Behringer digital processing may be pretty good. I have no way to judge that really. But their analog circuits appear to be pretty weak in the products I looked closely at. Hence the mod. I called the Behringer reps in 3 major cities, and they all told me that schematics were not available, nothing was considered repairable, and they considered Behringer products to be "non-Hi-Fi". If the product goes bad in any way during the warranty period, they just replace the whole product, and throw the old one in the trash. Not my favorite brand.
After I spent way too much time modifying the analog circuitry in my DEQ2496, the power company disconnected the AC up on the telephone pole for a few seconds while making some kind of repair. When the power came back on, the inductance of the line caused a transient that blew up the power supply in my DEQ2496 (the transient may have occurred when the power was cut, rather than when it came back on). I tried to repair it with no schematic, but failed.
After I spent way too much time modifying the analog circuitry in my DEQ2496, the power company disconnected the AC up on the telephone pole for a few seconds while making some kind of repair. When the power came back on, the inductance of the line caused a transient that blew up the power supply in my DEQ2496 (the transient may have occurred when the power was cut, rather than when it came back on). I tried to repair it with no schematic, but failed.
Bob Richards,
Have 4x DEQ2496 and actually like them stock or modded, should you like original SMPS repaired you welcome request measurements or pictures from a working unit. Here is a DEQ2496 SMPS partial schematic direct link http://www.awdiy.com/uploads/pdf/DEQ2496-PSU-1.5.pdf, and this is link the main site AW DIY - Audio designs for the DEQ2496 and DCX2496.
Have 4x DEQ2496 and actually like them stock or modded, should you like original SMPS repaired you welcome request measurements or pictures from a working unit. Here is a DEQ2496 SMPS partial schematic direct link http://www.awdiy.com/uploads/pdf/DEQ2496-PSU-1.5.pdf, and this is link the main site AW DIY - Audio designs for the DEQ2496 and DCX2496.
Pfew, even the Behringer mod is up again. I'm glad to see that one again even though my Behringer DEQ2496 is still in it's box since I bought it for the array project in November 2011.
I remember when Bob and I were working on an analog EQ circuit for this array - it was 5 op amps if I recall. I guess with all the great stuff you do in Jriver and a sound card - no need for analog EQ or DEQX box.
Still, I wonder what an analog EQ circuit would sound like in your array - sort of like how Roger Russell did it?
Edit: found the circuit
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/203356-cloning-ids-25s-22.html
Last edited:
Still, I wonder what an analog EQ circuit would sound like in your array - sort of like how Roger Russell did it?
I think I have a pretty good idea what it would sound like. Right after finishing the arrays I made an EQ curve exactly like that. I have listened to that curve for about a month. A fun filled month, though it's no comparison to what I did later on.
It had quite a bit of drama though, the bass was exaggerated and so were the highs. This EQ scheme made my son and girlfriend yell at me from time to time, They heard something in the highs that I missed completely
.
Wesayso,
Would it be worth it to build an EQ circuit like this for those times when you want a "live" capability without CPU latency imposed in the sound? Or for those occasions where you want a simple source-preamp-EQ-amp-speaker chain that's all analog? I have been building a lot of amps lately and this circuit would certainly be simple to implement on a 2 layer PCB and not cost hardly anything to make.
Would it be worth it to build an EQ circuit like this for those times when you want a "live" capability without CPU latency imposed in the sound? Or for those occasions where you want a simple source-preamp-EQ-amp-speaker chain that's all analog? I have been building a lot of amps lately and this circuit would certainly be simple to implement on a 2 layer PCB and not cost hardly anything to make.
I dreamed up another scheme to try late yesterday night. It still involves left/right EQ, and an extra signal inserted to the "mid" signal, band passed to only influence the phantom center between 1500 and 7000 Hz.
So far I'm pretty positive over this one, the graphs also check out nicely. But I should probably give it more time before blasting all kind of graphs over this forum again.
But.... maybe a few to look at? We all like pictures right?
Just to show that this particular mod is actually quite gentle to the FR curve:
The FR curves at the listening position:
The phase plot:
And the IR's:
So whatever it does, it does so gently. But the phase plot shows something's happening .
So far I'm pretty positive over this one, the graphs also check out nicely. But I should probably give it more time before blasting all kind of graphs over this forum again
.But.... maybe a few to look at? We all like pictures right?
Just to show that this particular mod is actually quite gentle to the FR curve:
The FR curves at the listening position:
The phase plot:
And the IR's:
So whatever it does, it does so gently
. But the phase plot shows something's happening .
Was just checking in and recognizing a lot of similarity in our SPL curves. A noted difference being what happens after 3K in mine. You also have a little more in the 150 - 250hz area.
Maybe its my age, but the highs seem too muted if I let the highs continue to diminish. I like the little uptick in the response at the extreme top.
From 40 - 10k, you got a 11db (or so) difference. I can only asssume you like it that way. Yes?
Maybe its my age, but the highs seem too muted if I let the highs continue to diminish. I like the little uptick in the response at the extreme top.
From 40 - 10k, you got a 11db (or so) difference. I can only asssume you like it that way. Yes?
Last edited:
Indeed I do, I gradually grew to that curve to get my preferred tonal balance by ear. I have played with higher levels above ~8 KHz, my ears reach to 15 KHz with sine, a bit higher on mixed (not sine) signals.
But this one is my preferred curve overall (so far, always have to be careful as it might change one day).
About the 150-250Hz area, I'll admit lo liking a slightly "warm sound". Probably from listening to my old speakers for all those years.
