Steve D or anyone:
The new Behringer DCX 2496 handles crossovers (your choice of type) up to 3 way, and up to 4th order LR, in the digital mode, for USD $350-440.
It also allows stereo parametric EQ.
Behringer advised me that if used for 3 way crossovers, and both 24 dB/ octave LR,
"you should have approx 17% processing power free. Each EQ band needs approx 3-4% of the DSP power".
They’ve confirmed that this option (24 dB/ octave) would allow each channel _just_ 2 bands of parametric EQ.
(Minimum EQ bandwidth is 1/10 oct).
There may be an upgrade where you can choose the sample rate between 48 and 96 kHz.
48 kHz gives more space on the dsp power.. but they can’t say when or if it will come out.
Does the dbx Driverack PA, or another similar product, when used for 24 dB/ octave, allow more bands of parametric EQ?
The new Behringer DCX 2496 handles crossovers (your choice of type) up to 3 way, and up to 4th order LR, in the digital mode, for USD $350-440.
It also allows stereo parametric EQ.
Behringer advised me that if used for 3 way crossovers, and both 24 dB/ octave LR,
"you should have approx 17% processing power free. Each EQ band needs approx 3-4% of the DSP power".
They’ve confirmed that this option (24 dB/ octave) would allow each channel _just_ 2 bands of parametric EQ.
(Minimum EQ bandwidth is 1/10 oct).
There may be an upgrade where you can choose the sample rate between 48 and 96 kHz.
48 kHz gives more space on the dsp power.. but they can’t say when or if it will come out.
Does the dbx Driverack PA, or another similar product, when used for 24 dB/ octave, allow more bands of parametric EQ?
I suggest you download the free software and play with it to see if it meets your needs. It's quite flexible but it is somewhat limited in the number of filters you can apply. It will do up to a 6-way mono and crossovers up to 8th order but steeper crossovers use more resources. I picked a default stereo 3-way 4th order and removed the unnecessary highpass on the woofers. That left enough resources that I could apply a total of 18 parametric and shelving EQs. It didn't matter where I applied them. Dropping the XOs to second order let me add 10 more EQs Adding delays didn't seem to use any more resources. That's quite a bit of horsepower for most speakers but, if you need more, you'd need to use one unit per speaker or shop elsewhere.
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=DCX2496&lang=eng
Click the "editor" link in the "downloads" area.
Davey.
Click the "editor" link in the "downloads" area.
Davey.
You can check with the Behringer what you'll get by downloading the software and putting in exactly what you want to do. When I did my settings (basically an Orion type set-up, 24dB LR, 2 EQ on bass, 3 on mids) I was left with 13% processor power left. Just fiddling around, this seemed to be enough for another 3 to 4 bands, but I don't know how accurate their simulation is.
The dbx Driverack PA gives 3 PEQs for the bass and 2 each for mid and treble when used with a 3 way L/R, plus you can apply a 28 band graphic EQ/room correction on top of those.
Moving up the processor chain, the new dbx Driverack 260 gives twice the processing power of the PA. So you with a 3 way, you get four bands of PEQ for each output, plus it gives you the choice of either the 28 band graphic or eight bands of parametric applied before the crossovers.
This adds up to a total of 20 possible bands of PEQ per stereo channel, plus there are some other nifty features like adjustable phase for each output as well. The best price I've found on the 260 is $679.69. None of the other older units from BSS, JBL or dbx or Rane have as many bands. I think I might grab one since I have found a buyer for my PA at a very good price.
I also have a DCX 2496 ordered ($349) to use for my center and rears which are 2 way active dipoles, so no doubt I will feel compelled to try that out with my mains as well. The question will be whether the DCX 24/96 processing sounds better than the dbx 24/48.
Hope this helps.
Steve
The dbx Driverack PA gives 3 PEQs for the bass and 2 each for mid and treble when used with a 3 way L/R, plus you can apply a 28 band graphic EQ/room correction on top of those.
Moving up the processor chain, the new dbx Driverack 260 gives twice the processing power of the PA. So you with a 3 way, you get four bands of PEQ for each output, plus it gives you the choice of either the 28 band graphic or eight bands of parametric applied before the crossovers.
This adds up to a total of 20 possible bands of PEQ per stereo channel, plus there are some other nifty features like adjustable phase for each output as well. The best price I've found on the 260 is $679.69. None of the other older units from BSS, JBL or dbx or Rane have as many bands. I think I might grab one since I have found a buyer for my PA at a very good price.
I also have a DCX 2496 ordered ($349) to use for my center and rears which are 2 way active dipoles, so no doubt I will feel compelled to try that out with my mains as well. The question will be whether the DCX 24/96 processing sounds better than the dbx 24/48.
Hope this helps.
Steve
dbx Driverack PA is go!
sfdoddsy said:
the dbx Driverack PA gives 3 PEQs for the bass and 2 each for mid and treble when used with a 3 way L/R,
plus you can apply a 28 band graphic EQ/room correction on top of those
Whoa! That's way more than the DCX (I had already checked with Behringer about the DCX 2496's capabilities).
I've heard that the Driverack is likely to use better components than the Behringer. (I'm not sure how true this is??).
Any opinions - Steve when do you expect to get your DCX ??
If the Driverack has as many as 28 bands of EQ, vs only 2 bands of EQ left in the Behringer (after the 4th order xover), then it avoids the need for an equaliser.
It looks as if to get the same xover + EQ in Behringer, you'd need to also buy the Behringer 8024 equaliser. Total cost still less than the Driverack, on my pricing about 20% less.
Advantages of Behringer:
a) Buying two separate units allows flexibility if you wanted to do something with one part in another system.
b) Add a mike to the 8024 equaliser, and you have "auto EQ".
I don't think the Driverack PA allows this(?)
The DCX 2496 has digital in, so you could (assuming your CD player has digital out) use the DCX's DAC.
I wonder if either the Driverack PA has a better DAC in it??
sfdoddsy said:
the dbx Driverack PA gives 3 PEQs for the bass and 2 each for mid and treble when used with a 3 way L/R,
plus you can apply a 28 band graphic EQ/room correction on top of those
Whoa! That's way more than the DCX (I had already checked with Behringer about the DCX 2496's capabilities).
I've heard that the Driverack is likely to use better components than the Behringer. (I'm not sure how true this is??).
Any opinions - Steve when do you expect to get your DCX ??
If the Driverack has as many as 28 bands of EQ, vs only 2 bands of EQ left in the Behringer (after the 4th order xover), then it avoids the need for an equaliser.
It looks as if to get the same xover + EQ in Behringer, you'd need to also buy the Behringer 8024 equaliser. Total cost still less than the Driverack, on my pricing about 20% less.
Advantages of Behringer:
a) Buying two separate units allows flexibility if you wanted to do something with one part in another system.
b) Add a mike to the 8024 equaliser, and you have "auto EQ".
I don't think the Driverack PA allows this(?)
The DCX 2496 has digital in, so you could (assuming your CD player has digital out) use the DCX's DAC.
I wonder if either the Driverack PA has a better DAC in it??
The Driverack PA and 260 also have an Auto EQ system. I currently use the parametric EQs to get the speakers right, and then use the Auto-EQ on top of that for room correction. If you check my website there are some graphs there that show the sort of results that I get.
As to the comparison of the Driverack PA and the DCX, it should be noted that with the PA you are restricted in the sense that you are restricted in the number of PEQs you can use per band, ie 3 for bass, 2 for mids and trebles. With the DCX you can use all the PEQs for any output you like, ie ten in the bass if you want.
The usefulness of this will depend entirely on what you are trying to achieve. Because I need to EQ each driver, the PA is fine for me, and the 260 will be even better.
The DCX is on backorder. I have been quoted 31/3 arrival, and hope to pick it up on my next trip to the USA early in April, when I'll grab my 260 as well. Comparisons will have to wait until I get back to Australia.
As to the quality of the DACs, I used to have an 8024 and the Drivrack PA is significantly better, especially the A/D section. the DCX should be better than the 8024, and theoretically better than the PA, but we shall see.
The problem with feeding the DCX a digital input is twofold. The first is getting s signal to it. You could just run a CD player digital out straight to it, but if you have muliple sources, especially Dolby Digital and DTS you need to find a way to convert them to PCM.
The only prepros I know that do this are Merdian, some Thetas and the MBS one (www.mbstech.com).
Then you need to work out how to do volume control as the DCX doesn't have it. This is complicated even more if you have a multichannel system, for obvious reasons.
Steve
PS
I think the DCX will have more than two bands available after doing a 3 way. My simulation used 5, and there were still a few available.
As to the comparison of the Driverack PA and the DCX, it should be noted that with the PA you are restricted in the sense that you are restricted in the number of PEQs you can use per band, ie 3 for bass, 2 for mids and trebles. With the DCX you can use all the PEQs for any output you like, ie ten in the bass if you want.
The usefulness of this will depend entirely on what you are trying to achieve. Because I need to EQ each driver, the PA is fine for me, and the 260 will be even better.
The DCX is on backorder. I have been quoted 31/3 arrival, and hope to pick it up on my next trip to the USA early in April, when I'll grab my 260 as well. Comparisons will have to wait until I get back to Australia.
As to the quality of the DACs, I used to have an 8024 and the Drivrack PA is significantly better, especially the A/D section. the DCX should be better than the 8024, and theoretically better than the PA, but we shall see.
The problem with feeding the DCX a digital input is twofold. The first is getting s signal to it. You could just run a CD player digital out straight to it, but if you have muliple sources, especially Dolby Digital and DTS you need to find a way to convert them to PCM.
The only prepros I know that do this are Merdian, some Thetas and the MBS one (www.mbstech.com).
Then you need to work out how to do volume control as the DCX doesn't have it. This is complicated even more if you have a multichannel system, for obvious reasons.
Steve
PS
I think the DCX will have more than two bands available after doing a 3 way. My simulation used 5, and there were still a few available.
Re: dbx Driverack PA is go!
Koinichiwa,
I think you are confusing graphic equalisers and parametric equaliser.
A "single" parametric EQ uses one EQ band that is variable in bandwidth and center frequency in addition to the level. This allows a single parametric EQ to replace several bands of of a graphic EQ and allows a number of corrections a graphic EQ cannot produce.
When comparing "specs" make sure you compare like for like.
That said, yes, the Driverack PA combines something like a cut down Digital EQ with an X-over that has 3 parametrics one one output channel and two parametrics on the other, but fixed, without the ability to assign more.
I'd say that an experienced user can probably achieve a similar overall result by using either unit, though the Behringers additional assignable parametrics may provide the result in a fashion that MAY be preferrable.
Compared to most analogue crossovers either unit offers tremendous flexibility and most of the time likely better sound.
I would also add that the Sony Pro Digital X-Over is in a similar price and performance class (also features), so quite a range of units are available.
Sayonara
Koinichiwa,
rick57 said:
I think you are confusing graphic equalisers and parametric equaliser.
A "single" parametric EQ uses one EQ band that is variable in bandwidth and center frequency in addition to the level. This allows a single parametric EQ to replace several bands of of a graphic EQ and allows a number of corrections a graphic EQ cannot produce.
When comparing "specs" make sure you compare like for like.
That said, yes, the Driverack PA combines something like a cut down Digital EQ with an X-over that has 3 parametrics one one output channel and two parametrics on the other, but fixed, without the ability to assign more.
I'd say that an experienced user can probably achieve a similar overall result by using either unit, though the Behringers additional assignable parametrics may provide the result in a fashion that MAY be preferrable.
Compared to most analogue crossovers either unit offers tremendous flexibility and most of the time likely better sound.
I would also add that the Sony Pro Digital X-Over is in a similar price and performance class (also features), so quite a range of units are available.
Sayonara
I should have been more specific. The Driverack PA has a 28 band Graphic EQ and up to three bands of parametric EQ per output channel.
The Driverack 260 has 4 bands of parametric EQ per output channel, and a choice of either the 28 band graphic EQ or 9 bands of parametric EQ per input channel.
So with the PA you can have up to 9 bands of parametric EQ for a 3 way speaker, and with the 260 you can have up 21 bands for a 3 way.
Cheers
Steve
The Driverack 260 has 4 bands of parametric EQ per output channel, and a choice of either the 28 band graphic EQ or 9 bands of parametric EQ per input channel.
So with the PA you can have up to 9 bands of parametric EQ for a 3 way speaker, and with the 260 you can have up 21 bands for a 3 way.
Cheers
Steve
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.