Active Crossover: Behringer x DBX active DriveRack 260 - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th February 2013, 07:49 PM   #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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2013, 09:13 PM   #12
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pano View Post
Not just you. I agree. I don't see any reason to use normal analog crossovers anymore.
I do. But then again, I have a DCX.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2013, 02:52 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
1audiohack's Avatar
 
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2013, 03:14 AM   #14
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post
When I get around to replacing the power supply and analogs, maybe my view will improve.
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!
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2013, 09:12 PM   #15
tvrgeek is offline tvrgeek  United States
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2013, 10:35 PM   #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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2013, 11:10 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Speedysteve7's Avatar
 
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th February 2013, 11:42 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Speedskater's Avatar
 
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 01:55 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brasil
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1audiohack View Post
Well you won't use the feedback suppressor, auto gain, compression and doubtfully limiting, the good news is you can turn all that stuff off.

I have these in home use and like them a lot. They sound fine, have no power on/off pops, have very good signal to noise, even on horns.

I don't use the RTA auto EQ, RTA has real limitations, especially in small rooms.

I wouldn't entertain the DBX PA, the 260 is well worth the extra money.

Signal Delay and Parametric EQ are incredibly powerful tools but you really need a real measurement rig, (and the requisite knowledge to use it) to really take advantage of them.

More if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
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.
YOU ARE RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 09:45 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Speedskater's Avatar
 
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
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2