Behringer Parametric DSPs vs the big boys - Tact T and Rives

[MD]

I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to
each of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones -
in 1hz increments - not warble tones etc)

I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)

I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
it to the Behringer

I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system

Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within
a few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz
64/128 oversampling.

If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could
would I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that
has 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?

And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper -
pro-audio gear is crap - unless you have heard it.

[Robert Morein]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>increments - not warble tones etc)
>
> I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>
> I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> it to the Behringer
>
> I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>
> Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
> few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
> oversampling.
>
> If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
> I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
> 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?

This is a highly controversial question, one of the reasons I stick with
analog equalizers.

I have a Musical Fidelity A3 DAC, which is a 24/192 unit, a Perpetual Tech
24/96, a couple of Sony TA-E1000ESDs with 18 bit ladder DACs, and more. They
all sound different. Yet the majority of audiophiles reluctantly acknowledge
that human hearing does not extend past 20K in the vast majority of people.

Why then, these differences? In my opinion, the answer is that each DAC
design is doing something different, which is possibly related in a complex
way to the sampling rate. But the "something" is a hidden attribute of the
design. Buyers are conditioned by the advertising media to believe that the
succinct buzzword description of the product gives the most important facts
about it. Sadly, this is not so. The design of these devices involves
circuit details that are either not revealed, or have characteristics that
have not been systematized to give a "number."

This means that you should expect that the 24/192 may provide audibly better
sound, not because a human can hear ultrasonically, but because associated
choices of the design result in fewer anomalies such as phase shift,
spectral purity, or quantitization noise. There is no one on this group who
can provide an authoritative answer, but, given the personalities, you may
expect to hear draconian pronouncements one way or another. If you have the
money, try it. My particular bias against digital equalizers is that
quantitization and analog reconstruction exact a toll. Ideally, it should be
done only once in an audiophile's system, at the output of the preamp. But
the audiophile world has stubbornly stuck with analog interconnection. In
order to minimize the sonic cost of the extra A/D-->D/A steps, I would
intuitively prefer the highest sampling rate possible.

[Arny Krueger]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>increments - not warble tones etc)
>
> I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>
> I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> it to the Behringer

> I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system

> Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
> few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
> oversampling.

There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes

http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG


It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.

> If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
> I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
> 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?

OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
$200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.

> And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
> gear is crap - unless you have heard it.

The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
less sucessful addressing deep nulls.

So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
were adressing them with products like these:

http://www.realtraps.com/

[EddieM]

> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>> Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
>> few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
>> oversampling.
>
> There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
>
> http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
>
>
> It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
>
>> If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency - would
>> i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would I pay
>> thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has 96khz
>> sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>
> OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
> $200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
>
>> And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
>> gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>
> The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
> generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
> addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
> solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
> less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
>
> So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
> were adressing them with products like these:
>
> http://www.realtraps.com/



The post reply above appears to be well intended. It seems to be well
meaning and so, therefore, it is good. I like it. Audiophiles expect more
of this type.

You may go ahead and respond to all threads as you like or as
selectively as you wish.

[Robert Morein]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>>
>>
[snip]
>
>
>
> The post reply above appears to be well intended. It seems to be well
> meaning and so, therefore, it is good. I like it. Audiophiles expect
> more
> of this type.
>
> You may go ahead and respond to all threads as you like or as
> selectively as you wish.
>
I agree. Arny, that was a good post.

[MD]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MD" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>>increments - not warble tones etc)
>>
>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>>
>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
>>it to the Behringer
>
>
>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>
>
>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
>>few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
>>oversampling.
>
>
> There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
>
> http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
>
>
> It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
>
>
>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
>>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
>>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>
>
> OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
> $200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
>
>
>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
>>gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>
>
> The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
> generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
> addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
> solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
> less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
>
> So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
> were adressing them with products like these:
>
> http://www.realtraps.com/
>
>
I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are
fixed and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc
bandwidth) of the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For
instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge
amount of narrow bands

Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.
It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb
the nulls as well.

[MD]

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> MD > wrote:
>
>
>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to
>>each of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones -
>>in 1hz increments - not warble tones etc)
>>
>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>>
>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
>>it to the Behringer
>>
>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>>
>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within
>>a few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz
>>64/128 oversampling.
>>
>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could
>>would I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that
>>has 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>>
>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper -
>>pro-audio gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>
>
> For the extra cost, the TacT uses test tones and room measurements to
> generate correction curves more accurately than the method you employed.
> If you're satisfied with your results, bravo!
>
> Here's something for digital correction:
>
> http://www.deqx.com
>
> Comment? Anybody hear the NHTs?
>
> Stephen
Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I
use the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?

[MD]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "MD" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>>increments - not warble tones etc)
>>
>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>>
>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
>>it to the Behringer
>
>
>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>
>
>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
>>few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
>>oversampling.
>
>
> There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
>
> http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
>
>
> It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
>
>
>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
>>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
>>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>
>
> OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
> $200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
>
>
>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
>>gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>
>
> The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
> generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
> addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
> solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
> less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
>
> So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
> were adressing them with products like these:
>
> http://www.realtraps.com/
>
>
You the man

[MINe 109]

In article >,
MD > wrote:

> I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to
> each of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones -
> in 1hz increments - not warble tones etc)
>
> I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>
> I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> it to the Behringer
>
> I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>
> Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within
> a few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz
> 64/128 oversampling.
>
> If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could
> would I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that
> has 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>
> And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper -
> pro-audio gear is crap - unless you have heard it.

For the extra cost, the TacT uses test tones and room measurements to
generate correction curves more accurately than the method you employed.
If you're satisfied with your results, bravo!

Here's something for digital correction:

http://www.deqx.com

Comment? Anybody hear the NHTs?

Stephen

[Robert Morein]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>
> I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are fixed
> and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc bandwidth) of
> the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For instance I have
> peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana analog EQ would not
> be able to deal with this unless in had a huge amount of narrow bands
>
That is very strange, UNLESS you have a very large room. As the room size
increases, the modes move toward a continuum. I suspect that some of this is
due to the speakers, in addition to the room

> Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
> problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ. It
> will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb the
> nulls as well.

Actually, passive treatments do not absorb nulls. The depth of the nulls
will actually decrease. In a completely absorptive environment, ie., an
anechoic chamber which happens to be effective at low frequencies, there are
no room related peaks or nulls.

Passives are not linear, but neither is gypsum board, so you won't lose
"room linearity", a term which is not really applicable to a real room.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:16:09 -0500, MD > wrote:

>I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are
>fixed and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc
>bandwidth) of the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For
>instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
>analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge
>amount of narrow bands

Not true. Parametric EQs let you adjust frequency, too.

>Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
>problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.
>It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb
>the nulls as well.

Not true. Read the info at www.realtraps.com or www.rivesaudio.com

Kal

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:18:50 -0500, MD > wrote:

>Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
>tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I
>use the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?

It is. And it uses sweep tones rather than pink noise or fixed sine
waves.

Kal

[MINe 109]

In article >, MD >
wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > MD > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to
> >>each of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones -
> >>in 1hz increments - not warble tones etc)
> >>
> >>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> >>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> >>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
> >>
> >>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> >>it to the Behringer
> >>
> >>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
> >>
> >>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> >>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within
> >>a few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz
> >>64/128 oversampling.
> >>
> >>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> >>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could
> >>would I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that
> >>has 96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
> >>
> >>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper -
> >>pro-audio gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
> >
> >
> > For the extra cost, the TacT uses test tones and room measurements to
> > generate correction curves more accurately than the method you employed.
> > If you're satisfied with your results, bravo!

<snip>

> Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
> tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I
> use the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?

It's the test tone itself. TacT uses 'click' tones to measure transient
response, arguably more important to reproduction than steady tones. At
least, Ralph Glasgal argues this:

http://www.ambiophonics.org/Tact.htm

This is rather old (1999) but there are lots of reviews out there.

Transients aside, the TacT measurements will be more accurate than the
Radioshack can provide. Of course, the TacT costs twenty times more that
your Behringer.

Thank you, Mr. Google. Here's a better explanation:

http://www.regonaudio.com/Digital%20Correction%20for%20Audio%20Part%20I.h
tml

RCS Measurement and Correction Model

The best way to understand what the RCS unit does and why it works so
well is to imagine first, for contrast, an idealized version of the old
"slider" band-by-band analog EQ devices and figure out why they did not
work right. By "idealized" I mean I am going to suppose that the device
simply does what it is supposed to do operationally, with no distortion.
The old idea was this: Run a broadband, steady-state test signal through
each channel (separately) of your system. Measure the steady-state
response at the listening position in frequency bands corresponding to
the sliders' frequencies. (The highest resolution, to my knowledge, had
30 bands, each one-third octave wide.) Move the various "sliders" up or
down as needed to get the measured steady-state response essentially
flat. Do this for each channel. Now your system is "flat" and the
channels match.

In reality, this process often produced worse results than what you
started with... There isn't much wrong with using steady-state response
as the measure in the bass. The problem is that you didn't have narrow
enough bands.

The second problem is a little harder to understand because it involves
a surprising property of how we hear. In the bass, we really have no way
to tell the difference between the "first arrival" and later, reflected
sound. You cannot really get a handle, even mathematically, on the
energy at, say, 100 Hz, in some sound until that sound has been going on
long enough to produce a cycle or two at that frequency. You need
somewhere between 10 and 20 milliseconds. And we are unable to treat
reflections that arrive during that rather long window separately from
the direct, first-arriving sound. This is true for microphones and
computers, too. That is why you cannot readily separate the effects of
the room from the response of the speaker when you do measurements in
your listening room: The room gets in the picture before you have time
to latch onto the energy content of the bass in the direct sound.

In the higher frequencies, this changes: If you are interested in how
much energy there is at, say, 5 kHz--for that, you need only 0.2 to 0.4
milliseconds --you have plenty of time before any reflections arrive,
typically. You can measure the high-frequency response of a speaker in a
room without "hearing" the room at all. You can get the "anechoic"
reflection-free response by just chopping out everything after the first
little bit of the direct arrival of, say, an impulse signal.

<snip>

Now you can see what is wrong with the old-style steady-state EQ: It did
not "hear" right. The bass was heard correctly, but the microphone
picking up the steady-state noise signal was lumping the whole sound
together in the higher frequencies, treating reflections and direct
arrival as a unified whole. By contrast, the ear-brain was taking the
direct arrival more seriously than the reflections, and ignoring (at
least to some extent) the peaks and dips that arise from reflections.
(Much experimental work has been done on the thresholds for this
phenomenon.)...

End quote.

This refers to old analog EQs, so your Behringer results will be better.
The article is worth reading, especially to see the remarks in context
without my snips.

Stephen

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:26 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>Comment? Anybody hear the NHTs?

Yes. See http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1105nht/

But it does not do room EQ, yet.

Kal

[Robert Morein]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> MINe 109 wrote:
[snip]>> Stephen
> Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
> tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I use
> the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?

The Radio Shack meter is just not adequate for what you want to do. The
reading depends upon the voltage from the battery, which declines the longer
the meter is turned on, recovering when the meter is turned off. Readings
from an RS meter are like blood pressure readings; they vary when, where,
why, and how you take them.

Also, a room is full of materials that have very nonlinear characteristics.
The dissipative characteristics of the walls and furnishings actually vary
depending upon the SPL level. Steady tones excite the room materials,
providing different measured results from sweeps and white noise. There
seems to be a professional belief that measuring with sweeps or white noise
provide measurements that are more relevant for room correction.

[Arny Krueger]

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
>> generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
>> addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a
>> potential solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is
>> going to be a lot less sucessful addressing deep nulls.

>> So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if
>> you were adressing them with products like these:
>>
>> http://www.realtraps.com/
>
> I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are fixed
> and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc bandwidth) of
> the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room.

Say what? I have a shelf full of analog parametric equalizers (mostly Rane
PE15) that have continuously adjustable bandwith and frequencies. Perhaps
you are talking about graphic eqs?

> For instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
> analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge amount
> of narrow bands

Well, you'd need 4 bands. PE15 have 5 bands, and the newer sequel product
the PE17 has 6 bands. Slam dunk! ;-)


> Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
> problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.

Say what?

When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical treatments
the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the room
where you apply the treatment.

> It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb the
> nulls as well.

Not at all. There are acoustic treatments called "Bass traps" that work over
a narrow band of frequencies.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:31:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
>change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical treatments
>the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the room
>where you apply the treatment.

That's not true. Both affect the sound throughout the room but
differently.

Kal

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "MD" > wrote in message
> ...
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> [snip]>> Stephen
> > Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
> > tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I use
> > the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?
>
> The Radio Shack meter is just not adequate for what you want to do. The
> reading depends upon the voltage from the battery, which declines the longer
> the meter is turned on, recovering when the meter is turned off. Readings
> from an RS meter are like blood pressure readings; they vary when, where,
> why, and how you take them.

A pretty good rule of thumb is that if Radio Shack sells it there is
something wrong with it.

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "MD" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > MINe 109 wrote:
>> [snip]>> Stephen
>> > Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
>> > tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I
>> > use
>> > the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?
>>
>> The Radio Shack meter is just not adequate for what you want to do. The
>> reading depends upon the voltage from the battery, which declines the
>> longer
>> the meter is turned on, recovering when the meter is turned off. Readings
>> from an RS meter are like blood pressure readings; they vary when, where,
>> why, and how you take them.
>
> A pretty good rule of thumb is that if Radio Shack sells it there is
> something wrong with it.
>
Radio Shock, Radio Schlock, etc.
Not to worry. It seems to have recently become purely a toy store.
It used to have utility as the "it's Sunday, where can I find a 7805" last
resort.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:31:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
>>change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical
>>treatments
>>the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the room
>>where you apply the treatment.
>
> That's not true. Both affect the sound throughout the room but
> differently.

Yes, both statements were over-simplifications. However the pervasiveness of
electrical changes is far greater for pretty obvious reasons. One usually
only has to experiment with acoustical treatments for a little while before
one finds that there are parts of the room where the effects are global, and
other places where they are frustratingly local.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "MD" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > MINe 109 wrote:
>> [snip]>> Stephen
>> > Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
>> > tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I
>> > use
>> > the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?
>>
>> The Radio Shack meter is just not adequate for what you want to do. The
>> reading depends upon the voltage from the battery, which declines the
>> longer
>> the meter is turned on, recovering when the meter is turned off. Readings
>> from an RS meter are like blood pressure readings; they vary when, where,
>> why, and how you take them.
>
> A pretty good rule of thumb is that if Radio Shack sells it there is
> something wrong with it.

In a similar spirit.

A pretty good rule of thumb is that if Bret Ludwig posts it, there is
something wrong with it.

I would say that Radio Shack is best criticized for providing medocre value.
If they sell it for a competitive price then it is likely to be inferior. If
they sell it cheap (not a close out) then its really bad, and if they get a
dear price for it, then it might be OK but its still a poor value.

A clarifying example: Recently I picked up a goodly number of RS Toslink
cables on close-out for next to nothing, that are really among the nicest
Toslink cables I've ever used. However, at the origional asking price, they
were vastly overpriced.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:34:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:31:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
>>>change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical
>>>treatments
>>>the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the room
>>>where you apply the treatment.
>>
>> That's not true. Both affect the sound throughout the room but
>> differently.
>
>Yes, both statements were over-simplifications. However the pervasiveness of
>electrical changes is far greater for pretty obvious reasons. One usually
>only has to experiment with acoustical treatments for a little while before
>one finds that there are parts of the room where the effects are global, and
>other places where they are frustratingly local.

Yes, and the same goes for electronic EQ. For example, if you boost a
null (which is due to the interaction of peaks), you get more peaks
elsewhere. Each tool, electronic and acoustical, has its uses.

Kal

[Arny Krueger]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:34:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:31:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
>>>>change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical
>>>>treatments
>>>>the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the
>>>>room
>>>>where you apply the treatment.
>>>
>>> That's not true. Both affect the sound throughout the room but
>>> differently.
>>
>>Yes, both statements were over-simplifications. However the pervasiveness
>>of
>>electrical changes is far greater for pretty obvious reasons. One usually
>>only has to experiment with acoustical treatments for a little while
>>before
>>one finds that there are parts of the room where the effects are global,
>>and
>>other places where they are frustratingly local.
>
> Yes, and the same goes for electronic EQ. For example, if you boost a
> null (which is due to the interaction of peaks), you get more peaks
> elsewhere.

Well it still affected the whole room, right?

> Each tool, electronic and acoustical, has its uses.

Aggreed. But, acoustical enhancments seem to be the more perfectionistic and
idealistic way to go. In my book, electronic eq's major charm is that on a
good day its expedient.

[Steven Sullivan]

MD > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "MD" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
> >>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
> >>increments - not warble tones etc)
> >>
> >>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> >>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> >>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
> >>
> >>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> >>it to the Behringer
> >
> >
> >>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
> >
> >
> >>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> >>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
> >>few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
> >>oversampling.
> >
> >
> > There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
> >
> > http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
> >
> >
> > It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
> >
> >
> >>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> >>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
> >>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
> >>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
> >
> >
> > OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
> > $200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
> >
> >
> >>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
> >>gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
> >
> >
> > The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
> > generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
> > addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
> > solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
> > less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
> >
> > So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
> > were adressing them with products like these:
> >
> > http://www.realtraps.com/
> >
> >
> I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are
> fixed and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc
> bandwidth) of the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For
> instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
> analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge
> amount of narrow bands

> Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
> problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.
> It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb
> the nulls as well.


traps vs EQ went head-to-head in a recent comparison -- the results are
here:

http://www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm

discussion of it here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=610122&page=1&pp=60


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:18:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>> Yes, and the same goes for electronic EQ. For example, if you boost a
>> null (which is due to the interaction of peaks), you get more peaks
>> elsewhere.
>
>Well it still affected the whole room, right?

Yes but, as I said, not in the same way.

>> Each tool, electronic and acoustical, has its uses.
>
>Aggreed. But, acoustical enhancments seem to be the more perfectionistic and
>idealistic way to go. In my book, electronic eq's major charm is that on a
>good day its expedient.

Perfectionism and idealism are philosophy. The two approaches differ
in their physics. Each has their uses and they are often
complementary.

Kal

"MD" > wrote in message
...
> MINe 109 wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> MD > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>>>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>>>increments - not warble tones etc)
>>>
>>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
>>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
>>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>>>
>>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
>>>it to the Behringer
>>>
>>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>>>
>>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within
>>>a few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz
>>>64/128 oversampling.
>>>
>>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
>>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
>>>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
>>>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>>>
>>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper -
>>>pro-audio gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>>
>>
>> For the extra cost, the TacT uses test tones and room measurements to
>> generate correction curves more accurately than the method you employed.
>> If you're satisfied with your results, bravo!
>>
>> Here's something for digital correction:
>>
>> http://www.deqx.com
>>
>> Comment? Anybody hear the NHTs?
>>
>> Stephen
> Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
> tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I use
> the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?

As has been discussed here previously the RS spl meter is not the most
accurate and the Behringer mic connected to one of their units is better.

The TacT is also a better choice if accuracy is important as it surely would
be for EQ.

[MD]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> MD > wrote:
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"MD" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
>>>>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
>>>>increments - not warble tones etc)
>>>>
>>>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
>>>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
>>>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
>>>>
>>>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
>>>>it to the Behringer
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
>>>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
>>>>few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
>>>>oversampling.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
>>>
>>>http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
>>>
>>>
>>>It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
>>>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
>>>>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
>>>>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
>>>$200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
>>>>gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
>>>
>>>
>>>The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
>>>generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
>>>addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
>>>solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
>>>less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
>>>
>>>So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
>>>were adressing them with products like these:
>>>
>>>http://www.realtraps.com/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are
>>fixed and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc
>>bandwidth) of the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For
>>instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
>>analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge
>>amount of narrow bands
>
>
>>Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
>>problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.
>>It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb
>>the nulls as well.
>
>
>
> traps vs EQ went head-to-head in a recent comparison -- the results are
> here:
>
> http://www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm
>
> discussion of it here:
>
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=610122&page=1&pp=60
>
>

I included Real Traps in my response

I have a couple issues with the Real Traps article and test

First – they included non-bass – room interaction issues in the article.
They mention reflection and echo issues as well, EQs – digital and
analog aren’t used for the latter. Neither are bass traps unless you
have a lott of them and or *******ize their intent a bit.

Second- the article mentions using the 1124P DSP and “all 12 of it’s EQ”
settings. I wonder were these the standard EQ settings or parametric.
Given the graphs presented it seems to me they were either the normal EQ
settings being used (Which means their center freq and bandwidth
settings would probably have not matched the room nodes) or someone did
not use the parametric option correctly. I have plotted my room from
20-300hz in ONE HERTZ increments – before and after the 1124P – and saw
a much better result than this test did. Me thinks there is something
wrong here

[MD]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:18:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Yes, and the same goes for electronic EQ. For example, if you boost a
>>>null (which is due to the interaction of peaks), you get more peaks
>>>elsewhere.
>>
>>Well it still affected the whole room, right?
>
>
> Yes but, as I said, not in the same way.
>
>
>>> Each tool, electronic and acoustical, has its uses.
>>
>>Aggreed. But, acoustical enhancments seem to be the more perfectionistic and
>>idealistic way to go. In my book, electronic eq's major charm is that on a
>>good day its expedient.
>
>
> Perfectionism and idealism are philosophy. The two approaches differ
> in their physics. Each has their uses and they are often
> complementary.
>
> Kal
Do you mean complimentary for whole room correction or bass/room
interaction resolution?

Where there function does not overlap I see the complimentary part - as
in echo flutter, first order reflection and bass/room correction.

I do not see them being complimentary for bass/room interaction. A
parametric EQ (specifically for nulls) is targeted for specific
frequencies, bandwidths and level. Traps etc are too broad in function
- they operate over too wide of a range to be useful any more. (In the
days before we had parametric/DSP combinations I could see the use -
especially over analog EQs or non-parametric types)

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:12:28 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"MD" > wrote in message
...
>> Thank you. Actually the newer/more expensive ($400) Behringer has
>> tones/mic. Why would my hand plotting be bad - in 1hz increments? I use
>> the radioshack meter. Unless the mic in the TacT is more linear?
>
>As has been discussed here previously the RS spl meter is not the most
>accurate and the Behringer mic connected to one of their units is better.
>
>The TacT is also a better choice if accuracy is important as it surely would
>be for EQ.

One of the reasons the RS meter is not as accurate is that it requires
long pink noise or sine wave output rather than pulses or sweeps. The
long signal

[MD]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:47:47 -0500, MD > wrote:
>
>
>>Do you mean complimentary for whole room correction or bass/room
>>interaction resolution?
>
> I meant complementary. ;-)
>
>
>>Where there function does not overlap I see the complimentary part - as
>>in echo flutter, first order reflection and bass/room correction.
>>
>>I do not see them being complimentary for bass/room interaction. A
>>parametric EQ (specifically for nulls) is targeted for specific
>>frequencies, bandwidths and level. Traps etc are too broad in function
>>- they operate over too wide of a range to be useful any more. (In the
>>days before we had parametric/DSP combinations I could see the use -
>>especially over analog EQs or non-parametric types)
>
> First, traps can be broad in action or they can be tuned/resonant
> traps. OTOH, if they are placed at the high pressure zones for the
> main room modes, their effect will be primarily on those nodes, even
> if they are not tuned specifically.
>
> Second, as you get lower in frequency, you need bigger and more traps
> making them less welcome in most domestic setups. Then, electronics
> can do great things.
>
> Third, originally, I was not speaking of bass traps, per se, but of
> the relative uses of acoustical vs. electronic treatment. At higher
> frequencies, I'd prefer acoustics since I'd rather not insert any more
> devices than necessary in the signal line. As the volume demands
> increase, I lean towards electronics.
>
> Fourth, fixing the room acoustically also benefits all other sounds,
> like conversation and ambient noises. This also minimizes any jarring
> dichotomy between live and recorded sounds in that room.
>
> Finally, with new DSP techniques, there are great time-domain
> manipulations that can be very effective in specific loci.
>
> Kal
>
>
Very good
I agree completely. Funny (or sad actually) that so few people even try
to get their room right. I have always treated echo flutter and first
reflection - getting the bass right with DSP is new. Traps are too big,
expensive and a wife killer

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:47:47 -0500, MD > wrote:

>Do you mean complimentary for whole room correction or bass/room
>interaction resolution?
I meant complementary. ;-)

>Where there function does not overlap I see the complimentary part - as
>in echo flutter, first order reflection and bass/room correction.
>
>I do not see them being complimentary for bass/room interaction. A
>parametric EQ (specifically for nulls) is targeted for specific
>frequencies, bandwidths and level. Traps etc are too broad in function
>- they operate over too wide of a range to be useful any more. (In the
>days before we had parametric/DSP combinations I could see the use -
>especially over analog EQs or non-parametric types)
First, traps can be broad in action or they can be tuned/resonant
traps. OTOH, if they are placed at the high pressure zones for the
main room modes, their effect will be primarily on those nodes, even
if they are not tuned specifically.

