Behringer DEQ2496 - wow

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.

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.

The Behringer is a cheap mic, lacks quality control and isn't "flat" according to the published spec's. As such, any / all of the readings that the unit processes is based on the irregular output of the mic that you're using as a reference source. You want better results, get a better mic. Otherwise, what you are trying to do with an uncalibrated, mass produced mic would be equivalent to trying to build a house using a ruler that you "think" has 12 inches to a foot, but really doesn't. Whether or not it is "close enough" will depend on how far off the calibration really is.

Other than that, these types of devices are NOT "cure-all's". They are strictly a band-aid and that's why i said that they are very handy tools. Nothing more, nothing less. One needs to get the system and room dialed in as best possible BEFORE using this type of "error correction". Using this type of approach, the results are FAR superior to just relying on the "band-aid" approach to try and heal the gaping wounds that most systems / rooms suffer from. What has to be done to the room will depend on the room dimensions, speaker placement, speaker dispersion pattern, seated listening position, etc...

Nothing is free and nothing is perfect. Anybody that tells you that a product is perfect or can solve all your problems obviously has something to sell. Sean
>

I never thought the product is perfect, nor am I willing to completely rearrange my living room for the sake of perfect sound. I've already taken many steps and have acquired some very good equipment, but need to take some steps to cure some tonality issues without rearranging the room.

As far as the mic is concerned, you certainly might be correct. I do happen to have a Shure SM57 which I'll try out, although I believe since this mic is generally used for vocals, might be tilted a bit in the midrange.

Forgot to touch base on this, but the reason that they use pink noise is that it offers simultaneous full spectrum output for time-domain measurements. You can't do that nearly as quickly or effectively when using a frequency sweep. Pink noise is also a far more complex signal, which can cause the speaker & room to respond slightly differently than if it was being excited with a sweeping narrow band signal. Sean
>