Behringer DCX2496 x-over, better than passive?

[AR2]

Between Ergo's, DIY_newbie's and Gary P's reply you have all the wisdom regarding DCX unit. My advice is - build your pasive crossover while you are modding DCX. It is a long standing project that is not cheap. Starting with volume control, and elimination of any original analog circuitry within DCX because it really sucks. If you have any decent system with good DA converter you will hear huge downgrade by suplementing it with DCX as a DA converter. Original circuitry is bad so I have to say modding is a must. But think in the terms of modding 12 channels. That is 6 ballanced channels of everything you do. I never used analog inputs simply because that will make double DA/AD conversion which is to be avoided at any cost.
Here is the link for my mod:
X-Bosoz Finished
Just like Gary P I had a great success with line level transformers right after DA converters. I would recomennd it to anyone.
Regarding features on DCX - there is nothing like sitting comfortly in the sofa in front of your speakers with lap top computer and changing all kinds of settings live!
Delay, EQ, crossover points, mute single drivers, attenute separate drivers... All while you listening effects. Even if you are not going to use DCX later you could use it just to test design of your future pasive XOver. Not to mention that DCX and Sound Easy are talking to each other.

[Raka]

AR2, you can get this also with a cheap SB and kx drivers. Approximate price: less than 20 euro.

[AR2]

Hi Raka,
long time since I spoke with you. How you've been?
Yes you are right, but that was just one feature out of many presented with DCX. Obviously with SB you will have your computer forever tied to your system if you would like to use it permanently as active crossover. As I mentioned in the text all the mods and volume control will cost multiples of price for DCX. DCX itself has rally bargan price. The only unit that could be compared to modded DCX would be DEQX that goes for $ 3,000.00. I had oportunity to listen DEQX with analog outputs and it doesn't sound as good as DCX with transformers in the output but it is certainly convenient for the people that do not want to DIY. I do not recall any other product that will compare to DCX with modifications. Correction - you could order DEQX with digital outs which is something that I would prefer but not for that price.
All in all you really have to be determined to make this to work and if you do you will be happy. Are there more expensive ways to do it - yes, less expensive - yes, but with moded DCX you will have a serious audiophile tool.

[fazman]

Thanks for everyone's input on this.
I am a bit old school and all this modification and op amps after the DCX makes me happy tweaking my passive crossover.
The speakers afterall sound pretty damn good as they are and the added expense of extra amps... well I don't know if I can justify it. So thanks again everyone .

[Vikash]

Originally posted by EC8010
Two channels is enough for anybody. Or was it 640k?

7.1 is just a passing fad, and won't last.

[thylantyr]

You don't need to mod the DCX.
You don't need to use only the digital input.
You don't need output attenuators.

Paranoid people need pills

I'll bet my paycheck that if I conduct an ABX test using
a modded DCX vs. stock DCX, you will fail the test.

If you are still confused then go and buy a DBX product
over Behringer as the price of a modded DCX can probably
exceed the cost of a different brand.

[DIY_newbie]

LOL,

I was going to stay out of this end part of the discussion but now you've got me started Thy... Why do you have to drag me into this???

Originally posted by thylantyr
You don't need to mod the DCX.
You don't need to use only the digital input.
You don't need output attenuators.

On the frist one : Agreed, unless you just like to mod things
One the second and third: Agreed, unless you just want the best sound possible.

Wether or not people can hear the actual difference between using the digital inputs or the A->D converter is debatebale. Regardless of onee's ability to hear this, it is another source of adding error/noise to the sytem. Why do it unless you have to??

The same goes for the attenuators. If you want to keep the maximum dynamic range and the highest signal to noise ratio you want to run the D->A converter at the highest level. I have no idea where the human threshold for noise is -90db, -75db??? I have no clue, same reasoning as above holds true: It is another source of adding error/noise to the sytem. Why do it unless you have to??

Originally posted by thylantyr
Paranoid people need pills

Pills area always good

Originally posted by thylantyr
I'll bet my paycheck that if I conduct an ABX test using
a modded DCX vs. stock DCX, you will fail the test.

I would actually like to see this. I would agree with you on the inability to hear the difference between a stock and modded DCX.

