Dsp1124 For Full Audio Eq-ing

**vince** · **10-22-07, 12:55 AM**

Hello,
I am new to using this unit and am just getting used to all the funtions of it. I do have the gear to take very accurate room measurments. My question is, I hear everyone talk about this unit for sub equalization but not for full range eq purposes. Is there a particular reason for this? noise or perhaps impeadance matching problems for higher freaquencies???
Thanks,
Vince

**warnerwh** · **10-22-07, 01:21 AM**

The DEQ 2496 is much more versatile for full bandwidth equalizing and has the BFD built in. That' my .02.

Many people don't believe in using equalization. With the DEQ 2496 doing it in the digital domain I can't imagine what people are worried about. I've got quite a high end music system in a custom treated room and could not hear any degradation for this piece.

**terry j** · **10-22-07, 02:47 AM**

ditto on the deq. check it out

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...acurve2496.htm

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **10-22-07, 05:48 PM**

Quote:

Many people don't believe in using equalization.

I have a theory that most of those are people who have never tried it, or who did and didn’t know what they where doing and made a mess of things.

Quote:

With the DEQ 2496 doing it in the digital domain I can't imagine what people are worried about.

Personally I don’t like the prospect of an extra AD/DA conversion in the signal chain. That’s why I stay with analog for the time being. Nice to know that the conversion is minimal to non-existent, at least...

Here’s a guy who recently tried some analog EQs in his system and was very happy with the results.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...ase-chime.html

Regards,
Wayne

**imbeaujp** · **10-22-07, 06:49 PM**

Hello, I am in the buying process of a FeedBack Destroyer for Sub EQ. Could it makes more sens to buy the DSP 1124 ? and EQ sub + Full range ?

Thanks !

JP

**warnerwh** · **10-22-07, 07:25 PM**

"I have a theory that most of those are people who have never tried it, or who did and didn’t know what they where doing and made a mess of things."

I'm sure you're right. It amazes me too how the people who say they don't like equalizers have no facts to defend themselves.

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **10-22-07, 09:43 PM**

Quote:

imbeaujp wrote:

Hello, I am in the buying process of a FeedBack Destroyer for Sub EQ. Could it makes more sens to buy the DSP 1124 ? and EQ sub + Full range ?

Actually, you don’t want the 1124 for full range, you want the DEQ 2496. In order to use the same EQ for both mains and subs, you have to have a system that will allow you to insert it in front of the crossover. Otherwise you need an EQ for each seperately.

Regards,
Wayne

**imbeaujp** · **10-22-07, 11:02 PM**

Thank you !

JP

**vince** · **10-22-07, 11:52 PM**

Thanks guys, I am now just using for sub, took many readings to get good average at listening position. response is much improved! needs more tweaking though.. Had to use cheater adapter plug to eliminate hum, might burn house down but bass sounds nice

Vince

**Doug Plumb** · **10-24-07, 08:09 AM**

Personally I can take or leave sub EQing, but midband EQing when done right is very beneficial - especially when listening to dialogue. It doesn't have much of an affect on music but a smoothed out (correctly) midrange makes all the difference.

When you are watching movies and hearing dialog a few dB of midband correction even in one spot makes a huge difference.

I use the BFD in my signal path with my speakers - PSB M2's - difficult to improve on but I have 2dB of sharp cut around 3 KHz to absolutely flatten the midband of these absolutely excellent speakers.

You can't do it with horns - only point source. You can't define a response for horns so easily.

**jpmst3** · **10-24-07, 10:29 AM**

Hey guys,

I have no idea how to use any of the Behringer products. I am currently using an SMS-1 and it works well for sub duty.

However, I am adding a second sub and I have no way of adjusting phase independently on each sub.

Is this something that could be done with the DEQ? Also, is there some sort of auto-eq that can be done using the DEQ and ECM8000?

Sorry for the dumb questions but I really have no idea how any of these product work and what the capabilites/limitations are...

**huff** · **10-25-07, 09:02 AM**

Quote:

Doug Plumb wrote:

Personally I can take or leave sub EQing

I had never equalised my sub (had it in my HT for 2 years) until I came here and learned REW and then bought a BFD 2 weeks ago. I have to say now that it has made an enormous difference, especially at increased playback levels. I will never leave a sub unEQd again!

REW showed me I had 2 significant 6-8db humps - 32Hz and 43Hz - that absolutely made the bass sound boomy at higher levels. With the EQing in place, it now sounds like real bass and not just a boombox. I always thought the sub just wasn't very good (it's an Energy ES-10 10in. sealed - OK but nothing special), but now it impresses me with what it can do after being EQd. Of course, that still won't stop me from buying a better sub at Xmas!

For $100, I can easily say the 1124P has given me more value for the $$$ than any other part of my system.

**Doug Plumb** · **10-25-07, 12:07 PM**

My rrom doesn't really require sub EQing - there is a resonance at 140 Hz, but still I think the EQing at around 3 KHz is more significant. But I listen to dialog much more than music.

**brucek** · **10-25-07, 12:15 PM**

Quote:

My rrom doesn't really require sub EQing

You're one of a very few lucky people then. Most experience at least one large peak in the 20Hz-80Hz region corresponding to an axial resonance from typical home room dimensions. These peaks have the effect of overpowering the other bass frequencies resulting in one-note bass and the perceived loss of low end extension. Huff's rather well worded post above is very typical of the amazing things a little EQ can accomplish.

brucek

**terry j** · **10-25-07, 08:46 PM**

Quote:

jpmst3 wrote:

Hey guys,

I have no idea how to use any of the Behringer products. I am currently using an SMS-1 and it works well for sub duty.

However, I am adding a second sub and I have no way of adjusting phase independently on each sub.

Is this something that could be done with the DEQ? Also, is there some sort of auto-eq that can be done using the DEQ and ECM8000?

Sorry for the dumb questions but I really have no idea how any of these product work and what the capabilites/limitations are...

phase (I think) is analogous to time delay, off hand I can't recall if the deq has that capability, would have to check. If all you are doing is sub eq then I would not be sure the extra expense of the deq would be worth it.

The deq can do auto eq, but in the few times I've checked it against REW it is not a super high degree of accuracy (I take the rew readings over the deq...valid??) but can certainly help. I would assume that you can/will use REW anyway so you can always tweak the auto eq results, or just go straight to rew and do it manually.

Doug, it doesn't seem to be this thread, but I recall you saying once about using eq to correct speakers, what method/procedure do you use?

**Doug Plumb** · **10-25-07, 09:03 PM**

"Doug, it doesn't seem to be this thread, but I recall you saying once about using eq to correct speakers, what method/procedure do you use?"

I use my software. Its below in the link. See the Ch on Practical Acoustics. RPlusD emulates the BDF exactly. I'm not sure how Johns software works but mine uses a time domain emulation with identical discrete values as the BFD for freq & Q.

What my software says the BFD does to measurements is exactly what the BFD does. With RPlusD you take take 32 measurements average them (or not) and emulate the BFD through them. Setting the BFD with measuremenst is slower with RPlusD to get curve updates because of the applied emulation.

The only source of error in mine is that the anti aliase filter in the BFD is not emulated so the gently sloping response from 0 Hz to -about 0.5 dB at 20 Khz is not modeled.

**terry j** · **10-25-07, 10:49 PM**

thanks Doug

been a while since I visited your site. Funnily enough, I was trying to work out all the computer connections and soundcard calibration (computer stuff that to a beginner like me was/is very confusing) for both your demo version and REW way back when, somehow I managed to get REW working and so by default I've stuck with it. I could probably get yours working now (simply because I've worked one out ha ha), what does interest me in yours is the ability (I think) to be able to get the relative time arrivals of impulses from different speakers, I can't get REW to do that for me, either I'm an idiot (likely) or the facility doesn't exist (yet?). I'm mucking about ATM with rear stereo channels using the L-R signal, and time delay which I just use a tape measure for to test the basic premise.

One thing I do remember from the last time I visited was some very good and interesting 'application' notes, so I will definitely take your advice above...I presume you mean chapter four 'practical measurements' in the manual??

**imbeaujp** · **10-30-07, 07:21 AM**

Hello,

Regarding the parametric EQ fonction, How many filters is best required for sub EQ ?

FBQ2496 = 20 filters per channel
FBQ1124 = 12 filters per channel
DEQ2496 = 10 filters per channel

And, is it a way to combine the 2 stereo channels to one mono channel ? and double filters ? Can I put the output from channel A to the input of channel B without distorsion (for SUB EQ) ?

Thanks !!

**Doug Plumb** · **10-30-07, 08:06 AM**

"One thing I do remember from the last time I visited was some very good and interesting 'application' notes, so I will definitely take your advice above...I presume you mean chapter four 'practical measurements' in the manual??"

Right.

**Doug Plumb** · **10-30-07, 08:07 AM**

"Regarding the parametric EQ function, How many filters is best required for sub EQ ?"

Depends - usually two or three is all you need - if any.

**brucek** · **10-30-07, 08:09 AM**

Quote:

Can I put the output from channel A to the input of channel B without distorsion (for SUB EQ) ?

Yep, but why would you want so many filters. Less is more when it comes to applying equalization. Usually four to eight filters is plenty for a sub woofer correction. Any more and you're usually using filters with unnecessarily large Q's or filters with very small cuts and gains that don't impart a significant effect.

brucek

**imbeaujp** · **10-30-07, 08:56 AM**

I am just trying to figure out how many filters I am gonna use. So if everyone agree that 3 to 5 filters is ok for sub EQ, I will go with the FBQ1124. You are right, less filters is best.

Thanks !

**Doug Plumb** · **10-30-07, 05:18 PM**

Is there a link for this FBQ 1124 ? I can't find it - is this model number an error ?

**imbeaujp** · **10-30-07, 05:21 PM**

Sorry, it's DSP1124

http://www.behringer.com/DSP1124P/index.cfm?lang=eng

**vince** · **10-30-07, 09:08 PM**

I have to agree with doug about the number of filters. Four or five in my case would be fine. But ultimately whould depend on your room design, placement of your sub, and manufactured response of your sub. If these three things are OK then like Doug has said just a few filters are needed. I use the DSP1124p and found 12 filters is more than enough when you have this kind of control(parametric) vs. (graphic)
I used Dougs (Acoustisoft) software and reccomended hardware with laptop to take 32 measurments in an area around listening area, then averaged the readings, then started tweaking. I think the DSP 1124 and this software setup is the best thing since sliced bread!!! now my sub sounds very tight and quick, before was thick and bloated! Treating your room properly is also a huge! help. "F Alton Everest" (Master Handbook of Acoustics) awesome book for undrstanding sound. I designed my room using this books help and am very pleased. Also treated my room using this book and R+D software!
Sorry to be so long winded

Vince Dallaire

Advertisement