Try an EQ, you just might like it (long)

zybar · « **on:** 1 Jun 2004, 12:31 am »

After playing around with the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with my dual VMPS Larger subs, I was starting to see the potential for using an EQ in my music system. Since I really didn't know very much in this area, I decided to go to somebody who does - Csero.

I called Dr. EQ and Frank (Csero) was kind enough to make a house call (thank you very much Frank) and help me out.

Frank sat down and listened to my system and I knew he was hearing what my problem areas were (in relative terms - splashy highs, bass that wasn't as deep or impactful as it should be (no subs, just the 40's in 2 channel), and imaging that wasn't razor sharp).

We talked for a bit about what could be casuing this (speaker placement, room treatment, etc...) and then Frank put in his Behringer 8024 to do some RTA. Well, as I have stated in the past, the numbers weren't pretty. I had some big peaks and nulls. Frank started playing specific tones and the speakers started making some not so happy sounds. At first I thought something was broken, but Frank explained that the distortion we were hearing was most likely being caused by room placement. He asked if the speakers and/or the listening position could be moved around.

Frank moved the speakers back towards the front corners. I was very skeptical at first. I thought speakers didn't like to be near room boundaries like that...Frank asked that I keep an open mind and to give a listen. Well the 40's finally played deep bass with authority. After running through the RTA program, it was clear that the 40's were producing a strong signal down to 20Hz (hmmm, maybe I won't need the Larger subs for 2 channel after all)!

Now that the bass was good, it was time to tackle the midrange and highs. From taking more measurements, it was clear my sitting position was in a null for some midrange and high frequencies (at the new speaker position), so that got moved up. Better, but still not good enough. Next we tried changing some of the room treatments around. Some small improvements, but still not there. Finally, Frank decided to try mounting 3" foam strips on either side of the midrange/tweeter. This really made a big impact in terms of reducing the reflections and cleaning up the sound. A byproduct of that change, was that I now had to turn up the L-pads significantly to get things balanced (finally the tweaky nature of the 40's was paying off!). More RTA tests showed that I was getting "pretty close" to a flat response.

Well, when we listened to the system after this couple of hours of moving things around it, it was a whole new ballgame. For the first time I was truly getting great bass and good clarity (it was good before, but never this good). As good as this was, it was much better when the EQ was engaged. In order to engage the EQ for music, we ran the digital out of the transport into 8024. From the 8024 we ran the digital out to the digital in of my dac. This way all EQ functions were in the digital, not analog domain.

Before today I thought EQ's were something that people in high end audio didn't use. I also thought they could only mess up the sound, not make it better.

I COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!!!

By inserting an under $200 piece of gear + some patch cords, I was able to greatly improve the sound of my system. EACH time we engaged the 8024, the sound was better!! It didn't become clinical or less musical. In fact, it was just the opposite. By cleaning things up, I can hear more details than ever. This allowed me to enjoy the music more than before.

This listening session with Frank was very humbling and enlightening. I encourage others to think a little outside the box and try some different placements of their speakers and listening chair. You also MUST TRY some form of room/speaker correction. If you spend time properly positioning things, the amount of EQ that will need to be done should be relatively small, but significant. This afternoon taught me that the EQ isn't a "cure all", instead it is yet another important tool to be used in getting the most from your system (like room treatments, power conditioning, etc...).

Other members here have been lucky enough to hear Frank's system and everybody who has heard it, says they were blown away. After seeing and hearing what Frank did in 3 hours at my place, I can't wait till I get to visit.

Thanks again Frank for helping out and teaching me some very important lessons.

George

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #1 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:35 am »

George,

After experiencing Frank's system, with it's $2 speaker cables and Technics CD player, I fully believe in EQ if it's done properly. Frank definitely knows his stuff and he has now worked his room placement/EQ magic in your room, Tito's, and Shahid's. I like my Behringer, but need to get it set up and working in the digital realm to realize it's full potential.

Michael

zybar · « **Reply #2 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:44 am »

Mike,

Since I have a separate transport and dac, it is easy to integrate the Behringer in a digital way.

I was so impressed with Frank's visit today that I put my money where my mouth is and just bought an Ultracurve 2496 off Audiogon a few minutes ago.

From doing some reading this afternoon, it appears that the 2496 is easier to use and a little more flexible and powerful.

I should have it by the end of the week.

George

vpolineni · « **Reply #3 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 03:29 am »

Are the benefits of the eq not as significant if analog outputs are used? from what i've read, the DBX driverack PA seems to be better and only has analog inputs and outputs. here's a link to it:
http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/product.cfm?pid=4602

Daniel · « **Reply #4 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 05:26 am »

Now wait a minute! This has to be an elaborate hoax.

Every Audio Raver who has gone to New Jersey to hear Frank's stereo has said the same thing. Each raved about its sound, particularly its holographic soundscape, and claimed that he had never heard anything as good at any price. Total cost of Frank's system? About $1.98 for all components and mods. I figure each Raver, once lured out there on such a ludicrous claim, had to become part of the hoax or lose all respect.

Frank seems to have keen ears, deep knowledge and a quiet but amiable personal style but don't you see!?!? Its all an act. Has to be. I think he's actually just a mid-fi New Jersey guy looking to bring the New York audiophiles down.

I saw through Frank a long time ago but George?!? You too?! I'm flabbergasted. You have invested enormous time, energy and money in your stereo and now claim it has been transformed by inserting a cheapie equalizer into the chain??? I mean c'mon already. Your digital interconnect alone costs more than the equalizer. How can you stick that thing in? Where's your sense of dignity?

DVV · « **Reply #5 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 06:32 am »

As opposed to the high end mod squad, EQs never left the professional installations. Never. The only dilemma those boys ever have about using EQs is whether to go third octave, or parametric.

EQs got a bad rep in the late 70-ies and early 80-ies for essentially two reasons: 1) they were made in the cheap and cheerful way, using the cheapest components available, and 2) people tended to misuse them for lack of knowledge. Much like tone controls.

But denying the practical use of EQs is denying the simple scientific fact that we do NOT have linear hearing, either as a species, or as individuals.

Cheers,
DVV

mb · « **Reply #6 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 08:22 am »

Quote from: DVV

....
But denying the practical use of EQs is denying the simple scientific fact that we do NOT have linear hearing, either as a species, or as individuals.

Agree! In this context, I also see EQ as a necessary evil to address listening rooms that were never designed with audio reproduction in mind. My room has 10ft floor to ceiling height throughout, with marble tiled floor and concrete ceiling. This works out to a pretty sharp 57Hz mode, and DEQ is a practical way for me to address the mode.

DVV · « **Reply #7 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:28 pm »

Quote from: mb

Quote from: DVV
....
But denying the practical use of EQs is denying the simple scientific fact that we do NOT have linear hearing, either as a species, or as individuals.

Agree! In this context, I also see EQ as a necessary evil to address listening rooms that were never designed with audio reproduction in mind. My room has 10ft floor to ceiling height throughout, with marble tiled floor and concrete ceiling. This works out to a pretty sharp 57Hz mode, and DEQ is a practical way for me to address the mode.

It does NOT have to be a necessary evil. It CAN be made of high quality parts, and it CAN have the desired action without any significant deterioration of the overall sound - in fact, its benefits far outweigh its faults. I hope most will agree that a say 2% degradation because of the electronics is insignificant compared to a say 20% benefit in improved room equalizations.

Even taken in the most vulgar of terms, this is a net benefit of (20-2) 18%!

But be warned - the electronics are relatively simple, what hurts in terms of price are the potentiometers, even in case of parametrics (since each value, say BASS/MID/HIGH, has three pots each).

The last one I made I was stupid enough to sell off to a good friend, and now I don't have the time to put together another one. My choice is always the parametric kind; this allows you to adjust, in three bands, the volume, Q factor and turnover frequency of each band. So, you can slide the bass from 20 to 800 Hz, mid from 800 to say 5,000 Hz, and the rest is high.

If people aren't too obsessed with brand names, they will use Bourns (US made pro grade) pots, always my favorite. 20+ years down the road, and they are still as good as when new (but I don't know if the current crop is as good). The mod squad will go for Alps, Noble, TDK or some such and pay 3-4 times the price for the same quality (albeit without the glory attached).

Anyway, the wonders they can do in getting rid of unwanted suck-outs, resonances and attenuations are hard to believe until one hears them in action. And they do require quite a bit of time and effort to get them just right.

Cheers,
DVV

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:33 pm »

DVV,

If you do the correction in the digital domain you don't have the issues you are raising.

George

eico1 · « **Reply #9 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:42 pm »

Quote from: DVV

The last one I made I was stupid enough to sell off to a good friend, and now I don't have the time to put together another one. My choice is always the parametric kind; this allows you to adjust, in three bands, the volume, Q factor and turnover frequency of each band. So, you can slide the bass from 20 to 800 Hz, mid from 800 to say 5,000 Hz, and the rest is high.
...