Still not that far removed from the JBL "preferred" curves:
Though I did not take that as a reference, any resemblance is coincidence (or is it).
But this one is my preferred curve overall (so far, always have to be careful as it might change one day
).About the 150-250Hz area, I'll admit lo liking a slightly "warm sound". Probably from listening to my old speakers for all those years.
Still not that far removed from the JBL "preferred" curves:
Though I did not take that as a reference, any resemblance is coincidence (or is it
).
Last edited:
My curve sounds warm to me (except at the very top). I guess perception just cant be quantitized (if that is a word).
I grew up listening to smiley faced EQ curves. I wonder if early life listening conditions influence what we like later. I also wonder if there are other factors that mitigate the final SPL curves we end up liking. For instance:
1) Higher degrees of high frequency distortion may tend to make us turn down the highs more than we would otherwise.
2) The proportion of delayed energy in terms of spectra and its specific timing.
3) The inherent EQ curve in what we are listening to (how it was mixed to begin with).
4) The genre of music
I guess what I am driving at is that its easy to take a SPL curve and assume it applies equally in all listening environments and situations. Another way to say what I mean is the exact same curve could sound noticeably different depending on on the above intangibles.
I grew up listening to smiley faced EQ curves. I wonder if early life listening conditions influence what we like later. I also wonder if there are other factors that mitigate the final SPL curves we end up liking. For instance:
1) Higher degrees of high frequency distortion may tend to make us turn down the highs more than we would otherwise.
2) The proportion of delayed energy in terms of spectra and its specific timing.
3) The inherent EQ curve in what we are listening to (how it was mixed to begin with).
4) The genre of music
I guess what I am driving at is that its easy to take a SPL curve and assume it applies equally in all listening environments and situations. Another way to say what I mean is the exact same curve could sound noticeably different depending on on the above intangibles.
The obvious conclusion from this is that trained listeners generally prefer reduced highs and lows. Or that untrained listeners like more smiley faced curves
edit: Another observation of this trained vs untrained listening curve is impact. Those that dont listen a lot or carefully gravitate towards a sound that jumps out at you (more bass and highs). I can illustrate what I mean here by quoting a review I remember about early Telarc digital recordings: They sound great at the first listen, but are ultimately ear fatiguing and unsatisfying.
Last edited:
I'd agree to that list but I'd add one:
SPL (listening) level.
I try and listen to as much different music as possible to base my preferred curve upon. Even genres I do not tend to listen to. Just to try and average out something useful.
There will always be big changes in the mixes, I have multiple copies of some songs that are quite different from each other.
I definitely left that one out.
I tend to listen in the 91-94 SPLdb average range with 97-102db peaks (mostly in the bass area).
Sometimes I take my Radio Shack digital meter with me when I listen and look at its results (set to fastest response).
But I do sometimes listen at lower levels (86-88 SPLdb), and when I do, I could see a bit more bass being desirable.
I tend to listen at 88-92 dB levels lately . So that explains that bump. I'd say SPL level can be quite a big influence. My RadioShack SPL meter is always within reach. Also used to level my measurements. I've listened to louder levels for a while but try to stick to ~88 dB, letting JRiver do the song to song balance. Keeping that part fixed to be able to monitor any changes in sound.
. So that explains that bump. I'd say SPL level can be quite a big influence. My RadioShack SPL meter is always within reach. Also used to level my measurements. I've listened to louder levels for a while but try to stick to ~88 dB, letting JRiver do the song to song balance. Keeping that part fixed to be able to monitor any changes in sound.
Me too.
There are cases where I will have:
1) 1st generation CD release (198x)
2) CD Remaster (199x - 200x)
3) MFSL, DCC or Audio Fidelity CD release
4) High quality vinyl rip (PBthal or Dr. Robert)
...of the same song or album. And yes, they can sound very different from each other.
Last edited:
Exactly like me
I notice I tend to like the DCC copies I have. Most albums done by Steve Hofmann seam to please me quite a bit. (again that warm sound preference I can't get rid of)
I tend to be more critical of the mix with songs I have known over half of my life... the ones I grew up with between 10 and 25 years old (lots of older material in there from around the period I was born, I'm from '67) End 60's early 70's was a marvelous period of music for my taste...
I notice I tend to like the DCC copies I have. Most albums done by Steve Hofmann seam to please me quite a bit. (again that warm sound preference I can't get rid of)
I tend to be more critical of the mix with songs I have known over half of my life... the ones I grew up with between 10 and 25 years old (lots of older material in there from around the period I was born, I'm from '67) End 60's early 70's was a marvelous period of music for my taste...
Last edited:
Exactly like me
I notice I tend to like the DCC copies I have. Most albums done by Steve Hoffman seem to please me quite a bit. (again that warm sound preference I can't get rid of)
Everything Steve Hoffman touches seems to sound better
Its the clarity and the ability to listen deeper into the mix that impresses me most about his remasters. I was listening to Yes - Going for the One - Awaken from the Audio Fidelity release last night. I heard things in the mix that I am not sure id heard before, especially the backing vocals.
Last edited:
This goes back to what I was saying before. I am not sure the EQ curve is changed in his masterings. What is changed is an absence of detrimental artifacts. Its as though he is able to lower the noise floor and/or reduce distortions. My impression of his work compared to the original copies is that his sound is smoother. More life like. Like butter. A bit like comparing 8-track to vinyl back in the day. Or a low res vs higher res picture or video.
Last edited: