|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.153.250.207
In Reply to: Chip Amp Voicing Is Definitely Dominated By POLLYinFLA's Disastrous Decision! posted by thetubeguy1954 on March 5, 2007 at 07:52:06:
"Although POLLYinFLA would have you simply take his and Behringer's word that the ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 is a component that offers "...extremely high audio performance (which) makes it ideal for audiophile mastering and PA purposes." Hey isn't that what the Objectivists here always accuse the Subjectivists of? Simply taking a manufactuer's word? Hmmmmmm...."You missed a key point, the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.
Secondly, you said
"Although it's not the same model I've heard the ULTRA-CURVE PRO DSP8024 used in any otherwise very nice system. Unfortunately it was immediately noticeable as being in the circuit between the amp & preamp, even when set to flat"
Look at the instructions that accompany the Ultra-Curve Pro DSP8024, specifically look at pages 22 -24 under Section called application, the device is not supposed to be used between the preamplifier and the power amplifier, but BEFORE the preamplifier, i.e. the equalizer should always receive a full signal, another point, did you adjust the input sensitivity accordingly to obtain optimum results, this point pretty much makes placing the equalizer between between the amplifier and the preamplifier a no-no if optimal results are to be obtained, the same should also apply to the DEQ2496.
PS: I will answer the response on Peter Aczel in detail in the next few days, Secondly, I suggest you drop this name-calling business, it is not condusive for rational discussion.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Follow Ups:
You missed a key point, the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.the measurements which quantify the loss of resolution, imaging, and dynamics wrought with cheapo op amp based equalizers when used full range? I have a third octave Behringer unit myself that I used to use on the subs in my HT. Wanna buy it?
rw
why the loss of resolution, imaging and dynamics wrought by ANY device is not meaasureable?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
conventional metrics the least bit useful. Why does the Crown IC-150 measure great and sound horrible? Same answer.
I am told that it is sometimes called the ICK 150. ;-)
the Crown amplifier story is getting old. Where did you find the measurements of the Crown IC-150 and which measurements were published? I take it that you are referring to an amplifier from the 70's, however judging from your comments you knew even less about measurements then that you do now.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
of the uselessness of THD and IM measurements. Surely you don't think otherwise. If so, perhaps you might ask Mr. Danley the same question.Where did you find the measurements of the Crown IC-150 and which measurements were published?
You can still find the ICK manual on the Crown website. Tests were published back in the 70s by all the audio rags of that day. Everyone applauded the unmeasurable distortion. Yeah, right. :)
rw
I asked why"loss of resolution, imaging and dynamics wrought by ANY device is not meaasureable" {CORR]
not why THD and/or IM measurments might be useful or useless, which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My question was "why is loss of resolution, imaging and dynamics wrought by ANY device is not meaasureable? Why not answer that one rather than discussing an irrelevant issue.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
If they did, then the virtually universal practice of voicing components by ear would be rendered unnecessary. Why would any human intervention be necessary if the metrics were conclusive? You might try actually talking to a designer to understand the question. As I have done.Specs don't tell us the whole picture. Never have. Maybe some day in the future they will.
Your deleted message contains several of your latest and most humorous fixations.
Still dancing around the question, eh?> If they did, then the virtually universal practice of voicing components by ear would be rendered unnecessary.
There is still a small matter called preference and that varies from individual to individual, voicing by ear does not mean that the parameters are unmeasurable, in fact folks have been known to voice by ear, then measure the final prototypes, those measurements then form the basis of the actual product.
> Why would any human intervention be necessary if the metrics were conclusive?
As stated many times in the past, metrics measure performance, not user perception or preference.
> Specs don't tell us the whole picture
Specs were never intended to give the full picture, in this instance I asked for measurements not specifications, big difference.
I take it that you obliquely accept that those parameters are measurable, am I right?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"then measure the final prototypes, those measurements then form the basis of the actual product."Only in the end as some form of quality control. The final arbiter is the ear of the designer or at least those that care about sound quality. How good that designer is at actually listening is a whole other issue and part of why many designs are "voiced" so strangely.
