# DBX 231S - Good for Main EQ?



## bledwhite409 (Jun 17, 2012)

Hi guys, 

first off I wanna thank the people at HTS, REW, Cross Spectrum labs for being such an influence on my life wrt critical listening.

I'm about a day or two out from the cutoff date to return my dbx231s to GC

I was certain that I was gonna go replace it with a DEQ2496, but as I'm reading, it seems that people prefer both analog 31beq and digital eq. 

If someone could sway my decision either way, I do need to act soon. 

Goal: flattest response practical for critical/recreational listening

1. Do i return my dbx 231s (which seems similar to other analog EQs suggested)
2. do I pick up a DEQ 2496 in turn? ( have REW, midi, and soon CS EMM-6 capabilities to take full advantage of programmable eq)
3. do I scrap all of this and buy acoustic treatment (no acoustic treatment as of yet) (huge decay times past 1500ms from 300hz-down. Particularly bad peak at 30hz. Room is less than ideal so it may not be worth investing much in treatment. Plus, at my budget I'd be able to buy ONE basstrap commercially, maybe more coverage if DIY) 

my setup is ghetto so the other goal is to improve this setup as much as possible, without investing enough to justify buying new speakers... ADAM A7X anyone? Moreso to tinker and experiment with tuning what I have

Ted


----------



## bledwhite409 (Jun 17, 2012)

I guess I should specify, I'm working with two mains. They're kenwood JL670. receiver's not even worth mentioning. I'd like to ultimately improve my listening experience as much as possible, but i'm interested in making the mains' frequency response as flat as possible at listening position.


----------



## bledwhite409 (Jun 17, 2012)

haha, last post, I promise...

I've seen the predicted response after filters in REW... it's surprisingly flat to +/-1db. I've tried EQ'ing with my dbx 231s and it's more like +/-2db and I can't seem to get it closer. 

The other note is that i smooth often to 1/3, 1/12. As I stop smoothing what I suspect is comb filtering really just skews all of my response. +/- 20-40db it seems. Just looks like a huge mess.

Also, I understand the philosophy behind not eq'ing past 250, or even the extended 10khz. 

This is my argument for just focusing on acoustic treatment, though an EQ is necessary.

The dbx 231s gave me a huge advantage in tailoring the frequency response of my speakers even just by ear, it was helpful in conjunction with REW as well. 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is... at the end of the day I'd like an EQ period for it's flexibility and control... Man screw this I'm getting the DEQ2496.... Lets see where it takes me. 

I appreciate all feedback still, I guess the ultimate solution to EQ of mains is to just go with reference monitorsbecause they're purpose-built flat(ter?).


----------



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

bledwhite409 said:


> 3. do I scrap all of this and buy acoustic treatment (no acoustic treatment as of yet) (huge decay times past 1500ms from 300hz-down. Particularly bad peak at 30hz. Room is less than ideal so it may not be worth investing much in treatment.





bledwhite409 said:


> Also, I understand the philosophy behind not eq'ing past 250, or even the extended 10khz.
> 
> This is my argument for just focusing on acoustic treatment, though an EQ is necessary.


The so-called “philosophy behind not EQing above 250 Hz” is bogus. The primary function of treatments is to reduce and/or disperse reflections, such as the long decay times you mentioned. That has nothing to do with equalization, and indeed doesn’t preclude equalization. For instance, ever look at the frequency response graphs you see in speaker reviews from magazines like _Home Theater?_ They’re typically quasi-anechoic, generated by a gated measurement that excludes reflections. Yet despite this, precious few speakers display flat response in the upper frequencies (or anywhere else, for that matter). So if the speaker has flawed response to start with, how exactly will room treatments make it better?



> I've seen the predicted response after filters in REW... it's surprisingly flat to +/-1db. I've tried EQ'ing with my dbx 231s and it's more like +/-2db and I can't seem to get it closer.


That’s probably the best you can hope for in even the best circumstances. BTW, parametric equalizers are far superior to 1/3-octave models at taming response, but even those probably won’t get you better than +/- 2 dB

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## bledwhite409 (Jun 17, 2012)

Thank you, Wayne.

I ended up picking up a pair of ADAM A3X's instead today. Went in to return the EQ, walk out with new speakers. I am really confused 

Why, Guitar Center, do you take all of my money?


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> The so-called “philosophy behind not EQing above 250 Hz” is bogus.


The rebel in me admires someone who is not afraid to speak out against the wisdom of the "experts." I happen to agree with Wayne P. on this, I will EQ anything that produces sound, and at any frequency. I am just not nearly as brave about saying it is he is.



> I ended up picking up a pair of ADAM A3X's instead today. Went in to return the EQ, walk out with new speakers. I am really confused
> 
> Why, Guitar Center, do you take all of my money?


Just think of us all as players in some strange game for which the rules are a secret, and the technology as our toys in the game. Confusion means you are still playing.:dizzy:


----------

