Bass Traps... the results

[bpape]

Sorry. Forgot you didn't have a sub. I'd definitely step up to something better then if it's going to be in the loop for your mains.

 

[WmAx]

Sorry. Forgot you didn't have a sub. I'd definitely step up to something better then if it's going to be in the loop for your mains.

Better in regards to which parameter and product? Please be specific.

-Chris

 

[sploo]

Chris,

I can get both the DEQ and DCX here in the UK. Unsurprisingly, they're more expensive (approx 328 and 294USD respectively), but not out of the question.

I'll have a look at their features to see if they do everything I want (and probably ask you questions when I don't understand something ).

 

[WmAx]

Chris,

I can get both the DEQ and DCX here in the UK. Unsurprisingly, they're more expensive (approx 328 and 294USD respectively), but not out of the question.

I'll have a look at their features to see if they do everything I want (and probably ask you questions when I don't understand something ).

The DCX is the one that I most highly recommend. It has far more features than you would probably ever use, but it has a great ability for expansion in the future as a consequence. Also, if you ever wanted to play with adjusting the frequency response in different ways to see if you prefer something different, the computer interface and software GUI makes it extraordinarily easy/conveinant to do this, literally being able to adjust the curves on-screen with some mouse drags/clicks over a frequency response graph.

-Chris

 

[bpape]

Try this

http://www.symetrixaudio.com/index.php?Show=14&Show1=&Show2=322

Again, it is balanced only so a DA would be involved but IMO it's worth it. Great piece.

Bryan

 

[sploo]

The DCX is the one that I most highly recommend...

It all looks good... apart from the small matter of XLRs on the back. I'm using RCA connectors (analogue stereo, coaxial digital). Is there any simple way of converting between balanced and unbalanced, or am I missing something here?

Try this

http://www.symetrixaudio.com/index....how1=&Show2=322

Sholy hit! That's over 1000USD here . Bit rich for me I'm afraid. I could put together a quiet PC with a decent soundcard for that kind of cash.

See the scales of justice icon on the upper-right boundary of my post? If you feel so inclined to use this popularity contest system, please give me a negative vote: I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

Chris, you miserable so and so .

 

[WmAx]

It all looks good... apart from the small matter of XLRs on the back. I'm using RCA connectors (analogue stereo, coaxial digital). Is there any simple way of converting between balanced and unbalanced, or am I missing something here?

You can make custom cables[XLR-RCA] or buy adapters. The one special condition that may enter the equation: the Behringer may output higher voltage than the amplifier inputs will tolerate[this would result in audible clipping or audible noise problems if the amp has sensistive input] since it is a professional gear. The solution is to put some 50k potentiometers on the output[a variable voltage voltage divider is the result] cable or make a little project box containing the trims to reduce the voltage output to optimum level. It's very easy, and I can describe to you in detail what to do if you require. If your amp already has input trims then it is not an issue.

Sholy hit! That's over 1000USD here . Bit rich for me I'm afraid. I could put together a quiet PC with a decent soundcard for that kind of cash.

I was looking over that product after it was mentioned; not only is it more then 2x the price of the DCX, it appears to be far less flexible/capable for loudspeaker management purposes as compared to the DCX.

-Chris

 

[sploo]

You can make custom cables[XLR-RCA] or buy adapters. The one special condition that may enter the equation: the Behringer may output higher voltage than the amplifier inputs will tolerate[this would result in audible clipping or audible noise problems if the amp has sensistive input] since it is a professional gear. The solution is to put some 50k potentiometers on the output[a variable voltage voltage divider is the result] cable or make a little project box containing the trims to reduce the voltage output to optimum level. It's very easy, and I can describe to you in detail what to do if you require. If your amp already has input trims then it is not an issue.

I've no problems burning myself with a soldering iron. Looks like I can get the connectors here: http://www.cybermarket.co.uk/ishop/923/shopscr114.html

I found the following on another site (is it correct?):

* XLR PIN-2 goes to the center contact of the RCA, this carries the signal.
* XLR PINs-1 and 3 are tied together and carry the Ground via the Chassis. This connects to the Surround of the RCA.

Using pots is no problem, but the receiver (an Arcam AVR300) has selectable input trims of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4V. Is that good enough?

I was looking over that product after it was mentioned; not only is it more then 2x the price of the DCX, it appears to be far less flexible/capable for loudspeaker management purposes as compared to the DCX.

I have no doubt it's probably a good product, it's just a bit more than I want to spent just now (actually nearer 3x the price of the DCX).

I'll download the DCX manuals and have a good read this weekend. Cheers.

 

[bpape]

It's all a matter of what you want. Personally, I WANT a piece that keeps everything in the analog domain if its in the path of my mains. Why take the signal that's already been through a high end D/A converter from a good source and throw it back through another A/D, D/A step? The Symmetrix does that. I want a piece with good S/N numbers and bands that are fully overlapping - the Symmetrix does that.

I bought mine on eBay from $250. 1 small nick on the ear - works perfectly.

As for converting to XLR, I'd highly recommend an active unit vs. just making an adapter cable. If not, even a passive box that at least does impedance matching can still be had for < $100. I use a Symetrix 303. That will do 2 channels and will work in either direction. That's more than most people need but for me, it works nicely.

If you really need a bunch of memories and tons of bands, then the digital pieces might be better for you. Personally, IMO, if your placement is correct and you have decent treatments in place, usually 1 set of 5 totally configurable bands of EQ is usually sufficient for me to get things nicely balanced. I'm trying to correct for room issues - not trying to make things into something the're not. If in addition to room issues, you're trying to tame things in the speakers or provide different house curves for different kinds of music, movies, etc., then the additional flexibility of the digital pieces may outweigh some of their disadvantages.

 

[WmAx]

It's all a matter of what you want. Personally, I WANT a piece that keeps everything in the analog domain if its in the path of my mains. Why take the signal that's already been through a high end D/A converter from a good source and throw it back through another A/D, D/A step? The Symmetrix does that. I want a piece with good S/N numbers and bands that are fully overlapping - the Symmetrix does that.

The Behringer has a superb S/N ratio, thanks to it's high-quality[same standard convertors used in many hi-end professional recording devices] ADC/DAC sections, and can be configured in just about any way imaginable, including as many overlapping bands as the Analog Devices SHARC CPU contained within the DCX will support. The Symmetrix is probably a fine product, but the DCX is lower cost, and has more potential for loudspeaker management purpose(s).

As for converting to XLR, I'd highly recommend an active unit vs. just making an adapter cable. If not, even a passive box that at least does impedance matching can still be had for < $100.

The Behringer was designed to work in either balanced or unbalanced modes optimally. No active buffering or transformer isolation impedance matching conversion boxes are required in a normal situation[exception being where a problematic ground loop may occur causing 60Hz hum].

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

* XLR PIN-2 goes to the center contact of the RCA, this carries the signal.
* XLR PINs-1 and 3 are tied together and carry the Ground via the Chassis. This connects to the Surround of the RCA.

Correct.

Using pots is no problem, but the receiver (an Arcam AVR300) has selectable input trims of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4V. Is that good enough?

It will be easy to know once you hook up the DCX: if the output from the DCX is still too hot regardless of the input trim setting, you need the pots. But based on the values you give, 4V is still too sensitive. The DCX will produce over 9 VRMS. However, combination of the 4V setting with the analog output trims on the DCX might provide enough flexibility; but the analog trims on the DCX do not have much practical range.

-Chris

 

[sploo]

I bought mine on eBay from $250. 1 small nick on the ear - works perfectly.

Good idea. I did just do a quick eBay search, but no Symetrix stuff here, and the Behringers were more expensive than I can buy them from online stores!

If you really need a bunch of memories and tons of bands, then the digital pieces might be better for you. Personally, IMO, if your placement is correct and you have decent treatments in place, usually 1 set of 5 totally configurable bands of EQ is usually sufficient for me to get things nicely balanced. I'm trying to correct for room issues - not trying to make things into something the're not. If in addition to room issues, you're trying to tame things in the speakers or provide different house curves for different kinds of music, movies, etc., then the additional flexibility of the digital pieces may outweigh some of their disadvantages.

That is actually what I'm after. As well as trying to 'assist' the remaining room problems, I'm intrigued as to the effect of different frequency responses.

I have a feeling that all the gear I'm using is pretty flat and clean, which is nice for relaxing music, but lacks a certain sparkle with rock, and especially male vocals.

Hopefully, I'll get some time to examine decent CD players to measure, and maybe try to mimic, any induced coloration/frequency response curves they implement.

I may be way off here, but I guess it's worth a bit of experimentation.

 

[sploo]

I've downloaded the DEQ and DCX manuals, and feel that the DEQ is actually more suited for what I'm trying to do.

However, even though the DEQ2496 has an SPDIF connection I think it'll only take stereo.

What I'm really after is a simple parametric EQ box that will handle 2-6 channels, and has analogue stereo in/out and coaxial/SPDIF digital with stereo, Dolby 5.1 and DTS in/out support.

If compressed digital support is rare (or expensive) then I guess just a really cheap stereo in/out 2 channel parametric EQ would be acceptable. Though I suppose you could argue that the DCX is a really cheap unit .

Sploo, who wants it all, now, and dirt cheap .

 

[WmAx]

I've downloaded the DEQ and DCX manuals, and feel that the DEQ is actually more suited for what I'm trying to do.

The DEQ ultimately has less ability/potential, as well as less channels, compared to the DCX. However, the DEQ does have the graphic equalizer[which is less powerful/less precision than a parametric and is not needed if you are using the parametric] in addition to the parametric. It also has an auto-correction feature when you connect a measurement microphone. Those are the two main features of the DEQ.

However, even though the DEQ2496 has an SPDIF connection I think it'll only take stereo.

Correct.

What I'm really after is a simple parametric EQ box that will handle 2-6 channels, and has analogue stereo in/out and coaxial/SPDIF digital with stereo, Dolby 5.1 and DTS in/out support.

I don't know of any that take DTS/Dolby input, at least not in any sane price bracket. The DCX has 3 analog input channels and up to 6 analog outputs[remember this can be used as a crossover system]. You can slave two together to be controlled by a single unit's controls and have 6 channels.

Since you are interested in experimenation of tonal modification, the computer inerface GUI can't get more perfect for this application. Download the free software from the Behringer DCX page and experience the ease of shaping the frequency response with this GUI. You can use the software without a DCX connected, and get a feeling for the controls that you have. If you don't have a notebook computer or other way to easily connect a computer to the DCX, however, then please disregard this suggestion.

-Chris

 

[Ethan Winer]

Bryan,

I really hate to disagree with you, but I have to make an exception this time.

> Why take the signal that's already been through a high end D/A converter from a good source and throw it back through another A/D, D/A step? <

The degradation caused by A/D/A conversions is greatly overstated, at least these days now that even really high quality stuff is so affordable. I'm not saying that all gear is equal, or that some cheap gear won't harm the audio, but I disagree with the notion that even one conversion must have an audible effect that should be avoided.

It's easy enough to tell for certain: Take the EQ device under test and set all the bands to flat. Now have someone else hit the Bypass switch a few times while you listen without looking. Can you tell which is which, or even hear a difference?

> As for converting to XLR, I'd highly recommend an active unit vs. just making an adapter cable. <

An adapter cable by definition cannot harm the sound, assuming competent materials and construction. I would never use an active device when a simple adapter cable will suffice. Even more to the point:

> even a passive box that at least does impedance matching can still be had for < $100 <

Passive devices that match impedance do so with transformers. And even the best transformers have measurably higher distortion than even the cheapest A/D/A convertors. Transformers that are audibly transparent cost a lot of money!

--Ethan

 

[sploo]

The DEQ ultimately has less ability/potential, as well as less channels, compared to the DCX. However, the DEQ does have the graphic equalizer[which is less powerful/less precision than a parametric and is not needed if you are using the parametric] in addition to the parametric. It also has an auto-correction feature when you connect a measurement microphone. Those are the two main features of the DEQ.

