# BFD for Full Range EQ?



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

I'm reading through here to get some tips and ideas on how to possibly integrate the BFD into my budget HT setup...and most of the descriptions and guides here seem biased to bass management. 

Is there a reason why people wouldn't be using the BFD for full spectrum EQ?

I ask, because I have some broad band dips in the seating position that I haven't been able to resolve with speaker placement (I can't move them too much), and I happen to be looking at tweaking the sub a little bit anyways. 

My old Yammaha receiver happens to have an EQ/Procesor loop, so I could loop the BFD in there. But I'm not sure if that's the best way to do full range EQ with a sub.

Thoughts? :1eye:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Some people have complained that the BFD added undesirable artifacts, but it can't hurt to try. One thing I did notice when connected it to my system once was that it adds some background noise with the back panel switches in the +4 position. That might not be audible with regular level settings, however.

Overall, if you have a decent system I don't think I'd be inclined to add a $99 equalizer to it. It's probably worthwile to move up to the FBQ2496 for full-range use, or get some good-quality analog models.

Also, regarding the broad dips you mentioned, I hope they aren't too deep. Typically you don't want aggressive equalizing on the main channels. A full-range REW graph would show if you're a candidate for equalizing.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Some people have complained that the BFD added undesirable artifacts, but it can't hurt to try. One thing I did notice when connected it to my system once was that it adds some background noise with the back panel switches in the +4 position. That might not be audible with regular level settings, however.
> 
> Overall, if you have a decent system I don't think I'd be inclined to add a $99 equalizer to it. It's probably worthwile to move up to the FBQ2496 for full-range use, or get some good-quality analog models.
> 
> ...


Thanks again for your help, Wayne. While old, it *is* a $1500 receiver (back in the day). So I do get your point about dropping a $99 EQ in the path. 

Now that you mention it, I probably have some old 31 band EQ units left over from my home studio days. Maybe I'll pop one of those in the loop and see what happens. 

Here is the only full range graph I have right now.













I'm still learning REW and not sure if I'm getting the most out of it yet. I did some sub tests tonight with 3 very large bass traps, only to see *very* slight change in the graph...so I'm not sure if it's user error, or maybe I was expecting too much from these three absorbers.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

> I'm still learning REW and not sure if I'm getting the most out of it yet. I did some sub tests tonight with 3 very large bass traps, only to see *very* slight change in the graph...so I'm not sure if it's user error, or maybe I was expecting too much from these three absorbers.


One of the functions of bass traps is to reduce low frequency ringing (aka extended signal decay times). You might notice a "before and after" difference using REW's waterfall graph feature.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> One of the functions of bass traps is to reduce low frequency ringing (aka extended signal decay times). You might notice a "before and after" difference using REW's waterfall graph feature.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Ahh, I've not gotten that far with REW. I need to figure out how to use the Waterfall Graph portion. Because I do hear a slight difference in the bass, just not as much as it was with a (much) smaller, rectangle shaped room.

I might even move all 400lbs of absorbers and retest if need be. But I saved all my results so I don't think that's necessary unless I did the measurements wrong.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

> Ahh, I've not gotten that far with REW. I need to figure out how to use the Waterfall Graph portion.


Nothing to it.  Just click the "Waterfall" tab at the top of the REW graph after you've made your measurement. When the window opens, click the "Generate Waterfall" icon. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Be sure to use the standard Vertical graph axis of (45dB - 105dB) and the Horizontal graph axis of (15Hz - 200Hz) using the Graph Limits button in the top right corner of REW.

Also be sure to use LOG mode rather than LIN mode using the Freq Axis button in the top right corner of REW.


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

brucek said:


> Be sure to use the standard Vertical graph axis of (45dB - 105dB) and the Horizontal graph axis of (15Hz - 200Hz) using the Graph Limits button in the top right corner of REW.
> 
> Also be sure to use LOG mode rather than LIN mode using the Freq Axis button in the top right corner of REW.


Thanks. That was part of what I wasn't sure of. 

Hopefully you guys can help me read it then, as I'm not sure what I'm looking at. 

I'll upload the graphs later tonight.


----------



## bfrank1972 (Aug 15, 2008)

Just curious - what sort of artifacts (other than general noise) were people complaining about? 

I have a DEQ2496 for my two mains and the BFD for the sub - I was thinking about using the 2nd un-used chanel for my center. I thought it might be worth a shot for HT as my center vocal response seems to be a bit lumpy and might not be so sensitive to any artifacts introduced by the BFD. Thoughts?


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

I like the idea of having some EQ for the center. Thanks for helping me spend more money! LOL


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

bfrank1972 said:


> Just curious - what sort of artifacts (other than general noise) were people complaining about?
> 
> I have a DEQ2496 for my two mains and the BFD for the sub - I was thinking about using the 2nd un-used chanel for my center. I thought it might be worth a shot for HT as my center vocal response seems to be a bit lumpy and might not be so sensitive to any artifacts introduced by the BFD. Thoughts?


