Hi All,
I'm looking for a three way crossover for a new JBL project and i'm exploring options. I see that BSSis part of the Harman Group so looking for feedback on the BSS units EG sound quality features and ease of use. I have a friend that has the DBX 4800 and its good just looking for the best option.
Regards joe.
I am interested in this as well, never heard any of them.
If I remember correctly, 4313B wrote once that G.T was not so impressed by BSS.
Hallo!
I have never worked with BSS but I would go with DBX 4800 without think too much about it. You can always download System Architect and work with 4800 in offline mode.
DBX4800
I don't have any of the newer BSS units meaning any with FIR filter capability so I have nothing relevant to add to the BSS part of the conversation. That said, I do love the GUI of the BSS stuff that I have.
On the DBX 4800 end, I absolutely love mine. Suprise, in a bad way, they were discontinued the end of last year with still no word on a replacement of any kind and they are all gone. No B stock either.
If you don't need the front panel functionality the 4820 is still around last time I checked. If you are not into lights you may like it better anyway.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
Hi friends,
I think both units will deliver the goods and then some. They use reasonable similar HW platforms (not too many DSP processor manufacturers) and I would think similar SW as they come from the same group. Having used both brands I would say that BSS has the edge and is more advanced when it comes to versatility with more refined SW development. They also update the SW including the all-important algorithms on a regular basis. DBX does not.
The BSS units allow you to add/remove input and out cards/channels as you wish and you can mix digital and analog cards as you please. Another feature is that you can use up to 256 channels as long as there is enough DSP Power left. My setup is 8 channels digital in and 16 analog channels out.
The main weakness of DSP of this kind is always the ADC (Analog to Digital Converter), the converter that converts your analog signal into digital data to be processed in the DSP. The ADC need reasonable line level signal to have a chance to work properly so you need to push the pre-amp a bit and reduce on the power amps so there is reasonable signal in to the DSP even when listening at low levels or pianissimo. These are 24bit 96kHz internal devices so digital clipping is very rare (CD is 16bit 44,2kHz). However, what can give some grief is clipping in the analog output stages if levels are amplified too much. If so, you will hear that…
A real good DSP can sound bad using too low input level and an entry level unit may sound decent properly set up. I have spent quite a bit of time with these and other units the last 10 years and once you open Pandoras Box there is really no turning back…. The option the DSP gives to adjust and correct driver/cabinet errors is just fantastic. There is nothing on the electronics/acoustic side that even come close. Ref to JBL M2 that everyone think sound fantastic and they are DSP compensated. There is really no turning back…
The alternative to using reasonable high level analog input is to use digital input and feed digital SPDIF or AES signal that normally runs at full level, i.e. no degradation due to drop of bits or ADC jitter. The drawback is that you need some kind of analog volume control after the DSP.
This is what I do; I use an all-digital preamp feeding 7.2 SPDIF signal to a BSS BLU800/BLU BOB with all the DSP correction done in the digital domain (no ADC). I get 3-way 5.2 analog signal out that goes to a 16 channel Burr&Brown all-analog VCA (volume control) before sent to the Crown power amps. A wee bit complicated but completely sonically invisible.Having tried many brand DSP’s I got stuck on the BSS’s since they allow me to build the signal path I need in London Architect. -Really neat and to my ears and measuring equipment not detectable. Today I have 5 different brand DSP’s in my work shop.
There has been some word here on the forum that DBX should sound “better” than BSS and I find that hard to believe (owning both). What I can agree to is that DBX is probably easier to get to sound good but a properly set up BSS should for all sense and purposes be better. The SW is just better and more modern and the fire power in the DSP engine stronger. I have not tried the JBL version, SDEC, which uses a different proprietary SW.
BSS can also do FIR filters if you are into that. Member POS is very knowledgeable in this area.
An alternative that may be of interest is to use the BSS FDS-366 Omnidrive, they sound really good and to my ears at least as good or better than DriveRack PA and 260. I have not used the 4800. Albeit they are a bit old now using dual Motorola DSP chips. I use mine in a 3-way setup with JBL subs and 2206/2450SL/VTX F12 horns above. Sweet.
And don't forget the Canadian Xilica units, they are also good. In fact, I think there are several units that can be set up to sound really good with some love put into them.
Having said all that, the DBX is probably easier to get going but a tad more limited.
However it is worth mentioning that for most applications a DBX will be more than sufficient and sound real good. Regardless which way you choose, if you feed decent line level to the ADC just prepare to be mesmerized.
Welcome to the future… Kind regards//RoB
The solution to the problem changes the problem.
-And always remember that all of your equipment was made by the lowest bidder
WoW... Some great feedback and i really appreciate it, it is taking to where i think i need to be. The BSS looks interesting and deserves some more research.
Again thank you for the input again.
Joe.
Originally Posted by JoeNelis
dBx is also a Harman company, so on that criteria you win either way.
I have a DBX 260, and when I use 7-8 PEQs of different steepnes, and especially overlapping PEQs, then I get this metallic feeling to the sound in the high frequencies, and perceived reduced dynamics.
I have read that the steepnes of digital filters affects ringing and overshoot.
If I would upgrade to a better model, like the DBX 4820, will this be better then? I.e better dsp algorithms that are less degrading to the sound? Or is it more the analog part of the device that is better?
As a sidenote, are there any best-practices when it comes to dsp? for example:
"Do not use a higher PEQ Q than X, then it will sound bad"
High Q minimum-phase corrections do ring, but so do high Q defects in the frequency response. The higher the Q the longer the ringing.
If a high Q EQ is used to exactly correct a defect it will also cancel its ringing. This is what minimum phase systems are all about.
So it is not a matter of how many EQs and what Q are used, but how many EQs and what Q are *needed*, and this gets down to measurement(s) analysis.
However using multiple EQ with high Q can cause quantization errors and associated noises, especially with low frequency EQs, depending on the biquad implementation of your DSP unit. That should not be a problem in practice when EQuing a horn though...
Note that FIR corrections, be them minimum or linear phase, are immune to this problem.
After more test (and some changed gain settings) I cannot reproduce the metallic sound, or the reduced dynamics.
I am glad you are digging into this. I have followed the ProSound Web thread as well.
Just mastering the measurment end can be years in the learning, at least it has been for me and I am nowhere near as proficient as I would like to be.
I hope to be able to contribute here, I just haven't had a straight five minutes to get here.
I will be in soon.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
I am glad you are digging into this. I have followed the ProSound Web thread as well.
Just mastering the measurment end can be years in the learning, at least it has been for me and I am nowhere near as proficient as I would like to be.
I hope to be able to contribute here, I just haven't had a straight five minutes to get here.
I will be in soon.
Barry.
BTW, there is a new kid in town, the DBX 360. The successor of the 260. It has better specs on paper. Anyone heard it?
I had the DBX4800 and switched to a BSS Soundweb BLU160. Unfortunately I didn't try them side-by-side with no correction applied at all, but with correction the BSS was far superior. With active-crossover and room correction the BSS has a lot more processing power and flexibility and the end result (in my room) was better.
If my memory serves me correctly, the BSS is more neutral. The DBX adds some warmth to the sound which somebody might prefer but in my system it took some attack away from the sound.
SOrry for all the hifi-ish expressions, but sound is always difficult to describeBut the conclusion is, that I would definately choose the BSS any day.
OBS: The BSS has a MUCH noisier fan than the DBX... Have this in mind when choosing.
Thanks for that input Josh that's great feedback, i like you think it adds warmth that appeals to my personal taste.I had the DBX4800 and switched to a BSS Soundweb BLU160. Unfortunately I didn't try them side-by-side with no correction applied at all, but with correction the BSS was far superior. With active-crossover and room correction the BSS has a lot more processing power and flexibility and the end result (in my room) was better.
If my memory serves me correctly, the BSS is more neutral. The DBX adds some warmth to the sound which somebody might prefer but in my system it took some attack away from the sound.
SOrry for all the hifi-ish expressions, but sound is always difficult to describe
OBS: The BSS has a MUCH noisier fan than the DBX... Have this in mind when choosing.
PS : the hifi-ish terms are fine with me.
joe.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote