# DEQ2496 best choice for room acoustics "fixing" used for speakers and sub?



## shaolin95

Greetings!
I was wondering if the DEQ2496 would be the best choice if I am not only trying to calibrate the sub but also tame my room to try to flatten overall freq response as much as possible.
Regards


----------



## brucek

The DEQ has decent specs, but the signal that you will be running through a full analog to digital and back to analog conversion can never be as good as the original. There is also the theory that equalization at anything above the subwoofers frequency range has minimum benefit. Simple room treatments are considered best for full range signals. Treatments would also include a benefit to the multichannel speakers that will be left out if you only equalize the mains with a DEQ.

My suggestion is to equalize the sub with an inexpensive BFD and leave your pristine mains signal alone.

brucek


----------



## shaolin95

I have been considering getting GIK acoustic panels but you know, I like toys and the DEQ will look cooler than the panels in a corner lol
I thought the DEQ was able to take a digital signal thus making it a one time digital to analgo conversion but of course that will let me without Dolby True HD and I will be counting on the DEQ to have better dacs than the Toshiba HD-dvd a1 or my harman kardon avr-635.
Perhaps I should just get the GIK panels....


----------



## terry j

I have found them to be well worthwhile.

Yes it does take digital input, as well as analog.

I have written up on it elsewhere in the bfd forum, maybe some of your 'wonderings' may be answered there.

If I can help with some questions then of course I will.


----------



## shaolin95

Do you have a link or should I just search for the 2496 and your posts?
Do you also have room treatment?
Regards


----------



## terry j

sorry shaolin, I'm a bit retarded when it comes to pasting a link!!!! You'll have to find it yourself, but it's currently on page two, halfway down, DEQ in the title and my name.

Also, I posted a little 'philosophy' on its use in the thread by Julien(43?) regarding the DEQ, that may also help.

Forgot to ask, what will you be using it with?? I guess that is a little bit of why Bruce is slightly 'down' on it, guess it's not the right bit of gear to use with a pair of grand utopias??!!

Having said that, I don't use it on my main system, so I can't really say whether it detracts from the sound, but I do feel confident in saying that it will enhance more than it would detract. If you are confident of the speakers native response then I guess you wouldn'y use it except in the bass ( I mean a flat response on the speakers. Having said that you can actually tailor your desired response and alter it from flat if you wish!!)

No on the room treatment, I'm a DIYer so will get around to it when things let up. On my main system I use the DEQX, and only listen to 2 channel, so the room eq is pretty good for the single listening position. Will do room treatment tho.

Just generally, I would personally always do room eq first, and if you can fit in room treatment then thats good. One or the other?? Room eq for me.


----------



## shaolin95

I am confident on my speakers but not on my almost square room. So its not like Im trying to fix my speakers but to minimize my room problems. It will only be used for 2 channels since its for music listening that I am concerned about.
Decisions..decisions...


----------



## DrWho

I dunno...wouldn't it make more sense to address room induced problems by fixing the room??? Instead of going to the doctor with chest pains and being prescribed pain medication? :scratch:  

One of the cool things about a treated room is that they're often more natural and welcoming to be in too (provided the treatment isn't repulsively ugly). I find that a more relaxed mood usually results in more enjoyment of the tunes.


----------



## shaolin95

I normally get that recommendation as well, fix the room first and then eq to fix whatever is left but you know how we are, we like cool toys and as good as room treatment is, a parametric EQ is gonna be more fun to play with than placing some boards in a corner lol
I will probably order the panels first anyway


----------



## terry j

I've wondered about that philosophy as well, and here is what I've decided after a little pondering, and for what it's worth.

Firstly, I feel BOTH ideally is what is needed, I'm not in the one or the other camp. Having said that, I've looked at Ethans site ( who hasn't?) and at one stage I worked out the ideal amount of bass trapping recommended, and I can't remember what it was but it was an awful lot of bass traps in a not very large room!! Sure, being cynical, he sells them so maybe it's exagerated ( tho I don't think it is exagerated cynically for the sake of sales) but nonetheless, from memory, the cost of the recommended amount of bass traps was around 2000-2500 US dollars (?), which of course translated to aussie dollars.....(or maybe it was 2500 aus...). My room is about 9m*6m*5m, so to do that properly would cost a little more, and I'm not even addressing the aesthetics question!!!:huh: 

In any case to do the job properly it is not a small amount. If you can make your own then of course that changes it somewhat but I gather S95 will be purchasing his.

On the other hand, the cost of the DEQ is but a fraction of that cost, will eq your room ( which is part of the desired solution laid out above) and correct your speakers as well if needs be!:bigsmile: Sure you will need a mike as well, but the cost is an awful lot less. The amount of eq available far exceeds that of the bfd's, but that is probably of no consequence as the BFD's contain more than enough in any case.

In my example above, the cost of the room treatment can be split, get a DEQ and a smaller amount of bass trapping, best of both worlds.

Anyway, I'd go for the DEQ first, quicker, cheaper and easier. Then again I'd make my own bass traps but I think you get my take on this question.


