Behringer SU9920 Sonic Ultramizer

**nathanso** · **04-12-08, 11:19 PM**

I'm curious if anyone else has tried the Behringer SU9920 Sonic Ultramizer in their two channel system.

I've been using one in line with my Behringer DEQ2496 for six months now and I like it, a lot. A/B tests with other listeners have all been in favor of the SU9920 in circuit rather than out. For around $66 brand new this piece seems like a no brainer to me.. especially for middle-aged ears like mine that are starting to lose their ability to hear upper registers. If you already have pro audio gear in your audio chain then you're just a set of XLR patch cords and $66 away from trying an SU9920.

The remainder of my system consists of: Acoustat 2+2 speakers, Acoustat TNT-200 amplifier, Acurus RL-11 preamp, Oppo CDP, Winamp.

**WmAx** · **04-13-08, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

nathanso wrote:

I'm curious if anyone else has tried the Behringer SU9920 Sonic Ultramizer in their two channel system.

I've been using one in line with my Behringer DEQ2496 for six months now and I like it, a lot. A/B tests with other listeners have all been in favor of the SU9920 in circuit rather than out. For around $66 brand new this piece seems like a no brainer to me.. especially for middle-aged ears like mine that are starting to lose their ability to hear upper registers. If you already have pro audio gear in your audio chain then you're just a set of XLR patch cords and $66 away from trying an SU9920.

The remainder of my system consists of: Acoustat 2+2 speakers, Acoustat TNT-200 amplifier, Acurus RL-11 preamp, Oppo CDP, Winamp.

I'd like to analyze the waveform modification it supposedly introduces. I'll tell you, with the lack of detail of what 'exactly' it's supposed to do, and the silly sounding functions, I suspect it's Behringer's version of the 'do nothing' knob that engineers have traditionally used in studios to quell people who want just a little something 'extra'. Have you measured/analyzed the device?

-Chris

**thxgoon** · **04-13-08, 12:21 AM**

I'd be curious to know exactly what it does as well. Harmonic enhancement and phase alignment... Curious if it looks for an inherent dominant phase and frequency and boosts related harmonics or creates them. Sounds like an interesting piece of gear. Good find!

**nathanso** · **04-13-08, 01:37 AM**

WmAx, I have not measured the device's output with anything other than my ears and brain but I can tell you that it certainly does something. This would be clear to anyone who cranked up the SU9920's adjusters past my normal setting of 12-noon because the effects become way too strong. Even at 1:00 or 2:00 they are too much in my system for some music tracks.

The best way I can describe my perception of the SU9920's effect is that mid and high frequency sounds have more presence and realism. A perfect example is the sound of a crash cymbal. With the SU9920 the initial strike has increased energy and the sustain is long and shimmering. Instruments like acoustic guitar really shine with the SU9920 as do certain vocals. And my stock system, without the SU9920, is no slouch when it comes to reproducing such sounds.

In the six months since I bought my 9920 I was expecting at least some online discussion or reviews of the unit but my latest searches still turn up nil. This I attribute to several factors, notably people's skepticism of sound processors and, perhaps, digital devices in general, coupled with the too-low-to-be-taken-seriously price of the SU9920.

From time to time I still get doubts about the whole concept of harmonic enhancement, and I get up from my couch and press the unit's bypass button. And the the sound from my system goes flat and after a few more seconds of listening I turn it on again and sit back down and enjoy the music.

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **05-05-08, 06:13 PM**

I expect that it's similar to BBE's Sonic Maximizer, which is a pretty well known processor. You should be able to turn up some information on that to give you some idea of what the SU9920 is doing.

Regards,
Wayne

**nathanso** · **05-05-08, 06:33 PM**

Based on the image on BBE's site (http://www.bbesound.com/products/maxim/882i.asp) this is the same unit that Behringer markets as the SU9920 (http://www.behringer.com/SU9920/?lang=ENG) though I doubt Behringer uses 1% metal film resistors and milspec PCB's based on their price of the SU9920. Perhaps one OEM's it to the other. Or perhaps BBE is licensing the technology to Behringer as BBE's web site has plenty of mention of technology licensing.

BBE's description here (http://www.bbesound.com/technologies/BBE%5FHDS/) concurs with my own findings on "material containing sharp transients (e.g., percussive and plucked sounds such as drums, guitar, piano and harpsichord, etc.)"

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **05-05-08, 06:52 PM**

I recall having a few CDs in my collection from the early 80s that were recorded with the BBE process. They do sound very nice.

Regards,
Wayne

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **05-06-08, 02:39 PM**

Here’s another one I’d forgotten about, the Aphex Aural Exciter (although this particular model also includes some bass processing). Come to think of it, those CDs I mentioned used the Aphex system, not the BBE.

