[dewar]

The dac i'm using with my Sig30 (Monica2) has low output which has me turning up the gain more than usual.

I've just added a Behringer DEQ2496 to my system am are having to dial back its gain to avoid clipping its output signal as I have some dialed in some large boosts.

So now I have the Sig30's dial at about 2 o'clock with moderate listening levels.

My question is, does it matter to the Sig30, and to final sound quality, what the Sig's dial is set to?

I could always modify the impedance somewhere to get more gain rather than cranking the amps dial if need be?

thanks

Bevan

[Vinnie R.]

My question is, does it matter to the Sig30, and to final sound quality, what the Sig's dial is set to?

Hi Bevan,

It does not matter... volume control is all relative and with the Sig 30, the volume control setting does not have an impact on the sound quality (naturally, if you are playing it to the point of clipping, that WILL matter  ).

If your source has less output voltage, you are going to need to set the volume higher on the Sig 30, and vice-versa.  The same is true with speakers... less efficient speakers are going to require you to set the volume higher, and vice-versa.

Best regards,

Vinnie

[-Richard-]

There is some controversy in using EQ to attain ideal speaker interaction with ones room...
or to "compensate" for frequency anomalies that are either too present or not enough.

Some people claim that the intrusion of op amps can be heard... Vinnie's Signature
series of amplifiers are incredibly sensitive... the most sensitive amps I have ever
had the pleasure of driving my audio system... op amps in relatively cheap EQ devices
will probably introduce noise.

Also when you dial in "gain" on an EQ device, you are robbing amplifier power... more
gain in your frequency boost = less power available in your amp. Not to mention the
incredible distortion that boosting frequencies creates... not just clipping... but noise!!!!

The quick panacea of cheap EQ devices has serious trade offs in performance.

Warmest Regards ~ Richard

[dewar]

Thanks both of you.

Richard, I just posted a thread called 'My new Baffles' in the OB circle, but to say it here I am loving the new DEQ2496 in my system.

It's doing eq digitally and feeding an external dac so I dont think it uses op amps does it? I'm guessing if the cheap ol Behringer has got comparable dsp algorithms it should compare in sound quality to the much more expensive units like Rives PARK or the DEQX, but I could be wrong.

I've actually used it in a way that gives me more headroom, by playing my powered dipole subs at +15db then equalizing, effectively reducing the B200's work load by 15db.

There is an argument I've heard that equalizing for room anaomalies does not entirely fool the brain because it supposedly can to some tell that it is hearing a very lumpy primary signal coming from the speaker(before it heard the rooms signal arrive a milllisecond later). but in my case I have done a lot of work with setup and bass trapping and so most of the eq is there to correct for the speaker imbalance as opposed to the room.

Nice talking Richard,

Bevan

[-Richard-]

Hi Bevan/dewar ~

Obviously you know what you are doing... kudos to you for pulling together all the
parts of the puzzle and making them into a coherent sonic experience!!!

I played around with a rather sophisticated EQ device that is used by professional
recording engineers... that is how I came to understand their limitations.

I like good tone controls... but then my approach to audio solutions is simplistic.

Roger Modjeski claims that tone controls had no negative feedback applied to them
before the 1960's... that means they were well-designed during the golden
age of tube electronics of the 1950's

I am hoping that Vinnie will one day build some form of tone control/EQ into his
amplifier offerings... but it is quite alright if he does not as well... the Signature
70 plays everyday in my house... the ability of the Signature 70 to dig out the
"hidden" layers of musical material that is buried inside those little microscopic
holes in the metallic coating of the plastic CD is nothing less than astounding!!!!!
Voices appear as if from a parallel universe, instruments separate themselves into
their constituent parts for the first time... "that was 2 violins... not one!!!!!!"...
hidden musical rhythms appear that were simply not available before.

Is it musical?... that is like asking if everything a great musician does with his instrument
is musical... of course it is musical... because the singer or the musician did it.

I am still allowing my Signature 70 to burn-in... the good doctor Steven Rayle, is sending
me examples of preamps designed by Loyd Peppard in Canada to try with my Sig 70...
I want to hear what a reputedly well-designed triode tube preamp is... and is not doing
with the Signature 70... before I write about my experiences with it.

I flipped over the Signature 30... but I am in love with the Signature 70 in a different
way... the Signature 70 presents a musical experience unprecedented in my
experience... I need more time with it to fully grasp its magic.

Warmest Regards ~ Richard

[dewar]

Good to hear you so enthusiastic about the 70's Richard. I didnt know you had moved up the RWA ladder. Better say no more lest it becomes contagious. But I think I'll have the 30 a long time as it's certainly not the 'weakenst link' in my system.

That would be the ubiquitous no-name brand plate amps I'm using. So while your putting in requests with Vinnie could you add some low passed pre-outs to the list (like the Nad M3 uses)   

I'm curious if the pro audio equalizer you used was passive or all-digital in its operation? What do you feel are the drawbacks or digital eq?  I share your attraction to simplicity, but in the end I'm sure you'll agree that one has to listen to ones ears and not get too attached to ideas. My ears are far from golden though. But reading around for opinion on the DEQ, it's only professional hifi review has pronounced it transparent and lossless, and on forum pages many of it's most vocal proponents were using it in systems far more upmarket than what I have. Again, not to take anyones word over our own ears, but certainly enough anecdotal evidence to warrant an audition (speaking more to any deq-curious folk reading this than to you Richard as I you to be one of the most open minded people in these circles)

Look forward to reading your writings on the 70's

cheers

Bevan

[-Richard-]

Hi Bevan ~

The pro EQ I was using was not digital... it was an older model but highly praised
by recording engineers... sorry, but I no longer remember the manufacturer.

I did a bit of research recently, into how most EQ's work... when you dail-in a particular
frequency range that you wish to affect (band), most EQ's create a gross curve that affects
the nearby frequencies... pulling them into the boost or cut... the result is that
most experienced EQ users must compensate for this overly ripe envelope by taking
away some of the frequency "presence" on the opposite side of the equation:
some boost=some cut... some cut=some boost.

Rayne has a new line of EQ devices that seem to have solved this problem by
being able to make perfectly shapped boosts and cuts in very tight increments.

The other problem I found with EQ is that when a boost is made... for example in the bass,
to compensate for Open Baffle bass dipole cancellations (those low frequencies move so
slowly) it drains the amps power... with Vinnie's Signature series of amplifiers that
should not be a problem... with flea SE tube amps... such as my new Korneff 45
that puts out 2.5 watts, the effect can be quite noticeable.

Many really sensitive listeners claim they hear the effect op amps in digital EQ devices
have on all over sound.

However, you seem to have worked things out so that your system sounds very pleasing
and you seem happy with it... that is the important thing.

The first rule of medicine applies to audio as well... do no injury (to the sound)!

Warmest Regards ~ Richard

[dewar]

Hi Richard.

Do digital signals go through op amps? sorry, I'm not too clued up on electronics.

With parametic equalizers like the Behringer 1124 that I use on my subs there is a definite skill involved, and lots of trial and error to set the correct bandwidth so as to not effect outlying frequencies. With the digital DEQ2496 though all you do is set your target curve, press AUTO EQ and let her rip. The frequency response graph is then shown the display, and typically get very very close to the target curve.

You can also set its maximum allowed boost or gain amount thereby `voiding it trying to boost a room null, and so loosing much headroom, as you say. But it does give one the ability to position speaker and/or listener in a positive room node and then pull down said node, thereby resulting in a net increase in amplifier headroom.

Yeah I'm happy, in fact this has been one of those few components that actually made my jaw drop and left a lasting grin on my face.

chhers

Bevan

[bgavinski]

Dewar/Bevan, Richard

Great thread so far! I am experimenting with a DEQ2496 also, mainly to correct for speaker imbalances in a pretty well treated dedicated listening room. I would welcome any tips, references or how-to guides you may be able to point me to. For some reason the whole concept of parametric equailization has me flummoxed. (The 2496 manual is pretty cryptic also)

Dewar, what is your MO (in a nutshell) in using the 2496. My initials flailings have been so impressive that I would now like to "do it properly". The improvement in sound quality per dollar is quite amazing (I don't have golden ears either).

Any additonal info would be greatly appreciated.

BG

[Brucemck]

The following free software provides a proven method for measuring the sound of your system in your room, and, "correcting" that profile via a Behringer.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

There's a pretty extensive user guide and an active user community to provide support.

Works well.