One a side note, a buddy of mine and I ran blind ABX testing on the DEQ (no adjustment, just A->D, D->A) with the levels matched and we could definetly tell the difference with the DEQ in the loop. Funny thing is neither of us preferred one or the other but we could definetly tell when it was there..

Originally posted by thylantyr
If you are still confused then go and buy a DBX product
over Behringer as the price of a modded DCX can probably
exceed the cost of a different brand.

[/SoapBox]

--Chris

[Tenson]

Originally posted by DIY_newbie
I would actually like to see this. I would agree with you on the inability to hear the difference between a stock and modded DCX.


--Chris [/B]

I'd have to say bollocks to that

I had an unmodded DEQ2496 as DAC. I found it slightly harsh and distorted. I bypassed the output stage with transformers and it was much better. I could really hear the higher IMD before, now I could play it much louder (as sown by the SPL meter on the DEQ!) without it sounding too loud. There were many other improvements but in a blind test this IMD is what I think I would hear as the give away.

[DIY_newbie]

Originally posted by Tenson



I'd have to say bollocks to that

I had an unmodded DEQ2496 as DAC. I found it slightly harsh and distorted. I bypassed the output stage with transformers and it was much better. I could really hear the higher IMD before, now I could play it much louder (as sown by the SPL meter on the DEQ!) without it sounding too loud. There were many other improvements but in a blind test this IMD is what I think I would hear as the give away.

You where using the DEQ purly for DAC? or AD->DA conversion?

Since you say "I could play it much louder (as sown by the SPL meter on the DEQ!)", I'm assuming your driving it analog?

You cannot claim your output stage created improvement without runnin it exactly the same conditions as before. (same input level, same output volume). If your output stage changed the output level for the same input (which it sounds like it did) you may be hearing the benefits of an increased analog level at the A->D stage of the DEQ.

If you're feeding the DEQ or DCX with an analog signal you would probably "hear" the most benefit from installing attenuators on the outputs allowing you to drive the DEQ or DCX with the highest possible amplitude on its inputs..

If you're feeding it digitally, what are you using for volume control?

Regards,

--Chris

[AR2]

Originally posted by thylantyr
You don't need to mod the DCX.
You don't need to use only the digital input.
You don't need output attenuators.

Paranoid people need pills

I'll bet my paycheck that if I conduct an ABX test using
a modded DCX vs. stock DCX, you will fail the test.

If you are still confused then go and buy a DBX product
over Behringer as the price of a modded DCX can probably
exceed the cost of a different brand.

I will take your paycheck.

I think you and I already debated this in some other tread. Regardless, I do not want to change your opinion but just to share what I have experienced. Everyone's system is different and sometimes what makes big difference for one it is not equal for someone else.
In my case I kept for a while two DCX channels unmoded and four channels with mod. I also have very good full range speakers with passive xover as my second set. That allows me to easily test anything that I do. That is how I made easy A/B test where i used DCX just as DA converter and not like crossover. I also have CalLab stand alone vacuum tube DA converter heavily improved that I consider as my reference for DA conversion. Certainly much better than DCX as a DA converter.
With all my listening tests unmoded DCX dolls out the sound and losses clarity. If you are not comparing that sound to something else than you would say, yes it's OK. But in the moment I switch to Cal Lab or to moded channel I have feeling that everything gets more open and clear.
When I compare just moded channel with transformer behind DA converter to Cal Lab DA it is better or let me say different. Very clear and open.
This is also question of taste. I prefer minimal equipment in the chain. Absolutely anything that is in the chain will affect sound. With DA converter and transformer behind and one resistor in relay controlled volume control before amp - it just cannot be shorter than that. And that is what I hear - minimal electronic and clear and natural wide sound. I will say again - there is a difference and it is big in my system.
If we speak about analog vs. digital input than it is not matter of taste anymore it is obvious difference. Why would you go for double DA and AD conversion? That affect sound more than analog circuitry.
Construction wise signal goes through electrolytic caps in the analog input and in analog output. As well in the output, signal is converted from balanced to unbalanced and than again back to balanced all through several opamps. Just that fact explains how much is done to the signal and we have to agree that is not best way how to preserve natural and lifelike sound.
I would love to take your check so give me a call if you are in SF area.