Btw wasnt in the marketing material that this has some phase innovation between the two parts so XO is better?
No worries ill have to find the quote. I had the impression their patent was about making something innovative for bridging the two units.
This is what I managed to get out of the DCX464 with a Lake LM26.
Top - phase +/- 180 , bottom 2 dB per div 1/3 Oct smoothing Xover 600Hz & 3K2
My initial thoughts regarding a comparison with the BMS4594 -
• The 464 goes lower and louder
• The HF is not quite as extended as the 4594
• The distortion and water fall behaviour is better
• The crossover HF/VHF is much easier to implement
Top - phase +/- 180 , bottom 2 dB per div 1/3 Oct smoothing Xover 600Hz & 3K2
My initial thoughts regarding a comparison with the BMS4594 -
• The 464 goes lower and louder
• The HF is not quite as extended as the 4594
• The distortion and water fall behaviour is better
• The crossover HF/VHF is much easier to implement
Attachments
Hi Peter,
Thanks a lot for the input! Could you please give us your subjective impressions on the differences sound-wise between the BMS 4594HE and the new B&C DCX464?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for the input! Could you please give us your subjective impressions on the differences sound-wise between the BMS 4594HE and the new B&C DCX464?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Peter
The DCX464 sounds clearer and more natural through the mids. The BMS4594 has a lovely sparkle or air to the VHF that I suspect is not 100% correct, but it does sound nice. The DCX464 does not have the same sparkle but at the same time I can’t fault what I’m hearing.
@ Mark, Hi mate, great to see you here. The horn is made by Krix speakers. Its used in their theatre range. Unfortunately, they will not sell it separately (I have asked). It has wonderful pattern control, and goes a bit lower than the RCF HF950.
For sure Peter, And great to see you post here too.
It's always a blessing to those of us DIY'ers who like the sound of Hi-Fi PA, when an accomplished live-sound professional continues to have an interest in DIY, and staying atop of best available components.
After reading your subjective comparison of the DCX464 and BMS4594, my impression is you articulated what I've been hearing too, only I hadn't been able to characterize it (even in my mind) nearly as clear.
Cheers mate!
I have been doing a bit more work, so just to add a bit more - I think some of the sparkle I hear from the BMS is distortion, as such the target curve that sounds the best for the VHF is perhaps a little rolled off to compensate for the distortion (which does sound nice). In comparison the 464 needs to be flat, requiring a bit of a boost around 18K to do that.
FWIW I’m VERY happy with the results I’m getting now with the 464.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the added impressions!
Have you had a chance to compare the B&C DCX464 to any of the large format - and much more expensive - Be diaphragm drivers (i.e., 2" TAD 4001, 1.5" 4002, or 1.4" Radian 745NeoBE, or 2" 950PBBe)? And if "yes", then how does the B&C DCX464 compare against any of these Be equivalents?
I understand your main interest is PA, but if you were built the best possible super-monitor for studio/home use, which compression driver would you base this on?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Peter
Thanks for the added impressions!
Have you had a chance to compare the B&C DCX464 to any of the large format - and much more expensive - Be diaphragm drivers (i.e., 2" TAD 4001, 1.5" 4002, or 1.4" Radian 745NeoBE, or 2" 950PBBe)? And if "yes", then how does the B&C DCX464 compare against any of these Be equivalents?
I understand your main interest is PA, but if you were built the best possible super-monitor for studio/home use, which compression driver would you base this on?
Thanks a lot!
Best regards
Peter
No I have not compared it to any of the beryllium diaphragm compression drivers.
There is one big difference with the 464, it will go much lower than the drivers you mentioned and produce serious SPL from about 400Hz up.
If I was going to build some “super-monitors” as you mentioned I would probably try and go with something with a 1.4” exit so that I could achieve reasonable pattern control at the high frequencies.
What driver I used for the HF would depend on how low I needed it to go. I would try to ensure the MID/HF or LF/HF crossover frequency meant the MID or LF driver was operating in its piston range if possible.
The 760NEOPB looks very good if you don’t need the compression driver to go low.
Another interesting driver is Eighteen Sound’s ND3ST, which I have heard and it does sound excellent.
One I have not heard is FaitalPRO’s HF1440, but it does look interesting (see bottom link)
For my application where I need something to go as low as 500-600Hz and still make serious SPL the 464 is excellent … and I’m getting studio monitor results when processed on a Lake LM26
Some links that I’m sure you have seen -
The 745NEOBe Compression Driver from Radian Audio | audioXpress
Test Bench: Radian Audio Engineering 950PB and 760NEOPB Compression Drivers | audioXpress
Test Bench: The 951PB 1.4" Compression Driver from Radian Audio Engineering | audioXpress
Test Bench: Eighteen Sound ND3ST 1.4” Compression Driver | audioXpress
New FaitalPro HF1440 Compression Driver Extends Frequency Response and Power in a Compact Format | audioXpress
Hi again Peter,
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts and impressions
.
Best regards
Peter
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts and impressions
.Best regards
Peter
Custom CD design for PAS by DDS horns (which was their supplier).
It looks like a "flat front" version of this horn.
Thank you !!
I got a 2" to 1.4" adapter....need to give that horn a good evaluation.
All my attention with the dcx464 is still into this project...here's latest incarnation....over push-push dual 18".
The dcx is sounding very, very nice in this syn attempt...happy camper.
Attachments
Thanks again Ro808,
I've been using 2x12...rcf mb12n351's...the same drivers used in the Peter Morris design.
Crossed to subs at 120Hz...trying not to have to use reflex ports in the synergy.
But I just switched to a different pair of 12"s I had...mb12n405's..because I think these will work down to 100 Hz without ports. They are really heavy bastards or I would have been using them all along.
So far, I've been crossing from the 12"s to the CD at 650Hz...but this has been mainly to have a more direct comparison to other boxes I have set up at that cross freq, such as the PM60/90.
I plan to try dropping to 500Hz soon...
I've been using 2x12...rcf mb12n351's...the same drivers used in the Peter Morris design.
Crossed to subs at 120Hz...trying not to have to use reflex ports in the synergy.
But I just switched to a different pair of 12"s I had...mb12n405's..because I think these will work down to 100 Hz without ports. They are really heavy bastards or I would have been using them all along.
So far, I've been crossing from the 12"s to the CD at 650Hz...but this has been mainly to have a more direct comparison to other boxes I have set up at that cross freq, such as the PM60/90.
I plan to try dropping to 500Hz soon...
Based on T&S the MB 12N405 is slightly better suited to sealed than the MB12N351.
As you pointed out, the 405 is more robust and will take some beating/boosting.
If driver spacing allows a crossover >600Hz, the RCF ND940 is a viable and less costly alternative to the coaxials.
One less crossover point isn't a bad thing either.
BTW, how did you like the the PAS horns compared to the XT1464 and HF950?
As you pointed out, the 405 is more robust and will take some beating/boosting.
If driver spacing allows a crossover >600Hz, the RCF ND940 is a viable and less costly alternative to the coaxials.
One less crossover point isn't a bad thing either.
BTW, how did you like the the PAS horns compared to the XT1464 and HF950?
Last edited: