I reported my findings on the DCX a couple of years ago.
It now sits in it's box in the workshop awaiting the day that I can modify it to improve it's sound quality.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/57697-dcx2496-shakedown-2.html#post648211 and 87 other posts of mine.
It now sits in it's box in the workshop awaiting the day that I can modify it to improve it's sound quality.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/57697-dcx2496-shakedown-2.html#post648211 and 87 other posts of mine.
Last edited:
Well done!
I was able to translate using Microsoft Translator:
"The data speak for themselves - I've no serious stain found. "
We are always looking for submissions to our new articles area:
diyAudio - diyAudio Articles
Things there won't get lost over time..
for those who are confident with "iron surgery" one good point to do signal attenuation is to shunt the mute transistor by a appropriate resistor.
If you don't mind to loose the mute feature - witch is not really necessary IMO - just omit the mute transistor completely.
Removing this shitty "transistor mute circuit" will also already make for a veeeery cheap "sound improvement mod" of the DCX - just give it a try !
The whole output stage sonically suffers the most *not* form the IC's used or the minimalistic DAC filtering stage but from bad trace layout at first hand IMO....
#########
Thanks jogi59,
for posting the link to this revealing measurements of my fellow countryman.
Michael
If you don't mind to loose the mute feature - witch is not really necessary IMO - just omit the mute transistor completely.
Removing this shitty "transistor mute circuit" will also already make for a veeeery cheap "sound improvement mod" of the DCX - just give it a try !
The whole output stage sonically suffers the most *not* form the IC's used or the minimalistic DAC filtering stage but from bad trace layout at first hand IMO....
#########
Thanks jogi59,
for posting the link to this revealing measurements of my fellow countryman.
Michael
Last edited:
Certainly the DCX i borrowed was interesting. With analog in it sounded really bad. I understand using digital in (not really an option for me) makes a difference. The capabilities as far as setting filters thou is quite outstanding. Using it as a prototype tool before executing an analog XO i see as VERY useful.
I'm still figuring out how to get one to Michael and get it upgraded to adequate sonics (and pay for it)
dave
I would not recommend to do so - at least no further than for a quick and dirty try.
Any analoge XO sounds completely different as it has a looooot of shortcomings that can not be simulated with DCX.
Simply take the complex interaction with impedance of the speaker - or the unavoidable resistance of inductors - or the more or less intended interaction of filter branches - that severely influence any filters sonic outcome (not to speak of more subtle differences in mix and match of sonic patterns of components).
This shortcomings of analog XO can be fun to play with though - if you manage to finally get a pleasing result
Michael
Oh I don't know. I've had pretty good luck roughing in a passive by prototyping with the DCX.
The FRD Passive Crossover Designer is a BIG help here. Loading in the impedance curves of the drivers lets you see what to do and you can get pretty close to the active curves using passive parts. Sometimes I've liked the passive filter better.
At least it works for me.
The FRD Passive Crossover Designer is a BIG help here. Loading in the impedance curves of the drivers lets you see what to do and you can get pretty close to the active curves using passive parts. Sometimes I've liked the passive filter better.
At least it works for me.
Very good test, thank you for the link jogi. Unmodded Behringer did really good job even throught the most hated analog inputs . Signal corruption is very small and it seems to be that original dcx is quite transparent. Data and some user experiences seems to be little controversial in this are though.
But the fact is that as long as the signal is transfered with minimum corruption to a high quality amplifier, the amp will do it job as good as with any uncorrupted signal. At this point of view it is unnecessary to mod a piece of equipment that does not corrupt the signal, unless the modded version fares better in all/some those tests and the improvement correlates to some extent with money spent. So, we would need measurement data from modded DCX to know if it corrupts the original signal even less.
This thread has been going on for 5 years and nobody have tested their modded dcx (based on that nobody has linked any mod-dcx test yet)? Why modders and mod-sellers dont' measure their modded equipment to see if the mod did actually good too the signal? Modding is not a value itself, nor a quarantee for better sound or better measures. Also, what "sounds" better (to the current listener), might not fare better in test, because hearing is a very subjective experience and some can even like more distorted signal better (if you disagree then explain the popularity of tube amps). When reading hearing experiences one should always know the personal taste of the listener.
Now, there must be hundrets of modders out there reading. Maybe you all could measure your modded dcx, contribute the data with a list of done mods and tweaks, so we all could compare the results. That would be really intreresting.
. Signal corruption is very small and it seems to be that original dcx is quite transparent. Data and some user experiences seems to be little controversial in this are though.But the fact is that as long as the signal is transfered with minimum corruption to a high quality amplifier, the amp will do it job as good as with any uncorrupted signal. At this point of view it is unnecessary to mod a piece of equipment that does not corrupt the signal, unless the modded version fares better in all/some those tests and the improvement correlates to some extent with money spent. So, we would need measurement data from modded DCX to know if it corrupts the original signal even less.
This thread has been going on for 5 years and nobody have tested their modded dcx (based on that nobody has linked any mod-dcx test yet)? Why modders and mod-sellers dont' measure their modded equipment to see if the mod did actually good too the signal? Modding is not a value itself, nor a quarantee for better sound or better measures. Also, what "sounds" better (to the current listener), might not fare better in test, because hearing is a very subjective experience and some can even like more distorted signal better (if you disagree then explain the popularity of tube amps). When reading hearing experiences one should always know the personal taste of the listener.
Now, there must be hundrets of modders out there reading. Maybe you all could measure your modded dcx, contribute the data with a list of done mods and tweaks, so we all could compare the results
. That would be really intreresting.
Thank for pointing to that software, Pano.
I agree - passive XO can have its merits though IMO its more form the "iron sound" (2nd harmonics) or a low FR leakage into tweeter branch caused by shunt coil resistance or the like - nevertheless, I found it to summ up quite beautifully sometimes.
Michael
Hi Dave,
What can anyone say in response to this? You used it and it "sounded" bad. Others use it (and measure it) and not only does it measure well, it sounds good.
Maybe it's that you are armed with the idea that it needs to be modified to sound good and you are biased by this (it seems like you need to mod everything you use in order for them to sound good; everything sounds bad until you work your magic on it).
I use mine every day, it is part of my main system. I certainly didn't leave it sit in the box (going stale
) while I wait for the opportunity to mod it... All the evidence suggests that it is ready for use immediately.
Now, there must be hundrets of modders out there reading. Maybe you all could measure your modded dcx, contribute the data with a list of done mods and tweaks, so we all could compare the results
Somehow I don't think that is going to happen, measurements (real ones, with instuments) don't mean anything to them.
Turn it on, put your ear to the speaker and listen for hiss...
...At this point of view it is unnecessary to mod a piece of equipment that does not corrupt the signal, unless the modded version fares better in all/some those tests and the improvement correlates to some extent with money spent. So, we would need measurement data from modded DCX to know if it corrupts the original signal even less.
...
Now, there must be hundrets of modders out there reading. Maybe you all could measure your modded dcx, contribute the data with a list of done mods and tweaks, so we all could compare the results
I am doing so immediately
*IF*
you tell me how you ever *measured* the sonic difference of a simple trace layout change - and as we have seen in the link above - there actually is little to improve telling from pure measurements!
Simply put – there are limits - sonic patterns often can't be verified by measurements
Try the same with the mute transitor I mentioned – a mod I have done on each and every device I found that circuit implemented, with exactly the same improvement regarding sound in each and any case – you most certainly wouldn't be able to trace that simple mod down in an overall measurement – though in this very case it certainly is a very simple distortion issue – quite in contrary to modding trace layout for example.
Michael
Last edited:
Hi Dave,
What can anyone say in response to this? You used it and it "sounded" bad. Others use it (and measure it) and not only does it measure well, it sounds good.
Maybe it's that you are armed with the idea that it needs to be modified to sound good and you are biased by this (it seems like you need to mod everything you use in order for them to sound good; everything sounds bad until you work your magic on it).
I use mine every day, it is part of my main system. I certainly didn't leave it sit in the box (going stale
All the evidence suggests that it is ready for use immediately.
There is always going to be someone that doesnt "Like" something, there are people that think the color red is horrible but love the color blue. Its the way subjectivity works.
I use my analog. I have 2 sets of identical speakers. One set has passive crossovers, the other has active crossovers through the DCX. The differences in a proper test isnt meaningful enough to conclude one sounds good and the other sounds bad.
Anyways, I tend to leave audio subjectivity alone and stick to measurements and data myself.
I do want to do the mod Im just waiting until I get some projects cleaned up. I have no problem spending $$$ to find out if something is different, I have purchased over $10K in electronics over the past 5 years just to test or send it to be testing from amps to drivers. Most of it sits in my garage unused afterwards or I give it to friends and family.
Its why I can use $500 amps instead of the $5K amps I also own or build speakers at a fraction of the cost those audio boutigues try to rip off the uknowning customer with.
Last edited:
Come on John, you should know better. You can beat the numbers to death, but they prove no more than the "I don't like the sound" statements.
I can easily compare modded and stock DCX outputs. I am not fond of the stock outputs, not matter what the AP graphs say. I will give them one thing, tho. Used right, they do have more drive than with a passive output stage. And that's not a bad thing. Of course one could build his own active stage....
The measurements are great and I believe they are valid. But they don't seem to correspond with what I hear. For me there is no going back to the stock output stage. If you are happy with yours, why worry? Much less work for you.
I can easily compare modded and stock DCX outputs. I am not fond of the stock outputs, not matter what the AP graphs say. I will give them one thing, tho. Used right, they do have more drive than with a passive output stage. And that's not a bad thing. Of course one could build his own active stage....
The measurements are great and I believe they are valid. But they don't seem to correspond with what I hear. For me there is no going back to the stock output stage. If you are happy with yours, why worry? Much less work for you.
Maybe its interesting for the discussion here about analog versus digital attenuation what I posted elsewhere.
With my PC XO I had to find out that digital volume control is by no means a trivial task for the programmers.
Several plug-in's – written and intended to perform exactly this – did a real bad job and were not behaving transparent when turning down the volume - mudding sound at low volumes.
Same was true for the volume control at my Squeezebox when bought – though they obviously have debugged this at the actual firmware version.
In the context of the DCX I2496 I'm not sure if above could apply or not, as the filters perform basically great and fully transparent IMO – so why could it be different for mere attenuation ? – I don't know...
A possible explanation could be that attenuation is *not* done by DSP but elsewhere - in the DAC for example – haven't explored that
Michael
With my PC XO I had to find out that digital volume control is by no means a trivial task for the programmers.
Several plug-in's – written and intended to perform exactly this – did a real bad job and were not behaving transparent when turning down the volume - mudding sound at low volumes.
Same was true for the volume control at my Squeezebox when bought – though they obviously have debugged this at the actual firmware version.
In the context of the DCX I2496 I'm not sure if above could apply or not, as the filters perform basically great and fully transparent IMO – so why could it be different for mere attenuation ? – I don't know...
A possible explanation could be that attenuation is *not* done by DSP but elsewhere - in the DAC for example – haven't explored that
Michael
Last edited:
Good points. I have a DCX and it works well. I am interested in making improvements (what DIYer isn't?) but I don't have the technical skills to do them myself so I'd have to use one of the commercial mod companies. And before I spent the $$$s I'd need to know if the improvements were really there, or just empty claims. Otherwise its a waste of money.
So I'd absolutely agree, accurate measurements (like the previously linked German web page) of a mod'ed DCX would be really useful.
Actually one can measure signal with proper gear massively more accurate than with ear. I don't see how there could be so much of hidden information in the signal, since every bit of the signal can be measured. It is also hard(er) to believe that it would be the ear that picks up this information and not the measuring equipment. What this hidden (from measuring equipment) part of the signal would be?
Signal is just signal, no equipment can enhance the original signal, they can only make it worse by adding something that does not belong to the signal. Goal is to distort the original signal the least amount possible, in which the unmodded Behringer does pretty good. I would like to see similar test of 10-20 times more expensive deg/xo.
Speakers have very clear sonical differences, amplifiers also but in lesser extent. DACs/ADCs also have sonical differences, some fare better in not distorting the signal. Dcx's role is to make specific adjustment to the signal and then pass the treated signal throught without adding anything to the signal. Amplifier and speaker on the other hand just produce the sound, based on the signal that is inserted to them. DAC/ADC converts the signal based on the inserted signal. As long as the signal comes undistorted and uncorrupted to the amplifier/speaker/DAC, it treats the signal just the way it would treat same kind of signal from other sources. I don't see how an undistorted signal from behringer would seem different and produce different sound than any other similarly undistorted signal from other source. Maybe I have to hear it myself when my DCX arrives
.
Well the measurements will tell you plenty - distortion, accuracy, noise - important issues. They can't convince you that it sounds good, especially if you have some deep rooted preconceptions and you are the type of person that allows these preconceptions to over-rule logic. Logically, if the unit does nothing to distort or add noise it should not negatively effect the sound quality.
You say "if you are happy with yours..." like it is my own shortcomings and low standards that allow me to accept it in its stock condition. That's the ongoing theme here - if you don't hear the difference, it couldn't possibly be because one doesn't exist.
Last edited: