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
"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?"

I never used the microphone, but given your issue, you're probably going to have to do everything by ear. As far as ease of use goes, the main thing is to focus on the menus. If you think about what's going on, everything seems to flow in an orderly direction. I'm somewhat of a minimalist, myself, so when I first started using my EQ, I thought it was going to be a nightmare. I hate having to figure out how to use complicated devices like that, but its really not too bad if you give it some time.

"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 suspected as much. I started with the graphic myself, but experimented with the parametric and quickly found that I preferred it. Its a very powerful tool. You'll definitely want to learn how to save presets. They save so much time, and allow for such easy comparisons, that its probably the most useful feature the EQ has.

I may be getting ahead, but with this EQ being digital, it allows you to keep a high end sound without spending a lot of money. You don't have to use the built in dac. You can keep the signal digital and send it to a re-clocker or standalone dac. You shouldn't have to take much of a performance hit, if any, with options like this available.
The plot thickens. Even though I expressed my positive impression of its extensive number of features, I'm now having some problems. I may have "lucked" into the first adjustments that gave me the impression that at least the GEQ feature was fairly easy to use. Now, even though displays are clearly showing my input, I cannot hear any changes in the output using either the graphic or parametric settings; its like its in by-pass mode.

I'm using RCA out from the preamp to XLR connections in on the 2496 and XLR out to RCA in to the amp using purchased RCA to XLR adapters. The whole issue of balanced to unbalanced is something I don't have a good grasp of but does this setup violate any connection rules? BTW, this is the same setup I used with the DBX1531 which worked but had other issues.

I've read the manual and other discussions that I've found online and hope I'm missing something simple and am wondering whether it might be a good idea to try using the optical connection. Although probably not an issue, I bought this from a reputable dealer as a new "open box" component.
CORRECTION! It's working fine connected the way I described. I simply hadn't made adjustments significant enough to be able to tell the difference between by-pass and new settings.
Good to see that you're hanging in there and that it's beginning to work out for you.
Pardon my preoccupation with this subject but my current level of involvement with it has been eye opener regarding the importance of how sound interacts with the surrounding physical environment as well as its interaction with accompanying sounds. Of the things that we all know, one could spend substantial time and effort getting one track of an album, or maybe all tracks on the same album, to sound wonderful (and only to you, btw) and have those settings give the same level of satisfaction for other selections. As in all audio applications, then, everything that one does involves some level of compromise. Obviuously, creating memory settings for every genre is not practical so one needs to determine how to establish a starting point. This is what I'm trying to do.

This is where the use of and understanding of a good EQ, IMO, shines; it is
more direct, practical, easier, quicker, and infinitely less expensive than shuffling costly components to acheive the same results. This all started, BTW, with my desire to resolve personal hearing issues but has now expanded to a more general awareness and appreciation of a much wider range of sound management issues.

Now that I got that out of my system, I have a question. I asked earlier if it would be advisable to use the automatic room equalization capability of the DEQ2496. ZD, you responded that because my stated goal had more to do with correction to satisfy personal hearing issues, that manual adjustment may be my best approach. I appreciate your having paid attention to my posts and totally agree with your suggestion but decided that I'm going to use it to establish a room corrected baseline and make the manual adjustments afterwards to accommodate my ears.

In regard to this I've read several articles that recommend limiting this auto EQ adjustment to lower frequencies because adjustment for full range leads to "confusing" results. I find this confusing also because, at least for me, most of the frequencies where I have left/right directional problems are for those frequencies well above the range of above the human voice.

Anyway, I'll purchase the recommended mic and cord and find this out for myself, I suppose, and I'll report back when I have something conclusive to relate.