Behringer DCX2496 ?

[vince]

Hello. I have been using the parametric Bheringer 2496 units in my home theater for EQ purposses. I have gotten to love what they can do in conjunction with my measurment software and mic. I am currently using a multi channel Marchand MX1 setup that I have custom built so that all my speakers are electronicly crossed over at 24 db per octave. This setup of course is not digital. If I decide to go with these DCX2496 units to take the place of my DIY Marchand setup, what benifit can be relized with going digital? The manual says you can adjust for time arival differences at the listening position for each driver, but I am not so sure I could even measure this accuratly??? I have the RplusD Acoustisoft program with there external B&K mic and sound card setup, (not cheap). Anyway has anyone upgraded to these units and been blown away by the difference (digital) can make??? Seems the wave of the future of course! I have three 2496 units and one BFD unit.
Thanks for any input!

[brucek]

I thought someone with a 2496 might answer, but no luck.

Since you already own the unit, you may be the best one to test it out to see if you like it in place of the Marchand XM1 system.

If you put the XM1 system together well and took care, I doubt that the 2496 unit will beat it. I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality).....

BTW, REW has a distance measuring feature....

brucek

[avaserfi]

While I am not very familiar with the XM1 system what I do see about it online makes me believe it is a simple crossover system that is not adjustable. The Behringer DCX2496 is not only a far more advanced, flexible, crossover unit it also has a variety of other features such as the ability to be used as a high quality, precise, equalizer which would allow one to tailor virtually any desired response presuming one is using sufficiently linear speakers.

brucek wrote:

... I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality).....

With proper DACs being used such as those in the DCX2496 there is no reason to worry about using a digital device. Furthermore, despite Behringer's poor name in the audiophile community* the company has a handful of offerings that are superbly designed and built such that they are completely transparent, unless being used to alter the signal. The DCX2496 is one such unit.

*One can only speculate at why the self proclaimed 'audiophile community' looks down upon various products and companies. In this case, it is likely due to the fact that Behringer mass produces inexpensive gear coupled with their poor production methods in the past.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

brucek wrote:

I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality)....

avaserfi wrote:

With proper DACs being used such as those in the DCX2496 there is no reason to worry about using a digital device.

Ordinarily I'd wholeheartedly vote with brucek in this, but recently I inserted the Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric I've been using for my sub EQ across my mains - just for grins, not expecting much. I was blown away by its transparency and sonic purity, even better than the analog AudioControl 1/3-octave EQs I've been using for the past 12 years. You'd never guess it wasn't analog. Needless to say, I'm looking at these digital processors in a whole new light now.

Regards,
Wayne

[vince]

Yea, I think I am going to purchase one of these units and see what it can do. The features are astounding. I am building three way speakers and one of these units can service a stereo pair just fine with six outputs. The 48db per octave ability is very nice, time delay control for each speaker in the cabinet so no worry about lining up on baffle which introduces problems, EQ functions built in. For three hundred bucks! got to try it and see... I have a ton of man hours involved in building the XM1 multiple setup I,ve built, it is only 24db per octave period, and had to build 12 position high quality pots to control the level of each driver. The whole piece is black powder coated and very attractive, and works well, but still need the 20band parametrics to smooth the in room response. As far a crossover selection, you need to purchase a DIP plug in module for each board, they are only six dollars each, but if you want to experiment it can get quite expensive. I have about $800.00 invested in this piece and it has seven boards total and seven level control pots, so in comparison to the Bheringer DCX with all its functions, it seems like a total no brainer, not to mention one does not have to build the thing!!!

I have looked at some other processors and they seem to look like a more refined looking piece. The thick brushed aluminum face plate with the fancy silk screening, but when you get into the digital rhelm it seems you don't get quite the differences in quality as you do in other electronics, it either works or it does not, having no inbetween. I am no engineer so you guy's tell me if you think that's a true statment or not. I mean do other manufactures use different "1's" and "0's" that are better than someone else??? Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but the funtions seem awesome for the money!!!

Anyone?
Vince

[brucek]

"1's" and "0's" that are better than someone else???

How do you suppose they get the signal to and from the digital section?

brucek

[vince]

I see your point... I have looked at the manufacture of the D to A converters and can't seem to find anything in the way of people in reviews say that they are astounding, or bad for that matter. Is there perhaps a better unit by a different man. that does not cost 27 times the amount for the DCX???

Boy, Behringer shure makes the converter sound awesome in there discription, still trying to think of a way to get the best of features, I would even pay twice as much for a different unit if it was "in fact" better and had the same control features. Anyone know of one??
Vince

[avaserfi]

vince wrote:

I see your point... I have looked at the manufacture of the D to A converters and can't seem to find anything in the way of people in reviews say that they are astounding, or bad for that matter. Is there perhaps a better unit by a different man. that does not cost 27 times the amount for the DCX???

Boy, Behringer shure makes the converter sound awesome in there discription, still trying to think of a way to get the best of features, I would even pay twice as much for a different unit if it was "in fact" better and had the same control features. Anyone know of one??
Vince

The DCX2496 is the proverbial swiss army knife of the audio world. It is completely inaudible unless being used to alter the signal. In cases where it is being used to alter the signal it does exactly what it is programed to do - no more, no less. The large versatility and high build quality of the unit make it an easy choice for anyone looking for a high quality processor.

[mike c]

threadjack...

is the DCX2496 capable of doing this:
taking in inputs from L, C and R
outputs highpassed L, lowpassed L, highpassed C, lowpassed C, highpassed R, lowpassed R?
and what are the crossover points selectable?

[Matt34]

mike c wrote:

threadjack...

is the DCX2496 capable of doing this:
taking in inputs from L, C and R
outputs highpassed L, lowpassed L, highpassed C, lowpassed C, highpassed R, lowpassed R?
and what are the crossover points selectable?

Don't quote me on this Mike but I've been messing around with the GUI program that you can download from the Behringer home page and I believe you can do what you described. I haven't quite figured out how to set X-over points though.

[mike c]

thanks Matt! interesting. it's too bad ONE DCX2496 is not the price of TWO DCX2310's ...

but i will download that program though

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

but when you get into the digital rhelm it seems you don't get quite the differences in quality as you do in other electronics, it either works or it does not, having no inbetween.

Not necessarily, there is still a "build quality" factor. Theoretically, modern 24-bit processors should have dynamic range on the order of 140 dB or so, but even the priciest pro audio digital processors seem to be able to muster only ~100-115 dB at best. The reason is that there are other electronics in the signal path besides the AD/DA converters that affect the EQ's performance.

The BFD, for instance - we can extrapolate from its noise and maximum signal input specs that it should have a dynamic range of ~120 dB.

Sorry, but it ain't so. I also inserted my BFD across my mains, and it was noticeably noisier than my Yamaha YDP2006, an older digital equalizer with only "inferior" 20-bit converters. The Yamaha is dead silent with the input-level switches in the consumer position; the BFD has audible background hiss - faint, but audible if you put your ear to the speaker. With the input switches in the pro position, the BFD's noise floor increases significantly. The Yamaha is much quieter in the pro setting than the BFD is in the consumer setting.

That the 20-bit Yamaha can outperform the 24-bit BFD shows how a manufacturer's attention to the rest of the circuitry makes a difference.

Regards,
Wayne

[piercaub]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Not necessarily, there is still a "build quality" factor. .....
That the 20-bit Yamaha can outperform the 24-bit BFD shows how a manufacturer's attention to the rest of the circuitry makes a difference.

Hello Wayne and all,

do you think that for HiFi equalization of stereo mains, this old YDP2006 can be a better choice than the DEQ2496, if I can get it for the same price?
This device will be inserted between a Denon AVR-1907 as a pre-amp and a Quad-405.
I will probably use a FBQ2496 for my sub (Audience D10) equilization.

Thanks for your advice.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Welcome to the Forum, Pierre!

Can't say if the Yamaha is better because I've never used the DCX. The YDP will be much easier to operate, though, as it is similar to a traditional parametric and has fewer "tricks" than the DCX.

Regards,
Wayne

[piercaub]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

... Can't say if the Yamaha is better because I've never used the DCX ...

Thank you Wayne,
my concern is about the signal alteration that can be introduced by the equilizer.
According to your experience the Yamaha seems very transparent to the original signal.

And according to comments on the french HCFR forum, the DEQ2496 is supposed to need tweaking in order to be used for mains correction.
The DCX2496 seems to be more oriented toward band of frequencies splitting.

Regards.
Pierre.

[terry j]

depends on the rest of the system I spose. I have found the deq to be very good value indeed. maybe I wouldn't put it into the higher end systems, but for most systems I would recommend it. very vague, but I have no idea what we're talking about system wise.

I'm also a bit wary of what 'audiophile' forums might recommend...else I'd be having expensive cables in my system. it may not be that type of forum of course, but an awful lot of 'criticisms' are often based on pre-concieved ideas rather than actual experience. that may be a full on tweak forum in which case listen I guess, and upgrade the unit as you see fit. In any case the first step is the unit itself, you may find no upgrade are necessary.

[bjs]

piercaub wrote:

...The DCX2496 seems to be more oriented toward band of frequencies splitting...

It does much more than that. Have a look at the manual.

Anyway, it does everything I want and sounds perfectly fine to me.

[piercaub]

terry j wrote:

... I have no idea what we're talking about system wise...

My system is not really sophisticated : CD, DVD (Oppo 981) signal go through a Denon AVR-1907.
Then I use the pre-out of the Denon to send:
- LFE + stereo low frequencies (< 80hz) to the Sub (a french Absolute D10)
- left and right stereo channels to a Quad 405
- others channels (central and backs) through the Denon amplifiers

Speakers are the pack KVK4 from Davis Acoustics, not perfect but acceptable.

My objective is to improve both the bass and stereo response in my small room (12 m²) .
Then I need to correct tree channels: sub and stereo.

Apart the DEQ and FBQ association, I have now an other option: the DCX.

[piercaub]

bjs wrote:

It does much more than that. Have a look at the manual.

Good advice!
The DCX seems to have what I need in a single device: 3 separate channels with parametric and dynamic filters.
According to the manual, It should be possible to control signal to the sub and the mains.
Do you use the DCX this way and is it possible to apply REW corrections on this device?

[terry j]

the dcx is mainly designed to replace crossovers etc and go active, The deq is designed to be inserted into the path and provide correction, and is transparent enough to provide quality full range correction. If you describe your system as 'not really sophisticated' then the quality of the deq is easily more than adequate.

having said that, I suppose there is nothing stopping you from inputting the signal into the dcx and only outputting two signals (bands)...one hi passed to the mains (and using their internal x-overs) and low passing to the subs, which now that you've made me think of it is not a bad idea at all. That gives you the result of the mains not receiving any of the sub signal, good idea.

The dcx in this application would only allow you parametric eq, but if you are only using two channels there would be plenty (it doesn't have a set number, but is memory limited).

In any case, the comments on the french forum about 'needing to upgrade the deq to better specs' also apply to the dcx, ie there are a lot of people who 'mod' the dcx to remove/improve perceived inadequacies of the dcx. Again it all depends on the system it's going into whether these mods are worth it. So same reasoning applies, try it and see if you think it needs upgrading. After all, in any case you would need it and it may be perfectly 'fine' stock in your system (which I suspect it will be)

[bjs]

piercaub wrote:

Good advice!
The DCX seems to have what I need in a single device: 3 separate channels with parametric and dynamic filters.
According to the manual, It should be possible to control signal to the sub and the mains.
Do you use the DCX this way and is it possible to apply REW corrections on this device?

I use it to bi-amp my front stereo speakers plus manage the subwoofer. This includes providing the required crossovers as well as notch filters to address cone breakup of my dynamic drivers and filters for dipole equalization of my electrostatic panels. I also use it to time/phase align each driver and I do the parametric EQ of my sub with it also.

REW works fine in the "Generic EQ" mode but doesn't download the filter values into the DCX if that is what you mean. The DCX has a PC based GUI so entering the REW filter values is straightforward.

Having said all that, it's not clear to me what you are actually trying to do. If it is just EQ'ing your sub then the 1124 is good enough and much cheaper. What do you intend to do with your mains?

[bjs]

terry j wrote:

...having said that, I suppose there is nothing stopping you from inputting the signal into the dcx and only outputting two signals (bands)...one hi passed to the mains (and using their internal x-overs) and low passing to the subs, which now that you've made me think of it is not a bad idea at all. That gives you the result of the mains not receiving any of the sub signal, good idea...

Yes, or he could leave his system the way it is and just insert the DCX into the Sub and Stereo (mains) paths since it has three independant channels.

[piercaub]

bjs wrote:

... leave his system the way it is and just insert the DCX into the Sub and Stereo (mains) paths since it has three independant channels.

Yes, it is what I want to do: adjust the room response of both the Sub and the two mains.
Mains are importants because I use my system for HC and HIFI (50/50) and their current response in low frequencies could be better.

If I can insert the DCX between the Denon pre-amp and Sub and mains amplifiers, then I can EQ these three channels both for stereo and DVD 5.1/7.1.

The copy/paste of correction values from REW to the DCX GUI will be fine.
Do you know is the DCX GUI works under Windows Vista?

bjs and Terry thanks again for your advices.

[terry j]

if you simply wish to equalize the entire path, I'd probably go with the deq. that is what it's designed to do, ultimately the dcx is a 'speaker management' system (read set up for active)

maybe price will be the ultimate determinator, but I guess they are roughly the same.

if you are not interested in hi passing the mains then go for the deq. (IMHO)

[bjs]

piercaub wrote:

...Do you know is the DCX GUI works under Windows Vista?...

I use it under XP so can't help on that one.

However you can download the GUI from the Behringer site and try it. It will work without a DCX attached.

Playing with the GUI is also a good way to see what the DCX can or cannot do since all the functions are still available.