| slr 5000 |
| hi all whats involved with using a dbx driverack im wanting to possible run my speakers active .can i just run from my source to pre to dbx to poweramp .all my connections are rca ,will this work with the dbx .id like to keep it simple and not use a dac .i only use a cdp as a source |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
hi all whats involved with using a dbx driverack im wanting to possible run my speakers active .can i just run from my source to pre to dbx to poweramp |
Yes. However the dbx will be doing an ADC/DAC process so not having a sufficiently high level will reduce resolution.
The dbx has no digital input.
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
[B]all my connections are rca ,will this work with the dbx .id like to keep it simple and not use a dac .i only use a cdp as a source |
You will need to make/buy RC/XLR leads. Check the dbx manual to see how they suggest doing balanced/unbalanced conversion.
If you decide to go with the dbx soon Cannon Sound in Sydney have one on special cheap. |
|
|
| slr 5000 |
| hi mate .so is it better to use a dac in between the source and dbx then into a volume control before the poweramps .i presume then the dbx will recieve a full signal? |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
hi mate .so is it better to use a dac in between the source and dbx then into a volume control before the poweramps .i presume then the dbx will receive a full signal? |
The only reason to use an external DAC from your CDP is if it is of substantially higher quality than the one already present in the CDP.
Yes, it would be my preference to use a fixed level input from source into the dbx, then use volume controls on the output of the dbx before the individual poweramps. I am currently building an active system with DCX2496's that will be implemented this way for analogue sources; digital sources will be digital into the DCX's. |
|
|
| terry j |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
hi mate .so is it better to use a dac in between the source and dbx then into a volume control before the poweramps .i presume then the dbx will recieve a full signal? |
not sure how this would work? unless you could bypass somehow the internal dacs of the dbx (which you couldn't cause you have however many channels out each needing to be converted from the digital domain).....just an extra dac somewhere in the chain that is limited by the 'deficiencies' of any dac in the chain, in this case the internal dacs of the dbx.
Also, we are talking two fundamentally different machines. the dbx is a 'glorified' behringer (not a slight, just that it basically does the same thing) whereas the deqx is different and does stuff the dbx can only dream of..
The dbx/behringer is the same as deqx as hyundai is the same as a mercedes...both will get you to melbourne right?
But if you did that trip once a week which would be preferable... (and even that is a poor analogy as there are things the deqx does that the dbx is not even capable of)
horses for courses, make you pick based on budget and whatever else constraints you have, but don't somehow equate the two.
you still need the all preamp functions with the dbx, don't overlook how to incorprate them into the system. |
|
|
| slr 5000 |
| im interested in knowing why everyone seems to spend a fortune upgrading the deqx if its so good ,surely for something that costs that much to buy it should not need this .ive heard a lot of the parts inside are very poor quality .does anyone have any opinions or experiance with this |
|
|
| terry j |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
im interested in knowing why everyone seems to spend a fortune upgrading the deqx if its so good ,surely for something that costs that much to buy it should not need this .ive heard a lot of the parts inside are very poor quality .does anyone have any opinions or experiance with this |
A lot of generalities in your question there Scheaffer..who's 'everyone'? What's a 'fortune'? very poor quality?
that is NOT to say that no product anywhere cannot be improved..after all every product on the planet is built to a price.
Where does this stuff come from? You will hear people say that the dacs (as an example) are good but 'not state of the art'....but provide nothing more than that. Maybe they are right? but then again if it;s good enough for an $8000 Krell then they can't be too bad. Perhaps Krell are overpriced rubbish, dunno, no experience with them.
But there are a lot of statements on the web that get an aura of respectability simply cause they're on the web. Doesn't neccessarily mean jackshit.
Imperial Audio used to do a bit of modding of the deqx, and those mods cost more than the initial cost of the deqx. (and the dacs were never touched as far as I can tell). Does that mean that internally it is 'very poor quality'? Maybe, maybe not. But it does tend to suggest that if you are going to improve on stock it takes an awful lot of money.
In any case, Empirical Audio no longer do mods on the deqx, and the upgraded 2.6 (HDP3) is only about 20% dearer than the old model, and essentially incorporates the improvements that Empirical audio used to do.
There is no part of the dbx that can be improved? |
|
|
| slr 5000 |
| i have also noticed that people are modding the dbx and beringer but as these are a lot cheaper than the deqx i can understand that there will be compromises inside them that will need to be looked at if you want maximum performance .dont get me wrong i can see huge benefets with the room correction on the deqx i just struggle to understand why it is priced so high .i suppose that as it doesnt really have any compareable competition at the moment they can get away with it .for now |
|
|
| Sheldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
i have also noticed that people are modding the dbx and beringer but as these are a lot cheaper than the deqx i can understand that there will be compromises inside them that will need to be looked at if you want maximum performance .dont get me wrong i can see huge benefets with the room correction on the deqx i just struggle to understand why it is priced so high .i suppose that as it doesnt really have any compareable competition at the moment they can get away with it .for now |
What you are buying is a low volume specialty product, so price is not tightly tied to parts cost. A big part of the price is development cost. Hardware development, yes, but even more so, software development.
DEQX recently offered a upgrade of their device. They used some higher current buffers (don't remember the details). The opamps were also replaced. The opa2134 (which are not bad) were replaced with LM4562. Some lytic caps were upsized and some were replaced with lower ESR versions. They also offered a linear power supply to replace the switching supply. I had my unit upgraded, but left the switcher in place, as I can build a good linear supply if I want that.
I can't say that I heard an obvious difference (not that I had complaints before). But if I were them, I would have offered the same *upgrades* too. If people think they are better (or more to the point, think they must have them), give it to them.
I did one other thing. For the first time, I lugged my big heavy speakers outside and set them up high and away from any reflecting surfaces to get measurements that I could use a long window with. I also measured them on axis to 52 degrees off axis, in 7.5 degree increments, so that I could choose the best off axis measurement point and choose crossover points where the drivers have similar directional patterns. Now THAT made a very noticable difference. Big gains in imaging and clarity.
I have no doubt that spending some time measuring my room and making adjustments with also offer audible gains.
Focus on the forest, trees, twigs. We spend a lot of time on twigs before we understand the forest.
Sheldon |
|
|
| slr 5000 |
| ok so if i decided to purchase a dbx driverack 260(this is the model im looking at ) i would have to run my cd into the driverack then go from the driverack into a volume control which will be a 4 channel as my speakers are 2way ,and from the volume control into the poweramps ,is this correct . i will also have to use adapters as my cd player and amps use rca connections .is this ok.what about a good passive pre in between the driverack and the poweramps for volume control ?.will this be better than a passive crossover setup ? my drivers are very expensive (manger for mid and high ,eton 12"hexacone for bass )and i would hate to set all this up and it to not be better than a passive crossover with good quality components |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
ok so if i decided to purchase a dbx driverack 260(this is the model im looking at ) i would have to run my cd into the driverack then go from the driverack into a volume control which will be a 4 channel as my speakers are 2way ,and from the volume control into the poweramps ,is this correct . |
Yes.
| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
i will also have to use adapters as my cd player and amps use rca connections .is this ok.what about a good passive pre in between the driverack and the poweramps for volume control ?. |
Yes re adaptors or have some cables made.
A "passive pre" is simply a volume control, which is what you're going to have with the 4ch vol control you mention.
ALPS make 4 channel ganged pots as the easiest solution.| quote: | Originally posted by slr 5000
will this be better than a passive crossover setup ? my drivers are very expensive (manger for mid and high ,eton 12"hexacone for bass )and i would hate to set all this up and it to not be better than a passive crossover with good quality components |
In my experience, active done well is almost always much better than passive. Read Rod Elliot's articles on bi-amping for more info.
PS: Spreading your writing out would make it easier to respond. |
|
|
| slr 5000 |
thanks brett you have been very helpfull and ill spread my post out from now on .
out of the dbx models which would be your choice
driverack 260
""""""""""studio
"""""""""" pa
also will there be impeadence mismatches as they are designed for pro use or will they match ok with the home audio gear
is the 260 worth the extra dollars compared to the driverack pa ?
sorry about all the ques i just want to be 100% before i purchase
can i use assymetric slopes on the 260 .
for example 6db highpass and 18db lowpass
cheers |
|
|
| ralphs99 |
Hi SLR,
I've been using a 260 for a while now. I was intending to do volume control at the oututs, but haven't found that to be essential as long as system gain is set appropriately.
The 260 is definitely worth the extra money over the PA. Much more versatile and GUI front end.
You can set whatever combination of crossover slopes you like.
No problem with impedances.
Cheers, Ralph |
|
|
| KBK |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sheldon
What you are buying is a low volume specialty product, so price is not tightly tied to parts cost. A big part of the price is development cost. Hardware development, yes, but even more so, software development.
DEQX recently offered a upgrade of their device. They used some higher current buffers (don't remember the details). The opamps were also replaced. The opa2134 (which are not bad) were replaced with LM4562. Some lytic caps were upsized and some were replaced with lower ESR versions. They also offered a linear power supply to replace the switching supply. I had my unit upgraded, but left the switcher in place, as I can build a good linear supply if I want that.
I can't say that I heard an obvious difference (not that I had complaints before). But if I were them, I would have offered the same *upgrades* too. If people think they are better (or more to the point, think they must have them), give it to them.
Sheldon |
Can you PM (email me) a picture of the new board?! I'd be grateful. I have the DEQX 2.6p and I'm curious.... |
|
|
|
