[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

brucek wrote:

But don't you feel the limitation of bandwidth selection is suited to full range?

For the narrower bandwidth selections from 1/60th to 10/60th, the FBQis identical to the BFD. Then it starts to jump from 12/60th, 15/60th, 20/60th. Then it jumps further as you move up the scale, so for higher frequencies (when you should never be using high Q filters), the FBQ doesn't allow it (like the BFD does).

We see so many people trying to use super narrow filters at 300Hz for example, and it's not a good idea. The FBQ limits this error, but allows the high resolution bandwidths at lower frequencies where you need it?

I don't own an FBQ, so I have no experience....

I don’t have one either. It’s just something I noticed when I was trying to compare the two Behringers’ capabilities to the Yamaha digital parametric I recently acquired.

That said, I’m not sure I get what you’re asking. As far as I can see with REW’s FBQ2496 filter panel, you can set a bandwidth all the way down to .017-octave at any frequency (what’s that, less than 1/20? Behringer and their bizarre bandwidth designations – grrr...). Even the upper frequencies. I don’t see where the FBQ is limiting the option of bandwidth settings for higher frequencies, unless I’m missing something (high probability . I’m sitting here right now looking at a 0.017 bandwidth filter set at 2000 Hz and cut 7 dB, and REW isn’t blocking it.

Come to think of it, that would really make no sense from a pro-audio perspective, limiting bandwidth at higher frequencies, especially for an equalizer whose stated purpose is addressing feedback, which requires super-tight notch filters, and especially since most feedback is in the higher frequencies from ~400 Hz – 8 kHz.

My “beef” with the FBQ for our purposes is that in the bandwidth range where you’re most likely to set a subwoofer filter - ~1/8 to 1/3-octave – it has limited options. For instance, if your goal is modal filtering, getting the proper bandwidth is critical, right? (As I understand it.) Even in my case, favoring less-precise smoothing filters, I would for sure want more flexibility in the allowable bandwidth settings than the FBQ offers! Where it allows for only five settings between ~1/7 and 1/3-octave, the BFD has 14 increments between ~1/8 and 1/3 octave – much better precision.

Even with wider bandwidths, which you would typically use above the subwoofer range, the FBQ is nothing to write home about. For instance, between 1/3 and 1-octave, the FBQ only has only four increments, while the BFD has 40!

Bottom line, the FBQ may have better specs, but overall it’s a much less precise example of a parametric EQ. At least for our purposes.

Did I adequately address your concerns, or make things even more confusing?

Regards,
Wayne