The last one I made was a 4 band parametric using ladder DACs as variable resistors, no pots! Wish I could sell that thing...

steve

mr_bill · « **Reply #10 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 02:59 pm »

Frank or Zybar or anyone else use the Behringer Ultracurve with its internal DACs with analog output rather than digital into another DAC?
I understand the digital in from the transport and doing the equalization in the digital domain, but it looks like it has a good set of dacs and then you can skip the outboard dac and another digital cable.
Thanks,
Bill

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 03:02 pm »

Bill,

When I get my Ultracurve 2496 later this week, I can test and see how the dac compares to my Electrocompaniet ECD-1.

Although I would love for it to be equal, I have little hope that it will be.

George

sonicboom · « **Reply #12 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 04:28 pm »

What is the difference between parametric and 1/3 octave in reference to equalizers? Can someone please offer a quick explanation or point me to some site that might offer pertinent info.

Cheers,
G

John Casler · « **Reply #13 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 05:37 pm »

Quote from: zybar

Frank decided to try mounting 3" foam strips on either side of the midrange/tweeter. This really made a big impact in terms of reducing the reflections and cleaning up the sound. A byproduct of that change, was that I now had to turn up the L-pads significantly to get things balanced (finally the tweaky nature of the 40's was paying off!). More RTA tests showed that I was getting "pretty close" to a flat response.
...

Hmmmm I think I have heard of doing that before

Just use care in the mounting material for the strips, as not to damage the finish.

Sounds like you're getting dialed in George.

zybar · « **Reply #14 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 05:44 pm »

John,

Yes, I believe you called it the "beard".

What I am going to do is glue the foam onto some cardboard and attach the cardboad with some double sided tape.

If you or Brian knows of a different way to attach the beard to the speakers, please let me know. I don't want to damage my finish in any way.

George

eico1 · « **Reply #15 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 06:04 pm »

G, with a parametric eq all 3 parameters are adjustable, boost/cut, frequency and the width for each band. With a graphic eq, the width and frequency are fixed, though usually there are more bands to play with.

The most significant advantage of a parameteric is if it is a symmetrical Q type that can provide a notching response in cut mode. In other words the shape of the curve is the standard "bell" in boost mode, but in cut mode as the bandwidth is reduced you get a "notch" looking curve as to eliminate the undesired frequency without affecting the surrounding ones.

steve

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #16 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 08:04 pm »

Quote

Are the benefits of the eq not as significant if analog outputs are used?

Well, if you keep it all digital, you can skip the Analog->Digital->Analog conversion, which apparently is less transparent. From what I've read and heard at Frank's, the Behringer is pretty much completely transparent when used in the digital domain. I plan to use it this way eventually, but I also plan to use it's analog in/outs to use on my tuner/turntable, which is what I spend probably 75% of my time listening to anyway.

If you use the Behringer in the analog domain, you need something that can feed it 7.5volts to get full resolution. Most hi-fi gear doesn't output this high, so Frank is gonna mod mine so I can put it in my tape loop and get full resolution in the analog domain.

Michael

zybar · « **Reply #17 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 08:08 pm »

Mike,

I don't think you will have the analog output issue with the 2496. Does anybody know for sure?

George

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #18 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 08:50 pm »

Quote

Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:08 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike,

I don't think you will have the analog output issue with the 2496. Does anybody know for sure?

Really? On the 8024, it's more of a problem with the analog input needing to see 20volts before offering full resolution. However, if the 2496 takes care of these pro-audio tendencies of the 8024, then it's worth the extra $ IMO.

Michael

John Casler · « **Reply #19 on:** 1 Jun 2004, 09:03 pm »

Quote from: zybar

John,

Yes, I believe you called it the "beard".

What I am going to do is glue the foam onto some cardboard and attach the cardboad with some double sided tape.

If you or Brian knows of a different way to attach the beard to the speakers, please let me know. I don't want to damage my finish in any way.

George

I actually called it "lapels". The beard is the bass director added to the front of the 626R from the bottom of the speaker to the floor.

I'm sorry I don't have a foolproof method of attachement. I toyed with the idea of getting thin wood or plastic strips and speaker grill "pegs" and simply glueing the "lapels" to the wood strips and mounting them in the already available grill holes, but sold my RM40s before doing so.

This would also make them removable just like the grills.

If your a handy guy, (DIY) that could work.