Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andy Peters]

R.Boudreaux wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 06:53

Just purchased the DCX2496 crossover and wanted some input of anyone lately had problems with the unit?  I hooked it up today and it seems to have an excellent sound.

A club in Chicago has one as their mains processing.  Due to SPL restrictions (every club wants to avoid getting killed like Lounge Ax), the limiter was set rather lower than one might like.

The limiter sounds like poo.  Specifically, buzzy, fuzzy, harsh "turn it down, you're into the limiter" poo.

-a

[Tony "T" Tissot]

For those wondering why DCX2496 and many other of Behringer's products are stil unavailable:

"apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934"......"egregious nature of Behringer's continued non-compliance...."



In the Matter of                  )
                                )   File No. EB-04-SE-069
                                )   NAL/Acct No. 200632100005
Behringer USA, Inc.               )   FRN 0014638803



   NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER

Adopted:  February 16, 2006             Released:   February
16, 2006

By the Commission:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for
        Forfeiture (``NAL'') and Order, we find that
        Behringer USA, Inc. (``Behringer'') marketed 50
        models of unauthorized radio frequency devices
        specifically, digital audio music devices, in
        apparent willful and repeated violation of Section
        302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
        amended (``Act''),1 and Section 2.803(a) of the
        Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2  Significantly, we
        find that Behringer continued to import and market
        substantial numbers of these unauthorized devices
        for more than a year after the Enforcement Bureau
        initiated an inquiry into Behringer's compliance
        with the Commission's equipment authorization
        requirements.  Based on the facts and circumstances
        before us, including the egregious nature of
        Behringer's continued non-compliance, we conclude
        that Behringer is apparently liable for a
        forfeiture in the amount of one million dollars
        ($1,000,000).

[Ryan Lantzy]

Tony Tissot wrote on Sat, 10 June 2006 18:46

For those wondering why DCX2496 and many other of Behringer's products are stil unavailable: "apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934"......"egregious nature of Behringer's continued non-compliance...." <snip>

Ugh.

This was covered months ago.  Do a search.

[Gareth James]

Andy, feel free to correct me, i'm really no expert! But as far as the sound of limiters go, in theory shouldn't all (most?) digital limiters sound the same?

I mean the basic math is still the same right? 0 attack meaning that as soon as the peak level reaches the limiter setting the volume is dropped so that the peak level matches the limit setting. I can't see how that maths would change from unit to unit.

As far as release settings isn't there a logarithmic law or something that dictates how the level rises again based on time. All i'm saying is i don't hear any buzzyness or fuzzyness in the limiters on my ultradrive, i just hear the sound limit and i try to set the release rate so that they sound as inoffensive as possible depending on what kind of music is being played.

Maybe the limiter was just set up wrong, i can turn the release rate real quick and drive the input level nuts so its limiting like crazy and probably make it sound shit, doesn't mean the unit is making it that way!

Anyway let me know your thoughts, as i said im no expert im just trying to learn and show an interest. Anything i can learn about digital limiting that can help me always good!

[John Roberts {JR}]

Gareth James wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 07:19

Andy, feel free to correct me, i'm really no expert! But as far as the sound of limiters go, in theory shouldn't all (most?) digital limiters sound the same? I mean the basic math is still the same right? 0 attack meaning that as soon as the peak level reaches the limiter setting the volume is dropped so that the peak level matches the limit setting. I can't see how that maths would change from unit to unit. As far as release settings isn't there a logarithmic law or something that dictates how the level rises again based on time. All i'm saying is i don't hear any buzzyness or fuzzyness in the limiters on my ultradrive, i just hear the sound limit and i try to set the release rate so that they sound as inoffensive as possible depending on what kind of music is being played. Maybe the limiter was just set up wrong, i can turn the release rate real quick and drive the input level nuts so its limiting like crazy and probably make it sound shit, doesn't mean the unit is making it that way! Anyway let me know your thoughts, as i said im no expert im just trying to learn and show an interest. Anything i can learn about digital limiting that can help me always good!

