Then why the f...k did you buy it in the first place.?
Just use the goddam thing out of the box and everything will be fine - or spend the money and buy yourself the deqx for more then ten times the price.
I just find this upgrading advice for a well working unit nauseating.
This site resembles more and more the audiophile c..p you can read on any of the sites - i.e. audiogon et.al.
I guess the term stone soup does not apply in our case - we actually have a unit that is working - to my ears - very well, which I have used for years and if something wants to "improve" on it - fine.
But to buy a unit that is so "obviously flawed" as stated by members of the golden ear tribe, with the intention to modify the bejeezus out of it?... I am sure I am missing a special gene or two that is at work here...
Hi,
There is no need to modify anything for all who are happy with the standard DCX. But perhaps you are only happy because you never heard what is possible. I'm not an owner of a golden ear and most probably have no audiophile genes but sometimes differences can be clearly heard. I don't want to say that all existing mods are worth being done. But that's life you must know where to go. One way is to believe the higher the price the better the sound. That's not my way.
There is no need to modify anything for all who are happy with the standard DCX. But perhaps you are only happy because you never heard what is possible. I'm not an owner of a golden ear and most probably have no audiophile genes but sometimes differences can be clearly heard. I don't want to say that all existing mods are worth being done. But that's life you must know where to go. One way is to believe the higher the price the better the sound. That's not my way.
I guess you are right - I just don't know what I am missing.
I just wonder when I am able to hear all the instruments the label says that are playing, hear the correct tonal colouration of the instruments, hear the spacial separation, hear the voices of the singer that are believably of a singer and not of a synth and this voice matches what I heard on pricier equipment than mine, hear the attack, sustain and decay of each note, hear/feel the drums down to below 20 Hz - what the hell am I missing?
audio-kraut said:
I understand you don't believe in modifications, but I do, ask yourself this, why is it tha DCX is so cheap compared to Dbx rack drive, DEQX etc., DCX has some shortcomings, ie its design is compromised.
We are all adults here so mind your language...if you insist then go elsewhere.
just check the specs on the deqx - then you know why it is more pricey - for instance, it fulfills the function of the src, deq and the dcx all in one box - at least as far as I remember from the last time looking.
If the design is compromised - then why bother? Instead of spending the same price the unit costs on upgrades with rather doubtful results why not get the DBx driverack? The last time I looked, depending on the version, you could source one for 499 - 999$.
Is it just to waste money on upgrading a doubtful product or is it to show those behringer engineers how to do things right?
As I stated - I am neither missing information, nor doI perceive any added information - distortion - when compared with analog x-overs.
I rather perceive an increase in high frequency information when completely staying in the digital domain until output to the power amps, using the src as an input device, deq and dcx as processors.
maybe a new model of DCX2496 is coming out, I got mine for US$212 compared to Dbx rack drive which costs far more, at least twice.
If the upgrade is too expensive then I will not proceed, some of you can afford expensive item I don't and I don't believe it is good because it costs far more.
Furthermore DCX is a proven product with minimal or no bugs(I think). I don't hear that many users talking about(rave) about Dbx here in this forum. DEQX is far too expensive and many features I don't need besides I cannot afford it.
Also remember this is a DIYforum and most visitors here are hobbyists and they enjoy building, tinkering or upgrading through modifying their equipment. Obviously the aim is to improve the equipment sonically, if not, one can learn something, any mistakes ie the mod. etc do not work as expected., then try something else.
There you are, I have exhausted my reasons, if you don't agree, then I don't think I can convince you.
If the upgrade is too expensive then I will not proceed, some of you can afford expensive item I don't and I don't believe it is good because it costs far more.
Furthermore DCX is a proven product with minimal or no bugs(I think). I don't hear that many users talking about(rave) about Dbx here in this forum. DEQX is far too expensive and many features I don't need besides I cannot afford it.
Also remember this is a DIYforum and most visitors here are hobbyists and they enjoy building, tinkering or upgrading through modifying their equipment. Obviously the aim is to improve the equipment sonically, if not, one can learn something, any mistakes ie the mod. etc do not work as expected., then try something else.
There you are, I have exhausted my reasons, if you don't agree, then I don't think I can convince you.
audio-kraut said:
I doubt I could hear the difference any modifications to my dcx might make, but I do understand people wanting to tinker. It's a hobby, it's about fun and learning and possibly making something better than it was for very little outlay. And as another said, this is diyAudio.com after all ;-)
Hi audio-kraut,
It would be helpful if everybody would only write about what he really knows or about his own experience and not about assumptions and what he has heard, otherwise it doesn’t make sense to complain about well sounding ‘audiophile’ descriptions. The assumption that everything what is more expensive is better than DCX is simply wrong!
The main difference compared to DEQX is that DEQX supports FIR filters and the price is about 10 times higher.
