another one of those statements that seems to be made to push a certain agenda - except the truth of the matter.
Those statements belong in a cable thread with their sweeping nonsense..
I have run the DCX unmodded for several years now, and compared it to a marchand analog active xover. I was not able to hear in analog mode any difference between a marchand and the dcx, but it sounded better overall - to me - when feeding the dcx with a digital direct signal direct from a cd player.
That doesn't mean I take anything away from the modders efforts - I just have problems with know it alls making sweeping statements of the above quoted kind.
I have allways listened to the DEQ and the DCX (Connected digital) trough my headphones and headamp.Now I bought a pair of speakers (until I finnish my DIY speakers,made for biamping)and I listened for 5 minutes then connected the amp (Symasym) to the output of my DEQ,and I will not conect the DCX until I have modded it...
i will install regular volum POTS and all adjust them by hand on the amplifier section...
i'll adjust the total volume of the 12 channels or so,
by the source ( computer .. )
no need for fancy volume controls...
but thanks for the advice!
so what about the analogue output stage of the DCX??
is it worth it for the mods? power supply? output board kit ?
i'll adjust the total volume of the 12 channels or so,
by the source ( computer .. )
no need for fancy volume controls...
but thanks for the advice!
so what about the analogue output stage of the DCX??
is it worth it for the mods? power supply? output board kit ?
Some say you should allways have the input signal at 0db on DEQ-->DCX.
But I wonder..right now I have the TV sound trough the "stereo"
and at loud transients the redlights on DEQ flasches.
But when talkshows and stuff 2 or 3 green leds light up,does this meen,the sound (resolution) isn´t as good as it could be?
Ah, gain structure. I could pontificate at length, but I'll keep it simple.
There are two aspects here: noise floor and digital bandwidth.
Digital bandwidth is simple, to use the full resolution of the device, the analogue input signal has to peak just below the maximum level that the AD converter can cope with, that way the signal is encoded with maximum resolution, and you get more detail captured.
Noise floor is also simple, every device produces a certain fixed level of noise. If the signal levels are low, that noise is greater in proportion to the signal than if the signal was as loud as possible. An example, a black box can take up to 10V input signals, and produces 0.1V of noise. If you feed it 10V, apparent noise is about 1%, but if you only feed it 1V, it is 10% of the signal.
This is why you must set the input levels of the decoder to just below peaking, to maximise digital resolution, and reduce noise.
In Ryssen's example, yes, he is losing out on best performance with the talk shows, but unless he spends more time listening to that kind of thing, then it's not really worth altering the gain structure in his audio chain to compensate. The major thing to avoid is overloading digital input stages, that sounds really nasty...
There are two aspects here: noise floor and digital bandwidth.
Digital bandwidth is simple, to use the full resolution of the device, the analogue input signal has to peak just below the maximum level that the AD converter can cope with, that way the signal is encoded with maximum resolution, and you get more detail captured.
Noise floor is also simple, every device produces a certain fixed level of noise. If the signal levels are low, that noise is greater in proportion to the signal than if the signal was as loud as possible. An example, a black box can take up to 10V input signals, and produces 0.1V of noise. If you feed it 10V, apparent noise is about 1%, but if you only feed it 1V, it is 10% of the signal.
This is why you must set the input levels of the decoder to just below peaking, to maximise digital resolution, and reduce noise.
In Ryssen's example, yes, he is losing out on best performance with the talk shows, but unless he spends more time listening to that kind of thing, then it's not really worth altering the gain structure in his audio chain to compensate. The major thing to avoid is overloading digital input stages, that sounds really nasty...
Hi
Al, well put !
There are additional aspects to be considered though.
Investigating into harmonics – over in Earl' thread – some interesting things came up. What I refer to there is NOT about the DCX but measurements with the ONYX 400F soundcard that uses AD / DA converter and opamps of the same manufacturers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1313779#post1313779
In short, the limits sound wise are the analogue parts as they are pushed hard to stay low with their noise. This way they distort to some degree when fully driven.
The very best distortion free dynamic range at a tweaked setting was roughly 18 – 19 bit.
This was achieved at a OUT level of –12 dBFS and a IN level of – 20 dBFS.
My advice would be to set NEITHER input NOR output close to max therefor.
