Behringer DCX2496 digital X-over

Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Sure it's worth a try, if you have the cash to spare. I can't remember how many filters, because I'm not using mine now, but I guess I could fire it up and see.

I mostly programed it from the front panel, but most people hate doing that. They use the software.
 
It's a problem that this doesn't have a main volume control, what alternatives are there or solutions? Ideally I'd use a digital input
To conserve bits, I use full bit input (never seems to overload audibly even when the amber and red input lamps twinkle, with my set-up). Downstream, I use a 4-pot passive volume control that I cobbled together. With the low DCX output impedance, easy to do. Works great.

B.
 
The number of filters is limited by the amount of memory. There isn't much memory, this being rather old tech, but you'd have plenty for the bass, I always did.

+1

The DCX displays how much spare memory remains, on the little screen.

The limit is probably around 8 crossover and 12 EQ definitions (but that's without time alignment and other memory consuming tricks it can perform for you).

B.
 
Account Closed
Joined 2001
To conserve bits, I use full bit input (never seems to overload audibly even when the amber and red input lamps twinkle, with my set-up). Downstream, I use a 4-pot passive volume control that I cobbled together. With the low DCX output impedance, easy to do. Works great.

B.

You're using the DCX outputs in the unbalanced configuration with pins 1-3 shorted??

Dave.
 
Account Closed
Joined 2001
Can't remember exactly, but the usual way you connect unbalanced coax cables when you make XLR connections yourself or buy at the store. Is there more than one way (aside from trick shielding methods)?

B.

That configuration yields quite a bit of voltage. But if your four-gang attenuator has the right taper it should be okay.

Some users have connected to pins 1-2 and left pin 3 floating. That will yield 6db less signal, but you also lose a large amount of channel matching, and the outputs would most likely require calibration.

Dave.
 
That configuration yields quite a bit of voltage. But if your four-gang attenuator has the right taper it should be okay.

Some users have connected to pins 1-2 and left pin 3 floating. That will yield 6db less signal, but you also lose a large amount of channel matching, and the outputs would most likely require calibration.
Dave - thank you.

"Taper" is evaluated in ergonomic terms and seems to suit me OK (pots are some kind of Bournes (??) audio taper).

With high signal levels and low impedances, few gremlins creep in.

Granted, analog manipulation seems primitive, but downstream system is analog anyway.

As a partisan in the DCX-is-crap debate, I again say DCX units are built to a price-point in terms of gold plating of contacts etc. But any measurements I am able to make are better than my measurement tools can fathom.

Scottjoplin - I never had gear with such challenging learning curve to master 80% of abilities (Windows computers excepted). But after months of errors and re-errors, the tricks this unit will do for you are astonishingly gratifying.

B.