"As stated many times in the past, metrics measure performance, not user perception or preference"
But the performance of a piece of audio gear is intimately tied to listener perception. The two cannot be separated as you would have us do. Therefore, the metrics must relate to the listener experience and not the listener must conform to the metrics. This give relevancy to the metrics otherwise they are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation.
I use metrics all the time in my work as a chemist. However, those squiggles in a mass spectrum are representative of a reality and give direct correlation to the molecules being measured. If they didn't then they would have no relvancey and therefore no value in my work. Audio metrics are the same, they need to be correlated with the real world end point, ie. user experience.
Again, show me a measurement that can demonstrate loss of resolution (whatever that vague term actually means). Dynamics are in some ways measureable (but perhaps not relevant because the real music conditions differ).
There is still a small matter called preference and that varies from individual to individual...Why any engineer would choose lower (perceived) resolution or less than neutral response?
"I take it that you obliquely accept that those parameters are measurable, am I right?" (damn HTML tags not working again)
I will restate my opinion. The numbers alone do not provide any useful information. We have yet to measure RFI noise rejection. That increases noise and thus reduces dynamic range. If you were to compare two amplifiers with necessarily different spectral harmonic distortion plots, which one would you choose simply by looking at the spikes? Such information is more of a curiosity rather than providing any conclusive evidence.
Don't you know that by now? I merely state the obvious.
"Why any engineer would choose lower (perceived) resolution or less than neutral response?"Because the engineer is looking at the whole package, not just a single variable.
"I will restate my opinion. The numbers alone do not provide any useful information. "
I do not recall anyone (of note) claiming so, or do you evidence to the contrary?
> We have yet to measure RFI noise rejection
For amplifiers maybe because it is not particularly relevant, but RFI noise rejection is measureable and quoted on some products where it is a relevant metric.
"That increases noise and thus reduces dynamic range"
????, how could know you possibly know that without measurements or controlled tests. Increased noise and reduced dynamic ranges can occur as a result many other factors, to establish that it is caused by increased RFI requires measurements and controlled tests.
" If you were to compare two amplifiers with necessarily different spectral harmonic distortion plots, which one would you choose simply by looking at the spikes? Such information is more of a curiosity rather than providing any conclusive evidence."
For those that lack knowledge of how to correlate measurements to listening impressions you will be correct. However this scenario is not unique to audio but applicable to every area where measurements are used, and in a lot of cases it is simply down to a lack of knowledge on the side of the observer.
There is no explaining to do, those variables are measureable, however correlating them to listening observations requires some requisite knowledge.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
By all means, choose your gear solely on numbers. Good luck!
"By all means, choose your gear solely on numbers. Good luck!"Where did I ever say that, for one the measurements are not always available nor comprehensive enough to be able to make that a viable option. At any rate, you never did answer the question, did you?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
At any rate, you never did answer the question, did you?You first. That is what began this exchange.
An impasse....willing to wager that you have absolutely zilch to put on the table, if you said this five posts earlier we could have saved ourselves a lot of pointless posts.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
that's exactly what I was thinking about you. What a coincidence! I ask you a question and you have evaded answering it for the following seven posts.Your lack of an answer is an answer. Same one I arrived at as well. :)
I suppose you forget the point at which you joined the conversation, i.e. I said the variables adjustment by Behringer DSP8096 are independently measurable, how else could they write a suite of program to modify them if they were not?Don't bother answering..
I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out....the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.
> I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out.
...the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE.I wonder how Behringer managed to write a suite of programs to modify dynamics, imaging and provide dynamic noise-gating if they are not measureable.
What is your next crock?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You're talking about post processing effects and I'm referring to original audio signal integrity. The imaging to which I refer relates to less compromised signal quality, not a "setting" with a slider.
Earlier you said this"> I directly quoted the comment to which I responded. Let me help you out.
...the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE."now you said
"You're talking about post processing effects and I'm referring to original audio signal integrity"
What is the else will the effects of an equalizer? and even your new revised statement is still wrong, since you still have to measure the original "uncompromised" signal before making any adjustments.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
that despite your assertion, the effects of which cannot be fully measured. Signing out. You get it or you don't.
