Behringer as DAC?

Eldartford, to answer your question, I found the EQ that the unit provided upon correction to sound very unnatural. The sound was muddy, hard, and nasal after correction. You might say that my ears need adjustment, and although this might be true, I was still not at all happy with the sound after adjustment. Although not perfect, I found using the Rives CD with a RS meter measurement to be much closer to what I was hearing. I then used to parameteric EQ bands of the Behringer to make corrections. I also wonder why the Behringer only uses the graphic eq portion of the unit to make corrections, since the center frequencies of the bands are static. You are only going to be able to be so precise with graphic eq.

Smeyers...Let's not start an argument, but I am interested in why we have different experience.

1..I cross checked the Rives CD with the RS meter, and found them to be in agreement over the full range of frequencies.

2..If you want to make the response something other than flat you can do this by giving the autoeq a contoured "target" response curve.

3..I have a hunch that the "parametric" and "graphic" equalization really use the same digital filter process to do the job, and just take commands and display settings differently. If so the sonic character should be the same. Certainly the analog parts of the signal path are the same. Do you use the "Trueresponse" feature of the graphic eq that eliminates ripple from adjacent frequencies?
I have a seven band analog parametric equalizer (center channel) and the DEQ2496 does a better job (and does it automatically).

4..The graphic eq is 1/3 octave. (RTA display is 1/6 octave). The parametric eq allows a sharper response but my system has no need. My objective is room mode correction. If you are trying to correct loudspeaker resonances a sharper filter might be useful.

>>Smeyers...Let's not start an argument, but I am interested in why we have different experience.<<

Who's arguing? It's about personal opinion and preference.

>>1..I cross checked the Rives CD with the RS meter, and found them to be in agreement over the full range of frequencies.<<

Did not work that way for me. Who knows, maybe something is wrong with the unit or mic.

>> 2..If you want to make the response something other than flat you can do this by giving the autoeq a contoured "target" response curve.<<

I know, but since it was way off to begin with, I decided to trust a combination of the Rives/RS method and my ears.

>> 3..I have a hunch that the "parametric" and "graphic" equalization really use the same digital filter process to do the job, and just take commands and display settings differently. If so the sonic character should be the same. Certainly the analog parts of the signal path are the same. Do you use the "Trueresponse" feature of the graphic eq that eliminates ripple from adjacent frequencies?
I have a seven band analog parametric equalizer (center channel) and the DEQ2496 does a better job (and does it automatically).<<

I'm not using any analog parts of the signal path since I'm going digital in and digital out and the EQ is done in the digital domain. Yes I have 'Trusresponse' turned on.

>> 4..The graphic eq is 1/3 octave. (RTA display is 1/6 octave). The parametric eq allows a sharper response but my system has no need. My objective is room mode correction. If you are trying to correct loudspeaker resonances a sharper filter might be useful.<<

You can be much more precise with the parametric EQ since you can adjust both center frequency and width. The auto-correction feature only adjusts levels at predefined frequences and widths.