Digital EQ with Behringer 2496 - any thoughts?

[wizons]

A few people on the Wam use the Benringer DEQ 2496 and I'd be interested to hear their thoughts. I understand that in terms of home hifi the Behringer is best inserted between the source and DAC, rather than being used as a DAC. In terms of applying EQ I suppose the obvious frequencies to tame are those in the bass and I would imagine it's better to reduce peaks rather than apply gain to troughs. Presumably the latter could well stress speakers and perhaps push an amp too hard.

Has anyone tried these techniques with good results? It's worth a go, given the eminently reasonable price of the device.

 

[speedysteve]

Perhaps it depends on your system and your SQ expectations...

IMO it is difficult to get the gain structure between input and output so that it works well in hifi. You can try using attenuators (these sound bad in any system when I've tried them), you can modify the output stage in various forms, from bypassing the PA on steroid output stages with caps to what Mr Coco did with a transformers and linked up passive volume controls.

These things improved the SQ but at what cost and complexity? Plus as a couple of us have found its all pretty much slaughtered by other cost effective options open to the DIY'er.

The best SQ comes from using the 2496's Digital input, again as Mr Coco found out. The ADC brings its own low-fi aspects, and again I understand that some offer mods to try to fix this.

Its all a bit of a shame for hifi'ers as the functionality and ease of use of the unit great. If only the SQ was nearer the required mark...

As you can tell, I am not a great fan of the 2496 and I have two of the damn things! Not in use I must add.

The passive X/O solution I had was miles better, the current DSP X/O solution better still.

As they are cheap, yes, take a punt and try. That's what I did.

Yes, wisdom does say cut the peaks, don't boost the troughs. The DSP I apply to the Tapped horn subs is more effective and tailored than extra boxes like Antimode can achieve, and of course the X/O and time alignment benefits are there too.

So, that's my tuppence.

 

[i_should_coco]

He means the DEQ rather than the DCX. The DEQ is an equaliser rather than a crossover and I believe can be used solely in the digital domain, so the crappy analogue circuitry won't be an issue.

 

[RobHolt]

Works well either inserted into a tape loop, between source and pre amp or acting as the main system dac.

Dont get carried away with EQ - I'd say stay within +/- 6dB limits and preferably 3dB limits.

Remember to reduce the gain if using EQ to boost or you'll run into clipping. You can do this in the DEQ menu using the gain offset function.

The ADC section on the stock unit is technically adequate for decent sound rather than great.

 

[wizons]

He means the DEQ rather than the DCX. The DEQ is an equaliser rather than a crossover and I believe can be used solely in the digital domain, so the crappy analogue circuitry won't be an issue.

Err, yep, that's right. There's no intention of messing about with attenuators and caps etc, just a DEQ 2496. The idea is NOT to use its DAC, but take a digital signal, using toslink, to a separate DAC.

 

[RobHolt]

That'll work just fine.

 

[SergeAuckland]

I use the DEQ to equalise my 'speakers to give a flat anechoic on-axis response. I use the analogue inputs and come out digital into the DCX. I've compared the analogue to the digital input, and I'm not aware of any difference, so as it's more convenient for me to use the analogue inputs, that's what I do.

S

 

[speedysteve]

DEQ dooh, I'll shut up then

Sent from my RM-914_eu_euro1_327 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I used one for a couple of years.

I'm going to say...depends.

In my old flat, the room acoustics were pretty naff and it did a great job of assisting with reducing bass peaks, making music a LOT more enjoyable to listen to.

However, in my present house, the room acoustics are substantially better, and I found having the DEQ in circuit to be more detrimental than beneficial.

So, you have a lousy room, use one.

For reference, mine was used between my CD transport/Streamer and DAC, going purely within the digital domain, so I expected it to be pretty transparent. It wasn't.

In use, I tried the "auto" calibration, and ended up using manually applied and far more subtle changes.

 

[JANDL100]

I like 'em.

Used as a digital eq device it's excellent - and the onboard DAC is not too bad. Going the whole ADC- eq-DAC route tends to lose out on sq though.

It can be a bit daunting to use at first - I know some folks give up without making any sense of it.

As an (extreme) example, my old Dali open baffle Skyline 1000 ribbon hybrid speakers had an in-room 15dB peak in the bass :shock: - the DEQ2496 sorted that nicely. :^

Can be unreliable - I've had one fail on me, but at the price --- Go for it.

 

[wizons]

I like 'em.Used as a digital eq device it's excellent - and the onboard DAC is not too bad. Going the whole ADC- eq-DAC route tends to lose out on sq though.

It can be a bit daunting to use at first - I know some folks give up without making any sense of it.

As an (extreme) example, my old Dali open baffle Skyline 1000 ribbon hybrid speakers had an in-room 15dB peak in the bass :shock: - the DEQ2496 sorted that nicely. :^

Can be unreliable - I've had one fail on me, but at the price --- Go for it.

Exactly. At the price it's worth a go. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2496 isn't entirely transparent, even if used between the source and the DAC (rather than as a DAC). But hopefully it's a case of one step back and two steps forward. It's remarkable how little consideration people give to room acoustics, and I presume that taming any significant peaks in the bass will add to overall sound quality more than enough to compensate for the loss of some transparency.