cleanest/ easiest EQ

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
What is the (sonically) cleanest/ best way to have EQ in a system, that you’re building from scratch?

Aim: to compensate for older recordings (back to 1920s blues) through to compressed contemporary rock, and the occasional well recorded piece.

Haven’t looked into it at all before, but am thinking of using the Behringer DCX2496 EQ Crossover (or better if affordable) direct from the CD digital out, and use maybe half a dozen memories.

Also might look into something like Adobe Audition to adjust dynamic range, but I don’t want to remix recordings.

Anyone know if Audition (the old Cool Edit Pro) or soemething else affordable allows you to do it satisfactorily real time ~ on the fly??

I was thinking of using real time PC processing maybe only when I would need to enhance the dynamic range, maybe 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 recordings, not necessarily all the time.

I could reconsider that, but what else is there in EQ, apart from those PC products, and standalone Behringers??
I dont think there's much wrong with Analog if you are carfeful. The trouble with commercial EQ's that have 10 bands and dont cost much is that the components have to be the very very cheapest, thats just simple economics. If it costs $150 then they probably manufacture it in total for less than a third of that, thats not the parts cost - thats labour, factory overheads etc.

Given those overheads its quite easy (if you judge your time to be free!) to build something better for the same cost.

Pick the bands you want to eq carefully for example by doing some room monitoring (there's a nice mic kit gruop buy on here somewhere at the moment) then apply just the bands you wish to do a little correction on

You'd probably do very well with 3 to 5 bands and then you might be able to afford reasonable components. Of course limiting the bands keeps the components down and the sound quality high IE only fix what you need to do and maybe add a band for a liitle naughty bass when needed hehe :devilr:

Goodluck and let us know what you end up doing. :smash:
Brian was basically right, just do what’s needed.
You referred to room EQ, which we all have problems with, and probably Analog may be easier.

I sometimes think it could be implemented into the XO?

Analog or digital?
I’m open on that ~ whatever gives the better sound quality for (parts & time) cost. In my case to compensate for older recordings (eg 1920s blues) ~~~ if direct from the CD digital out, is digital now easier/ better?

Digital EQ

Hello Rick47

You can get linear phase EQ in the digital domain that does not have changing phase with frequency , you can increase levels at a particular frequency and not get a phase shifts as you do in Analog EQ which is superior sounding than the anlog EQ approach. The phase shift audible changes the sound of the software you are listening to in perceptable a negative way.

But to do this you need an computer , mastering software with the appropriate linear phase EQ.

If you use the digital out of your CD than, in my opinion, you are better off with de DEQ2496 (behringer).
It's pritty cheap and without using it's 'could be better' analog section you have almost limitless correction options.
You can easally store 64 memories with GEQs, DEQs, PEQs, limiters en stereo enhancers.

I use 't, to shute up some anoying tendencies of my room and speakers. En i'm pritty pleased with it.
I would never have been able to achieve that with other speakers or furniture moving.

So improve your overall sound and correct your misbehaving recordings.

Regards Simon
Re: DEQ2496

rick57 said:
Do you know the difference between the Behringer 248-96: DEQ & DCX?

Either of the are probably the frontrunners


Two completely different beasts. The DCX is a crossover (which happens to have a bit of EQ capability) and the DEQ is a full-blown equalizer. If you aren't intending to use the Behringer as a crossover, the the DEQ is the unit you want.

If you're planning to use a PC as source, you can *probably* get equal/better results for less $$$ via either the built-in features of say winamp or foobar, or via VST plugins. However, I'm not sure how the usability would stack up.
Well one is a crossover with allot of equalizing power.
The other is a pure soundprocessor with a automatic room correction. And allthough not all do use that option i'm very pleased with it.

The difference between the old and new versions. Brain power and highres ad/da & pcm capabillities.

Thats all i know.
The DEQ also has a realtime analiser (61 bands)
Wich is very usefull but also fun to watch.
"t seems de DCX is slightly cheaper.

Download the manuals and see for yourself.
They both use the same technic but 1 has 6 channels to compute and the other only 2.
So i asume the DEQ does give you more processing power.
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.