Has anyone used widerange/fullrange drivers with parametric room/FR correction EQs? Does anyone else even think this is a good idea? I am considering EQing a set of the CSS 4.5" drivers used on axis, in the nearfield, using something like the Behringer Ultracurve. It seems to me that this should result in a system with very few weaknesses relative to its price.
Nelson - thanks for your feedback. I had expected a certain amount of quality degradation inserting any active component in line with a fullrange driver, but I had hoped that the benefits of improved FR would offset those. Clearly in your trials that was not the case. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of hardware did you use for the EQing? And did you have it 'auto-eq' or make adjustments manually?
rcavictim - I have not decided yet, as its a fair investment for me. Probably somewhere in Canada, lots of proaudio shops carry the behringer stuff. If from the US, certainly from somehwere that will ship USPS rather than UPS, for the reasons you mentioned above. That seems to rule out parts-express. I refuse to pay ridiculous brokerage charges to UPS, USPS, Fedex, and Purolator somehow get stuff across the border without charging me $30 a pop each time.
BTW, do you really need the crossover on the FBQ6200, or is there any other reason you'd rather have it than the: http://www.behringer.com/DEQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG ?
rcavictim - I have not decided yet, as its a fair investment for me. Probably somewhere in Canada, lots of proaudio shops carry the behringer stuff. If from the US, certainly from somehwere that will ship USPS rather than UPS, for the reasons you mentioned above. That seems to rule out parts-express. I refuse to pay ridiculous brokerage charges to UPS, USPS, Fedex, and Purolator somehow get stuff across the border without charging me $30 a pop each time.
BTW, do you really need the crossover on the FBQ6200, or is there any other reason you'd rather have it than the: http://www.behringer.com/DEQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG ?
morbo said:
UPS only robs you for $30?. I seem to recall the robery program started closer to $50 for an empty package and went up from there if there was actually stuff in the package.
morbo said:
Yikes. I didn't know about this sweetheart. I only saw the Behringer products listed at PE. PE has a full 24 bit 96 KHz digital EQ as well but I am put off by coverting the precious analog sound into digital and back. Digital is still so new I'm sure that better stuff and new standards will be available by the time I can save enough to buy one of todays models. That is a LOT of coin for me too.
I also heard that Behringer has NO factory support for their products in North America. How are you gonna fix a full blown digital magic box yourself if something goes wrong???? At least with a box full of lots of identical op amps one has a chance of DIY repair I'm thinking. Note to self, never buy a car that I cannot service myself!
No, in answer to your question, I do not need the summed bass subwoofer crossover ouput channel which comes with the unit I was looking at.
I think I'd like to learn more about the digital one you pointed to, if only for academic interest.
I'm not Nelson, but I have some comments
Unlikely - adding another step to the signal chain requires a good bit more off setting benefit to make it worth it. Even then you're talking a good bit more expense and complexity.
The Ultracurve still puts another ADC/DAC step in the chain.
I have posted often about the benefits of digital crossovers - in that case, you have the additional benefits from bi-amping (which are considerable) to help offset the loss. Ability to do digital delay was another consideration with my particular configuration.
Keeping in mind that passive components are not perfect and impart their own signature - IMHO, only when you're doing a lot more than just EQ does it become feasible to add another ADC/DAC link in the chain.
OTOH, I believe Thorsten was at one time a proponent of the Ultracurve - IIRC, his thinking was the The Ultracurve and the DCX2496 were only suitable for "high resolution" if highly modified. I don't know what his current thinking on the matter is _grin_
Nor do I know what my thinking on it will be in a year or two _bigger grin_
Regards
Ken L
morbo said:
Unlikely - adding another step to the signal chain requires a good bit more off setting benefit to make it worth it. Even then you're talking a good bit more expense and complexity.
The Ultracurve still puts another ADC/DAC step in the chain.
I have posted often about the benefits of digital crossovers - in that case, you have the additional benefits from bi-amping (which are considerable) to help offset the loss. Ability to do digital delay was another consideration with my particular configuration.
Keeping in mind that passive components are not perfect and impart their own signature - IMHO, only when you're doing a lot more than just EQ does it become feasible to add another ADC/DAC link in the chain.
OTOH, I believe Thorsten was at one time a proponent of the Ultracurve - IIRC, his thinking was the The Ultracurve and the DCX2496 were only suitable for "high resolution" if highly modified. I don't know what his current thinking on the matter is _grin_
Nor do I know what my thinking on it will be in a year or two _bigger grin_
Regards
Ken L
morbo said:
I used a well-known brand name, but I don't wish to mention
it. The settings were manual. Frankly, I was surprised at the
result, particularly since fairly gentle corrections were applied.
You can see an example of this in the Kleinhorn article, but I
have repeated the results in other systems, and I have used
a different equalizer also.
Nelson Pass said:
Im curious what did you use to measure the response of the system???
For years i used an conventional 31 band spectrum Analyzer and was NEVER happy with the results i got. I have used many brands, Ivie, Audio Control, Goldline etc etc.
Then i switched to a PC based system using the SIA Soft SMAART software and noticed many things immediatly.
1- my eq corrections were much much smaller.
2- i achived flatter response overall.
3- the sound was much better!
the SMAART software really shows a much better window into whats going on where as a conventional 31 band type analyzer just isnt as accurate.
I could never go back to a conventional analyzer ever again.
Zero
I just finished a pair of OB's using 4" Hornsonic drivers with wizzers that are going to be used as my PC speakers. I did a quick response check using my piece of crap 31 band Audiocontrol and the response looked really nice except for a very fatiguing peak in the midrange from 1k-2.5k centered at 1.6k (going by the limited bands of the RTA anyways).
Point of that rambling? Well, since the speakers are going to be used on my PC I plan on actively EQ'ing them using my SB Audigy and KX Drivers. The only things I plan on trying to EQ are baffle step, that "lowther shout" in the midrange, and maby some highs.
I'll be sure to let you know how my active EQ setup turns out.
MEXXX
Point of that rambling? Well, since the speakers are going to be used on my PC I plan on actively EQ'ing them using my SB Audigy and KX Drivers. The only things I plan on trying to EQ are baffle step, that "lowther shout" in the midrange, and maby some highs.
I'll be sure to let you know how my active EQ setup turns out.
MEXXX
Zero Cool said:
I use a MLSSA with an ACO condenser microphone. Generally
I run near field up to 500 Hz with a 5 KHz bandwidth, and then
500 Hz and above with 25 KHz bandwidth, and I normalize
both curves for 0 dB at 500 Hz, and smooth at 1/3 octave.
While this might not be the most optimal approach for a given
driver, it gives me a consistent basis for comparison.
The exception to this technique is rear-loaded enclosures where
both bandwidths are taken at 1 meter, and the KleinHorns, where
2 meters is more appropriate.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.