# Outboard Parametric EQs for Room Correction



## DreamWarrior (Jan 7, 2010)

I am just trying to feel out my options here, and looking for a good pre-amp without room EQ and acquiring a potentially superior outboard Room EQ solution seems to be an interesting path. I realize it is more expenssive, and in that vein, would be curious how cost effective it is.

I am also curious with regard to the additional D->A and A->D stage performed by most solutions. Are there any good analog PEQ devices that can be used? I have found PEQs that are used for recording studios such as the Massenburg unit (hxxp://www.massenburg.com/c/gml/mod8200) or the Portico unit (hxxp://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5033) but they are expensive. Can they even be used to perform room EQ? I assume they could, so long as they are designed to fit between the pre-amp and power-amp stage.

Obviously there are a slew of 1/3rd octave analog equalizers (Rane, Art, etc) out there as well. I presume that they could be an analog equivalent to something like the Neptune EQ, but lacking the x-over and time adjustment.

So...I suppose my general questions are:

1) Is outboard Room EQ worth it over built in EQ of most pre-pros?
2) Are any of the above analog products able to compete with digital Room EQ?
3) If so; is analog EQ better than, equal to, or worse than digital EQ? In what ways? Such as:
a) Cost? I assume digitial is often cheaper.
b) Control? I assume digitial does often afford more control; time adjustment, etc.
c) SQ? Here's where I'm thinking analog may get the edge...but, maybe that's my "old school" train of though.
d) any other categories?

Thanks guys...just feeling out other people's opinions here.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

There are a tone of variables but a good quality analog Eq will do the job as long as all you want to do is Eq and not play with delays and such. Analog can introduce noise just as much as digital if you use cheap components that said a good quality used 1/3 octave Eq can be had for under $200 Look for studio grade ones or if you can find them the same ones I have, Audio control C131's are supper clean and do a great job. 
Full range Digital Eqs that have optical inputs and outputs get costly in a quick hurry as a matter of fact I would not pay less than $600 for one as the cheap ones just dont work well. The Neptune is a great Eq but as you know, not cheap.
As far as if its worth it thats a decision you need to make. Most new receivers with Audyssey do a great job but in my opinion only the ones with Audyssey MultEQ and above work well on full range and the sub.


----------



## DreamWarrior (Jan 7, 2010)

Thanks, I forgot about Audio Control; should have remembered them from my car audio days. My installer used their RTA tools.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

They make great home/studio audio gear as well highly regarded in the industry.
Other analog Eqs to consider are:
Uri, White audio, Ashley and Yamaha just to name a few.


----------



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

> 1) Is outboard Room EQ worth it over built in EQ of most pre-pros?


Probably so. However, these days AFAIK the best built-in EQ is generally found not in pre-pros, but in many upper-line receivers with digital auto EQ functions. I haven’t tried any of them personally, but I would expect that the ones that allow the user to tweak the auto EQ settings would be the best option, from a functional, cost and SQ perspective.




> 2) Are any of the above analog products able to compete with digital Room EQ?


Hard to say, I doubt many people have actually done one-on-one comparisons, especially the pricy studio models you mentioned.




> 3) If so; is analog EQ better than, equal to, or worse than digital EQ?


There are good and mediocre examples of both kinds.




> a) In what ways? Such as:
> Cost? I assume digitial is often cheaper.


Probably not, if you’re talking about buying new products. Most pro manufactures have discontinued stand-alone digital EQs and have wrapped that function into more flexible “speaker management” processors that include crossover and delay functions, and more. Speaker management processors are usually more expensive than stand-alone equalizers, at least if you’re talking about two-channel use. However, if you’re talking about multi-channel, most processor can do more than two channels, so a processor may be cheaper in the end than a stack of stand-alone equalizers.

Going with used (discontinued) EQs is a different matter. I think most (but not all) discontinued digital EQs are two-channel. Price of both analog and digital EQs will depend on the equalizer; analog EQs tend to sell for roughly half what they cost new (depending on their age and desirability, of course), while digital models sell for maybe 25% or even less what they did new.




> b) Control? I assume digitial does often afford more control; time adjustment, etc.


Yes. Analog EQs don’t have those features.




> c) SQ? Here's where I'm thinking analog may get the edge...but, maybe that's my "old school" train of though.


 As above, there are good and bad examples of both kinds.


Regards,
Wayne


----------



## DreamWarrior (Jan 7, 2010)

So, does anyone know if the "pricey" studio models listed are cable of being inserted between the pre and power amps? I could not tell, it seems they should be able to. Just wondering...I may end up just going with something more flexible like the Neptune EQ or a Dolby Lake processor depending on budget. But, I would like to know what all my options are.

Thanks again for all the insight!


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Yes, any of the studio units will be able to hook up between a receiver/pre-pro and an external amp. The one thing to look for is one that has unballanced and ballanced inputs and outputs. If your pre-pro has XLR outputs then you want to go with Ballanced if your pre-pro/receiver has RCA then unballanced is what you need. Some will have what is known as 1/4" TRS inputs, these usually can be "shorted" to unballanced by using a mono or TS 1/4" connector.


----------

