Kal, would I be correct in assuming that the parametric eq only works via subjective input and not via objective evaluation? If thats the case I suspect that true correction could be laborious. |
Well, it has no automatic procedure but you can take a measurement sweep with TacT (or another measurement system) and set the PEQ from that. Not the most convenient system for it.
Kal |
Drubin, I appreciate the correction I was jammed for a word and i got it all wrong.
Just google my friend they are many as Onhwy61 (decidely not an audiophile in my opinion) has given you a nice leg up on some excellent lesser known analog ones you might not find on your own.
Unsound in my post I mentioned that someone new to equalization will be foiled by their own intuition. Your intuition is dragging you the wrong way at every turn, your inclination and posts are just the opposite of what is true. You're 180 degrees out of phase on the subject. :) |
Cinematic, saying that Onhwy61 is "not an audiophile" is uncalled for. I don't know Onhwy61 really at all, but I do know that he IS Definatly an Audiophile. I know this because of reading some of his posts, but mainly from the fact that he is interested in Audio Equipment/Music. After all, isn't that the definition of being an Audiophile???
My point is, let's keep this an honest discussion about equalizers and keep away from personal attacks/namecalling, OK? |
Cinematic_systems, the post you addressed to me, if I understand it correctly, is actually good news indeed. The promise of this technology is very exciting! |
Joeylawn----My comments about Onhwy61 were sincerely complimentary.
:) and I think he knows that.
Unsound;
The Lake Contour/ Quad Mesa nearly sounds identical to the EMM DC2 in the "narrow" setting when used as strictly a DAC. Once you use it to tie in a subwoofer and EQ out the nasty's the EMM is a distant restrictive memory.
Considering its price and incredible palette of controls yes the future is now. |
|
Everyone...My computer has been down for several days. Just two final comments.
1..People who have not listened to the DEQ2496 should not comment on its sonic qualities. The price means nothing. (I forgive you for this sin because I once thought that way too).
2..Noone should put out incorrect comments about features that the DEQ2496 does or doesn't have. (Like delay). For those with no hands on experience, the 22-page DEQ2496 manual can be downloaded from the Behringer web site. (Can I do that for TACT?). |
I believe you can download the Tact manuals. |
Eldartford - welcome back. I agree - don't 'hate' on it until you heard it. |
Eldartford, can the Behringer delay one channel versus the other to compensate for small differences in speaker distances? If so, is the adjustment done automatically as part of the room correction process? What microphone do you recommend for use with the Behringer? Does the Behringer calibrate to the mic or are mic frequency response deviations left uncompensated. Also, what is the bandwidth of the narrowest response peak/dip that can be corrected by the Behringer?
It may sound like I'm anti-Behringer, but that's not really the case. The Behringer represents an outstanding value in terms of features and performance. My point is that there are better units out there for room correction especially if you go beyond bass EQing). In absolute terms the sonic differences between these units is not that great, but in audiophile terminology, the differences are not subtle, huge, shockingly dramatic, unbelievable, jaw dropping and possibly the single greatest advance in audio in the last 30 years. |
.
Onhwy61...
1. The DEQ2496 can delay one channel vs the other. This is very important for pro sound applications where speakers may be hundreds of feet apart. Range is 0 to 300 ms. Resolution is 0.02 ms. It is not automatic. This feature is not particularly useful for home audio since DVD players and Prepros all provide for speaker distance correction.
2. I use the Behringer mic. It comes with a calibration curve that you could insert manually when you initialize the auto EQ process. Frankly that would be a waste of time because the room resonances which the Behringer is removing are much larger than the mic nonlinearities.
3. The RTA is 1/6 oct. The Graphic EQ is 1/3 oct. The parametric EQ bandwidth range is 1/10 to 10 oct. There are 10 parametric filters per channel, plus high and low shelving filters. All these EQ filters can boost or cut.
There are also what I would call "notch filters" that they call "feedback destroyers. These only cut, and there are ten of them. Bandwidth is 1/10 to 1/60 oct. Attenuation is 0 to -60 dB.
There is also dynamic equalization (depends on how loud the music is). This can be used in home audio as a "Loudness" control.
It does some other neat things that I haven't figured out yet, but the above covers the specific questions you posed.
