2. misc-audio
  3. 1422663399

Equalizers - Graphiic, Parametric & Channel Balance

I know this topic has a history on these forums but my question has more to do with channel balance than to their theory of operation. Primaily due to personal hearing deficiencies but also to deal with unfortunate room acoustics, I will be installing/keeping an EQ in my system, so the question of whether or not to do so has already been settled.

I began experimenting with a graphic EQ simply because it's operation seemed at least visibility like it would be more direct and simple to use. I was wrong in at least one respect; to get good results, it's not all that simple. Anyway, the overall results have been good. Based on recommendations found here on Audiogon as well as other sources, though, I decided to experiment with a borrowed parametric EQ which I found to have better control and, in some ways, at least as easy to use.

Anyway, I like the PEQ better except for one important issue; with it I have no channel balance control. This is important because of the room layout and because my hearing loss is not bilaterally equal. For reasons discussed in other forums I can't / won't use hearing aids and, for the present at least, I'm sticking with my Peactree Audio pre and power amps. So the question is whether there exists such a thing as a parametric equalizer that has this control? I suppose that one alternative might be to use one parametric EQ for each channel, and if that's what it takes, so be it. Any suggestions?

My sources are Shanling CD S-100 or Apple TV using lossless files and the speakers are Martin Logan Ethos.
128x128broadstone
zd542
5,339 posts
 
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/DEQ2496.aspx

That's a direct link to the EQ we're talking about. I think you can get one for around $300.
broadstone's avatar
broadstone OP
310 posts
 
When several of you whose advice I've successfully taken in the past agree on a best solution, I'd be remiss not to listen. In reading some of the descriptions of its operation I realize that there'll be a bit of acclimation involved but I'll get DEQ2496 and let you know how it works out.
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"In reading some of the descriptions of its operation I realize that there'll be a bit of acclimation involved but I'll get DEQ2496 and let you know how it works out."

It looks hard to use at first, but once you get used to the menus, it all makes sense.
broadstone's avatar
broadstone OP
310 posts
 
Ok, I got the 2496 and when you said, ZD, that it has every imaginable feature, that's almost an understatement. In reading the manual I agree with all of you who say that this unit should be what I need to resolve the issues that I named, and then some. I put it in the system but haven't fiddled much with it yet because I'm still trying to digest the information, especially some of the new terminology. I realize, of course, that much of the control capability and related language is related to recording processes.

Anyway, I'm dedicating much of tomorrow to learning its use which I'm sure will inspire more requests for help.
broadstone's avatar
broadstone OP
310 posts
 
I've been using the 2496 now for 2 days now and am amazed at its control capabilities. However, as a new EQ user I found the owner's manual nearly worthless and was only able to get a good start after reading an article by Mike Anderson (Audio Review). He agrees that the supplied manual is pretty much inadequate and its use became more clear to me after I switched to dual mono mode as he suggested.

Anyway, earlier in this thread I stated that I preferred the parametric EQ for control but liked the simplicity of the graphic units. How could it be any better, then, to have the capabilities of both; this thing is almost magical. I especially like the fact that along with the graph display there is also a numerical display presented in 0.5 dB increments.

I don't mean this as a critical review of the DEQ 2496; I'm not qualified. I just wanted to express my appreciation for its performance and the advice that got me here. I don't see any downside to its addition and except for those who are fortunate enough to have no hearing issues and a ground up designed dedicated listening room, and maybe even for them, I'm convinced that a good quality equalizer is an important addition to consider.

I'm very happy with the adjustments made so far but I will continue to experiment. Do you who are familiar with its operation suggest that I by the setup microphone?
More to discover