Yea, I was trying to work out how many bands you could add on the DCX. The DEQ indicates 10, the DCX manual indicates it's about memory capacity. I suppose it must be a reasonable number for it to be useful.

I don't really need any of the crossover functionality, but then I don't need the mic functions on the DEQ.

I suppose stereo music is what I listen to most, it would just be nice to process surround stuff too. But as you say, I could chain two DCX's together (it's just that you'd end up with an analogue input into the receiver, thus losing its options that are only available with a digital input).

For the price of the DCX I might consider it. I think there's a dealer not too far away from me, so I'll to go for a look.

I'll take a look at the software too. Cheers.



Ethan,

Welcome back!

I'd highly appreciate you casting your trained eye over some of my results earlier in this thread!

 

[WmAx]

Yea, I was trying to work out how many bands you could add on the DCX. The DEQ indicates 10, the DCX manual indicates it's about memory capacity. I suppose it must be a reasonable number for it to be useful.

It's about processing power. The DCX distributes processing power through the various functions. I've never been limited by it, even in very complex/corrected 3 way crossover set-ups[parametric and/or shelving filters on every one of the 8 module designations]. What you will encounter will not be CPU power, but the allowed number of filters per *module. The system limits you to 9 parametric bands per module. The DCX can do twice the nominal number of filters as it seems, actually, because you can use the full set on the input channels, then you can add the same number of filters on each individual output stage for a total of 18 bands of parametric equalization per channel. For example, on inputs A and B[Left and Right] you can use the maximum number[9] of allowed filters. You can, if you desire, add the same number[9] of filters on the outputs 1 and 2, thus doubling the number of filters. Of course, I don't see why you would need more than 5 or 6 filters in your application, if that many; it is not likely you will approach the possible limit.

I don't really need any of the crossover functionality, but then I don't need the mic functions on the DEQ.

You don't need it now. However, you may find that in the future you want to add subwoofer(s). The DCX allows for perfect integration of subwoofers with the main channels in the future, or even a fully active loudspeaker system, if so desired.

-Chris

*The DCX treats every input and output as a discrete module. For example: You can discretely route any one of the inputs to any of the outputs or use any of the crossovers, filters, dynamic equalizers, limiters or phase/delay systems on each of the 6 output channels individually if desired. By default the DCX links groups of two channels together[what you set for one also is set for the other: for example it assumes by default that you have stereo left-right input].

 

[bpape]

To each their own. I guess it's the audiophile sill left in me and the remnants of the KISS principle.

To me, changing the impedance of a signal is an inherently simpler process with much less chance for degradation (as I said, I recommend an active one) than converting a signal from analog to digital, processing it (potentially by bit dumping in cheaper units), and then converting it back to an analog waveforms.

Sploo, get what best fits your budget and your needs. I was simply offering you one point of view. The other views expressed may well fit your needs better. Every situation is different.

 

[sploo]

Sploo, get what best fits your budget and your needs. I was simply offering you one point of view. The other views expressed may well fit your needs better. Every situation is different.

No worries. Your point of view is very much welcomed, on electronics bits as well as room acoustics.

As it happens, I'm struggling to find a shop in my area that actually stocks those Behringer units (I'd like to have a 'play' before I buy).

Behringer also confirmed that they don't do any simple parametric EQ boxes that handle multiple channels (from a compressed digital input). They did point me in the direction of a couple of other products, which I'll look in to.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I've no problems burning myself with a soldering iron. Looks like I can get the connectors here: http://www.cybermarket.co.uk/ishop/923/shopscr114.html

I found the following on another site (is it correct?):

* XLR PIN-2 goes to the center contact of the RCA, this carries the signal.
* XLR PINs-1 and 3 are tied together and carry the Ground via the Chassis. This connects to the Surround of the RCA.

Using pots is no problem...

Sploo, what are pots? You are aware of my own issues, and I would also need to do the above work if I buy the Behringer.

By the way, thanks for the description of which wires go where. Although WmAx hadn't actually got as far as instructing me how to make the connectors, I was thinking "I bet this is going to be pretty heavy going!!!", but I can see that it should be relatively simple.

Still not sure about the little gizmo to reduce the voltage output from the Behringer though.

Regards