I, too, have read many positive reports on the Behringer 8024 equalizer in various forums. The built-in spectral analyzer and instant automatic room-EQ seems to me highly useful, or at the very least it would be worth trying, especially given the almost unbelievably low price of, what, $180 or so? I also agree that the Behringer is arguably the best stand-alone EQ in the market right now. The only thing that I personally do not care too much is its utilitarian "pro" looks, but the design surely seems highly functional. I myself do not have an EQ right now, but one of my local friends has a 1/2-octave digital EQ (sorry, do not recall the brand) and it did seem to work quite nicely in his room.
In reply to:
I know many "Audiophiles" consider EQ to be heresey but I really don't give a damn if I can smooth out the ole fq spectrum in my room without a bunch of expensive and ugly room treatments.
I think the skepticism against EQ has its deep roots back in the analog multi-band EQs of olden days, which contained many non-linear parts such as cored coils and could sound terrible indeed. But today's DSP-based digital EQs have entirely changed the situation; they do not introduce any measurable distortion, transients or noise. I do concur that if you can modify and tune your listening room to a near-perfect acoustic condition, that would be best, and an EQ would never serve as a replacement for truly good room acoustics. But the reality is, as you said, it is often impossible without (and often even with) exotic room treatments. IMHO, those who argue flatly against good-quality digital EQs is
plain illogical. Those same people do enjoy fully digital source materials and encoding technologies. Even if they do not use an EQ, their amps or pre-pro's already have a bunch of DSPs and much hated digital-evils inside!
I would definitely give it a try... And, if you decide to go for one, please come back and give us your impressions!
Oh, by the way, how much was your pair of Magnepans?
Cheers!
