# Can BFD be used on recording studio monitors?



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

Everything I have been reading refers to the BFD being used for subs and subs only? Can they be used in a recording studio setup to achieve a flatter response at the mixing position? I hope so because I just ordered 2 of them and installed REW. I also wanted to add that I already have extensive broadband treatment in the room. It is a small room 10X12 and I am trying to obtain a super flat response along the quality to master in.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Can they be used in a recording studio setup to achieve a flatter response at the mixing position?


It's not really advisable. The quality simply isn't there for full range use.

brucek


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

Oh no. Well I suppose I just wasted some money then..? So what is advisable, in addition to room treatment which I already have too much of in my opinion? What about IK Multimedia's new ARC system?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

I have no experience with the ARC system, but it is targetted toward mixing and recording applications for a home studio, and is quite a bit more expensive. So, I suspect it would be better.

The FBQ 2496 has better specs than the BFD 1124P. I would be much more inclined to test the FBQ out full range and see how you liked it. You simply wouldn't be pleased with the 1124P.

brucek


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

The reason I ask about the ARC system is because I actually purchased it and I am not impressed at all. I have a pair of Dynaudio BM15A's and Adam P12 speakers and when I used the ARC system it completely killed the low end in my room. I noticed after experimenting that it does not like it when the speaker port holes are in the front as where they are with the BM15A's. I stuck a sock in the BM15A's port holes and re-ran the tests and the bass response got better. I simply can't rely on the ARC system. I will be surprised if the FBQ2496 wouldn't do a better job. I was using DBX EQ's 1/3 band octave to smooth out the response a little and they seemed to work fairly well, I am just trying to step that up. The frequency range I am targeting is only between 40-500hz.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> I stuck a sock in the BM15A's port holes


I suppose if you're doing near field correction (with the mic at the near field) the port location would be very important. I know as an example, it's difficult to do any sort of near field tests with a ported sub since the driver takes care of the higher LF's and the port outputs the low LF's - so, location of the mic is everything. I suspect the ARC gets overwhelmed with the front ports of your monitors and so dials down the low end.



> I was using DBX EQ's 1/3 band octave to smooth out the response a little and they seemed to work fairly well,


The FBQ specs aren't too bad and certainly REW will measure correctly for you if you have a calibrated mic. The upper frequencies in the 40Hz-500Hz range can certainly benefit from low Q filters from an FBQ (much like a graphic eq would provide). Also the FBQ can correct any modal resonance in that 40Hz-100Hz region.

You can certainly give the BFD's a try, but I think you'll find the poor crosstalk (-76dB) and noise (94dB) not to your liking (especially nearfield).

brucek


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

I am an idiot when it comes to 'crosstalk' and 'noise' generated from the FBQ so can you put it in terms for an idiot? Do you think I am better off sticking with my DBX 31 band 1/3 band EQ? The reason I was looking to switch was because I can't dial in the specific frequencies I need to tame. Also what is your opinion on boosting a dip in the 70-80hz range?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> The reason I was looking to switch was because I can't dial in the specific frequencies I need to tame.


Well exactly. That's why a GEQ is not suitable. You need a parametric equalizer like the FBQ. It allows full control of all parameters - gain, frequency and bandwidth.



> when it comes to 'crosstalk' and 'noise' generated from the FBQ


If we trust the specs given for the FBQ and the BFD, the FBQ would be considered quite reasonable for a small studio and the BFD would not. The noise floor will not be objectionable and the crosstalk would be insignificant with an FBQ.



> Also what is your opinion on boosting a dip in the 70-80hz range?


I'm not a fan of boosting, but a small amount is fine as long as the dip appears to respond. There are dips that are caused by modal resonance in a room that you could throw as much gain as you like at and they won't budge. It's easy with REW to test and tweak and find out.....

brucek


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

So you are saying I should be fine with the FBQ but not the BFD? I believe the dip does respond as it does not appear to be an infinite null. How many decibel are you comfortable with when it comes to boosting? How many decibel when it comes to cutting? Also at what smoothing level in REW should I be working with the FBQ to smooth out my room response? Thanks for all the help by the way!


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> How many decibel are you comfortable with when it comes to boosting?


That's up for debate. I wouldn't go much past about +5dB. Any gain filters require that the input level is decreased. This adds noise and decreases the number of bits available in the ADC. It's up to you how much you're willing to lose.
Cut as much as you like, but of course, this lower the output level of the FBQ at that frequency. Sometimes you can cut so much and so wide that you're left with nothing...



> Also at what smoothing level in REW should I be working with the FBQ to smooth out my room response?


This doesn't really make sense. Smoothing is applied to REW graphs to get a better representative feel for trends of the signal. At higher frequencies, the combing is so bad you can't even see the signal, so you use smoothing. Smoothing is never applied to low frequencies (15-100Hz), and especially never applied before filters are created in REW as they won't match the modal response of the peaks properly.

brucek


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

thanks very much for all the advice. i am sure i will be posting more as soon as my FBQ's arrive and I start playing with them.


----------



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

I suggest using analog parametrics instead of the Behringers. Assuming your monitors are powered with balanced analog inputs, do you really want another AD/DA conversion in your signal chain? 

On top of that - the FBQ2496 may have better specs than the BFD, but is has extremely limited bandwidth settings compared to the BFD (the BFD has three times as many between ~1/7 - 1/3-octave, for instance). Methinks it kinda defeats the benefits of parametric equalizing if you can’t dial in the exact bandwidth you need.

A Member here with a rather high-end system recently related his good experiences with the Rane PE-17 parametrics. They’ll set you back quite a bit more than the Behringers, but you can find them pretty easily on eBay if you are on a budget.

You might want to post a question on the Tape-Op Message Board and get some feedback (no pun intended) from other pros and amateurs in the recording business, on the Behringers, Rane and other gear for EQing your studio.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## alw4416 (Mar 3, 2007)

You people are really bursting my bubble here. I got all excited that they would be my answer since my DBX's couldn't quite hone in on the freq's I needed so I went ahead and ordered two from Ebay. Then I read where Ethan Winer said you might as well use the FBQ with the REQ, as opposed to the Audssey system, which I already sorta have in the IK ARC system I just bought that seems to SUCK... So I don't understand what you mean by a limited Q with the FBQ. I thought it could be dialed in to exactly what you need with REQ..? I was a little concerned about another AD/DA but let's be honest, will I or anyone else really hear it? I don't know what to do now..??? All I know is I need to do something ASAP. I can't afford the RANE's they are WAYYYY over priced for what you get. Besides I already have almost that much in the DBX 1231's I already have. I should have never even posted on here. :surrender:


----------



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

d


alw4416 said:


> You people are really bursting my bubble here.


We aim to please – hee hee!



> So I don't understand what you mean by a limited Q with the FBQ. I thought it could be dialed in to exactly what you need with REQ..?


It’s the FBQ with the limitation, not REW. Since you’ve already downloaded it, you can see for yourself. Select “FBQ2496” under the “Equalizer” tab at the top left of the screen. _Keep in mind that REW has been programmed to work specifically with the brands and models listed._ Then open the Equalizer panel (“EQ Filters” graphic top center of the screen) and activate a filter by selecting “PEQ” under the “Type” column. You can see that there are only four bandwidth settings available between .333 BW/Oct (i.e., 1/3-octave) and 0.167 BW/Oct (~1/6-octave, which is probably as narrow as you would want a response-smoothing filter to be).



> I was a little concerned about another AD/DA but let's be honest, will I or anyone else really hear it?


That’s something you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’ve certainly heard of people using Behringer’s digital EQs who had no problem with them, but I don’t know how finely attuned their hearing is.



> I can't afford the RANE's they are WAYYYY over priced for what you get.


“For what you get?” The Shack Member than I mentioned observed that the Rane added no audible noise or coloration to his rather nice system (i.e., no coloration before applying a filter). Can’t get much better than that from an equalizer. They typically sell used for under $150 on eBay. That’s about $300 for a pair of them – not a bad price for good-quality equalization.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> It’s the FBQ with the limitation, not REW


But don't you feel the limitation of bandwidth selection is suited to full range? 

For the narrower bandwidth selections from 1/60th to 10/60th, the FBQis identical to the BFD. Then it starts to jump from 12/60th, 15/60th, 20/60th. Then it jumps further as you move up the scale, so for higher frequencies (when you should never be using high Q filters), the FBQ doesn't allow it (like the BFD does). 

We see so many people tring to use super narrow filters at 300Hz for example, and it's not a good idea. The FBQ limits this error, but allows the high resolution bandwidths at lower frequencies where you need it?

I don't own an FBQ, so I have no experience....

