Behringer DCX2496 ?

Re: Bheringer DCX2496 ?

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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??? :dumbcrazy:Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but the funtions seem awesome for the money!!!:dontknow:

Anyone?
Vince

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.

Click to expand...

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

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)