Behringer DEQ2496

Who's the new girl?

Welcome oedipus. Hobby only or are you in the biz?

 

hi all slightly off topic i have the behringer fbq1502 ge i am using with 3802 av reciever and arcam a73t with dynaudio 62 floorstanders, my idea was to use the 1502 to cut/ tame some of the higher frequencies with cd.

not sure if there is a more suitable behringer product for my needs amongst the large assortment of behringer products.

but have found the 1502 to be of advantage in some ways if playing eagles cd i find boosting the bass slightly gives a fuller more pleasing sound.

with a cd like santana the best off , this comes over rather too brash ,trying to cut the higher frequencies ,helps slightly but still leaves things slightly on the harsh side, the fbq is analouge only found it works ok between 3802 used as pre and a23 poweramp , or just between cd and 3802,

although the 1502 is not a cure for inadiquate kit i feel it is an advantage.

thanks all

 

We've got a couple of the old DEQ8024's, use them for eq-ing FoH & rears. the first time i used them was for monitoring (coupled with a pair of Truths) at a festival (of all places), the delay came in handy, but they'd just arrived the day before we set off, so i brought them along read the instruction manual between bands

but back to their real function, and after a year, i still haven't used them for more than getting rid of the noise generated by our POS computer.

But, erm, to the point (yes, i do have one )...

I might be getting my hands on a DEQ2496 for a mere £40. I'm dubious, obviously (my mate bought one to use the feedback destroyer & delay with his guitar rig, but never used the bloody thing (a £300 investment at the time!), i'm the only person he's found who's even remotely interested in it ), but if it looks & sounds ok i'll have it off him in a second.

I wonder how it'll compare to my SuperDAC... hmmm...

 

Ok, said unit has arrived.

Internals are interesting. There are three microprocessors. The two SHARC audio processors, and an ARM cored processor which presumably runs the user interface and general control of the unit.

Audio hardware... The ADC is in the form of the AK5393 from AKM. The DAC for the main outputs is the AKM AK4393VF of SuperDAC fame (and pin-compatible with the higher-spec 4395 ). The Digital Interface Receiver is not, surprisingly, the ubquitous CS84xx series from Crystal, but yet another AKM part, this time the AK4114. Curiously, another AKM chip makes an appearance, the AK4524 which is described as an audio Codec, essentially an ADC and a DAC in the same package. My guess (and nothing more, but the circuit layouts suggest this) is that this does the ADC for the microphone input (for room EQ) and does the DAC for the auxiliary outputs (unbalanced 1/4" jack, vs the balanced XLR main outputs).

From the top of the board, there is no evidence of output staging, so my guess is that op-amps reside beneath the output board. I would be surprised if the outputs were unbuffered...

Power supply is the expected compact SMPS, sitting in a little segregated can, away from analogue circuitry.

All in all, the internals are very neat and thoughtfully designed given the price point. The selection of components is not cheap-as-possible, like the separate DAC and ADC for the "proper" I/O ports and the use of relays rather than transistors for output muting (M-audio take note, the superDAC costs only £40 less...).

Sound? At the moment, I can't give a fair trial because my package from farnell with appropriate cables etc didn't get signed for. So far, I can say that the functions seem to work as advertised, although there's certainly a learning curve to features like the expander (although a wonderful idea in principle, set it up wrong and it sounds bloody horrid), and I haven't even touched on PEQ and DEQ yet.

What I will say for sure is that the user interface is something of a dream. It is very quick, very intuitive and generally the layout of screens and the controls around the screen is very logical.

Build... well, come on, what do you expect for a shade over £200, especially given the good stuff inside? It's not the world's most solid bit of gear, weighing barely more than the superdac with its power supply. Controls feel strong enough that they'll not break, but you'd think them a bit off in a BMW. Clicky buttons in other words.

Modding potential? Certainly some... finding the output stage op-amps would be a start, as the budget probably won't have allowed for anything wildly fancy (553X at a guess). Decoupling caps around those, and the DAC chip itself, as well as replacing the 7805 Vdd reg with something a little quieter... Clamping off the SMPS wires and screening the oscillators could go some way, and there's the evergreen classic of clocking (as there are two seemingly dedicated audio oscs, one for 32/48/96, and one for 44.1/88.2). There is also an external word clock input.

 

Hi,

Correctoundo. BTW, the Aux output and a few other features make this puppy an exceptional Srround sound for stereo processor, very much along the lines of Dynavector Superstereo.... But that as they say is another story.

The Op-Amp's are SMD JRC 4580 under the PCB. BEst terminated with extreme prejudice and replaced with AD8066 or AD8620 AFTER changing the PSU Regs for the analog stage to 12V.

I found mine to have a lot less "footprint" sonically than the stock UC-8024 but a little down on modded UC, all using analog inputs.

You might find my little tutorial on how to use them which is posted within my own Yahoo group useful.....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Thunderstone_technical/files/TL Circuits/Ultracurve/

I found it non too bad, but for some jobs I like to use EQ's for (remastering) it is a bit clumsy. Still, considering the price, excellent.

See above.

Definitly worth it.

Yup.

One more you forgot. The electronically balanced output used in this thing nearly shortcircuits the output of one of the two output stage Op-Amp's while the other must work doubly hard in terms of swing. That causes problems with thermal crosstalk from the near shortede halve and the extra swing.

Put a suitable 1:1 bifilar wound mu-metal cored output transformer in there, it needs to handle only +12dbu @ 20Hz if you use the +12db level setting (highly recommended for domestic use).

