|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers |
|
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 |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#11 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brasil
|
Hi Barry,
thx fr the private lesson ![]() So we have to use our ears to judge the best EQ... tell something about EQ, do you really use? is it necessary to have a better result? About the crossover, so you think that I will have a better result with this DBX even though I still not use the most of features? |
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
|
Quote:
![]() When I get around to replacing the power supply and analogs, maybe my view will improve. For now, it stays on my test bench for my development work and my main system has.... ta-da! A cheap analog Behringer still in it. |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Las Vegas Nevada
|
It always ends at the what you hear, or it should. The problem is there are many things that I don't think we can *directly* discern by ear. Truly good driver integration is no trivial task and then speaker system integration into the room can be as difficult. I don't remember where I read it but it went something like: "When the number of variables approach an order of magnitude, I turn in despair to my measurement apparatus." Well, there's lots of variables in audio and meaningfull data is necessary to get beyond average results.
I don't mean for you to think that RTA is useless, in the example room a few posts back, RTA becomes usefull somwere above 400Hz where the room is not mode dominated and used correctly within it's limitations RTA is very useful. Sorry I'm not sure what you're asking about EQ, specifically? I use both PEQ and GEQ and again when used properly, the results can be stunning. As for the DBX, or like units, I don't know of any that are stripped down for home use so there will be some utility that you pay for but won't use in most if not all of them. As for better results? These little black boxes are increadibly powerful tools that with out a doubt hold the promise of near magic if fully expoited though few there be that use them to their potential. |
|
|
|
#14 |
|
diyAudio Moderator
|
I really think it will. The weak part is the analog section, followed by the power supply. Not hard to fix.
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test! |
|
|
|
#15 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
|
Not that hard if you can see. I have been battling getting my glasses correct. SMT is a pain if you can't see it. I got some "practice" kits with SMT and vision is really the only problem. I keep waiting to find one of those cheap dissecting microscopes on e-bay, but seems word is out.
Lots of threads out there. Jan's designed boards are way out of what I am willing to spend, so DIY. What surprises me is my analog Behringer, though not great, is much quieter. Basically the same IO. It needs turn and turn off muting that's for sure. A project for some day. |
|
|
|
#16 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brasil
|
I think I will use the behringer for more than I thought. I'm really not seeing too much advantage for home use with the DBX as a lot of the features will not be useful.
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hants/Berkshire/Surrey
|
I am holding out for one or perhaps two of these
DSP Xover project (part 2) I tried the Behringer 2496 DCX in my horn system quite extensively and modded it a bit have given up for awhile and look forward to trying the above. |
|
|
|
#18 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
|
On the DBX units, much of the design effort is centered on pro-audio live presentations. The audio guy wants to go into a room and setup quickly. The cross-over has pre-sets for pro-audio amps and for pro-audio speakers. And the quick and dirty "RTA" EQ. So you pay a lot for features that you will never use. Plus during set-up you have to deal with these features.
__________________
Kevin |
|
|
|
#19 | ||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brasil
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
#20 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
|
Now the good points about DBX are that when they build a unit they expect it to operate correctly for a long, long time and the specification sheet is very, very conservative. While the other company has always had reliability and warranty problems and the specs are for one perfect unit that they took great care when measuring.
__________________
Kevin |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| dBX 223XL vs Behringer CX3400 active XO? | grantnsw | Multi-Way | 29 | 25th June 2012 08:00 PM |
| DBX 234 active crossover, LNIB | architect7 | Swap Meet | 2 | 17th January 2012 06:45 AM |
| dbx driverack 260 mods | slr 5000 | Digital Source | 0 | 16th July 2008 02:09 AM |
| DBX Driverack PA vs. Behringer DCX2496 ? | Steve M | Digital Line Level | 18 | 16th December 2005 02:14 PM |
| FS: DBX Driverack 260 w/Mic-Better than Behringer 2496 | m.parigi | Swap Meet | 2 | 21st November 2005 02:26 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |