dBX 223XL vs Behringer CX3400 active XO?

[grantnsw]

oops, mig, my bad

 

[Road Runner]

CX3400 mods

I have two mod options, one is $450 and and is $400 ( I think ) and yes they cost more then the device itself. I think you can do them cheaper if you buy all the individual parts.
Does it improve it? From everything I read that is a Subjective yes but I have yet to see measurements to prove it actually does improve SQ.

Could you pass on some info about the mods available to the CX3400? Any specific components, or even a web link?

 

[quiet fish]

CX vs dBX, not DCX

CX3400 is 3way , dbx 223XL is 2way and nearly 2X the price of cx
CX is great performer I use it with my 3way modular system ( t-amp/magnavox EL84/GC, separate enclosure for each section).

I don't want to use XLR/RCA converters

I do not know if you need converters/adapters I am not an expert here but, balanced to RCA cables work just great.

 

[doug20]

Could you pass on some info about the mods available to the CX3400? Any specific components, or even a web link?

The mods are for the DCX, Im not sure about CX3400. sorry for the confusion.

The DCX2496 should have all the information you need wrt mods.

 

[bizob72]

radio station

just took a x3400 back to guitar center it had unshielded cables inside that produced a all spanish talk radio stration across our sound system at church, replaced with dbx, only change i made radio went away

 

[dantheman]

I had the CX3400 for a few years. No hum, no radio stations and it was used with mid-fi home audio gear.

Dan

 

[bizob72]

guess one got past the quality control

 

[Charles Darwin]

guess one got past the quality control

Friend of mine has been working in pro-audio sales for 15 years. According to him Behringer has not got any quality control to speak of since it happens frequently that a whole batch of one product displays the same kind of fault. Behringer worked out that it is cheaper for them to just replace non-functioning gear rather than to employ meaningful quality control.

As for active xovers I use modified BSS FDS360s. Bought two s/h for next to nothing and removed the limiters (my amps have better ones built in) and replaced the opamps (TLO72) for BB OPA2134. They do not use ganged pots to select frequency but little plug-in cards containing the necessary caps and resistors. When BSS stopped making these they published all details needed to make your own. This way it is possible to use 1% components while ganged pots frequently are +-20%. It is also possible to alter the slopes and to create overlapping slopes.
If I were to buy digital I'd go for XTA btw.

 

[ArthurDK]

I know this is an old thread, but maybe somebody now and then comes by anyway.

I have used Behringer CX3400 og DCX2496 for HiFi unmodded. The CX3400 were prone to self oscillation and the sound were not good. The DCX had a very interesting set of options, but the the sound were quite bad (agressive and thin mid and treble).

Regarding DBX we now use the new one DBX223Xs in the PA system, but I didn´t try it for HiFi, but one funny observation is the the PCB and components are exactly the same on the old DBX223XL and the new DBX223Xs, the only thing that is ´new and improved´ is the faceplate

But it sounds good for PA. Another thing is the components: 2 TL074, 4 LF347 and 4 NE5532 - old proven stuff in real housing As I remember the Behringers use newer types SMD opamps, as the one stated by another user.

Best regards
Arthur.

 

[tvrgeek]

I stuck the Behringer in one of my systems years ago with the intention of building a "true hi-fi" crossover. Never got around to it. I doubt there is much deference between Behringer and DBX at the analog crossover end. I have a DCX I use for my lab, and I find it is slightly "flatter" sonically than the analog. In any case, the speakers are far more important. When you want perfection, order some boards form ESP and build a great power supply as you will have worked out the crossover requirements with either of the two you mention.