What I have learned about room EQ

[MD]

Gentlemen
I have been working at understanding room integration issues and have
come to a couple conclusions

- Using anything other than test tones ranging from 30-300hz - IN ONE HZ
INCREMENTS- is a waste of time. I spent a lot of time moving my
speakers around until they looked pretty good - on my sound meter -
using the normal octave straight/warble tones. When I used the complete
set and plotted it on graph paper I found that in using the octave set I
completely missed some issues. I have bumps at 48hz, 68hz and 130hz
with a good size dip at 52hz. That is so close to 48hz that I missed it
before.
- Passive room treatment isn't effective because it is not discriminate
enough. It absorbs everything in a certain range
- Straight EQ's are worthless because they more often than not do not
provide the adjustment setting needed
- Units like the Rives work well but are expensive

I bought the Behringer and am extremely happy. I can select the exact
freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.

I am curious on your thoughts?

[Robert Morein]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> Gentlemen
> I have been working at understanding room integration issues and have
> come to a couple conclusions
>
> - Using anything other than test tones ranging from 30-300hz - IN ONE HZ
> INCREMENTS- is a waste of time. I spent a lot of time moving my
> speakers around until they looked pretty good - on my sound meter -
> using the normal octave straight/warble tones. When I used the complete
> set and plotted it on graph paper I found that in using the octave set I
> completely missed some issues. I have bumps at 48hz, 68hz and 130hz
> with a good size dip at 52hz. That is so close to 48hz that I missed it
> before.
> - Passive room treatment isn't effective because it is not discriminate
> enough. It absorbs everything in a certain range
> - Straight EQ's are worthless because they more often than not do not
> provide the adjustment setting needed
> - Units like the Rives work well but are expensive
>
> I bought the Behringer and am extremely happy. I can select the exact
> freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
> only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.
>
> I am curious on your thoughts?

The white noise is due to insufficient level at the input of the equalizer.
A spare preamp will fix this.

Your thoroughness in the 30 to 300 range is commendable. However, don't try
to fully correct the dip at 52 hz, unless 3dB or less. Most

Passive room treatment is essential, at least for midrange and above.
Failure to reduce early reflections will reduce the clarity. I think many
people would agree with me that early reflections are more harmful to the
pleasure of music than most bass anomalies.

The Behringher unit samples at 48K samples/second. Therefore it is
bandlimited to about 22 kHz, allowing for the reconstruction filters. You
should be aware that this makes a 96 or 192 kHz upsampling DAC rather
worthless, because the signal through the Behringer must pass through a 48
digital system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> The Behringher unit samples at 48K samples/second.
> Therefore it is bandlimited to about 22 kHz, allowing for
> the reconstruction filters.

Good digital filters are just about ideally flat up to about
95% of Nyquist. That would be about 22.8 Khz for 48 KHz
sampling.

> You should be aware that this
> makes a 96 or 192 kHz upsampling DAC rather worthless,
> because the signal through the Behringer must pass
> through a 48 digital system.

96 or 192 KHz upsampling DACs are worthless for listening to
music, regardless.

[Robert Morein]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:36:50 -0500, MD > wrote:

>Gentlemen
> I have been working at understanding room integration issues and have
>come to a couple conclusions
>
>- Using anything other than test tones ranging from 30-300hz - IN ONE HZ
>INCREMENTS- is a waste of time. I spent a lot of time moving my
>speakers around until they looked pretty good - on my sound meter -
>using the normal octave straight/warble tones. When I used the complete
>set and plotted it on graph paper I found that in using the octave set I
>completely missed some issues. I have bumps at 48hz, 68hz and 130hz
>with a good size dip at 52hz. That is so close to 48hz that I missed it
>before.
>- Passive room treatment isn't effective because it is not discriminate
>enough. It absorbs everything in a certain range
>- Straight EQ's are worthless because they more often than not do not
>provide the adjustment setting needed
>- Units like the Rives work well but are expensive
>
>I bought the Behringer and am extremely happy. I can select the exact
>freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
>only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.
>
>I am curious on your thoughts?

My thoughts are simple.

If you agree you are good.
If you disagree you are Brian.
Simple enough?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > The Behringher unit samples at 48K samples/second.
> > Therefore it is bandlimited to about 22 kHz, allowing for
> > the reconstruction filters.
>
> Good digital filters are just about ideally flat up to about
> 95% of Nyquist. That would be about 22.8 Khz for 48 KHz
> sampling.
>
> > You should be aware that this
> > makes a 96 or 192 kHz upsampling DAC rather worthless,
> > because the signal through the Behringer must pass
> > through a 48 digital system.
>
> 96 or 192 KHz upsampling DACs are worthless for listening to
> music, regardless.
>
Of course, but they sound nice :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The Behringher unit samples at 48K samples/second.
>>> Therefore it is bandlimited to about 22 kHz, allowing
>>> for the reconstruction filters.
>>
>> Good digital filters are just about ideally flat up to
>> about 95% of Nyquist. That would be about 22.8 Khz for
>> 48 KHz sampling.
>>
>>> You should be aware that this
>>> makes a 96 or 192 kHz upsampling DAC rather worthless,
>>> because the signal through the Behringer must pass
>>> through a 48 digital system.
>>
>> 96 or 192 KHz upsampling DACs are worthless for
>> listening to music, regardless.
>>
> Of course, but they sound nice :)

Avoiding them results in sound that is no less nice.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Behringher unit samples at 48K samples/second.
>>>> Therefore it is bandlimited to about 22 kHz, allowing
>>>> for the reconstruction filters.
>>>
>>> Good digital filters are just about ideally flat up to
>>> about 95% of Nyquist. That would be about 22.8 Khz for
>>> 48 KHz sampling.
>>>
>>>> You should be aware that this
>>>> makes a 96 or 192 kHz upsampling DAC rather worthless,
>>>> because the signal through the Behringer must pass
>>>> through a 48 digital system.
>>>
>>> 96 or 192 KHz upsampling DACs are worthless for
>>> listening to music, regardless.
>>>
>> Of course, but they sound nice :)
>
> Avoiding them results in sound that is no less nice.
Using them makes a sound that is nicer that the sound which results when
they are avoided.

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> Gentlemen
> I have been working at understanding room integration issues and have come
> to a couple conclusions
>
> - Using anything other than test tones ranging from 30-300hz - IN ONE HZ
> INCREMENTS- is a waste of time. I spent a lot of time moving my speakers
> around until they looked pretty good - on my sound meter - using the
> normal octave straight/warble tones. When I used the complete set and
> plotted it on graph paper I found that in using the octave set I
> completely missed some issues. I have bumps at 48hz, 68hz and 130hz with
> a good size dip at 52hz. That is so close to 48hz that I missed it
> before.
> - Passive room treatment isn't effective because it is not discriminate
> enough. It absorbs everything in a certain range
> - Straight EQ's are worthless because they more often than not do not
> provide the adjustment setting needed
> - Units like the Rives work well but are expensive
>
> I bought the Behringer and am extremely happy.

Which Behringer is that?

I can select the exact
> freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
> only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.
>
> I am curious on your thoughts?

Does it sound better to you?

If it does, then that would be all that matters.

[Sander deWaal]

> said:

>>I can select the exact
>> freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
>> only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.

>> I am curious on your thoughts?


>Does it sound better to you?

>If it does, then that would be all that matters.


Is that true for SET amplifiers as well? ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> > said:
>
>>>I can select the exact
>>> freq, bandwidth and gain I need to solve each one of my problems. The
>>> only side effect I can hear is a barely detectable white noise.
>
>>> I am curious on your thoughts?
>
>
>>Does it sound better to you?
>
>>If it does, then that would be all that matters.
>
>
> Is that true for SET amplifiers as well? ;-)
>
> --
>
Sure, never said otherwise, as long as the owners don't try to claim
technical superiority.

I think instead of Objectivists and Subjectivists, we should change it to
Hi-Fi enthusiasts and Audio enthusiasts. The former applying to those who
want to get as close as possible to the sound of the master and the latter
for those who want something that they like irrespecitve of the amount of
distortion that is added.

[George Middius]

Mickey tries again to rise above his customary morass of intractable stupidity.

>I think instead of Objectivists and Subjectivists, we should change it to
>Hi-Fi enthusiasts and Audio enthusiasts. The former applying to those who
>want to get as close as possible to the sound of the master and the latter
>for those who want something that they like irrespecitve of the amount of
>distortion that is added.

I thought of three responses simultaneously when I read this Mickey-slobber:

(1) Oh shut up, you stupid Bug Eater.

(2) Go ahead and masturbate mentally. Nobody cares what a simpleton thinks about
audio, music, fidelity, or politics.

(3) Does Arnii realize Mikey is whacking off in cyberspace's front window again?


..
..
..
..

[Ruud Broens]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
:
:
:
: Mickey tries again to rise above his customary morass of intractable stupidity.
:
: >I think instead of Objectivists and Subjectivists, we should change it to
: >Hi-Fi enthusiasts and Audio enthusiasts. The former applying to those who
: >want to get as close as possible to the sound of the master and the latter
: >for those who want something that they like irrespecitve of the amount of
: >distortion that is added.
:
: I thought of three responses simultaneously when I read this Mickey-slobber:
:
: (1) Oh shut up, you stupid Bug Eater.
:
: (2) Go ahead and masturbate mentally. Nobody cares what a simpleton thinks
about
: audio, music, fidelity, or politics.
:
: (3) Does Arnii realize Mikey is whacking off in cyberspace's front window
again?
:
:
: .: .

Just when i thought i had seen some birdy's 'n eagles recently,
now you sound like being hit by a goofball,
again,
George
;-)
R.

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> Mickey tries again to rise above his customary morass of intractable
> stupidity.
>
>>I think instead of Objectivists and Subjectivists, we should change it to
>>Hi-Fi enthusiasts and Audio enthusiasts. The former applying to those who
>>want to get as close as possible to the sound of the master and the latter
>>for those who want something that they like irrespecitve of the amount of
>>distortion that is added.
>
> I thought of three responses simultaneously when I read this
> Mickey-slobber:
>
> (1) Oh shut up, you stupid Bug Eater.
>
> (2) Go ahead and masturbate mentally. Nobody cares what a simpleton thinks
> about
> audio, music, fidelity, or politics.
>
> (3) Does Arnii realize Mikey is whacking off in cyberspace's front window
> again?
>
>
> .
Obsession with masturbation noted.