Behringer DCX2496 digital X-over

Jump to Latest
#1,302
I am olso modding my DCX.

I removed the compleet in and output stage.
I Used a line level stransformer (1:2) at the input.

On the outputs there is a passive line level fiter, and DC Decoupling.
After this there is a 6 channel active volume control. I designed the PCB and schematics myzelf.
It has its own very low noise power supply.

The picture is a test setup. Im am testing it now, and it sound great!

For the people who look realy good:
Two 41HZ AMP10 Basic amplifiers, with Clarity Cap SA input caps with Vishay bypass.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
 
#1,303
Sorry for asking such questions, but there's just way too much info here to look through to possibly find the answers I need.

I am looking to upgrade from my Rane AC22B and Behringer DEQ1024 to the DCX2496. I am currently bi-amping my mains with the Rane xover at 24dB per octave and am running the DEQ1024 for tweaking. My center channel is using a passive xover network and no EQ at all.

What I hope to do with the DCX2496 is to kill two birds with one stone. Run all 3 front channels through it, cross them all over at 48dB per octave, be able to control the woofer delay, be able to EQ all 3 channels with the same or better flexibility of the 31-band DEQ1024, and finally bi-amp the center channel as well.

So my questions are as follows...

1) Does the DCX2496 have enough processing power to run all 3 channels at the steepest slope of 48dB per octave AND also control delay to the drivers?

2) How many bands of EQ are available per channel (all 3 channels driven)?

3) In combination with #1 & #2 above, does it have the processing power to do both at the same time?

Many thanks in advance! I'm sure I'll have a few more questions before it's over. 😉
 
#1,305
Download the DCX2496 remote software from the behringer site, and simulate what you want to do. In the lower corner of the screen it will tell you how much processing power you have left. I have a feeling you will be finding it's limits with what you want to do, the 48db slopes use a lot of power. The eq is fantastic though, when used in conjunction with some measurement gear/software like ARTA.

The EQ is parametric, so doesn't have "bands" as such, but will allow you to run 10 notches or boosts per eq section.
 
#1,306
I've had a wee bit of a windfall, so it seems I'll be buying a DCX2496.

I'm going to use this with a PC soundcard's S/PDIF out (likely my M-Audio Audiophile), with a transformer to convert S/PDIF into AES/EBU. So the ADC end of things is not of much use to me.

While I'm something of a skeptic, anyone with two brain cells and an oscilloscope will tell you that the stock output section is somewhat cheap. However, has anyone done a double-blind test to see if it makes a difference?

Also, if I am to replace the output section, should I go for a passive output stage, or just replace all the op-amps? Replacing the board seems like the best option, as in the event of failure I can just swap it out for the old one and ship it back to the factory.
 
#1,308
Spasticteapot said:
I've had a wee bit of a windfall, so it seems I'll be buying a DCX2496.

I'm going to use this with a PC soundcard's S/PDIF out (likely my M-Audio Audiophile), with a transformer to convert S/PDIF into AES/EBU. So the ADC end of things is not of much use to me.

While I'm something of a skeptic, anyone with two brain cells and an oscilloscope will tell you that the stock output section is somewhat cheap. However, has anyone done a double-blind test to see if it makes a difference?

Also, if I am to replace the output section, should I go for a passive output stage, or just replace all the op-amps? Replacing the board seems like the best option, as in the event of failure I can just swap it out for the old one and ship it back to the factory.
Click to expand...


What you want depends on the intended use. The passive output is the simplest, but is somewhat sensitive to the type of interconnects you use (mainly the capacitance) and the input Z of the power amps. With an active output that is better under control.

Then anothe issue I ran into is the volume control. The stock +/-15dB level control in the digital domain decreases the resolution with higher settings away from 0dB. I could hear that, but others may not. For those reasons, I went to active output with analog level control. The remote control I added has the benefit that you can change it from your listening chair as well as compensate for driver/amp sensitivity differences which makes its use more comfortable.

For the active outputs I used the new LM4562 and I (and others) are quite pleased with that.

Jan Didden
 
#1,310
oettle said:
Thanks but I can't make miracles to become true. Including the connector there are only 15 components.
I didn't plan to sell, but obviously there is more interest than I expected. I have 13 spare PCBs left but no components. If you like I could order the missing components for you and deliver complete sets lets say for 20 Euro each. I only need to know how many I should order. Please send me an email - hopefully not too many.

Frank
Click to expand...


Frank,
I'm interested in a set of PCBs but can't email you because my account is under moderation. Please email me.
Robbi
 
#1,311
janneman said:



What you want depends on the intended use. The passive output is the simplest, but is somewhat sensitive to the type of interconnects you use (mainly the capacitance) and the input Z of the power amps. With an active output that is better under control.

Then anothe issue I ran into is the volume control. The stock +/-15dB level control in the digital domain decreases the resolution with higher settings away from 0dB. I could hear that, but others may not. For those reasons, I went to active output with analog level control. The remote control I added has the benefit that you can change it from your listening chair as well as compensate for driver/amp sensitivity differences which makes its use more comfortable.

For the active outputs I used the new LM4562 and I (and others) are quite pleased with that.

Jan Didden
Click to expand...

Hey, cool! It's the guy who wrote the article in AudioXpress!

It seems a bit silly to me to use a whopping four op-amps per output channel, when one should (as far as I know) do the same job just fine - and LM4562s are not cheap. On the other hand, simply swapping out the op-amps would be a lot easier than many of the alternatives, and since I'm going for a 2-way + sub setup, I'll only swap the op-amps on the midwoofer and tweeter section.

AJinFLA said:


Please refrain from using such profanities on an audio internet forum. Thank you.

cheers,

AJ
Click to expand...

I really hope you're kidding.
 
#1,312
Hi Spasticteapot,

one LM4562 per ouput channel is sufficent if you don't need balanced outputs. The second opamp of each channel converts unbalanced into balanced output. You should also replace the AC-coupling caps (47µF). Polyprop would be best but are rather big. For the tweeter and midbass you can reduce value to about 4,7µF (200Hz) or 1,0µF (1000Hz).
If you want to have volume control too you should visit Jans website.
 
#1,317
I've been playing around with the DCX2496 Remote 1.16a software for the last couple of days and it looks like I will need the DEQ2496 for the mains. The reason being that once I get all 3 channels (L/C/R) up and running with L-R 48dB xovers, 8ms woofer delay, para-EQ notches around the xover freq's and +10dB boost of low shelving @ 12dB per octave around 50Hz for the center channel(smaller baffle - single Usher 15HM driver), I'm down to 5% processing left. That 5% is enough to allow me to tweak the center channel a little more if it needs it.

Getting the mains as close to perfect as possible is most important to me, and the DEQ2496 is a lot more flexable for that job and should have plenty of processing power to do so.
 
#1,320
chops said:



Seems we'll have similar equipment soon, as I also plan on getting the FBQ2496 as well eventually for my sub. 😉
Click to expand...

Not only do we have similar equipment, but I also use open baffle dipole loudspeakers.

DSCN4522.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom