Behringer DEQ2496 - wow

Smeyers: The Behringer acted as if the system was lacking bass and treble due to the SM-57's lack of extension and corrected accordingly i.e. increased the lows and highs. As such, i would "assume" that the Behringer is taking things in stride in a relatively linear fashion.

This is why i said that the "flatter" the mic is, the more accurate the correction factor will be and vice-versa. That's because the Behringer will correct for the non-linear frequency response that the mic itself introduces into the equation, not what the system / room interface is actually doing.

Compare the results of the SM-81 to that of the SM-57. Now look at the response curve of the ECM8000. You'll have to go to the Behringer website and then click on "spec sheet, PDF 145 kb" to see it though as i can't do a direct link.

As a side note, the response curve Behringer has posted seems to be slightly different from the curve i saw about two years ago or so. As such, they might have changed the mic, changed the spec sheet or both. If the Behrigner ECM8000 actually tests out as this chart shows, and the mics are consistent from mic to mic, it is a tremendous bargain. This is true even if the cost of the mic went up 25% in the last year or so.

One more thing. The ECM8000 is an omni mic. In other words, it picks up relatively evenly in all directions around it. While this may be beneficial in some instances, i don't think that it is here. The Shure SM-81 that i mentioned above is not an omni, but uses a cardiod pattern. That means that it is more sensitive to sounds coming from directly in front of it and off to the sides, but response falls off as you get further behind it. This is somewhat how our hearing works too as our ears act as horns facing slightly forward. Obviously, some folks have larger / smaller ears and some are more stream-lined clinging to the sides of their heads whereas others are more "focused", sticking out and facing more towards their front. This will affect what we hear as individuals and is part of why a machine can only correct for each of our own hearing attributes to a percentage.

Like i said, these devices are great tools, but you've got to learn how to use them. They aren't perfect and you have to be able to interpret the data that they provide and tweak it accordingly to the given installation. Sean
>

Danner: I hear ya and understand where you're coming from. The problem is that they can skew the response of the device to compensate for the mic's response, but who's to say that all the cheap mass produced mic's will have the same non-linearities / frequency response abberations to them? As such, if you can find a mic that looks similar to the factory supplied mic in terms of response, but would be more consistent from unit to unit, you'll probably get results that are even more accurate.

Other than that, i've tried contacting Behringer to verify if the circuitry was built for "max linearity" of it has a non-linearity built into it to compensate for the mic that they sell. No response from them on several different attempts.

For the record, i've used a Shure SM-81 with great results. Then again, this mic cost more than any of the Behringer components themselves. In this case though, you get what you pay for. Sean
>

As a side note. If i were to use it between my CDP and DAC, digital in and out only, bypassing ADC and DAC, I would need two digital cables, one is RCA- XLR and the other XLR-RCA? It only has XLR in and out as far as I can see from the pictures. Please, correct me , if I'm wrong

Maril555...A XLR connector can be used for a single ended (unbalanced) signal. My DEQ2496 are single ended in. The unit detects whether the input and/or output is balanced or unbalanced, and adjusts gain to compensate.

Sean...The graph that comes with the Behringer ECM800 mic (which BTW is omnidirectional) looks "flat" to me, although it obviously wasn't drawn with a ruler. There is no broad band of boost or cut that would affect overall sound, and the small deviations that are shown are tiny compared with the frequency aberations (room effects) which the unit is measuring and correcting. Furthermore, these deviations are similar to those of the Shure mics, away from the high and low frequency ranges where the Shure mics are (deliberately) very nonlinear.

Of course it would be nice to design the living room for acoustic properties, but I agee with Smeyers that this is not going to happen. Even Rives audio, of room treatment fame, says that it doesn't work for low frequency problems, where active equalization is needed.

Smeyers...Regardless of what Sean says, the Behringer mic is a calibrated instrumentation mic. If your ears give different results, perhaps you ought to get your ears calibrated. I have just been through the process of having my wife's ears tested and hearing aids "installed". What you are doing with equalization and your audio system is very similar to what the audioligist did when she set up the algorithms in the hearing aids.

I had the Behringer 2496 and the mic in my system for a couple of months. In the end, I found it seriously lacking in transparency and it had a high noise floor. The build quality is just not there, the DACs are cheap, and the PC-based user interface needs work.

The EQ functions are impressive, but the side effects were worse than an unequlaized system. The auto-EQ function didn't work well in my system, but I suspect that the bi-polar radiation pattern of my ribbon speakers caused problems with their algorithms.

The DBX DriveRack EQ products sound much, much better, as about 3 times the price...