Here’s a discussion I found on it at the HT Guide Forum. As you can see, users with professional experience prefer the Aphex; users with no professional experience prefer the SU9920.

Regards,
Wayne

**nathanso** · **05-06-08, 03:33 PM**

That Aphex unit (http://www.aphex.com/204.htm) appears to be very similar to the Behringer SX3040 (http://www.behringer.com/SX3040/index.cfm?lang=ENG) that I was also contemplating when I bought the SU9920. So I emailed Behringer asking them which they though was more appropriate for home two-channel use and they replied "Both products are very similar, but I would get the SU9920."

Re the thread on HT Guide, what I read were (mostly) uninformed prejudicial slams on Behringer or the concept of digital audio processing itself. No one there had ever actually owned, or even heard, a Behringer SU9920. Such is the nature of the web, I suppose! So many expert opinions, so little time.

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **05-06-08, 06:27 PM**

Quote:

No one there had ever actually owned, or even heard, a Behringer SU9920.

Hmm... That’s not what I saw at all. Two of the three professional users who commented claimed they have used this particular Behringer and/or the BBE or Aphex units, and prefer them to the Behringer (“littlesaint” [Post #17], “iiaudio” [#19]). On the other hand, the Behringer defender (“Victor”) never claimed he had actually used any of them.

Regards,
Wayne

**nathanso** · **05-06-08, 06:41 PM**

SU9920 isn't mentioned anywhere on the HT Guide thread nor is any specific Behringer model. Behringer offers many signal processors -- and has to its credit many older/discontinued models as well -- so who's to know which device(s) those HTG's guys are bashing?

I renew my challenge to anyone with 66 bucks to rub together to buy an SU9920 and try it in their own 2-channel system. Then comment. Enough said on the matter.

**thxgoon** · **05-06-08, 09:12 PM**

I don't think anyone is trying to say that you made a bad purchase. I think moreover we're trying to find out how it changes the sound. It seems that the aim these days is about removing everything that alters the signal and achieving the most accurate reproduction. This is only one approach and using signal processing or eq are approaches just as valid. If it sounds good to you and improves your listening experience then that's all that matters.

**nathanso** · **05-10-08, 05:24 PM**

No need to speculate blindly on what the device does; Behringer puts all their manuals online: http://www.behringer.com/SU9920/?lang=ENG Download the free PDF-based manual and read page 7, section 3 "Practical Application" for Behringer's description of how the SU9920 works.

I'd cut/paste the relevant text here but the encoding on the PDF prevents that.

**reed.hannebaum** · **05-16-08, 11:57 PM**

For several years I had the Behringer EX3200 in my 2-channel signal path. This unit has a multitude of effects including dynamic frequency correction, phase shifting, and artificial harmonic generation. This is a fun toy with lots of controls to play with and it can truely enhance the sound of many recordings. The SU9920 maybe similar in what it does.

For a while I also owned a Carver H-9AV which produed an interesting effect, but also introduced noise in the audio path.

**Hipper** · **06-05-08, 05:00 AM**

nathanso, interestingly, I've just ordered a Behringer SX3040 to see what it can do.

I currently use a Behringer DEQ2496 Equalizer; it sits between my CD Transport and DAC and consider it the most important piece of kit I have.

Where did you place the SU9920 in your System? According to Behringer, the SX3040 is best placed before the equalizer.

Are you able to describe what sonic differences it makes? Especially, what does it do that the DEQ2496 does not?

**nathanso** · **06-05-08, 09:57 AM**

Hipper,

MY SU9920 is indeed connected before my DEQ2496. For my best effort at putting the sonic experience into words please see my previous posts in this thread. The effects produced by the SU9920 are altogether different than any effect I've been able to produce with the DEQ2496 though my efforts there have been limited to Auto EQ (manually smoothed) and some parametric bass boost.

Do report back when you've had a good listen to your system with the SX3040. I think you will be favorably impressed.

**Hipper** · **07-05-08, 01:19 AM**

I put the Behringer SX3040 in my system (Shunyata Hydra 8 Power Conditioner, Teac P/70 CD Transprt, Behringer DEQ2496 Digital Equalizer, Teac D/70 DAC, Son of Ampzilla Amp, VMPS RM30M speakers plus various good cables).

I had assumed that the SX3040 was a digital processor so stuck it between the P/70 and DEQ2496. Nothing happened. I fiddled around for a while with different cables and positions but nothing. I then guessed it might be anologue ins and outs and connected it between the DAC and amp. It worked! Doh!!!

Anyway. it was very disapointing although at £70 compared to my pricey gear, I shouldn't complain.

