Behringer 1124p vs. FBQ2496

**vince** · **10-25-07, 11:07 PM**

Hello,
I was wondering if the only difference between the Bheringer1124P and the FBQ2496 is the number of filers that are selectable? Is one unit perhaps quiter than the other? After using R+D software to measure my room that was designed using the Bolt perameters in mind to space out the modes as best or evenly as possible, I still have a couple of peaks I would like to remedy. I have built in bass traps in every corner and have treated the ceiling with suspended 2.5 inch floating panels, also heavily dampend my first reflections. The peaks I am left with are centered at 150hz and with quite a large bandwidth, also one around 3.5k, couple db. So I have done all I can do for now treatment wise. So if in fact there is no diff. between the two parametric EQ's other than filter count, than could the is the 1124p ok for full range or is there a better parametric out there that isn't in the millions, that would help tame these couple critical freaquency problems??????? I used the 1124p on my sub and with R+D was able to get the bass region beautiful!, but had to use cheater adapter to kill noise!
Sorry for the long post

Vince

**brucek** · **10-26-07, 06:53 AM**

Use the 2496 if you're going to apply it to full range duties. It has better specs.

How wide are these peaks? Usually narrow peaks and dips aren't noticeable. If you plan to remove a peak at 3.5K, you might find that by moving the measuring mic a small amount could change the results quite a bit. Hopefully the peaks are quite wide and you would use very low Q filters.

brucek

**tomacco** · **12-10-07, 09:38 PM**

Quote:

brucek wrote:

If you plan to remove a peak at 3.5K, you might find that by moving the measuring mic a small amount could change the results quite a bit. brucek

Is it usual to reposition mics to get the response you want? Seems like a senseless exercise - what did I miss?

**terry j** · **12-10-07, 10:22 PM**

no, that is the whole point Bruce was making. If you measure in only one position, and try to correct a sharp spike, you could very well be correcting a 'measurement artifact', which will show up by it changing dramatically if you move the mic.

It also shows that (generally) it's only worthwhile correcting the bass region, unless it is a very broad correction at the higher frequencies, not sharp as in Bruce's example.

**tomacco** · **12-10-07, 10:40 PM**

Thanks for the explanation. Now the leading question - how many measurements at each position to provide you with the confidence that you've conducted a proper job in the measurements that you've taken. I presume you find the "weak points" in the system, and concentrate on those. If you find a "wild" point, your data is going to be scrambled - you're not going to have a cluster of similar points. What do you do, or do you employ another approach?
Thanks - I hope you can understand that to which I'm eluding.

**terry j** · **12-10-07, 11:39 PM**

I do it differently.

Explained it all in another thread

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post63941

goes over this ground, saves me doing it again ha ha.

just my take, have a look and see what (if anything) you agree with.

**tomacco** · **12-11-07, 09:35 PM**

Quote:

terry j wrote:

I do it differently.

Explained it all in another thread

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post63941

goes over this ground, saves me doing it again ha ha.

just my take, have a look and see what (if anything) you agree with.

I appreciate the link - brucek's explanation isn't kicking in. Hold on - I just had an epiphany. Thanks

Best Regards
Eric G.

**tomacco** · **12-13-07, 04:11 PM**

Quote:

terry j wrote:

I do it differently.

Explained it all in another thread

http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...html#post63941

goes over this ground, saves me doing it again ha ha.

just my take, have a look and see what (if anything) you agree with.

Hi Terry: Isn't the obvious solution to buy a base unit, and then plug in modules which accommodate your needs. Or do the interfaces to accommodate 'everything' generate a complex PCB, more expensive than the problem you were trying to address?

My experience in designing Analog I/O boards years ago was that the later was the case.

Best Regards
Eric G.

**terry j** · **12-13-07, 05:28 PM**

sorry Eric, no comprehende.

if you're referring to the deq 2496 (?) then it's cheap enough to do all that you ask, and from the other thread $200 sounds very worthwhile. It will make more of a sonic difference than $20 000 speaker cables ha ha, a bargain if ever there was.

Anyway, really don't know what you're asking back there.

**tomacco** · **12-13-07, 05:38 PM**

Quote:

terry j wrote:

sorry Eric, no comprehende.

if you're referring to the deq 2496 (?) then it's cheap enough to do all that you ask, and from the other thread $200 sounds very worthwhile. It will make more of a sonic difference than $20 000 speaker cables ha ha, a bargain if ever there was.

Anyway, really don't know what you're asking back there.

Hi Terry j: Anytime you design a generalised PCB, you are asking the customer to pay for functions that he may never use (now). Later is a different story, but we're not in that business of telling the future.

Does that answer it, or did I misunderstand your question?

Advertisement