2. digital
  3. 1111728131

Behringer DEQ2496 - wow

Has anyone forked over the $300 for this unit? I was using a Z-Systems RDQ-1 between my CD transport and preamp, and decided to try the Behringer mainly because it has 10 channels of parametric EQ vs four for the Z-Systems. I cannot tell a difference in sound quality between the Behringer (digital in-out only... the DACS might not be of the highest quality) and the many times more expensive Z-Systems. In fact, the Behringer is much better ergonomically and has many more features than the Z-Systems. It also has an auto EQ mode which I tried, but prefer to trust my own ears. The Behringer does not have the kind of build quality that the Z-Systems has (the Behringer is very light), but it works very well, and am amazed at the number of features it has and how inexpensive it is. By the way I'm using the unit in a very high-end audio system. I'm curious what others have experienced with this unit. It seems like an incredible value to me.
smeyers
racarlson
58 posts
 
Thanks for the additional detail. I also use the Rives disc and RS meter for adjusting my z-Systems, but it is a pain. I may just have to give the Behringer a try.
smeyers OP
181 posts
 
I am now trying a combination of auto-eq and additional adjustment by ear. I'm letting the Behringer auto adjust to a flat tonal curve (which uses the graphic eq), then using the parameteric eq to tailer the tone to taste. This seems to work pretty well. It's very cool to be able to save many different profiles, then recall each one to compare to the next. This is a good way to determine what our preference is.
sean
6,229 posts
 
This kind of device is a phenomenally handy "tool" and can also be used to compensate for very poor recordings. The fact that you can save various EQ curves and select them at the flip of a switch is very handy indeed. Got a disc that sounds "digital" i.e. lean and glaring? No problem. Program in the right "correction curve" and you've got a whole new presentation of that specific material. Next disc sounds thick on the bottom and closed in up top? No problem there either. Modern technology hard at work.

Smeyers: Sometimes it's not a matter of having "great" quality parts so much as how those parts are implimented i.e. circuit design. One can use the finest parts in a poor circuit and / or a circuit that is less than optimally laid out ( impedance problems ) and come out worse than a circuit using lower grade parts with better execution. If you check in another thread, i make mention of folks modifying the Behringer's for better sonics. Most of these are basic mods, but like anything else, one can get as "crazy" as they'd like to in terms of how far they want to take these modifications. Sean
>
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Smeyers...The internal A/D and D/A are fine IMHO. To check this out, set the EQ flat, and then compare the EQ output using Bypass mode of the unit. Of course having the option of digital in and out is nice if it suits your system. But, you might consider if the Behringer A/D and D/A could actually be better than other equipment.

The graphic EQ is 1/3 octave, and this works for me. I actually do have an analog parametric equalizer, 7 bands, for my center channel, (which is an identical set of speaker and subwoofer) so I can do a good comparison. The Behringer does a better job, and there is no comparison of the effort required. The parametric Eq settings in my system are all more than 1/3 octave width.
smeyers OP
181 posts
 
Well, I'm not convinced how well the auto-eq function works. I tried just a few times with and without 'room correction' turned on and off. It just seems to do some wierd stuff in the midrange and treble, leaving the sound somewhat hollow and bright. Maybe the Behringer mic is at fault. I think I would rather have the unit process a sweeping sine wave rather than pink noise, but what do I know. So far I think my ears along with the parametric eq is the best method so far.
More to discover