RTA? Is this what I want?

[Zilch]

UltraCurve Pro has S/PDIF optical and AES/EBU (XLR) digital inputs, yes.

44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 kHz.

[Infredible]

My other system uses a Sony car radio with BUILT-IN CD player as system controller.

There's no dearth of quality gear here.

Both systems DO play CDR's without difficulty, however.

CERTAIN places with fancy SACD players you gotta BYO if you wanna do that.

Heh.

Hehe

I do use the 2496 and I'm very pleased with it. I might not be the best but in my room it makes my system sound so much better. Plus with the ability to save 100 different curves it gives you a lot of latitude.

Fred.

[Zilch]

Behringer UltraCurve Pro users are outting themselves left and right here!

C'mon, folks, step up to the plate.

There'll be plenty enough ridicule to go around....

[johnaec]

DBX Driverack 260 here - I usually control it by laptop, (serial connection). XLR/RCA adapters seem to work fine for home audio use...

John

[Don Mascali]

The input and output opamps automatically convert from/to balanced/unbalanced operation so the connections are OK if the cable type and gender are correct.

There are some signal level differences between Pro and Consumer gear, but in practice these seem minor to me. Just becarefull when you set the gains.

More info than you really want to know here:

http://www.rane.com/library.html

Good luck with what ever you decide,

Don M

[Earl K]

- Your thread-header gives priority ( at least subconciously in your query ) to the RTA function vs the EQ .

- So, spend the same amount of money ( as the DEQ costs ) but put it into a good soundcard / some decent RTA software ( like TrueRTA ) and a half-decent measurement mic . I feel you'll be ahead with this approach because ;

(1) You'll have to concentrate on measuring the performance of the system in question . ( With only one new toy to play with, you are very likely to maximize it's efficacy .

(2) You won't be able to fix any performance anomolies that you might find by simplying inserting an EQ into the circuit . This will force you to find alternatve solutions through ;

(i) Passive EQ fixes ,. These filters being "cut-only" have lots of sonic advantages over inserting a cheaper digital device .

(ii) Room Treatments , you may be forced to think about treating your room with bass traps etc. to fix funny bass response modes, &/or sound absorbing panels/or wall hangings to tame midrange bounce .


( yes I own lots of Behringer stuff, but I stand by my advice )

[kevf]

Ok. I admit it. I have one and I LIKE it. There...I feel better now.

I run directly from my PC (where I have my 500 cds stored) into the toslink of the DEQ and use the DEQ's DAC. I also made my own RCA/XLR cables to my preamp. Its pretty easy - just short two pins. See here: http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/co...xlr-rca-1.html

I would not run analog into it. Although I've never tried it, I don't think the AD/DA/AD is a good idea, as others have already said. I run my turntable directly into my preamp.

I think the unit sounds fine. No noise whatsoever. But then, I don't have golden ears, nor have I ever owned a $1000 CD player. So perhaps keep that in perspective. However, I do have a decent vinyl rig (VPI MkIII).

Anyway, the RTA function is great and worth the price of admission - me think. I like to switch speakers occasionally (have 4333s and 4425s) and the stored memory of the DEQ is great for that also. I'd say it's a good buy.

[Boss96]

- Your thread-header gives priority ( at least subconciously in your query ) to the RTA function vs the EQ .

- So, spend the same amount of money ( as the DEQ costs ) but put it into a good soundcard / some decent RTA software ( like TrueRTA ) and a half-decent measurement mic . I feel you'll be ahead with this approach because ;

(1) You'll have to concentrate on measuring the performance of the system in question . ( With only one new toy to play with, you are very likely to maximize it's efficacy .

(2) You won't be able to fix any performance anomolies that you might find by simplying inserting an EQ into the circuit . This will force you to find alternatve solutions through ;

(i) Passive EQ fixes ,. These filters being "cut-only" have lots of sonic advantages over inserting a cheaper digital device .

(ii) Room Treatments , you may be forced to think about treating your room with bass traps etc. to fix funny bass response modes, &/or sound absorbing panels/or wall hangings to tame midrange bounce .


( yes I own lots of Behringer stuff, but I stand by my advice )

Yes, that is indeed what I was most interested in, using an RTA to "see" what is going on in my room. I saw the software driven stuff but I did not see any specific microphone recommendation to work with it, but I probably did not look hard enough. I already have an EQ in the system right now and the problem I have seems to be located between the 4 and 8k range but the EQ has nothing in between to really target the offending area. I have thought about just getting a parametric EQ also or in the Behringer's case, it has 31 bands so that would work too.
But.....
I tried putting the speakers on stands with a slight backward tilt to them tonight and it made a very noticable difference. I may just leave it at that after more listening.
BTW, the room treatments thing..this is my living room and putting foam pads on the walls and big tubular bass traps in the corners just won't cut it with the wife, or me for that matter . Maybe someday I can add on a room dedicated to audio but for now I seem to be making headway on having at least one sweet spot in the room to enjoy the sound. I do wish there were some way to get the bass response the same throughout the room though, but that seems to be a matter of physics and can't be worked around
Bob

["Duke" Spinner]

i use a mike for a Rane RTA, my laptop .....

and bought a used Yamaha YDG2030 for $250

it's light years ahead of "Behringer"

ever see one in a Pro Rack

...........with all it's Knobs ..??? cheapy, Cheapy

[Zilch]

Behringer UltraCurve Pro has 10 stereo parametric EQ's in ADDITION to the 31-band graphic.