I have a correction file for my particular behringer after I had it measured. I was able to have that done for free here at Purdue, I suppose others could have similar services available for a fee?
As for the Face audio amps, they are a lot cheaper than Labgruppen. I like the Labgruppen amps a lot better, but I paid around 750 dollars american for my Face audio, and last I checked there wasn't a similar powered Labgruppen for under 1300.
The cheapest digital crossover I have ever found that I would consider, good enough, is the VST software with a high quality computer audio recording interface. I was using Mark of the Unicorn for a while but have an EMU unit now. My biggest problem with all of these systems is that, until someone integrates them into a preamp/processor, you end up having to make redundant A/D and D/A conversions. If the AD and DA converters are good enough, then sure maybe it will be transparent, but usually they aren't, and those distortions are going to be additive. If nothing else, I don't like the idea of that. Also I should note before someone gets on my case, I only use this for experimenting, I don't like the results for normal audio use, too complicated, too noisy, and too impractical.
As for the Face audio amps, they are a lot cheaper than Labgruppen. I like the Labgruppen amps a lot better, but I paid around 750 dollars american for my Face audio, and last I checked there wasn't a similar powered Labgruppen for under 1300.
The cheapest digital crossover I have ever found that I would consider, good enough, is the VST software with a high quality computer audio recording interface. I was using Mark of the Unicorn for a while but have an EMU unit now. My biggest problem with all of these systems is that, until someone integrates them into a preamp/processor, you end up having to make redundant A/D and D/A conversions. If the AD and DA converters are good enough, then sure maybe it will be transparent, but usually they aren't, and those distortions are going to be additive. If nothing else, I don't like the idea of that. Also I should note before someone gets on my case, I only use this for experimenting, I don't like the results for normal audio use, too complicated, too noisy, and too impractical.
I see no reason to doubt B&C specs of 120 watts continious, which is an awful lot of SPL! I wouldn't want to be very close to one doing that. In the Nathan the crossver is only 1st order so this might be a little high. The problem with most of the crossovers in these home units is that they don't limit the power above 20 kHz so clipping signal harmonics go straight through to the DE250. This is probably the worst case for these designs.
I would get a DEQX if I was talking in that league.aubergine said:pjpoes,
I mentioned the Dolby Lake specifically for that reaction.Actually, it's around 9.000...
The two worst widely available crossovers are the Berry and the dbx Driverack PA.
The DRPA has blown speakers up randomly, that's why you see lots second hand.
XTA, which make second best, are around 3000 for 3-way and they are quality kit.
dbx and bss's very top end models are at that price.
Their midrange models retail for about 1000.
DEQX also include room correction, as far as i know, that's where i've seen them really.
Duff Room Correction
Nice find though.
Duff Room Correction
Nice find though.
I'm hoping you are all aware that EQing should only be applied after you got the speakers (the direct signal) and room (the indirect signal) right.
If applied the other way around those tools distort the direct signal, so the sum of direct plus indirect signal is flat. The latter is a goal but distorting the direct signal is not.
Best, Markus
If applied the other way around those tools distort the direct signal, so the sum of direct plus indirect signal is flat. The latter is a goal but distorting the direct signal is not.
Best, Markus
You mean that it can take a terrible situation and make it tollerable? Probably. But once you have a good loudspeaker design, it can't actually improve a thing, it could only make it worse. And for this you pay ... how much? Buy better speakers with the money you save NOT buying the fancy add-ons.
The situation is completely analogous to what I concluded about Active Noise Control after some five years of intensive study (a virtually identical technology).
"The systems that need it can't afford it and the systems that can afford it don't need it."
The situation is completely analogous to what I concluded about Active Noise Control after some five years of intensive study (a virtually identical technology).
"The systems that need it can't afford it and the systems that can afford it don't need it."
gedlee said:
Costs:
2x Visaton W250S 4 EUR 130,-
2x RCF ND1411-M EUR 130,-
2x RCF H-101 EUR 70,-
2x Samson Servo 120A EUR 290,-
1x Behringer CX-3400 EUR 140,-
1x Behringer DSP8024 EUR 240,- (incl. Mic ECM8000)
Wood, Cable, etc. EUR 100,-
--------------------------------------------
Summ(a)
EUR 1100,-Active, including amplifiers, EQ and Mic to measure and room optimization opportunity!!!
gedlee said:
BTW this is scientific bulls**t!
Please give evidence if you can!
Dr. Fosti
markus76 said:
Except that one works and the other doesn't, so I guess the price is right
The software is free, OK, but not the platform to run it on.
To be fair, the PC is becoming a very attractive loudspeaker control platform and I am looking ever closer at this. There are things that an active system could do effectivly, but its far far less than what is being claimed.
There is, I believe, another step in the LF sound field control that could be done on top of multiple subs, or to minimize the number required. But this solution would be very expensive as a stand alone piece of gear. But run on a PC, when the signal source is already a PC (as in my setup), well that makes it free. All it takes is the software. That appeals to me.
You're referring to the paper from Weli and Devantier ("Low-Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers", JAES 54)?
Best, Markus
P.S. Fosti, no need to be rude. You sound much nicer when writing in German
But yes, that's what I stated earlier: sometimes digital integrates better and is therefore cheaper. Depends on what purpose a system needs to serve.
Fosti people will not carry on discussions with you if you speak like this. Exactly what kind of scientific evidence would you want to suggest the truth of a statement like, too much gain? Nelson Pass just finished writting up a project, a preamp project, making the exact same statement, many pieces of equipment today have too much gain. Is that scientific evidence, no, I don't know what I could present to show that, but many of us carry this opinion. As to why, well, lets follow Nelson's same logic here. Except, its worse with this digital gear. The easiest way to use the DEQ is to put a preamp infront of it, and have that directly drive the amps. The problem here is that reducing the signal level in the preamp before the DEQ means that the unit is fed a lower voltage signal and the digital resolution is drastically reduced to well below 16 bits, let alone 24. This would be a far smaller problem if the unit didn't offer any gain, it doesn't need to, unity gain would be fine, but that is not how it or most of these units are designed. I believe the amount of gain is 20 db's on these units, that is way too much. Placing the preamp after this would be a lot better, as then you aren't throwing away any bits, but....you still have Nelson's mentioned problem of throwing away a great deal of signal through the volume control, arguably bad for sound. You also have the problem that many of these pro audio units produce so much gain that they clip the inputs of many consumer preamps. My experience with the DEQ2496 was that its own output was clipped with the signal set to no reduction, but as I understand the way it works, all gain adjustments in the unit throw away bits. To me that is simply a faulty design. Now if you look up Behringer DEQ2496 and gain, you find 100's of posts on too much gain, and people modifying the unit for less gain.
Dr. Gedlee, What I want to see is a system that can implement all of the signal manipulation of these speaker controllers without the unnecessary digital conversions and signal processing. I don't think its possible, but one that could do this in the analogue domain through digital control would be great. If it can't be done that way, then it has to include its own preamp/processor or have the ability to output all its channels as digital. Reducing the signal before these units will reduce the resolution, often to very small amounts, especially with the huge amounts of gain. I remember reading an article where a signal was passed through at different levels and I believe at normal listening levels, they found the bit rate to be equivalent to around 6-8 bits average, with softer parts falling below 4 bits. It's no wonder so many of us find these things sounding less than transparent. And this is going to be true of computer based units, the Dolby Lake, any of these. The lake of course has the ability to have preamp controls after the processing, but as I understand it, it can be used either way.
Dr. Gedlee, What I want to see is a system that can implement all of the signal manipulation of these speaker controllers without the unnecessary digital conversions and signal processing. I don't think its possible, but one that could do this in the analogue domain through digital control would be great. If it can't be done that way, then it has to include its own preamp/processor or have the ability to output all its channels as digital. Reducing the signal before these units will reduce the resolution, often to very small amounts, especially with the huge amounts of gain. I remember reading an article where a signal was passed through at different levels and I believe at normal listening levels, they found the bit rate to be equivalent to around 6-8 bits average, with softer parts falling below 4 bits. It's no wonder so many of us find these things sounding less than transparent. And this is going to be true of computer based units, the Dolby Lake, any of these. The lake of course has the ability to have preamp controls after the processing, but as I understand it, it can be used either way.
pjpoes said:
Yes, you are now making sense,
You want to use these with hifi preamps, they were designed to be fed into big pro audio amps (like the Face Audio). The Berry I agree is a case in itself, the 20dB gain is something many have to live with in the Pro Audio World, it screws up the rest of your outboard and the amp's meters. But I find that there are quite a few that you don't see around being used in hifi which do not have this inherent problem.
Gain has always been a problem in modern equipment, it is not made any better with the way people use the equipment either. Could you explain how tweaking gain knobs on LMSs (not including the DCX blah blah) reduces bit resolution?
Please reference the article, and which unit it utilised.
What do i know anyway, i have cloth ears and use a TOA Saori (which you should have heard of)
and can't tell the difference when testing with LS3/5As.Wait, what about the world's most complicated analogue LMS, also known as a massive rack of outboard equipment?
I'll get me coat.
PS: Fosti, that's quite rude. I thought this was meant to be a more civilised forum.
PPS: I just noticed that we are talking about DEQs, DCX2496s and DEQ2496s. Now I'm thoroughly confused, only two out of the three are meant to be LMSs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.