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with Wayne on the analog Rane and also on the extra D/A conversion.... 

brucek


----------



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

brucek said:


> But don't you feel the limitation of bandwidth selection is suited to full range?
> 
> For the narrower bandwidth selections from 1/60th to 10/60th, the FBQis identical to the BFD. Then it starts to jump from 12/60th, 15/60th, 20/60th. Then it jumps further as you move up the scale, so for higher frequencies (when you should never be using high Q filters), the FBQ doesn't allow it (like the BFD does).
> 
> ...


I don’t have one either.  It’s just something I noticed when I was trying to compare the two Behringers’ capabilities to the Yamaha digital parametric I recently acquired.

That said, I’m not sure I get what you’re asking. As far as I can see with REW’s FBQ2496 filter panel, you can set a bandwidth all the way down to .017-octave at _any_ frequency (what’s that, less than 1/20? Behringer and their bizarre bandwidth designations – grrr...). Even the upper frequencies. I don’t see where the FBQ is limiting the option of bandwidth settings for higher frequencies, unless I’m missing something (high probability  . I’m sitting here right now looking at a 0.017 bandwidth filter set at 2000 Hz and cut 7 dB, and REW isn’t blocking it. :huh:

Come to think of it, that would really make no sense from a pro-audio perspective, limiting bandwidth at higher frequencies, especially for an equalizer whose stated purpose is addressing feedback, which requires super-tight notch filters, and especially since most feedback is in the higher frequencies from ~400 Hz – 8 kHz. 

My “beef” with the FBQ for our purposes is that in the bandwidth range where you’re most likely to set a subwoofer filter - ~1/8 to 1/3-octave – it has limited options. For instance, if your goal is modal filtering, getting the proper bandwidth is critical, right? (As I understand it.) Even in my case, favoring less-precise smoothing filters, I would for sure want more flexibility in the allowable bandwidth settings than the FBQ offers! Where it allows for only five settings between ~1/7 and 1/3-octave, the BFD has 14 increments between ~1/8 and 1/3 octave – much better precision.

Even with wider bandwidths, which you would typically use above the subwoofer range, the FBQ is nothing to write home about. For instance, between 1/3 and 1-octave, the FBQ only has only four increments, while the BFD has 40!

Bottom line, the FBQ may have better specs, but overall it’s a much less precise example of a parametric EQ. At least for our purposes.

Did I adequately address your concerns, or make things even more confusing? 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Even with wider bandwidths, which you would typically use above the subwoofer range, the FBQ is nothing to write home about. For instance, between 1/3 and 1-octave, the FBQ only has only four increments, while the BFD has 40!


I re-read my post and see where I don't get my point across very well. I don't mean to say that all bandwidths aren't available at all frequencies, but that when you really only need to make course movements at higher frequencies, the FBQ takes care of that. With a BFD, if I want to set a wide filter at 1000Hz for example, it's a waste of time and downright goofy to offer me 40 increments between 1/3 and and an octave (as you stated above). The FBQ knows this and gives proper course jumps. :huh:

brucek


----------



## Spridle (Sep 5, 2007)

I use two RANE PE17s that I found used online for about $170ea. I have 3 bands is use on my mains at about 63Hz (room mode) and small medium Q bumps at 1.3kHz, and 3.3 kHz. I tested them every way I could think of and they don't audibly add or subtract anything (noise, coloration, distortion, dynamics, etc) from the signal. The specs are supposedly better than the capabilities of digital studio recording equipment. I'm pleased with them, especially for the price/performance.

I use Velodyne SMS-1 EQ on my subs.


----------



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

Spridle, you're the member I was talking about above. 



brucek said:


> I re-read my post and see where I don't get my point across very well. I don't mean to say that all bandwidths aren't available at all frequencies, but that when you really only need to make course movements at higher frequencies, the FBQ takes care of that. With a BFD, if I want to set a wide filter at 1000Hz for example, it's a waste of time and downright goofy to offer me 40 increments between 1/3 and and an octave (as you stated above). The FBQ knows this and gives proper course jumps. :huh:


Okay, now I get it. 

True, with full range you are generally making broader adjustments than with a sub. But even if you’re using wider filters, you still want them to be centered in the right place, with the bandwidth adjusted to cover only the discrepancy while minimizing “overflow” to frequencies that don’t need adjustment, as you get with something like a 1/3-octave EQ. That’s the beauty of parametric equalizing – surgical precision. You don’t get that with an equalizer that offers only coarse adjustments. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> You don’t get that with an equalizer that offers only coarse adjustments.


Yeah, agreed. I guess the FBQ could have easily been supplied with a somewhat finer set of adjustments. It's only software.......

brucek


----------

