Home Theater Forum and Systems banner
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
The 1124P is cheaper and has multiple programs, but the specs are better on the 2496.

brucek
Do you see a compelling argument for choosing one over the other?

The price difference seems to be only ~$60 so that isn't a deal breaker for me.

It would be nice to have the flexibility of the multiple programs on the DSP but I'm not sure if I would use them. I also like the idea of having the better specs of the FBQ but I'm not really clear on the real world advantages of these superior specs. I'm honestly not sure which is a bigger advantage for me or for my use.

I will say I would prefer to not have to wait for a replacement EPROM if I picked up a DSP with the 1.3 firmware.

I am going to call the local Guitar Center and some other Behringer resellers in town tomorrow and I would love to grab whichever model they have in stock and start playing with it this weekend but I thought I would check in here before making the purchase. I don't want to grab whatever is available locally if there is a valid reason to go with the other model and/or be able to pick the right one for my needs if both are available locally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
I was in your same position, and chose the FBQ2496 for the better specs. Excellent unit, no regrets whatsoever, GREAT results.

Tim
:drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Thanks for all the responses guys.

I called all the shops around town that sell Behringer products this morning and nobody had either model on hand so I went ahead and ordered a FBQ2496 online from Same Day Music.

I also ordered an "M-Audio MIDISport UNO 1x1 MIDI Interface with Cables and Connectors" at the same time. Their prices were better than local, there is no tax, shipping was free, and they have both products in stock. This made my decision pretty easy.

I did pay an extra $4 for 2 day shipping though. The total cost for both items and 2 day shipping was $194 and I should have it in my hands by Wednesday at the latest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
I would choose the FBQ for the better specs and no issues with the firmware..

brucek
What are some differences between the two?

I am looking at getting one of the above but not sure which one to go with. If you buy a DSP-1124P will the Midi communication work or is it ? on which firmware it has on it?

I want this to be as simple as possible. I have played with Room EQ.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,514 Posts
What are some differences between the two?
As stated above, the 1124P is cheaper and has multiple programs, but the specs are better on the 2496.

The midi works fine on the 1124P as long as it has V1.4 firmware. No way to tell that without access to the front panel.

brucek
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,309 Posts

What are some differences between the two?

I want this to be as simple as possible. I have played with Room EQ.....
The FBQ isn’t nearly as precise as the BFD, at least as far as available bandwidth settings are concerned (only 1/3 as many increments as the BFD in the subwoofer range). That would be a deal breaker with me.

That said, no one I know of has complained that they weren’t able to get good results with it.

If “simple” is your main priority, then it’s probably the one you want, since it will work with MIDI.

Regards,
Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Let'a be genuine though about just what this coarseness of adjustability really means:

With the FBQ, the smallest increment you can go down to is 0.017 of an octave to dial in your target frequency. At 80hz, that relates to 0.90hz. At 20hz, that relates to 0.20hz. This gets you well within 1hz of your target frequency, with also still having control of gain and bandwidth.

I'll take that flexible level of adjustability any day, and add onto it the markedly better electronic capabilities of the FBQ2496 over the DSP1124P to ensure I get the purest, truest signal possible.

When I can get all that and am able to EQ my sub to +/-1.5db from 15-85 hz, I'm good. :bigsmile:

... my $0.02


Tim
:drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,514 Posts
I'll take that flexible level of adjustability any day
I guess Waynes concern is that the BFD continues to offer 1/60th bandwidth divisions as the bandwidth increases. The FBQ lowers the amount of selection as the bandwidth increases.

Here's a short chart comparing their bandwidth selections (with the BFD converted from BW/60 to decimal octaves that the FBQ uses).

So at small bandwidths they're the same. Then the FBQ gets a bit less selective. I don't personally think it's a problem, but you get the idea anyway...

Text Font Number Line Parallel

brucek
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,309 Posts

With the FBQ, the smallest increment you can go down to is 0.017 of an octave to dial in your target frequency. At 80hz, that relates to 0.90hz. At 20hz, that relates to 0.20hz. This gets you well within 1hz of your target frequency, with also still having control of gain and bandwidth.
Anyone have a translation for that? :scratch:

Regards,
Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Very funny Wayne. :dunno: I mistakenly misunderstood your concern about the only 1/3 as many increments as the BFD in the subwoofer range as a concern about being able to target a specific frequency, rather than as bruce explained your concern regarding bandwidth precision.

My bad, but I'll still take the FBQ for it's clean electronics.


Tim
:drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
So does this break down to the FBQ having a slight edge in clarity of signal and the 1124P has just a little better adjustability? Did I understand this correctly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I really find it amusing the lengths that people will go through to get "perfect music". Let's take a CD with vocals only. The singer uses a mic whose wire crosses numerous other wires (with perfect shielding off course) to end up at a mic pre-amp. The pre-amp feeds an amp, which in turn feeds a mixer, and the recording engineer does his magic by sliding around numerous slider switches to kill unwanted tones, enhance the tones he thinks the public is going to buy into, and deliberately leave certain frequency bands untouched. This is then subject to magical DSP algorithms to produce a CD. This is all done with equipment which uses hundreds of op-amp, which purists eschew.
Now you buy the CD at the store and pass it through a CD player, pre-amp, amp, and finally the greatest source of distortion, the speaker, which must now interact with environment (read room) to which it is subject. And the humor lies in the fact that you don't know what the source (i.e. vocalist) sounds like, yet you're making all these adjustments.

While there is some tongue 'n cheek in this Email, you've got to analyze which aspects are serious, and which aspects have you doing a lot of silly things, and wasting your time and money.

Yes, you understand correctly...................
Could you translate that difference into what I would hear?

I apologize, but I forgot to ask the quintessential question: with so much equipment available, which equipment would be considered a 'modest start', that could be built upon, or used in some other ancillary way as your collection grew. I know: "how much ya wanna' spend?".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
308 Posts
Hello tomacco,

I think that you are right when you said that many recording studio use many processing and conventional equipments. To my ears, I think that 70% of commmercial CD's are bad recordings. There are some company that uses hi-fi components and really cares about minimal audio modifications and uses minimum micophones and mix down. One of thoses is Chezky Records.

JP
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top