

Personally I’d recommend the Yamaha YDP2006. It’s a legacy parametric equalizer that sold in the $2000 range when it was new, but can typically be had on ebay for $250 or less. Don’t be fooled by its 20-bit converters – it’s dead silent and has pristine sonics, and will hold its own against the best 24-bit equalizers available today. For more info and an informal review, see this post.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Media BCD

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Hey Media,
> 
> First, welcome to the Forum!
> 
> I don’t know what the caliber of your equipment is, but the first thing to know about equalizers is not to use a cheap one on your main channel speakers. So I‘d recommend taking a pass on either the DSP1124 or FBQ2496. The DCX has lots of positive feedback for home theater use – that should translate well to a studio environment, but it’s probably overkill for your needs.
> 
> Personally I’d recommend the Yamaha YDP2006. It’s a legacy parametric equalizer that sold in the $2000 range when it was new, but can typically be had on ebay for $250 or less. Don’t be fooled by its 20-bit converters – it’s dead silent and has pristine sonics, and will hold its own against the best 24-bit equalizers available today. For more info and an informal review, see this post.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Thanks for the reply, we're using and will get affected by what ever I get, is a liquid saffire 56 as interface (I/O and monitor section) ouputing the feed to a pair of Genelec 8040a. The room is treated, it's just to flatten the frequency response a bit more than what we were able to get. We can't really add more treatment.


----------



## Skylinestar

I'm planning to get a FBQ1000 or FBQ2496 to eq the 50Hz-300Hz of my main speakers (high sensitivity 98dB). The Denon 3312 AVR will be feeding the signal via RCA preouts.

Do you think I'll get serious hiss issue due to gain mismatch as this is a pro gear? The low SNR worries me too.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I would not recommend either of those equalizers for the main channels of a hi-fi system, especially one with high-sensitivity speakers. It’s not an issue of them being “pro,” they are just not good examples of the type, at least as far as noise is concerned. 

I’d suggest instead a used Yamaha YDP2006 parametric. You can find a review at the link in my signature. We have a member here (jcmusic) who’s using it in a high-end system with some Klipsch speakers and he’s reported no noise issues.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Skylinestar

Unfortunately, the Yamaha is discontinued. Is there any other models that you'd recommend?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Ever hear of ebay? I know that probably sounds snippy, but the reason I mentioned it is that your options are extremely limited. Stand-alone parametric equalizers have all but disappeared from the product lines of all the reputable pro-audio manufacturers. With the exception of Behringer, the industry trend in recent years has been to roll parametric EQ functions into digital speaker-management processors, and more lately directly into digital mixing consoles.

Bottom line, if you want a first-class parametric EQ for your system, it’s ebay or nothing.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------

