Here we go. Measurements were taken with 1 meter distance microphone to baffel so there is some room interaction. All three measurements include the crossover.
Attachments
Nicely presented charts.
Wise if kaputt also did measurements at some other points in the room, esp where he/she sits. That's my reference point because it takes the room into account.
Anybody ever ask themselves, "Why must the woofer and the tweeter have the same crossover frequency?" You might ask that question after looking at the kaputt's data.
That's a question folks with DSPs can ask. And that's because only they can answer by trying it.
Or if that concept totally horrifies you, asking "Any benefit by shifting the mutual crossover point a bit one way or the other?"
B.
PS Still waiting to see Pano's posted measurements that are critical of the Behringer DCX2496
Wise if kaputt also did measurements at some other points in the room, esp where he/she sits. That's my reference point because it takes the room into account.
Anybody ever ask themselves, "Why must the woofer and the tweeter have the same crossover frequency?" You might ask that question after looking at the kaputt's data.
That's a question folks with DSPs can ask. And that's because only they can answer by trying it.
Or if that concept totally horrifies you, asking "Any benefit by shifting the mutual crossover point a bit one way or the other?"
B.
PS Still waiting to see Pano's posted measurements that are critical of the Behringer DCX2496
Last edited:
There already is some room interaction in there, as I wrote. As the topic was crossovers it would be preferable to have graphs without room reflections.
I'll do a response graph with the microphone in my listening postion (which is more of an area, as I'm quite casual about it
) as I guess there is some value to it in regards of connecting my data to subjective sound impressions I gave.
I'll do a response graph with the microphone in my listening postion (which is more of an area, as I'm quite casual about it
) as I guess there is some value to it in regards of connecting my data to subjective sound impressions I gave.
They don't and picking a lowpass with a lower cutoff frequency would have dealt with that bump at 2k. But after all it's so little that I don't care. Changing the graph's smoothing to 1/6 octave fixes that nicely anyways
I never could find it in the DCX thread.
I posted too many times there! But I still have them and can post them again.Love to see 'em. Likely to post in the DCX thread? With a link here?I never could find it in the DCX thread.
We're all looking forward to the new DIYaudio software with hopefully better search function.
If I can take a minute more promoting DSP, perhaps OP could borrow a DSP* just to experiment and later incorporate test results (crossover parameters, loudness levels, etc) in a passive crossover? No need to buy an extra amp since the other channel can be used for the other driver.
B.
Last edited:
I changed the 7uF cap in the low pass filter to 9.2uF which flattened the 2k bump.
I'm undecided if I like it better with or without the bump or if I can even tell the difference...
Well, we know that varying the slope can be beneficial. At least Altec thought so. For the 604-8G they designed the crossover with a 12dB/octave slope for the LF and an 18dB slope HF. This would affect how the drivers blend, wouldn't it?
Sure it would. And the other way around it's useful to look at the rolloff of a driver and what filter goes along with that rolloff to make them blend nicely. Maybe a 6dB filer is enough, maybe an 18dB filter is needed.
I general a high frequency driver, depending on the crossover frequency can use a steeper filter for protection and the LF driver a flatter filter as the natural rolloff just needs a little control.
I general a high frequency driver, depending on the crossover frequency can use a steeper filter for protection and the LF driver a flatter filter as the natural rolloff just needs a little control.
And maybe it had something to do with the cost of coils! For sure, you want to curb the enthusiasm of the tweeter with a sharp slope; that's more important than keeping some treble from leaking out of the woofer.* But even 18 dB leaves a lot of power going to the tweeter an octave below the crossover point.
I just love using using a 48dB slope Linkwitz-Riley DSP crossover for my 130 Hz crossover*. Inconceivable for Altec to make such a thing passively and vastly more inconceivable for any passive crossover below 400 Hz.
B.
*Opinions vary about everything to do with crossovers. But when you are pretty low in the compass, you need sharp filters to have much impact keeping lows out of the mid-range drivers, etc.
Last edited:
Curious about the digital xo, I just did a Google search on dcx2496 and the frequent search drop down came with mods only a couple down. Seems there's a healthy cottage industry catering to the Behringer. I guess others felt it could be done better too.
Also more diyAudio posts here.
Also more diyAudio posts here.
Behringer has been selling this unit virtually unchanged since 2003 to the present day*. Sounds defective? Perhaps you could turn your google-search skills to finding measurements showing audible or possibly audible deficiencies.
As best as I can measure, performance is exemplary although the construction quality is pretty basic. Maybe others can hear defects that aren't apparent on my near-full-range electrostatics.
I've seen the ADC/input and DAC/output stages criticized (but with no convincing data showing audible defects that I've seen yet, pending seeing Hearinspace's google-search or Pano's reposting of his data).
But you can totally eliminate the ADC stage by simply using SPDIF input.
B.
* OK, that ain't nothin' compared to the Altec speaker which was old when I was young
Last edited:
There's something odd about that website. Can't access it. And does it have a commercial taint?
Funny thing, whenever I ask for some evidence the DCX2496 is faulty, I always get an answer like "have to go to work now". That includes several efforts at the DIYaudio DCX forum.
I hope Hearinspace can help when he has the time since he thinks "there are probably others".
B.
Well B. Don't know what to tell ya. I was just trying to throw in a little help when I posted this morning and Googling a few minutes ago got more data from previously unknown (to me) sources. Even Jan Didden did work on it, I never saw that before.
Anyway, from your post above, and also seeing that you have been on other threads related to the DCX, I figure you're an ol' hand at all this and know what you are looking for far more than I do. Sorry I couldn't help.
Anyway, from your post above, and also seeing that you have been on other threads related to the DCX, I figure you're an ol' hand at all this and know what you are looking for far more than I do. Sorry I couldn't help.
Can't dig up the measurements, eh.
In that case pending finding reliable evidence of sound shortcomings, I wonder if you want to do the decent thing and retract your post that leads the forum to thinking that the DCX2496 requires mods to perform well.
B.
Last edited:
Ben, you can stop your wondering. As it's OT to this thread see here in the DCX thread.
Behringer DCX2496 digital X-over
Post number 4025
Behringer DCX2496 digital X-over
Post number 4025
You're welcome. - Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.