Behringer DEQ2496 - worth using in hi-end system?

On 9/21/05, racarlson wrote:

Mine replaced a z-Systems RDQ-1 in this system: Theta Miles > Monarchy DIP Classic > Behringer > Benchmark DAC1 > PS Audio PCA-2 > Bryston 3BSST > Paradigm S2 & ACI Titan subs.

Wouldn't it be preferable to put the Behringer before the Monarchy DIP? I think the DIP is a good piece, and I would want to give it the last shot at reducing jitter before the signal goes to the DAC. I'm thinking of trying the Behringer in a system with a Monarchy Upsampling DIP and a Northstar DAC.

Racarlson, Thanks very much for your response. All systems are different, but for now your experience will do nicely as an excuse for me not to go to the trouble of trying my DIP fore and Aft of the Behringer DEQ. That, and the fact that if I want to place my DIP after the DEQ, I'll need to get another cable or an adaptor. I'll monkey around with that variable some other time. For now, the DIP must go before the DEQ.

As it is, the DEQ gives me plenty of ways to chew up my time. As a toy, this machine certainly excels. All this power--can I use it responsibly? Bwah hah hah hah hah!

I performed the autoeq for 100hz and up, as recommended. But I also did a separate autoeq trial for only the frequencies below 100 hz. This matched up with my Radio Shack meter analysis pretty well (thank goodness). I ended up making up a parametric eq curve to do this bass correction job rather than use the Autoeq process' graphic eq curve, mainly because I trust my calculations of the frequencies of bass standing waves in my room, and the para eq lets me target them more precisely.

I also severely cut levels for low frequencies beyond my monitor speakers' abilities, thinking it can't hurt to save the downstream equipment from doing work that won't have a hifi payoff.

So far, the results are good and certainly worth the costs, which include postponing getting those corner treatment thingies for my living room that I came _this_ close to buying before I succumbed to digititis. An open, transparent sound is something I prize, and countering an excess in a couple of midrange and lower treble bands helped in that department. Bass improvement is noticeable, too, although (oddly?) I care more about the midrange/lo-treble correction than I do about the bass.

Unlike some folks who have posted here, I will be using my DEQ for other tone control purposes. The first extra was programming a loudness contour for quiet hours listening. Then, there are those albums I really like but simply can't stop wishing they were recorded differently (maybe 30% of albums I own?). For example, with an MFSL recording of Dr. John's Gumbo I picked up recently in mind, I made a brightness booster. I made a warmth preset that mildly boosts bands in the 80 to 300 hz range for some thin-sounding recordings I have. I'll probably end up with one or two more of these tone-control presets.

I really like the flexibility of saving different graphic equalization presets. You can program different presets, like the "tone controls" modules I mentioned above, and apply them additively as you like. So, I have my basic room correction curve as my default setting. Late at night, I can "add" my loudness contour to that if I want. If I decide to play Gumbo, I can "add" my Gumbo brightness module. And so on.

A question: I notice that the clipping indicator flashes more than infrequently when monitoring the equalized digital output, even when it's the DEQ's Autoeq equalization curve that's in effect. It doesn't flash at all when the equalization is flat (as one would expect). I can't hear any nasty things happening. Any thing at all to pay attention to here?

This has been an informative thread. Thanks to all who have posted.

Yes, a little "work" to set up, but not so much trouble to use. I probably will only have a treble boost, a bass boost, and a warmth boost as tone controls. (Those boost modules can function inversely as cuts, since the DEQ allows you to subtract preset eq curves, as well as add them.) I know which recordings are in serious need of general help in those areas; I'm not going to fine tune an eq curve for each one. And I can easily enjoy the variety of tonal approaches that most of my albums present without treatment other than my default room equalization.

A remote control to manage the presets and the Compare and Bypass functions would be outstanding.

The flashing of the clipping indicator is kind of puzzling. I'm using the DEQ only in its digital stages. I should see if different sources change this behavior. Right now I've got an Airport Express feeding a Monarchy DIP that plugs into the DEQ. The DIP boosts the digital signal. Could this be too much of a good thing? I'll experiment tomorrow.

I figured a digital gain control was in there somewhere, but I could not find the little devil. Thanks for pointing out where to look, Racarlson. Still have not heard any digital clipping nasties. You're probably right about a built-in safety margin, but I may as well dial in a little more.

Street, Yes you can put it there, but you would be taking your CDP's DACs out of a meaningful role, because the DEQ2496 is a digital equalizer, not an analog equalizer. The DEQ would convert the analog signal from your CDP to a digital signal, perform the equalization operations, and then convert the equalized digital signal back to analog and send it on to your integrated. The critical D-to-A function would be performed by the DEQ, not your CDP.

I am only using the digital functions of the DEQ, so I don't know how its DAC performs. I also don't know how the DAC in your Exemplar performs. However, a lot of what you paid for the Exemplar went into providing a nice, tube analog output section after the DAC. If you used the DEQ to provide digital equalization and output an analog signal to your integrated, you'd bypass all that. You probably wouldn't be using most of what makes the Exemplar more than the Denon 2900. Unfortunately, it seems like going with the DEQ may not be very compatible with taking advantage of the Exemplar's strengths.