dcx2496 shakedown - Page 2 - diyAudio
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 23rd May 2005, 06:16 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Puget Sound
Chris, FLAK sounds good to me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 12:59 PM   #12
Davey is offline Davey  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bremerton, WA.
Yes, I understand this is different than what is recommeded by Rane and Behringer.
I don't know how much clearer I can say it....don't connect pin 1 to 3 on the outputs. Pin 1 goes to your RCA shield and pin 2 goes to the RCA center. Pin 3 is unused and unterminated.

Davey.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 03:43 PM   #13
DougL is offline DougL  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wheaton IL.
Blog Entries: 30
Connect 1 to 3. Pro Audio = good.
1 to 3 open. Consumer Audio = good.

Remember, itís a pro-audio manual.

Pro audio is optimized for higher voltages.
Using pro audio requires you to be aware of the difference.

Doug
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 03:50 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Puget Sound
Thanks for the clarification Davey. I'll give it a try.

I understood that pro audio signal levels are higher but I just didn't want to screw anything up so I built the cable per the manual.

Thanks.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 03:58 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally posted by Davey
Yes, I understand this is different than what is recommeded by Rane and Behringer.
I don't know how much clearer I can say it....don't connect pin 1 to 3 on the outputs. Pin 1 goes to your RCA shield and pin 2 goes to the RCA center. Pin 3 is unused and unterminated.

Davey.
Davey,

Did you see a noticable improvement by doing this? I had it wired the way it was described in the manual and I was pretty happy with the sound. After reading everyones comments I decided to wire it the way you describe. Now I feel like the noise floor is louder than it was the other way. I can hear the "crackling" at my seated listening position during quiet passages, I don't think I was able to before..
However, I might just be listening for it more now than before.

--Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 04:26 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Mars
Default Re: dcx2496 shakedown

I hooked it up to my Feandil-linearray-killer which comprises of a TB-871, Audax PR170M0, and an 8" MCM woofer.

What does the Feandil speaker sound like compared to this one?

The PR170M0s have been waiting for Fountek NeoPro5i's that arrived this past Thursday and for a quartet of Lambda Dipole12s that will arrive this coming Wednesday.

Cool, I see that you are indeed using the design I recommended
to you, the use of that pro ribbon and the Lambda woofers.

Why do you trust my recommendations for your design and at the
same time make a joke about the Feandil design ? Do you know
who recommended the use of the horn and midrange in the Feandil array?

Here is a the Feandil array conceptual CAD drawings, how did
I get them /hehehe

http://home.pacbell.net/lordpk/misc/Feandil-2.GIF
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 04:44 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Mars
I will post one off topic subject to 'clear the air' about the Feandil vs. McIntosh array comments.

Remember, the McIntosh array is about $20,000 US.

Here is what Jim Griffin said about the design.

Actually the Mac design isn't too shabby. If you look at the owners manual it gives you details like driver spacings, line lengths, crossover frequency, etc. so you can defer a lot about this array's theoretical performance.

The woofer and tweeter line lengths are long enough to enable most any normal listening room to be in the near field. That is a good thing.

With the side by side mids the concern is to have them spaced close enough and use a low crossover frequency so that any M to M (side to side now) would be minimal. This would minimize any off-axis nulls in the horizontal dispersion in the frequency range covered by the mids. This spacing is 6.75" (one wavelength for the M to M centers is 2008 Hz and cncellation would occur at twice that frequency) and the crossover is at 1700 Hz.

The side by side mid-woofers yield symmetrical horizontal dispersion radiation and minimizes any lobing assocatied with the low order (2nd and 3rd) specificed crossover slopes. The tradeoff that the designer has to consider is the small diameter of the mids (closer M to M spacing) and low crossover frequency that would be dictated by this side by side configuation. The smaller mids would also limit the array's lower frequency extension as it does in this design.

The vertical M to M spacing is on 4.5" centers (one WL is 3013 Hz). With the crossover at 1700 Hz you should be free from comb lines even with the second and third order crossover slopes. The T-M spacing is 3.375" (one WL at 3616 Hz) so again with the low crossover you will maintain good dispersion as sound transitions from mid woofer to tweeter lines.

I'm troubled by the tweeter to tweeter spacings as anyone who has read my white paper would understand. The center to center spacings for the tweeters is 2.75" (one WL 4931 Hz and two WL 9863 Hz). Hence, you'll have the first cancellation at 9863 Hz and vertical axis comb line effects in the upper octave (10-20,000 Hz). Likely the tweeter line sensitivity in the upper octave will also show a downward slope so that the crossover would have to attenuate the lower part of the tweeter band to flatten out the overall band. Bottom line is that the tweeters are too far apart to cover the upper ocatve without comb lining and associated sensititivy reduction.

You know I really like a line of planar or ribbon drivers instead of dome tweeters which would alleviate these tweeter line issues. You can improve this design by spacing the tweeters closer but it would require more drivers and even then you really need to get the center to center spacing within 1.35"--preferably less than one inch.

If I were doing a design with dual rows of mid-woofers, I would use ribbon tweeters and crossover low enough to minimize the side by side mids effects as done by Mac. The keys are the low crossover frequency and the close spacing between the mids. The ribbons would be able to alleviate the dome tweeter issues assocaited with this design.

Jim


http://audioroundtable.com/ArraySpea...sages/495.html


You folks assume because it has a McIntosh name the design is without flaw. Anyone can see the flaws of the design and DIY'er
today that want to build a serious line array wouldn't use that
McIntosh recipe.

For $20,000 US, I think the design should be better than
isn't too shabby.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 05:28 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Puget Sound
Default Re: Re: dcx2496 shakedown

Quote:
Originally posted by thylantyr
Why do you trust my recommendations for your design and at the
same time make a joke about the Feandil design ? Do you know
who recommended the use of the horn and midrange in the Feandil array?
My joke wasn't about the design. It was about the individual. I was impressed with the magnitude of the project. Less impressed by the attitude.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 06:41 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Default Re: Re: Re: dcx2496 shakedown

Quote:
Originally posted by ultrachrome


My joke wasn't about the design. It was about the individual. I was impressed with the magnitude of the project. Less impressed by the attitude.
LOL, I was about to respond to this post as well ...

Thylantyr, I was not trying to disrespect you or your work.. In fact, I thank you for the suggestions on my own project. I believe that Feandil suffers from one of the oldest problems in the business world :

Great product, terrible marketing...

--Chris
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd May 2005, 08:06 PM   #20
Davey is offline Davey  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bremerton, WA.
Chris,

Yes, I noticed a significant drop in the noise, although mine wasn't really obtrusive to begin with. You shouldn't notice "crackling" in any case. This makes me think your unit might be afflicted with the connector problems that some of the users have noted.

Cheers,

Davey.
  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
Wtb: Dcx2496 Spasticteapot Swap Meet 3 20th February 2009 12:53 AM
Dcx2496 & Ntm roburg Digital Line Level 0 31st December 2007 06:11 PM
Is this all I need for the DCX2496 ? Will Digital Source 17 25th November 2007 07:30 AM
Wtb: Dcx2496 bjackson Swap Meet 0 7th February 2006 12:54 PM
Gc + Dcx2496 audiobot Chip Amps 1 3rd April 2005 10:13 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.


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