Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 369

Thread: Behringer DCX2496 digital x-over any good

  1. #31
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by scott fitlin View Post
    the one thing even the best digitally controlled systems havent done yet, for me, is to sound natural. I have heard dsp controlled systems that have excellent imaging, very focused, and VERY clean, but, still has a somewhat synthetic sound to my ears.
    Interesting observation Scott. Have you heard a Deqx?

    Ken

  2. #32
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Pachkowsky View Post
    Interesting observation Scott. Have you heard a Deqx?

    Ken
    No, everything I have heard is pro gear, and pro sound.

    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!
    scottyj

  3. #33
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by scott fitlin View Post
    No, everything I have heard is pro gear, and pro sound.
    No worries Scott, it was not a loaded question.

    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?

    Ken

  4. #34
    Senior Member Flodstroem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by boputnam View Post
    Yessir, I am COMPLETELY aware. I went through a "wow, this Behringer stuff is really affordable" phase. Now, someone else owns that gear of mine (thank-you eBay!!) Believing my ears cost me lots of money, but the results of moving up the food chain are quite frankly, stunning. I cannot "afford" to go back. Look at it this way, if you make the right purchase, the gear is with you for years - amortizing that cost over +5yrs makes it easier to rationalize.
    Its absolutely clear to me that a $ 4,842 gear will have an outstanding performance compare to a $ 229 gear, but performance wasnt my intention at this very first step but it was for options and possibilities . My intension is to buy something for to see how this type of gear could work with my ideas and also to see if I could handle and manage a digital equipment with all its programming options and all the infinitive possibilities to compensate for nearly every variables what came up as room acoustics, loobings, delayings etc.... and this for a decent amount of money due to my plan was to sell an XR4001 (yes Bo, thanks for eBay) and buy two DCX2496. Okay this was a stupid thoughts of mine, but whats the alternative? Do nothing?
    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
    Regards
    Flodstroem

  5. #35
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Pachkowsky View Post
    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?

    Ken
    Well, for one thing, the VHF is different sounding through a DSP signal processor than an analog processor. The splash of a cymbal just sounds more like a cymbal through analog units than dsp. DSP still adds an artifact, like a slight metallic hash, its just not there with analog. Attack and decay through analog sounds natural, you hear the stick hit the cymbal, the fundamental note, the reverb around the sound, then the decay of sound. DSP is abrupt, sounds chopped off, no natural shimmering decay, I dont hear the same air and space around musical notes. Especially HF sounds. Analog highs have a more delicate sound, that I think is what VHF should sound like.

    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.
    scottyj

  6. #36
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by scott fitlin View Post
    Well, for one thing, the VHF is different...
    Very thorough explanation Scott. Thanks

    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.

    Ken

  7. #37
    Senior Member Hoerninger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by scott fitlin View Post
    Well, ...
    Thank you for writing down your observations.
    ___________
    Peter

  8. #38
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,657
    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.
    scottyj

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,154
    Quote Originally Posted by scott fitlin View Post
    For me, DSP has gotten better, but still has quite a ways to go before Im convinced they got it totally right.
    Very nice post Scott. I feel the same way when comparing vinyl to CD at home. Mind you, SACD is a real step forward in the right direction, I only wish there were more titles to choose from.

  10. #40
    RIP 2010 scott fitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas View Post
    Very nice post Scott. I feel the same way when comparing vinyl to CD at home. Mind you, SACD is a real step forward in the right direction, I only wish there were more titles to choose from.
    Thank you.

    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.
    scottyj

  11. #41
    RIP 2014 Ken Pachkowsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Baja, Mexico
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Flodstroem View Post
    Okay this was a stupid thoughts of mine, but whats the alternative? Do nothing?

    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.

    Regards
    First, your idea is not stupid!

    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.

    Ken

  12. #42
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    7,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Flodstroem View Post
    ...performance wasnt my intention at this very first step but it was for options and possibilities . My intension is to buy something for to see how this type of gear could work with my ideas and also to see if I could handle and manage a digital equipment with all its programming options and all the infinitive possibilities to compensate for nearly every variables what came up as room acoustics, lobings, delayings etc....
    Ah...

    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.
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  13. #43
    Senior Member Ian Mackenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,742
    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.

    http://www.cannononline.com.au/catalogue/c18/c54

  14. #44
    Senior Seņor boputnam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    northern california
    Posts
    7,010
    Quote Originally Posted by UreiCollector View Post
    I am using the Behringer Ultradrive DCX2496 in my system, and absolutely love it!! ... I have no issues with performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by UreiCollector View Post
    It does invert from input to output, so be careful!!
    That is good to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by UreiCollector View Post
    ... but as I said, I only use it below (emphasis added) ~80hz, so I can not comment on it's sound quality above say 120hz or so...
    An important caveat to the appraisal. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by UreiCollector View Post
    Worth trying? YES, I think definately so. Just from the stand point of time-alignment...
    This is probably the single most important attribute of these.

    Quote Originally Posted by UreiCollector View Post
    It's never a waste of time to experiment...
    That there is a truism. And, eBay makes the experiments virtually risk free. Buy it right, try it, and if it's not what you like, sell it right. A terrifically liquid market for audio gear...
    bo

    "Indeed, not!!"

  15. #45
    Senior Member hmolwitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Darien CT
    Posts
    327

    BSS ps8810CN

    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
    Harry

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. are jbl l200b any good
    By angel mercado in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-06-2004, 01:14 PM
  2. GoldWave Digital Audio Editor
    By boputnam in forum General Audio Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2003, 08:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •