ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Gordon Brinton on September 10, 2018, 08:17:16 PM
-
Shopping for a speaker management system. My budget is roughly $400 - $800. (The one that the speaker manufacturer offers is a bit too costly for my budget.)
I've been reading about a few others, but haven't found many reviews.
- Ashly Protea 3.6SP
- dbx Driverack Venue360
- DAS DSP-226
- Peavey VSX Series
I wonder if very many people could actually tell the difference between brands in a blind listening test.
-
Shopping for a speaker management system. My budget is roughly $400 - $800. (The one that the speaker manufacturer offers is a bit too costly for my budget.)
I've been reading about a few others, but haven't found many reviews.
- Ashly Protea 3.6SP
- dbx Driverack Venue360
- DAS DSP-226
- Peavey VSX Series
I wonder if very many people could actually tell the difference between brands in a blind listening test.
My only comment is I believe the Peavy and Ashly are a bit long in the tooth at this point.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Shopping for a speaker management system. My budget is roughly $400 - $800. (The one that the speaker manufacturer offers is a bit too costly for my budget.)
I've been reading about a few others, but haven't found many reviews.
- Ashly Protea 3.6SP
- dbx Driverack Venue360
- DAS DSP-226
- Peavey VSX Series
I wonder if very many people could actually tell the difference between brands in a blind listening test.
Why compromise the value of your investment by using a “cheaper” dsp? The quality of one dsp brand vs another isn’t the issue rather that the manufacturer has put the time and money into coming up with their best possible settings to make their product the best it can be.
I bet your speakers were expensive.
Why put $49 tires on a Corvette?
I’ve been arguing with a customer today about this very subject.
I hear where you’re coming from, but am of the belief that the manufacturers dsp has to be thought of as part of the speaker system. I’d take advantage of that even if it costs a bit more.
-
I have sold many of the Ashly 3.6SP and a few of the 4.8 version. Never a problem. I also have clients using the dbx Venu360. Other than an issue with an internal power connection that is relatively easy to fix they have been solid. The 360 can be had with a Dante option as well.
-
I have sold many of the Ashly 3.6SP and a few of the 4.8 version. Never a problem. I also have clients using the dbx Venu360. Other than an issue with an internal power connection that is relatively easy to fix they have been solid. The 360 can be had with a Dante option as well.
And it comes with AES inputs.
-
I think it depends on what speaker and what situation you need to use them in. Some boxes don't "work" with out the factory DSP and presets. Other speakers are just fine with an amp and a graphic EQ.
-
Is it a long term or a short term investment?
I bought a Lake LM26 10 years ago, it's still in my driverack doing gigs.
Initial cost high, now it's making money.
Over those years I've bought different DSPs for different reasons, they have all moved on before I made the money back on them, so while they were needed at the time with a low entry cost, they failed in the long term to make money.
Personally I'd buy a second LM26 if I ever need more DSP unless I needed something specific for a loudspeaker brand.
FWIW.
-
Hi Gordon-
I think you need to search for some of JR's threads about the reckoning of filter "Q" amongst the various DSP manufacturers. It also may help to find out who makes the loudspeaker manufacturer's DSP as the filters are likely to be computed the same way.
Otherwise if you just enter the numbers you're not guaranteed to get the same acoustic results.
Beyond that, how much difference is there? Well, if it means the loudspeakers don't perform correctly, any other difference is largely moot. Presuming you can make it sound right, how long do you need the DSP to last? Ashley stuff tends to live forever; I have no experience with long term use of dbx (Bob Leonard's 4800 is still going strong, but I'd expect that of a top of the line device). Peavey used to have a reputation for being noisy (hissy) but I suspect for many users that was the result of poor gain staging in their systems, and Peavey may have addressed that anyway... but my experience with Peavey's A.A. division has been one of long life.
-
Shopping for a speaker management system. My budget is roughly $400 - $800. (The one that the speaker manufacturer offers is a bit too costly for my budget.)
I've been reading about a few others, but haven't found many reviews.
- Ashly Protea 3.6SP
- dbx Driverack Venue360
- DAS DSP-226
- Peavey VSX Series
I wonder if very many people could actually tell the difference between brands in a blind listening test.
I don't think I hear a significant difference with the processors I've owned, which have ranged in price from the Behringer DCX2496 to the Danley ASC-48.
But big differences in what they can do...
First priority for me is I/O channel count. A 4x8 gives room for mains, sub, and a fill. AES I/O is getting ever more important IMO.
Next is remote control....awfully nice to be able set levels, delays, polarities, venue eq, and mutes from FOH.
Speaking of venue EQ....I look for filters on both inputs and outputs. (Outputs don't get touched..part of reflection-free speaker processing.) Inputs are where I do venue EQ...so adequate shelving and parametrics are needed.
If using amps without their own DSP limiting, having both RMS and peak limiter capability in the processor is a big plus.
Bottom line, I shop for the functions I need....not sound quality...
I just naively assume the greater the functionality, the higher the likelihood of better SQ. That said, I still happily use the DCX2496 in between UPA-1p's and subs...cause it's all the processor I need there, and sounds just fine.
-
One piece of functionality that's easy to overlook is whether the digital inputs support sampling rate conversion. This may or may not matter depending on how you intend to use the DSP, but I remember my disappointment when I found out that the Ashly NE8800 wouldn't swallow 44.1 kHz. Another is whether you can use your own arbitrary FIR filters.
Beyond that I don't think you'll find much of any difference in the sound quality of the processing. Newer units might have slightly better noise performance in the ADCs and DACs. And, of course, there's the question of reliability.
A big factor for me is the user interface of the control application. Definitely download the apps and try them before you buy. Most allow this, I think.
--Frank
-
In audio chains the weakest links (for linearity and accuracy) are the start and end point (microphones and loudspeakers). The middle ware is generally far more linear and accurate.
Specifically about DSP, modern path performance is quite good, but look for available manufacturer presets for your particular boxes. That can make a far larger difference than path performance.
JR
-
Hi Gordon-
I think you need to search for some of JR's threads about the reckoning of filter "Q" amongst the various DSP manufacturers. It also may help to find out who makes the loudspeaker manufacturer's DSP as the filters are likely to be computed the same way.
Otherwise if you just enter the numbers you're not guaranteed to get the same acoustic results.
Here is some of what I have measured in various DSPs and differences
I have seen Qs that are twice or half of other manufacturers (and inbetween that).
I have seen xover freq be close to 1 octave off.
I have seen the gain change based on the Q. So as you change the Q the gain goes up and down.
I have seen attack times on limiters be very different than what the simply number represents.
I will not mention manufacturers, but some of these are from some of the most highly respected manufacturers.
You MUST measure to get the proper results.
DO NOT assume that the numbers are all the same.
-
Here is some of what I have measured in various DSPs and differences
I have seen Qs that are twice or half of other manufacturers (and inbetween that).
I have seen xover freq be close to 1 octave off.
I have seen the gain change based on the Q. So as you change the Q the gain goes up and down.
I have seen attack times on limiters be very different than what the simply number represents.
I will not mention manufacturers, but some of these are from some of the most highly respected manufacturers.
You MUST measure to get the proper results.
DO NOT assume that the numbers are all the same.
Come on Ivan you are scaring the children.... :o
How about telling him what works...?
Use a DSP recommended by your speaker MFR hopefully with presets for your given speakers (that work).
JR
-
Use a DSP recommended by your speaker MFR hopefully with presets for your given speakers (that work).
The days of having a personal choice what DSP you use for loudspeaker management, are gone (unless of course your boxes have a Fulcrum Acoustics badge on them). If you want your boxes to sound like the manufacture intended, buy the DSP they tell you to buy.
-
The days of having a personal choice what DSP you use for loudspeaker management, are gone (unless of course your boxes have a Fulcrum Acoustics badge on them). If you want your boxes to sound like the manufacture intended, buy the DSP they tell you to buy.
I tried to get AES to standardize definitions but I'm old and tired and they XXXX...
JR
-
I tried to get AES to standardize definitions but I'm old and tired and they XXXX...
Hey, that's one good thing about FIR. Coefficients are coefficients -- there's no screwing around. Of course you could specify IIR filters the same way and avoid all the confusion but that's not what happened. I think the underlying problem is that speaker manufacturers have little incentive to make it easy to port settings from one DSP to another and, in fact, have a disincentive if they sell processing boxes. Good evening. --Frank
-
Thanks, everyone.
The speakers I am about to purchase are RCF NX 45-A. They are powered and have DSP built in, but no High-Pass filter. (Go figure.) Furthermore, my subs (another brand,) don't have hpf output, forcing me to use an outboard crossover. I do have an older analog crossover, but I really feel the need to upgrade/replace it soon.
The only speaker management function I need is the basic crossover since the speakers already have fairly good DSP protection.
Anyway, the RCF DX 4008 and DX 2006 do not have presets or factory configs built-in for any of their speaker models...(the best I can tell). It looks as if they are simple "dial it in yourself" units like the ones I had listed in my original post.
Thanks for all of the insight.
-
Ah, that changes things then. In that case, I’d just go with a basic Ashly analogue unit. You don’t need all the bells and do dads, just a reliable, simple xover.
-
I’d just go with a basic Ashly analogue unit.
I beg to differ. For a practical sub crossover you need variable delay, and that can only be achieved digitally. (Unless you get real lucky or have inordinate flexibility in speaker placement :) )
Having said that, you might get the delay functionality from your mixer in which case you'll need separate sub and main inputs to the crossover with the split occurring upstream in the mixer, as with "aux fed" subs. -F
-
I suggest the Behringer DCX2496. 3 inputs, enclosing AES, 6 outputs and plenty of DSP. It's flexible, easy to program from the front of the unit, sounds good. I've had 2 in racks with 4 channel amplifiers for 3 years now and haven't had a bit of trouble.
-
Thanks, everyone.
The speakers I am about to purchase are RCF NX 45-A. They are powered and have DSP built in, but no High-Pass filter. (Go figure.) Furthermore, my subs (another brand,) don't have hpf output, forcing me to use an outboard crossover. I do have an older analog crossover, but I really feel the need to upgrade/replace it soon.
The only speaker management function I need is the basic crossover since the speakers already have fairly good DSP protection.
Anyway, the RCF DX 4008 and DX 2006 do not have presets or factory configs built-in for any of their speaker models...(the best I can tell). It looks as if they are simple "dial it in yourself" units like the ones I had listed in my original post.
Thanks for all of the insight.
You and I are in the same boat. I have a Ashly Protea 3.6sp that does a great job. I use it for crossover as well as EQ and delay for my tops. It's a great unit and I like the 3 inputs and 6 outputs...makes aux fed subs easy with my Mixwiz mixer. I think a digital unit will provide some extra benefits over an analog unit.
-
We have a few outboard DSPs, and have had only one issue with one of them - the dbx Venu360 PSU connector problem (well documented and easily fixed, as pointed out by someone earlier).
For the scenario described, I'd go with the dbx Venu360.
We have the Lake LM44s and the Venu360s. We did an A/B comparison on both of them - same mixer, same powered speakers, same room, same source, flat EQ (no processing). Couldn't tell any difference in sound quality.
The Venu360 costs about 1/5th as much as the LM44 and has a more intuitive user interface (to me). The iPad application is pretty excellent, too. It offers several clocking options, which is nice. Pairs really well with the likes of the X32 and whatnot. The Venu360 won't have profiles for the NX-45A, but you should be able to get some basic crossover/delay/EQ settings saved and easily recalled.
dbx has been running sales on the Venu360 lately, and if you shop around with a few distributors on the board here, you'll get some great pricing.
I should also note... I often hear people say, "Don't use the AutoEQ on dbx" and I long believed in that advice. But then, while we were over at JTR's shop doing some calibration work on our 3TX/OS config, we compared the dbx Venu360 AutoEQ "decision" against what we were measuring with TEF, and they were *nearly* identical. The plots we made with TEF were a bit more granular, but when running A/B comparisons on playback music, they sounded more-or-less the same.
I realize this wasn't scientific by any means, and that everyone's results may differ. Just sharing what we saw/experienced. I think some of the lower quality dbx DSP units may reflect the less than optimal comments, but the newer stuff seems to work pretty well - especially for the MI level.
-
I should also note... I often hear people say, "Don't use the AutoEQ on dbx" and I long believed in that advice. But then, while we were over at JTR's shop doing some calibration work on our 3TX/OS config, we compared the dbx Venu360 AutoEQ "decision" against what we were measuring with TEF, and they were *nearly* identical. The plots we made with TEF were a bit more granular, but when running A/B comparisons on playback music, they sounded more-or-less the same.
The sweep-type AutoEQ functions on the VENU360 and PA2 seem to do a better job than the older Pink Noise based ones on earlier dbx models. Like the Disk Defragmentation routines of old, subsequent runnings of the Wizard produce finer results.
Dave
-
The sweep-type AutoEQ functions on the VENU360 and PA2 seem to do a better job than the older Pink Noise based ones on earlier dbx models. Like the Disk Defragmentation routines of old, subsequent runnings of the Wizard produce finer results.
Dave
Dave, you do realize that no matter what tones are used, if it cannot differentiate between direct and reflected sound and compare to what went in, it cannot show a good response. Oh, and it is only good for where the mic is. The sound may be horrible a few feet away.
Trained folk use dual channel testers and test from many locations and then decide on the EQ changes to get the best result for the largest part of the audience.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Thanks, everyone.
The speakers I am about to purchase are RCF NX 45-A. They are powered and have DSP built in, but no High-Pass filter. (Go figure.) Furthermore, my subs (another brand,) don't have hpf output, forcing me to use an outboard crossover. I do have an older analog crossover, but I really feel the need to upgrade/replace it soon.
The only speaker management function I need is the basic crossover since the speakers already have fairly good DSP protection.
Anyway, the RCF DX 4008 and DX 2006 do not have presets or factory configs built-in for any of their speaker models...(the best I can tell). It looks as if they are simple "dial it in yourself" units like the ones I had listed in my original post.
Thanks for all of the insight.
What mixer are you using? Does it have built in crossover functions?
-
Lot's of people today need to learn what a basic crossover will do before they jump into anything with more than one setting to be configured. And most of todays kids still don't understand what cabinets should be producing what tones, then set the high pass filters incorrectly later to complain about the sub that won't reproduce their 200hz sound.
My suggestion to the OP would be to buy the best DSP his money can buy. However, having lived in both the analog and digital world of reality I can reference the sound of yesteryear and compare it to the sound of today. Having said that, DON'T buy an analog crossover.
My vote would be for the dbx 360. It's flexible, well supported, and the difference in sound vs the lower cost crapola is noticeable, in a good way.
-
:)
-
What mixer are you using? Does it have built in crossover functions?
A&H QU-24. Nope, no crossover function in that mixer.
-
There is one important thing to keep in mind with crossing subs over to mains. Usually, the subs are run at a higher level than the mains. This effectively raises the frequency of the acoustic (not electronic) cross-over point of the subs. The distance the subs are from the mains in a flown mains/subs on the ground also effects the system and may require some time delay of one of the two systems to optimize the phase response. This make a digital processor an ideal choice. That said, an analog crossover might work great if your mains are just setting on top of the subs. Some analog crossovers have a separate summed mono sub out with its own crossover frequency that is independent of the stereo crossovers. I know of at least one with a street price of less than $100.00. It is possible this might work as well as an more expensive digital in your application. For a bigger more complex system with factory programed processing for specific speakers, definitely use the manufacturers recommended processor!
-
Having said that, DON'T buy an analog DSP.
Yup those analog DSPs always have trouble with the "D"....
JR
-
Lot's of people today need to learn what a basic crossover will do before they jump into anything with more than one setting to be configured. And most of todays kids still don't understand what cabinets should be producing what tones, then set the high pass filters incorrectly later to complain about the sub that won't reproduce their 200hz sound.
My suggestion to the OP would be to buy the best DSP his money can buy. However, having lived in both the analog and digital world of reality I can reference the sound of yesteryear and compare it to the sound of today. Having said that, DON'T buy an analog DSP.
My vote would be for the dbx 360. It's flexible, well supported, and the difference in sound vs the lower cost crapola is noticeable, in a good way.
Thanks, Bob. Yep! I am well aware. I've already owned a few crossovers over the years and even a cheap digital DSP...just not a decent one.
I have a rare opportunity to get a new, unused, (open box) Protea 3.6SP for $400 US. I think I might just jump on that deal while it's hot. I won't have any trouble dialing it in.
-
Yup those analog DSPs always have trouble with the "D"....
JR
Oh, I get it. Bahahahahah ;D
-
Dave, you do realize that no matter what tones are used, if it cannot differentiate between direct and reflected sound and compare to what went in, it cannot show a good response. Oh, and it is only good for where the mic is. The sound may be horrible a few feet away.
I do indeed. Note that the newer Wizards utilize multiple mic positions to lessen that effect.
I'm not suggesting to rely on them as gospel - just that they can help get closer, quicker.
Dave
-
I can say for a fact that there is a difference between midrange analog stuff and lower end DSP. A company I work for has a passive VRX system and utilized for the longest time an analog Ashley crossover. I always thought the PA sounded awful despite using the settings that most closely matched what was suggested. Then one day Me and the other shop dawg decided to do a side by side. We had a dbx driverack on one speaker and the Ashley on the other with the same amplification and the same basic settings. No matter what we did, we could not get the Ashley to sound as good as the one with the dbx unit. We surmised that from that point on, the analog Ashley unit was to be a paperweight.
Is there a difference in sound quality? Yes, but to which degree is the debate. I am not a fan of the dbx stuff honestly. I have used many different models over the years and none of them struck me as sounding great, they simply worked well. Having used Galileo's, Lake's, XTA's, Ashely Protea's higher-end BSS units, the dbx offerings were just good in comparison. I wouldn't say no, it just isn't my first choice. The Protea offerings from Ashley are good and offer really neat solutions, but are not much better than similar dbx stuff.
-
Yup those analog DSPs always have trouble with the "D"....
JR
Holy bat shit batman. Did I just do that? What a knucklehead I are.
-
I can say for a fact that there is a difference between midrange analog stuff and lower end DSP. A company I work for has a passive VRX system and utilized for the longest time an analog Ashley crossover. I always thought the PA sounded awful despite using the settings that most closely matched what was suggested. Then one day Me and the other shop dawg decided to do a side by side. We had a dbx driverack on one speaker and the Ashley on the other with the same amplification and the same basic settings. No matter what we did, we could not get the Ashley to sound as good as the one with the dbx unit. We surmised that from that point on, the analog Ashley unit was to be a paperweight.
Is there a difference in sound quality? Yes, but to which degree is the debate. I am not a fan of the dbx stuff honestly. I have used many different models over the years and none of them struck me as sounding great, they simply worked well. Having used Galileo's, Lake's, XTA's, Ashely Protea's higher-end BSS units, the dbx offerings were just good in comparison. I wouldn't say no, it just isn't my first choice. The Protea offerings from Ashley are good and offer really neat solutions, but are not much better than similar dbx stuff.
Luke,
I went from an Ashley, to a 480, then to a 4800. Night and day one step at a time. And I still haven't heard anything that sounds better than the 4800.
-
I have not used the 4800 yet. Many PA's, 360's and 480's, but not top tier dbx. I have been lucky in that I have used several top-tier items of the other brands. Ashely has some work to do as I think their best offering isn't much better than any of the dbx units I have used. That being said, the protea does have some neat features not found on other units.
-
Luke,
I went from an Ashley, to a 480, then to a 4800. Night and day one step at a time. And I still haven't heard anything that sounds better than the 4800.
What are you using the 4800 on, is it the EV QRX speakers? I have been using the DBX Drive Rack 4800 for a while now (is this the 4800 you are referring to) and I really like it. We have been using the QRX212 speakers in the passive mode not bi-amping them. I have been playing around with the EV Dx46 that has the FIR setting for a bunch of the EV speaker Bi-Amped including the QRX and from some testing I have done I think this takes them to a different level. I keep running out of time trying to play with this just before the band shows up. But I am anxious to get some time retuning the system with the Dx46. But we usually only use the QRX stuff for an outdoor summer concert series and that just ended yesterday with the last show for the season. I also have the Zx3 FIR setting for the Dx46 and hope to play with that real soon.
I have a BSS FDS-310 analog crossover sitting here that has basically been retired and replaced with DSPs. I think that was a pretty good crossover in its day.
-
What are you using the 4800 on, is it the EV QRX speakers? I have been using the DBX Drive Rack 4800 for a while now (is this the 4800 you are referring to) and I really like it. We have been using the QRX212 speakers in the passive mode not bi-amping them. I have been playing around with the EV Dx46 that has the FIR setting for a bunch of the EV speaker Bi-Amped including the QRX and from some testing I have done I think this takes them to a different level. I keep running out of time trying to play with this just before the band shows up. But I am anxious to get some time retuning the system with the Dx46. But we usually only use the QRX stuff for an outdoor summer concert series and that just ended yesterday with the last show for the season. I also have the Zx3 FIR setting for the Dx46 and hope to play with that real soon.
I have a BSS FDS-310 analog crossover sitting here that has basically been retired and replaced with DSPs. I think that was a pretty good crossover in its day.
Bob bleeds orange. ;D
I went from a DRPA to an Ashley to a Xilica/Sabine. Biggest difference was between the first two, but I can tell the Xilica sounds better. Funny thing is that I got it used for less than the Ashley, which is now a backup.
-
Audio quality is a slippery word, what exactly does that mean?
If we think about the primary function of DSP is to slice and dice audio streams, it is hard to imagine ever performing a controlled listening test between units, with identical transfer functions.
Yes I expect there are audible differences between units in execution. So again I would look to manufacturer's recommendations for presets for specific platforms where their individual behaviors are incorporated into the presets.
JR
-
What are you using the 4800 on, is it the EV QRX speakers? I have been using the DBX Drive Rack 4800 for a while now (is this the 4800 you are referring to) and I really like it. We have been using the QRX212 speakers in the passive mode not bi-amping them. I have been playing around with the EV Dx46 that has the FIR setting for a bunch of the EV speaker Bi-Amped including the QRX and from some testing I have done I think this takes them to a different level. I keep running out of time trying to play with this just before the band shows up. But I am anxious to get some time retuning the system with the Dx46. But we usually only use the QRX stuff for an outdoor summer concert series and that just ended yesterday with the last show for the season. I also have the Zx3 FIR setting for the Dx46 and hope to play with that real soon.
I have a BSS FDS-310 analog crossover sitting here that has basically been retired and replaced with DSPs. I think that was a pretty good crossover in its day.
It's used on a fairly large SRX7xx series system. It's never let me down, is fairly easy to configure and there's nothing left to wish for. The dbx 4820 is the replacement, and I use that term loosely. The 4820 was the model below the 4800 when the series was introduced, simply because when introduced not having a laptop on hand meant front console access. So to lower costs they removed the front console, which is a shame because you can check routing at a glance.
Another feature is the ability to upgrade with Jensen transformers, also raising the expense. Like all things digital the price has dropped and new 4020's can be bought for around $3200, down from $4200. The 4800 still holds it's value and a used 4800 can often be found for $1-2.5K.
https://dbxpro.com/en/products/driverack-4820
-
It's used on a fairly large SRX7xx series system. It's never let me down, is fairly easy to configure and there's nothing left to wish for. The dbx 4820 is the replacement, and I use that term loosely. The 4820 was the model below the 4800 when the series was introduced, simply because when introduced not having a laptop on hand meant front console access. So to lower costs they removed the front console, which is a shame because you can check routing at a glance.
Another feature is the ability to upgrade with Jensen transformers, also raising the expense. Like all things digital the price has dropped and new 4020's can be bought for around $3200, down from $4200. The 4800 still holds it's value and a used 4800 can often be found for $1-2.5K.
https://dbxpro.com/en/products/driverack-4820
I have used 4800 on over 100 plus shows with a Vertec rig the sound co I freelance tech for has. It's a good sounding processor, but the lack of mesa filters, direct FIR coefficient entry, and network (Dante) I/O really make it feel really dated. Also, the software doesn't have some of today's feature sets with Smaart integration, and EQ grouping. Just for kicks, I placed my Lakes in front of the Vertec for a show (V5 in the amps, so the 4800 and Lake were just in system drive roles). There was a difference, with a slight nod to the lake, but what specifically the difference was, wasn't obvious.
The only time the 4800 let me down was on a later version of System Architect (pre Audio Architect), circa 2011 maybe, were the program tried to do a firmware update through the network jack, but instead almost bricked the unit. We had to do some serial cable wizardry to get it back to life.
I am probably one of 6 people that was really upset they never came out with a cobranet card for the 4800, that was talked about all throughout the manual. That would have made for a nice 2009 fully networked touring package with the release of the iTechHD's.
-
I have used 4800 on over 100 plus shows with a Vertec rig the sound co I freelance tech for has. It's a good sounding processor, but the lack of mesa filters, direct FIR coefficient entry, and network (Dante) I/O really make it feel really dated. Also, the software doesn't have some of today's feature sets with Smaart integration, and EQ grouping. Just for kicks, I placed my Lakes in front of the Vertec for a show (V5 in the amps, so the 4800 and Lake were just in system drive roles). There was a difference, with a slight nod to the lake, but what specifically the difference was, wasn't obvious.
The only time the 4800 let me down was on a later version of System Architect (pre Audio Architect), circa 2011 maybe, were the program tried to do a firmware update through the network jack, but instead almost bricked the unit. We had to do some serial cable wizardry to get it back to life.
I am probably one of 6 people that was really upset they never came out with a cobranet card for the 4800, that was talked about all throughout the manual. That would have made for a nice 2009 fully networked touring package with the release of the iTechHD's.
I didn't realize that Smaart integration was available again for some DSPs. I have missed that feature when it went away.
-
I didn't realize that Smaart integration was available again for some DSPs. I have missed that feature when it went away.
Lake Controller (amps and DSP), Powersoft Armonia (amps only), and Harman’s Performance Manager (amps only) are platforms where I have personally used the integration. I am sure there are more. The integration is very nice when you only have one screen to work with.
There was a post on here a few months back from another member trying to get his 4800 to integrate with Smaart through performance manager, but that feature was just limited to amplifiers. I remember seeing his 4800 in the marketplace a few days later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Lake Controller (amps and DSP), Powersoft Armonia (amps only), and Harman’s Performance Manager (amps only) are platforms where I have personally used the integration. I am sure there are more. The integration is very nice when you only have one screen to work with.
There was a post on here a few months back from another member trying to get his 4800 to integrate with Smaart through performance manager, but that feature was just limited to amplifiers. I remember seeing his 4800 in the marketplace a few days later.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
This thread has brought back to mind a trick a found a while ago. It was probably using windows XP. It was the ability to make a window transparent enough to see another program under it. I used to overlay the DSP software over the Smaart software and I could line them up almost perfectly and it was as though I was able to control it from within Smaart. But for some reason I haven’t even thought about that for a while. I will have to see if I can do that in windows 7pro 64bit.
-
What are you using the 4800 on, is it the EV QRX speakers? I have been using the DBX Drive Rack 4800 for a while now (is this the 4800 you are referring to) and I really like it. We have been using the QRX212 speakers in the passive mode not bi-amping them. I have been playing around with the EV Dx46 that has the FIR setting for a bunch of the EV speaker Bi-Amped including the QRX and from some testing I have done I think this takes them to a different level. I keep running out of time trying to play with this just before the band shows up. But I am anxious to get some time retuning the system with the Dx46. But we usually only use the QRX stuff for an outdoor summer concert series and that just ended yesterday with the last show for the season. I also have the Zx3 FIR setting for the Dx46 and hope to play with that real soon.
I have a BSS FDS-310 analog crossover sitting here that has basically been retired and replaced with DSPs. I think that was a pretty good crossover in its day.
Na, I am the one with QRX.
I went from an Ashley to a Sabine Nav 480 to bi-amp my QRX212s. Bi-amp really woke them up. I would love to try the EV processor but the Sabine keeps doing the job.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
This thread has brought back to mind a trick a found a while ago. It was probably using windows XP. It was the ability to make a window transparent enough to see another program under it. I used to overlay the DSP software over the Smaart software and I could line them up almost perfectly and it was as though I was able to control it from within Smaart. But for some reason I haven’t even thought about that for a while. I will have to see if I can do that in windows 7pro 64bit.
I don't know of a way to do this natively, but have had good luck with both the "peak through" and "opacity" programs. I started using "peak through" at my 8-5 job, mainly to see if my EASE models were close to reality (google earth - football stadiums) but for some reason my IT department didn't like it (probably not for commercial use licensing or something). They ended up finding me "opacity" which does the job just as well.
-
I don't know of a way to do this natively, but have had good luck with both the "peak through" and "opacity" programs. I started using "peak through" at my 8-5 job, mainly to see if my EASE models were close to reality (google earth - football stadiums) but for some reason my IT department didn't like it (probably not for commercial use licensing or something). They ended up finding me "opacity" which does the job just as well.
I will have to look for Opacity. I did some searching and the program I was using is called Glass2k. I just read that it was only in beta and it was abandoned. But it still works, well almost. It seems to work on everything but the one thing I need it to work on (for what I am playing with now) and that is the EV Dx46 screen in the EV (or is it Bosch now) IRIS Net software. it works on the main screens in the IRIS Net software but not the sub screen I would really need it to work on. I just checked and it does work on the dbx drive rack screens that I would need it to work on.
Do you have a link for Opacity? I just tried to google that and can’t find it. I don’t get any matches that seem to be about a utility for windows to make certain ones transparent.