Hi Guys,
I'm currently looking at getting one of the above units for management and control of my PA with multiple amps etc.
Originally I was going to get the driverack PA2 but research online seems to recommend spending more on the 260 instead. The problem is they are quite a bit more money (£330 for the PA2 and more like £800 for the 260) and I could build another 2 subs for the difference in price. Am I really going to notice the difference between them? They seem to mostly do the same thing but the 260 has a better limiting, many more parametric EQs, and supposedly a much better EQ auto analysis system. With my relatively budget PA I'm not sure Id notice the difference on the EQ front.
What I dont want to do is buy the PA then regret not buying the 260 later when I improve the quality of the other equipment. Any advice appreciated.
or are there alternatives I should also consider?
I'm currently looking at getting one of the above units for management and control of my PA with multiple amps etc.
Originally I was going to get the driverack PA2 but research online seems to recommend spending more on the 260 instead. The problem is they are quite a bit more money (£330 for the PA2 and more like £800 for the 260) and I could build another 2 subs for the difference in price. Am I really going to notice the difference between them? They seem to mostly do the same thing but the 260 has a better limiting, many more parametric EQs, and supposedly a much better EQ auto analysis system. With my relatively budget PA I'm not sure Id notice the difference on the EQ front.
What I dont want to do is buy the PA then regret not buying the 260 later when I improve the quality of the other equipment. Any advice appreciated.
or are there alternatives I should also consider?
Last edited:
I’ve them both and PA2 are a way better in terms of usability, PA2 Control software works through Ethernet or WiFi under Win/MacOS/iOs/Android. At the same time 260 are a bit better in terms of sonic quality, clearer mids, transparenter highs, a little deeper/faster bass.
Check your overall setup, do you have dedicated midrange or midbass, how good your HF-drivers, how powerful amps and subs. Being really - relatively cheap china-assembled tops with unnamed 1” HF and unknownly tuned subwoofers on low-end amplifiers doesn’t need 260. While precisely tuned MT-122 with 12nd610, Selenium D4400 and a bunch of well-loaded 4-4,5” winding drivers WSXs on a pair of LabGruppen FP10000q could compromise sonic performance with PA2.
Also think about how oftenly you’ll tune your system. I’ll prefer PA2 for mobile setup because of very user-friendly interface, while 260 will be preferred for tune-and-forget stationar setup.
great response. thanks for your input. This is what I suspected so I'm glad I asked here 🙂.
The system is likely to be tuned per venue and used at a number of different venues so it wont be a set and forget affair. Its also never likely to be high end gear unless I win the lottery.
The system is likely to be tuned per venue and used at a number of different venues so it wont be a set and forget affair. Its also never likely to be high end gear unless I win the lottery.
How many frequency bands does your PA occupy? One of the limitations of the DRPA series is it will only do 3 way stereo at most.
Of those two I'd pick the Behringer DCX, if you need to do something like 4 way mono with a pair of stereo monitors or delays the DRPA can't do it but the DR260 or DCX can. No the Behringer doesn't have auto EQ but in my experience this isn't needed, once the system has had corrective EQ applied the most I have ever needed to do was turn the sub level up or down.
Of those two I'd pick the Behringer DCX, if you need to do something like 4 way mono with a pair of stereo monitors or delays the DRPA can't do it but the DR260 or DCX can. No the Behringer doesn't have auto EQ but in my experience this isn't needed, once the system has had corrective EQ applied the most I have ever needed to do was turn the sub level up or down.
I'll have 3 stereo bands, unlikely to go to 4. If that changed it would be for adding in some 21s and shifting up the lower range of the 15s. A high pass on the 15s could be handled (I assume) by the driverack and then add a low pass filter on the 21s signal using DSP on another unit (the amp itself or perhaps using an ultracurve unit which I already have).
On a quick search it seems users of both mostly agree that the behringer is as good as, if not better sound wise than the driverack, plus its half the price. Might go with that for now since they are so cheap (perfect for buying a 2nd backup unit down the line).
Thanks 🙂
On a quick search it seems users of both mostly agree that the behringer is as good as, if not better sound wise than the driverack, plus its half the price. Might go with that for now since they are so cheap (perfect for buying a 2nd backup unit down the line).
Thanks 🙂
Just add second cheaper unit like PA/PA+.
Have no feedback suppression, so unuseful with live/onstage microphones.
