[Larry McConville]

WmAx,

Yes, your first scenario is exactly how I intend to utilize the unit. I want to manage each sub independently from my listening position to arrive at the best response each location has to offer. Once each is established, I'll then assess the system as a whole.

I have the unit on order and expect to receive this Friday; I'll spend some time this morning assessing mics.

Regards,

Larry M.

Well, do you have more then 2 dedicated sub signals? For example, usually LFE is mono. The DCX can apply separate processing and EQ to each input and output separately. So, if you start with a single mono LFE input, then you patch it to all 6 outputs, you can then apply custom EQ/processing/xover to each output in an isolated fashion. Or you can derive the the bass signal from stereo inputs and mix to mono and then patch to the channel outputs desired.

Now, of course, if you want to send full range input for each channel of a surround system, then you need 2 x DCX2496 devices.

-Chris

 

[Sonnie]

Larry... FYI or heads-up... I have yet to see (no one has shown me any different thus far) what you are trying to do work out properly. When the subs are combined for playback, in all cases I have seen or experienced, the combined response varied greatly from the response of each optimized sub. I will not say that it cannot be accomplished by this method, just very unlikely. Hopefully that is not the "only" reason you are purchasing the DCX.

The easiest and best proven method of equalizing multiple subs is to combine the signal and equalize all subs together. AFAIK, it is really the only accurate way to equalize them. I had two subs for the longest time moved about from position to position... it was impossible to equalize them separately and get good response when combined. I initially thought this was the only way to do it and fought with it for the longest time... then twa-la... just like that I combined the signals and was able to easily equalize the low end response. Same thing when I added the third sub... the only way I could ever get a good response was to equalize them together. Well... actually, I later ended up not even equalizing my last setup of three subs with my BFD when it was all said and done. Instead I let Audyssey equalize them (again combined) for a super smooth response in the low range. Here was my last equalized response:

If you do attempt optimizing them separately, be sure to let us know how it goes. It would be very interesting to see if someone could actually accomplish good results via the separate optimizing method... or should I say, "better" results.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

My experiences were a bit different. I had left and right subs in a non-symmetrical family room (Sonnie's room was a symmetrical shoe-box type), with one in a corner and the other on a wall near an opening. Playing 1/6-octave sine waves I could tell their response was not matching because I could tell a volume difference between the two from one tone to another. I knew this would not be good for music, so I equalized the two subs separately so that their response matched as close as possible.

Bottom line, experiment, because every room is different! But if you have a symmetrical room like Sonnie's chances are good his method is the one you'll end up doing. :T

Regards,
Wayne

 

[Sonnie]

I am thinking that certain frequencies of the multiple subs may very well not match, other than getting the subs themselves level matched with broad band pink noise. If one is producing a 40Hz signal at 90db and the other is producing a 40Hz signal at 100db and you have a combined peak at 40Hz, after eq'ing that combined peak, it makes sense that there will still be the same variance between the two subs at that 40Hz frequency. The eq has no idea which sub to reduce it from... it is reducing the combined signal sent to the subs, therefore both subs get the same cut or boost. Hearing a louder tone out of one over the other would be natural in many cases for varying frequencies... some higher in one, some higher in the other, but that should not ultimately matter since we don't play one or the other, we play both or all and look for the combined response at the listening position.

There have also been several here with various rooms who ended up only being able to eq them combined.

Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:

It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:

 

[Andysu]

I forget all about the remote software for the DCX2496 I’d have to download it again and get that RS-232 lead for it. I think it’s less than £10.00 pounds for lead?

How about a Basic LFE.1, sub bass extension connection to assemble with FBQ2496 patched in with the DCX249 and fruity delicious amplifier with plenty of headroom.

Now you have control over the 20 parametric bands and of course delay time setting on the DCX2496 as well as crossover slopes and as well monitoring a slightly different signal because the FBQ2496 will have lower behaviour when feed to the DCX2496.

Oh that was better! No script error popping up this morning, whew.

Merry Christmas

 

[Sonnie]

Well you really wouldn't need the FBQ2496 since the DCX has plenty of filters that would do the same thing. That DCX is one sweet unit after playing around with the software.

 

[Andysu]

I am thinking that certain frequencies of the multiple subs may very well not match, other than getting the subs themselves level matched with broad band pink noise. If one is producing a 40Hz signal at 90db and the other is producing a 40Hz signal at 100db and you have a combined peak at 40Hz, after eq'ing that combined peak, it makes sense that there will still be the same variance between the two subs at that 40Hz frequency. The eq has no idea which sub to reduce it from... it is reducing the combined signal sent to the subs, therefore both subs get the same cut or boost. Hearing a louder tone out of one over the other would be natural in many cases for varying frequencies... some higher in one, some higher in the other, but that should not ultimately matter since we don't play one or the other, we play both or all and look for the combined response at the listening position.

There have also been several here with various rooms who ended up only being able to eq them combined.

Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:

It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:

You mean if you lifted the sub up off the floor the signal changes strength or it may lower what the individual user is striving for smooth excellence without the huff puffing you wish. Stacking them up is the goal but large ones I mean large ones for the home is impractical. I mean you wouldn’t have room to swing a cat around.

Small ones for modest good low end extension may be more practical providing you don’t have large CRT rear projection or flat screen obstruction the front with limitations on where to place the multiples of subs. Video projection and screen is the key to success, because the speakers will no longer be in your face, more rather behind the screen.

I’ve noticed the change in signal (sine wave) the front has some strong 50Hz 60Hz 80Hz I think and the tone is deep and unbearable on the ear at high level, “the bells the bells” no, no, (the sine wave the sine wave).:bigsmile:

What about what about real life lows that may come into the room from the outside. I have variety of sounds from Yellow Buses airplanes cars motorbikes and so on. It’s the Yellow Buses that stop over the road the tone is low in the room, I’ve monitored something down as low as 30Hz and down it’s the engine sound as it idly hums away.

I haven’t yet walked around the room when it pulls up across the road, to check for dips and peaks just for fun though.


Merry Christmas

 

[Andysu]

Well you really wouldn't need the FBQ2496 since the DCX has plenty of filters that would do the same thing. That DCX is one sweet unit after playing around with the software.

Yes, yes agree and I’ve found the DCX2496 to be more user-friendly I find the FBQ2496 a bit of pigs ear sometimes. Providing the user selects filters on the DCX2496 then you’ll have 9 parametric filters to address and is 1 dynamic EQ filter, LOL all my parametric bands are used up and (I no space left for free percentage space left for dynamic EQ) unless I cut-back on the crossover filters that truly sucks doesn’t it. LOL

I might tinker with it again and look at the crossover filters that provide a smooth easy on the ear though my JBL LCR fronts might take some doing, but it’s doable.

So are you using the DCX2496 sounds like it from your post and is it used for sub bass or LCRS and sub bass?

Merry Christmas

 

[Sonnie]

I just ordered mine, but only plan to use it for my sub.

I suppose you could loop the channels if you needed more filters... or combine two of your outputs to the sub, thereby having two channels of filtering. The DCX is not going to know you combined them. :huh:

 

[Andysu]

I just ordered mine, but only plan to use it for my sub.

I suppose you could loop the channels if you needed more filters... or combine two of your outputs to the sub, thereby having two channels of filtering. The DCX is not going to know you combined them. :huh:

I would say there’s ample, of trail and error experiments that you can achieve with the unit, good luck on the buy hope it works out fine for your sound system. I plan to get a few more these once I’m cleared up my water bill and phone internet changes LOL whew that’s a steep bill! No comment LOL.

Do plan to use the single input for the LFE.1 and feed the outputs to six channels and adjust the differences in time arrival phase polarity and so on. I think its nifty little affordable unit that doesn’t bust the bank. :T

Merry Christmas

 

[Sonnie]

I will only be using it on the sub for now. I might tinker with more later... you can never tell.

 

[Andysu]

I will only be using it on the sub for now. I might tinker with more later... you can never tell.

Afternoon there

How much did you pay for it? I paid around £179.00 if I remember rightly I could have saved £30.00 if I only had used Google product search only a few weeks late LO, still at under £200.00 best audio investment and improvement I’ve spent on for the LCR fronts.:T

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:

That's absolutely right. They should both have the same response in that situation; the only good reason to EQ them separately would be if you were running them stereo.

It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:

Oh, it was extremely difficult and time consuming! Can't count the number of hours spent equalizing them, back before REW and with only 1/3-octave EQs. I originally went the left/right route when I first got subs, because I could localize it if there was only one in the corner, and it irritated me, as I was used to "centralized" bass from both speakers. Life sure got easier (or at least equalizing did!) once I moved them both to the same corner!