----------



## shaolin95

I got some question about the DEQ:
#1 Since I use my Toshiba HD-DVD A1 hooked up to my Harman Kardon AVR-635 thru the only 6 Channel direct analog input in order to take advantage of the Dolby True HD... by using the DEQ I am gonna lose that unless you have any ideas to solve the issue. Connecting and disconnecting cables seems like the only solution.

#2 What cables and were do I buy them, would I need to go from the DEQ to regular RCA?

#3 More than a question this one is a possible solution to #1. I think I can use digital IN and then digital out from te DEQ in order to still use the direct analog input with the Toshiba right?

#4 Do I really need their mic or can I use something like the mic that came with my Harman Kardon for calibration?

Regards


----------



## terry j

Shaol

I'm afraid that I'm not in the slightest interested or knowedgable regarding HT, hope someone else can help you with the HT type questions. ( I'm not even sure I know what you were talking about ha ha!!)

Q2) as it's pro gear, you should find a gazillion places that sell XLS to RCA cables etc etc. Also from those sort of places, the prices are reasonable, unlike buying interconnects from hi fi stores :heehee: 

Q4) I guess you only need their mic if you were going to 'correct' your speakers. If you are only going to correct the bass a la BFD's and REW, then of course you can use the Radio Shack meter and REW and input the filters manually, and that is the type of thing I covered in my previous thread mentioned.

The other two questions are best answered by someone who knows what they're talking about.

(you'll notice my comments aren't factual, they only cover what I think or reckon! Can't get myself into trouble or lead others astray that way)

lots of love

terry

just re-read your question, is the only prob getting analog into your receiver?? If that's the case, then yes I spose using analog out (which you would anyway if going to an amp?) would overcome that. But if I've misunderstood your question then ignore the last

Also, meant to say that the mic you already have may not be useable, simply because I'm making the assumption that the DEQ would have a generic calibration file for the behringer mic already programmed into it.


----------



## shaolin95

I got your points perfectly. Actually my problem was not so big at all. Since I need to go analog out from the Toshiba HD-dvd in order to use the non compressed Dolby True HD soundtracks I guess all I need to do is go digital from the Toshiba to the DEQ and then go either digital to receiver so the HK handles the decoding or go analog out from the DEQ so that it handles the D to A conversion and just use any normal input on the HK like cd input.
I was just not thinking straight.
Well, since I am gonna end up buying both, room correction and the Parametric EQ and right now its cheaper for me to get the EQ (3 payments instead of one bigger one for acousitc treatment) I think I will try that first.


----------



## DrWho

terry j said:


> I've wondered about that philosophy as well, and here is what I've decided after a little pondering, and for what it's worth.


But the real question is "will it sound just as good?" :dontknow:


----------



## terry j

not sure what you meant Mike, I think room treatment plus eq has got to sound as good as room treatment alone???

Having said that, and maybe Shaol will find something similar, doing the eq as properly as REW allows may lead to a position or situation where the need for treatment, if not eliminated, has certainly been moved down the priority list???

In my own circumstances, there is an awful lot in the way of room treatment that I simply can't do, and that is down to the aesthetics of it in a listed heritage house. The same reasons also preclude me putting in IB's, as much as I would love too, as there is no way I would ever compromise the fabric of the building.

I think going eq first, as it is affordable now, and room treatment later as funds permit is as logical a way as any, and as Chairman Mao would have said, you've at least taken the first step.

Shaol, what would you estimate the cost of proper room treatment to be???


----------



## DrWho

Yikes, I totally misread your post Terry. My apologies.

FWIW, I don't find myself in either camp either - especially in light of the fact that there is never an ideal situation..."It's all about compromise"


----------



## shaolin95

According to the recommendation I got it I will be spending anywhere from $700 to $900! I didnt realize it was that much.... I will have to add them piece by piece so that makes an even better case for the EQ... I can tame the room with the EQ and keep calibrating every time I add a piece of treatment since it should help the room to require less fixing every time.

Where can I get shoe xlr to rca cable (4' long_)
Regards


----------



## DrWho

Any local pro audio store should have XLR to RCA cables in stock. It's probably your cheapest route. Otherwise I would just do a google search for an online cable store.


----------



## terry j

hi guys
after Shaol posted that his room treatment was around 800 dollars, I thought I'd better go back and refresh my memory on what I thought I'd read earlier. NOT to win or make a point, but in case I had inadverdantly misrepresented someone. (I thought 800 dollars sounded quite reasonable!!)

A quick look at Ethans site regarding the optimum number of traps, and he mentions (obviously) the more the better, but then came around to 8 Mondo traps in a small room , 10ft by 16 ft,( which I regard as tiny!) would give excellent results. However, at 299 US / Mondo trap, it is a considerable outlay in my book. From my perspective here in Aus, add currency conversion and freight etc then....ouch. And then again, my music room is about 9m by 6m by 5m, and then per that ratio I'm looking at quite a costly exercise.:raped: 

I have found the eq (using the deqx, but the results down low shouldn't vary) to be sufficiently acceptable that, although I have the f/glass already here, and the intent, the making of the bass traps has been put on the backburner.

