Behringer crossover audiophile quality, bi/tri amping stereo speakers?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I want to replace the passive crossovers on my KEF Q55s with active ones, using the most inexpensive audiophile quality Behringer possible, i.e. I want to spend the least as possible but get quality sound. Don't we all?

Behringer have lots of different models, at various prices and as I don't know too much about them, I was hoping that those here who do would kindly help me with their recommendations.

I don't think Behringer supplies any software for ease of setting up the crossover for each individual driver. So how does one go about it? Perhaps there is a site somewhere dedicated to this subject. Also, Is there any free software available which would make this easier?

I have tried googling for this information but drawn a blank. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
look up the threads on dcx2496
You'll be disappointed with the performance as it comes from the factory.
You end up spending 2 to 3 times the purchase cost on add-ons/modifications to get what you need.
Then you have to start creating the crossover & EQs to make the Q55s sound nice. It becomes a long and relatively expensive job.
 
I'm tired of working with DCX2496 and other digital filters and al the tales about modifications and sound quality improvements are just myths. 100% placebo effect.

If the stock crossover is properly designed, you are going to gain nothing by going active.

If the stock crossover leaves room for improvement, you are unlikely to learn the methods to improve it within a reasonable amount of time (a few years maybe).

One of the faults of the DCX2496 (and of most digital filters) are the rudimentary phase shifters (absent in most other filters). A system can't be properly crossed over without enough programmable phase shifters per channel. To my knowledge, the only filters having smart phase shifters currently on the market are Xilica XD series but they are expensive. I'm currently enjoying a XD-4080 in place of my DCX2496, and the interface is much worse but it allows to get better performance from the same drivers.
 
AndrewT said:
look up the threads on dcx2496
You'll be disappointed with the performance as it comes from the factory.
You end up spending 2 to 3 times the purchase cost on add-ons/modifications to get what you need.
Then you have to start creating the crossover & EQs to make the Q55s sound nice. It becomes a long and relatively expensive job.


I am not sure you have played or owned a DCX to make such comments. I own one and played with the stock std version and I am quite please with it and what it can do. There are many here just read the forum/thread on DCX here.

For example, the stock std version can still give you good sound refer to Emerald Physics CS2 that comes with the std version. A lot rave reviews about these speakers.

The real adv. it that one can use it as a x-over device without actually using a measuring instruments to measure the freq., response the ear the measuring device. BTW I use the DCX with FR measuring device to get the response fairly flat.
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2007
AndrewT said:
look up the threads on dcx2496
You'll be disappointed with the performance as it comes from the factory.
You end up spending 2 to 3 times the purchase cost on add-ons/modifications to get what you need.

Hi Andrew,
Wow. You have one? I have and I must have been lucky since mine is more than just fine. Well worth the money, even if you leave it in stock condition.


Eva said:
I'm tired of working with DCX2496 and other digital filters and al the tales about modifications and sound quality improvements are just myths. 100% placebo effect.


:up:
 
ttan98 said:



BTW I use the DCX with FR measuring device to get the response fairly flat.



Could you please explain in a little more detail what sort of equipment and programmes you are using to do this.

Looking at the answers here. it seems that the problems people are experiencing is setting up the crossover correctly for your actual drivers.

Surely, there is available, preferably for free, software and explanations to do this more scientifically than just using your ears.

I can see it is easy to set the DCXs crossover frequencies if you know all the details on one's own particular drivers. If you don't know this, which is so in my case, I do definitely need one which will analyse my drivers and give me the correct information.

Please someone, recommend me a PC programme, whatever, which will do what I am looking for.
 
cirrus18 said:
I want to replace the passive crossovers on my KEF Q55s with active ones, using the most inexpensive audiophile quality Behringer possible
I have a hard time to understand what you really want. You have a passive crossover that you want to replace. Does that mean that the passive XOver does not work for you? Do you want to develop your own crossover? In that case you will need some deeper knowledge how filters work and probably some measuring equipment. And the Behringer stuff would simply substitute the usual assortment of coils and capacitors other people already have at hand.
Is this what you want to achieve?
 
look up the threads on dcx2496.
You'll be disappointed with the performance as it comes from the factory.
I have been using a DCX2496 in my main system for 3 years. While I am sure its not perfect, I have been very happy with the results.

