I know they say the DEQX is all that, I am not commenting on it as I have NO listening experience with it.
So far, everything that I have heard, some sounds very good, alot has not, but none really natural, not to my ears.
Even if the DEQX does sound 100% to my satisfaction, it wouldnt be suitable for my system, as its intended for 2 speaker, 2 channel stereo.
I guess my next digital box would have to be Lake, or whatever they have thats TOTL at that time!
When one reads another's description you compare that description to your own.
I would have to say I agree on the imaging, focus and cleanliness. Could you clarify synthetic?
I suspect you mean the difference between a high quality drum machine and a real kit?
I am in the need of 2 x 5 x-over channels and this was the first gear that came to my mind and what also could easily pass the WAF factor. I have a low budget for this type of gear and only alternative was a low budget gear that have those options I am in the need of. Also I dont know of any gear like this that have the option of 2 x 5 or 6 x-over channels (in one case) and because of that I have to buy two items for to get those options
The midrange! Vocals sound so real, so smooth, they just hang right in front of the speakers using analog processing. DSP mids still sound a bit tinny. DSP seems to shift the timbral pitch of the mids up, sort of hollow sounding low mid, everything gets pushed up into the horn. Like turning the brightness control on your TV up too high.
Low mids and midbass. Snares, drum fills, keyboards, everything sounds realistic and natural to me through analog, well recorded snares sound like what a snare drum sounds like, similar to what I would hear in a music store actually hearing a real snare drum. Analog is just richer, and fuller sounding, male vocal comes through analog processing with all the throatiness and chestiness of a real male voice. I have heard live bands through dsp controlled systems, and the drums and cymbals just didnt sound like themselves through the speakers, yet walking closer to the stage, you could immediately tell the difference between what you heard directly off the stage drum set -vs- what was coming out of the speakers mic,d live! What was coming though the speakers distinctly sounded electronic and artificial.
Bass. Analog bass is full sounding, each note starts and stops, you hear each bass note in its own space, its deeper sounding, and much more natural. DSP bass sounds plastic to me. Playing recordings of jazz, with stuff Im familiar with, analog just puts it out in a clearer, fuller, more believable sound. Better upper bass detail, and superior, but realistic transient information through analog, just what I hear.
And, with every dsp system I have heard, including what I was using, dsp controlled sound still blares at you, analog just sits back, and the music flows out, with no electronic glare.
For me, DSP has gotten better, but still has quite a ways to go before Im convinced they got it totally right.
You have me tempted to jump back to my HRX for a quick comparative listen. I have been using the dual Deqx system for over a year.
Indeed, very tempted. The only thing you mentioned that I have noticed ever so slightly is the sound of a cymbal crash or ride. The timbre is slightly hollow.
Well, you do have a different dsp than what I have. So, right there, thats a difference sonically. And you have different speakers too.
As I said, I have only experience with pro gear. They say the Lake is supposed to be very non-digital sounding. Havent heard it, cant make any comments.
One of the live systems, was ALL XTA processors, VERY highly regarded by the pro audio community. I have also heard Vertec, and a few others.
I really worked with my BSS, and I thought the same thing as what you said, slight difference, I got this thing sounding quite good. People also said, Hey, this sounds good. I really was into what I was hearing and also thought it was quite close to analog, differences were slight!
Till I went back to analog, and I immediately recognized what I was hearing.
I cant say what exactly you would hear, analog -vs- digital, but, youll never know until you try.
I have heard SACD, I thought it was great. But where is SACD today? I mean, it almost doesnt exist. And not much pop music catalog.
We are being pushed, no, make that forced into downloads of MP3, and WAV files, for use through iPods.
I only wish for the art of well recorded music to remain alive at this point, and availability of music catalog. In whatever form is in current use.
But, when I listen to records from the 80,s or even the early 90,s, they are better, but, thats over with, doesnt exist anymore. So, for me, I strive to get the best performance out of what the current mediums are, simply because I have no other choice. If playing current popular music is what you want to do.
In your position, you don't have any other affordable choice.
I have never used or heard a 2496....who here has? I know 2 member's on the forum who use them and are quite satisfied. I will let them chime in if they so desire?
If possible, keep the 4001 as a backup, grab a couple of 2496's and try them out. Be your own judge. At 600 bucks for a pair the risk is minimal and the payoff could be substancial. If you don't like them, get rid of them. If you like their basic function and sound, they are easy to upgrade.
Be well and good luck.
With that clarification (at least for me... ) the Behringer could be a good first step. I cannot speak to it's "ease of programming", but Behringer make user-friendly gear, so as long as the manual translators were up to their task, it should be quite sensible. It should give you a good idea of what this technology is capable of, and whether it is what you want.
I humbly suggest you start with a modest two-way, bi-amped setup to get familiar with the results and how the device behaves. This may take some days of "tuning", listening, re-tuning, etc.
Also - how are you going to measure the response(s) as you dial-in all the filters and delays? If you are going to this 5-way, cinco-amped configuration it is imperative you have the ability and experience to properly "tune" the system. IME, this will almost certainly require some form of laptop supported sophisticated acoustics analysis software.
Unless full active was a must why not use the 2496 or any other active xover to create the most idea set of filters. If it works then go the next step.
You have the option of building a set of passive filters around the idealised active set of curves or perhaps upgrading to a better active. Any loudspeaker can still sound crap no matter how good the front end and maybe you might find the need to review your driver /horn options.
Purchase of a multichannel DAC or CODAC would appear a sensible way of improving the A/D D/A conversions. But there appears to be quite a mumber of "good" loudspeaker processers around now from Yamaha, Lem, DBX so take you pic.
The acoustic dimensions and sheer power of a full high power digital active sound system most likely outweigh the negatives. I mean I dont hear Jack complaining about his 2496 on that nicely engineered system of his.
I picked that up last night and configured the crossover portion in an hour or so, no time to hook up anything to it, I will let you know what I think, but I think it will take some time to dial it in, and some measurement equipment.
I liked the
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)