All of these digital crossovers consist of a PLL (phase locked loop), a SRC (sample rate converter, a DSP (digital signal processor), several DACs (digital to analog converter) and analog output drivers. Beside this there are a master clock and a power supply.
Talking about DCX I would say the PLL, DSP DACs and power supply are pretty OK or it’s hard to find something really better. The SRC, master clock and analog outputs are poor, but there exist cheap mods. So with these two mods you end up at a price of less than twice the DCX which is still at least 5 times cheaper than DEQX. With these mods I don’s see any component which could really be improved much more even with a lot of money.
If you prefer FIR filters buy DEQX and tell me the sonical difference between FIR an IIR filters. So far nobody could tell me the difference. I only read that it’s nearly impossible to hear phase shift and that FIR filters have other problems like pre-echo.
It would be helpful if everybody would only write about what he really knows or about his own experience and not about assumptions and what he has heard, otherwise it doesn’t make sense to complain about well sounding ‘audiophile’ descriptions. The assumption that everything what is more expensive is better than DCX is simply wrong!
The main difference compared to DEQX is that DEQX supports FIR filters and the price is about 10 times higher.
All of these digital crossovers consist of a PLL (phase locked loop), a SRC (sample rate converter, a DSP (digital signal processor), several DACs (digital to analog converter) and analog output drivers. Beside this there are a master clock and a power supply.
Talking about DCX I would say the PLL, DSP DACs and power supply are pretty OK or it’s hard to find something really better. The SRC, master clock and analog outputs are poor, but there exist cheap mods. So with these two mods you end up at a price of less than twice the DCX which is still at least 5 times cheaper than DEQX. With these mods I don’s see any component which could really be improved much more even with a lot of money.
If you prefer FIR filters buy DEQX and tell me the sonical difference between FIR an IIR filters. So far nobody could tell me the difference. I only read that it’s nearly impossible to hear phase shift and that FIR filters have other problems like pre-echo.
oettle said:
Many differences can be clearly heard, .... even when there are no differences! The placebo effect is too powerful to stop by force of will. If you gained an impression of clear improvements by listening to your dcx, modifying it with soldering iron, then listening to it again, that conclusion has to be ignored. Get an unmodified dcx, put the 2 side by side, and do some simple blind testing of friends, 10 sec blocks, quick switching, many tests, document all results, analyse stats. Ahh, too hard.
Much simpler and more interesting would be posted waveform images or actual wav files of the analog signal exiting the dcx2496, before and after mods.
Hopefully all guys they don’t like DCX because there exist more expensive digital crossovers and all guys who think modding is worthless at all have posted their threads now. Since I like doing worthless things I post my first thread once again. More essential replies welcome.
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 and difficult to assemble 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).
The picture shows DCX-DSP board (blue) with SMD connector assembled instead of CS8420 and two MOD-PCBs (both sides). 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
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 and difficult to assemble 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).
The picture shows DCX-DSP board (blue) with SMD connector assembled instead of CS8420 and two MOD-PCBs (both sides). 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
Attachments
I have use the DBX drive rack products, and the BSS Soundweb products and the Peavey Media Matrix products, etc.
I researched all of them well before buying a DCX for my PA rig. The Drive rack software frankly sucks. everything else was over a $1000 and that was just way out of my price range. I found no reason to buy a drive rack over the DCX. The build quality of the case of the DCX isnt quite as good but who cares. the things works. does everything i want it to and much more. its easy to set up and use. and at a $250 cost i can replace it if need be and still be cheaper then a drive rack!
I have a couple of minor complaints about the DCX. One, the PCMCIA card slot sucks and broke the first time i used it. 2- the cheap plastic control knob on the front could be nicer. 3- the software wont open full screen.
The sound quality has been very good. and it has been very reliable. you just cant go wrong. and its moduler construction is great for us DIY guys that just love to tweak!
A+++ In my book.
Zc
I researched all of them well before buying a DCX for my PA rig. The Drive rack software frankly sucks. everything else was over a $1000 and that was just way out of my price range. I found no reason to buy a drive rack over the DCX. The build quality of the case of the DCX isnt quite as good but who cares. the things works. does everything i want it to and much more. its easy to set up and use. and at a $250 cost i can replace it if need be and still be cheaper then a drive rack!
I have a couple of minor complaints about the DCX. One, the PCMCIA card slot sucks and broke the first time i used it. 2- the cheap plastic control knob on the front could be nicer. 3- the software wont open full screen.
The sound quality has been very good. and it has been very reliable. you just cant go wrong. and its moduler construction is great for us DIY guys that just love to tweak!
A+++ In my book.