Obviously you do not get it, because it was and still is about audio quality pre and post-processing. I love your phrase "the effects of which cannot be fully measured", yet another crock, I said measureable, let's just say "fully measured" is a waste time and money, "relevant and applicable" is where the action is. AJinFLA's post is more succinct. he said"...because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears."
it sums up your most of your posts nicely. Signing off
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
HI....assuming these are all "measureable" as you claimed. Using state-of-the-art instrumentation regardless.
and loss of resolution and dynamics are directly measureable.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
.
Why not just read it up yourself, the last time I checked you were not interested in such measurements, so why bother asking?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Hobby,Forgive me for saying so but this is typical objectivist behavior. You stated that dynamics (which I believe is easily measured) and loss of resolution are able to be measured.
Please explain how one measures loss of resolution and if you would what measurements determine soundstage Height? Depth? Width? Or how is air around instruments measured? Those are all important traits to me yet I know of no measurements that correlate with them.
Hi.Want to tell me where to find them again in case I've missed them.
But at the moment they can only be determined as such subjectively.
"But at the moment they can only be determined as such subjectively. "No, their subjective evaluation is no different than for other parameters such frequency response or SPLs. At any rate that is besides the issue, the point is that those parameters are in fact measureable. And we are back again discussing listener perception and objective measured performance and all the associated baggage, related but certainly not identical.
"No, their subjective evaluation is no different than for other parameters such frequency response or SPLs"How can you measure a loss of resolution? Dynamics, maybe but only with tests that don't really exist at the moment (for example measuring dynamic or power compression with a sudden burst to simulate real music transients). I have seen a paper on thermal compression and they found that at normal levels the speakers had only small differences in compression. However, one or the other speaker will SOUND more compressed than the other, which suggests that something was being missed in the measurements that were being made. At high levels often the woofer begins to compress first (this was always a test in Audio way back when and invariably the woofer would poop out before the mid and tweeter...at around 120 db though). The instantaneous shifts are not indicated by such a test and the ear seems to be sensitive to the difference.
"At any rate that is besides the issue, the point is that those parameters are in fact measureable"
They may be measureable but are they relevant?
"And we are back again discussing listener perception and objective measured performance and all the associated baggage"
Naturally because until there is a solid correlation between the two it will be the core issue.
"How can you measure a loss of resolution? Dynamics, maybe but only with tests that don't really exist at the moment (for example measuring dynamic or power compression with a sudden burst to simulate real music transients). "Well, Behringer made a good stab at it, even managed to write a suite of programs to modify some of those variables, how did they manage that ;-).
" However, one or the other speaker will SOUND more compressed than the other, which suggests that something was being missed in the measurements that were being made."
I doubt it is being missed, just not provided to endusers as the information is only useful to those with the requisite specialist knowledge.
Your response should be most interesting, please try and keep it polite.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"Well, Behringer made a good stab at it, even managed to write a suite of programs to modify some of those variables, how did they manage that ;-)."They did what? Made software to reduce resolution? I mean I guess if you inject distortion or noise into the signal you can accomplish this. Dynamics? Well of course they can be expanded or compressed electronically but if we are talking about the native dynamics of a speaker then maybe they can measure some aspects of it but not under real music conditions.
"I doubt it is being missed, just not provided to endusers as the information is only useful to those with the requisite specialist knowledge"
Your speculations are duly noted but realize that in the absence of such data my position that the information is not available holds more water than your speculation that information is being withheld. Prove to me they can make relevant measurements in this regard. Maybe they can but maybe not.
"They did what? Made software to reduce resolution?"I thought we were discussion measuring the loss of resolution, at any rate some other programs do that, but that is an aside here.
"Dynamics? Well of course they can be expanded or compressed electronically but if we are talking about the native dynamics of a speaker then maybe they can measure some aspects of it but not under real music conditions"
Engineered dynamic compression/expansion takes place under real music conditions.
"Your speculations are duly noted but realize that in the absence of such data my position that the information is not available holds more water than your speculation that information is being withheld"
Your position is no more valid than mine, not that it matters anyway.
"Prove to me they can make relevant measurements in this regard"
Too much trouble....
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"I thought we were discussion measuring the loss of resolution,"WE ARE!! And I would posit that you have not mentioned yet how measuring let alone clearly defining what is meant by loss of resolution can be accomplished. Now you say that Behringer whipped up some software to do just that? Name of the device they sell, please that does this (if you point me to a distortion box I don't whether to laugh or cry).
"Engineered dynamic compression/expansion takes place under real music conditions."
We are not talking about electronic purposeful solutions for making compression or expansion. It is well known that these things have existed for a long time. We are talking about getting accurate measurements from the intrinsic behavior of a driver under real music conditions. These are two completely different things and I hope you can see this.
My position is more valid because you are the one claiming its measurable and I am claiming that the determination under real world and not static conditions is not available. Since you can't or won't provide an example of how this might be done then my position is clearly stronger.
Engineered dynamic compression/expansion takes place under real music conditions.Is that real ketchup, Eddie?
Bwahahahahahaha!
nt
Hobby,You stated that I missed the key point, the effects of an equalizer on any given system are independently MEASURABLE. While I'm quite sure that you're correct Hobby about the the effects of an equalizer on any given system being independently MEASURABLE. I see the point as being more one of just because it's measureable that doesn't mean it automatically a good thing. So the point I was attempting to make is should we just accept POLLYinFLA & Behringer's word that the ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 is a component that offers ...extremely high audio performance (which) makes it ideal for audiophile mastering and PA purposes? As you stated it's measureable, but is it use detrimental or advantagous?
=====================================================================
Next Hobby you said: Look at the instructions that accompany the Ultra-Curve Pro DSP8024, specifically look at pages 22 -24 under Section called application, the device is not supposed to be used between the preamplifier and the power amplifier, but BEFORE the preamplifier, i.e. the equalizer should always receive a full signal, another point, did you adjust the input sensitivity accordingly to obtain optimum results, this point pretty much makes placing the equalizer between between the amplifier and the preamplifier a no-no if optimal results are to be obtained, the same should also apply to the DEQ2496.I'll readily admit I just assumed it was placed between the preamp & amplifier. It's quite possible I am mistaken and will need to ask the owner if that's how it was inserted or if it was done as Behringer suggested in their manuel. Truth be told I cannot answer your question of did the owner adjust the input sensitivity accordingly to obtain optimum results? I will say I believe he did as he's a professional recording engineer and gets pretty picky about those types of things. What I can state as fact is it was immediately noticable in the system even when set to flat and it wasn't an improvement but rather detrimental to the sound. Last thing I knew the owner had removed it completely & has kept it out since then to the best of my knowledge.
=====================================================================
Finally Hobby you ended your post with with to comments: 1) I will answer the response on Peter Aczel in detail in the next few days. Ok I'll look forward to your response.2) You also suggest that I drop this name-calling business as it is not condusive for rational discussion. I agree with you Hobby it's not condusive for rational discussion. However I hope you'll agree it's just as detrimental for rational discussion when you talk about my intelligence, question my character and suggesting I need physiatric help. As for POLLYinFLA I originally posted to him in a very civil manner, but his first few posts were filled with disparaging comments that refered to my amp as an euphonic noise generator, my speakers as floppy little cones and IIRC refering to me as Tubeboob. He constantly talks about my needing therapy etc. I cannot find one post POLLYinFLA has ever written me that was a rational conversation. Most of his posts are either pathetic attempts a humor with personal digs or just plain ridiculing the person he's posting to and their audio components. As you've now hopefully seen, I address people in the manner they address me.
In any event, I'll be looking forward to your comments on Aczel.
Thetubeguy1954
Actually tubeguy the DEQ 2496 works extremely well as long as you use it digital in/digital out only. I also recommend using it with a couple of jitte boxes on the input and output. That being said the built in DAC in stock condition is OK but easily bettered. However; bypassing all the opamps inside and transformer coupling it out apparently works very well. The ADC that is built in is also OK, not studio quality but not half bad either. I had the cheaper 8024 and it is really no comparison, the DEQ 2496 is vastly superior in terms of function and sound quality. The 8024 used with analog inputs is a disaster (if you get the optional digital in and out it is not too bad actually).