If the stock crossover is properly designed, you are going to gain nothing by going active.
Active crossovers have several demonstrable advantages.
They also have drawbacks. If you want to do this, do not let others talk you out of it.

Could you please explain in a little more detail what sort of equipment and programmes you are using to do this.
I was able to get a "fun" sound just buy listening in a weekend, with the help of my brother. It is much easier to use a measurement microphone and software. I use Soundeasy and the Behringer Microphone.

HTH

Doug
 
Re: Re: Behringer crossover audiophile quality, bi/tri amping stereo speakers?

Rudolf said:

I have a hard time to understand what you really want. You have a passive crossover that you want to replace. Does that mean that the passive XOver does not work for you? Do you want to develop your own crossover? In that case you will need some deeper knowledge how filters work and probably some measuring equipment. And the Behringer stuff would simply substitute the usual assortment of coils and capacitors other people already have at hand.
Is this what you want to achieve?

Because..................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Active Solution; http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm

Quote:
With an active crossover, the amplifier is connected directly to the driver, and the only thing between them is the loudspeaker cable. The amplifier presents the maximum damping factor at all times, regardless of frequency, and is not affected by the crossover network, since that is also active, and located before the power amp.

The loudspeaker driver now has the maximum control that the amplifier can provide, across the entire frequency range - not just the crossover network's pass band. The difference in damping is quite obvious, and although some (very well behaved) drivers will show little improvement, the vast majority will be much better controlled, and this will show in an impulse measurement. Not at all uncommonly, it will also show up on a swept sinewave frequency response measurement as well, with the amplitude of peaks and dips generally reduced (albeit marginally in most cases).

Well apart from the other advantages of an active system, this is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons to use an active system rather than passive. Not only is it possible to achieve the maximum damping, but if it is determined that a particular driver is best suited to some defined impedance, this can be provided by the amplifier, and will be stable across the frequency range. In some cases, just a series resistor will be sufficient, and even though there will be some power loss, if it makes the driver behave the way it should, then any small power loss is a small price to pay.

In short, there is simply no comparison between the two systems. A passive XO will always add (usually) undesirable impedance to that seen by the driver(s), the impedance is frequency dependent, and ranges from perhaps an ohm or so to almost infinite. The potential for uncontrolled cone movement, intermodulation distortion and loss of performance is so great that it is impossible to determine in advance, but it is all negated in one fell swoop by using a fully active system.
 
Though not stated in your post; I'm assuming you are interested in the DCX2496 only.
I have a CX2310 and after 2 years is starting to have "issues" in the switches.
With products designed to meet a low price demand, cost cutting frequently manifests later as reliability problems.
The DCX2496 is widely used for live sound. Some users ( in that capacity ) have reported problems with the wiring interface, and chaffing against the chassis.

Not to flare up the active vs passive argument:
Other that offer my personal preference for active.
The flexibility of being able to tweak/fine tune crossover points and driver levels on demand is a huge plus.
I could not cost justify spending the money on quality caps and coils to assemble all the 24db 4th order passive filters necessary.
The cost and size of caps and coils rises precipitously with decreasing frequency; so caps and coils for subwoofer crossovers are big and expensive.
To my ears, adding the large inductors necessary in a passive woofer circuit always added "grit", which I attribute to the coil saturation.
Again my opinion, since many of the very expensive speaker systems sold utilize elaborate passive crossovers ( using quality crossover materials of course ).
 
Re: Re: Re: Behringer crossover audiophile quality, bi/tri amping stereo speakers?

cirrus18 said:
Because..................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK ... understood.
If you want to improve the quality of your loudspeakers by multiamping, you probably need a completely new crossover architecture. It´s less than optimal to simply follow the passive xover frequencies and filter slopes. At least you need to measure the acoustical filter characteristics (if you can´t find it fully documented somewhere). And you will need the know how to find and implement the optimal electronic crossover architecture. There is nothing you get with a digital Xover that will do this for you.
How about reading the books by David B. Weems, Vance Dickason or Joseph D'Appolito for a starter?

For measurement I would recommend ARTA.
 
Re: Re: Re: Behringer crossover audiophile quality, bi/tri amping stereo speakers?

cirrus18 said:
Quote:
With an active crossover, the amplifier is connected directly to the driver, and the only thing between them is the loudspeaker cable. The amplifier presents the maximum damping factor at all times, regardless of frequency, and is not affected by the crossover network, since that is also active, and located before the power amp.

The loudspeaker driver now has the maximum control that the amplifier can provide, across the entire frequency range - not just the crossover network's pass band. The difference in damping is quite obvious, and although some (very well behaved) drivers will show little improvement, the vast majority will be much better controlled, and this will show in an impulse measurement. Not at all uncommonly, it will also show up on a swept sinewave frequency response measurement as well, with the amplitude of peaks and dips generally reduced (albeit marginally in most cases).

Well apart from the other advantages of an active system, this is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons to use an active system rather than passive. Not only is it possible to achieve the maximum damping, but if it is determined that a particular driver is best suited to some defined impedance, this can be provided by the amplifier, and will be stable across the frequency range. In some cases, just a series resistor will be sufficient, and even though there will be some power loss, if it makes the driver behave the way it should, then any small power loss is a small price to pay.

In short, there is simply no comparison between the two systems. A passive XO will always add (usually) undesirable impedance to that seen by the driver(s), the impedance is frequency dependent, and ranges from perhaps an ohm or so to almost infinite. The potential for uncontrolled cone movement, intermodulation distortion and loss of performance is so great that it is impossible to determine in advance, but it is all negated in one fell swoop by using a fully active system.

Reality is a bit more complex.

Damping factor influences the sonic performance less than rumor has it.

Uncontrolled cone movement as a result of a passive crossover seems a bit farstretched, if the design did not go totally wrong.

And a crossover design usually is more than just to determine a crossover frequency and a slope. A good passive design makes use of the interaction between speaker and crossover components. A good example is to choose the inductor for a woofer so that the total quality is raised and fs lowered just the right amount for best performance in a given cabinet. To compensate for that in an active filter you need something like a Linkwitz transform. In other words you may gain better amplifier-to-speaker-control at the cost of other qualities.
 
There is the reality of bringing a speaker such as the KEF Q55 to market:
In the context of what can be fabricated, implemented and delivered to market at the desired MSRP of this product.
* I have not heard this speaker - the reviews online are mixed, it was largely discounted in price.
Simple market economics generally don't allow for implementation of anything other than the most basic of crossover for a product in this price range.
Can Zobel networks, baffle compensation, notch filters or other shaping circuits really be expected to be part of a product at this price point...
Reverse engineer the economics: Subtract profit from cost paid and reduce that figure to a much smaller percentage and that will represent the actual cost of materials.
Because quality caps and coils are not cheap, passive crossovers are often implemented according to the "laws of economics", usually simple and cheap, ( no Solens caps etc )

The best control over a woofer cone I have heard to date is implemented with a servo circuit tied to the amplifiers circuit, obviously not possible with passive elements.

* KEF says the Q55 utilizes a 2 1/2 way crossover design so conversion to active may not be clear cut.
 
cirrus18 said:
Because..................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Without wanting to put words into Rod's mouth, I think you'll find he is talking about the design solution, not a replacement solution. While the Q55's are by no means perfect, they have had some effort put into the crossover design (mostly derivatice from previous 'Q' crossovers. The amount of effort to reproduce this would be considerable - whereas creating a new crossover solution from scratch is much easier with a Behringer CX2310 (for example).

If you were creating a new speaker from component drivers, I would recommend going with the active solution. Destroying a pair of working speakers I could not recommend. I would instead use your Q55's as a 'reference' and build pair of 'active' speakers and see if you can get an improvement. If you can't, then you still have music.
 
Re: Re: Behringer crossover audiophile quality, bi/tri amping stereo speakers?

Rudolf said:




I tried several times to translate your webpage http://www.dipolplus.de/frameset.htm into English using Google translate but got the following message instead of a translation.

Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.
Error 404
www.dipolplus.de
Mon Dec 29 10:49:04 2008
Apache/2.2

Any ideas how to get it to work?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.