2. digital
  3. 1111728131

Behringer DEQ2496 - wow

Has anyone forked over the $300 for this unit? I was using a Z-Systems RDQ-1 between my CD transport and preamp, and decided to try the Behringer mainly because it has 10 channels of parametric EQ vs four for the Z-Systems. I cannot tell a difference in sound quality between the Behringer (digital in-out only... the DACS might not be of the highest quality) and the many times more expensive Z-Systems. In fact, the Behringer is much better ergonomically and has many more features than the Z-Systems. It also has an auto EQ mode which I tried, but prefer to trust my own ears. The Behringer does not have the kind of build quality that the Z-Systems has (the Behringer is very light), but it works very well, and am amazed at the number of features it has and how inexpensive it is. By the way I'm using the unit in a very high-end audio system. I'm curious what others have experienced with this unit. It seems like an incredible value to me.
smeyers
cdc
1,820 posts
 
Lewinskih01, I don't have a DAC so I am stuck with analog for now.

My comments:
"I am a little disappointed that, while the DEQ does not add colorations per se, it does add a slight haze to everything. Sound is slightly less clear, less crisp, and a bit more shut-in. The haze in analog mode is not as bad as, say, the Creek 4330R's "Mosfet mist". Got rid of the Creek in a hurry May keep the DEQ but still don't like it though."

"Using my CDB's digital output instead, the DEQ2496 DAC sounded horrible. My ear was hurting (like my B&W's) within 5 minutes. Guess I'll have to buy another component :-(, DAC, so I can use the DEQ2496 digitally without its on-board DAC. I think the [enjoythemusic.com] review said there was some loss in analog mode but none digital. Although I can't find the exact quote now."
paulfolbrecht
603 posts
 
Just to be straight with you if you do not find any reduction in sound quality with a (stock) DCX in the mix your system is not high on the resolving/quality scale. Just a fact. It's great that it doesn't muck it up; more power to you.
cdc
1,820 posts
 
Paul, is that true even with digital EQ?
Well, I guess my system is resolving then. I tried it 2 ways. First flat EQ with the Behringer in and out of the system. Second using the EQ on my Denon UD-M31 and comparing to the Behringer.
Interesting how the Denon EQ was virtually inaudibly worse. Could be either that it is digital and digital is better or all the wires and XLR/RCA adapters I had to use when hooking up the Behringer.
housteau's avatar
housteau
3 posts
 
I use Behringer DCX for crossover, room and speaker correction. Mine is a highly modified unit, but my following comments are for the fully stock version. Although not a 2496 it has similar characteristics.

If used as a DAC it does sound thin, bright and sibilant just as mentioned in an above post. However, if used going analog in allowing both the internal ADC and DAC to work together, it sounds very transparent. In fact the quality is so good that several speaker manufactures use this unit specifically in this way and supply it with their systems.

VMPS is one company, although they also offer modified units. Another is Roger Sanders of Sanders Sound. I had the chance to listen to one of his demos at the RMAF and it was quite good. I had asked him about modifying those units and he told me that there was absolutely no reason to.
paulfolbrecht
603 posts
 
All I'm saying is that a stock DCX stuck into a system that didn't have one before - just as an xover, not DAC and no EQ - introducing a quite noticeable loss of fidelity. I've had two completely different but very resolving (and good) systems where this was evident.

(One was based on Supravox field coil driver on open baffles and the other compression-driver horns. SET amps in both cases.)

Never had a modded unit. I have no doubts the right mods could make the unit close to transparent. Because a DEQX is.
More to discover