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
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.
Yes, Rives Audio PARC it operates from 300 to 16 Hz in 3 bands and does a masterful job. I had similar issues and it worked.
My three Behringer DEQ2496 have functioned flawlessly for several years, and if one should fail I could replace it for less money than repair of the typical "audiophile" equipment. No doubt Behringer makes some items that are not designed to the audiophile market, but the DEQ2496 is not in that category. Again I say...get your hands on one and form your own opinion.

No doubt the PARC is great, although it has no RTA and lacks other features of the Behringer. Lexus cars are great too, but I drive a Honda.
.
The Behringer is a kick ass deal. You cannot hear any problem using the toslink to a dac. As a matter of fact I know a guy sold his dac and after he got the DEQ 2496.
Restock: I do not have a reference, though I imagine that somewhere in the Harmon reference white papers it's there--just a matter of getting through them all. It's pretty common knowledge amoung acousticians regarding the phase shift. As to the averaging and positioning, you are correct. We always recommend you work with speaker position and listening position before calibrating the EQ. You will find that once calibrated it's better and just about all locations, even if you calibrated for only one spot. We've done tests with averaging and usually get worse results because it's masks a portion of the problem. This is not intuitive and not what we originally predicted. It was literally hundreds of calibrations and testing that led us to this conclusion.