Ciao T

 

Thankyou for a very knowledgable and in-depth answer!

I will experiment more in the coming days, when I can actually run it off a proper transport (when my cheap AES lead turns up) and the bits to build some output leads (just Neutriks on some Starquad... all I can afford to do at the mo, sorry tone!).

Then I'll need to beg/borrow/steal a mic to play with room correction...

 

I've got some MF cable (shame) somewhere if it's any use to you. I was given it then bought the Naims. My uncle was going to terminate it for me and he's got it. I could probably get it back at the weekend

 

hmmm, might take a look at it, but will probably get sorted tomorrow on cables.

 

Thats fine, It'd be weekend before I could get it anyway I think.

 

So the main XLR outputs and the Jack AUX outputs use a different DAC?

That's interesting as I have been using it with the AUX outs so far simply because I had some balanced jack to phono leads spare. Maybe I would get a big improvement if I used the XLR outputs?

I don't understand the advantage us using a different DAC for the aux and main outs as it can only lock onto one input at a time. Whats up with that? Or am I misunderstanding you, it's been a long day!

 

The DAC used for the main outputs is of a higher spec than the codec part used for the aux outs.

That's another potential mod, replacing the 4393 with a 4395, as the 4395 has a better digital filter in it. I have the chip, so I might give it a go at some point.

 

Hi,

Yes. And you can route somewhat different signals to Aux and main output, which is the main purpose of the Aux output.

As Aux is intended to have a signal routed other than the main output it needs a seperate DAC. As the Mike input needed an ADC and cost was very much an object Behringer choose a cheap Codec....

Ciao T

 

Hi,

If you fit attenuation consider making it balanced and tapping off only one side to avoid the "servo balancing", unless you have XLR Inputs on your gear of course (I have on all mine)....

If you are in Londra you could borrow mine....

Ciao T

 

My amp does have one set of balanced inputs.

I'm opp norf, but cheers for the offer.

 

Hi,

Then you are set.

BTW, cheap but VERY GOOD balanced IC's can be made from Cat6 FTP (foil shielded pair). Use one pair for pin 2/3 (I tend to use BLU) and the other three pairs commoned together as pin 1 connection, screen on the source end to shell of XLR or, if you use the superior sounding super cheap plastic shell XLR Plugs & Sockets to pin 1.

This also works great as AES/EBU Cable, as the pair is around 100Ohm CI.

I just love Cat5/6 UTP/FTP cable. It is so versatile, I always keep a few partial reels snagged of our IT people in the attic.

Sorry, I'll not ship it. But the Behringer ECM800 is not bad and quite affordable. BTW, if there is interest I can post my little piece of room acoustic EQ'ing using Digital EQ's here....

Ciao T

 

3DSonics,

i see that you have an expirience with DEQ2496.
i'm considering it in order to EQ my room in sub 120 Hz range.
i guess that i have to place it between the pre and power and make the whole ADC + DAC.

the question is - how is your and other's expirience regarding sound quality?
obviosly local DEQx and Tact dealers say that Behringer sounds horrible.

 

Some people think Tact sounds horrible, so it sorta evens out

 

Hi,

Yes. I have one at home though I discontinued it's used. I originally had the Behringer Ultracurve 8024, I reviewed it and then paid bliming 1,200 DM for it!!!! Review is here:

http://enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0101/behringer8024.htm

Unless you have a subwoofer covering that range by itself, yes.

Well, most of what I wrote in the Ultracurve 8024 review applies to the DEQ2496. The 2496 has more features (eg. more parametric EQ's) and the latest software revision restored a lot of the useful (for High End HiFi) features the original 2496 missed out on. The 2496 sounds marginally better than the stock 8024 when used in a HiFi system and switched to +12dbu full scale.

There are two keys to sucessfully using any such DEQ like the Behringer:

1) Get the levels right
2) Use the EQ with uncommon sense (read my little essay, I'll post it here later)

Further, if you want to see what sort of system I used the Behringer UC 8024 in and what other people though of the sound in the system, in exactly the position you wish to use it, read here....

Scroll down to "Third Visit Notes (13 September 2001)"

http://www.arduman.com/aa/Sayfalar/thorsten/thorsten.htm

Obviously they WOULD say that. I'm not disputing that the TACT is better and in it's operation better suited to a HiFi System, but I would not dismiss the Behringer lightly. Operated and implemented well it is not THAT far off either.

When hearing the TACT System in 2001 at the HiFi Show, what struck me most how similar the TACT EQ'ed system to my own, despite a HUGE disparity in equipment and rooms (Big Tannoys, SE Tube Amp's etc in my system, Dali Speakers and TACT Digital Amp's in TACT'S system).

Of course, use either the TACT or the Behringer wrong and the results are predictably horrible. And yes, it is EASIER to use the TACT and to integrate it into a home stereo system than it is to use and integrate the Behringer and thus horrible results are rarer with TACT.

Ciao T

 

well, i'm not loocking for the battle, so it's not interesting me.

as far as i understood the main criticism of Tact was because of not that good ADC in ver 2.0.
people who worked all digitally or used DAC only were not affacted by that.

as far as i understood in ver 2.0S and 2.2 ADCs were improved (as other things).

 

Croc,

If I ran a digital source only system, I would still be using TaCT. Sadly for me, I find vinyl to be affected negatively by the A-D conversion process and hence have to live without the undoubted benefits of the TaCT room correction algorythms