I'm no Andy (   ) and while digital limiters "could" all sound alike, so could analog. They don't because just like analog they still involve choices. Digital doesn't offer any magical solution for the classic issue of how do you mitigate clipping with minimal audible artifacts. Only if you have access to delay for non real time processing can you ramp in gain reductions to avoid clipping outright.
 
I won't list all the different decision points that can vary in a digital implementation but one obvious one is how much processing power is allocated to the task. I expect differences as experience confirms.

JR

[Ryan Lantzy]

Doesn't it just make more sense to stay out of the limiter?  I look at a limiter as a safety net.  It's there to protect the speakers or limit SPL or whatever.  I don't expect it to sound good, I expect it to protect my investment when someone drops a mic.

Am I thinking about this wrong?

[Gareth James]

Ryan i totally agree that limiters are essentially backup to avoid damaging gear etc but its best they also don't sound crap on the rare occasion that they come into play.

JR the delay on the DCX2496 is stated as less than 1ms in the manual, which seems pretty good considering the processing that takes place in that time. I might do some investigative work if i get time (read can be bothered) and see how the delay compares to other dsps.

In the meantime though im off for a BBQ  

Take it easy!

EDIT: I used to own an Ultradrive (the older model) which i quickly found out had a in/out delay on the order of 100ms or more.The scratch DJ's playing that night found out very quickly and it was taken out of the loop.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Gareth James wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 10:50

JR the delay on the DCX2496 is stated as less than 1ms in the manual, which seems pretty good considering the processing that takes place in that time. I might do some investigative work if i get time (read can be bothered) and see how the delay compares to other dsps. In the meantime though im off for a BBQ   Take it easy! EDIT: I used to own an Ultradrive (the older model) which i quickly found out had a in/out delay on the order of 100ms or more.The scratch DJ's playing that night found out very quickly and it was taken out of the loop.

While a high speed processor can accomplish quite a bit in 1 mS it is rather inadequate for dynamics look ahead. Having look ahead time has been the holy grail for making dynamics truly invisible. The RANE gate uses look ahead delay to good effect, and they may have a comp too, I don't know.

This approach flew like a lead balloon when first attempted years ago as too esoteric and expensive. Delay must be held moderately low and or otherwise compensated for to prevent causing more problems than it solves. If I was still messing in the studio non-realtime processing would be used for as many dynamic manipulations as possible.  

JR

[Andy Peters]

Ryan Lantzy wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 07:02

Doesn't it just make more sense to stay out of the limiter?  I look at a limiter as a safety net.  It's there to protect the speakers or limit SPL or whatever.  I don't expect it to sound good, I expect it to protect my investment when someone drops a mic. Am I thinking about this wrong?

I agree. Any time you're always in limit, you've got problems.  A short-time-constant limiter is the wrong tool for SPL limiting.  Methinks in that case you want a loooong release time so the limiter doesn't try to follow the input signal.  Rather, it just acts as if someone pulled the faders down a few dB.  I dunno whether the Behringer limiter can be set for release times on the order of tens of seconds, but I doubt it.

Seems to me that many peak limiter implementations are really, as Tim Padrick's pointed out, clippers.  Input signal goes over threshold and it's clipped off at threshold (perhaps with a bit of the leading edge still over threshold before the limiter clamps down).  Result: ugliness.  Recommendation: don't go over the limit; otherwise, you're in the penalty and the other team is shooting free throws until the end of the quarter.

In the interest of fairness and balance, I should point out that the analog (vactrol) limiters in my Genelec 1031A studio monitors sound like poo, too.  They do protect the tweeters from being lunched when you solo the kick drum at top volume, or when playing Doom3 at crush levels.

-a

[Andy Peters]

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 10:01

While a high speed processor can accomplish quite a bit in 1 mS it is rather inadequate for dynamics look ahead. Having look ahead time has been the holy grail for making dynamics truly invisible.

Seems to me that you could take advantage of backline-to-mains alignment delays to do look-ahead limiting.  After all, the delay is free.

-a