Best Loudspeaker Management System - Page 2

a007udio · 19th October 2006, 12:26 PM

Ok.

Thanks for all your information. I need this device for speaker building help. So i need as many function as posible not the ultimate quality.
Yes the Behringer have many functions but all of you says that it needs extra volume control. Is the integrated realy so bad.

mp006ltk · 19th October 2006, 07:07 PM

I wanted to answer the previous posts. My passive system is system is:
Musical Fidelity DAC a3-24
Squeezebox 3 as transport.
PS Audio PCA-2
PS Audio HCA-2 or Hypex UcD 400's i prefer my hypex monoblocks.
Spekaers are custom made by me. I have put a speakon connector on the back to allow an A-B comparison between the DEQX and my Passive crossover design.

My DEQX system is as follow:
Squeezebox 3 Feeding either the MF dac or a dcs upsampler and then into my DEQX 2.6P with full balanced outputs.
a combination of HCA-2's and Hypex Amps and then out to the speaker. I prefer the sound of the dcs upsampler using AES-EBU to the DEQX 24 bit 96khz with the new firmware.

My impression is as follows. The crossover points are the same either way but the slopes are slightly different 4th order passive vs. 8th order active

Passive Crossover: Extremely detailed and not veiled. The nuance and the realism comes across. Instuments sound real. The backround comes through much bettter

Active Crossover: Much better dynamic range and volume capacity, and slightly better center image but less of a soundstage. The sound has alot less speed and toe tapping rythem. Kind of lifeless sounding but very acurate.

Either way I don't hear the digital part come through. None of the slurred s's or smearing common to cheaper speakers and digital front ends.

For these reasons I have relegated the deqx to a fast development toy to get the cross points and find when drivers begin to distort, otherwise I use CLIO and LEAP5 together and build a passive crossover. The DEQX has a massive limitation in that if you want to correct below 400Hz you really need a wharehouse with 16' ceilings and a forklift to get the speaker in the air. Unless you have this available you are extremely limited as to the placement of the lower crossover point in a true 3 way system. With a dedicated measurement system I can splice a groundplane or near field to get the low end. The DEQX can take imported measurements, but the company cautioned me to only use the built in measureing system becasue the imported measurements don't work well for some reason.

In any case the resulting sound is more akin to an upper mid priced integrated amp with good speakers then a truely high end system that cam make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

If you decide to go with the DEQX here's what I would recomend:

buy the P unit with 3 AES EBU outs
use TaCT s2150 amps and let them do the digital conversion.
Supply it with a high quality digital signal. Mabe the new transporter but it's pricy at 2k
I like upsamping but that's another debate.
For the speaker configuration forget a 3 way design and to a sub sat system with a nice pair of bookshelves and some sturdy subs like some peerless xxls with passive radiator.

I kind of like metal domes with the deqx, I have tried SEAS h1212 and Focal t120td5's with Sucess. The midrange driver should be sturdy and dynamic sounding. No doped paper!!! Go with plasic, composite or metal. I personally dont' like metal in this conifig, but it's been done. see NHT xD system.

TTYL, Michael

a007udio · 24th October 2006, 08:00 AM

Ok another question.

What if i use instead of thouse components just a PC with apropriate sound card and software. Will this works?

SoundRight · 8th February 2011, 06:35 PM

Frankly, speaking as someone who has had his products favourably compared to ATC, PMC and Genelec by a pro audio reviewer(Hugh RobJohns, Omen Ra 1812 monitors), I find the comments regarding going back to passive crossovers quite laughable...sorry!!

Don't mean to sound arrogant, but just trying to put my experience (nearly 40 years in sound, live and recorded, into perspective...

This review pair was supplied with my BSS 366T Omnidrive and the Behringer Ultradrive. Which was preferred? ..the Behringer at 1/10th the cost!!

However, I agree that loudspeaker management systems are not necessarily the best you can do for Hi Fi set ups as you rely on their final D/A converters which are competent but probably not High End..(They usually have AES IN so you can avoid the first conversion stage)

My solution is to use a unit such as the Behringer Ultracurve for EQ. Stay in the digital domain all the way from the CD transport/digital out and use the Ultracurve in it's digital domain for the same reasons, avoiding the analog stages. The Ultracurve is extraordinarily transparent and neutral if used in the digital domain only...far better than you could expect for the money!!

Pass your digital signal to a DAC of your choice..anything from the Musical Fidelity up to the Benchmark..(I use Cambridge DAC magics..luv'em!) and into an analogue active crossover. THE DBX units are superb, very quiet and classically below .004% THD+N..anyway, regardless of spec, the sound is very transparent and the sound stage both deep and wide.

This way you can upgrade your DAC when you want without changing the whole system. It's my belief after hours of testing and listening that this is THE critical stage anyway.

You will need volume control of course and this will need to go either before the Ultracurve or after the DAC ..I use a tc electronics BMC-2 as a digital volume control before the "system", but may be just an analogue passive volume control may suffice after the DAC before the active crossover?

The system described should come in somewhere around your budget I think..I am in the UK so the pricing is different over here...

themadhippy · 8th February 2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Best Loudspeaker Management System

Dolby lake, not the lab gruppen copy,the origanal version .Next question

_Wim_ · 8th February 2011, 07:22 PM

I use the behringer DCX with the following modifications:
- active output board from Jan Didden
- analog power supply from Jan Didden (I am not sure this makes a difference)
- replaced the AKM4393 Dacs by the AKM4396 (both are pin compatible)

This will cost you far less then 1000$, and sound is excellent. The analog board is of high quality, and the DAC chips are as good as it gets (very high priced high end DACs use the same chips).The analog output board can be remote controlled, so you have a real pre-amp (this is not the case with most of the unmodified pro units).

Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oragens. This is a very major difference soundwise for your speaker, as polar responce will be very different.

My suggestion, invest as much of your budget as you can in good speakers (that were the real differences are), and spent minimal on electronics.

bigfishe · 8th February 2011, 07:26 PM

I run my DEQX passive no preamp and yes you can crossover lower than 8 order for a two way app. Right now I'm running a two way eagle2amp on the MJK H frame and a SEOTL to the brines fb20 he'll of a good sound 12db linkwitz Riley

Jim Griffin · 8th February 2011, 08:43 PM

Bigfishe,

I have sent you a PM via the DIYAudio forum. I would be interested in hearing your project in the future. I'm about 85 miles from Nashville.

Jim

Bill F. · 8th February 2011, 09:12 PM

I really love my Rane RPM88. It may be overkill for your needs, but I have a spare I'd be willing to sell within your budget. PM me if you're interested.

SoundRight · 9th February 2011, 09:46 AM

..."Dolby lake, not the lab gruppen copy,the origanal version .Next question"..

Budget under 1000Euro!! So, not a useful comment then? Amazing spec though but can't find a recent price on the Lab Gruppen LM26 version..

.."Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oranges"...

This is an interesting quote..if the polar response is very different the drivers must already be mismatched in dispersion angle at the crossover frequency I would suggest. Issues with physical driver displacement may be an issue as obviously the 48dB/oct will produce negligible overlap and potentially then a smoother response through the crossover area?

The purpose of the very steep slopes originally was to enable HF drivers to be brought down much closer to their fs and keep them well protected. The other benefit is of course that you do not need to use the mid driver so high thus reducing the effects of poorer dispersion due to beaming and the inevitable more ragged response on and off axis.

I see little benefit in well designed home or studio loudspeakers where driver choice is not so dependant on maximum power handling.

But this may once again indicate the complete unsuitability of a traditional WMT design..a poor starting point for a loudspeaker I would suggest.

With three different acoustic centres and different vertical displacements, different frequency dependent dispersion angles, cabinet energy storage and internal standing waves, cabinet diffraction, etc, etc I would suggest that the difference between a 4th order and an 8th order was the least of ones problems!

Steep filters by their nature will also have more ringing, and this may be an audible effect..have you tried the different (LR, Bessel, Butterworth) 4th order filters and heard a difference?

Comments from studio engineers and those who really understand the physics of these filters please!! I know the Harman/BSS site has a section on the nature of these 8th order filters and may be worth a visit.

19th October 2006, 07:07 PM	#12
mp006ltk diyAudio Member Join Date: Oct 2004	Deqx I wanted to answer the previous posts. My passive system is system is: Musical Fidelity DAC a3-24 Squeezebox 3 as transport. PS Audio PCA-2 PS Audio HCA-2 or Hypex UcD 400's i prefer my hypex monoblocks. Spekaers are custom made by me. I have put a speakon connector on the back to allow an A-B comparison between the DEQX and my Passive crossover design. My DEQX system is as follow: Squeezebox 3 Feeding either the MF dac or a dcs upsampler and then into my DEQX 2.6P with full balanced outputs. a combination of HCA-2's and Hypex Amps and then out to the speaker. I prefer the sound of the dcs upsampler using AES-EBU to the DEQX 24 bit 96khz with the new firmware. My impression is as follows. The crossover points are the same either way but the slopes are slightly different 4th order passive vs. 8th order active Passive Crossover: Extremely detailed and not veiled. The nuance and the realism comes across. Instuments sound real. The backround comes through much bettter Active Crossover: Much better dynamic range and volume capacity, and slightly better center image but less of a soundstage. The sound has alot less speed and toe tapping rythem. Kind of lifeless sounding but very acurate. Either way I don't hear the digital part come through. None of the slurred s's or smearing common to cheaper speakers and digital front ends. For these reasons I have relegated the deqx to a fast development toy to get the cross points and find when drivers begin to distort, otherwise I use CLIO and LEAP5 together and build a passive crossover. The DEQX has a massive limitation in that if you want to correct below 400Hz you really need a wharehouse with 16' ceilings and a forklift to get the speaker in the air. Unless you have this available you are extremely limited as to the placement of the lower crossover point in a true 3 way system. With a dedicated measurement system I can splice a groundplane or near field to get the low end. The DEQX can take imported measurements, but the company cautioned me to only use the built in measureing system becasue the imported measurements don't work well for some reason. In any case the resulting sound is more akin to an upper mid priced integrated amp with good speakers then a truely high end system that cam make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. If you decide to go with the DEQX here's what I would recomend: buy the P unit with 3 AES EBU outs use TaCT s2150 amps and let them do the digital conversion. Supply it with a high quality digital signal. Mabe the new transporter but it's pricy at 2k I like upsamping but that's another debate. For the speaker configuration forget a 3 way design and to a sub sat system with a nice pair of bookshelves and some sturdy subs like some peerless xxls with passive radiator. I kind of like metal domes with the deqx, I have tried SEAS h1212 and Focal t120td5's with Sucess. The midrange driver should be sturdy and dynamic sounding. No doped paper!!! Go with plasic, composite or metal. I personally dont' like metal in this conifig, but it's been done. see NHT xD system. TTYL, Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Peavey VSX-26 Digital Loudspeaker Management 3-In/6-Out	Audiodidakt	Multi-Way	3	27th March 2013 07:18 PM
Digital Speaker Management System	Jeroenkv	Multi-Way	2	26th September 2007 09:26 PM
Best Small(ish) DIY Loudspeaker System?	RussB	Multi-Way	3	12th October 2006 09:30 AM
RCA theatre loudspeaker system	marine83park	Multi-Way	1	30th May 2005 02:34 PM
Loudspeaker phase in car audio system	sma	Multi-Way	4	5th February 2004 09:03 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

19th October 2006, 12:26 PM	#11
a007udio diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: earth	Ok. Thanks for all your information. I need this device for speaker building help. So i need as many function as posible not the ultimate quality. Yes the Behringer have many functions but all of you says that it needs extra volume control. Is the integrated realy so bad.

24th October 2006, 08:00 AM	#13
a007udio diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: earth	Ok another question. What if i use instead of thouse components just a PC with apropriate sound card and software. Will this works?

8th February 2011, 06:35 PM	#14
SoundRight diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2010	Frankly, speaking as someone who has had his products favourably compared to ATC, PMC and Genelec by a pro audio reviewer(Hugh RobJohns, Omen Ra 1812 monitors), I find the comments regarding going back to passive crossovers quite laughable...sorry!! Don't mean to sound arrogant, but just trying to put my experience (nearly 40 years in sound, live and recorded, into perspective... This review pair was supplied with my BSS 366T Omnidrive and the Behringer Ultradrive. Which was preferred? ..the Behringer at 1/10th the cost!! However, I agree that loudspeaker management systems are not necessarily the best you can do for Hi Fi set ups as you rely on their final D/A converters which are competent but probably not High End..(They usually have AES IN so you can avoid the first conversion stage) My solution is to use a unit such as the Behringer Ultracurve for EQ. Stay in the digital domain all the way from the CD transport/digital out and use the Ultracurve in it's digital domain for the same reasons, avoiding the analog stages. The Ultracurve is extraordinarily transparent and neutral if used in the digital domain only...far better than you could expect for the money!! Pass your digital signal to a DAC of your choice..anything from the Musical Fidelity up to the Benchmark..(I use Cambridge DAC magics..luv'em!) and into an analogue active crossover. THE DBX units are superb, very quiet and classically below .004% THD+N..anyway, regardless of spec, the sound is very transparent and the sound stage both deep and wide. This way you can upgrade your DAC when you want without changing the whole system. It's my belief after hours of testing and listening that this is THE critical stage anyway. You will need volume control of course and this will need to go either before the Ultracurve or after the DAC ..I use a tc electronics BMC-2 as a digital volume control before the "system", but may be just an analogue passive volume control may suffice after the DAC before the active crossover? The system described should come in somewhere around your budget I think..I am in the UK so the pricing is different over here...

8th February 2011, 07:22 PM	#16
_Wim_ diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Belgium	I use the behringer DCX with the following modifications: - active output board from Jan Didden - analog power supply from Jan Didden (I am not sure this makes a difference) - replaced the AKM4393 Dacs by the AKM4396 (both are pin compatible) This will cost you far less then 1000$, and sound is excellent. The analog board is of high quality, and the DAC chips are as good as it gets (very high priced high end DACs use the same chips).The analog output board can be remote controlled, so you have a real pre-amp (this is not the case with most of the unmodified pro units). Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oragens. This is a very major difference soundwise for your speaker, as polar responce will be very different. My suggestion, invest as much of your budget as you can in good speakers (that were the real differences are), and spent minimal on electronics.

8th February 2011, 07:26 PM	#17
bigfishe diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Nashville	I run my DEQX passive no preamp and yes you can crossover lower than 8 order for a two way app. Right now I'm running a two way eagle2amp on the MJK H frame and a SEOTL to the brines fb20 he'll of a good sound 12db linkwitz Riley

8th February 2011, 08:43 PM	#18
Jim Griffin diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Tennessee	Bigfishe, I have sent you a PM via the DIYAudio forum. I would be interested in hearing your project in the future. I'm about 85 miles from Nashville. Jim

8th February 2011, 09:12 PM	#19
Bill F. diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: SW MI	I really love my Rane RPM88. It may be overkill for your needs, but I have a spare I'd be willing to sell within your budget. PM me if you're interested.

9th February 2011, 09:46 AM	#20
SoundRight diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2010	..."Dolby lake, not the lab gruppen copy,the origanal version .Next question".. Budget under 1000Euro!! So, not a useful comment then? Amazing spec though but can't find a recent price on the Lab Gruppen LM26 version.. .."Comparing sound quality when using different slopes (4th order vs 8th order) is comparing apples and oranges"... This is an interesting quote..if the polar response is very different the drivers must already be mismatched in dispersion angle at the crossover frequency I would suggest. Issues with physical driver displacement may be an issue as obviously the 48dB/oct will produce negligible overlap and potentially then a smoother response through the crossover area? The purpose of the very steep slopes originally was to enable HF drivers to be brought down much closer to their fs and keep them well protected. The other benefit is of course that you do not need to use the mid driver so high thus reducing the effects of poorer dispersion due to beaming and the inevitable more ragged response on and off axis. I see little benefit in well designed home or studio loudspeakers where driver choice is not so dependant on maximum power handling. But this may once again indicate the complete unsuitability of a traditional WMT design..a poor starting point for a loudspeaker I would suggest. With three different acoustic centres and different vertical displacements, different frequency dependent dispersion angles, cabinet energy storage and internal standing waves, cabinet diffraction, etc, etc I would suggest that the difference between a 4th order and an 8th order was the least of ones problems! Steep filters by their nature will also have more ringing, and this may be an audible effect..have you tried the different (LR, Bessel, Butterworth) 4th order filters and heard a difference? Comments from studio engineers and those who really understand the physics of these filters please!! I know the Harman/BSS site has a section on the nature of these 8th order filters and may be worth a visit.