EQ In The Digital Domain....

[SWL3600]

Curious to know how many here use digital EQ and what type/kind/brand.

 

I use a Behringer DEQ2496...strictly in the digital realm with an outboard DAC. This is a very affordable unit in the grand scheme of things....and I've got to say, I'd have a hard time living without it.

 

I've been curious about the mini dsp units but don't know much about them or how to use them simply as a parametric/graphic eq for playback.

 

I took the deq out of the system a couple times...briefly....and couldn't get it hooked back up fast enough. I couldn't believe how bad the sound was without it....or that I was actually content with the sound before the DEQ. LOL[emoji4]

 

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[Kal Rubinson]

The miniDSP units do parametric EQ just fine.

[Al Jones]

I use the Lyngdorf TDAI-2170 which combines preamp, 2x170W power amp, DAC, Room Perfect digital room correction and digital crossover.

[avantgardiac]

I've used lyngdorf, fantastic system. Also used mini dsp with Dirac which is great and unlike the lyngdorf, you can set your own curves.

 

Now I have active speakers which have eq incorporated into them. Big fan of all dsp rc I've used so far

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[adamdea]

I use a dspeaker antimode which is very easy to use albeit perhaps a bit less configurable than some software based drc. But it suits me to use it to do the dsp and leave my rpi2 to act as server

[nfnc]

I've used lyngdorf, fantastic system. Also used mini dsp with Dirac which is great and unlike the lyngdorf, you can set your own curves.

 

Now I have active speakers which have eq incorporated into them. Big fan of all dsp rc I've used so far

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Am using the same speakers. Very flexible and useful. A 2dB cut at 30 Hz hinged at 100 Hz helps to tame excessive bass.

 

Have you tried any microphone based DRC with it?

[Panelhead]

I have a KRK Ergo. This has a Lyngdorf Room Perfect chip. It sounds much better when using the DRC.

The Room Perfect utilized is limited to 96/24. This is the main drawback to the units. The design is 8 - 9 years old.

[plissken]

The DCX2496 is a good affordable solution and can do 24/96. The nice thing about something like the DCX is that you can store presets. I wish the unit was dynamically addressable for preset selection where a flagged meta data tag would dial up the preset you want on the fly as tracks queue up.

 

I've implemented BSS, Lake Processing, and Pro-audio amps that have DSP built in. I run a Behringer iNuke 3000DSP for my dual subs in my HT.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I guess I am really shocked that at Computer Audiophile, so many are using external "black box" devices as opposed to software in the PC itself, such as Dirac Live, Acourate, etc.

[SWL3600]

Please enlighten me why software in the PC itself is a better option.

 

Computer novice here....[emoji4]

 

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[mansr]

I guess I am really shocked that at Computer Audiophile, so many are using external "black box" devices as opposed to software in the PC itself, such as Dirac Live, Acourate, etc.

Ease of use, perhaps.

[avantgardiac]

Am using the same speakers. Very flexible and useful. A 2dB cut at 30 Hz hinged at 100 Hz helps to tame excessive bass.

 

Have you tried any microphone based DRC with it?

 

I tried my mini dsp with Dirac with it. I like the eq in the zeros much more

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Kal Rubinson]

Ease of use, perhaps.

 

Exactly the opposite. SW offers greater convenience and control.

[Kal Rubinson]

Please enlighten me why software in the PC itself is a better option.

No need for more boxes and cables.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Please enlighten me why software in the PC itself is a better option.

 

Computer novice here....[emoji4]

 

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

 

I agree with Kal's post. Also, it is often cheaper and more capable that what appears in external boxes, prepros, etc. For example, Dirac appears in some external boxes and prepros, but often is sample rate limited there to 48 or 96k. The software versions for PC or Apple handle up to 192K.

[plissken]

Exactly the opposite. SW offers greater convenience and control.

 

No need for more boxes and cables.

 

Depends on what you are doing. I done setups were the entire system is actively managed. We are talking 17 active channels.

[Kal Rubinson]

Depends on what you are doing. I done setups were the entire system is actively managed. We are talking 17 active channels.

 

Why is the number of channels relevant? Most of this is scalable.

[plissken]

Why is the number of channels relevant? Most of this is scalable.

 

Because it's an active speaker management system which means we aren't using passive X-O's. I'm not disagreeing with the consolidation. It's scenario dependent.

 

Hopefully we aren't talking around each other as a digital processor is for all intents and purposes a sound card.

 

With Hi-Q net everything is addressable from a computer and it really doesn't matter too much if the DSP is on a single box or distributed.

[nfnc]

I tried my mini dsp with Dirac with it. I like the eq in the zeros much more

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

Thanks. Do you measure before using the Zeros PEQ?

 

Might try Acourate but that requires another box (PC server) and cables...

[jcn3]

Using Dirac Live on my NUC with JRiver. Quite pleased!

[Keith_W]

Please enlighten me why software in the PC itself is a better option.

 

I am using Acourate and HQPlayer with a Merging NADAC (8 channel DAC). In the past I have used DEQX.

 

These are the reasons why a PC is a better option:

 

1. More processing power. You can have as much processing power as your bank balance will tolerate. 64 bit floating point calculation +/- hardware acceleration. In contrast, most in-a-box DSP units like the Behringer and MiniDSP use SOC's. What this means:

- MiniDSP/Behringer are limited to 48kHz PCM. Your PC can convolve at up to native DSD512 or absurdly high PCM sample rates if you want to.

- More taps mean that more complex calculations are possible - in turn you have more flexibility in creating filters.

 

2. Computers are upgradable. You don't have to buy a whole new box every time the manufacturer comes out with a new iteration of hardware.

 

3. You are not locked in to one choice of software. With MiniDSP it is possible to use REW, Dirac, or Acourate, but with most of the others you are stuck with what the manufacturer provided.

 

4. You can BYO DAC. It can be an inexpensive DAC or you could go crazy if your pockets were deep enough. In contrast, with MiniDSP/DEQX/etc the DAC's are built in. Some of these units have digital outs so you can BYO DAC if you wanted to, but you have already paid for a DAC which is now sitting in the box unused.

 

5. PC's are more flexible. In addition to playing music and convolving audio, my PC also doubles as a media player for my home theatre. And needless to say, it can do everything else a PC is expected to do. I have even used it to give powerpoint presentations at home.

 

6. The software on the PC is usually more powerful, and allows you to tune or change virtually anything you like. This can be a double edged sword - on one hand, you can do more. On the other, you have more opportunity to stuff up.

 

7. Depending on which box you choose, a PC may be cheaper. In Australia, a DEQX costs AUD$6-7,000. My entire PC setup (including: PC, monitor, microphone, 8 channel DAC/mic preamp) costs less than that, and offers better sound quality and more processing power.

[firedog]

Black boxes and the like are more convenient for lots of users - often everything is included, even the measuring microphone. No need for additional cables, mic amps, etc. No choices have to be made. No need for a powerful computer with the "right kind" out outputs and inputs. The software is also pre-setup.

 

For many of them, about all you have to do is attach the mic or box and press a button.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out that what one user sees as clearly superior is clearly inferior to another.

[avantgardiac]

Thanks. Do you measure before using the Zeros PEQ?

 

Might try Acourate but that requires another box (PC server) and cables...

 

Yes, I used the measurements from Dirac to set up the zeros

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Kal Rubinson]

Because it's an active speaker management system which means we aren't using passive X-O's. I'm not disagreeing with the consolidation. It's scenario dependent.

Agreed. However, one can manage EQ and crossovers all in software (or not).

 

Hopefully we aren't talking around each other as a digital processor is for all intents and purposes a sound card.

I rather think of mine as a general purpose computer with multiple sound-card functions.

 

With Hi-Q net everything is addressable from a computer and it really doesn't matter too much if the DSP is on a single box or distributed.

Yes, commercial/studio configurations become more attractive as complexity increases because they were designed for it.

[designmule]

I use a miniDSP nanodigi. I find it easy enough to use with REW though the import function has never really worked for me. Entering the corrections is no big deal.

 

I'd really like to try a software solution and simplify my system but in my case I need a multi-channel DAC. It seems like you can either go with the $300 miniDSP u-DAC8 (which for some reason I have a hard time getting excited about) or several $3,000 options (which I really can't afford).