That the DEQ might actually improve the sound of TG54's system, including his Aliantes with no baffle step filter in his non-anechoic room? Surely you jest? What about the collapsed sound stage and grit, grain, etc?
IIRC, he has some sort of CD player that deliberately measures poorly in order to sound good, so I'm not sure if he even has a digital out to use. Perhaps my good pal Tom can answer that one.
Great little cheap toy for "voicing" IMHO.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA,Ignorantly states in his typical fashion that I (TG1954) have some sort of CD player that deliberately measures poorly in order to sound good, so POLLY's not sure if I (TG1954) even has a digital out to use.
First POLLYinFLA yes the BlueNote Stibbert most definitely has a digital out! Second how you the pompous, parroting proclaimer of poorly perceived putrid proclamations perchance pretended that the Stibbert purposely performs poorly in order to sound good, is just another fine example of more bird-brained banter of King POLLYinFla! I guess the bird brain considers these to be the measurements of a CD player, that measures poorly in order to sound good...
SPECIFICATIONS: DIMENSIONS: 550mm L x 250mm H x 450mm D - WEIGHT: Kg. 12,00 - FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 4Hz - 44KHz @ +/- 1dB - THD (Total Harmonic Distortion): 0,0001% Max. - SIGNAL-NOISE RATIO: 118dB - DYNAMIC RESPONSE: 127dB - SPEED FLUCTUATION: 0,0001% Max. - CONTROL DIGITAL SYSTEM: Zero-Clock™ - DAC: PCM1704 - DIGITAL OUTPUT: 75 ohms RCA connector - ANALOG OUTPUT: STEREO RCA + XLR connectors - POWER SUPPLY: Electro-Power™ 100/260Volt 50/60Hz electronic.
Sorry Tom, I think I confused you talking about some wacky unfiltered Kobiashi (sp?) CD player that you said measured bad so must sound good as your actual CD player. My bad.
Now what the hell is all that crap?cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Yes POLLYinFLA, you definitely confused a previous converstion with about a CDP that measures poorly yet is supposed to sound very good. In any event the photo is the highly regarded Blue Note Stibbert, which is what I use. All that crap were the measurements you so love to rely on.Pondering & perusing the Stibbert's performance prior to posting this page of paranoid parrot proclimations could have possibly prevented POLLYinFLA's pathetic position, permiting him perchance to parlay this portion of his putrid plan & possibly prepare a path out when mistaken as his is... Alas he's but a bumbling bird-brain beaten before beginning because as he says... He confused what I was talking about! Here's a tip, take time, think, then talk!
I like those, although you consider them useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.
No, I was talking about all that crap around the CD drawer. Is that cube like a Borg ship, where it's picked up all that other junk or is the entire thing the cd player? Is that some sort of clamp?
Now another question for you. How would that Dilbert thing have improved upon the sound of Dr Geddes RMAF demo if substituted for the $50 Costco Toshiba? http://gedlee.com/downloads/Observations and Thoughts.pdf
TG54's thoughts and observations?cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLAConcerning the specs of the Stibbert you commented: I like those, although you consider them useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.
Once again POLLYinFLA you're succeeding only in showing your stupidity and arrogance. Not one subjectivist person I know believes ALL measurements are meaningless. This is unfortunately your poor mistaken impression of what subjectivists believe. Your mistaken postion is further clarified when to add your comment of: because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears. But lo & behold even Dr. Linkwitz, the man whose speaker design you bastardized in an attempt to "improve" it uses his ears and trusted the ears of a friend OVER measurements to make final improvements when voicing his Orions. So why would you use this design or use some variation of it, "IF" using the ear as the final arbitrator is such a heinous thing as you appear to suggest? You're a real hypocrite POLLYinFLA, you use a variation of speakers that were finally voiced by trusting the ear and then you ridicule everyone else who does that exact same thing!
