For those of you who have been using it. Have you been happy with its performance?
yes
Are there better (sonically) alternatives?
yes, possibly DEQ, I have not own one so cannot confirm.
What mod made the most significant difference?
I have not mod mine
Has it been able to keep up with hi-fi equipment?
yes. For the price you pay for this unit it is an excellent buy.
yes
Are there better (sonically) alternatives?
yes, possibly DEQ, I have not own one so cannot confirm.
What mod made the most significant difference?
I have not mod mine
Has it been able to keep up with hi-fi equipment?
yes. For the price you pay for this unit it is an excellent buy.
I was thinking of using one to cross over actively around 300Hz to the system woofers. I wanted to bypass the DCX for the mid/tweeter amp to minimise the signal path at line level.
One thing concerns me though is propagation delay. The datasheet just says less than 1ms which is a little wooly. If its close to 1ms its significant in messing the phase relationship with the woofers and the mid/tweeters. Or does it vary with the amount of processing thats going on?
Has anyone any experience of using this configuration? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Simon
One thing concerns me though is propagation delay. The datasheet just says less than 1ms which is a little wooly. If its close to 1ms its significant in messing the phase relationship with the woofers and the mid/tweeters. Or does it vary with the amount of processing thats going on?
Has anyone any experience of using this configuration? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Simon
janneman said:
Yes I am aware of your site, first class mod, however adding up all the mods the total price is not cheap, more than unit itself. I will try one day.
Jan, have you try passive components that are similar in freq response to your DCX config., and drive the drivers separately uisng different, ie biamp or triamping, will this approach sounds better using DCX? I am wondering. Any idea?
ttan98 said:
Oh, many years ago I have played with passive xovers before the power amp (coils, caps, R's). There's no reason why this should not sound very good, but it is a very time-consuming and inflexible method.
And there's no advantage to using passive or active xovers before the amps: in both cases most of the time and effort is in setting the xover freqs, slopes and any equalisation networks for your specific drivers. That's where the beauty of a DSP xover with build-in eq comes in: must faster to zoom in on the best setting, and so easy to try out alternatives.
Jan Didden
I made an approach to try to evaluate which is better - a passive or DCX active version.
*I started by creating a crossover in DCX, but trying to keep it simple so it could be reproduced with passive components later.
*After tweakings I got to point where I was happy with the sound.
*Then about 4 months later I created a passive crossover that followed the DCX active one in both transfer function and frequency response as close as possible.
***
Now I have played the active / versus passive version for my audiophile friends and this far all have prefrerred the active solution by small margin. Generally comments are "very similar, but a tad bit more air and freedom in active version".
DCX is configred as a 2ch DAC in case of passive filter and 4ch active in case of active solution using the same 4ch amplifier - so overall should be quite valid comparison. Not a double blind test or fancy like that but good enough proof for me.
Ergo
PS. (I do have both Jan's active and Franks mod in my DCX
)
*I started by creating a crossover in DCX, but trying to keep it simple so it could be reproduced with passive components later.
*After tweakings I got to point where I was happy with the sound.
*Then about 4 months later I created a passive crossover that followed the DCX active one in both transfer function and frequency response as close as possible.
***
Now I have played the active / versus passive version for my audiophile friends and this far all have prefrerred the active solution by small margin. Generally comments are "very similar, but a tad bit more air and freedom in active version".
DCX is configred as a 2ch DAC in case of passive filter and 4ch active in case of active solution using the same 4ch amplifier - so overall should be quite valid comparison. Not a double blind test or fancy like that but good enough proof for me.
Ergo
PS. (I do have both Jan's active and Franks mod in my DCX
)ttan98 said:
There are potentially a number of weak links in the system you can address. The trick is to use an upgrade that is proportionate to the weakest link.
I experimented with the DEQ 2496 9simlar circuit but set up for EQ rather than as a crossover.
My opinion is that the unit will function well if you
1) use the digital input (avoiding the extra AD conversion)
2) replace the the output sections with transformers. There are many threads on this mod.
Please keep in mind the notion of a "proportionate" solution since many transformers can be quite expensive. A modestly priced transformer (for instance an edocr up to a cinemag) can get much of the benefit (you will still need and RC filter to help with the anti-aliasing).
If you need to spend more money, it should probably be directed at the power supply (the second weak link).
Definitely work through the posts at the Yahoo site. There are some very bright and helpful folks there
Regarding the question of whether active is better. That is a tough one. I will mention that an active solution is the only reasonable way to get time-alignment between drivers, if that is an issue in your setup (using horns for instance)
ergo said:I made an approach to try to evaluate which is better - a passive or DCX active version.
*I started by creating a crossover in DCX, but trying to keep it simple so it could be reproduced with passive components later.
*After tweakings I got to point where I was happy with the sound.
*Then about 4 months later I created a passive crossover that followed the DCX active one in both transfer function and frequency response as close as possible.
***
Now I have played the active / versus passive version for my audiophile friends and this far all have prefrerred the active solution by small margin. Generally comments are "very similar, but a tad bit more air and freedom in active version".
DCX is configred as a 2ch DAC in case of passive filter and 4ch active in case of active solution using the same 4ch amplifier - so overall should be quite valid comparison. Not a double blind test or fancy like that but good enough proof for me.
Ergo
PS. (I do have both Jan's active and Franks mod in my DCX
Ergo, that was an interesting comparison. Thanks for sharing!
Jan Didden
ergo,
Thanks for sharing your experience, and I find it very interesting, and my initial impression is similar to yours. There are also many people here on this forum who swear that speakers using passive components are superior.
Following the impression above, an alternative listening test can be conducted using passive components using a separate DAC(similar in quality as the DAC from DCX), hence bypassing the DCX. Then compare it against the DCX with digital x-over.
I like to hear your impression then.
Cheers.
Thanks for sharing your experience, and I find it very interesting, and my initial impression is similar to yours. There are also many people here on this forum who swear that speakers using passive components are superior.
Following the impression above, an alternative listening test can be conducted using passive components using a separate DAC(similar in quality as the DAC from DCX), hence bypassing the DCX. Then compare it against the DCX with digital x-over.
I like to hear your impression then.
Cheers.
Yeah there are several reasons that active and passive crossovers do sound *different* even when having absolutely the same acoustic transfer function.
Deciding which approach is the better on is mainly a subjective matter of taste, wallet and belief but for some specific details in the whole bunch of speaker perception it can be stated that there actually *is* arguable improvement using active crossovers.
http://members.aon.at/kinotechnik/d...wer_compression/thermal_power_compression.pdf
Michael
Deciding which approach is the better on is mainly a subjective matter of taste, wallet and belief but for some specific details in the whole bunch of speaker perception it can be stated that there actually *is* arguable improvement using active crossovers.
http://members.aon.at/kinotechnik/d...wer_compression/thermal_power_compression.pdf
Michael
Ergo, "good sounding" is what works. You can build working crossovers passive or active. There'll be no difference. There's more to it than looking at the transfer function.
Listening tests that are not done as blind tests (or double blind tests) will always be biased and I don't believe in any of the conclusions taken from it. Still I believe that you perceived a difference.
Best, Markus
Listening tests that are not done as blind tests (or double blind tests) will always be biased and I don't believe in any of the conclusions taken from it. Still I believe that you perceived a difference.
Best, Markus
I've been looking at cheap av amps. There are about a million of them.
Will all of these work with the Dcx2496?
Should I pick another one?
Sony STR-DG720
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B155516/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DG720_Zilver/
Sony STR-DG820
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B155592/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DG820_Zilver/
Sony STR-DA 1200 ES
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B121321/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DA_1200_ES_S/
Yamaha RX-V563
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B149871/cid/5001/Yamaha_RX_V563_Titaan/
Onkyo TX-SR506
http://www.mediakomeet.nl//?item=1002291&from=kieskeurig
Pioneer VSX 817-S
http://www.twenga.nl/prijs-VSX-817-S-PIONEER-Audio-Video-versterker-126963-0
Will all of these work with the Dcx2496?
Should I pick another one?
Sony STR-DG720
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B155516/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DG720_Zilver/
Sony STR-DG820
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B155592/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DG820_Zilver/
Sony STR-DA 1200 ES
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B121321/cid/5001/Sony_STR_DA_1200_ES_S/
Yamaha RX-V563
http://www.redcoon.nl/index.php/cmd/shop/a/ProductDetail/pid/B149871/cid/5001/Yamaha_RX_V563_Titaan/
Onkyo TX-SR506
http://www.mediakomeet.nl//?item=1002291&from=kieskeurig
Pioneer VSX 817-S
http://www.twenga.nl/prijs-VSX-817-S-PIONEER-Audio-Video-versterker-126963-0
volume control for multiple outputs
I want to use the DCX for bi-amping plus subwoofer. So I will need to control all 5 outputs at the same time. I know that digital pots (PGA2310 etc.) would be the easiest solution but I have read that their sonics are not so great.
What do you guys use as volume control for multiple outputs???
I want to use the DCX for bi-amping plus subwoofer. So I will need to control all 5 outputs at the same time. I know that digital pots (PGA2310 etc.) would be the easiest solution but I have read that their sonics are not so great.
What do you guys use as volume control for multiple outputs???