Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opinions on graphic EQ's.-sorry to beat a dead horse

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and get either
digital or analog units to replace them. Any adive would be
appreciated. The only two I have researched are the following:
Alesis DEQ-830
Behringer DEQ2496

I am not limiting myself to these in anyway they were just the first
ones I looked at since I saw them in some posts.

Usage:
Live indoor and outdoor venues
FOH and/or monitor EQ
Potential studio usage BUT I am not a huge believer in needed a ton of
eq in the studio. EQing a room is more manual labor than eq ;-) (either
an ADAT/HD24 or PC recording (NOTU something or other)

I have been reading through post all the way back to 2000 about Graphic
eq's but they have been filled with flame wars and speculation.

Keep your flames to a minimum and your exerience based opinions to a
maximum. (no speculations would be good)
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 8:12:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Engnrguy" <cdemello@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1126207112.012141.242480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and
> get either digital or analog units to replace them. Any
> adive would be appreciated. The only two I have
> researched are the following:
> Alesis DEQ-830
> Behringer DEQ2496

Graphic eqs are easier and more intuitive to use for simple
problems, but in the final analysis they are often just
steps on the way to parametrics.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 12:23:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Engnrguy wrote:

> I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and get either
> digital or analog units to replace them. Any adive would be
> appreciated. The only two I have researched are the following:
> Alesis DEQ-830
> Behringer DEQ2496

The Behringer. It's a nice box. A lot of EQ power for the money, and
good regardless of how little it costs. I'm getting more for live sound
work.

--
ha
Related resources
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 12:23:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:
>Engnrguy wrote:
>
>> I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and get either
>> digital or analog units to replace them. Any adive would be
>> appreciated. The only two I have researched are the following:
>> Alesis DEQ-830
>> Behringer DEQ2496
>
>The Behringer. It's a nice box. A lot of EQ power for the money, and
>good regardless of how little it costs. I'm getting more for live sound
>work.

I have never used the DEQ-830. But the MEQ-230 is just totally useless.
I don't understand how anyone could actually release something like that
with their name on it. The interaction between bands is so severe and
so unpredictable that it's not useful at all for even rough feedback
suppression.

The fact that it is so terrible, so much worse than not using equalization
at all in any PA application, leads me to wonder severely if the same people
who bungled it so badly could ever come up with anything working. I would
be very surprised if the DEQ-830 was any good.

The Behringer? I dunno.

But if you _must_ have a graphic EQ, there are a lot of fairly high grade
ones on the surplus market selling for very cheap. The better dbx units
are basically worth very little now because so many people have gone to
all-in-one digital processing units like the BSS. Given that you can pick
them up for a reasonable price, I see no reason to even look at the consumer
MI-grade stuff.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:56:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> >Engnrguy wrote:

> >> I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and get either
> >> digital or analog units to replace them. Any adive would be
> >> appreciated. The only two I have researched are the following:
> >> Alesis DEQ-830
> >> Behringer DEQ2496

> >The Behringer. It's a nice box. A lot of EQ power for the money, and
> >good regardless of how little it costs. I'm getting more for live sound
> >work.

> I have never used the DEQ-830. But the MEQ-230 is just totally useless.

No, it's worse than that.

> I don't understand how anyone could actually release something like that
> with their name on it. The interaction between bands is so severe and
> so unpredictable that it's not useful at all for even rough feedback
> suppression.

A "competitor" of mine for SR work hereabouts has 'em in his rack. When
it's a local benefit show and he's going to also be playing, he likes to
leave the FOH unit in bypass until he hits the stage, because see, he's
the headliner. Then he kicks it in with a full-on smile curve and his
cheezoid speakers start trashing the hell out of the top and bottoming
out on the lows. People who know nothing of this jump in their seats and
look at his speakers wondering what the hell that noise was.

I like to open those shows.

> The fact that it is so terrible, so much worse than not using equalization
> at all in any PA application, leads me to wonder severely if the same people
> who bungled it so badly could ever come up with anything working. I would
> be very surprised if the DEQ-830 was any good.

> The Behringer? I dunno.

> But if you _must_ have a graphic EQ, there are a lot of fairly high grade
> ones on the surplus market selling for very cheap. The better dbx units
> are basically worth very little now because so many people have gone to
> all-in-one digital processing units like the BSS. Given that you can pick
> them up for a reasonable price, I see no reason to even look at the consumer
> MI-grade stuff.

You might be surprised how well the Beri works and now nicely its
ergonomics are handled. In another year or two I'll even know something
of their reliability. Most of all, compared to mid-level analog
"graphic" EQ's, it sounds far superior.

Down the road a little I could even send you one to mess with for a
couple of weeks. Then you can post what an idiot I am for liking it.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 10:04:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott, Thanks! I will certainly look into the DSS units. Hank, I have
heard that about the Behringer units that's why I checked them out
first.

The main reason I liked the DEQ-830 was simply the sheer number of eq's
per unit. I get 8 channels of independent eq in a single rack space.
The venues I usually work run 2 stereo mains and 3-4 monitor channels
so this saves me rack space. I noticed the Behringer is really two eq
channels (stereo L-R) with lots of EQ options, which I do like and
would find very useful. (It would be nice to have a parametric,
graphic, and RTA in one unit)

I wouldn't be opposed to buying a "high grade" or pro new or used DEQ
if the price point is right. Any recommendations on a "high grade" or
pro DEQ with similar functionality to the Behringer or DEQ830? An
integrated RTA would be nice BUT not necessary since I could always
borrow a Spectrum analyzer from my day job. (Handy perk of the job. 8-)
) More in less space is always nice.

Honestly, I am all about value for the money. I don't want to pay
thousands more for a pro unit that is only hundreds of dollars better
sounding than a semi-pro unit. My end goal is really, great sound. So
far, despite the MEQ-230's that have seen very little use, the acts I
work with love the work I have been doing so they don't usually ask
about or check out my rig. They usually just complain about the last
bad experience they had at a club or another venue.

Does that make sense?
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 10:57:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks Arny, I just took a quick peek at the DCX unit. I will
investigate it further. Thank you for all your inputs.

Perhaps, I need to decide what I would like or need the most. Do I
want/need a loud speaker management system or just some eq's for my
live audio rack.

I WILL probably keep at least 1 graphic eq (DEQ or analog) in the rack
just to be prepared. Rest assured, It won't be an MEQ-230. (For quite a
while I thought it was just my hearing then I realized it WAS the MEQ
that was coloring things)
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 11:20:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey:

>I would be very surprised if the DEQ-830 was any good.

I worked with it last Saturday on a FOH-Job.
I inserted it into the mains for feedback supression.
I removed it immediately even with the flat curve.

It much worser than the behringer and even the behringer tends to
distortion and very less headroom. But the behringer did not produce
such hearable degradation of sound quality.

Inserting the alesis was worser like an old ISA-Soundblaster card
comparing to an RME ADI-8 DS.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 12:19:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks again Arny! I apprecite your responses.

This thread, my fault primarily, is leaning alot toward the DEQ's.
(Which makes sense as they offer alot flexibilty and added features)
Does anyone have any recommendations on Eq's manufacturer's or products
in general. JoeMeek, Ashly, DBX, etc., etc. Specific graphic EQ
products they would recommed.

I think I know what most of you caary, from previous threads, but would
you mind opening up your rack, so to speak, and give us a peak inside
your eq rig's?

Thank You and again I am very thankful for your opinions.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 2:41:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Engnrguy" <cdemello@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1126274262.614113.264630@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Thanks Arny, I just took a quick peek at the DCX unit. I
> will investigate it further. Thank you for all your
> inputs.
>
> Perhaps, I need to decide what I would like or need the
> most. Do I want/need a loud speaker management system or
> just some eq's for my live audio rack.

Given the routing options on some of these products like the
DCX, you may not need to make that choice. For about $250
you get the equivalent of a minimum of 3 stand-alone eqs in
a fairly small box. However, the equalization options are
not the same as what you'd get from a typical stand-alone
equalizer, for both better and worse.

If you want powerful eq for a low price, then the Behringer
DSP1124P is arguably the price/performance king. Under the
covers in manual mode it is just 2 each 12-band-per-channel
parametric eq. There is a free windows-based FeedBack
destoryer editor that allows you to control one or more of
these remotely via the MIDI port on your PC, with a more
user-friendly graphical interface. There's also an enhanced
24/96 version that has been announced.

> I WILL probably keep at least 1 graphic eq (DEQ or
> analog) in the rack just to be prepared. Rest assured, It
> won't be an MEQ-230. (For quite a while I thought it was
> just my hearing then I realized it WAS the MEQ that was
> coloring things)

The MEQ 230 makes any number of technical compromises.
Unbalanced in/out and non-uniform response when the controls
are apparently centered may lead the list, but they don't
end it. It's mechanically fragile for a portable SR
environment.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:34:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h2ks62.xqv0lo15z6r7wN%walkinay@thegrid.net...

> You might be surprised how well the Beri works and now nicely its
> ergonomics are handled. In another year or two I'll even know something
> of their reliability. Most of all, compared to mid-level analog
> "graphic" EQ's, it sounds far superior.

Has anyone tried the Behringer Ultradrive? It includes crossover function,
which might not be required, but it also provides EQ on its six output
channels ... so it might be just the thing for EQ on two main speakers and
four monitors.

Tim
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:34:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Tim Martin" <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:RqeUe.7675$Aa1.1799@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net

> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1h2ks62.xqv0lo15z6r7wN%walkinay@thegrid.net...

>> You might be surprised how well the Beri works and now
>> nicely its ergonomics are handled. In another year or
>> two I'll even know something of their reliability. Most
>> of all, compared to mid-level analog "graphic" EQ's, it
>> sounds far superior.

> Has anyone tried the Behringer Ultradrive?

Lots!

> It includes crossover function, which might not be
> required, but it
> also provides EQ on its six output channels ... so it
> might be just the thing for EQ on two main speakers and
> four monitors.

The DCX 2496 has 3 input channels. I would think that you'd
want the option to drive each monitor from its own console
aux send for a total of 5 or 6 inputs. Nothing wrong with
having a pair DCX's, no?
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 5:42:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I owned the DEQ830. For a couple of days. Like you I thought more
channels/small box = handy. Wrong. It is bad. And very difficult to
use IMO.

I also owned the Behringer 2496, and felt the setups were a pain on it
too. I own and use lots of digital mixers and other digital equipment,
but I guess I just don't like standalone digital equalizers. Hunting
and scrolling through menus and squinting at LCDs is not my favorite
thing.

In my experience the best sound for the $, by far, has been Ashly. The
MQX-2150 is exceptional if you want a 1RU unit. I think they can be
found around $250 or so. The similar Rane and dbx didn't compare, for
my needs.

I also really like Klark-Teknik parametrics, but haven't used their
graphics.

Steve
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 2:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Engnrguy <cdemello@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>Perhaps, I need to decide what I would like or need the most. Do I
>want/need a loud speaker management system or just some eq's for my
>live audio rack.

That's the basic question you need to answer.

If you need to have an active crossover anyway, and you need to have some
notch filters for feedback removal, BUT you like the user interface on
a graphic EQ, the loudspeaker management box is probably the way to go.
You do have the matter of having a single point of failure but then again
there is less to fail.

>I WILL probably keep at least 1 graphic eq (DEQ or analog) in the rack
>just to be prepared. Rest assured, It won't be an MEQ-230. (For quite a
>while I thought it was just my hearing then I realized it WAS the MEQ
>that was coloring things)

Check out your local used audio place for White, Ashly, and the higher
end dbx graphics. I don't like graphics and find them a pain in the neck,
but I understand why folks use them, because it's so rapid to pull down
a fader on feedback.

Then again, if you use a loudspeaker management box, you can usually pull
up a menu with a graphic EQ on it to do the same thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:14:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >> I am in the market to toss my (2) Alesis MEQ-230's and get either
> >> digital or analog units to replace them. Any adive would be
> >> appreciated. The only two I have researched are the following:
> >> Alesis DEQ-830
> >> Behringer DEQ2496
> >
> >The Behringer. It's a nice box. A lot of EQ power for the money, and
> >good regardless of how little it costs. I'm getting more for live sound
> >work.
>
> I have never used the DEQ-830. But the MEQ-230 is just totally useless.
> I don't understand how anyone could actually release something like that
> with their name on it. The interaction between bands is so severe and
> so unpredictable that it's not useful at all for even rough feedback
> suppression.
>
> The fact that it is so terrible, so much worse than not using equalization
> at all in any PA application, leads me to wonder severely if the same
people
> who bungled it so badly could ever come up with anything working. I would
> be very surprised if the DEQ-830 was any good.

I respectfully disagree 100%. Comparing analog EQ to digital is apples and
oranges, even from the same company. I haven't used the DEQ850
specifically, but I have used the DEQ230D on occasion and the DEQ450 plenty.
It's safe to say the 850 uses the same filters and converters as the other
two, so I can recommend the 850, even though I share Scott's disgust for the
MEQ's. The DEQ's are very neutral, and while more expensive analog EQ's
offer a nicer sound, if it's only control you're after, the DEQ's and most
digital EQ's on the market will serve you well, and they're certainly good
values.

> But if you _must_ have a graphic EQ, there are a lot of fairly high grade
> ones on the surplus market selling for very cheap. The better dbx units
> are basically worth very little now because so many people have gone to
> all-in-one digital processing units like the BSS. Given that you can pick
> them up for a reasonable price, I see no reason to even look at the
consumer
> MI-grade stuff.

I'm no fan of DBX analog EQ's either. They are much more functional than
MI-grade ones, but are just as noisy and put a layer of filth over the tone.
Rane and Ashly make the least expensive analog EQ's that I would choose over
digital ones. Klark-Teknik makes about the best mass-produced graphic EQ
you can buy IMO.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 7:45:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I owned the DEQ830. For a couple of days. Like you I thought more
> channels/small box = handy. Wrong. It is bad. And very difficult to
> use IMO.

Could you be more specific? Were the sound issues a matter of control or
quality?

> I also owned the Behringer 2496, and felt the setups were a pain on it
> too. I own and use lots of digital mixers and other digital equipment,
> but I guess I just don't like standalone digital equalizers. Hunting
> and scrolling through menus and squinting at LCDs is not my favorite
> thing.

That's why I keep the DEQ450 kicking around. My (limited) experience with
EQ GUI's is that it's important to keep a "feedback catcher" EQ ready to
quickly fix problems until they can be addressed in the GUI EQ. The DEQ450
is a dual 5-band parametric, each band sweeps 20-20k, and each EQ is stereo,
so it can manage stereo mains and two monitor mixes. I leave it on bypass
until needed. I suspect it still converts to digital and back anyway, but
it's much cleaner than cheap analogs, and I'm faster with parametrics than
graphics.

> In my experience the best sound for the $, by far, has been Ashly. The
> MQX-2150 is exceptional if you want a 1RU unit. I think they can be
> found around $250 or so. The similar Rane and dbx didn't compare, for
> my needs.

If you're going graphic, 1RU EQ's don't offer enough sweep, and 15 bands
isn't enough for riding feedback effectively IMO. For that you can't really
save space and retain adequate control, you're looking at the GQX-3102, a
very good dual 31, but it's 4RU and only two channels. If you need more
channels and need to save the space the DEQ850 is just about the only
option, so it's a matter of how well you can master the interface.

> I also really like Klark-Teknik parametrics, but haven't used their
> graphics.

The graphics are excellent, but the prices are a little hard to stomach. No
question they are worth the money if you're mixing for a room full of techs,
but in reality virtually all audience members can't appreciate the
difference, and there's typically another sonic bottleneck in the chain that
ruins anything gained. I'd rather spend the money on better mics and
speakers, and use digital EQ's. Your situation might very well be the exact
opposite though.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:15:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Again, Thank you all for your opinions and suggestions. Most of you
have convinced me to take a look at getting a good RTA and a parametric
eq setup. I usually tuning method is a graphic eq set by ear. I have
received lots of compliments and never had any issues but I should
probably get something a little more formal and accurate.

Has anyone had any experience with dbx's Drive Rack PA loudspeaker
management system? It seem like a good mix of cost, quality company,
and functionality. It is fully loaded with x-over, eq, comp/limit, and
RTA. Opinions?
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 12:18:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Zigakly wrote:
> > I owned the DEQ830. For a couple of days. Like you I thought more
> > channels/small box = handy. Wrong. It is bad. And very difficult to
> > use IMO.
>
> Could you be more specific? Were the sound issues a matter of control or
> quality?

Both. I felt the EQ filters did not sound musical, and changing levels
did not offer the tonal shaping I wanted. The tiny buttons and
legending made it difficult to set up, couldn't see what band I was
grabbing unless I got right on top of it.

> That's why I keep the DEQ450 kicking around. My (limited) experience with
> EQ GUI's is that it's important to keep a "feedback catcher" EQ ready to
> quickly fix problems until they can be addressed in the GUI EQ. The DEQ450
> is a dual 5-band parametric, each band sweeps 20-20k, and each EQ is stereo,
> so it can manage stereo mains and two monitor mixes. I leave it on bypass
> until needed. I suspect it still converts to digital and back anyway, but
> it's much cleaner than cheap analogs, and I'm faster with parametrics than
> graphics.
>

Yes as I understand it the DEQ450 is A-D-A. I've never used one, but
was interested once since it can be used in stereo link mode, a fairly
uncommon feature. But my experience with the other digital EQs I
mentioned, among others (Roland) put me off trying one. So how does
the 450 sound?

> > In my experience the best sound for the $, by far, has been Ashly. The
> > MQX-2150 is exceptional if you want a 1RU unit. I think they can be
> > found around $250 or so. The similar Rane and dbx didn't compare, for
> > my needs.
>
> If you're going graphic, 1RU EQ's don't offer enough sweep, and 15 bands
> isn't enough for riding feedback effectively IMO. For that you can't really
> save space and retain adequate control, you're looking at the GQX-3102, a
> very good dual 31, but it's 4RU and only two channels. If you need more
> channels and need to save the space the DEQ850 is just about the only
> option, so it's a matter of how well you can master the interface.
>

Accurate feedback control is for parametrics and needs to be done
pre-show of course. And I'd never try to use the DEQ830 on feedback,
it's simply too awkward to punch up the correct screen, push what you
hope is the right band, turn the little knob to hear what happens...

I've owned lots of 31-band, 15-band, and parametrics from 2 to 6 bands.
The Ashly dual-15 just simply _sounds_ good. It has selectable +/- 6
dB or +/- 15 dB, plenty for my needs. Extreme frequency changes with
its broader filters still stay musical, which is far better IMO than
just getting discrete effects from many of the 31-bands I've used.

> I'd rather spend the money on better mics and
> speakers, and use digital EQ's. Your situation might very well be the exact
> opposite though.

Agreed. That's what I did too, with hypercard mics and very
directional wedges (SLS). My frequency control anymore is mostly for
tone and the occasional bass resonance, I use Speck, K-T, and Pendulum
now for that.

Steve
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 9:03:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steve Scott wrote:

> Accurate feedback control is for parametrics and needs to be done
> pre-show of course. And I'd never try to use the DEQ830 on feedback,
> it's simply too awkward to punch up the correct screen, push what you
> hope is the right band, turn the little knob to hear what happens...

The DEQ2496's built-in RTA can be helpful there. Find the spot, apply
one of ten parametric bands, etc.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 9:03:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Engnrguy wrote:

> Has anyone had any experience with dbx's Drive Rack PA loudspeaker
> management system? It seem like a good mix of cost, quality company,
> and functionality. It is fully loaded with x-over, eq, comp/limit, and
> RTA. Opinions?

Look in the alt.audio.pro.live-sound archives for discussion of these
before you go there.

--
ha
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:06:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Engnrguy <cdemello@ieee.org> wrote:
>Again, Thank you all for your opinions and suggestions. Most of you
>have convinced me to take a look at getting a good RTA and a parametric
>eq setup. I usually tuning method is a graphic eq set by ear. I have
>received lots of compliments and never had any issues but I should
>probably get something a little more formal and accurate.

I think an RTA is a very silly thing and really doesn't help you do the
job at all. You can only measure at one point in the room at a time
with it anyway, and once the room fills up everything changes. There is
no way around using your ears.

>Has anyone had any experience with dbx's Drive Rack PA loudspeaker
>management system? It seem like a good mix of cost, quality company,
>and functionality. It is fully loaded with x-over, eq, comp/limit, and
>RTA. Opinions?

Yes, it seems reasonable. The user interface is kind of crude, but it
works, and it does nice tight notch filters which is most of what you
want equalization for anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
!