Ok.
Keep in mind this upgrade:
The kappa DCX fully-differential analog board for Behringer DCX2496 and DCX2496LE
Keep in mind this upgrade:
The kappa DCX fully-differential analog board for Behringer DCX2496 and DCX2496LE
The DCX can also accepts a digital stereo input allowing the elimination of a layer of D/A - A/D conversions if you mixer has a digital output.
Venu360 wins this fight, why look at the 260, it's end-of-life.
DCX needs some help to sound good.
dbmark XCA series is cheap but still sounds great even though you get an extra AD/DA conversion I'd pick that any day over the DCX (or the PA series).
DCX needs some help to sound good.
dbmark XCA series is cheap but still sounds great even though you get an extra AD/DA conversion I'd pick that any day over the DCX (or the PA series).
I have a stack of PA2s and Venu360s (and prior to that, the PA and PA+). I have a fairly deep seated anti-Behringer bias. I only have personal experience with their analog crossovers, which sounded terrible to me. That said, the DCX is inexpensive, and as mentioned, is hot-roddable if you're so inclined. I was tempted to go that route (a modded DCX) for studio use, but I really don't wan't any of their gear in my road rig. Again, that's just my bias.
The PA2's Ipad and PC apps are great, and the 360's apps are pretty much identical.
I'd been using a PA2 together the DSP in a pair of crown XTI2002s (for the subs) to run a stereo 4-way setup. I think that's what the OP posted as a possible upgrade path.
From a convenience and tuning standpoint I found that spreading the DSP over two different platforms was certainly workable... mostly. For my uses, the headaches arose because I switch my FOH system between a few different configurations depending on the venue. I didn't particularly like having to fiddle with three different pieces of gear when I wanted to change to the relevant preset, that was both somewhat inconvenient and a source of error (forgetfulness).
That got worse when I split the (overly heavy) stereo FOH amp rack into two separate racks, each with its own DSP. I did that with a pair of PA2s for a while, but then I had to fiddle with *four* presets every time I reconfigured my rig. That's when I cried uncle and bought a pair of Venu360s, one in each rack. Unlike the PA2s, they could do the 4-way without help from the amps' DSP... and still had enough IO left over to run some monitor amps.
Vs the PA2, the 360 has a digital input (including a $$$$ Dante version), offers 96k AES if you want it, and offers pretty fine-grained AD/DA gain selection. I made use of all those features. The gain scaling was useful and necessary. Once gain-staged properly, I could never really hear much difference between a direct AES connection to my (A&H SQ and Presonus SL24III) mixers vs using an analog connection. Avoiding an extra D/A-A/D, running at 96k, etc, seemed appealing, but with that particular stack of equipment it didn't produce an audible difference at normal listening levels, despite having some some pretty exotic HF drivers in my mains. In the case of the Venu360 I'm never been 100% sure from looking at the specs if the 96k SR is really carried all the way through the signal chain. YMMV.
Side note: after all that I got bitten by the FIR crossover bug, bought a bunch of (analog input) Powersoft, etc, amps, and a 4x8 FIR-capable DSP. Now the DBX units are now all sitting on a shelf... and the FOH amp rack, while smaller and more powerful than ever, is *still* too heavy ;0)
If you truly don't need the 360's IO flexibility I think the PA2 represents a really good value, sounds good out of the box, and I'm fairly sure it's less expensive (certainly less fuss) than buying a DCX and then doing a mod kit.
If you're a serious tweaker, note that none of these units have a fully up-to-date DSP feature set (no all-pass, custom FIR, or funky 'phase accurate' EQ filters). Crown/Harman/DBX has more capable DSP that does some/all of this stuff in their more serious amps (some of which have made their way into my monitor rack). I've been wondering if/when they were going to put out a Venu360+ (or whatever) that trickles that DSP technology down into the semi-pro realm. It seems overdue, but I haven't seen any mention of it.
The PA2's Ipad and PC apps are great, and the 360's apps are pretty much identical.
I'd been using a PA2 together the DSP in a pair of crown XTI2002s (for the subs) to run a stereo 4-way setup. I think that's what the OP posted as a possible upgrade path.