It's better to mask the sonic pattern of harmonics with noise than to let them stick out.
Adjust the sensitivity of your amps accordingly.
Greetings
Michael
pinkmouse said:Ah, gain structure. I could pontificate at length, but I'll keep it simple.
There are two aspects here: noise floor and digital bandwidth.
.....
The major thing to avoid is overloading digital input stages, that sounds really nasty...
Al, well put !
There are additional aspects to be considered though.
Investigating into harmonics – over in Earl' thread – some interesting things came up. What I refer to there is NOT about the DCX but measurements with the ONYX 400F soundcard that uses AD / DA converter and opamps of the same manufacturers.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1313779#post1313779
In short, the limits sound wise are the analogue parts as they are pushed hard to stay low with their noise. This way they distort to some degree when fully driven.
The very best distortion free dynamic range at a tweaked setting was roughly 18 – 19 bit.
This was achieved at a OUT level of –12 dBFS and a IN level of – 20 dBFS.
My advice would be to set NEITHER input NOR output close to max therefor.
It's better to mask the sonic pattern of harmonics with noise than to let them stick out.
Adjust the sensitivity of your amps accordingly.
Greetings
Michael
audio-kraut said:
Hello Audio-kraut,
I have a problem with your statement. To start with - pushing a certain agenda?
What agenda is on your mind. Please let me know I will be delighted to find out.
I have quite respect for your opinion and I think it is pointless to try to prove or change something. It is your opinion, you are entitled to it and I really believe you. I have quite different opinion on the subject, but interestingly it is myself and lots of other people that had same urge to modify this unit. There must be a reason for it, I would think. I am wondering have you had a chance to hear modded version?
If you haven't I would suggest to try. If you did, and you still feel the same than fine, it is your system, your ears and you know what is best for yourself.
I did lots of listening test where I compared this Behringer in two channel mode, just as a typical stereo DAC to other stand alone high quality DACs that I have available. My opinion is based on that - how does it sound not as a crossover but as a DAC.
I evolved from Marchand as well, and on the top of that I have passive crossover installed in speaker with switch that allows me to switch between active and passive. I am very confident in my statement because it is based on solid listening tests and comparisons. Let say that listening tests are not good choice to argue about. But if that is the case look at the circuit topology after the DAC chip. Signal goes through bunch of low quality opamps; it is converted from balanced to single ended and again from single ended to balanced. Not to mention that in order to kill DC signal goes through electrolytic caps. Are you saying that all that doesn't matter and that this discussion belongs to cable conversations?
One of the main reasons to do active is to provide direct link between amp and speaker, allowing each amp to do its best. If in order to achieve this we loose all details and signal purity than in my mind we are wasting out time and energy. Have you ever listened good DAC directly connected to the amp with nothing in between besides passive attenuator? That is my goal. With good modifications that Jans kit or similar kit offers you will be able to hear sound that is close to above mentioned goal. Behringer in stock option is far away from that ideal. All that is needed is to listen and compare.
Good luck
Ar2
It is quite funny to have this conversation in this thread, after some 60 pages of modding conversations.
whiterabbit said:
Interesting question! I hadn't thought about that, but it turns out that it is possible to drive multiple DCX'es with a single remote. It would involve running a 6-wire flatcable between the units.
The other DCX would be run from the 'master' and only the master will have the new additional display active. The volume on all units would be synchronized. If you would also want to use the balance and channel level offset options, all DCX'es would act the same, so if you would set the woofer channel to -6dB with respect to the overall level, as an example, that would set all output 1 & 2 channels on all DCX'es in the system to -6dB. Don't know if you would want that, but depends on your particular multichannel setup of course.
Jan Didden
The agenda I see at work is pushing the sale of a DIY part of - to me - doubtful benefit.
BTW - I would consider - just for fun - to purchase that part, would it be offered with balanced outputs.
Anyway, my argument wasn't the mod itself, it was a statement to the effect that passive would be better than active with an unmodded dcx - and that is a statement I find complete nonsense in its sweep and when compared to my own listening experience.
audio-kraut said:
I have no involvement in any part production or sale, neither I am linked to anyone who sells modifications.
I still have my own modification with hand wiring job inside the unit. I went on my own through the process of investigation and research, which awarded me with good result and huge expense. Just to mention few: 6 x Lundahl transformers - $ 95 each. = $ 570.00
Used Apex 6 channel balanced attenuator: $ 350.00 XBosoz preamps x 3 with power supplies - aprox $ 350.00 Two cases: $ 160.00 to host all above Additional wiring, XLRs male and female x 6 plus RCAs plus switches to switch from balanced to single ended aprox $ 70.00
So all together aprox. $ 1500.00
Finally my DCX died recently so I purchased another one where the first one will serve for further experimenting - exchanging DACs for better ones, exchanging Crystal Logic receiver, exchanging internal clock and providing master clock...
So with all that I could clearly state that what Jan and Soletronic ( I know my spelling here must be bad) offer is bargain to what I spent and went through with my experiments and research. I do not regret my way, quite contrary I am glad I did it. I learned a lot and the results are there, but I hope to give advice to someone who is at the beginning of what I already went through and to help them recognize real value. I do not see anything inappropriate here. If you do, please point it out to me.
If you don't I am owed an apology.
I do like active set up a lot, I am using it. It has huge benefits over passive. Still if price for active is loss of microdetailes and openness of top end, what is characteristic of high quality system and what separates the best from average, than I am for passive. Hopefully modifications allow us to achieve both at least in my experience.
Ar2
I know I can go pretty high on the red leds on the DEQ,DCX before I hear distortion,but then again it´s pretty hard to hear when the distortion starts to rise,if I dont messaure it.So i Guess it´s better to lower it to be on the safe side.
I thought about that to,as I am a member of some Swedish hifi forums to,just resantly we had that same discussion there,and they don´t like hidden advertising,well I am not the one to judge that,I stay in my corner..
At least to me that is no nonsense,I heard it loud and clear!And I was sober,(have been for the last 15 years..)And those speakers I bought until I finnish my DIY speakers (That will hopefully be much better than this ones are)cost about 450$ new,and I heard it so clear.(even heard it with my HD650).One thing I´ve noticed is that some people hear it and some don´t, I don´t know why that is.Honestly.
There is little we agree on the subject, and any further conversation is pointless. I will stop right here since there is no reason to take anyone's time in conversation that could turn only into more aggravations on both sides. As I mentioned earlier, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it. Getting into heated discussion where there are so many variables on both sides is waste of time. My only conclusion is that maybe we didn't have a chance to listen same high res passive systems. I need to point out that I do use active system and I am quite aware of its benefits over passive set up.
AR2 and/or Audio Kraut or anyone
I am designing a pair of speakers(and more in future) and currently using an active analog x-over,Behringer CX3410. I found it to be a little restrictive ie I cannot change the filter slope, etc.
I have been thinking of switching over to DCX2924 for sometimes now but have not bought it yet. I prefer the DCX as passive filters cost too much, lack flexibility, troublesome, etc. My questions are:
1. To Audio Kraut, CD player digital o/p direct connection
to DCX gives better performance or sonic quality to
a standard DAC whose analog o/p is connected to
the analog input of the DCX?
This is what I gather from your posting.
2. To AR2, is DAC from the DCX(without mod) is good
enough in terms of sonic performance, compared to a
good quality DAC feeding a analog active x-over like
the Behringer?
3. Finally is it worthwhile to switch to digital
DCX(without mod initially) and dump the analog
x-over, a general question. If so
what is the most effective way to give the best
performance in your opinion.
thanks.
I am designing a pair of speakers(and more in future) and currently using an active analog x-over,Behringer CX3410. I found it to be a little restrictive ie I cannot change the filter slope, etc.
I have been thinking of switching over to DCX2924 for sometimes now but have not bought it yet. I prefer the DCX as passive filters cost too much, lack flexibility, troublesome, etc. My questions are:
1. To Audio Kraut, CD player digital o/p direct connection
to DCX gives better performance or sonic quality to
a standard DAC whose analog o/p is connected to
the analog input of the DCX?
This is what I gather from your posting.
2. To AR2, is DAC from the DCX(without mod) is good
enough in terms of sonic performance, compared to a
good quality DAC feeding a analog active x-over like
the Behringer?
3. Finally is it worthwhile to switch to digital
DCX(without mod initially) and dump the analog
x-over, a general question. If so
what is the most effective way to give the best
performance in your opinion.
thanks.