Second, as you get lower in frequency, you need bigger and more traps
making them less welcome in most domestic setups. Then, electronics
can do great things.

Third, originally, I was not speaking of bass traps, per se, but of
the relative uses of acoustical vs. electronic treatment. At higher
frequencies, I'd prefer acoustics since I'd rather not insert any more
devices than necessary in the signal line. As the volume demands
increase, I lean towards electronics.

Fourth, fixing the room acoustically also benefits all other sounds,
like conversation and ambient noises. This also minimizes any jarring
dichotomy between live and recorded sounds in that room.

Finally, with new DSP techniques, there are great time-domain
manipulations that can be very effective in specific loci.

Kal

[Arny Krueger]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...

> One of the reasons the RS meter is not as accurate is that it requires
> long pink noise or sine wave output rather than pulses or sweeps. The
> long signal <ends>

The leading reason why the RS meter is not as accurate as modern
alternatives is that it has a pretty crude and nasty microphone and
measuring circuitry.

After that, it comes down to the limitations of the basic measurement
techniques that it can be used to implement.

The RS meter does not have any selectivity in either the time domain or the
frequency domain. It just measures the whole acoustical input as one entity.

More modern measurement techniques obtain their power from being able to
discrimate between the desired signal in terms of either frequency or time
or both.

[Steven Sullivan]

MD > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > MD > wrote:
> >
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>"MD" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
> >>>>of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
> >>>>increments - not warble tones etc)
> >>>>
> >>>>I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
> >>>>amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
> >>>>inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)
> >>>>
> >>>>I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
> >>>>it to the Behringer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
> >>>>Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
> >>>>few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
> >>>>oversampling.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There's a new model that runs at 24/96 and handles more modes
> >>>
> >>>http://www.behringer.com/FBQ2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It costs less than $90 more than the one you have.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
> >>>>would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
> >>>>I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
> >>>>96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>OK, you are ahead of me! ;-) In the U.S. The SRP of the new box is still <
> >>>$200. The old 48 KHz model has a street price under $120.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And please - save me the answers where you assume that cheaper - pro-audio
> >>>>gear is crap - unless you have heard it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The problem I have with your proposed solution is more generalized. It is
> >>>generally agreed that acoustical problems like standing waves are better
> >>>addressed in the acoustical domain. For example, an equalizer is a potential
> >>>solution for acoustical modes that create peaks, but it is going to be a lot
> >>>less sucessful addressing deep nulls.
> >>>
> >>>So, if you've got problems with room modes, I'd be more comfortable if you
> >>>were adressing them with products like these:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.realtraps.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I don't like analog EQs because their center freq and bandwidth are
> >>fixed and rarely coincide exactly with the center freq (and assoc
> >>bandwidth) of the peaks and nulls one actually has in their room. For
> >>instance I have peaks at 48, 68 and 130 hz - but a null at 52hz. Ana
> >>analog EQ would not be able to deal with this unless in had a huge
> >>amount of narrow bands
> >
> >
> >>Passive room treatment for this (not reflections) seems also very
> >>problematic to me because it's more indiscriminate than the analog EQ.
> >>It will absorb anything in it's range (maybe not linearly) and absorb
> >>the nulls as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > traps vs EQ went head-to-head in a recent comparison -- the results are
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm
> >
> > discussion of it here:
> >
> > http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=610122&page=1&pp=60
> >
> >

> I included Real Traps in my response

> I have a couple issues with the Real Traps article and test

You might want to articulate them over on the avsforum thread posted
above, then, rather than here. Since Ethan and Terry, who conducted
the test, are actually participating there, rather than here.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow