Re: AR2 and/or Audio Kraut or anyone
The characteristic of the Behringer DCX is that it has great digital portion and not as good analog portion. I do not know what is the quality of your analog crossover in order to give you correct answer. What I could answer is that Behringer DAC chips are of good quality and if you could avoid analog portion after them you will be in the great shape.
Hypothetically talking you could be in the better shape if you just run Behringer DCX and nothing else. In oppose to that you have your DAC that send signal through some analogue circuitry and than again through your analogue active crossover. I would say that DCX scenario is better, but it really depends on your individual components.
Your question on the best scenario: The best scenario is to run your digital source and has it connected to modified DCX2496. From theer straight to your amps!
I hope this helps
AR2
ttan98 said:
The characteristic of the Behringer DCX is that it has great digital portion and not as good analog portion. I do not know what is the quality of your analog crossover in order to give you correct answer. What I could answer is that Behringer DAC chips are of good quality and if you could avoid analog portion after them you will be in the great shape.
Hypothetically talking you could be in the better shape if you just run Behringer DCX and nothing else. In oppose to that you have your DAC that send signal through some analogue circuitry and than again through your analogue active crossover. I would say that DCX scenario is better, but it really depends on your individual components.
Your question on the best scenario: The best scenario is to run your digital source and has it connected to modified DCX2496. From theer straight to your amps!
I hope this helps
AR2
Just another POV. 
If I already owned a DCX, I would be looking at buying Jan's excellent output board and possibly the various PSU and clock upgrades. If I was starting from scratch though, I would be spending my money on a decent BSS Omnidrive or XTA unit. You can pick them up S/H for about the same money as a fully tricked out DCX, and they, (to me) sound much, much better.
If I already owned a DCX, I would be looking at buying Jan's excellent output board and possibly the various PSU and clock upgrades. If I was starting from scratch though, I would be spending my money on a decent BSS Omnidrive or XTA unit. You can pick them up S/H for about the same money as a fully tricked out DCX, and they, (to me) sound much, much better.
pinkmouse said:Just another POV.
If I already owned a DCX, I would be looking at buying Jan's excellent output board and possibly the various PSU and clock upgrades. If I was starting from scratch though, I would be spending my money on a decent BSS Omnidrive or XTA unit. You can pick them up S/H for about the same money as a fully tricked out DCX, and they, (to me) sound much, much better.
DCX is te cheapest compared to Omnidrive and Dbx drive(not sure is XTA analog?). Besides, my speaker design software is linked to DCX where I can download the x-over design to the DCX directly.
Anyone, just another question, will there be a new model of DCX coming out in near future?
oettle said:
I've never used a PC setup, so I can't comment on FIR, but I've heard good things about them. I find the PC too clunky for audio, now if it was just proper plug and play...
As regards the different filters in the BSS, my experience has been with big PA systems, and in general, limited set up time, so I've tended to go for the LRs simply as I know how they work. I have tried others, but I can't really make sweeping comments as it is so system dependent. One filter type doesn't work for all speakers, so it is a case of spending time to see what works best with your system.
)Pulse-R said:
DEQX is far more than DCX, it has equalization features which DCX is limited in this area.
DCX is essentially a x-over device, if you want equalization than get a Behringer DEQ2496. I think you know this.
DCX from US is quite cheap, with higher aud$ it is even cheaper, it selling now at ebay for US$212, cheapest I can find in melb is AUD$450. I can save at least AUD$100.
I had a listening session with the friend who owns DEQX. It was one that was configured with analog line level output. There is possibility of having digital outs. DEQX is fine piece of gear with nice capabilities, but sound wise I was not trilled. It has opamps in the output and its analog section is just average. It is much better than stock Behringer when compared to each other, but it would be really sad not to be better with 10x the price.
I haven't had a chance to listen DEQX with digital out and set of high quality DAC units with much better analog outs... that would be nice possibility. If digital sections are compared to each other, there is nothing wrong with Behringer and it holds the ground quite well against DEQX. DEQX has crossover filters that are going I believe up to 128db, but I am not sure that is any advantage. I didn't play much with that unit in order for me to judge that.
Behringer has very good AK4393 DAC chips. I just ordered much newer and better ones from AKM - AK4396 to put them in the place of original 4393s. I cannot wait to do this mod and to give it a listen. These are highly regarded chips. I will also exhchange receiving chip CS8420 for CS8416. With that I am curious if I will be able to pass 24/192 to the DAC chips. I will see.
I haven't had a chance to listen DEQX with digital out and set of high quality DAC units with much better analog outs... that would be nice possibility. If digital sections are compared to each other, there is nothing wrong with Behringer and it holds the ground quite well against DEQX. DEQX has crossover filters that are going I believe up to 128db, but I am not sure that is any advantage. I didn't play much with that unit in order for me to judge that.
Behringer has very good AK4393 DAC chips. I just ordered much newer and better ones from AKM - AK4396 to put them in the place of original 4393s. I cannot wait to do this mod and to give it a listen. These are highly regarded chips. I will also exhchange receiving chip CS8420 for CS8416. With that I am curious if I will be able to pass 24/192 to the DAC chips. I will see.
Hi all,
When I started I only wanted to get rid of this sometimes dull sound caused by the erroneous CS8420. When I finished I found myself one (in my opinion) big step closer towards sonical heaven. So what did I do? I fear nothing really new but perhaps a new combination. I took this 2. generation CS8416 + AD1896 replacement for the CS8420 sample rate converter which is described here http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/Behringer-Input-Stage-E.htm or there http://www.dcx2496.fr/upsamp.php, added a low jitter (typ 0.5 ps) clock which is something like this http://www.tentlabs.com/Components/XO/index.html or that http://www.dcx2496.fr/selectro3.php, designed two improved low noise supplies with high PSRR for both functions and routed everything on a tiny (32x32 mm) PCB which can be plugged directly onto the DSP board of the DCX via a SMD connector soldered to the pads of the CS8420 (no noisy cable).
What I expected was to get rid of all the clicks, cracks and sometimes dull sound caused by the CS8420. What I didn’t expect is this sonical clear higher accuracy (much better details).
Here some pictures of both sides of the assembled PCB and the instead of the CS8420 assembled SMD connector on the DSP board. If there is somebody who is interested in this mod please send me an email. I have a few spare PCBs left.
Best Regards,
Frank
The picture shows DCX-DSP board (blue) with SMD connector assembled instead of CS8420 and two MOD-PCBs (both sides).
When I started I only wanted to get rid of this sometimes dull sound caused by the erroneous CS8420. When I finished I found myself one (in my opinion) big step closer towards sonical heaven. So what did I do? I fear nothing really new but perhaps a new combination. I took this 2. generation CS8416 + AD1896 replacement for the CS8420 sample rate converter which is described here http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/Behringer-Input-Stage-E.htm or there http://www.dcx2496.fr/upsamp.php, added a low jitter (typ 0.5 ps) clock which is something like this http://www.tentlabs.com/Components/XO/index.html or that http://www.dcx2496.fr/selectro3.php, designed two improved low noise supplies with high PSRR for both functions and routed everything on a tiny (32x32 mm) PCB which can be plugged directly onto the DSP board of the DCX via a SMD connector soldered to the pads of the CS8420 (no noisy cable).
What I expected was to get rid of all the clicks, cracks and sometimes dull sound caused by the CS8420. What I didn’t expect is this sonical clear higher accuracy (much better details).
Here some pictures of both sides of the assembled PCB and the instead of the CS8420 assembled SMD connector on the DSP board. If there is somebody who is interested in this mod please send me an email. I have a few spare PCBs left.
Best Regards,
Frank
The picture shows DCX-DSP board (blue) with SMD connector assembled instead of CS8420 and two MOD-PCBs (both sides).
Attachments
You must have read my mind,was just about to post a question about:
http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/Behringer-Input-Stage.htm
I have a Tent labs XO3 24.576MHz,but on the card above it says:
"A XTAL-oscillator (>= 28MHz) supplies the clock for the DSP. The frequency must not be below 28MHz. A lower frequency causes output errors at an input sample rate of 192kHz."
So I use a 28Mhz oschillator,and the XO3 at the DSP card,or is it a waste with XO3?
http://freerider.dyndns.org/anlage/Behringer-Input-Stage.htm
I have a Tent labs XO3 24.576MHz,but on the card above it says:
"A XTAL-oscillator (>= 28MHz) supplies the clock for the DSP. The frequency must not be below 28MHz. A lower frequency causes output errors at an input sample rate of 192kHz."
So I use a 28Mhz oschillator,and the XO3 at the DSP card,or is it a waste with XO3?
Do comment..
Hi Ryssen,
I myself use an ultra low jitter 24.576 MHz oscillator, which supports digital inputs up to 96 kHz. The advantage is that PLL; SRC, DSP and DACs run absolutely synchronous for best sonical quality. You can also assemble a 28 or 30 MHz oscillator to support 192 kHz but then you have to stay with the existing high jitter 24.576 clock on the DSP board or you have to add an additional low jitter clock. Regarding sound quality it doesn’t make sense for me to down sample a 192 kHz input to the 96 kHz internal frequency of the DCX.
Frank
I myself use an ultra low jitter 24.576 MHz oscillator, which supports digital inputs up to 96 kHz. The advantage is that PLL; SRC, DSP and DACs run absolutely synchronous for best sonical quality. You can also assemble a 28 or 30 MHz oscillator to support 192 kHz but then you have to stay with the existing high jitter 24.576 clock on the DSP board or you have to add an additional low jitter clock. Regarding sound quality it doesn’t make sense for me to down sample a 192 kHz input to the 96 kHz internal frequency of the DCX.
Frank
New to DCX2496
Hi everyone,
Recently I bought a DCX2496 and it is in transit here to me. I heard from many sources incl. Variac that it has a no. of deficiencies, primary the analog section, the DAC and clocking according to Oettle, also the power supply.
Most of you here are quite experienced with this unit and possibly can give me some idea/advice where to start upgrading first that will give the clear sonic improving.
I prefer to upgrade in stages, any input of what I should go for first, second and third is welcome.
Thanks in advance.
Hi everyone,
Recently I bought a DCX2496 and it is in transit here to me. I heard from many sources incl. Variac that it has a no. of deficiencies, primary the analog section, the DAC and clocking according to Oettle, also the power supply.
Most of you here are quite experienced with this unit and possibly can give me some idea/advice where to start upgrading first that will give the clear sonic improving.
I prefer to upgrade in stages, any input of what I should go for first, second and third is welcome.
Thanks in advance.