|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
166.89.29.75
In Reply to: Re: DEQ 2496 and DAC 1 posted by aljordan on December 8, 2006 at 10:40:40:
I'm being sorely tempted to buy a DEQ2496. Anything you can say about the sound and how well or poorly it works would be appreciated. (I've done searches on AA and found some posts, but you are here now!) Thanks.
Follow Ups:
Hi Tom,
I am using one that I feed with a Monarchy Audio DIP via. the AES/EBU XLR input. I think take the optical output into a second Monarchy Audio DIP before sending it on to the DAC (not a DAC-1 but doesn't matter for this discussion).I have found this to be pretty much sonically invisible (except for the obvious equalizing function). If you use this DEQ any other way besides digital in and digital out then you will degrade your sound. I recommend DIPing the in and the out as I have found the DEQ to be sensitive to input jitter and it produces a fair amount of its own jitter based on the specs (something like up to 2 nanoseconds of jitter.)
The DEQ really opened my eyes to how much can be accomplished with proper EQ on digital sources, and how much money I wasted prior to owning it when all along the room was my biggest problem. If you are using it purley in the digital domain, ie digital in, digital out between a transport and DAC, it does nothing but alter the digits at your command - otherwise transparant. Others have noted that it's not even all too bad as a DAC - I second that, considering it's thrown in largely for free at $300 or whatever the rediculously cheap list price is.
I would use it entirely in the digital domain. Thanks
DEQ is a great buy, it will allow you to tweak/fix the sound to a degree no cable can do particularly when used purely in digital domain. It is absolutely transparent
Hi Tom,I wrote an article for an e-zine regarding the DEQ a few months back. Take a look at the link below to read it. I also wrote another related article in that issue regarding a software package that can aid in setting up room amplitude correction.
In short, I think the DEQ is an very good bargain. I wasn't completely happy when using the unit as a DAC, but it was still pretty good. However, the unit is totally transparent when used in the digital domain if you set it up properly. If you have any further questions after reading the article I'll be happy to answer.
Alan
Hi Alan,
I tried to log on to the article but am unable to access. Pls. assist.
Thanks.
S K
Hi SK,Try the following link and then choose the September issue.
Alan
Thanks. Got it.
Alan, read your article. It's very interesting and informative and should be read by anyone contemplating the purchase of a DEQ 2496. I had one question for you--you describe cutting response at various freqencies. How did you determine where to cut? By ear and then by estimating what the needed frequency point was? I see that you have one of their callibration mics. Did you use that--you imply it's not necessary, or maybe that the auto curve it comes up with can be better done by hand. Anyway, thanks for the info and the article!
I am planning to try it with the DEQ 2496 when I get my soundcard hardware sorted outREW ~~Room EQ Wizard~~
You must registar with The Home Theater Shack
The download is free
Julien
"There's someone in my head, but it's not me"
Thanks...will print it out later!
This looks pretty good. I'll download it tomorrow and try it out. Thanks for the link.
Hi Tom,I used the Behringer ECM-8000 measurement microphone set up at the listening position to take some measurements. The DEQ2496 has an input that will accept that (or any other measurement mic), and you don't need to use a microphone preamp with the DEQ. The DEQ has a setting which allows you to output pink noise, and you can look at the microphone response on the DEQ's display when in RTA mode. I definitely would recommend the microphone unless you are good at translating notes to their numerical frequencies by ear.
To use the auto eq mode on the DEQ, you would need to have a measurement mic hooked up. I used the ECM-8000 because it has a reasonable flat response, is not expensive, and the DEQ has built in settings for it. That being said, if you run an auto-eq with a flat target curve, the results will most likely sound awful. It is not so much the fault of the DEQ as it is the basic fact that a flat in room response generally sounds awful. I played with the auto eq settings, but in the end found better results manually setting the parametric equalizer because the parametric offers way more control than the standard graphical equalizer.
Note that the unit can be set up completely by ear, but I definitely found that using a measurement microphone allowed me to more quickly identify where the problems exist in my room.
You can get excellent results by doing something like the following:
Using the DEQ and a measurement mic, you would set up the mic at the listening position, use the DEQ's pink noise generator and look at the results displayed on the RTA screen. Then use the parametric eq to first dial out the humps you see below 200 hz. The parametric eq allows you to find nearly the exact center point for a given adjustment, allows you to set the width of frequency range that the adjustment will affect, and allows you to cut or boost that range up to fifteen db in half db increments. You can have the adjustments affect both channels, or a single channel. If you are going to work on each channel separately, make sure that the pink noise is only playing through the channel you are adjusting.
I said to first only apply cuts to the frequencies where there are room humps because that has the most profound affect. Reducing the bass frequencies that are drowning out other frequencies will give you much deeper apparant bass response. You can then apply a boost to the frequencies that are showing nulls in the room, but you have to be careful here because applying boosts will make you amps work harder, and will require you to lower the overall output volume of the DEQ in order to avoid digital clipping. I mentioned that it is most effective to apply the eq below 200 hz because the wavelengths are fairly large, and eq at those frequencies will be affective over a fairly large distance near the listening position. Once you start trying to apply eq at the higher frequencies, the wavelength nulls and peaks are so small that the eq is affective for only the single position of where the measurement mic is. If you move your head less than a foot you can get radically different results.
It is, however, very affective to apply general eq in the higher frequencies if you have a general problem you want to fix. In my case, I like a bit more of a BBC dip than the designer of speaker dialed in to the crossover, so I applied a 2 db cut centered at 2500 hz that had a width from about 1500 hz to 3500 hz. A small adjustment like this had a big effect in overall listening pleasure.
Don't expect to buy the DEQ and have it working flawlessly in an hour. It is a fairly complicated piece of equipment that really requires a couple of close reads through the manual. If you are located in the U.S. I can guide you through some of the tricks over the phone.
You da man!!! I've been playing with the DEQ for a few months now to marginal results. I just did your recommended adjustmenst and HOLY COW ... what a difference. Thank you for the posting
Cool. I'm glad you have it working well.
Alan, thanks for the great detailed answer. It fills in the missing pieces--I couldn't figure out from your article how you did it and this post certainly explained that well. I printed off a copy (of both) for future reference. Now, the quest to find $350 for the eq and the mic!
Tom
Thanks for the feedback! I got the article and plan to read it tonight. My idea has been to use the DEQ between my cd player and my dac, so it's very good to hear that you have done the same already. More later!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: