EQ's... why doesnt everybody have one?

I have to agree about the benefits of using EQ. I also use the Behringer DEQ2494 (kept completely in the digital domain) in a highly resolving system, and I can tell you that it does wonders. I run a Krell transport into the Behringer, then into a Muse 296 processer (I wasn't quite as impressed with the Behringer's on-board DACS), then into a BAT preamp all kept in a balanced configuration. I was using a Z-Systems RDQ-1 before the Behringer, but the Behringer has much more functionality and a much better interface than the Z-Systems, and I could not hear any difference as long as the Behringer is kept completely in the digital domain. I think the Behringer is so inexpensive because they sell so many since their primary market is the pro audio industry. Anyone with doubts (I certainly did) should try one for themselves.

Robm321: I too have not tested any of this but I know the destruction that just a cheapo IC can do when inserted from my line stage (Aesthetix Callisto Sig) to my amps (CAT JL-3 Sig). So I would expect far worse with an electronic instrument with penny-priced integrated circuits, capacitors, resistors, horribly regulated power supply and such.

What we ultimately might gain from a flatter frequency response, and thus perhaps more clarity and less muddiness, could also result in a great loss of many other refinements, e.g., low-level resolution, harmonic textures, etc. For me, these latter sonic attributes get me more attached to the music than having a perfect frequency response.

I have recently added 4 ASC tube trap columns behind my Soundlab speakers. The added degree of clarity in the mids and trebles brought on by this caught me off guard. And I lost none of the magic in my system that I had before. I plan to plot several response curves of my room with varying ASC traps and their locations to reduce the bass peaks as much as I can. Then I can evaluate the possibility of any added benefits from an active device like the PARC. And ultimately if the PARC does bring on even more clarity due to bass peaks reduction, but it interferes with the openness, textures and dimensionality that I had before, I will have to make a judegement call as to which way to go. Perhaps on some music material the benefits of the PARC will be the way to go and other times, not at all. Hearing how it sounds in bypass mode will be important too as there will be another pair of ICs in the loop even during this time.

I think we each need to determine this all for ourself. I just happen to be a decays and ambience fanatic and I do not want to lose what I have worked so hard to attain.

John

Jafox...I am sure you know the saying..."don't judge a book by its cover". You should not make assumptions about the DEQ2496 just because it costs $300. I, and a lot of other people, have been astonished by this device. I bought mine only for the RTA feature, not intending to use the EQ. But once I heard what it can do I was converted.

I have the 2496 in my system. Eldartford, what kind of cables did you use to go from Balanced to Unbalanced? I am using something called a 'Clean Box' from Art Accessories to convert the Balanced inputs/outputs on the 2496 to the Unbalanced In/Out on my preamp. It works ok, but I am thinking about removing the Clean Box and going 'direct' - but don't know how.

Eldartford: Yes, I agree. And I would be willing to give the DEQ a fair shot. But I must admit I would go into this with low expectations.

Like anyone else, I have had several events, a few with local audiophile buddies, where I came out highly impressed from an auditon/test that started with me expecting very little or no positive outcome. And from such times, I am quick to give high praise to such a product. But I have also had enough auditions where the result was terrible, whether I expected it or not and the unit was immediately removed, never to be given a second chance.....it indeed was that terrible.

In the case of the DEQ, I have no doubt the benefits that it would bring. What would concern me here is what harm might it cause in the process. Surely it degrades the sound to some degree. My gut feeling is that the degradations would be in areas where tube-based systems excel.

Interestingly, the line stage and its cable to the amps have proven time and time again to be a VERY critical link in the chain ... and this is exactly where the DEQ or PARC would be placed. Any direct experiences or insights here to this specific concern of sonic degradation?

John