Zc
audio-kraut said:
Dear Audio-kraut,
I already have mentioned this previously, and I will try to elaborate little bit more on it. What makes us happy in our life, what looks good, what sounds good... is so wide, loose and personal. It is more than anything your subjective and personal zen. In your case you are happy with your unit, your system and its sound.
That is great - isn't it? You have reached your nirvana with DCX and sound in your system. There is nothing to be improved, that is it... the end. But, is it my business to tell you that you are completely wrong, and that you have no good hearing, and you do not know what you are talking. Not that it is not my business, but I would never allow myself to think like that.
There are only questions in my mind. Why are you so angry, why harsh words? What are you doing here in the thread on DIYAudio that talks about how to mod the unit?
You are saying that we are all delusional. I love it. Please let me be delusional in the thread where all delusional people around the world are having a good time. Please don't be a party breaker. I have so little time that I could spend on this great hobby and I want it to be well used. Having personal attacks and fights is last I need or want. I believe that stands for majority of people in this thread.
Even if you disagree, in this thread you could learn basics of analogue and digital audio. There is hardly one subject missed. Clocking, DA and AD conversion, Post analogue filtering and processing, xovers, Eqing, delay, volume controls... I would say even if we are completely wrong we learned so much, we did so much and we love it. Please do not derail this thread to empty useless fights over your or mine subjective views, perceptions, and hearing.
Rysen gave you a great idea: Start your own thread that could peacefully coexist with our delusional one. Call it DCX without mod or what ever. I will gladly visit and be polite, read and disagree, than go back to this thread and agree with what is written. Isn't that great.
Best regards
AR2
oettle said:
I have a few questions regarding your mod, that I think could help me a lot in understanding:
With installation of a new clock in the input circuitry with SRC and receiver - what is happening with the clock already installed in DCX? Is it still needed, or not? If not does it need to be taken out?
There is really good amount written on jitter and lowering on jitter here:
http://www.lessloss.com/
They have the very same approach as Guido from Tenet Lab which in short is: Better to eliminate jitter by switching DAC to be master and CD to be slave in regards to clock. That is achieved by installing separate link between DAC and CD and eliminating internal clock in CD player. That way all the jitter is more or less eliminated as DAC and CD and wire that connect them are clocked to the same clock. This could be impractical for someone who uses several sources, but fine for someone who connect only CD to the unit.
In existing approach DAC acts as a slave and CD is master clock? I am assuming. In that case we are trying to lower the jitter that is already generated and delivered to the input of DCX through the AES/EBU or S/PDIF wire.
Would it be possible to use your mod as master and feed the CD player from that clock? I gusess that also put me back to my first question, does your clock now act as master clock to the whole DCX or is it clocking only SRC and CS8416?
Please let me know if this is correct.
Thank you
AR2
The mod is not only an improved SRC but also a low jitter clock (typ. 0.5 ps) with improved low noise and high PSRR (>100dB) supplies. The clock on the DCX-DSP board is deactivated by disassembling one resistor. So everything inside the DCX (PLL, SRC, DSP and DACs) operates absolutely synchronous with this new ultra low jitter master-clock at a speed of 96 kHz.
Because a CD player provides 44.1 kHz data it’s typically not synchronous, but that's not really important as long as it delivers rather low jitter data so that the PLL can lock on it properly, because this 44.1 kHz data is up-sampled to 96 kHz and re-clocked by the SRC anyway. Most important is that the DACs (inside the DCX) get a low jitter clock and that the SRC is synchronous to this clock.
I think there are ways to make the data source (eg. CD) synchronous too, but I fear only with high costs, low flexibility and low benefit.
Because a CD player provides 44.1 kHz data it’s typically not synchronous, but that's not really important as long as it delivers rather low jitter data so that the PLL can lock on it properly, because this 44.1 kHz data is up-sampled to 96 kHz and re-clocked by the SRC anyway. Most important is that the DACs (inside the DCX) get a low jitter clock and that the SRC is synchronous to this clock.
I think there are ways to make the data source (eg. CD) synchronous too, but I fear only with high costs, low flexibility and low benefit.
AR2 said:
AR2,
I would think that if you have a good clock at the end of the chain, at the DAC, the jitter in the signal before that is immaterial.
I understand Oetlle's mod such that the data actually is re-clocked at the DAC. The bit transitions are defined completely new by this new clock. So I have a hard time to understand why the jitter before that, like in the signal coming from the CD player, has any relevance, as long as the PLL locks of course. Or am I missing something?
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Hello Jan
Here is the explanation of what I am talking:
http://www.lessloss.com/specs.html
and here is very good explanation with animation regarding various clocking and reclocking methods:
http://www.lessloss.com/types.html
In the given animation setup No.4 is what I was talking about.
Here is the same thing from Guido Tent:
http://www.tentlabs.com/InfoSupport/Technology/page25/page25.html
AR2