Behringer DCX2496 digital X-over

Jump to Latest
#324
Lyckman said:


Que?

It's in the schematics... Bias related. Why not add them in the sim also? 😛

(Me like components)

// Lyckman
Click to expand...


sorry for that, i thought it was the outoput part. anyway my sim shows no good results with the mentioned komponents in the circ.

In any case regarding unbalanced output stage modificasjons: please note the opamps cutted feets 1,5 & 8. also removed resistors as singel type opamp inserted.
 

Attachments

  • closemod.jpg
    closemod.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 1,772
#326
Hi,
some guru recently mentioned that Dynamic EQ could be used to protect a bass unit from being overdriven. Mine are small 147mm with a 92mm metal cone & metal former with good heat dissipation but limited high volume bass (obviously).

How do you set up Dynamic EQ to do this?
Is it better to apply this to the A & B inputs or to the 1 & 3 outputs?
 
#329
My question is, whats better then the Behringer ? Keeping an pro style rack 3 way active crossover and making/buying 6 amps or the DCX-2496 with 6 amps?

i ask because it seems that if you all are modding it for better SQ then i would be better served to stay away. Stay with Rane XO and Alesis EQ for my frequency mapping ? 😕 :xeye:
 
#330
Re: Improved digital input stage for the Behringer DCX2496

oehlrich said:
Hi folks out there,
I have developed a new and much better digital input stage for the DCX2496.

Schematics, PCB and photos included.

http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/Behringer-Input-Stage-E.htm

The Server is up from 8AM to 10PM german time.

Have fun!!
Click to expand...

Awesome Oehlrich,

and thank you for sharing this with us.

Does this mod eliminates needs for clock mod in order to lower jitter?
Also what is the benefit of higher sampling rate when the rest of the circuitry doesn't support that (D/A converters are 96KHz)?

It would be great to have group buy for the circuit boards.

Ar2
 
#331
it seems that if you all are modding it for better SQ then i would be better served to stay away.

Here is some information regarding mods.

1. People involved with electronics will do mods regardless of
equipment. It could be the $10 device or the $10,000 device,
don't let mods dissuade you from purchase.

2. People that do mods claim an improvement in SQ, but it's rare
to see them perform a blind test with a panel of judges to confirm
their claim.

3. When was the last time you heard this -> "I did a mod and the result was very bad sound ?" I can't even remember a claim like this. Which brings up the point, how can mods always sound better? Isn't it weird?


I'm using an unmodded DCX2496 with analog inputs and the
sound I get from it is awesome. I have alot of electronics
experience and I could easy do mods but to me it's just a waste
of money and time.
 
#332
Re: Re: Improved digital input stage for the Behringer DCX2496

AR2 said:

Does this mod eliminates needs for clock mod in order to lower jitter?
Also what is the benefit of higher sampling rate when the rest of the circuitry doesn't support that (D/A converters are 96KHz)?
Ar2
Click to expand...
The mod only prevents incoming jitter from the source or the wire to be mixed in the audio signal. To get best output quality a masterclock could improove the jitter quality at the output. I did not test it until now but some people say it's worth the effort....

The benefit of higher input sample rate is that I now can listen to all output from my modded pioneer player(http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/HiresAudio.htm). Playing hires DVD-A it outputs 192kHz. Before the mod no chance to listen to it. Currently there is work in progress for a PCB for that Pioneer mod.
 
#333
thylantyr said:
it seems that if you all are modding it for better SQ then i would be better served to stay away.

I'm using an unmodded DCX2496 with analog inputs and the
sound I get from it is awesome. I have alot of electronics
experience and I could easy do mods but to me it's just a waste
of money and time.
Click to expand...


Dear Thylantyr, I really hate to disagree with you, since I enjoy reading you comments on speakers, and as well as you are fellow Lambda lover, but... :whazzat:

This is hard to agree on. As I am typing this comment I am listening my modded DCX. I completely eliminated output section and replaced them with Lundahls transformers. I consider it hard to listen in original configuration. I have different analog Xover as well as really great CalLab DA converter with tube output and comparing DCX in original version to that was no competition at all.

Before I switched all channels I played for some time with just 2 channels moded. That allowed me to play on my other 3 way speakers with passive crossover and to do A/B comparison between 2 modded channels and without mod. I actually purchased only 2 Lundahls in the first place. I compared it as well to my CalLab, and it is as good.
I would strongly advise this mod as long as it will make financial sense - but that is another story. Finally I have all six Lundahls in place, and as I mentioned cannot stop listening.

🙂
 
#335
Konnichiwa,

thylantyr said:
3. When was the last time you heard this -> "I did a mod and the result was very bad sound ?" I can't even remember a claim like this. Which brings up the point, how can mods always sound better? Isn't it weird?
Click to expand...

I for one have repeatedly done mods where I ended up reversing them, as they did not result in improvements, but made things worse. However, I tend to not parade my mistakes around in public (there are too many) and instead concentrate on sucesses.

I remember the time when I changed NE5532's for OPA2604's and the result was a sound completely FUBAR. And don't gt me started on BG's. Almost everytime I tried them I cannot stand the results and need to pull them like rotten teeth.

If you look around you will find enough post of "I changed this and now my system sounds worse", however most people remeber not failures but sucesses, of themselves and others....

Sayonara
 
#336
AR2 said:



Dear Thylantyr, I really hate to disagree with you, since I enjoy reading you comments on speakers, and as well as you are fellow Lambda lover, but... :whazzat:

This is hard to agree on. As I am typing this comment I am listening my modded DCX. I completely eliminated output section and replaced them with Lundahls transformers. I consider it hard to listen in original configuration. I have different analog Xover as well as really great CalLab DA converter with tube output and comparing DCX in original version to that was no competition at all.

Before I switched all channels I played for some time with just 2 channels moded. That allowed me to play on my other 3 way speakers with passive crossover and to do A/B comparison between 2 modded channels and without mod. I actually purchased only 2 Lundahls in the first place. I compared it as well to my CalLab, and it is as good.
I would strongly advise this mod as long as it will make financial sense - but that is another story. Finally I have all six Lundahls in place, and as I mentioned cannot stop listening.

🙂
Click to expand...


Before I bought a DCX I read every post on the Yahoo and DIYaudio.com forum collecting data for my archives and I didn't find any conclusive data that indicated these mods were audible
because nobody did any real blind testing to confirm. Even
without blind testing I have some interesting testimonials
like so;

One person swapped out many different opamps and could not tell a difference between those and the stock ones in the unit.

Another person compared the $250 Behringer to very high end
studio equipment costing 20 times more and the Behringer was
nearly as good.

Someone else did a neutral test where the Behringer was
'zeroed out' and compared to a hunk of wire, he could not
identify the two during his blind test.

I found alot of favorable reviews with a stock unit. People that
don't do the research assume the stock unit if sonically inferior
when it is not. If it was sonically inferior then all the data collected
would be biased as bad. But in reality the subjective response
is more like 50/50 which is nothing more than a wild guess.

I also did my own comparison where the Behringer replaced
an all analog active crossover setup and I'm driving a line array
which is very revealing to bad sources and if anything, the Behringer improved the sound because I can adjust alot more
variables than before. I have more slopes to choose from, more
crossover frequencies, delays, etc. I'm getting more out of the
array than before with this $250 device.

In summary, there is no conclusive data that warrants a mod.
It's all too subjective still 😎

You need to understand that there are people who can benefit
from the flexibility of this device and when they read about mods,
they get dissuaded from purchase. There is more pros than cons
with the stock unit and even a stock unit has high quality sound.
 
#338
I for one have repeatedly done mods where I ended up reversing them, as they did not result in improvements, but made things worse.

This is what I've noticed in the world of electronics.

People are young and start here ->

*Do you circuit design, listen.
*You change the circuit design because it was designed poorly.
*Sound improved.

The same people get older and start here ->

*Your circuit design skill are better and you make good stuff.
*Now you venture in the world of esoteric mods to make it better.
*You claim it does but offer no scientific study to confirm.

You grow old and start here ->
*Your circuit design skill are better and you make good stuff.
*Now you continue with esoteric mods to make it better.
*You now wonder if these mods are really audible or is it just
placebo ?


Younger folks who do mods seem to think that they can beat
the engineering team behind large corporations as if they
don't know what they are doing.

:devilr:
 
#339
You need to understand that there are people who can benefit from the flexibility of this device and when they read about mods, they get dissuaded from purchase. There is more pros than cons with the stock unit and even a stock unit has high quality sound.
Click to expand...

Hey! I am one of those people! Thank you very much for the summary of your impressions. I have looking at this unit for a while and trying to decide if I should try it, or try a Marchand unit.
 
#340
Madmike2 said:
So thy , to you it is better then the active 3 way it replaced ? Thats what i want to know. I lent my Rane to someone who really wants to buy it but i am hesitant to sell if the behringer is not a step up.
Click to expand...

After doing my homework on this unit and knowing
it's abilities, the gamble was only $250 to see for myself
if I like it. The risk is low. We are not talking about risking
$5000 on an esoteric piece of equipment. If you don't like it,
sell it. If you do like it, think about how clever you are by
not spending big bucks on other equipment, money saved
can be redirected towards more important stuff in your audio
chain.

If you ask me the Behringer is neutral in sound meaning
that there is no coloration by having this in the chain.

So, the question now becomes. Does this Behringer have
the features that you need? For me the features are rich and
I have so many options to play with vs. an analog crossover.
I'm really enjoying the LR48 crossover, the parametric EQ,
the delays. You will find yourself playing with this unit alot
as you try to fix those 'bad recordings' to make them sound
better.

Analog crossovers are limited and even more limiting is passive
crossovers. There is more pros than cons with the digital
crossover even if you do two conversions by using the
analog inputs. Who cares!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom