JBL M2 DCX2496 settings

I have been working on porting the BSS M2 settings to the Behringer DCX2496.
It was not an easy task because of the implementations differences and the lack of a few EQ and filters types (especially 36dB/oct filters, which is the reason for the difference in the woofer delay setting).

Here are the settings, using 100% of the available power of the DCX2496.
You might have to install a recent version of the firmware (1.16 or 1.17 depending on your hardware version) if you are not able to set all the EQ points.
Even with the last version of the firmware you might have ressource warnings when unsetting an EQ point, but it should work OK :)

The last two channels are unused, and no EQ of filter point is left for them (make sur you remove any EQ you might have enable there).
They can be used to redirect the left/right input or their sum to a subwoofer, etc...

Code:

---

Setup:

OUT CONFIGURATION LL MM HH
OUT STEREO-LINK: ON
IN STEREO-LINK: A+B

---

Inputs (linked A & B) :

GAIN: -2.3dB

DELAY: OFF

EQ: ON
1: BP 1.14kHz +1.2dB Q=10
2: BP 1.57kHz -1.3dB Q=3.2
3: BP 9.26kHz +2.7dB Q=8.9
4: BP 9.87kHz +1.2dB Q=1.3
5: BP 11.2kHz +2.7dB Q=10
6: BP 13.0kHz +1.1dB Q=4.0
7: BP 15.8kHz +2.9dB Q=5.0

DYN-EQ: OFF

---

LF outputs (linked 1 & 2) :


INPUT SOURCE: A for output 1 / B for output 2
OUTPUT GAIN: -1.7dB

X-OVER ADJUST MODE: FREE
high-pass: OFF
low-pass: LR48 917Hz

EQ: ON
1: BP 22Hz (first "22" step) +3.1dB Q=2.5
2: BP 62Hz -0.9dB Q=4.0
3: BP 92Hz +1.1dB Q=1.1
4: BP 254Hz +2.8dB Q=10
5: BP 196Hz +1.0dB Q=6.3
6: BP 384Hz -9.4dB Q=0.4 (second "0.4" step)
7: BP 393Hz -0.4dB Q=8.9
8: BP 499Hz +1.5dB Q=5.0
9: BP 1.00kHz -7.0dB Q=1.8

DYN-EQ: OFF

LIMITER: OFF

POLARITY: normal
PHASE: 0°

DELAY: ON, SHORT=64mm/0.19ms

---

HF outputs (linked 3 & 4) :

INPUT SOURCE: A for output 3 / B for output 4
OUTPUT GAIN: 0dB

X-OVER ADJUST MODE: FREE
high-pass: BUT6 1.35kHz
low-pass: OFF

EQ: ON
1: BP 499Hz +1.1dB Q=5.0
2: BP 770Hz -5.9dB Q=2.8
3: BP 917Hz +3.3dB Q=4.0
4: BP 2.40kHz +0.5dB Q=3.2
5: BP 2.56kHz -1.1dB Q=10
6: BP 2.98kHz -1.4dB Q=10
7: BP 3.24kHz -8.5dB Q=1.4
8: BP 5.54kHz -1.0dB Q=2.5

DYN-EQ: OFF

LIMITER: OFF

POLARITY: normal
PHASE: 0°

DELAY: OFF

---

Unused outputs (linked 5 & 6) :

everything OFF

---

Input gain (-2.3dB) is set to avoid any risk of UHF saturation when the processor is used at 0dBFS, but this is quite unlikely at these frequencies...

As with the original BSS settings you might want to rework or remove the high Q woofer EQs at 196Hz and 254Hz if you are not using the original M2 enclosure or an exact clone of them.

Here is a comparison between the measured output of the DCX2496 (red) and the BSS (green) :

Attachment 75379

Thanks!

What about phase, is it exactly the same as the original BSS?

Can you share the original measured BSS output as a file, so that it can be imported into REW? (I maybe want to try to do and measure this in dbx4820, to see how close I can get amplitude-wise).

Phase is matched in the passband.
The DCX does not have 36dB/oct filters so I had to use 48dB/oct with EQ on the woofer, and then compensate for the phase difference with delay to get a phase coherent crossover.

As you can see the magnitude is well matched in the stopband until around -60dB, which is 45dB down compared to the passband, no problem there :

Attachment 75381


Replicating the M2 settings with your DBX should be easier and you should be able to get away with the original settings as described in the google doc as a starting point (whereas it had to be done from scratch with the DCX).
You can use the rephase presets to generate reference curves, as these are very closely matched to the BSS measurement I got from grumpy and sebackman, with a lower noise floor and no measurement artefacts (this is what I used here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pos

I have been working on porting the BSS M2 settings to the Behringer DCX2496.
It was not an easy task because of the implementations differences and the lack of a few EQ and filters types (especially 36dB/oct filters, which is the reason for the difference in the woofer delay setting).

Here are the settings, using 100% of the available power of the DCX2496.
You might have to install a recent version of the firmware (1.16 or 1.17 depending on your hardware version) if you are not able to set all the EQ points.
Even with the last version of the firmware you might have ressource warnings when unsetting an EQ point, but it should work OK :)

The last two channels are unused, and no EQ of filter point is left for them (make sur you remove any EQ you might have enable there).
They can be used to redirect the left/right input or their sum to a subwoofer, etc...

Code:

---

Setup:

OUT CONFIGURATION LL MM HH
OUT STEREO-LINK: ON
IN STEREO-LINK: A+B

---

Inputs (linked A & B) :

GAIN: -2.3dB

DELAY: OFF

EQ: ON
BP 1.14kHz +1.2dB Q=10
BP 1.57kHz -1.3dB Q=3.2
BP 9.26kHz +2.7dB Q=8.9
BP 9.87kHz +1.2dB Q=1.3
BP 11.2kHz +2.7dB Q=10
BP 13.0kHz +1.1dB Q=4.0
BP 15.8kHz +2.9dB Q=5.0

DYN-EQ: OFF

---

LF outputs (linked 1 & 2) :


INPUT SOURCE: A for output 1 / B for output 2
OUTPUT GAIN: -1.7dB

X-OVER ADJUST MODE: FREE
high-pass: OFF
low-pass: LR48 917Hz

EQ: ON
1: BP 22Hz (first "22" step) +3.1dB Q=2.5
2: BP 62Hz -0.9dB Q=4.0
3: BP 92Hz +1.1dB Q=1.1
4: BP 254Hz +2.8dB Q=10
5: BP 196Hz +1.0dB Q=6.3
6: BP 384Hz -9.4dB Q=0.4 (second "0.4" step)
7: BP 393Hz -0.4dB Q=8.9
8: BP 499Hz +1.5dB Q=5.0
9: BP 1.00kHz -7.0dB Q=1.8

DYN-EQ: OFF

LIMITER: OFF

POLARITY: normal
PHASE: 0°

DELAY: ON, SHORT=64mm/0.19ms

---

HF outputs (linked 3 & 4) :

INPUT SOURCE: A for output 3 / B for output 4
OUTPUT GAIN: 0dB

X-OVER ADJUST MODE: FREE
high-pass: BUT6 1.35kHz
low-pass: OFF

EQ: ON
1: BP 499Hz +1.1dB Q=5.0
2: BP 770Hz -5.9dB Q=2.8
3: BP 917Hz +3.3dB Q=4.0
4: BP 2.40kHz +0.5dB Q=3.2
5: BP 2.56kHz -1.1dB Q=10
6: BP 2.98kHz -1.4dB Q=10
7: BP 3.24kHz -8.5dB Q=1.4
8: BP 5.54kHz -1.0dB Q=2.5

DYN-EQ: OFF

LIMITER: OFF

POLARITY: normal
PHASE: 0°

DELAY: OFF

---

Unused outputs (linked 5 & 6) :

everything OFF

---

Input gain (-2.3dB) is set to avoid any risk of UHF saturation when the processor is used at 0dBFS, but this is quite unlikely at these frequencies...

As with the original BSS settings you might want to rework or remove the high Q woofer EQs at 196Hz and 254Hz if you are not using the original M2 enclosure or an exact clone of them.

Here is a comparison between the measured output of the DCX2496 (red) and the BSS (green) :

Attachment 75379

---

Hi Pos,

Nice respectable presentation.
I only wonder why BEFRINGER do not want to change Dsp in the Dcx2496 with newer ADSP Dsp allowing much more processor power.
Regards
Ivica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pos

Replicating the M2 settings with your DBX should be easier and you should be able to get away with the original settings as described in the google doc as a starting point (whereas it had to be done from scratch with the DCX).
You can use the rephase presets to generate reference curves, as these are very closely matched to the BSS measurement I got from grumpy and sebackman, with a lower noise floor and no measurement artefacts (this is what I used here).

---

Ok, I will try that. Sounds like a fun little project!
And I will probably skip the woofer EQs at 196Hz and 254Hz to spare some EQs. Any of the EQ-points for the compression-driver that you think are candidate for removal for a M2-clone/clown, if I have to skip some due to dbx-limitation?

This is great work. It now gives us three different validated options and price points of DSP for M2 builds.

Has anyone tried this with their M2's. I'm thinking on picking one up just to experiment with others amps?

Thanks,
Scott

If anyone is looking for one, I got one last September to biamp a pair of Magnepan MG2c speakers, but when I got that pair of JBL L212 speakers around Thanksgiving, I loved their sound and put the magnepans up for sale! So I won't need this electronic crossover plus management system after all. Not in the picture, but the power cord is included, of course
The unit is nice and clean and works like a champ.

It has a LOT of capability beyond use as a simple electronic crossover

• Adjustable delays for all inputs/outputs allow correction for arrival time differences
• Four different mono and stereo output operating modes
• Butterworth, Bessel and Linkwitz-Riley filters with slopes from 6 to 48 dB/octave
• Link option via RS-485 network interface enables cascading of several Ultradrive Pros
• 60 user-defined internal presets storable via PC RS-232 connection

They go for $300 new - I'll sell mine for $200/Offer plus shipping - and I pack REALLY WELL.
I take paypal - just PM me

Attachment 76523Attachment 76524

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pos

I have been working on porting the BSS M2 settings to the Behringer DCX2496.
It was not an easy task because of the implementations differences and the lack of a few EQ and filters types (especially 36dB/oct filters, which is the reason for the difference in the woofer delay setting).

Here are the settings, using 100% of the available power of the DCX2496.
You might have to install a recent version of the firmware (1.16 or 1.17 depending on your hardware version) if you are not able to set all the EQ points.
Even with the last version of the firmware you might have ressource warnings when unsetting an EQ point, but it should work OK :)

The last two channels are unused, and no EQ of filter point is left for them (make sur you remove any EQ you might have enable there).
They can be used to redirect the left/right input or their sum to a subwoofer, etc...



Input gain (-2.3dB) is set to avoid any risk of UHF saturation when the processor is used at 0dBFS, but this is quite unlikely at these frequencies...

As with the original BSS settings you might want to rework or remove the high Q woofer EQs at 196Hz and 254Hz if you are not using the original M2 enclosure or an exact clone of them.

Here is a comparison between the measured output of the DCX2496 (red) and the BSS (green) :

---

Hi Pos,
I have tried to do the setting same as what you have done. But my DCX was different from yours, I guess. I didnt manage to set al EQs. I have skipped the 196 and the 254 Hz in LF part including the
5.5 kHz in the HF part. Also this was not enough, I had to skip the 13.0 kHz in the input part. After that I only had 0-1% processor power left. But its very close to your setting. Im doing this though I already had the DCX, I have even two DCX to deal with. The setting is for to have something to test the M2 project but Im going to purchase the Crown amp after selling the DCX and other audio equipments. But I have to make a test of the M2 now when they are finished.
Im wandering if the DCX have been built with different processors so newer ones have more processor power or is it the same processor in all of the DCX? Mine had the firmware 1.17 so its strange. :crying:

Hi Flodstroem,

Mine was pretty old, probably first generation with the ASRC bug and extension card port.
I remember the processor usage went up and down for no good reason.
Maybe they improved the biquad implementation over the years (mine was measurably noisy on low frequency EQs), so maybe processor usage went up.

OK, Thanks Pos. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flodstroem

OK, Thanks Pos. :)

---

Hi Pos, Really glad to see the DCX2496 used - and able to be used in the position of a DSP Network for M2 Rebuilds, close or not..

I have read all through the Reference Monitor thread and mostly through the Project M2 DIY Thread and was going to get the 2216Nd "-1" woofers

until I started reading about the 'Voltage Drive' being different enough that maybe the 2216 without the '-1' would be easier to integrate..? :dont-know:

Also had been wondering how well the Passive Crossover from the 4367 would slot it using the wonderful suggestions from 4313B, changing R9, etc., would

go. I don't have any means for testing so I would be at the mercy of those in the know! No harm in making a crossover but having DSP to back me up! :)

Any advice will be gladly taken in, along the never ending DIY using JBL parts... while they still last!

Kind Regards,
DogBox [Steve]

...

Hi Steve,

Using a different woofer will indeed call for a different correction.
If you don't want to have to measure and tune everything yourself then I would advice you to stay in known territories, copying existing proven designs.
That could mean 2216nd + D2430K + M2 waveguide with on of the existing filtering solutions (BSS, Crown, DCX, openDRC, ...).
But there are also other solutions based on a similar set of parts, like Rob's passive system: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...Monitor-Thread
I think he is currently using a 2216nd + 2453SL + M2 waveguide, all handled with a passive network, with a very impressive end result!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pos

Hi Steve,

Using a different woofer will indeed call for a different correction.
If you don't want to have to measure and tune everything yourself then I would advice you to stay in known territories, copying existing proven designs.
That could mean 2216nd + D2430K + M2 waveguide with on of the existing filtering solutions (BSS, Crown, DCX, openDRC, ...).
But there are also other solutions based on a similar set of parts, like Rob's passive system: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...Monitor-Thread
I think he is currently using a 2216nd + 2453SL + M2 waveguide, all handled with a passive network, with a very impressive end result!

---

Thanks Thomas,

You know, I was "so close" to getting a pair of the "-1's" thinking they "had to be better" - completely forgetting the bother I could get myself into.. Glad you pulled me up before I went down that often travelled road of "..it'll be better, you'll see!" when in reality, I need all the Help I can get, borrow, read up on...
Rob's system is what you "can do" when you "know what you're doing!" And it is a credit to him! I admire what he's been able to do and if I could hear it, it would teach me that I've still got a long way to go to be able to do that myself. Maybe I never will.. is more truthful than I would like to admit. :banghead:
I also got myself a book on DSP to see if I can't broaden my viewpoint and understanding of exactly "what has been accomplished with the M2..."
Always one to consider vinyl LP replay was always better than CD, I can Now see how DSP is the best way of getting as close as possible to analog using digital application. Yes, a proper revelation that I see as exciting and want to know more about but also to "hear it done properly!"
I think I'll change my order and save a bit into the bargain by not trying to re-invent the wheel when in the M2 it revolves really fast and so smoothly!
Appreciate the Helping Hand! :) :applaud:

DogBox [Steve]

...