The disapointment was the way it damaged the sound as I played something whilst it was in bypass mode. It just roughened up the music - not nice. I did of course fiddle around with the knobs, altering both the base and the treble but it didn't matter as the sound was always unpleasant after what I am use to. I can only guess the cause is that it, presumably, converts anologue to digital, does the processing and converts back.

I don't regret trying and I'm now using it in a more modest headphone system (Marantz CD63 Mk II CD Player, Corda Headamp-1 Mk II Headphone amp, Sennheisser HD650 Headphones) where I only use the exciter part to lift the treble as the bass is already pretty solid. Each of the three knobs are roughly at the ten o'clock position. Here it works well.

It's a pity, but at the price it was worth the try.

There's a review of it and the SU9920 here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan0...3040su9920.htm

**terry j** · **07-07-08, 04:34 AM**

Quote:

Hipper wrote:

I can only guess the cause is that it, presumably, converts anologue to digital, does the processing and converts back.

but the deq also converts to digital and back to analog, presumably without ill effects otherwise it would not still be in your system.

Does it not have some way of analog in (esp if it needs to be before the deq) yet digital out, straight digital into the deq, and then analog out of the deq?

On the other hand, the adc/dacs in the lower priced unit may be of lesser quality than in the higher priced unit.

**Hipper** · **07-07-08, 06:37 AM**

The SX3040 doesn't have any digital inputs or outputs. The inputs are 'used to connect line-level sources' according to the manual. They offer balanced XLR or 1/4" jacks, two of each in and two of each out, a set for each channel. There are no other inputs or outputs.

My DEQ2496 has a host of inputs and outputs, both digital and analogue. The anologue will convert to digital to enable the processor to do its stuff, and then convert back to analogue. I use the DEQ in digital only, between my CD Transport and DAC. This is what most people recommend. I have used the anologue inputs when using a turntable and it seems OK to me. I highly recommend the Behringer DEQ2496. It's excellent at what it does and a bargain (about £200), even though it takes time and persistance to learn to use it.

Some people have said that the DEQ does have a negative effect on the sound even in digital. Well, I'm happy with what I get from it and at between 15 and 30 times cheaper then its high end competitors (DEQX, Tact) I'm not complaining.

Generally all this Behringer gear is meant for home studio use or live playing, along with mixing gear etc.. May be at that level all this converting doesn't have such an impact. I would imagine for these situations, the quality/price is more than acceptable.

**terry j** · **07-08-08, 12:07 AM**

I use deqx in my system, and it's great of course.

But boy I reckon a lot of people would be surprised at the improvements a deq 2496 can bring. very highly recommended by me as well.

I lent mine to a mate recently, and installed it and measured it all up for him. Heh heh, he was quite happy and proud of his homemade speakers before I came....was in a state of shock when I left. (I did the whole thing, fixed up the intrinsic FR of the speakers 1m on axis, then fixed the room response at the LP)

He admitted to being actually embarressed that he previously thought his system sounded good.

**Hipper** · **07-08-08, 02:49 AM**

That's interesting that you use a DEQX. I know it has more possibilities, like cross-overs and being able to use more channels; is that the reason you use it in preference to the Berhringer? At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, did you notice a sonic improvement between the Behringer and DEQX?

My dealer, whose original impetus caused me to investigate digital equalizers, as well as room treatment (I use Auralex foam), was so impressed when he heard the results of the Behringer that he immediately went out and bought one. Unfortunately he doesn't use it as he finds it annoyingly complicated. It may be worse for him as, being a dealer, he has access to a range of speakers, both for himelf and for demonstration purposes, and so would have to go through the whole procedure with the Behringer for each one. I'm sure even that would be worth it for him. I suppose the problem would be that people who hear his set ups would be disapointed when they got home, be informed of the part the Behringer played and expect him to set it up for them, at no cost to him of course.

I think in fact that that is the biggest problem. Most people are not willing to spend the time setting the thing up.

It is the way forward, though. Much better then endless cable upgrades etc.. My speaker manufacturer, VMPS, have recently offered an option of electronic crossovers using the Behringer DCX (whch also has a digital equalizer on board). They will set up the DCX and put in some settings for various situations to help customers.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/i...?topic=54554.0

Salk speakers had already done something like this, using the DEQX. In fact he offers a whole package including 6 channel amp.

http://www.salksound.com/ht3a.shtml

With Lyngdorf and Tact making digital amps incorporating equalizers at reasonable prices, maybe this area will take off, a bit anyway.

**terry j** · **07-08-08, 05:05 AM**

Quote:

Hipper wrote:

That's interesting that you use a DEQX. I know it has more possibilities, like cross-overs and being able to use more channels; is that the reason you use it in preference to the Berhringer? At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, did you notice a sonic improvement between the Behringer and DEQX?

My speakers (DIY) have always been active, never had a passive network in them, designed from the start for active.

For maybe three or four years I used the dcx 2496, then switched to the deqx. I also have a deq as mentioned before, which is one of the bargains in the hi fi world. So you won't find me bagging behringer and the like.

Having said that, there is no comparison at all. Chalk and cheese. The behringer (and similar pro gear) is a Hyundai to the mercedes deqx. Both will get you to the next city but....There are many companies that use the deqx in their top of the line stuff, overkill is in the UK. Many others.

Quote:

Hipper wrote:

My dealer,

stereo we hope heh heh

Quote:

Hipper wrote:

I think in fact that that is the biggest problem. Most people are not willing to spend the time setting the thing up.

that is the biggie. people are used to and often expect plug and play. the deqx and behringer gear are not plug and play, maybe not a problem on a forum like this by it's very nature tho.

The results you get are entirely dependant on the work you do. Is it possible for the deqx to sound rubbish? for sure, but the first logical question to ask is 'was it done correctly?' before concluding the deqx hardware/software is no good. (only mentioning deqx as it was the topic under discussion, and that it is the only one I am familiar with. the same would apply to lyngdorf/tact and of course the behringer you mentioned)

that was brought home to me with a bang. I had my system set up with the deqx and had it sounding 'pretty' good. had certain x-over points selected etc etc. but was a bit harsh when driven hard, and a few other things noticed.

Mind you still very much improved over the behringer.

I had the great fortune that the tech guy from deqx came out for a social visit (we've become good friends) and natch he remeasured and recalibrated my speakers. Not only did he get better measurements (which all the computation is done on) he also changed the x-over points.

No point in blathering on, you would have had to have been here to comprehend the improvements. Point(s) I'm making? the results are only as good as the measurements, and due to the power of the unit, don't bring 'old' baggage and thoughts about x-overs into the new world. Traditional x-over think would have a 48 db/octave slope as about the steepest realistically possible. Not that you would use it often, the deqx can do 300 db/slope as an example. These new methods throw out the old 'safe' x-over points, which is what happened to mine. The tweeter now crosses at 1600 hz, unthinkable in the old days, unachievable with the dbx or behringer. (from memory I have 70 db slope or something on it)

crossing the tweeter that low meant (by implication) that the mid did not go as high as before...bye bye the harshness mentioned. Crossing the tweeter that low, bang dispersion thru the roof and the soundstage opened up and I have a 180 degree soundfield (not exagerating)..the soundfield passes thru my head in a complete 'sphere' (wrong geometry but you get my drift) with the stage dead centre in front.

That is on the recordings that contain those cues, it does not artificially add the expanded field to everything. BUT what surprised me is how well most cds (the ones we all bag for being compressed etc) actually are!

Not being a salesman to you, but explaining (I hope) the difference in technology. X-over points sum flat (linear phase filters) unlike LR or butterworth filters. (tho you can use them in the deqx if you wish, it has them as well)

The reason I have a coherent and enormous sound field is (I think) because it is all perfectly in phase...I've heard that phase issues are what destroys ambience. (dunno if that's true, but what I use mentally ATM) The deqx is able to do this because not only are the x-overs phase coherent (unlike all the others), additionall the deqx corrects the native response of the individual drivers themselves, and makes them perfectly flat and phase correct.

That is an important point, as we are no longer talking about the different performance at the crossover points.

The most dramatic and revealing demonstration of the driver correction was with a small full range (single driver) speaker. As there were NO x-overs used (single driver) we could hear the difference made by only making the driver itself 'perfect'. I know the wrong word, but again you get my drift.

The difference was stunning. In one profile you could store the natural driver response, and in another the corrected response, and by flicking between them evaluate them.

When you want to compare differences, you want to use the same track, or same section of track right? I mean no good hearing the verse on one setting, and the (totally different) chorus on the other, rather want to compare apples to apples.

So I press the button, and curse my luck. "gee, what are the odds that my pressing the button exactly coincided with a complete change in the music?'' Dargone it. So I wait and press the button again. Heck, how did I change the button exactly with a complete change in the character of the music yet again?

Anyway, you guessed it. (I'd not heard the music before) I soon realised that I hadnt magically coincided with a complete change in the music, but the changes were so amazingly dramatic I thought the music had completely changed each time! Same music, totally different speaker. I mean not just a change in character of some description, it was as if you had whipped the old one out and put a completely different speaker in in a microsecond.

Look, the behringer is great stuff, esp the deq (and anyone reading this, please take the gamble with it..does everything the FBDs discussed here do, and way way more. bargain), but they are not even in the same city let alone the ba

Advertisement