Is there such a thing as audiophile parametric eq?


My listening room is of awful dimensions (close to 1 x 2 x 4) and I've used treatments and bass traps to get the imaging and bass response to be very good. Yet there are some frequencies especially in the mid-bass that are very loud compared to everything else. I was considering buying a Behringer DEQ2496 after hearing rave reviews of what it can do in a home listening environment. Then I found out that the SPDIF I/O is optical and that threw a wrench into that plan. What I need is either a very good digital eq that uses RCA SPDIF or a very good analog PEQ. Any suggestions?
jlambrick
I question the chorus of suspiciouly loud criticisms of Behringer, particularly with respect to reliability.

Just because a dealer carries Behringer, doesnt mean he might not be motivated to upsell customers to more expensive and/or higher margin products.

I am not about to get rid of my Audio Research and Levinson gear for a full Behringer system, but I use two Behringer amplifiers and a DEQ2496 with my PC and televisions.

They have all worked perfectly right out of the box, I have never turned them off, never had a single problem, they sound great and are dirt cheap.

If I was a manufacturer, distributor or retailer trying to buy groceries by selling mediocre, overpriced, high end voodoo gear, I might be tempted to bash Behringer too.

The rest of us should definitely check out the EQ and mic and see how it can improve your system.
I believe analog is the way to go for a variety of reasons. One is that the phase shift in the analog eq is the oposite of the phase shift created by a room mode--thus you are automatically correcting amplitude and phase. It's also extremely transparent and leaves the upper frequencies alone. As Shadome pointed out trying to EQ above 200 Hz (I might go as far as 250) is not going to work terribly well. Our EQ functions 350 Hz and below, but we do recommend that you only use it up to 250 Hz.

[http://www.rivesaudio.com/PARC/PARCframe.html]Rives Audio PARC[/url]

We are the manufacturer of this product, but we built this product for this exact purpose and built it to be as transparent as possible. The circuitry used in the parametric is the exact same in API mixing consoles, which are undoubtedly the finest analog mixing consoles made.
Thanks for all the responses. It might indeed be worthwhile to buy the Behringer for the sole purpose of being able to see what I'm up against.

The PARC looks like an amazing piece of equipment. Still beyond my budget at this point. I have some connections in the pro audio arena and maybe I could find a poor man's PARC at least until I can afford the genuine article.
Rives, interesting comment about the analog equalization - I usually read about the negative impact of the phaseshifts in analog EQ. I didn't know the phaseshift would be the same as the one imparted by the room. Do you have a good reference (even a very technical one) that explains why?

Also, I am curious to hear your opinion on Room equaliztion. The effect of modes on the spectrum of course depends largely on the speaker position and as well as the listening position. While I have not too much problem compensating for modes excited by speaker position, I am not so sure about compensating problems due to the listening position. I do listen not always in the sweetspot or listen with my wife. Wouldn't it be better to average over several microphone positions, rather than choose a single place to correct for?
Rives,

Thanks for the thumbs up! You undoubtedly know a lot more about this than I do, since you build the well known and highly praised PARC.

Jlambrick,

FWIW, I haven't encountered a problem with the Behringer PEQ (I actually have the Feedback Destroyer Pro), however, this is definitely a really cheap piece of kit - so partly for fear, I only use it in the 0.1 channel below 80 Hz. If Eldartford says it is good then it reinforces my experience. I use a Ratshack meter to check settings and I walk around so as not to adjust for one single spot - a very slow and cumbersome process which in the end the "ear" adjudicates. In my defence of such an approximate process, room mode "bumps" are to me fairly obvious. Furthermore, I don't seek to squash everything flat ....I just take the "edge" of the nastiest bumps. My approach is minimalist, I guess. I am also slightly distrustful of automated software algorthms - I like to know what is going on and how much adjustments are being made - rather than let the software take over.

But be warned, I also own a cheap analog mixer by Behringer and it was totally unusable as it degraded the sound. So in general, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for (I was lucky so far with PEQ and not so lucky with the mixer). Like all those cheap toys with lead paint being returned by Mattel to China, my constant fear with an amazing "bargain" is quality, will it work properly and will it last. Another issue is that you practically need an engineering degree to work the darned Behringer Feedback Destroyer, although I understand the PEQ 2496 is a little easier!

My comments are based on experience and a little back of the envelope physics. My comments also apply only to correction for room modes in the LF. If you want to "tailor" the sound (rather than correct for room modes) then an EQ can do the job well over the full range, the basic rule is to always use it sparingly. As you may now realize, I may be overly fearful of using such a cheap item over the entire frequency range.