Yes the TACT manuals can be downloaded. Very impressive stuff. Very impressive prices also. |
I brought the Behringer home 3 weeks ago for a trial. The difference is unbelievable. I can't imagine having the money to buy a system that wouldn't benefit from it. Just my opinion. |
I would have to agree with Eldartford and Nuguy. You really have to hear this thing. I bought one just to play around with. I was planning to either return it or sell it. Well, it isn't going anywhere. I can't believe the difference it made in my system.
As far as it having cheap parts and degrading the signal. After having my Sony 900 transformed by Paul at Tube Research Labs, I contacted him about about upgrading my Behringer. I was told, "after working on the Behringer for 2 days, we ended up sending the unit back & the guy's money back, because we just couldn't make it sound any better". I think that says a lot.
Put aside your biases, about the cost or an eq in general, and just give this thing a shot. Unless your room AND your system is perfect, I think you'll be surprised. |
Nuguy...It's not the system being corrected...it's the room (mostly). |
Cinematic/Kal/All - but for digital eq....this is not currently possible with DSD right? any digital eq would require dsd to converted into pcm, no?
Cinematic: earlier u said u eq'd a system with meitner/kharma...can you tell us what u did? |
Kal or anyone: Rives parametric eq...transparent? |
Henryhk...Digital Sound Processing (DSP) which includes EQ is almost universally done using a 32bit floating point processor called SHARC from Analog Devices. Google it. It, and everyone else but Sony, works with PCM.
SACD does not output digital, so you would need to run the analog through a A/D to get PCM digital that you can work with. And (just to give the knife an extra twist) PCM mixing is said to improve the sound of DSD material, in a way that a magnetic tape step is said to improve the sound of digitally recorded masters. |
The Rives is as close to transparent as a line stage except, of course, when you intentionally manipulate the frequency response. ;-)
BTW, I am, at present, running the analog SACD outputs into the A/D of a Meridian Ref861 with room correction and, as I have found before with the Denons using Dlink/Firewire, the value of the RC excedes any minor loss of ultimate transparency.
Kal |
Concerning the Rives, I have playing with one between an Aesthetix Callisto Signature and either CAT JL-3 or Wolcott P220 amps. IC's to/from the Rives are Purist Dominus. With simply using the Bypass switch on the Rives, there is a significant improvement with the unit in the loop. The reduction of the bass peaks brings on a huge clarity especially in the mids. However, when I remove the Rives and the one Purist Dominus IC from the system, there is a substantial increase in dynamic contrasts. I can only imagine the far greater losses with other less resolving ICs. Speakers here are SoundLab A1s.
In the context of a top-notch music based system, the Rives is a tough sell in the final analysis unless you have no other options to resolve the bass peaks with room improvements. In the context of a home-theatre based system, the Rives would be very welcome as it cleans up so much of the mids and the final last bit of loss in dynamics would not be an issue for me. Highly recommended but very system dependent.
John |
Jafox wrote: "With simply using the Bypass switch on the Rives, there is a significant improvement with the unit in the loop. The reduction of the bass peaks brings on a huge clarity especially in the mids. However, when I remove the Rives and the one Purist Dominus IC from the system, there is a substantial increase in dynamic contrasts."
Could there be a correlation between the "reduction of the bass peaks" and the implied loss of dynamic contrast? Just wondering........
Kal |
Presumably he's comparing the Rives in Bypass mode with the Rives out of the system altogether. Or maybe not. |
Well...just a an impression or fear....I love the way Meitner does SACD and concerned that any digital processing requiring conversion into PCM would rob some of the unit's unique merits. Rives as an analogue parametric device is potentially more interesting but if Jafox is to believed then I am not sure either...as always probably will have to experiment.
Also note Zu Cable's Definition speaker and the Pro-version which both have bass parametric equaliztion built in and which is adjustable. If you download the catalogue you can read some interesting things they have to say with room attenuation etc. I am auditioning them this weekend. |
I would not be without an equalizer because I value quality sound reproduction. I do not use it more than half of the time. Got to be honest though, some of the Redbook CD's are unlistenable w/o the equalization. Likewise with some of the vintage vinyl. Even the 200 gram Rolling Stones "Exile On Main Street" benefits from the equalization I have. And that lp is one of the most poorly engineered that I know of. I am a purist, meaning that I seek a natural sound. But the equalization certainly "saves the day" in a good number of instances.