The aesthetics of my room has also benefited, although I must admit that I feel I can make the traps quite attractive, and they certainly make a music room look like a music room! All that means is that I will get around to it one day.

So, given that I reckon you need both eq and traps, I reckon you've made the right decision to go eq first shaol, and as you rightly point out, it is quite an easy thing to eq as you go when adding traps to your room.

Keep us up mto date on your progress.

Dr Who, thanks for the link you gave (elsewhere was it?) I found it quite useful and interesting.


----------



## shaolin95

Thanks to you guys for helping me out. I am actually going with GIK acoustics for my room treatments.


----------



## muse77

Shaolin are you able to try different positions for your speakers to tame bass and maybe reduce need for bass traps? I tried moving mine further from the wall and my ears seemed to think it helped. I am starting on my room also and trying to figure it out. I haven't got my computer calibrated yet to take measurements. 


To walk a mile is to take a step at a time.

Bryan


----------



## shaolin95

All possible positions have been tried but I kept the one that gives me better imaging and more "detail" as I know the speakers have great performance so I wont sacrifice soundstage/imaging and overall SQ for bass when its not the speaker's fault. Right now I do fine if I use the HK auto setup/ParametricEQ but I like the DACs on the Toshiba hd-dvd player better but that means that I have to use the direct input on my HK which bypasses the EQ so I need an external one. 
Where I have the speakers right now the issue is not terrible just that I like to get a bit more bass... thats why I think a bit of EQ is all I need but then again, all the positive feedback after room treatments indicate how much of a difference it makes.
I do agree with you in placement, just moving a speaker around can make it sound totally different. I like to use the 6' equilateral triangle for stereo listening.
Regards


----------



## Guest

Check out what dese guy's did with the DEQ 2496

http://www.soundevolution.nl/mm/deq2496.pdf


Ins and outs modded with BurrBrown OPA2134 opamps.
Elna or Blackgates mod.
Panasonic FC 105 degree elco's mod.


----------



## terry j

link not working ????


----------



## shaolin95

Its that a mod....I cant understand a word!


----------



## Guest

They replaced some electronic components for better soundquality, so roomequalization is better.

Ins and outs modded with BurrBrown OPA2134 opamps.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/opa2134.html

Elna or Blackgates mod (Black Gates are out of production, but still in stock)
http://www.ae-europe.nl/condensatoren.htm

Panasonic FC 105 degree elco's mod.
http://www.schuro.de/preisl-pana-fc.htm


----------



## brucek

What does it do to the specs? Is there a new spec table? - in english........

brucek


----------



## Sonnie

Yeah... I'd say those links are pretty much useless here to most of us.


----------



## Guest

Sonnie said:


> Yeah... I'd say those links are pretty much useless here to most of us.


Yea but if someone you know is able to modify it, you can give it a try...
I'll give it a try next month.
Be aware once you modded the DEQ, there is no warrenty anymore. :1eye:


----------



## Sonnie

The point would be that most of us (probably none of us) that don't understand the language, would be willing to do the modification. We don't really know what it does and have no tested specs to compare the differences.


----------



## Guest

Sonnie said:


> The point would be that most of us (probably none of us) that don't understand the language, would be willing to do the modification. We don't really know what it does and have no tested specs to compare the differences.



Sorry about the dutch language, but as you can see, the part numbers of the electronics, you can change them by removing the old ones and solder the new ones on it.

I know it will increase the audioquality of your IR Filter and overall sound of your system.
Will do some tests next month (when i have the time) with the standard DEQ and the modded version.
Also i will try to post the testresults on this forum.


----------



## Ivaols

Have you seen these tests? You should read theme both. I find them interesting in the fullrange eq question.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0101/behringer8024.htm

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0705/behringerultracurve2496.htm


----------



## Guest

Nice reviews.

I have listened to SigTech and TacT systems before, and it is true that once you heard a system over roomcorrection you don't want to go back.

FFT and Stereo Imaging is the way


----------



## Guest

Look at the left of the website (Behringer FBQ/DEQ)

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/

In English


----------



## Guest

And now....... It's time for BEER!!! 

Party on dudes


----------



## Guest

For the "Space Guy's" here is some video footage of resonance + substances.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7253148167375317006

Have fun.


----------



## Phobitos

lalalalo said:


> Look at the left of the website (Behringer FBQ/DEQ)
> 
> http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/
> 
> In English


Hello,

The component quality (DACs, ...) of FBQ is the same of the DEQ? In order to smooth the frecuency response of main speakers with only parametric filters, the DEQ has any advantage in the sound quality obtained?
If both are the same in this aspect, it would be better to take the FBQ since it is supported by REW and it is cheaper.

Thanks a lot for your comments.


----------



## brucek

> The component quality (DACs, ...) of FBQ is the same of the DEQ?


No, the DEQ has better specs, better ADC/DACs.
FBQ dynamic range = 107dB
DEQ dynamic range = 113dB
For use with full range, I would go with the better device......

brucek


----------