From a convenience and tuning standpoint I found that spreading the DSP over two different platforms was certainly workable... mostly. For my uses, the headaches arose because I switch my FOH system between a few different configurations depending on the venue. I didn't particularly like having to fiddle with three different pieces of gear when I wanted to change to the relevant preset, that was both somewhat inconvenient and a source of error (forgetfulness).
That got worse when I split the (overly heavy) stereo FOH amp rack into two separate racks, each with its own DSP. I did that with a pair of PA2s for a while, but then I had to fiddle with *four* presets every time I reconfigured my rig. That's when I cried uncle and bought a pair of Venu360s, one in each rack. Unlike the PA2s, they could do the 4-way without help from the amps' DSP... and still had enough IO left over to run some monitor amps.
Vs the PA2, the 360 has a digital input (including a $$$$ Dante version), offers 96k AES if you want it, and offers pretty fine-grained AD/DA gain selection. I made use of all those features. The gain scaling was useful and necessary. Once gain-staged properly, I could never really hear much difference between a direct AES connection to my (A&H SQ and Presonus SL24III) mixers vs using an analog connection. Avoiding an extra D/A-A/D, running at 96k, etc, seemed appealing, but with that particular stack of equipment it didn't produce an audible difference at normal listening levels, despite having some some pretty exotic HF drivers in my mains. In the case of the Venu360 I'm never been 100% sure from looking at the specs if the 96k SR is really carried all the way through the signal chain. YMMV.
Side note: after all that I got bitten by the FIR crossover bug, bought a bunch of (analog input) Powersoft, etc, amps, and a 4x8 FIR-capable DSP. Now the DBX units are now all sitting on a shelf... and the FOH amp rack, while smaller and more powerful than ever, is *still* too heavy ;0)
If you truly don't need the 360's IO flexibility I think the PA2 represents a really good value, sounds good out of the box, and I'm fairly sure it's less expensive (certainly less fuss) than buying a DCX and then doing a mod kit.
If you're a serious tweaker, note that none of these units have a fully up-to-date DSP feature set (no all-pass, custom FIR, or funky 'phase accurate' EQ filters). Crown/Harman/DBX has more capable DSP that does some/all of this stuff in their more serious amps (some of which have made their way into my monitor rack). I've been wondering if/when they were going to put out a Venu360+ (or whatever) that trickles that DSP technology down into the semi-pro realm. It seems overdue, but I haven't seen any mention of it.
Kaffiman: dbmark XCA seems to be rated very highly in terms of sound quality. Thanks for the suggestion.
Tonyman: Great info thank you.
Tonyman: Great info thank you.
Yes, the sound quality of the XCA is excellent, much better than unmodified DCX. And its reasonably priced. Value for money and all that.
Be sure you have a good source, cheapest source I could find with good enough quality was the Audient i4. Not many lower end sound cards that have better than 110db S/N.
I dont know what you have or have access to.
Be sure you have a good source, cheapest source I could find with good enough quality was the Audient i4. Not many lower end sound cards that have better than 110db S/N.
I dont know what you have or have access to.
Typically, it will either be the Pioneer CDJ 2000s / mixer, as used in clubs or the Pioneer XDJ RX (which is what I use for DJing at home)
I do not know how the Rekordbox system works, if you're using midi mappings and sending the digital music signal directly to output of soundcard/mixer, or if you're using analog out on the CDJ2k through a (hopefully clean sounding)mixer, or whatever else. But that is a nice setup either way.
What kind of music are you mostly into?
What kind of music are you mostly into?
I generally use rekordbox for track analysis and preparing playlists and then exporting the music and playlists to USB, which then plug into and play from CDJS (via the analogue out as you said). As a source the DA conversion seems good. rekordbox can linked direct to the CDJs so they play files direct from the computer, but it still uses the analogue outs from the mixer. No soundcard required.
The cheaper XDJ-RX unit I have has a recording feature built in so when recording it remains digital the entire time. The full CDJ setup doesnt have this, and is actually a really convenient feature.
My personal preference is probably deep house but I collect and play anything from nudisco through to the lighter end of techno. Quite a broad spectrum. I like some DnB too, but I don't collect or play that out.
The cheaper XDJ-RX unit I have has a recording feature built in so when recording it remains digital the entire time. The full CDJ setup doesnt have this, and is actually a really convenient feature.
My personal preference is probably deep house but I collect and play anything from nudisco through to the lighter end of techno. Quite a broad spectrum. I like some DnB too, but I don't collect or play that out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.