2. misc-audio
  3. 1137452459

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

Just browsing around the systems on this site, i knoticed that very few have equalizers. I realize some claim they introduce unacceptable noise but i would hardly call my Furman Q-2312, at %>.01 20Hz-40kHz, unacceptable. This $200 piece of equiptment ($100 on sale at musiciansfriend.com) replaces several thousand dollars in assembling a perfectly linear system in perfectly linear room, and in my opinion, accomplishes the task better than any room design could no matter how well engineered. It brought my system (onkyo reciever, NHT SB-3 speakers and Sony CD changer) to a level i could not have dreamed. It extends the SB-3's frequency response by at least 10 Hz to a satisfying 30 Hz without any rolloff or sacrifice in clarity, but the greatest improvement was definately in the Mid-range, around the SB-3s crossover frequency of 2.6kHz. The clarity of vocals, strings, guitars, brass... anything in this range rivals that of uneq'd systems costing well into the thousands of dollars... my total cost; $800. One of the more supprising differences is a marked improvement in immaging, it think this might have to do with eliminating several resonances in the right channel caused by my back wall (the left back wall has a curtain over it). The second my dad heard the difference he got on my computer to buy one for himself, he couldnt even wait to get back to his own, he then kicked me outa the listening chair and wouldnt get up for the better part of an hour.
-Dan-
dk89
autoll
16 posts
 
Jafox-"the line stage and its cable to the amps...Any direct experiences or insights here to this specific concern of sonic degradation?"

I'm using the parc with balanced wireworld eclipse 5 inters between a macC200 and classe cam-350's mono's. Speakers paradigm s8's. I am listening closely for negative effects on the ambience or air and aftertones/decay on close miked recordings and conclude so far anyway the same as Kal(if memory serves) did in his review that the parc is transparent in the midrange and treble. It is doing just what I tell it to do(three cuts of 3-8 db)and rta graphs confirm. So far I'm only cutting about 70% of the peaks that would take me flat. I've only been running for a couple of weeks, but so far I'm very happy. I'm hesitant to say "totally transparent" because there should be a degradation I assume, but I'm not hearing it(whew!). FYIW, my takeway so far is if you only have LF modes issues as I did, go the parc. I haven't tried the Beringer in my system, so I may have mis-spoken on it. I'm going to play with the Tact mosly to just use it to refine passive treatments and further my acoustics IQ as many of you have used the Beringer for. I don't think I'm going to want to use the tact as my preamp which is how it's meant to be used. Hope this helps
joeylawn36111
574 posts
 
Eldartford - thanks.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,288 posts
 
Eldartford, if I understand it correctly, the Behringer is a combo graphic/parametric equalizer with a few added features. It is not a room correction device. It cannot adjust for time delay/phase and the EQ controls are too board to address all but the largest room induced resonances. The Tact makes corrections in both the frequency (as small as 2Hz wide) and time domains which is essential for true room tuning. Room problems are not just a frequency related issue. You should read REG's series on room correction in TAS for a more thorough technical explanation. As a practical matter can either device be used for room tuning. Of course both can, but one is a dedicated room correction device and the other is not.
drubin
3,277 posts
 
It strikes me that TacT has fallen behind the technology curve. The 2.0S is priced the same as the 2.0 from several years ago but seems to have been improved only a little (perhaps I am mistaken about this). Yet, the kind of processing power that is readily and cheaply available has increased quit dramatically in that timeframe. If you look at what you get for $300 from Slim Devices or Behringer, to name but two, sophisticated digital processing is practically free these days. Granted, TacT has made a huge investment in software, which they can and should charge for, but the box should either be cheaper now or it should be much more robust in terms of capabilities and ease of use.

I owned a TacT for a while and, while I never had great results with it, I continue to believe in the technology and think Peter Lyngdorf is one of the few genuine geniuses in high-end audio. I may try one again in the future, but I just ordered a Behringer. For the RTA alone, it's a steal, assuming I can figure out how to work it.

Dan
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,704 posts
 
Dan wrote: "I owned a TacT for a while and, while I never had great results with it, I continue to believe in the technology and think Peter Lyngdorf is one of the few genuine geniuses in high-end audio."

TacT is now run by the original software developer (see BOZ) and Peter Lyngdorf showed a new device under his own name at CES. It is similar to the TacT but differs a bit in hardware and in its approach to multisite measurements.

Kal
More to discover