I use this for my subwoofer channel but not for my mains: I found the Behringer a bit "tizzy", sort of like the compression sound on an mp3 file, higher up.  Heavily modding the unit helped a lot, but wasn't cheap.

[-Richard-]

Hi Brucemck ~

I use this for my subwoofer channel but not for my mains: I found the Behringer a bit "tizzy", sort of like the compression sound on an mp3 file, higher up.  Heavily modding the unit helped a lot, but wasn't cheap.

That is precisely what I meant by suggesting that the effect of the built-in op amps can
be heard... it sounds like you bypassed some of the stock circuits to get a cleaner
signal... perhaps swapping some capacitors along the way.

There is a certain level of "perfection" possible in terms of a smooth flat response
across the entire frequency gamut... that seems to be the goal of many speaker
designers, for example... but in the process something intrinsically "human" in terms
of the perception of the "real" is killed-off or sterilized.

We are a society that prides itself in being able to solve problems by a rational
step-by-step application of "corrections"... if the problem proves itself to be stubborn...
we simply invent better calculating devices and better tools to make the
adjustments necessary.

The problem in this approach is that we often lose our "over-view" of the all-over
situation... the gestalt... almost immediately as a consequence of our
focusing down into the details.

So one correction necessitates another correction and that correction now necessitates
another correction... ad-infinitum.

It is not as hopeless as it sounds... because the real problem resides in our very
"perception" of the "problem" in the first place.

What am I getting at? I am currently trying to be "creative" in achieving the sound
I am looking for. And that means giving up some of the all-too-well-traveled routes
of incremental corrections and add-on signal shaping devices.

Warmest Regards ~ Richard

[dewar]

Hi Brucemck. I'm curious whether it is the DEQ2496 with digital I/O you tried? I'm using the Behringer DSP1124 on my subs and although I dont believe they degrade the bottom octaves to any noticeable degree, when I ran the mains through the unit out of curiosity, I was not a all surprised that it sounded shite. The analogue components in a $100 piece of hardware are never going to be up to the job. I've still not been able answer whether there are op amps in a digital circuit but by my thinking(and hearing) purely digital devices like the DEQ (fed to external dac) should not in any way be judged by the performance of their analogue siblings. I've seen a lot of mods for the analogue side of the DEQ(for those using it as a dac) but not much for the digital side which supports my suspicion that there is not a lot one can do to improve or degrade the sound of digital as it's mostly up to the quality of the DSP algorithms. But I stand to be be corrected.

bgavinski, If you havent seen these help pages
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=16568

That was enough to get me through the setup. there is also this for when youre up and running, re house curves
http://www.prijsindex.net/tmp/room%20acoustics%20and%20eq.html

The only things I can add is that I think it is a good idea, once you have manually flattened bellow 100hz, to use test tones and a spl meter to check the accuracy. I found the Behringers display was showing flat at 40hz but the spl meter was showing a large hump. Sometimes you might get humps that fall between the Behringers 1/3 octave points but in this case 40hz is one of the points the Behringer does control. So it seems the Behringer might not be so acurate down low, which is probably why they recommend you auto eq above 100hz and do bellow 100hz by hand.
Also, the measurements for the top octave depend very much on where you point he mic. I think to point it strait at the speaker or between the speaker(if in linked stereo mode) is correct.
One more thing that had me briefly panicked, when you recall a preset from memory you might get only pink noise. It hasnt been lost, rather the preset includes the I/O setting and other parameters in addition to the GEQ settings that were current when you pressed 'save', so merely scroll through the I/O setting and choose 'digital in' in place of pink noise.

Let me know if I can be of any help though I've far from mastered all its intricacies.


cheers

Bevan

[bgavinski]

All,

I just got back from a business trip so please excuse the delay in replying. Thanks for your excellent replies. I obviously have a great deal of reading and experimenting to do. I guess the best thing to do is be open-minded and work with a "if it sounds good it is good" approach.

BTW, does anyone have experience and/or opinions on the TacT RCS 2.2 XP (http://www.tactlab.com/Products/RCS22XP/index.html). This unit can't be described as "low budget"!

BG

[miklorsmith]

I'm familiar with the TacT 2.0s, 2.2X and 2.2 XP, having owned all of them.  I weaned myself of them but still miss some of the XP's functionality.  However, my sound has mostly improved.  This is really a different question that deserves a separate thread.