MikeLascuola wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 05:42 |
As far as sound goes, in none of the places I play would I personally be able to hear the difference between those two sampling rates. I would follow the advice of others here, and save up for a DSP which will not leave you feeling the need for a spare! |
MikeLascuola wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 10:10 |
Good points all. Of course you want to have a spare for a single point of failure. |
Quote: |
Thinking about dropping the DRPA. |
Quote: |
All have RTA (which i never use) |
Scott Shaw wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 05:41 |
I would think RTA would be a more important feature to be used as a starting point if nothing else. |
Andy Peters wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 19:12 |
RTA is a waste of time. -a |
Quote: |
A quick look at the RTA (monitoring DSP inputs) can avert that "is it me?" feeling. |
Geir Inge Tystad wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 14:08 |
I have been using the Behringer a couple years.. both it for my FOH amp rack. But changed back to the analog split in the amprack, put the behringer in my Driverack, hook it up to the computer and the fun begins. |
Josh Billings wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 16:11 | ||
I seriously don't understand anything about this post. |
Quote: |
I have been using the Behringer a couple years.. both it for my FOH amp rack. But changed back to the analog split in the amprack, put the behringer in my Driverack, hook it up to the computer and the fun begins. |
MikeLascuola wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 10:10 |
Good points all. Of course you want to have a spare for a single point of failure. |
Andy Peters wrote on Tue, 10 April 2007 14:12 | ||
RTA is a waste of time. |
Robert Fielder wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 12:19 |
Second - it has a 48Khz sampling rate. 96Khz and 192Khz are possible and fairly common - why just 48Khz? Arguments about if the difference could be heard are common, but I would suggest that in some situations that this unit will be used in, the difference might be heard. Besides, at that dollar figure, you should be getting bragging rights - and 48Khz max is apology time, not bragging rights. |
Quote: |
Still when it comes to riders or high end users,It is a Yugo.. |
Scott Waldy wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 19:59 |
Hey, if it gets you from Point "A" to point "B". |
Josh Billings wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 14:41 |
CD Audio is only 14/44 but almost always down sampled from 24/96 to get the cleanest sound possible. |
Josh Billings wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 15:41 |
The difference isn't in the sample rate as it is with all the stuff you are doing with the signal. In the studio side of things you sample at 24/96 to get a super clean sample to really mess around with (compress/EQ/limit/etc) The more you mess with that signal the higher that sample rate helps you in the end. |
Josh Billings wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 15:41 |
CD Audio is only 14/44 but almost always down sampled from 24/96 to get the cleanest sound possible. Granted weak DACs could throw the behringer out right off the bat and the sample rate wouldn't matter, but i do think it would make a big difference if all others were equal. It's like the small differences between 320KBPs mp3s & wavs (14/44). |
Josh Billings wrote on Fri, 13 April 2007 15:41 |
Anyways what do you guys think about going Digital from CD-> Mixer -> Signal Processor. Is that better than sending the unit an analog signal? WHat do you think is more stable & would sound better? -Josh Billings |
John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sat, 14 April 2007 10:23 | ||||||
There are several conditions for archival studio recording that don't apply to live SR. If you need to later convert to a different sample rate you can down convert which is discarding data more accurately than up converting which is essentially inventing data points between real samples. The increased resolution in the time domain literally allows for a signal pass band up to 1/2 the sample rate (or 48 kHz for 96k clock). Since there isn't audible information that high, the practical benefit is relaxed anti aliasing filters and their impact on the top octave. Since the nominal audio passband is typically defined as 20-20kHz the difference between 24kHz and 48kHz, on paper at least is moot. This is also complicated by how some A/Ds use oversampling in the conversion process. While perhaps slightly beneficial for EQ envelope symmetry in the very top octave, level manipulations such as compressing or limiting will be more affected by word length than sample rate.
The difference between 320kbps and 16b/44.1k is roughly 2:1, similar to the 2:1 ratio between 48k and 96k. But the very audible difference at the lower end (320k to 16b/441k) is because it is literally discarding audible audio data at the lower bit rate. The difference between 48k and 96k are far more subtle because both are higher than they need to be to capture the full audio passband with decent sample rate and resolution.
In principle avoiding unnecessary D/A-A/D conversions should reduce opportunities for signal degradation, but with modern gear that degradation is pretty minor, so do what works. JR |
E. Lee Dickinson wrote on Sat, 14 April 2007 09:50 |
Input C can be routed anywhere you want. The other nice thing the Behringer does is treat the Sum input (selectable among A, B, and C) as though it were a separate input. That is to say, if you adjust the input gain on A, it does not affect SumAB. We have the Behringer in our B rig. |
Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 14 April 2007 13:15 |
.....If you do use the reference mic, it (in my opinion) should be for finding the characteristics of your speakers, outdoors, so you can set the EQ for them in the box....... |
Quote: |
I've never been able to EQ a room node away. I doubt the RTA can do it either. Physics getting in the way I think. |
James Duncan wrote on Sat, 14 April 2007 12:02 |
Plus, I think it is obviously much more convenient to have the ref mic input on the front panel like DBX, Peavey, and others do. This saves having to dig around in the back of the rack to plug in the ref mic when needed. |
Jeff Babcock wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 11:29 |
Also my understanding is that the DRPA starts to sacrifice signal in the top end once you add multiple filters etc in order for it to keep up with the required processing. I am told that in some cases this can cut off your top end between 14 and 15K. |
Stuart Pendleton wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 08:48 |
Bennett, I know this is not evidence per se, but in the Peavey VSX forum Don Boomer made the following comments regarding DRPA vs VSX: "First of all ... better frequency response. The Driverack PA loses top end every time you add anything. By the time you've made a crossover and a little EQ the high end is probably limited to below 14 kHz." I don't expect marketing to tell the truth, but I do expect that Don wouldn't have made this statement without having something to go on. Maybe he can enlighten you.... |
James Duncan wrote on Sat, 14 April 2007 07:50 |
I am hoping to find something in this market that has at least 3 inputs so I can run stereo to the tops and then run an aux-fed sub mix into the 3rd input. It appears that the Behringer has this unit, but when looking closer, the 3rd input is the one that is used for the reference mic to do the auto-aligning function. I am not sure if this is a valuable feature or not, but it sure would have been more valuable (to me, at least) if there was a dedicated reference mic input. . |
Jeff Babcock wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 13:26 |
I presume a different chipset is used with the 260 and the other higher end DR's. |
Jens Droessler wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 19:24 |
Or probably just more of the same DSPs inside..... |
John Chiara wrote on Tue, 17 April 2007 15:28 | ||
All 3 inputs are usable..I use a DCX for 3 biamped monitor mixes and I just copied the setting to all 3 channels..all the same. |
Joe Larsen wrote on Wed, 18 April 2007 10:02 |
When you are running subs on an aux all three inputs to the DCX are full range: full range Left, full range Right, and full range Aux. Its inside the DSP where filtering takes place, so you would sum A+B inside the box, giving you an extra virtual mono full range input to route for your remote speaker. |
Robert Fielder wrote on Wed, 18 April 2007 12:24 |
Speaking of the Peavey VSX 26 - I checked the Peavey web site, and the latest version of the control software is from mid-2006, and still listed as "beta". Is this a dead project? Have they dropped development? Seems like a long time for something that even Behringer was able to ship and upgrade many times...... |
Greg Green wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 00:33 |
Let the vendor wars continue... I have the DCX2496 ( x2) , the VSX26 ( x1) and finally the Driverack260. |
Tim Padrick wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 02:09 |
Were I in the market, I'd look very closely at the Sabine range of DSPs. http://www.sabine.com/sabine-professional-audio/Navigator2_M ain.htm |
Christopher Simons wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 16:02 |
sorry if this is a stupid question, but i only saw the Peavey VSX 48 mentioned once in this thread.. is there a reason that you're not considering this DSP?? |
Donnie Evans wrote on Mon, 04 June 2007 14:53 |
Does anybody have any experience with the Behringer DEQ 2496? Is it comparable to these? I know it doesn't offer a crossover or multi-outs like a "speaker management" processor, but are they decent? |