Regards,
Wayne

 

[Sonnie]

lol... that reminds me of when we started using the BFD... heehee... the sinewaves, pencil and paper, Excel workbooks, etc. It would take a few minutes to get it all done. I remember spending a few hours all along doing that stuff. :sweat:

How much did you pay for it?

It ended up being about $240. Not too terribly bad. I'll probably sell my BFD for $65 or so... or who knows, I might just give it away. :spend:

 

[Andysu]

lol... that reminds me of when we started using the BFD... heehee... the sinewaves, pencil and paper, Excel workbooks, etc. It would take a few minutes to get it all done. I remember spending a few hours all along doing that stuff. :sweat:


It ended up being about $240. Not too terribly bad. I'll probably sell my BFD for $65 or so... or who knows, I might just give it away. :spend:

So the software program used to be Excel wow.

If you only lived down the road from me, I’ll give you $£65.00 Sonnie, but I’m not going to. I would hold onto it because it will find a new purpose in the sound system or something new and inspiring idea that may be eluding you right now, but in a few months time, you’ll be kicking yourself mate,:hissyfit::bigsmile: (I should have kept the FBQ2496).

I also noted that some Behreinger products have been discontinued and that makes it doubly hard in find a brand new in the box product, Fleabay sod Fleabay the units properly got coca cola sticky stains all over it scratched up and dented in.:rofl:

Merry Charismas

 

[Otto]

I got the DCX2496 for Christmas. I'm very pleased with it. I have a special need in which I mix my stereo L/R and use it as a mono sub signal. That signal is used in addition to my "normal" LFE sub signal. Previously, I was using a little Peavey mixer to mix the L/R to mono, but that's no longer necessary. The DCX2496 accepts three inputs, so I was able to input both my L/R main signals as well as my LFE input.

I also apply a 40Hz LPF to that mono L/R mix, so that I can use it with my relatively full range mains. I used to do that with a bunch of filters on the BFD1124, but it wasn't a very good LPF (though it worked). The DCX2496 can apply a proper LPF easily, so I no longer have to goof around with "making it work" with the BFD1124 and any unused filters I had available.

The PC interface supplied by Behringer to control the DCX2496 is very nice. It makes the signal path intuitive because it's represented visually. I read some of the manual, but really just got it working by playing with the software. I didn't try to set up the DCX2496 through the front panel because it's rather cryptic (as it has to be on such a small interface). The PC GUI is the way to go.

I measured my room's response using REW and then made a good guess as to what filters were needed with the DCX2496. The PC software for the DCX2496 makes its changes to the DCX2496 almost immediately, after which I would immediately measure using REW again. I repeated that process until I found a reasonable response. I did this for both a music and movie setting, and was done with all of it (setup, using the GUI, measurements, etc.) in about two hours. Next time, if necessary, will be much quicker since I now know how to use the thing.

All in all, the Behringer DCX2496 is a great device, especially if you have special requirements above and beyond the norm (in my case, mixing L/R to mono and applying a LPF). I've had the BFD1124 for at least a couple years, and it's a great device as well. The DCX2496 just ups the ante somewhat.

Happy holidays!

 

[Sonnie]

I haven't even taken mine out of the box yet. I want to take a few measurements with REW and see what it looks like... and make sure I will need it, but I can't get my wife to leave for a little while. Could I give someone my phone number and you call my wife and tell her she won a $500 shopping spree at the mall, but she has to use it today? :devil:

I have really debating on keeping my BFD 1124p and buying an ED eQ.2 since it has a variable subsonic filter down to 5Hz, which I will need for my IB setup. We'll just have to see how everything pans out.

 

[danielmichael]

try the ultra curve iv got both if its 4 theater use ie sub u can control more ie 10 band para eq 1 set as <24 db high cut any ware from 20hz to 20khz
has on board limiters real time rta dynamic eqs u can use 4 night viewing 31 band eq feed back destroyer 10 band u have all the tools and the same price ultra drive is better suited in pa system as xover less suited 4 theater sub at that price

 

[Otto]

try the ultra curve iv got both if its 4 theater use ie sub u can control more ie 10 band para eq 1 set as <24 db high cut any ware from 20hz to 20khz
has on board limiters real time rta dynamic eqs u can use 4 night viewing 31 band eq feed back destroyer 10 band u have all the tools and the same price ultra drive is better suited in pa system as xover less suited 4 theater sub at that price

Just so you know, it's much easier for people to understand what you're saying when your writing has punctuation, capitalization, complete sentences, etc.

 

[Sonnie]

Amen... :hail: