Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th March 2011, 08:11 AM   #11
Koenjer is offline Koenjer  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Default sorry to spoil the fun

Behringer , DBX, LEM, all of those cheap DEQ and signal processors are crap.
You can't expect a good signal processor for $400.

Yes they all work, but none of them sounds good.
- No headroom
- 48db slopes? (anyone ever saw what happened with the phase?)
- Crapy build quality
- cheap electronics.

As someone above allready mentioned, the real processors starts with:
- Dolby Lake
- Klark Teknik 9848
- Meyer Galileo
- Electrovoice Netmax
- XTA

The Xilica is a good competitor but not yet at the level of the above processors.

If we are talking about HIFI who the **** is going to downgrade their system with a cheapass behringer crossover?

It doesn´t make sense to me at all!
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 09:05 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Radugazon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sulawesi
I agree that the CS 8420 is a flawed design, but there's a good medication for that.
But nobody can reasonably say that the AK 4393 fitted in standard in behringer cheap line is the worse DAC in the market.

Have to explain too in what the 48 dB slopes of a Klark Teknikn for example, are less shifting the phase (Klark 9848 is not FIR)...

Could it be an effect of the 5000$ price ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 09:50 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
DBMandrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Can't agree about the quality of Behringer being crap, I've had one of the first generation (version 1.x) DEQ2496 since about 2003, and I've been using it on a daily basis for active speaker equalization. (Mainly the Parametric EQ and Graphic EQ, but I occasionally use the Compressor when watching movies late at night )

I'm using the analogue inputs and outputs in the line level signal processor loop of my amplifier, (not the lower level pre-main loop after the volume control) and have never used the digital inputs/outputs. I've seen a lot of articles about modifying the analogue circuits for "better" quality, but I'm a bit sceptical that such modifications are needed or provide any real benefit. (If it was so easy to modify, why didn't the manufacturer do it themselves ?)

I've used it with a variety of speakers and amps and at no time have I ever felt that it was introducing any loss of quality, I've always found the quality exceptional in fact, especially compared to any analogue equalizers that it replaced. (I always run it in 24bit 96Khz mode)

Admittedly I have had one break down, after about 3 years it blew the power supply. It turned out that a loose screw on the main signal board had fallen out and got wedged under the power supply board shorting the power rails, blowing up the power supply.

It was out of warranty by then so I fixed the power supply myself (blown rectifier diodes) and it has been fine the 4 years since then, so I think this is more a freak occurrence than an indication of low quality.

For the price or even twice it's price I think it's really hard to beat. My only complaints with it would be:

* Minimum step size for GEQ and PEQ amplitude is 0.5dB - sounds small, but when you're experimenting with "voicing" of speakers, especially shelving adjustments, 0.5dB is really a bit too large of a step, 0.25dB would have been nice.

* Room Auto-EQ mode is nearly useless, as it attempts to make naive narrow band GEQ corrections based on steady state pink noise measured at the listening position, something doomed to failure in a normal home listening environment as it ends up equalizing the speaker/room power response instead of the on-axis response. I never use this mode.

* I've found a couple of minor bugs in the UI, one relating to the GEQ mode where in some circumstances the amplitude of the 16Khz band of the GEQ is not exactly what is visibly set. As mine is a first generation unit there are no firmware updates beyond 1.4 for it - it might be fixed in the 2.x firmware updates for the 2nd generation unit.

* Updating firmware is a bit fiddly - you need a MIDI interface cable, and a 3rd party program to upload a midi sysex file, not exactly user friendly. Only one firmware update ever came out for my first generation model (1.4) but I believe there have been 2 or 3 releases for the 2.x devices.

* In theory the device is fully remote controllable via the midi interface, however unlike some of their other units Behringer have not provided any software to do this. I have only seen one free Windows program which attempts to exploit this functionality (discussed on this forum in fact) but it's very buggy and incomplete to the point where I didn't find it usable. Pity, remote control from a laptop would have been very handy for making adjustments while at the listening position.

* Some of the features aren't useful in a home environment, for example the feedback suppressor, and the analogue inputs/outputs are XLR, although they do support unbalanced operation with the appropriate cables with a link wire at the XLR end.

Minor niggles really, I'm very happy with it in other ways
__________________
- Simon
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 12:22 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprinter View Post
I wonder if I even need the DEQ. What I ultimately need minimally is a two-way variable crossover at least 3rd order, plus an EQ that I can use for general system and room EQ. The EQ should be digital mostly because I want to have several switchable settings programmed for different music and situations. I think parametric-only would be okay, although the 1/3 octave graphic is certainly nice, but frankly, I don't understand how they work well enough to judge what is adequate for me.

Will the DCX or a similarly priced alternative do all that adequately for home purposes? I'd also like to use REW or similar to sweep the room, but I am willing to manually input the suggested settings to the EQ.

Sorry Galileo people, unless you want to loan me the $3200, that one is out...

Do my questions make sense? I'm really new to this stuff.

Thanks
I'd say either get the BBE DS48 or take a chance on the Behringer. The BBE will do whatever you want to do; I have a friend that uses them for small church installs and I don't believe he has ever had one go down. Maybe Behringer has cleaned up their act on these after all; these testimonials are counter to my experience but I haven't bought one in a while.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 05:24 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Seattle
Thank you guys for a very instructive discussion. I think I have a much better feel for what I need now. Thanks for the heads up on the BBE line. Sounds like a good alternative. I'll be studying up on this stuff some more and decide.

I wonder if a lot of the Behringer problems stem from loose hardware. I've seen a lot of descriptions of failures that sound like physical problems such as screws causing shorts, etc. If I did get a Behringer, I think I'd want to take the cover off and just look around. Or would that void the warranty? Odd dilemma.

I appreciate that you get more for $3000, but if you just plain don't have it, I would bet that a $300 device is a whole lot better than no device.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 09:56 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Radugazon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sulawesi
Quote:
I would bet that a $300 device is a whole lot better than no device.
You got the word !!!

And with this crappy piece of gear, you will soon discover that before it, you knew nothing about filters and finally speaker optimization.

People traditionally are splitting hairs for the relative performance of different models.

BUT 90% of the difference between crap or great results will come from YOU. I mean how skilled you are for measuring, setting up the EQ, the Fc, their slopes, the time alignment and finally listening analytically what you have done.

He He, and if you become perfectionist, except the FIR brickwall, a stoopid DCX can emulate almost any filter topology, including the substractive delay ones...
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2011, 10:20 PM   #17
FrankWW is offline FrankWW  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: n/a
I've used the DEQ and DCX at home for years and they're fine for that use.

However, the finish was not good.

On the DCX the input output fittings were not screwed down properly and introduced a rumbling sound. On the DEQ the circuit board was shorting out on the case and so it wasn't getting beyond initialization - I fixed that by sliding a thin piece of card between case and board. No problems since.

So, yes examine the device really carefully when you get it. If you don't scratch the screws who's to know if you ever took the case off?
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2011, 04:02 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Morokulien
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koenjer View Post
Behringer , DBX, LEM, all of those cheap DEQ and signal processors are crap.

You can't expect a good signal processor for $400.
I'm thinking that if you can provide the basic functional construction for $400, then another few dollars might make the hardware decent sounding (not the best, but decent), if it isn't already. Other than that the cost of the development can be amortized away for a high volume product such as the Behringer boxes.

Quote:
Yes they all work, but none of them sounds good.
- No headroom
- 48db slopes? (anyone ever saw what happened with the phase?)
Isn't headroom in practice up to how the user chooses to gain stage the setup? Of course, the meters may or may not show correct absolute values. If the digital interfaces are used there's no actual headroom in that part of the signal chain anyway.

The DEQ2496 uses phase linear FIRs, if I'm not mistaken. Would it not be possible that it sounds good, having no phase anomalies, if using digital IO or making the appropriate modifications to the analogue electronics?

Quote:
- Crapy build quality
- cheap electronics.
This is where I feel Behringer is a let down. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my units have been plagued by mains hum (and one DOA) to the point where they're not usable. Others are not reporting any problems with the analogue sound. Possibly very inconsistent then (but is it the boxes or the users? ). Something like the DEQ2496 could be pretty sweet out of the box if another one hundred dollars or so were thrown at the electronics. Software and feature wise I reckon it's pretty sweet already, i.e. the digital aspects of it - apart from the ultra expensive boxes out there, I can't really find anything else to match it. Thus it's seems to be a good case for DIY mods.

DJ
--
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2011, 04:21 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
For high power amps - Behringer is hard to go wrong with. For everything else - not so much. We've used the Drive Rack, BBE DS48, and DCX 2496. The only one that's given us trouble has been the DCX2496. A Google search on problems with this unit pretty much tells the story - everything from boards shorting out on the chassis to poor soldering issues. The DBX and BBE units, while not as "full featured" as some of the other more expensive alternatives, are at least reliable and produce excellent sound. The Behringer sounds great too - when it's not busy crashing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th March 2011, 12:19 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
DBMandrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
How different are the DCX2496 and DEQ2496 in design an construction though ? Which one is older ? Problems with the DCX2496 may not necessarily apply to the DEQ2496 if their designs are significantly different.
__________________
- Simon
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tube reliability chopchip Tubes / Valves 8 7th November 2010 10:47 PM
Vintage reliability? Skorpio Solid State 7 29th March 2010 04:05 PM
Class A reliability greg788 Solid State 8 30th June 2007 02:34 AM
6C33C-B, Reliability--A theory........ Alastair E Tubes / Valves 4 14th December 2005 07:25 PM
Reliability of WINISD Mos Fetish Multi-Way 8 8th March 2003 04:10 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2