Best Loudspeaker Management System

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hello.



I would like to buy Loudspeaker Management System for around
1000 Euros. Any recomendation what to buy.
It was looking the forum and it looks that there are many of Behringer users but do i get any advantages if i buy something "better".

Thanks.

ps: i need 2 in 6 out
 
I use the DEQX, but....

i use the deqx, but if your looking to spend around 1k don't look there. i like the deqx as a tool, but I'm finding that it lacks the ultimate adge for being up there with the best pramps in the world. I have turned to using it strictly as a design tool, and then taking additional measurements with my clio system for the crossover design. The only real problems is that it doesn't allow anything lower then an 8th order crossover for optimization. Otherwise the transfer funtion has to be textbook. i think I might sell mine. I don't know, I'll have to keep playing with it.
 
I had for quite a while DCX2496 as active three way crossover in my system. Even built 6-channel volume control to have proper input/output levels.
DCX was killing sound completely. Do not get me wrong, it is a great unit, but it was not designed for HiFi reproduction. Again, it all depends what kind of speakers you want to control.

I ended up with passive crossover (cost me fortune too, lol) for mid/hi and still using DCX for sub.
 
seems like there really is no "easy" active crossovers. From what I understand all of the pro-audio ones don't sound very good, the DEQX is neat but REALLY expensive, a PC based crossover is complicated to setup and also expensive if you want quality hardware, and if you want to make your own hi-fi analog active x-over you need to invest a bunch of time into constructing it, and then it isn't adjustable. Is there a (relatively) inexpensive easy solution here?
 
m0tion said:
a PC based crossover is complicated to setup and also expensive if you want quality hardware,


Nah - maybe it used to be, but not any more IMHO. Jan's Allocator (www.thuneau.com) is no harder to use than the PC Software for the Behringer. A good soundcard isn't free, but the Emu 1820M plus a PC plus the Allocator software is comfortably under $1k USD. Add in the 'console' VST host and the free SIR convolver if you need some FIR room eq.

This makes the most sense if you're already looking at a PC for your source, but you can easily set up the Allocator to handle incoming external analog or digital signals (although you don't get auto-detect or change of sample rates on the digital in, which may be a problem).
 
Re: I use the DEQX, but....

mp006ltk said:
i use the deqx, but if your looking to spend around 1k don't look there. i like the deqx as a tool, but I'm finding that it lacks the ultimate adge for being up there with the best pramps in the world. I have turned to using it strictly as a design tool, and then taking additional measurements with my clio system for the crossover design. The only real problems is that it doesn't allow anything lower then an 8th order crossover for optimization. Otherwise the transfer funtion has to be textbook. i think I might sell mine. I don't know, I'll have to keep playing with it.


I'm fairly surprised by the statement that the DEQX is not all that great. How's your setup like/ what configuration?

As for me I'm in the process of building up a system from scratch a 3 way dipole using Visaton B200 with Fauntek neo2.0cd in mtm, and visaton bgs40 in w-frame config. The mtm panel will be no larger than a Phoenix panel and will be placed on top of the w-frame dipole woofers.
Speaker management will be handled by a DriverackPA. Sources will be from a cd-rom NEC601 as a transport (built with a digital buffered output) going into a non-OS DAC with balanced output, going to a balanced TVC then driving the driverackPA.
As for amplification I have not finalized yet, but am having this crazy idea of using 2 pairs of 2A3 SET amp for the mtm, and using a KT88 push pull amp for the dipole subs.
Eventually when funds permit I'd like to upgrade the driverack to the DEQX. Hence my curiosity on your findings.
 
In Praise of DEQX

I have used my DEQX machine (preamp version) for more than 18 months and I really like what it does. My setup is to use the digital output from my universal DVD/CD player into one of the two digital inputs on the DEQX. I feed the analog outputs from the DEQX to a multichannel power amplifier (I use a 5 channel for a 2 way crossover and add another two channel amp if I go 3 way). My main application for the DEQX is to drive my line arrays.

All of the magic happens inside the DEQX--up to 3 way crossover, digital volume control, EQ, room corrections, etc. Everything that the DEQX ultimately will do is measurement based--you measure the entire path from the DEQX through the power amp, cables, and finally the speakers. I perform my speaker measurements outside to minimize any room reflections impact. The DEQX software is very powerful and enables you to achieve exceptional results. The process proceeds quickly and with minimal fuss from the user. Filter design takes only a minute or two for most cases. Finally, once you place the system in the listening room, you can make a listening position measurement and EQ to minimize room effects. Plus you can adjust the sound to satisfy your ears. All of the measurements and corrections are done with a computer attached via the USB port. Once you are happy with the results, you can download the results into your DEQX and use the box without the PC. You download 3 different calibrations into the hardware so you can try different filters or EQ and decide which one you like. You use the included remote control to select between the 4 inputs (2 analog and 2 digital) and between the different calibrations.

Bottom line the DEQX is the most powerful and useful speaker calibration tool on the market. I'm very pleased.

Jim
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
..."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.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.