Since you already have everything set-up, it should be pretty easy to try. Make sure you compare the sound of the non-hooked up versus bypassed and filtered. One test that Wayne told me about was to, first turn your system all the way up with no source material. Get close to the center channel and listen. Then hook things up and repeat the test. More than likely, the Behringer will introduce and audible difference or more noise. Here is Wayne's post with some recommended tests:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/rew-forum/6691-my-first-rew-please-chime.html#post54725


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

Lonely Raven said:


> I like the idea of having some EQ for the center. Thanks for helping me spend more money! LOL


Here is the eq Wayne has been suggesting to many people (myself included):

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA...00%26VNM%3DLIVE%26AFLG%3DY%26LGFL%3DN,00.html

It is a great unit and I have had good success with adding this very unit to L/R mains. I currently purchased a second one for my center and to replace the 1124P for my subs. I am trying a different type of digital eq for the rears to help Wayne broaden the recommendations for available eq's that will perform this duty well. Otherwise I would be adding a third for my rear channel speakers.

If you want to know a couple of sources for these at a good price, let me know.


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

weverb said:


> Here is the eq Wayne has been suggesting to many people (myself included):
> 
> http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA...00%26VNM%3DLIVE%26AFLG%3DY%26LGFL%3DN,00.html
> 
> ...


Where are you finding these for sale. I can find reviews and manuals everywhere, but not coming up with any for sale. Is it a discontinued unit?


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

Lonely Raven said:


> Where are you finding these for sale. I can find reviews and manuals everywhere, but not coming up with any for sale. Is it a discontinued unit?


Yes, it is discontinued. I can let you know my two sources, but you have to promise to leave me one! :bigsmile:


----------



## Lonely Raven (Aug 27, 2008)

weverb said:


> Yes, it is discontinued. I can let you know my two sources, but you have to promise to leave me one! :bigsmile:



PM me please. I'm not sure I can afford it till I sell some other gear, but it sounds like what I'm looking for!


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> I currently purchased a second one for my center and to replace the 1124P for my subs


What is different about the Yamaha that is better than the DSP1124P or FBQ2496?

brucek


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

brucek said:


> What is different about the Yamaha that is better than the DSP1124P or FBQ2496?
> 
> brucek


It is quieter than the 1124P and you can set-up high and low pass filters. Plus you can do shelving filters. I am not sure about the FBQ. I think the YDP is about the same price as the FBQ.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

brucek said:


> What is different about the Yamaha that is better than the DSP1124P or FBQ2496?
> 
> brucek


What weverb said (although I can't really comment about the FBQ, since I've never used it). 

The Yamaha YDP2006 is dead silent in -10 mode, even with the volume turned all the way up (w/ no signal present) and your ear pressed to the speaker. There is a smidge of background noise in +4 mode, but even then it's noticibly quieter than the DSP1124 is in -10 mode (which leads me to believe the BFD's noise spec is bogus). You pretty much have to put your ear right up to the speaker to hear it.

The YDP's sonics are pristine as far as I can tell in my system (which admittedly doesn't hold a candle to yours  ), even better than the excellent AudioControl 1/3-octave EQs I've beeen using for a number of years. So the YDP is totally suitable for full range use, IMO.

In addition to the shelving filters (both high and low) and high and low pass filters that weverb mentioned, which can be useful in many situations, the YDP has an analog input level control, 40 memories, separate digital delay for left and right outputs that can be set in fraction-of-an-inch increments, and a digital attenuator that can help prevent internal clipping if boosted filters are used.

Probably my favorite features are the intuitive analog-style controls and functions, such as digital "knobs" for bandwidth, gain and frequency settings, and easy-access on/off switches for each filter. A display screen allows you to instantly see your filter settings without all the button-pushing and wheel-turning that's required to do that with the BFD. And of course, being black faced it gets high marks in the "not gaudy" department. 

The Yamaha does have a few downsides compared to the DSP1124: It has only 6 parametric filters per channel instead of 12 (although it can be set for mono 12-filter operation), and the inputs are XLR-only. The YDP's parametric center-frequency stops are in 1/24-octave increments instead of the BFD's 1/60-octave, which means the latter can acheive more precise settings; as such the Yamaha may not be the best choice for fans of modal subwoofer equalizing. The Yamaha is much larger and much heavier than the BFD and costs more, even used (although I think anyone who tries it will in short order agree that it's dirt cheap for the features, build-quality and [main-channels] sonics you get). While the YDP's LEDs have muted intensity compared to the BFD (a common complaint), the largish green display screen may be even more distracting for people who locate their gear up at the front of the room with their TV.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Sounds like a nice unit....


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

I also tested today, it does not do the "thump" when powered on or off like the 1124P.


----------

