Home Theater Systems - Electronics and Forum - HomeTheaterShack - View Single Post - Proposal for the BSE2496C (Behringer Sub Equalizer 24/96 Consumer)
View Single Post
Old 07-11-06, 04:58 AM   #16 (Link)
 
digital_dreamer
New Member
Alias: Michael
Loc: I ain't tellin ya!
User: #1484
Since: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
digital_dreamer is offline
Re: Proposal for the BSE2496C (Behringer Sub Equalizer 24/96 Consumer)


Quote:
khellandros66 wrote:
I think that

Front channel RCA/XLR outs should be included so you can take a RTA of the front channel crossover. So you can go

Pre/Pro LFE -> BSE2496C -> Subwoofer(s)
Pre/Pro Front L/R-> BSE2496C -> Amp (Front L/R)

This way if you can use you front channels safely set to large you can roll them off to the sub at more appropriet FS. IE My towers are rated to 17Hz but what if below 22Hz they slope -6dB and -25 below 17Hz I can redirect these frequencies to my sub that can handle them.

~Bob
Bob mentions a point that I have been wondering about for a long time: What about EQ the rest of the audio spectrum?

All this emphasis on EQ the LFE, but none for the rest of the spectrum. Is it not important? I think it's just as important, if not more so. On the other hand, LFE are probably more susceptible to room acoustics and, therefore, benefit more from EQ.

What's wrong or impractical about using a PEQ with a split design - one for the sub and the other for the mains (L & R), for example? Isn't that what some auto EQ functions attempt to do, like Denon's Audyssey? Is the current design (2496) still not accurate enough? Would the SQ still be suspect (SN ratio, channel separation, etc), as you're adding another layer of complexity in the signal path?

I'd love to have a BSEXXXXC that would accept EQ parameters for the entire spectrum and save it as a preset. What are your thoughts? Not worth it, as Otto says?
Actually, I think I speak for a lot of forum posters regarding this subject.

regards,
MAJ


Forum Rules Reply With Quote