AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Looking for a stand alone Spectrum Analyzer and an EQ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Looking for a stand alone Spectrum Analyzer and an EQ

post #1 of 24
2/15/12 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
I'm on the hunt (or should I say wait) for a good EQ for one of my vintage systems to ultimately tame my HPM100s. (I'd like it to have a spectrum analyzer, but it's ok if it doesn't).
I'm also looking for just a separate Spectrum Analyzer for my modern system, which needs no EQ, because I want to run some tests comparing some sources and comparing within sources and would like to see as well as hear the differences for varification, thus the need for a Spectrum Analyzer.
For home stereo EQs, Craigslist is just not a good source as they rarely turn up. Ebay is good of course, but I can't use ebay unless it's a local sale and the buyer agrees to cash on pickup, which is like asking for the moon from what I can see.
I was thinking about getting a Berhinger DEQ96/24 UltraCurve as that is a RTA as well. That's good for setting up a system, but the spectrum analyzer on those are hard to read visually I think and my modern system doesn't need an EQ. Sure I would hope there is a bypass switch on it, but it's a bit too much money for something that I would not use all the functions of or just use once. It's also too much money and machine for a vintage system.

So I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for a Spectrum Analyzer Only unit for my modern system and a decent EQ for my vintage system or some idea equally possible, which can be either a modern EQ or a vintage one that doesn't cost a fortune.
I see there is stuff like the AudioSource EQ200, but those are pure garbage and only last about 4 weeks before channels go out and such. I hear the TechnicalPro and Pyle stuff is not much better. Are there any other modern day EQs and Spectrum Analyzers of some quality out there at a reasonable price I can look at?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 24
2/15/12 at 7:11pm
If you are enough of a techie, REW for measurements and a miniDSP unit would do the trick.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 24
2/16/12 at 4:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

If you are enough of a techie, REW for measurements and a miniDSP unit would do the trick.

What is that stuff in english? My tech level goes to understanding what a graphic EQ does and does not do and knowing how to operate a graphic EQ and reading differences on a spectrum analyzer, but that's about it. Parametric EQs trip me up though, but I think there is a simple solution to understanding those and I'm probably making it harder than needed.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 24
2/16/12 at 4:43pm
I you want to stay with a graphic EQ Radio Shack sells a dual 15-band EQ. It also has adjustable channel gain levels and an LED read out for each channel. It sell for around $60 or $70. The silver model is the older color and it's available in the store in black. I own a couple of these and I have never had a problem with them. I have owned some DBX EQ's and have had problems with them.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2104027
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 24
2/16/12 at 4:58pm
Inexpensive RTA would be True RTA. Get the 1/24th octave if you are going to use it for a subwoofer.
http://trueaudio.com/

Any good pro EQ. How many channels do you need? QSC DSP-3/4 or their other models, symetrix, many others. I would do parametric EQ over a simple graphic EQ. A little more work but worth it.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 24
2/16/12 at 6:05pm
REW is a free program you download. I do not know if it has RTA capability but I am not sure it's really needed in this case (make a measurement, change settings, take another measurement and compare). You'll need a microphone and preamp, about $100 for both.

A standard multiband EQ has controls for each frequency band set to a fixed center frequency and fixed filter width (e.g. octave, 1/3-octave, etc.) You adjust the gain of each frequency band. The parameters of each knob or slider are (among others) center frequency (fixed), width (fixed), and gain (adjustable). A parametric EQ allows you to vary all three parameters: center frequency, filter width, and gain. This allows you to adjust the exact frequency needed and typically requires only a few controls vs. the 10 to 30+ on a conventional graphic equalizer.

www.sweetwater.com in one place you can go to learn (see their white papers) and compare different models.

HTH - Don
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 24
2/16/12 at 9:22pm
Thread Starter 
I think there is some confusion as to my request.
I need an EQ for a vintage system to help me tame a pair of Pioneer HPM-100s driven by a Yamaha CR2020. (Tone controls, even combined with the speaker's own passive crossover controls do not tame the highs and any slight adjustment with the receiver's tone controls just a tiny bit too far results in too much bottom end and visa versa.

Separate from that the spectrum analyzer is for my modern system that does not require EQ. What I want to do with that is compare recordings from CDs. I want to compare original recordings with "Remasters" not just with my ears, but I want a visual confirmation to study.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 24
2/16/12 at 9:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel View Post

I you want to stay with a graphic EQ Radio Shack sells a dual 15-band EQ. It also has adjustable channel gain levels and an LED read out for each channel. It sell for around $60 or $70. The silver model is the older color and it's available in the store in black. I own a couple of these and I have never had a problem with them. I have owned some DBX EQ's and have had problems with them.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2104027

Are they single transistor EQs? Single transistor EQs tend to introduce distortion. Radio Shack stuff has never worked for me in the past, even back in the day. I'll check them out though for my vintage system.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 24
2/16/12 at 9:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

Inexpensive RTA would be True RTA. Get the 1/24th octave if you are going to use it for a subwoofer.
http://trueaudio.com/

Any good pro EQ. How many channels do you need? QSC DSP-3/4 or their other models, symetrix, many others. I would do parametric EQ over a simple graphic EQ. A little more work but worth it.

I don't need an EQ for my modern system, just my 2 channel vintage system.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 24
2/16/12 at 9:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

REW is a free program you download. I do not know if it has RTA capability but I am not sure it's really needed in this case (make a measurement, change settings, take another measurement and compare). You'll need a microphone and preamp, about $100 for both.

A standard multiband EQ has controls for each frequency band set to a fixed center frequency and fixed filter width (e.g. octave, 1/3-octave, etc.) You adjust the gain of each frequency band. The parameters of each knob or slider are (among others) center frequency (fixed), width (fixed), and gain (adjustable). A parametric EQ allows you to vary all three parameters: center frequency, filter width, and gain. This allows you to adjust the exact frequency needed and typically requires only a few controls vs. the 10 to 30+ on a conventional graphic equalizer.

www.sweetwater.com in one place you can go to learn (see their white papers) and compare different models.

HTH - Don

Ah, thanks for defining that. I'm no good with acronyms when they stand for more than one thing.
See? I knew I was over-complicating it. I don't need a parametric for my 2 channel system as far as I know. A graphic should do the trick.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 24
2/17/12 at 6:47am
I understand your requirements now. A graphic EQ would be easier to adjust and tame your speakers by ear as well as being less expensive. Sweetwater would be a good place to look at various models.
http://www.sweetwater.com/c788--Graphic_EQ

For comparing re-mastered recordings TruRTA with 1/24th octave would definitely be the best choice of the TruAudio products. Whether using TruRTA or REW a good mic would be highly recommended, I wouldn't use the RS SPL meter like REW suggests. For not much more money you can get a decent mic with preamp.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 24
2/17/12 at 8:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

I understand your requirements now. A graphic EQ would be easier to adjust and tame your speakers by ear as well as being less expensive. Sweetwater would be a good place to look at various models.
http://www.sweetwater.com/c788--Graphic_EQ

For comparing re-mastered recordings TruRTA with 1/24th octave would definitely be the best choice of the TruAudio products. Whether using TruRTA or REW a good mic would be highly recommended, I wouldn't use the RS SPL meter like REW suggests. For not much more money you can get a decent mic with preamp.

Wiat a minute, now I'm confused. I think I was looking for something internal for the spectrum analyzer to compare recordings. Why would I even need an SPL meter or a mic and a preamp? I already have a receiver, thanks. I'm not trying to determine reference level. I hate playing music loud. This is begining to sound super expensive for such a simple thing. I have 2 or 3 "remastered" CDs that I suspect are no different than the original. I was considering getting some more remasters and wanted to check befor doing so. (I take almost nothing on faith).
I'm now thinking perhaps just sticking with my usual skepticsm and cynicsm and claiming that "remasters" are a complete waste and no better than the original. I have originals that could well do with a remaster, so it's a bit frustrating.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 24
2/17/12 at 9:24am
Sorry, misunderstood again, I didn't realize you wanted to compare them in the digital domain, although it makes sense. The programs mentioned could be fed into a loop without using speakers or mics and do what you want. Their is pro software to do what you are looking for but more money, of course they do a lot more than that too. I'm sure there is some simple software that will show you the response I just don't know of it. I'd give sweetwater or BHphoto a call and see if they know some inexpensive software to do it.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 24
2/17/12 at 11:34am
For the EQ just pick up a decent graphic equalizer. You can get one from about $100 (checp octave and noisy) to perhaps $300 (decent stereo 1/3-octave and what I would get) to many $1k's.

For spectrum analysis spend some time on Google; there are many freeware and cheap spectrum analyzers available that will analyze e.g. a WAV file after ripping from the CD. Not as many do it in real-time if that's a must-have. I looked at a bunch a few years ago, but the players change constantly in the freeware/inexpensive market so better to conduct your own search. The SW product I ended up with does a whole lot more, as BobL said, and cost around $300.

If all you want to do is compare a couple of CDs that you already feel are no different based upon hearing, why? Unless you have and know how to use the tools, such a comparison could be a daunting task. Since the level probabbly changed in the remaster (among other things) even a simple histogram might not tell you much. A cheaper plan might be to have a friend swap the CDs and see if you can pick out the difference. The problem will be level matching. In any event, sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Just play the one that sounds best to you.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 24
2/17/12 at 11:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

Sorry, misunderstood again, I didn't realize you wanted to compare them in the digital domain, although it makes sense. The programs mentioned could be fed into a loop without using speakers or mics and do what you want. Their is pro software to do what you are looking for but more money, of course they do a lot more than that too. I'm sure there is some simple software that will show you the response I just don't know of it. I'd give sweetwater or BHphoto a call and see if they know some inexpensive software to do it.

Yeah, I think software may be the way to go on this, but I would still need to play through the speakers at the same time for a reference point.
On the other hand, I may find what I want to do to be impossible. I'll start calling around, thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 24
2/17/12 at 11:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

For the EQ just pick up a decent graphic equalizer. You can get one from about $100 (checp octave and noisy) to perhaps $300 (decent stereo 1/3-octave and what I would get) to many $1k's.

For spectrum analysis spend some time on Google; there are many freeware and cheap spectrum analyzers available that will analyze e.g. a WAV file after ripping from the CD. Not as many do it in real-time if that's a must-have. I looked at a bunch a few years ago, but the players change constantly in the freeware/inexpensive market so better to conduct your own search. The SW product I ended up with does a whole lot more, as BobL said, and cost around $300.

If all you want to do is compare a couple of CDs that you already feel are no different based upon hearing, why? Unless you have and know how to use the tools, such a comparison could be a daunting task. Since the level probabbly changed in the remaster (among other things) even a simple histogram might not tell you much. A cheaper plan might be to have a friend swap the CDs and see if you can pick out the difference. The problem will be level matching. In any event, sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Just play the one that sounds best to you.

I don't need to waste money and get a octive and noisy EQ for $100. I can get a Berhinger EQ which is not cheap or noisy for $100. A $300 EQ for a vintage system is overkill and wasteful.

As to the spectrum Analyzer, I do think software may be the way to go. On the other hand as you point out (and I think it's a valid point) it may be more trouble than it's worth. I'm ultimately trying to verify true "remastered" CDs from CDs just labled "Remastered". I can sit down and listen to compare which is the tried and true way. I was just looking for a way to double verify like they due in the scientific studies.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 24
2/17/12 at 12:51pm
Maybe something like Audacity? I haven't followed recording software closely for a decade so I'm not really up to speed. But seems to me you could copy a tune to your hard drive, open it with Audacity (freeware BTW) and look at the waveforms. If they're much different, it should be fairly obvious.

You could theoretically invert the polarity of one recording and mix them together at equal levels, which if they're identical would yield silence.

IDK which specific recordings you're looking at, but do they appear to have overall level differences (ie is the remastered version louder?) It's possible that the original mastering job was done well and the remastering sought to make as little change in the overall sound as possible while "modernizing" the average level. They might seem indistinguishable if the remaster isn't too squashed, even though their spectra would differ because of the different multiband compression (and perhaps EQ) applied to the remaster.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 24
2/17/12 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in music View Post

I don't need to waste money and get a octive and noisy EQ for $100. I can get a Berhinger EQ which is not cheap or noisy for $100. A $300 EQ for a vintage system is overkill and wasteful.

As to the spectrum Analyzer, I do think software may be the way to go. On the other hand as you point out (and I think it's a valid point) it may be more trouble than it's worth. I'm ultimately trying to verify true "remastered" CDs from CDs just labled "Remastered". I can sit down and listen to compare which is the tried and true way. I was just looking for a way to double verify like they due in the scientific studies.

Sorry for the poor advice. Last time I tried a Behringer unit it was noisy and I have not tried since. That was in a pro setup and some years ago. I have purchased dbx and Rane EQs more recently and they fell into the $300'ish range for the units I purchased.

IIRC, "remaster" has no hard rule so far as advertising goes. It could be a complete remaster with refined EQ and mix, or a simple (and pretty much automatic) level adjustment.

YMMV - Don
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 24
2/17/12 at 4:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Maybe something like Audacity? I haven't followed recording software closely for a decade so I'm not really up to speed. But seems to me you could copy a tune to your hard drive, open it with Audacity (freeware BTW) and look at the waveforms. If they're much different, it should be fairly obvious.

You could theoretically invert the polarity of one recording and mix them together at equal levels, which if they're identical would yield silence.

IDK which specific recordings you're looking at, but do they appear to have overall level differences (ie is the remastered version louder?) It's possible that the original mastering job was done well and the remastering sought to make as little change in the overall sound as possible while "modernizing" the average level. They might seem indistinguishable if the remaster isn't too squashed, even though their spectra would differ because of the different multiband compression (and perhaps EQ) applied to the remaster.

Gods, I use audacity all the time, why didn't I think of that?
Well, for starters I was looking at the Rush remasters (not the one from the Sector boxes, I'm talking the older ones).
You also bring up a good point about the overall level differences. I would notice those most obviously and how it sounds and what my ears hear would be the most important thing and at the end of the day the real thing that would matter.
This makes me think that this idea may be more trouble than it's worth. Sometimes I let the little scientist in me run amuck and that's when I usually get into trouble.

The EQ for my vintage system, now that's a different thing all together and is much needed. So I think I should focus on that instead and let the chips fall where they may on the remaster stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 24
2/17/12 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Sorry for the poor advice. Last time I tried a Behringer unit it was noisy and I have not tried since. That was in a pro setup and some years ago. I have purchased dbx and Rane EQs more recently and they fell into the $300'ish range for the units I purchased.

IIRC, "remaster" has no hard rule so far as advertising goes. It could be a complete remaster with refined EQ and mix, or a simple (and pretty much automatic) level adjustment.

YMMV - Don

Yeah, I have a feeling I may find it to be just level adjustment more often than not. Like I said, at the end of the day it's what I hear that matters.

The EQ for the vintage system is a much more important need. What I think I should do is find EQs to try within the $100 range and make sure there is a good return policy in case they turn out to be noise makers in the hope of finding one that is not.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 24
2/19/12 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in music View Post

Yeah, I have a feeling I may find it to be just level adjustment more often than not. Like I said, at the end of the day it's what I hear that matters.

The EQ for the vintage system is a much more important need. What I think I should do is find EQs to try within the $100 range and make sure there is a good return policy in case they turn out to be noise makers in the hope of finding one that is not.

Sent you a PM! I have an Audio Control 10 Band EQ/Analyzer!

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 24
2/19/12 at 7:47am
Behringer DEQ2496
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 24
2/19/12 at 8:38am
I don't understand why you described the RTA of the Behringer DEQ2496 as "hard to read visually as i own four of them - all currently being used only as RTA displays for my 8.7 speaker HT system as i am now using Audyssey MultEQ XT32 for equalization - and i can see all of them when sitting on my main seat from a distance of several feet. The meters are very bright, fast and accurate and remember, you're talking about twice the resolution of 1/3 octave display analyzers; However, depending on the angle of viewing, it becomes increasingly harder to discern the RTA display.
As for the EQ functions of the DEQ 2496 they all work great, very intuitive menu selection and don't forget that it uses XLR connections for analog input/output but it has a set of stereo RCA 1/4" outputs...
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 24
2/19/12 at 3:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCaugusto View Post

I don't understand why you described the RTA of the Behringer DEQ2496 as "hard to read visually as i own four of them - all currently being used only as RTA displays for my 8.7 speaker HT system as i am now using Audyssey MultEQ XT32 for equalization - and i can see all of them when sitting on my main seat from a distance of several feet. The meters are very bright, fast and accurate and remember, you're talking about twice the resolution of 1/3 octave display analyzers; However, depending on the angle of viewing, it becomes increasingly harder to discern the RTA display.
As for the EQ functions of the DEQ 2496 they all work great, very intuitive menu selection and don't forget that it uses XLR connections for analog input/output but it has a set of stereo RCA 1/4" outputs...

No argument that the DEQ2496 is a fabulous unit. I have poor eyesight and that is the "hard to read" factor for me. Having not seen one in person yet may change things for me as far as being able to see the display.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Looking for a stand alone Spectrum Analyzer and an EQ