I do not understand why admiting that one uses equalization from time to time makes them a candidate for expulsion by the "bad taste" police. |
Kal, the dynamic contrasts difference was in the mids and trebles, primarily in percussion. It was quite significant.
If the Callisto had a tape loop where I could "enable" the Rives through a tape monitor switch, this would make it more workable (in the context of my system) with music that had much bass energy and thus benefitted from the Rives. But without the tape monitor feature, I have to insert the unit between preamp and amp. This latter connection results in the unit always being in the signal path with all its added connections, bypass switch and the added IC. At this level of system resolution, it all so quickly adds up.
Drubin, my observation of much added midrange clarity was with the Rives hooked up to the system (with the second Purist Dominus cable) toggling the bypass switch. As noted, the unit "active" (not bypassed) was a significant benefit. It was when it was entirely removed from the system (including the second IC) was then the system had more explosive life on the top. If there is one strength of Purist cables, it is their portrayal of dynamics. And the same is true for the CAT amps - I have heard no other amps do it like these. Put these two together and once you get used to this, it is very evident when it is lost.
Both noted changes were significantly for the better, just in different ways. It would be up to the user to decide which was the ideal solution. My dear friend, and long time A'gon contributor, Jadem6, was at my home when we went through all these tribulations, and our conclusions were the same: do all you can to fix your room so as not to require such a unit at all. But until then, enjoy the benefits of the unit if it does not do much harm to the presentation. This will be entirely system and source (type of music or movies) dependent.
And the comments by Sit are right on. So much of my favorite music is unlistenable because the poor recordings sound worse and worse as my system has improved. Quite an unfortunate dichotomy.
John |
Jafox,
"So much of my favorite music is unlistenable because the poor recordings sound worse and worse as my system has improved. Quite an unfortunate dichotomy."
Actually your system is not improving if this is the case. Its been my experience that you may be able detect discern flaws in recordings as your system gets better but recordings should not become "unlistenable". You maybe making your system "brighter" (ie shifting its spectral balance) as you "improve" your system. The reason you have so much more "resolution" is because your system is emphasizing certain bands of frequencies over others.
"was then the system had more explosive life on the top. If there is one strength of Purist cables, it is their portrayal of dynamics."
As usual per audiophile rules of masochism the part you so dearly love is the part that is eliminating your enjoyment of so many of your recordings. Maybe that "explosive" exclusive live hf is alittle too much? Maybe ringing in the amplifier and the slight trimming of bass from the cables. etc.
"Quite an unfortunate dichotomy."
yes it is. |
Cinematic_systems: Your comments are fascinting and may have some validity to other systems, but they do not apply to my previous statements.
You came to some conclusions that I hope to clarify. The preamp here is Aesthetix Callisto and Io.....these are not at all in the bright zone. The DAC is the Manley Ref DAC....this is even more of a warm presentation and a softer top. Speakers are SoundLab A1...bright? I don't think so! Been there done that with Thiels. Amps are Wolcotts and CATs. The Wolcotts are also a warm sounding amp. The CATs have resolution and dynamic contrasts few other amps can even begin to approach. But they are not forward in any sense of the word unless you pair them with any number of components that themselves are bright and non-linear. And Purist Dominus cables bright? Not! Again, that's Nordost and Straightwire.
As a huge fan of rock music from the late 60s to early 80s, there were a handful of bands whose LP recording qualities stood way out from the crowd: Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, Supertramp, Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan .... even the Robert Plant solo LPs. In the grand scheme of things, I would have rated all these a 9-10 out of 10 in recording quality. The vast majority of the rest of the music I liked so much from this time, I would have set the recording quality in the 6-7 range.
As my system has improved, the recordings that got the 9-10 ratings have retained their ratings. But many that I may have given 6's, 7's or 8's before, I would rate a level or two below. Why? Well it has nothing to do with my system becoming more forward and bright.
The higher rated recordings are even more impressive today than I imagined before. In other words, for those great recordings, I can hear even more information, portrayal of space, ambience, etc., then I ever could have imagined before. And on the lesser recordings, they have not improved to the same degree. If a recording was piss-poor from the start, any improvements in the playback system can not do much to resuscitate it from the dead. And that's the point, against the great recordings now, these poor recordings sound dull and lifeless. Again, they have not gotten worse - the others have simply gotten far better.
My reference point has shifted to clearly confirm what I felt before, but now the differences are even greater. LPs from Jethro Tull, Aerosmith, ELP, etc., have more resolution than before but they continue to fail miserably in the dimensionality and soundstage areas. And thus they fall even farther back from the pack than the phenomenol recordings I mentioned. Once we hear the clarity of the percussion, the separation of the musicians, the sound go way behind and to the sides of the speakers, sax and piano notes decay much longer than ever before, etc., on the great recordings, we realize more than ever what is missing on those other recordings.
Throwing an equalizer into the mix can indeed help tonality issues, peaks and valleys, and ultimately allow other things to become more clear that were previously obscured by obsessive peaks elsewhere. But such devices can not bring decays, ambience, harmonic textures, etc., back to the listening experience if they were not there already.
John |
Jafox..I have read that certain specific frequency bands, boosted and/or cut, have the effect of enhancing "decays,ambience, harmonic textures" and (one you forgot) a sense of height. I wonder if the recording engineers who made the LPs that you like manipulated their equalizers (which they surely had on line) so as to satisfy your ear? |
Jafox, you should carefully re-read your next to last paragraph. There's talk of dimensionality, resolution and soundstaging, but absolutely nothing said about musicianship, arrangements or songwriting. It's not your music system, but the value system you bring to listening that is making certain recordings unlistenable. You're doing it to yourself. |
Well thanks Eld. and Onhwy, for catching on to what concerned me. "Unlistenable" is a strong word if ITS your favorite music, that's like having an ulcer and your favorite food is Mexican.
I don't want to go too far into this if it was just a misunderstanding on the semantic level, but I if your truly reducing a significant amount of your recordings to truly "unlistenable" then I'll expand, because my experiences disagree with what you're experiencing if we are on the same semantic level. Your reply seems to actually fit Onhwy's post that your high standards could be at fault in my misunderstanding.
Eldartford also points out a whole other can of worms. |
Onhwy brings up a point which I understand well here. The term "unlistenable" was indeed overly harsh on my point. Yes, it is a matter of semantics and taking things literally. A better way for me to have said this would have been, "less desirable". I listen too all of my music otherwise I pass it on to local used shops to buy other music. Let's face it: what we may have liked so much before is not necessarily what we are "into" today. But clearly, some of my music gets more attention because it does draw me more into the performance.
I remember so vividly one night when I put on a Rush LP I had not listened to for a year or two. There was simply so much more going on in the background with the percussion that I had not heard before in my home with this song which I do not recall the title. I had seen Rush twice in concert and knew Neil Pert's talent. But it was that night that brought this talent to the forefront in my home. It's all about the emotional involvement here and it was right there for me that instant. Up to that time, the sound was just that, sound. Now I had a master percussionist in my room.
As for Eldartford's comment, hopefully the recording engineers did not manipulate the result to compensate for the mass-market of listening devices that severely clip off the top octaves. Obviously many musicians out there take great pride in the sonic quality of their product as their recording quality are excellent time after time and often it's a very different recording engineer and/or studio that made each product. They simply go the extra mile to more accurately simulate the real performance rather than push the guitar to one channel only, the keyboards to entirely the other channel and calling it a day; and all we end up hearing is a severely poor facsimile of the real thing. If this is the case, a Bose Wave radio is all I need to hear my favorite music and there's no need for me to call on the services of professionals like Cinematic_systems to help me place my speakers, deal with room nodes, reflections, etc.
There are many threads on A'gon that discuss the improvements of re-released material simply for the sake of the recording quality. I have to believe this is because the sonic quality indeed plays a part to one's enjoyment of the music.
As for mexican food and ulcers, well this hits home for me. I lived in Tucson for many years and absolutely loved the food. But 15 years later, I love it as much but the heartburn kicks in an hour or so later. Oh the perils of getting old.
John |