What subjectivists believe is there should be a measurement for EVERYTHING we hear. It's an unfortunate state of affairs that today's measurements as they're typically used in audio correlate very little with what we hear. Ask Tom Danley about that Polly! So POLLYinFLA as you're the one who bows at the altar of measurements, please tell me which measurement defines how high a soundstage will be? Which measurement defines how wide a soundstage will be? Which measurement defines how deep a soundstage will be? Which measurement defines how much "air" will be heard around the performers & instruments? Which measurement defines what a components resolution capabilities are? What measurement defines a components imaging capabilities? These are all important to me so please tell which measurements I need to read and how to interpret them. If you do that I'll use them, I promise! But until you do so I'll have to trust MY ears, not some ghost's ears.
===================================================================
POLLYinFLA continues with: No, I was talking about all that crap around the CD drawer. Is that cube like a Borg ship, where it's picked up all that other junk or is the entire thing the cd player? Is that some sort of clamp?I'm quite sure you don't really care about this CDP at all but instead are yet again attempting to ridicule or provoke me. However in case anyone does care. The BlueNote Stibbert's actual CDP itself is the gray box that hangs down from the black acrylic plinth. It is completely isolated via 4 conical springs. The main plinth of the CD player chassis, just as the Bluenote analog record players, is made of a 20mm thick black acrylic shaped like the Ferrari Formula 1 steering wheel. This special shape, was purposely designed to have totally non-parallel edges, which increases enormously the structural rigidity. The implementation of the design is to virtually eliminate any vibration feedback.
=====================================================================
Now POLLYinFLA I don't know why you insist on asking me questions like: How would that Stibbrt have improved upon the sound of Dr Geddes RMAF demo if substituted for the $50 Costco Toshiba?As I've told you numerous times in the past, unlike you I don't comment on audio components I haven't heard. I will admit that if there wasn't a marked improvement that was immediately noticeable when inserting the Stibbert in place of a $50 Toshiba CDP, I'd be shocked! I can tell you this much because I heard it for myself, the Stibbert made a marked improvement when it replaced the Audiomecca KEOPS CDP I was previously using. The Audiomecca KEOPS also made a marked improvement when it replaced the CAL DX2 I used before it. As for the difference between a $50 Toshiba and the $5000 Stibbert I BELIEVE it would be so dramatic that even you'd comment about the differences heard. However until I heard it for myself I cannot promise it would be so, but I believe it would be so with all my heart.
"I like those, although you consider them useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears."Yep, you captured the foolishness that pervades thinking of many on this board.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Who in the world... or just on this board ... thinks we should measure nothing at all in audio??? It's a statement that is so far beyond ridiculous that I find it hard to believe anyone feels that way.
"So the point I was attempting to make is should we just accept POLLYinFLA & Behringer's word that the ULTRACURVE PRO DEQ2496 is a component that offers ...extremely high audio performance (which) makes it ideal for audiophile mastering and PA purposes? "Are you suggesting that they cease to market their products with favourable language, they are not making any outlandish claims for their product nor do they judge their product to have a performance that is impossible to capture by measurment, if their liberal use of the word "high audio performance" does not meet your expectation then you move on, I do not see why there is a problem here.
"I'll readily admit I just assumed it was placed between the preamp & amplifier. It's quite possible I am mistaken and will need to ask the owner if that's how it was inserted or if it was done as Behringer suggested in their manuel. Truth be told I cannot answer your question of did the owner adjust the input sensitivity accordingly to obtain optimum results? I will say I believe he did as he's a professional recording engineer and gets pretty picky about those types of things. What I can state as fact is it was immediately noticable in the system even when set to flat and it wasn't an improvement but rather detrimental to the sound. ."
Well, the DSP8026 is a relatively complex beast, it certainly a'int plug n' play, learning how to use it pays dividends. And flat is about the worst setting you can use, the manual advices against using 'flat' response for many situations, so using the 'flat' setting as a benchmark for performance is misleading and not necessarily indicative of the performance of the unit.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: