"MD" wrote in message
...
I own a Behringer Unit that allows me make parametric DSP changes to each
of my room modes (all were measured by plotting individual tones - in 1hz
increments - not warble tones etc)

I love what the unit does and it's negatives are very small (a small
amount of noise added and the input has a hard time with high line level
inputs. I fixed this by changing the final gain stage of my DAC)

I have heard the Rives in a demo and liked it. Was never able to compare
it to the Behringer

I have never heard the Tact T or any other digital correction system

Here's my question - Why would I spend more than the $150 I spent on the
Behringer? I can digitally set freq (within 1hz) set bandwidth (within a
few hz) and set gain - all with a DSP that runs at 24 bit - 46khz 64/128
oversampling.

If the answer is that the other units do this at a higher frequency -
would i be able to hear the difference (red book CDs) and I I could would
I pay thousands more? Now that Behringer has a new unit out that has
96khz sampling and is only $400 - wouldn't I buy that?

This is a highly controversial question, one of the reasons I stick with
analog equalizers.

I have a Musical Fidelity A3 DAC, which is a 24/192 unit, a Perpetual Tech
24/96, a couple of Sony TA-E1000ESDs with 18 bit ladder DACs, and more. They
all sound different. Yet the majority of audiophiles reluctantly acknowledge
that human hearing does not extend past 20K in the vast majority of people.

Why then, these differences? In my opinion, the answer is that each DAC
design is doing something different, which is possibly related in a complex
way to the sampling rate. But the "something" is a hidden attribute of the
design. Buyers are conditioned by the advertising media to believe that the
succinct buzzword description of the product gives the most important facts
about it. Sadly, this is not so. The design of these devices involves
circuit details that are either not revealed, or have characteristics that
have not been systematized to give a "number."

This means that you should expect that the 24/192 may provide audibly better
sound, not because a human can hear ultrasonically, but because associated
choices of the design result in fewer anomalies such as phase shift,
spectral purity, or quantitization noise. There is no one on this group who
can provide an authoritative answer, but, given the personalities, you may
expect to hear draconian pronouncements one way or another. If you have the
money, try it. My particular bias against digital equalizers is that
quantitization and analog reconstruction exact a toll. Ideally, it should be
done only once in an audiophile's system, at the output of the preamp. But
the audiophile world has stubbornly stuck with analog interconnection. In
order to minimize the sonic cost of the extra A/D--D/A steps, I would
intuitively prefer the highest sampling rate possible.