Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
I think it's a good idea, but I don't do enough LISTENING to justify the cost. Most of the music I hear is background.
In last week's Vote, many readers reported that they had solved their speaker/room problems with a digital equalizer. What do you think about using digital EQ?
I would be reluctant to use a digital eq, but I refuse to say never. I have very few placement options in my room, so if I had a response problem with a pair of speakers I really liked, I would consider it. I am, however, reluctant to use anything in the signal path, or that utilizes technology operating in the digital domain. I'll give this one a strong "maybe".
I can clearly understand the benefit for mid and low bass applications. I can also understand the Digital EQ correcting for a system's on-axis or power anechoic response. When the cost is low enough that I won't have to give up too many meals in a row, I will seriously consider purchasing one.
Stereophile should do a test report on the new Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 digital equalizer, which, for a list price of $380, offers digital-EQ with 24-bit A/D and D/A, 31-band spectrum analyzer display, parametric EQ, etc. Too bad it is manufactured and sold only to the pro side of the business!
I use a Behringer Ultracurve, when required, to take out about 6dB in the 40Hz area. I have maybe 10 CDs (out of about 500) that appear to have been mastered by tone-deaf fools using $5 PC speakers. In my room, this results in my Revel F30s producing enough bass to make you feel ill. Main culprits are CDs with deep synth bass.
After over 30 years of switching speakers, amps, peamps, and front ends to get the accurate "sound" from my music system, I tried the Tact Audio room correction system two years ago. The system allowed me to see in graphic form what I was hearing in my room. With a push of a button, I was able to correct the objectionable sounds that I found that my room created.