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 => SR Forum Archives => Product Reviews: Sound Reinforcement FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: R.Boudreaux on October 02, 2005, 09:53:12 am

Title: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: R.Boudreaux on October 02, 2005, 09:53:12 am
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.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Mac Kerr on October 02, 2005, 02:03:01 pm
R.Boudreaux wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 09:53

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.
Did it occur to you to ask those questions before you bought the unit? What is the point of getting someone else's opinion now? The time to do research on a purchase is before the purchase.

Mac
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: RicBlade on October 02, 2005, 11:04:51 pm
Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 14:03

R.Boudreaux wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 09:53

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.
Did it occur to you to ask those questions before you bought the unit? What is the point of getting someone else's opinion now? The time to do research on a purchase is before the purchase.

Mac



My thoughts exactly...



Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Horvath on October 03, 2005, 12:51:54 am
Yes, it's usually a good idea to ask before you make a purchase, but anyway..

If you'd had used the 'Search' function, you'd have seen that there is much controversy surrounding this unit.  I got tired of one person saying that it was garbage, and another person saying that it's unbelievable for the money.  So, I bought one to do my own research and fortunately I had a dbx Driverack PA on hand to do some side by side comparison.  Too make a long story short, the difference in audio quality between the two units was apparent enough for my girlfriend to ask "The silver one sounds better, but why does it cost so much less than the dark one?"

I have since sold the Driverack PA and purchased another DCX2496.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: David Gunnardo on October 03, 2005, 11:49:19 am
Klark wrote on Mon, 03 October 2005 06:51

Yes, it's usually a good idea to ask before you make a purchase, but anyway..

If you'd had used the 'Search' function, you'd have seen that there is much controversy surrounding this unit.  I got tired of one person saying that it was garbage, and another person saying that it's unbelievable for the money.  So, I bought one to do my own research and fortunately I had a dbx Driverack PA on hand to do some side by side comparison.  Too make a long story short, the difference in audio quality between the two units was apparent enough for my girlfriend to ask "The silver one sounds better, but why does it cost so much less than the dark one?"

I have since sold the Driverack PA and purchased another DCX2496.


in what way is the behringer better?

higher s/n-ratio? "cleaner" sound? easier to use?

i'm really interested since i have a Driverack PA but would like something with 3 inputs.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Adam Kane on October 03, 2005, 12:23:24 pm
The Ultradrive is a great sounding unit...only problem is the frying egg sound that we've experienced recently.  Do a search on this and you'll find that there were a bunch of them with this problem.

We'd been using them for outdoor rigs and installs for quite a while with no problems.  Easy to set up and navigate...user friendly. Then all of a sudden, four of the most recent install customers were calling, saying that they were hearing this loud frying egg sound coming from the speakers.  We swapped them out with new ones.  Two weeks later with one of the churches and a portable rig,  SAME THING!!!  Quite embarassing to say the least...we no longer use them for installations.  We ended up switching the church unit with an ALTO Maxidrive 3.4 and have had no problems for a couple of months now.

I've heard (not from Behringer) that there was a bad run of only a few hundred pieces which makes sense because of how many we'd used with no problems.  I've read about a couple of temporary fixes...haven't tried them.

When we called Behringer to inquire about service and to see if the problem had been remedied in recent units, they told us that they haven't heard of any problems with them (HA!) Evil or Very Mad

Anyway...(sorry for going off) if you get one that was properly constructed (the problem is in the PCB at the rear jack panel) they're great sounding units that are easy to use.  But for such a crucial part of the system, I'd rather quote products from DBX, Ashly, Rane, even Alto.  

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Horvath on October 03, 2005, 12:32:14 pm
The noise floor seemed to be about the same.  And yes, it's obviously cleaner.  It's like the difference of listening to song at 128 bit on a good system, and then listening to the same song but at 256 bit...An obvious difference.  The Driverack seems easier to use, but only at first.  Within minutes you'll be movin' around in the DCX just as fast as in the Driverack.

Now I'm not bashing the Driverack units at all, in fact I bet the 260 sounds even better than the DCX.  But for the money, and given the feature set, I'd bet the DCX would give the 260 a run for it's money.

As far as the frying egg sound, I heard the crackling with mine, so I immediately searched for the fix.  Fishpaper, or any non-conductive material placed under the XLR board fixes the problem.  For months now since fixing it, mine has been out in the clubs atleast 2 nights a week, without a single crackle or pop.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: john manson on October 03, 2005, 07:30:46 pm
I think the DCX is great, I bought my first unit based simply on price and recently bought 2 more. Ive installed about half a dozen over the last couple of years and have never had a problem with even one of them.

In saying that Ive just been to the release of the the new DBX 4800 and will probably be buying one when I have the funds.

But seriously....ask before you buy
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: David Gunnardo on October 05, 2005, 08:42:29 am
The only problem i see is that i don't know what i would say to the people that hired me for a gig if the unit would shut down.
In my head it seems easier to have a dbx that breaks down, and explain that for the band or whomever hired me.  Sad
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Horvath on October 05, 2005, 09:03:24 am
Well if that's the way you're looking at it, I've had 2 Driverack 260 failures, and 1 Driverack PA failure.  I'll agree though, there is the chance any unit could fail and ruin everything.  But my DCX has been used dozens of times already, and never once show any signs of failure.. Knock on wood.

If you really wanted to be super safe, buy 2 DCX's.  You'd be ahead in sound quality, ahead in reliability, and have another Xover that you could use somewhere else in a pinch.  With the DCX's being half the price of a Driverack PA, I would have to say it would be worth it.  
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth Marsh on October 05, 2005, 09:56:42 pm
we've had ours for about a month. I thought it would be hard to figure out the controls, but the software fixed that, and it works on windows 98 too, even though they say it is "no longer supported"
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: David Gunnardo on October 06, 2005, 05:09:22 am
Its indeed possible that the dbx-units has the same failure-rate as the behringer, what i meant was that it feels easier to explain to a customer that "yeah, this $1000 unit from famous X failed tonight" rather than "oh, my crossover, that costs 1/3 of the cheapest comparable unit, failed"..



Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on October 06, 2005, 01:45:04 pm
Having been a little wary about the frying egg problem at first, I eventually decided to buy the ultradrive and have been nothing but impressed with it.

I agree with Klark though, I'd rather buy 2 Ultradrives and be sure the show can go on... a pissed off band member won't care how much money something cost if it means the shows over...
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover (new news)
Post by: Adam Kane on October 06, 2005, 03:44:29 pm
I just spoke with our Behringer rep earlier today...slightly different story than last time.

He said that they had two large runs (didn't tell me how many) where the output XLR pins were sticking too far through the PCB and coming in contact w/ the case.  Throughout the last month or so, most all of the bad units not yet sold have been taken out of circulation.  The production problem has been remedied and all new units have been fine to the best of his knowledge.

Take this how you want...I'm just relaying what I was told.

I just took one of the faulty units and trimmed the connector pins slightly.  I then put a couple layers of electrical tape on the metal case under the PCB.  I hooked it up and the noise seems to be gone...even when I reefed on the connectors.

If they're really OK again, we may start using them for the monitor rig or other rental systems.  But I'm still a little too scared to use any more of them for perm. installs.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Davide_Bonetti on October 08, 2005, 09:27:06 am
this DSP is so cheap that I will buy one to try it. I will eventually throw it on ebay if I don't like it........  Razz

if I like it I will buy the second..... with 3in/6out I can have 6 biamped monitors in 2U rack space.......
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Greg Green on October 08, 2005, 12:29:43 pm
I had to think hard and long about purchasing the DCX (it is a behringer Laughing) but have been very pleased with its performance as the primary speaker management piece for mains and subs for our band. The main reason I did chose it was for the remote management software. The DRPA did not have this in the low end unit. The DCX remote allows me to leave the unit mounted in the amp rack on stage and run a serial cable through the snake back to the console. Since I have the laptop for other uses anyway(rta, etc) its very nice. It is also easy to use a mouse to easily make freq and level changes rather than the big knob & buttons on the unit. My past experience has been Behringer service is s-l-o-w but they have so far come thru on warranty work. For the $$ and ease of use, its not too bad....
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: David Gunnardo on October 10, 2005, 06:00:22 am
Gareth James wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 19:45

a pissed off band member won't care how much money something cost if it means the shows over...


I know that if i as a BE had to end a concert after 10 minutes because of the NoName amps shutting down, i would be A LOT more pissed than if it was a number of LAB-gruppens or Crowns that went down. Smile


Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on October 10, 2005, 10:34:17 am
Sorry Dave, I don't think I made myself clear on that comment. I was referring more to the OP's DSP issue, althought the behringer unit was known for some models having the crackling issue, overall reliability seems good so far, as in I haven't seen any stories of outright failure.

My point was, taking into account this information and comparative pricing of the units, the chance of 2 behringers failing compared to one driverack pa must surely be much lower.

Not that either unit seems unreliable so far, I simply believe that although people are still very sceptical of a behringer product (or any product that is priced less than half of competing products), they seem to get the job done.

As far as amps go, yeah I'll happily concede on that point, if its amp failure that brings down a gig I'd be more sympathetic to the provider if they were world reknowned brand such as QSC, Crown, LAB etc.

Sorry for any confusion!
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ivan Beaver on October 10, 2005, 09:01:58 pm
Gareth James wrote on Mon, 10 October 2005 10:34

 if its amp failure that brings down a gig I'd be more sympathetic to the provider if they were world reknowned brand such as QSC, Crown, LAB etc.

Sorry for any confusion!


I heard of Hartley Peavey once was asked what a person should look for in an amp.  He replied "One that works!"  I guess it is kind of like driving a luxery car that always breaks down. Oh thats a "so and so" car and they are picky like that-but it is a ???? and I paid a lot of money for it. And the Camry keeps on going and going and-----.

I have installed hundreds of DSP's. Maybe half of them Behringers on lower end jobs.  I have had WAY more "quality" DSP's (including Ashley-Crown-Shure-Bi-amp) fail than the DCX2496's.  I have only had only 3 frying bacon sounds and they were replaced by Behringer.  The bacon sound is an annoyance-not complete failure or random lowering of levels etc.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: michal Bogdiukiewicz on October 20, 2005, 02:27:58 pm
psuedo FOH dude  I noticed you had a DCX2496 Behringer Crossover and were using a serial to XLR adapter to send the signal down you snake and was wondering if you could tell me what pins in the serial plug you used as I have tried making an adapter with no luck.


Michal

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Greg Green on October 22, 2005, 12:02:05 pm
Michal:

It's a basic 3 wire serial cable. Pin 2, 3 and 5. Straight thru from DCX to your serial port, or in my case usb to serial adapter on the laptop( eg. pin 2 - 2, 3 - 3, 5- 5). I cut an xlr mike cable in half and used the male xlr end to connect to the DCX 9-pin adapter. Dcx end pin 2<<->> 2 xlr , dcx 3<<->> 3 xlr, dcx 5<<->> 1 xlr. See the hopefully attached picture.
This end will plug into the snake , just like a mic. The female xlr end is wired the same. Mine works on a 100ft snake with no problems.

Good luck!
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Rick Byers on October 24, 2005, 09:57:16 am
Psuedo, do you ever hit any cable length issues from running RS232 down multicore?

I have just got a 2496 for my 'B' rig (I have a DR PA onthe main) and am loving it so far.

One query I have is that the input levels on it don't match the output levels on my Mackie 1604VLZ desk.  They are quite a bitt different which is causing me problems when trying to set gain structure through the system.  Any idea on this?

Also I can't find the facility to 'pink' the room.  Any clue would be helpful.

These are just learning curve things for me and overall impressions are good.

Rick Byers
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ray Abbitt on October 24, 2005, 06:08:41 pm
RickB wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 06:57

One query I have is that the input levels on it don't match the output levels on my Mackie 1604VLZ desk.  They are quite a bitt different which is causing me problems when trying to set gain structure through the system.  Any idea on this?
Ummm, how about the adjusting the input gain if necessary? See section 4.3 in the manual (page 15 in the English version) and the output gain (section 4.5 in the manual).
Quote:

Also I can't find the facility to 'pink' the room.  Any clue would be helpful.
The reason you can't find it is because it isn't there. You can auto correct for delay and speaker polarity, but it isn't an equalizer, so it uses an impulse signal. See section 4.2.2 in the manual. If you want to 'pink' the room, you need something in addition to the DXC2496, both to provide the signal and to provide the adjustments. The DCX2496 is really designed to be used along with the DEQ2496 EQ, which does provide those capabilities. They make a nice combination.
Quote:

These are just learning curve things for me and overall impressions are good.
Now that you have played with it a bit, go back and read the manual (it may not be the best, but it does have some useful info)

-ray


Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Rick Byers on October 25, 2005, 04:05:15 am
RTFM for me then!!!

Thanks for the pointers.

I'll dig out the Ultracurve 8024 in the monitor rack and have a play.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ray Abbitt on October 25, 2005, 01:43:22 pm
RickB wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 01:05

RTFM for me then!!!
Hey, I tried not to say it like that Very Happy  But when I first got my first one the manual was almost completely useless until I played with the unit a bit. After that, the manual made a bit more sense, although it certainly isn't much of a manual for this complex of a piece of gear. But I've been really happy with the combination of the DEQ2496/DCX2496 and not had a bit of trouble with them.

-ray
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Rick Byers on October 26, 2005, 03:59:49 am
No offense taken!!

I think it was not the best method of attack trying to use teh DCX like the DRPA.

I do like the PC interface though, brilliant addition to a low cost product like this.

DBX take note!!
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Greg Green on October 29, 2005, 11:48:55 am
[quote title=RickB wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 08:57]Psuedo, do you ever hit any cable length issues from running RS232 down multicore?
For basic tx/rcv w/ground, depending on the rec/drivers the DCX is using, should go 300 ft easy (at least any 19200baud data line can do this. UTP is limited to 100m).

Also I can't find the facility to 'pink' the room.  Any clue would be helpful.
This may be old news to everyone, but Allen & Heath have a downloadable rta program ( free to try , $10 to buy) that is a 1/3 octave rta and built in white and pink noise generator. http://www.allen-heath.com/rta.asp I had to have an external audio interface to provide the reference mic phantom power but works great to "pink out" a room and see what is going on for very little $$.
Of course it is no substitue for Smaart but then again its not $600 or whatever it is now  Cool





Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brad Harris on November 10, 2005, 08:32:08 am
Rick Byers wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 09:57

Psuedo, do you ever hit any cable length issues from running RS232 down multicore?
... Rick Byers


I've found that 600' is fine and somewhere between there and 750' doesn't work (havn't gone to find out yet, just used my 150' snake for initial 'how far can I go' testing).

I hacked up old PS2-232 adapters, the more expensive ($5) ones are easier to work with, than the cheaper ($2) ones.


Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: David Dellifield on February 01, 2006, 02:32:14 pm
John Alan Horvath wrote on Mon, 03 October 2005 12:32

As far as the frying egg sound, I heard the crackling with mine, so I immediately searched for the fix.  Fishpaper, or any non-conductive material placed under the XLR board fixes the problem.  For months now since fixing it, mine has been out in the clubs atleast 2 nights a week, without a single crackle or pop.


Does anyone know what date code of these egg frying units was?  I am looking at one right now and was curious if anyone knew?  Thanks.

David
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Rodney Connelly on February 01, 2006, 06:32:29 pm
I bought 3 of them.  number one worked just fine, and is still going today.  Number 2 worked for about 3 weeks, and started shutting down, and losing channels.  I bought number 3 to replace number 2, and it was defective out of the box.  In comparison to the dbx units I own, the configureation options on the 2496 are weak, and it doesn't have much power.  I would only purchase this unit again for non critical applications
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: ThomasA(lbenberger) on February 02, 2006, 08:54:34 am
I have one which went frying eggs last week. It was purchased in 2004. No time to try repairing it so far, let's see if I can fix it.

The other one I own was purchased one year earlier and also started to exhibit this problem a couple of weeks ago. The first attempt to repair it (ie insulate the XLR pins from the chassis) was not successful. After opening the unit up a second time for disconnecting and reseating re-seating the bus cable to the computer connectors PCB it worked again. Still I don't trust the unit...

Sorry, I can't tell you the manufacturing dates since I don't have access to them for another week or so. Still, 2 out of 2 going bad within 2 months may serve as a warning for your plans to purchase this product.

Regards, Thomas
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ted Christensen on February 02, 2006, 09:50:01 am
I have had mine for about a little over 2 months, no problems yet..Theres good behringer and bad behringer with these units, some work well, others are just defective.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Clive Milne on April 21, 2006, 09:55:25 am
 Had the DCX and found the sound quality passable but not stellar, also experienced the output crackle. Resigned myself to the fact that you get what you pay for.
Upgraded to a DEQX, ...  WOW, a quantum leap in every context.
Big $, but no regrets. I could not concieve of the idea of going back to the DCX for a 'hobby' application, never mind as a professional piece of equipment.
 Truly wish it was otherwise.
opinion only
fwiw) ~C
Title: Fishpaper under the XLR board
Post by: Tim Link on April 26, 2006, 03:34:44 am
Yes!

Thank you so much for this advise! My DCXs are both perfectly quiet again.
Title: Re: Fishpaper under the XLR board
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on April 27, 2006, 04:39:18 pm

If you say the Driverack PA is better, or more reliable, you must have never owned one of these DCX2496's!! My 1st DRPA was bad right out of the box!!  It took 7 weeks to get another. Once I got it back, I used it for 3 months and it crapped again!!!   DBX makes great stuff, but it will be a cold day in hades before I buy another DRPA. It only has half the features of the DCX2496 and has no external interface!! Running back and forth to hear the crossover adjustments I made is reeediculaaaas. It might as well be analog!! DRPA = NO benefit over analog!! I wouldn't mind trying a Driverack 280 or 480 if anyone would wanna sell me one for the price of the DCX2496, I would be happy to buy it!!

I have 2 and I love them. I sold my busted Driverack PA and bought a second DCX2496 for backup and still had some gas money.  

Thanks for the info on the RS 232 to XLR!! That is fantastic info!!

Title: Re: Fishpaper under the XLR board
Post by: Andy Peters on April 27, 2006, 05:32:46 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 27 April 2006 13:39

It only has half the features of the DCX2496 and has no external interface!! Running back and forth to hear the crossover adjustments I made is reeediculaaaas.


So why isn't in your drive rack at FOH instead of in the amp rack?  Not enough return lines in your drive snake?

Quote:

It might as well be analog!! DRPA = NO benefit over analog!!


OK, troll, show me an analog processor with up to 11 ms delay on each passband.  And one where the 3 dB points for each filter are independent (i.e., mid low-pass point can be different from low hi-pass point) and can have different alignments (Butterworth or LR or whatever).

-a
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on May 09, 2006, 10:51:14 am
I think the DRPA is quite a step up compared to analog as andy so eloquently pointed out  Very Happy

I do agree that the DCX has more features though, only thing i found lacking was the number of eqs...which incidentally later firmware updates have improved massively!

Clive...what exactly about the DCX's sound quality bothered you? You say it wasn't stellar...maybe your opinion was biased by the fact you essentially had a "faulty" unit (frying egg sounds).

I've been nothing but impressed with mine, i haven't had any issues with the "quality" of sound...took me a while to set it up how i wanted it though.
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 17, 2006, 01:59:38 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 13:30

It only has half the features of the DCX2496 and has no external interface!! Running back and forth to hear the crossover adjustments I made is reeediculaaaas.
Why are you changing crossover settings on site?
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 13:30

 If you must know I run my 6 monitor sends and my L-R FOH sends down my eight returns in my FOH snake. Thanks to the Behringer, I don't need to keep my crossovers/processors in my FOH rack such as you suggest. ( I am curious though, how do you run a stereo 4 way system and 6 biamped monitor feeds down your "Drive" snake?)
I'd rather put a Peavey POS in my rack than another over-rated DRPA in my racks.
PS. Check out some of Ashley's analog crossovers. Check out the Rane stuff too. Maybe you'll learn the answers to you infantile question.
How do you run 20 channels down your drive snake? You use a 20 pair drive snake. While I personally don't want the crossovers at FOH, it is pretty common in the touring concert world, and it is done with the right sized snake. Which of Ashly's ar Rane's analog crossovers have the features Andy mentioned? I just spent some time looking and couldn't find any. Rane has the AC22, 23, and 24, with delay. The AC24 is a DSP crossover with analog controls, and the AC22 and 23 offer only enough delay for driver alignment within a box, not enough to align the PA with the backline. Andy's response was to your statement that the DRPA was no better than an analog crossover, and I think its features do make it better than an analog crossover. Is it the best DSP available, no, probably not even at the price, but better than analog, yes.

Mac
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on May 18, 2006, 11:17:41 am
I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you?
Obviously, running a 20 channel "Drive" snake isn't something I would like to do. I would rather run 1 RS232/XLR cable, and put the DCX2496's in the racks were they belong. If I ran a simple 2 way system with 2 or 3 full range monitor mixes, I may have put the unit in my FOH, and I can see why some people do it. Especially if your a DRPA owner with a small system, and your trying to align your FOH or pinking a room.

I assume everyone is questioning my statements because they feel they need to. If running a 20 channel "Drive" snake is what you need to do, then do it. My choice is not to because of the conveniences this berhinger offers. There are other people doing the same thing as me with the DR260's, 460's, and 480's. Do they get called a "Troll" as well? I am sure if you ask them "Why are your changing your crossover" or "Why isn't it in your FOH rack", they would give you similar answers.
So while you ask me questions, assuming that I do not know what I am talking about, I am sitting here wondering why you would even ask me such questions.

As far as a specific analog unit that does what the DRPA does, there isn't one. My simple point was that back in the days of analog, there were processors that did everything the DRPA does. This is what most of us used back then. The only advantage between then and now is that the DRPA has it all in one space. Besides that, and maybe some small cost savings, it is no more advantagous than the days of old. At least with the Behringer DCX2496, I have total control of all features from my cozy FOH position. THAT is the advantage I am stressing. Do I need to articulate it any better?

Now, besides everyone trying to bash what I say, I hope the point is clear that when I said I like the Behringer DCX2496, I meant it. It does for me what the DRPA cannot do and does it for less money.
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 18, 2006, 11:52:46 am
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 11:17

I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you?
Absolutely NOT! Crossover settings are not room or content dependent. They relate very specifically to the speaker in question and once optimized should not be changed.
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 11:17

As far as a specific analog unit that does what the DRPA does, there isn't one.
And that is what Andy pointed out.

Mac
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 18, 2006, 11:58:29 am
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 10:17

I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you?



I would be inclined to set the crossover based on the speaker's needs and then use general EQ to deal with room differences.

Back when I made crossovers, I would sometimes offer models without knobs (screwdriver adj only) to nudge the customer to set once and not fiddle.

JR
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on May 19, 2006, 10:45:08 am
Having to continually clarify myself is becoming quite taxing, but I will do it anyway.
Typically I run stereo 4 way system Each range has it's own set of cabinets in my system, not simply bottoms and tops. I have mid-bass cabs, mid-range cabs, blah, blah blah.
So in each venue, If I decide to change the configuration of the speakers I am using, or if I am in an odd room, such as dual stages tristacked, or whether or not I fly the cluster and center cluster the subs, or what ever the heck I need to do, having to adjust delays and gains becomes a must. (Man I hope I don't have to explain this again)

Now is there anyone else that wishes to try an educate me? Holy Crapp! I like advice but scheeeezzz...

I never bought a unit that needed a screwdriver to adjust it. Never will! (Yes I fiddle with knobs)

DRPA=poop no matter how you like your poop sliced.

As for the reply about the comments Andy made, I guess you missed my point too. But then again he didn't call you a "Troll".
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 19, 2006, 11:14:02 am
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 09:45

Having to continually clarify myself is becoming quite taxing, but I will do it anyway.
Typically I run stereo 4 way system Each range has it's own set of cabinets in my system, not simply bottoms and tops. I have mid-bass cabs, mid-range cabs, blah, blah blah.
So in each venue, If I decide to change the configuration of the speakers I am using, or if I am in an odd room, such as dual stages tristacked, or whether or not I fly the cluster and center cluster the subs, or what ever the heck I need to do, having to adjust delays and gains becomes a must. (Man I hope I don't have to explain this again)

Now is there anyone else that wishes to try an educate me? Holy Crapp! I like advice but scheeeezzz...

I never bought a unit that needed a screwdriver to adjust it. Never will! (Yes I fiddle with knobs)

DRPA=poop no matter how you like your poop sliced.

As for the reply about the comments Andy made, I guess you missed my point too. But then again he didn't call you a "Troll".



Thank you for explaining your rationale.

My confusion arose from your comment "I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you? "

The fact that you routinely reconfiguring your system was not obvious (to me). Some inexperienced operators do indeed adjust crossover band-passes to crudely EQ their system. Clearly a less than optimal approach.

Of course the customer is always right, but I will continue my attempts to protect them from themselves. You apparently are comfortable dialing in your crossover on the fly, I don't know that everyone is that talented.

JR
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on May 19, 2006, 01:45:05 pm
Ahhh. Now we are on the same page. I should have clarified myself even further so that everyone can understand these things. I am assuming that everyone knows that this unit is used for more than just controlling crossover points. Things like controlling air temperature compensation, gain structures, feedback suppression, peak and dip filtering, ect, ect, ect, can usually be overlooked when discussing Loudspeaker management. I can see how you were confused. My apologies to all who read that irrelevant statement.

I don't get it. Do all of you DRPA guys have a "Set it and Forget it" method when it comes to your loudspeaker management? I would have assumed that you all would want to utilize the technology before you to optimize every environment you are in. Isn't that what "presets" are for? I guess that is just me. Maybe you all are the "In House" in some club or something? That would make sense then. I dunno. I am just a troll.

It seems from all the flak I am getting standing up for this processor and how I use them that maybe perhaps not all of you are open to real opinion. It would seem that just because I use a product that works fantastic for me that I am condemned to hear about it from those who either don't know what they are talking about or those who think they know what's good for me.

PS. A screwdriver adjustment method can still be adjusted. I am not so sure you are protecting anyone from anything. To me, that is as safe for someone's system as the proverbial "Don't push this button" sign above the button. However if your crossover product designs are specific to a loudspeaker / amp combination and configuration, than perhaps permanent fixed crossover points are the way to go?

I appreciate all of your comments though.....

But back to the main thread.  Yes this Behringer DCX 2496 Loudspeaker management processor works fantastic for me on my FOH and monitor rigs. Much better than the DRPA for me IMHO.
Title: Re: React to Any
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 19, 2006, 02:02:50 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 12:45

Ahhh. Now we are on the same page.


PS. A screwdriver adjustment method can still be adjusted. I am not so sure you are protecting anyone from anything. To me, that is as safe for someone's system as the proverbial "Don't push this button" sign above the button. However if your crossover product designs are specific to a loudspeaker / amp combination and configuration, than perhaps permanent fixed crossover points are the way to go?



It's impossible to reliably protect customers from themselves as they constantly evolve.

The use of screwdriver adjustments vs. knobs, is a gentle but not so subtle hint that some adjustments should no be made casually (are you sure you want to delete that file?).

I also have experience in install and rental markets where the system operator may not be capable of making such adjustments. I have even designed knob/pot shaft systems, where at the system integrator's discretion they can remove the knob entirely and insert a hole plug in it's place. Of course the clever idiot can always pop the hole plug and use one of the other knobs on the product to adjust it, but if you make it moderately difficult to screw up you can at least discourage the less motivated.

JR
Title: Re: React
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 19, 2006, 02:27:05 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 13:45

Ahhh. Now we are on the same page. I should have clarified myself even further so that everyone can understand these things. I am assuming that everyone knows that this unit is used for more than just controlling crossover points. Things like controlling air temperature compensation, gain structures, feedback suppression, peak and dip filtering, ect, ect, ect, can usually be overlooked when discussing Loudspeaker management. I can see how you were confused. My apologies to all who read that irrelevant statement.
I would guess the idea was propagated by this statement:
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 27 April 2006 16:39

Running back and forth to hear the crossover adjustments I made is reeediculaaaas. It might as well be analog!! DRPA = NO benefit over analog!!

or here:
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 11:17

I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you?


There may have been misunderstandings, but not without cause.

Mac

Title: Re: React
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on May 19, 2006, 03:30:07 pm
I still don't see how those statements were the cause of anything. Especially name calling (Which is apparently OK in your eyes). Adjusting from the FOH It is what I do with the DCX 2496. If you don't or can't, that's your problem. But feel free to tell me how you do it. Perhaps your advice would be useful then.

There may have been a misunderstanding possibly because people feel the need to combat what I said, rather than reading what I said and accepting it as strong opinion. Instead, everyone must attempt to disprove what I say rather than rebutting with their own opinions and outlooks about the product at hand. Regurgitating the irrelevant topic of whether or not I choose to use my DSP rather than ignore it is a complete waste of time and only proves your in this thread for other reasons besides product review. A complete lack of adding useful conversation to the thread. Period.
I you wish to battle over who is doing the right or wrong things with their gear, or who is smarter than who, or who is a "Troll" or not, perhaps a PM would be in order. Attacking me for the purpose of public humiliation will only backfire, I assure you. (Specifically Andy, not you mac)

So with that said:
The Behringer DCX 2496 is an great leap above the DRPA when used like use them. I highly recommend them to ANYONE.
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Dave Dermont on May 19, 2006, 03:51:46 pm
Mr. Troup,

It's nice you like advice. I have some for you. It's worth every penny you are paying for it too.

It has been my experience that the best way to keep from having to explain things over again is to explain them clearly the first time.

Also, the best way to keep from being called a troll is to not look, smell, or act like one.

You have posted in multiple forums about how wonderful the Behringer DCX thing is, including some places where it was not a topic of discussion. Then you posted links to eBay sales for that very same unit, including one that was unsolicited, and zapped by a moderator. (that would be me)

The post you made responding to Andy sounded like you were looking for a fist fight. This did not help your "I am not a troll" case too much. This post I also zapped, along with Andy's response.

Just because the DRPA does not have the feature set for your particular application does not mean it is not useful for people in less demanding situations. Stating it has "no advantage over analog" is untrue, misleading, and well...makes you look like a troll. When you add the posts that have links to a DCX for sale on eBay, what do you expect peolple to think?

We are open to all opinions here. We don't care much for trolls, or even regular humans who feel the need to act like trolls.

I hope I have explained myself clearly.

Thanks for participating.

Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on May 19, 2006, 04:44:54 pm
How wonderfuly clear you are sir. I can only hope my responses approche the clarity level you so effortlessly achieved.

I can only hope that you provide the same healthy advice for all those non-troll-ish gear owners who are attacking me because I talk highly of Behringer products. Thank you for pointing out that I enjoy posting good things about my experiences with Behringer products and that I advise and help them on where to get these products. Do you track the other peoples comments regarding the DRPA? How about Drawmer gear? I have some of their gear that I love also. Or should I refrain from making any comments regarding sound gear? You forgot to mention that I also always recommend the EWI stuff as well.

I didn't realize what I was saying put me in the "Troll" category. I was not aware this action defined me as troll-ish. Apparently my defnitioin of "Troll" is different than what is called out on this post. I was not aware this was against any of the rules either. My apologies to you. Thank you for taking the time to educate me. I am sure I will heed this advice next post.
Thank you for letting me know that it is OK to call others a "Troll" when they advise or comment repeatedly on the same gear pieces. At least now I know that it is an appropriate thing to do. Obviously since Andy did it without any recourse, and you did it to me as well, it must be the proper thing to do in that situation. Trust me when I say that I know how to learn a lesson. You only need to tell me once for me to learn.

Welp I gotta go. I have a show to do. I hope you all have a great weekend using your Behringer DCX2496's!! I know I will.

Mr. Troup

Oh, Ps. Andy, feel free to PM me if the fine moderator will allow it. My apology for attacking you. I did not know it was ok for you to call me a "Troll". Have a good day sir.

Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Dave Dermont on May 19, 2006, 05:27:10 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 15:44

How wonderfuly clear you are sir. I can only hope my responses approche the clarity level you so effortlessly achieved.

I can only hope that you provide the same healthy advice for all those non-troll-ish gear owners who are attacking me because I talk highly of Behringer products.


it seems you are filled with hope

Quote:

 Thank you for pointing out that I enjoy posting good things about my experiences with Behringer products and that I advise and help them on where to get these products.


You are welcome

Quote:

Do you track the other peoples comments regarding the DRPA?

No

Quote:

How about Drawmer gear? I have some of their gear that I love also. Or should I refrain from making any comments regarding sound gear?

Last I checked, this is a pro audio forum, so comments regarding audio gear are generally welcome.

Quote:

You forgot to mention that I also always recommend the EWI stuff as well.

No, I did not forget, but thank's anyway.

Quote:

I didn't realize what I was saying put me in the "Troll" category. I was not aware this action defined me as troll-ish. Apparently my defnitioin of "Troll" is different than what is called out on this post. I was not aware this was against any of the rules either.


You seem to not be aware of an awful lot of stuff.

Quote:

My apologies to you. Thank you for taking the time to educate me.


Apology accepted, and you are welcome!

Quote:

I am sure I will heed this advice next post.

OK, then.

Quote:


Thank you for letting me know that it is OK to call others a "Troll" when they advise or comment repeatedly on the same gear pieces. At least now I know that it is an appropriate thing to do. Obviously since Andy did it without any recourse, and you did it to me as well, it must be the proper thing to do in that situation. Trust me when I say that I know how to learn a lesson. You only need to tell me once for me to learn.

Welp I gotta go. I have a show to do. I hope you all have a great weekend using your Behringer DCX2496's!! I know I will.

Mr. Troup

Oh, Ps. Andy, feel free to PM me if the fine moderator will allow it. My apology for attacking you. I did not know it was ok for you to call me a "Troll". Have a good day sir.




Oh! Wait... I see, you are being witty! Possibly even trying your hand at sarcasm. I hope your audio skills are more finely honed than your sarcastic wit.

...I can only hope
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 19, 2006, 07:43:33 pm
(Another) Dave Dermont wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 17:27

Oh! Wait... I see, you are being witty! Possibly even trying your hand at sarcasm. I hope your audio skills are more finely honed than your sarcastic wit.

...I can only hope
That dry wit will get you every time Dave.  Wink

Mac
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Tom Reid on May 19, 2006, 11:37:28 pm
Quote:

Rane has the AC22, 23, and 24, with delay. The AC24 is a DSP crossover with analog controls, and the AC22 and 23 offer only enough delay for driver alignment within a box, not enough to align the PA with the backline. Andy's response was to your statement that the DRPA was no better than an analog crossover, and I think its features do make it better than an analog crossover. Is it the best DSP available, no, probably not even at the price, but better than analog, yes.

Mac


FWIW. The Ac series had low or mid delay functions.  Not calibrated, and avail. up to 2ms ...and no, I won't do the math and figure out what that's good for  lesson learned, 'nuff said.

The AC's also had jumpers to change the delay feature to the high xover function vs. the low.  There's also a chart to change the CD EQ on the high end by replacing one cap.

Rugged, robust analog xover.  Replaced my Loft ...'cause I kept losing my itty bitty screwdriver ...
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Tom Reid on May 20, 2006, 12:28:50 am
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 15:44

How wonderfuly clear you are sir. I can only hope my responses approche the clarity level you so effortlessly achieved.

I can only hope that you provide the same healthy advice for all those non-troll-ish gear owners who are attacking me because I talk highly of Behringer products. Thank you for pointing out that I enjoy posting good things about my experiences with Behringer products and that I advise and help them on where to get these products. Do you track the other peoples comments regarding the DRPA? How about Drawmer gear? I have some of their gear that I love also. Or should I refrain from making any comments regarding sound gear? You forgot to mention that I also always recommend the EWI stuff as well.

I didn't realize what I was saying put me in the "Troll" category. I was not aware this action defined me as troll-ish. Apparently my defnitioin of "Troll" is different than what is called out on this post. I was not aware this was against any of the rules either. My apologies to you. Thank you for taking the time to educate me. I am sure I will heed this advice next post.
Thank you for letting me know that it is OK to call others a "Troll" when they advise or comment repeatedly on the same gear pieces. At least now I know that it is an appropriate thing to do. Obviously since Andy did it without any recourse, and you did it to me as well, it must be the proper thing to do in that situation. Trust me when I say that I know how to learn a lesson. You only need to tell me once for me to learn.

Welp I gotta go. I have a show to do. I hope you all have a great weekend using your Behringer DCX2496's!! I know I will.

Mr. Troup

Oh, Ps. Andy, feel free to PM me if the fine moderator will allow it. My apology for attacking you. I did not know it was ok for you to call me a "Troll". Have a good day sir.




How about shill?

On March 8th

Quote:

I would like to ad my 2 cents.
It would appear that many of the wise people on hear are pointing you in a direction that will be the solution to your problem. I agree with all of them. There is a phase issue without question. However, there is one factor that is being overlooked. I know this factor well because I too had the same issue with VERY similar gear.
The problem I had was identical to yours. I checked every cable from here to the end of the earth. I could not find anything out of phase in the wiring. I even open the cabinets up to check JBL's wiring. Yet nothing seemed to be wrong.
At a show, I had a fellow sound guy come up to me and asked me what was wrong. (He saw me scramling and sweating to make it through the night. Nothing like a rock show with no kick drum thump!) I told him that I am at a loss. I thought I had figured it all out, but obviously I still have the problem.
He looked over my gear and as he was looking over everything he was just nodding his head, mumbling, ah, huh, ah, huh. Until he walked back to my amp racks and saw the problem.
"Take the Driverack PA out of that rack and throw it in the trash" is what he told me. I gasped in shock! What? DBX rules! What was he talking about. He said the DBX is causing the phase issues. he said "I bet you all of my gear that it is the problem." He said if you want digital, go with the Behringer 2496 or spend the money and upgrade the DBX to the 260 or 480.
I obviously could not believe what he just said. Heck, there are presets for the exact speakers I was using built into this unit!! This guy must be trying to throw me off the tracks is all I could think.

But I did what he said. I hooked up the Behringer 2496 and WOW!!
I have yet to clip an amp from this day forth. I have more thump and low end than I have ever needed from that day forth.

Now I do wanna say that I am not a big fan of Behringer and I am always a fan of DBX gear. So in this case I remain baffled, but I now have the problem fixed. I acutally like all the things I can do with the behringer that I could not do with the DRPA.
I also wanna say I am using 4 Yorkville AP3400's on these subs. I cannot comment on your poweramps. I am not big fan of switching amps. I prefer high current amps. They always prove themselves to be excellent on subs.

Perhaps I had a bad DRPA processor. I don't know. But I do know I am happy again.
I hope this helps.

Brian
Hammerhead Audio


But then again, on Apr 27,

Quote:

If you say the Driverack PA is better, or more reliable, you must have never owned one of these DCX2496's!! My 1st DRPA was bad right out of the box!! It took 7 weeks to get another. Once I got it back, I used it for 3 months and it crapped again!!! DBX makes great stuff, but it will be a cold day in hades before I buy another DRPA. It only has half the features of the DCX2496 and has no external interface!! Running back and forth to hear the crossover adjustments I made is reeediculaaaas. It might as well be analog!! DRPA = NO benefit over analog!! I wouldn't mind trying a Driverack 280 or 480 if anyone would wanna sell me one for the price of the DCX2496, I would be happy to buy it!!

I have 2 and I love them. I sold my busted Driverack PA and bought a second DCX2496 for backup and still had some gas money.

Thanks for the info on the RS 232 to XLR!! That is fantastic info!!


Now if someone like John recommends the unit, I would consider it, given threads like this one.

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/121729/2407/#msg _121707

Research, documentation, verfied results win folks over.  Bad mouthing any gear doesn't win friends and influence people.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on May 20, 2006, 02:17:01 pm
Brian you might be upset about being called a troll but you must also see that tom, mac and dave all have a point. Continually covering the same ground like you have and bigging up one product while bashing another is quite "troll-like".

To try and sum up though i think there are a few key points to consider about the DCX2496.

As far as I know apart from the occasional "frying egg" problem (which is easily remedied) the unit doesn't seem to have an abnormally large failure rate IMO (from the small amount of DOA reports i've read).

For the money nothing else can beat it for features however its not realistically going to be found in any real pro systems.

Even if the failure rates are up to scratch, or possibly even better than some high end dsps, its just too "cheap" i guess.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Mike Pyle on May 20, 2006, 03:48:30 pm
I'm having no luck finding DEQX references. Is that another make?
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 21, 2006, 05:25:15 pm
Tom Reid wrote on Sat, 20 May 2006 00:28

Now if someone like John recommends the unit, I would consider it, given threads like this one.

 http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/121729/2407/#msg _121707

Research, documentation, verfied results win folks over.  Bad mouthing any gear doesn't win friends and influence people.


Tom... for clarity's sake.

By John you mean John Horvath?  If so... he obviously is not recommending the DCX... he mistakenly called the DEQ2496 the DCX2496 and confused everyone until stated otherwise.  That thread was focused on a supposed polarity problem on the outputs of the DEQ2496, NOT a DCX.

That said, I don't consider that issue closed.  I saw the same topic come up on alt.audio.pro.live-sound where someone else made measurements and said the polarity flipping problem of the DEQ was completely unfounded.

I'm not trying to troll, but I'd like to see a resolution that issue, and I noticed this link back to that thread.

For the record, I own a DCX and find it to be a well designed and implemented piece of gear.  I also own a DR260 (not the PA) and find it to be a well designed piece of gear.  Given my druthers, I would probably get the 260 again because it's proven itself and has remote monitoring of the limiters which I don't think the DCX has.  That said... for monitors or side fills or front fills or what have you I'd get the DCX.
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Tom Reid on May 21, 2006, 09:11:10 pm
Dude, you and I can't see eye to eye on most things.
I hope to not start another feud here.
I think this is a forest for the trees thing ...

I have no issue with the DEQ, DCX, nor any piece of gear.
I cheer for things I know about, I claim I don't know about gear that I'm not familiar with, and I don't bash anything execpt maybe Bose and the occaisional slam at the TR series.

I'm using John as an example to explain why 1 product is bad.  Mr. Horvath did his research, gave examples, and explained when he figured out he'd been calling a DEQ a DCX.  And yes, I think I can call John by his first name, after all, he's let me touch his Soundcraft  Embarassed

Consider John's referenced post a good example of how to properly bash something in the community (you actually don't bash ...as in all things you lead by example).  Just like in math class, you gotta show your work unless you're Hawking.

The bone of contention here isn't the DCX.  It's gear bashing, or being a shill, or yes ...maybe even a little trollish (not you Ryan).  We have two different stories about how bad the DRPA was for this dude, and he's been through three of 'em as he states, which is probably enough individual purchases to by a 260 and fuggetaboutit.

Even you don't force gear down our throats Ryan.

peace

Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on May 21, 2006, 10:23:32 pm
Tom Reid wrote on Sun, 21 May 2006 21:11

Dude, you and I can't see eye to eye on most things.


C'est la vive.

Quote:

I'm using John as an example to explain why 1 product is bad.  Mr. Horvath did his research, gave examples, and explained when he figured out he'd been calling a DEQ a DCX.  And yes, I think I can call John by his first name, after all, he's let me touch his Soundcraft  Embarassed

Consider John's referenced post a good example of how to properly bash something in the community (you actually don't bash ...as in all things you lead by example).  Just like in math class, you gotta show your work unless you're Hawking.


I agree with your points, just not with your link.  SO far that issue has been on the top of my list of things to track down, so when I see a post talking about either unit I've been interested.   So far, I haven't gotten a reply from Mr. Horvath.  Not saying he's ignoring me or anything, it's only been a few days and I'm sure he's busy like everyone else.  I just want to see a difinitive solution.  So far, the evidence I have is one person says it's got a polarity issue.  Another person tested it and says it doesn't.  I have a response from behringer saying they know nothing of the issue but DO admit to the problem in ONE isolated case of an ADA8000 that was mis-assembled in the factory.  Yet that post has not been amended with any further info.  Due to it's realtively qualified status (smaart graphs et al.) I fear it will become the bible of the DEQ.

Quote:

The bone of contention here isn't the DCX.  It's gear bashing, or being a shill, or yes ...maybe even a little trollish (not you Ryan).  


THIS we see eye to eye on.

Quote:

Even you don't force gear down our throats Ryan.


Thanks.  I will however warn someone when they are making an uneducated purchasing decision.  As would you.
Title: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover unavailable
Post by: Antone Atmarama Bajor on June 04, 2006, 07:51:17 pm

    Does anyone here know why these things are still unavailable????

    I can't even find them on EBAY UK which covers Europe.

Antone-
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover unavailable
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on June 05, 2006, 12:03:19 am
High demand?

They have had trouble keeping these in stock most places.  Musicians Friend lists an arrival date of July 1st.

I'd get on one of the big retailers backordered list if you want one.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on June 08, 2006, 03:52:44 am
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
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on June 10, 2006, 06:46:55 pm
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).
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on June 10, 2006, 09:15:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on June 11, 2006, 08:19:32 am
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!
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 11, 2006, 09:04:07 am
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 (  Very Happy ) 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
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on June 11, 2006, 10:02:52 am
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?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on June 11, 2006, 11:50:13 am
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  Very Happy

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.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 11, 2006, 01:01:53 pm
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  Very Happy

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. Very Happy  

JR
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on June 11, 2006, 06:53:44 pm
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
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on June 11, 2006, 07:59:52 pm
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
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on June 11, 2006, 08:30:04 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 18:59



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


AbsoF'nlutely.....!

Nobody but the front row is going to notice if you eat into the Haas region slightly... and then probably only on snare hits or maybe a very percussive bass. Only issue as I see it is keeping all the signals cool with themselves so you don't get combing or worse (a bad performance).

This was way ahead of it's time, first time around. I'm too lazy to look up how much delay the RANE is using but you can do some with a little delay, and a lot with a little more.

This is probably best embedded inside a digital console or inside my futuristic virtual system where computers can keep track of when to poot everything out so it plays well together.

Perhaps recording guys are already doing this? If not they should Shocked . They have a closed door and soundproof wall between them and the band while tracking and post is like post.



JR
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Greg Cameron on July 06, 2006, 01:50:31 pm
I hate to drudge up an old post, but does anyone know the maximum number of parametric filters the DCX supports and total latency with the DSP maxed out? I couldn't find said info in the manual.

Thanks,
Greg
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Bob Lee (QSC) on July 07, 2006, 02:07:05 pm
Tom Reid wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 20:37

Replaced my Loft ...'cause I kept losing my itty bitty screwdriver ...


That's a brand that JR designed. The filter freq settings were always recessed and screwdriver-adjustable, but the gain controls of the individual bands came in both knob and recessed versions.

If the PC board had the initials REL on the QC sticker … that was me who checked it out!
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on July 07, 2006, 02:44:53 pm
Tom Reid wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 22:37



Replaced my Loft ...'cause I kept losing my itty bitty screwdriver ...


I'm still not a fan of making some adjustments too easy to access. I refined this somewhat in several PV install products where I developed a knob with a long shaft, so the pot could be recessed and either have a knob or hole plug at the owner's option.

The customer is always right, but not all operators are the actual customer.

JR
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 16, 2006, 07:54:02 pm
We have installed many-many DCX2496's.  Usually with no problem.  However lately that has all changed.  We have been having close to a failure a week for units that have been in for awhile (llike a year or more).  The typical frying bacon sound.  It has us quite worried.

We had stopped installing them around 6 months or more ago, due to the same issue upon install.

While I feel the performance of the unit is fine, the failure rate is simply NOT acceptable.  And since the price of the unit is so low, we have not made any profit on the sale of it to do any service work of any type.

Well, it was good while it lasted, but now we are paying the price. Sad
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on July 17, 2006, 09:11:07 pm
Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 19:54

We have installed many-many DCX2496's.  Usually with no problem.  However lately that has all changed.  We have been having close to a failure a week for units that have been in for awhile (llike a year or more).  The typical frying bacon sound.  It has us quite worried.


Wasn't this a ribbon cable problem that was fixed a while ago?  I remember reading here or on aapls that there was a run with ribbon cable issues.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 17, 2006, 09:32:39 pm
I don't know.  We had 2 more calls today from installs that have been in awhile.  I REALLY hope this is not a trend----.

The biggest issue is not the problem, but the fix.  Some of these require 6 hours or more travel time  Sad .
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Eric Snodgrass on July 18, 2006, 12:56:29 am
Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 16:54

We have installed many-many DCX2496's.  Usually with no problem.  However lately that has all changed.  We have been having close to a failure a week for units that have been in for awhile (llike a year or more).  The typical frying bacon sound.  It has us quite worried.

We had stopped installing them around 6 months or more ago, due to the same issue upon install.

While I feel the performance of the unit is fine, the failure rate is simply NOT acceptable.  And since the price of the unit is so low, we have not made any profit on the sale of it to do any service work of any type.

Well, it was good while it lasted, but now we are paying the price. Sad

But it's all worth it because the clients saved all that money on the initial install. Rolling Eyes
Who needs to think long term when the bottom line will be affected?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 18, 2006, 07:39:58 pm
Just because it was cheap does give an idea on the possible quality, but not all the time.

With other DSP's we have used (some top of the line and very popular ones), we have also had failures.  There are other brands/models that we have stopped using because of the failure rate.  The DCX just happens to be on the bottom-price wise.

At least we didn't get any failures today Laughing  Laughing
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Tom Reid on July 18, 2006, 10:53:39 pm
Bob Lee (QSC) wrote on Fri, 07 July 2006 13:07

Tom Reid wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 20:37

Replaced my Loft ...'cause I kept losing my itty bitty screwdriver ...


That's a brand that JR designed. The filter freq settings were always recessed and screwdriver-adjustable, but the gain controls of the individual bands came in both knob and recessed versions.

If the PC board had the initials REL on the QC sticker … that was me who checked it out!



JR was designing gear, Bob Lee was in QC, and I was a sophmore in college trying to figure out PNP vs. NPN.

I've always been a slow starter.  

The recesses were cool and I found my BIC pen cap worked just as well as the little screwdriver (after you chewed it a bit).

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Mike McNany on July 20, 2006, 02:09:16 pm
Wasn't the "frying bacon" noise caused by PC mounted jacks grounding out to the chassis near their solder points? Then it just required sliding ing some plastic between the contacts and the metal chassis.

I understand 6 hours travel time is costly, in manhours and gas. Just became a grandfather yesterday and with SWMBO hogging the Explorer (17mpg) I gotta drive the Expedition (12mpg) back & forth for the birth and to see little Noah. So that's $6 a trip for me to the new hospital 12 miles away up & down some pretty big hills (plus whatever my wife is using up in gas) Mad Oh, well, lump that in with the $400 DVD video camera I just HAD to buy for this (according to SWMBO).

Mike McNany
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Phil Ouellette on July 21, 2006, 11:14:51 pm
Tom Reid wrote on Tue, 18 July 2006 22:53

JR was designing gear, Bob Lee was in QC, and I was a sophmore in college trying to figure out PNP vs. NPN.

I've always been a slow starter.  



I figured out how to keep that straight in high school.  PNP and the emitter Points to the base, NPN and the emitter Not Points to base.

When using a transistor, the emitter arrow points towards the more negative voltage (assuming you want current flow through the transistor).  NPN makes a good low side switch, PNP makes a high side switch.

Enough transistor trivia.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Gareth James on July 22, 2006, 07:52:01 am
I have been planning to try and "fix" the problem for a while but haven't got around to doing it as well as my unit only having suffered from it very rarely.

Does anyone know where i can get some fishpaper to try and insulate the contacts from the chassis?

Mike, 12mpg?! Shocked   OUCH , we were disappointed when we got 45mpg to scotland the other week, were hoping for more like 55-60...
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Michael 'Bink' Knowles on July 22, 2006, 11:28:30 am
Quote:

Does anyone know where i can get some fishpaper to try and insulate the contacts from the chassis?


Any sturdy and thick paper will do. Fishpaper is traditionally waxed which gives an element of non-conductivity and water resistance. Plasticized (glossy) poster paper will do the trick. Thinner paper will suffice if you put more layers in. Your nearest art store should be able to help.

-Bink
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Tom Reid on July 22, 2006, 12:13:23 pm
Quote:

straight in high school.


That may have been part of the problem ...
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on July 22, 2006, 12:18:37 pm
Gareth James wrote on Sat, 22 July 2006 06:52

I have been planning to try and "fix" the problem for a while but haven't got around to doing it as well as my unit only having suffered from it very rarely.

Does anyone know where i can get some fishpaper to try and insulate the contacts from the chassis?
.

I don't have any specific sources but I would advise against substituting a paper based material. Paper can absorb and/or accumulate moisture and not be very resistant to piercing or abrading.

It is also a good idea to clip off any sharp protuberances below the PCB before inserting a nonconducting, non-hygroscopic insulator.

JR
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss on August 22, 2006, 11:10:24 pm
I guess I'll contribute my vote of confidence on the DCX2496. I bought mine, used, on eBay and installed it in December 2004. It replaced three other boxes I had doing a 'sort of' similar job on an analog level.
I found the DCX2496 to be an immediate improvement for the system overall. An increase in overall SPL without bottoming out the previous (old) woofers, was observed.
I do note that the 'zero attack' limiters are better off switched off. They are so fast that the attack of the snare drums is seriously curtailed when they activate. I suggested to Behringer that they provide a software update where the limiter attack time can be slowed down.
My other minor gripe is not having EQs and crossover filters that can be tuned below 20Hz. Obviously the DCX is geared toward the pro-audio market where no one cares about bass below 50Hz, so they must figure that a 20Hz lower limit is fine. I would have been happier if they allowed it to go down to 15Hz, or better yet, 10Hz, since a lot of musically-significant material lives down there (pipe organ, pyrotechnics, etc.)
Negative points aside, the DCX2496 sounds great, is quiet enough that the system is not throwing hiss across the auditorium when idle, and is flexible and easy to configure and tweak.
My unit has been in a fixed installation for more than a year and a half, and has, so far, been trouble-free.
If the power fails, it knows how to mute the outputs, rather than putting a huge spike through the amplifiers on the way out. Its operation is graceful, as well as functionally powerful.
I like being able to store configurations and recall them at the touch of a button. Everything is configurable. Each buss can have EQ or delay or limiters engaged, for instance. A lot of things like this are not that apparent on the surface, but once one starts pushing buttons and exploring the interface, a lot of nice features are revealed.
In conclusion, I would have no reservations about buying additional units and using them in new installations.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Davide_Bonetti on August 23, 2006, 10:43:20 am
I read everything and did a search too... it is very difficult to understand if the pros are higher than the cons about the DCX2496.

I would buy one, simply because I CANNOT AFFORD ANYTHING ELSE. I hope it won't be a DOA, I hope it won't sound bacon, I hope it won't stop working...

I guess it would be an improvement to my analog controller, which I bought with my PA; it is same brand as the cabinets, HK, and was tailored for the speakers. I don't like it because it has absolutely nothing to tune, only power LED and limiters LEDs...

You know... I'd like to see in/out levels, maybe trying different Xover settings, having a limiter THAT I CAN SET... such things...

I simply can't buy a Minidrive or XTA... and I don't like the DR260 UI (already used it, a friend of mine has got it).

what do you think?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 23, 2006, 11:23:04 am
I still am loving mine! No problems at all. Can't understand why more people don't use it! (Other than people who are influenced by those who complain about this unit and obviously never have used one, you know, that old hat)
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 23, 2006, 08:59:14 pm
We have a small pile of "bacon fryers".  Last week we tore into several of them to give a hard look.  The problem that we found out was the ribbon cable connection on the output board, that is crimped on and not easily replaced.

We are going to try and "swap" Behringer for some of the ADA8000 mic pres that we quite a few of-and have had no "real" problems.  Then only ones being a unit dropped on the ground and a knob knocked off and one hit by lightning.

I was a firm believer in them (DCX2496), untill we started having to replace them and eat the costs of going to a suitable replacement-that is around 3 times the dealer cost.  We are just doing right by our customers and eating the replacement costs-including labor.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Bennett Prescott on August 23, 2006, 10:16:48 pm
Brian, I think if you read carefully you'll find that complaints about the unit do not center on its ease of use or flexibility, which even I'll agree are excellent.

It's about reliability... that little chunk of value-engineered silicon is sitting right between your mixer and your speakers. Should it go tits up, you're shit out of luck. Betcha a tenner you're not carrying a backup DSP. Personally, if something I know is cheap shit costs me a gig I'm going to be hopping mad at myself for buying it. Gear goes down, but at least when it's gear you know someone cared about building you know you've done as much as you can and thank heavens you brought that backup equipment.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 11:22:53 am
I understand Bennett,
I actually own 8 of these units. In each rack there is a spare DSP. For now anyway. I plan on switching them out once I go to the XTI amps, but in the meantime I cautiously use the DCX DSP's. I agree that a back up of WHATEVER DSP you are using is a good idea. I have a back up for just about everything. I have been doing sound a long time and I have learned the hard way. So far, all 8 have been flawless. (Knock on Wood!) Right now I use all high Current Crest Pro and Yorkville AP3400 (old school) amps. These DSP's really come in handy when dealing with old school power.
I do think 90% of Behringer stuff is not worth it, and I NEVER condone the copycat mentality Behringer has, but this DSP is a great deal despite the crapp Behringer goes through to make products.
Some people will just have to make up there own mind whether to believe hype or experience.
That will be enough regurgitation out of me. I am definitely not attempting to stir the pot again.  Use them or don't, I don't care. I do and they work great for me.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on August 24, 2006, 01:47:58 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 08:22

In each rack there is a spare DSP. For now anyway. I plan on switching them out once I go to the XTI amps, but in the meantime I cautiously use the DCX DSP's. I agree that a back up of WHATEVER DSP you are using is a good idea. I have a back up for just about everything.


I think one definition of "false economy" would be that you must buy two of something cheap in order to guarantee that one will always be running.

-a
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 02:50:39 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 18:47

Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 08:22

In each rack there is a spare DSP. For now anyway. I plan on switching them out once I go to the XTI amps, but in the meantime I cautiously use the DCX DSP's. I agree that a back up of WHATEVER DSP you are using is a good idea. I have a back up for just about everything.


I think one definition of "false economy" would be that you must buy two of something cheap in order to guarantee that one will always be running.

-a




Very true Andy, Very true.

I am surprised that you didn't try and make it seem to everyone that I am using 1, with 7 for back up.  Very Happy
Actually they are all in use, but they can be reconfigured to handle the situation if one fails.

If you can save your dough, buy a better brand name.

Andy, could you enlighten us as to what you use for DSP. I do plan on upgrading very soon, and I was wondering what a senior engineer such as yourself would suggest to us all.

Thanks,
Brian
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on August 24, 2006, 04:00:49 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 11:50

Andy, could you enlighten us as to what you use for DSP. I do plan on upgrading very soon, and I was wondering what a senior engineer such as yourself would suggest to us all.


Now that I've wiped the sarcasm from my monitor:

I had a longish response typed up, but I've deleted it.

Never mind.  I'm done.

Hope y'all have a nice time.

-a
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 04:45:15 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 18:47

Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 24 August 2006 08:22

In each rack there is a spare DSP. For now anyway. I plan on switching them out once I go to the XTI amps, but in the meantime I cautiously use the DCX DSP's. I agree that a back up of WHATEVER DSP you are using is a good idea. I have a back up for just about everything.


I think one definition of "false economy" would be that you must buy two of something cheap in order to guarantee that one will always be running.

-a




Funny you should mention "sarcasm".  You and I must have been thinking the same thing? Maybe not.

But your right. This should end now. Perhaps the guy who originally started the post has found a satisfactory solution to his dilema and has moved on. Certainly no need to continue the debate.

Best of luck to you too all.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 04:48:08 pm
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 04:48:26 pm
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Brian J. Troup Jr. on August 24, 2006, 04:49:04 pm
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ben Dyer on August 24, 2006, 08:08:18 pm
Quote:

I guess it would be an improvement to my analog controller, which I bought with my PA; it is same brand as the cabinets, HK, and was tailored for the speakers. I don't like it because it has absolutely nothing to tune, only power LED and limiters LEDs...

You know... I'd like to see in/out levels, maybe trying different Xover settings, having a limiter THAT I CAN SET... such things...


I doubt it would sound better than an analog controller designed specifically for the speakers you're using, at least not without a lot of tuning using expensive measurement systems. DSP devices don't exist to give you "[some]thing to tune"; once they're set, you don't touch them again. Chances are, that analog controller was designed by someone with significant experience in crossover design and system optimisation, and messing around with the settings would only make it sound worse.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on August 25, 2006, 02:59:26 am
Ivan Beaver wrote on Wed, 23 August 2006 20:59

We have a small pile of "bacon fryers".  Last week we tore into several of them to give a hard look.  The problem that we found out was the ribbon cable connection on the output board, that is crimped on and not easily replaced.


Ivan, has Behringer given you a definitive answer on these?  I.e., were there a run of defective units?  Is it truely the ribbon cable?  What exactly is wrong with the cable? Poorly crimped?

It has been my experience that Behringer is very forthcoming when a user has problems and asks the tech support directly.  Additionally, they always make good on warranty replacements.  I know behringer isn't known for reliability, but I have had good experiences with only a used compressor (out of 4 I bought on ebay) going bad.  The rest of what behringer gear I have has been flawless.

I see a lot of posts about behringer stuff go un-resolved on the posters end.  For instance, a while back we had a post about a polarity flip problem with their digital equalizer the DEQ2496.  After repeated posts, we never got a final answer from the OP and it smelled of smear campaign IMO.  NO other users that I've talked to had any issues.  I don't know if you are familiar with the crowd over on alt.audio.live.pro-sound but George Gleason and Phil Jones (Phildo) swear by Behringers stuff.  And afiak have NO affiliation with Behringer.  Jim Savery (Behringers USA support manager) routinely answers questions there.

I feel one of two things are true.

Either there is some consipiracy with the folks on a.a.p.l.s WRT supporting Behringer...

OR.

There is some conspiracy here of the opposite "polarity."

I hope neither are true.

If you dis-regard the product copying allegations and look strictly at price/features/reliability... well, something has to give.  And if a $250 DSP has a failure rate that is higher than a $2000 one then that's a risk I think most in the lounge and some in the LAB (for certain applications) might be willing to take.  This is especailly true when it's not the case that every DCX eventually dies, just that some fail, and some work great for a very long time.

It seems like there is plenty of room in the market for lower priced options.

Basically you have Behringer at the sub $300 mark.  The Driverack stuff is such a waste below the 260 so I don't even count it.  The power off "pop" is IMO a severe oversight on dbx's part.  The DR260 comes in around $700-900 and then you've got another $500 until the next DSP comes into view... then the prace practically doubles and triples thereafter.

I know (a little) about the math and tools behind digital signal processing... Enough to know that it isn't rocket science any more.  The bandwidth required is so very low compared other industries it isn't even funny.  Granted, the stuff that I've worked with in the sonar world is lightyears more expensive... but we're talking a completely different ball park here.

I think a reliable $500 processor with the feature set of the DCX would be a KILLER product.  Question is who's listening?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Mike Pyle on August 25, 2006, 04:55:47 am
I use the DR480/481 but really prefer the feature set of the DR260. If DBX were to upgrade the 260 so that it could be networked I'd dump everything else and just stack up however many of the DR260s I needed.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Duane Massey on August 28, 2006, 06:00:11 pm
If you're looking for a cost-effective DSP check out the BBE units. They're less $$ than the DRPA, aren't quite a sversatile as the UltraDrive, but they offer 3 models (2x4, 2x6, and 4x8) with most of the features you would want in a cheap DSP.
http://www.bbesound.com/products/LMS/index.asp
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on August 28, 2006, 11:16:43 pm
Mike McNany wrote on Thu, 20 July 2006 14:09

Wasn't the "frying bacon" noise caused by PC mounted jacks grounding out to the chassis near their solder points? Then it just required sliding ing some plastic between the contacts and the metal chassis.


Bad news.  I can confirm this.  I had the bacon frying sound in mine this weekend when doing some tweaking.

I took the advice of others and placed some non-conductive material between the board and the metal case on the bottom.  It worked like a charm.

I tapped, bent, twisted, tugged, and jiggled the ribbon cable and could NOT get it to cause the problem.  It was solely limited to the board flexing and grounding out on the metal case.

With the plastic in place, the thing is silent now.

The funny thing with mine was that it would only "fry bacon" when I racked the unit.  I think the torque of the rack screws bent the case just enough to make them touch the soldered connections on the bottom of the i/o board.

It's too bad these things are plagued by this problem.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Gareth James on September 01, 2006, 08:24:24 am
Hi Ryan,

What did you put inside your Ultradrive? I was going to use fishpaper but as JR rightly pointed out that could absorb moisture. Did you simply superglue something in there?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 01, 2006, 09:55:09 am
Gareth James wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 07:24

Hi Ryan,

What did you put inside your Ultradrive? I was going to use fishpaper but as JR rightly pointed out that could absorb moisture. Did you simply superglue something in there?


JR specifically said to avoid paper based insulators. What JR meant was DIY stuff like poster paper or cardboard. Fish paper is a vulcanized fiber (wood-cotton?) and more like a plastic laminate than paper. It is widely used for electrical insulation and AFAIK it is not hygroscopic.

My only caution about fish paper might be it's resistance to being pierced by a sharp pointy component lead but without seeing the actual application It's probably adequate.

OK, trivia hounds, why do they call it fish paper?

JR


Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Bennett Prescott on September 01, 2006, 10:23:46 am
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Fri, 25 August 2006 02:59

I think a reliable $500 processor with the feature set of the DCX would be a KILLER product.  Question is who's listening?

Peavey? Xilica?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 01, 2006, 12:17:00 pm
We are now using the Xilica as the replacement for where we would have used the DCX.  The problem is that dealer cost is still more than $500.  There are also things the DCX can do that the Xilica 3x6 can't do.  I do like however being able to easily switch between Q and bandwidth on the 3060.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 01, 2006, 01:12:10 pm
Gareth James wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 08:24

Hi Ryan,

What did you put inside your Ultradrive? I was going to use fishpaper but as JR rightly pointed out that could absorb moisture. Did you simply superglue something in there?


Right or wrong I just used some clear plastic from some store packaging.  Like the stuff pocket calculators come in at discount stores (sometimes referred to as "bubblepack").

I just cut some 1.5" wide (or so) strips and placed them under the circuit board.

There seemed to be enough friction to keep the plastic in place.

So far it has worked like a charm, but it's still in the garage to keep testing.

If anybody has a reason not to use something like this, please let me know.  I'm not a stress and materials or thermodynamics expert.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 01, 2006, 01:20:35 pm
Bennett Prescott wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 10:23

Ryan Lantzy wrote on Fri, 25 August 2006 02:59

I think a reliable $500 processor with the feature set of the DCX would be a KILLER product.  Question is who's listening?

Peavey? Xilica?


The Peavey 4x8 looks promising.  No control via serial port though... bit of a drag.  The 2x6 Peavey is not as useful for monitors IMO because if you use the 2 inputs you have 2 outputs that worthless for biamped monitors.  A 3x6 or 4x8 makes more sense.  The software for the Peavey 4x8 is not available yet, but I'm very curious.

The Xilica stuff seems like a good value but is WELL over $500.  Triple that for a 4x8.  This makes the Peavey product VERY attractive.

If I was buying a processor for mains, the Xilica would be top on my list with an Ashly and Dbx following closely.  The DBX 260 is considerably cheaper but has 2 less channels and less parametric EQ.  

There is also that 4x8 processor from BBE, but I don't know which is worse... Behringer or BBE.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 01, 2006, 01:32:39 pm
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 12:12


Right or wrong I just used some clear plastic from some store packaging.  Like the stuff pocket calculators come in at discount stores (sometimes referred to as "bubblepack").

I just cut some 1.5" wide (or so) strips and placed them under the circuit board.

There seemed to be enough friction to keep the plastic in place.

So far it has worked like a charm, but it's still in the garage to keep testing.

If anybody has a reason not to use something like this, please let me know.  I'm not a stress and materials or thermodynamics expert.


That would make MacGuyver proud and should work ok... While you may not be expert you are one step ahead of that Behringer design engineer.

JR
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution-The problem I found
Post by: Bennett Prescott on September 01, 2006, 02:44:26 pm
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 13:20

The Peavey 4x8 looks promising.  No control via serial port though... bit of a drag.  The 2x6 Peavey is not as useful for monitors IMO because if you use the 2 inputs you have 2 outputs that worthless for biamped monitors.  A 3x6 or 4x8 makes more sense.  The software for the Peavey 4x8 is not available yet, but I'm very curious.

The Xilica stuff seems like a good value but is WELL over $500.  Triple that for a 4x8.  This makes the Peavey product VERY attractive.

The Xilica 3x6 is quite reasonably priced... I might search a little harder, you'll be able to find someone to sell it to you cheaper.

Only USB control on the Peaveys, which is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it's about time DSP control was either USB or TCP/IP. It's a curse because we're all tooled up for RS232. The VSX48 isn't available yet, but should be shipping this year... I think it deserves the un-appreciated DSP of the year award, given the amount of flexibility it gives the operator in terms of filter count, routing capability, digital ins, all-pass filters, and adjustable Q on HP and LP filters.

The BBE unit is, I think, a poorly conceived prank for people who think they want a processor but don't know what one is.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 01, 2006, 03:20:39 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 13:32

 ...you are one step ahead of that Behringer design engineer.



Not trying to pick... but I'll bet money that the designer did his job... However, the industrial engineer that laid out the assembly probably had to make a compromise with the distance between the circut board and the chassis... OR the type of solder that was used, or how much to use, etc.  This probably violated the design tolerances and led to the gap between the two narrowing.

Just a hunch... but I see similar things all the time, communications problems between process areas.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Bennett Prescott on September 01, 2006, 03:58:11 pm
What I more frequently see is that both engineers did their job, but after it's all been tested and checked and goes off to be mass-produced someone simply pulls the plastic piece that was originally spec'd right off the bill of materials.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 01, 2006, 05:05:03 pm
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 14:20



Not trying to pick... but I'll bet money that the designer did his job... However, the industrial engineer that laid out the assembly probably had to make a compromise with the distance between the circut board and the chassis... OR the type of solder that was used, or how much to use, etc.  This probably violated the design tolerances and led to the gap between the two narrowing.

Just a hunch... but I see similar things all the time, communications problems between process areas.


I was trying to make some light humor while offering an opinion on the viability of your field fix.

While I don't have specific knowledge about this particular product's mechanical interference and ultimately electrical short circuit, I do have more than a passing understanding from first hand experience how such issues can and often do arise.

I'm not sure whether we differ in terminology or sense of where the responsibility lies. I always considered industrial engineers as the process guys. Metal bend allowances and subassembly clearances would be mechanical engineering and broadly a design function. So your bet doesn't make sense as presented.

I consider this particular problem a design flaw unless as young Bennett suggests it was properly identified during the design process as an interference fit, insulation was called for but then subsequently dropped from the bill of materials, or on the bill and overlooked by the factory. This could be confirmed if old units had insulation and only a later date code started acting up, and there was a huge pile of unused insulation left over in the factory.  Shocked  Thus a process control and not a design failure.

The posts I have read about how these fail suggests several possible scenarios. 1) The chassis may be bent improperly causing the physical interference when racked up as the squaring up of the faceplate may distort chassis clearances. 2) the interference may have always been there but concealed by paint or powder coat on the metal that served as an insulator (for a while). 3) lead length of ribbon or connector untrimmed or changed to different length, etc....

While I admit I am biased when it comes to later offerings from that company, this type of problem can and does happen to pretty much anybody. It is the kind of oversight that may in fact happen even more frequently as time to market cycles get shorter and shorter. What I find problematic is end users having to figure out how to fix their own units.

I didn't rise to the bait when you compared them to BBE and won't now. Not only do folks already know my opinion, but my opinion about them doesn't really matter in the grand scheme.

JR

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 01, 2006, 05:41:49 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 17:05

I was trying to make some light humor while offering an opinion on the viability of your field fix.


I wasn't insinuating otherwise... damned internet is tough to communicate one's mind set over... I appologize.  

Quote:

I'm not sure whether we differ in terminology or sense of where the responsibility lies. I always considered industrial engineers as the process guys. Metal bend allowances and subassembly clearances would be mechanical engineering and broadly a design function. So your bet doesn't make sense as presented.


I should have stated the bet as "I'll bet it was a communications issue" or something of that matter rather than someone forgeting to do their job.  Or maybe someone was doing their job... cutting costs.  The product designer might have known that the insulator was necessary, but someone later down the line didn't and saw it as "optional."  lol.  My terminology wasn't exact and my knoweldge of what each area of responsibility would be called is some what limited...  I just meant that communications breakdowns between different areas of product design, manufacturing, testing, etc can be the root cause of many problems.


Quote:

What I find problematic is end users having to figure out how to fix their own units.


Indeed.  However, having the troubleshooting ability is nice.

Quote:

I didn't rise to the bait when you compared them to BBE and won't now. Not only do folks already know my opinion, but my opinion about them doesn't really matter in the grand scheme.


No bait JR.  You misjudge me I think.  I'm sorry you feel that way.  I thought there would be some mutual respect there.  I appologize if my comments seemed inflammatory... This is just one engineer (albeit not as experienced as you) to another.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 01, 2006, 07:26:18 pm
No worries... I fall into this posture as our past communications have involved a lot of oppositional discussion.

Getting back to the topic, in larger organizations what goes onto and is removed from a BOM is strictly controlled. Otherwise in a mass manufacturing environment purchasing and material management would be chaotic.  

While it is not unheard of for shoddy process controls to result in missed operations or on-the-fly changes to keep a line running if some part is missing or short. In a quality environment the BOM is the bible and netting out factory inventory is a good quality control check. This can extend to safety issues also.

Here is an anecdote that makes the point. I had a run in with UL over a missing internal fuse sticker. Despite the fact that customers aren't supposed to wank around inside their units etc.... After negotiating with UL who wanted me to rework a warehouse full of packed out product, I turned my attention inward to our factory to see how we could make such a mistake.

The UL mandated fuse sticker was indeed on the BOM. The bill of material is not just a parts list but includes individual operation steps and procedures (routings). So I went out to the factory where these were built to find the pile of not stuck stickers that surely would be found stacked up at the end of the assembly line since they weren't inside the damn units!       Mad

Alas, no piles of fuse stickers were anywhere to be found. My next question was why not? After some digging I discovered that the IE's (AKA Industrial Engineers) in the factory were using "line balances" (specific assembly line operation breakdowns for time balancing) that they generated outside of the mainframe computer and apparently didn't closely match up to the BOM. They pulled parts based on these line balances so the inventory purchasing mismatch only occurred back in the raw material warehouse where it could take years to show up.

This was innocuous, that time but it could just as easily been a layer of double insulation important for customer safety but not perceived as important by the guys in the factory (like a fuse sticker). I made them foot out their line balances to the mainframe bills so they should catch such misses in the future, but even that system isn't fool proof.

My apologies to the mods if the sounds religious but the Bill is the bible. The design engineer blesses the bill and the faithful line workers must live the word as it's written in the Bill of materials. If they don't they fall out of grace and are cast out of the factory.

Good process control is important. While superior design can design out common assembly mistakes it's important to trust but verify. Footing out inventory to bills is one such way. This assumes the design is correct in the first place, an assumption I don't make about the subject product.

JR

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 01, 2006, 11:35:26 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Fri, 01 September 2006 19:26

No worries... I fall into this posture as our past communications have involved a lot of oppositional discussion.


Cool.

My field of work involves much smaller run production stuff... that is mostly software based.  Most of the mistakes I have *A LOT* less impact than a run of hundreds of thousands or millions of units that you are probably more familiar with (I guess based on your stated previous employer).  So things aren't as strict.  I probably judged the situation incorrectly due to my lack of familiarity with manufacturing.

...on the topic of our past oppositional discussions.  I hope you haven't misunderstood my tone.  I generally only argue about something so as to initiate a dialog so that I can learn.  I can understand how that probably seems very confrontational, but I'm not afraid to look stupid.  I've taken the information you've offered me over the last year or so and I think about it...  it doesn't go unappreciated I assure you.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Update caution
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 02, 2006, 09:25:31 am
I wasn't making IPODs, so drop some zeros from those run quantities. Building stuff right the first time is even more important today as profit margins get squeezed thinner.

JR


Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Gareth James on September 02, 2006, 09:33:06 am
Many thanks for the help and advice guys. I'm going to go and take it apart in a minute and see what's what.

I might even take some pictures with the camera, not so much to provide a "guide to fixing", but maybe to give other users a visual on the problem who might otherwise be a little scared of opening the lid.

Off topic a little now but concerning remote processor control, wouldn't USB have a shorter range than a serial link? I might be imagining this.

Would wireless ever be a potential for this kind of job? I know it introduces a whole other set of problems but...
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 02, 2006, 01:48:08 pm
Gareth James wrote on Sat, 02 September 2006 09:33

Off topic a little now but concerning remote processor control, wouldn't USB have a shorter range than a serial link? I might be imagining this.

Would wireless ever be a potential for this kind of job? I know it introduces a whole other set of problems but...


The maximum distance allowable for USB connections without a hub is 5 meters.  You would need to chain several cables together with hubs to get any distance.

I was looking around on google and found these:

http://bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?FamilyId=148
http://www.usbfirewire.com/Parts/rr-47-1919.html

So it appears that there are some products that will convert the signal to something that can be sent a longer distance, andthen back again.  Kinda pricey IMO...




Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Chris Davis on September 02, 2006, 03:17:39 pm
Some extender options from a well respected industrial supplier
(warning: not for the cheap at heart Laughing ):
http://www.blackbox.com/Catalog/Category.aspx?cid=308,1431,1 432
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 14, 2006, 08:54:23 pm
I just found out today that our "pile", Which had grown to 8 units, that Behringer took them all back-all (or at least most) were out of warranty, and gave us a credit.

That was good of them.

Let's just hope that the other many-many units don't have a problem, but I am not holding my breath.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on September 14, 2006, 10:03:00 pm
Ivan Beaver wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 20:54

I just found out today that our "pile", Which had grown to 8 units, that Behringer took them all back-all (or at least most) were out of warranty, and gave us a credit.

That was good of them.

Let's just hope that the other many-many units don't have a problem, but I am not holding my breath.




Good to hear Ivan!  I'm glad they didn't totally screw you.  

Curious... 8 units out of how many?  We're these all purchased as a batch or very near each other?  Let's hope the issues were centered around a certain period or batch of units.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 15, 2006, 05:59:03 pm
We have installed something like 150 or so units.  Just a guess.  They were purchased over a time period of more than a year.  They have already been sent back, so I don't have access to the serial numbers to check that, sorry.

I hope they have it fixed, however we will not use them again.  It is simply not worth the risk.  I kinda liked the little unit-when it was working.  It does things our current replacements don't.
Title: Re: Reactions to Andy
Post by: Too Tall (Curtis H. List) on September 28, 2006, 05:27:23 pm
Brian J. Troup Jr. wrote on Thu, 18 May 2006 11:17

I change Crossover setting on site because every venue is different. Don't you?

Snip-




Typically once above the bar and nightclub level the xover is set and stays. Even at the bar star level if I was messing with the xover it meant the system had changed or I never had it right in the first place.
This is for the typical FOH left and right system. As you add more elements things change and you may have to go back to the xover depending on overlap.

The other big factor is the mixing console. In fact in the end it has the greatest impact.

If you have enough channel EQ to make a SM58 sound decent you should not need to change the xover.
OTOH if you have a board with little to no EQ on the channels you use the main EQ and finally the xover to compensate for lack of channel EQ. I ended up picking and buying the best microphones I could afford so I did not need channel EQ.

Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Robert Fielder on September 29, 2006, 10:05:39 am
Having scanned through this, and a few other, discussions, I get the impression that a lot of people believe that the DCX2496 Behringer Crossover is as good as, or better than, the dbx Driverack PA.

The DCX2496 does not do everything the DRPA does - for example, the DCX2496 does not have a feedback killer. To do that, you need to also run the Behringer feedback destroyer. It sounds like putting those together gives you a DRPA plus additional functionality.

It also sounds like a lot of people would have kept using the DCX2496 except for one flaw, which may or may not be a design flaw. The flaw can be fixed. In reality, who wants to spend the time and money buying something, than having to fix it? But, if you get a good one, pretty much everyone who has actually used the DCX2496 only says good things about it. Even those who had them fail, have a lot of good things to say.

I am considering the purchase of a DRPA, a DR 260, or a Behringer setup. The DRPA and the two Behringer units will cost about the same, but the Behringer units seem to offer additional features, as well as faster response time on the feedback killer. The DR 260 costs about twice the DRPA in my area - and I am not sure if offer a lot more than the two Behringer units.

Like many, if I can get the functionality and reliability, and most importantly the SOUND QUALITY, and save $500 to $700 in the deal, I will go with the less expensive units. That cash saved can be put towards other stuff I need - would mean buying better quality speakers, for example.

Carrying two units instead of one is not a good thing, but there will be room in the rack I am designing, and the weight change is not all that great. Both the DRPA and the DR260 list as 5.5 pounds, while the combination of DCX2496 and FBQ2496 is just under 11 pounts. No doubt, at the end of a long, long night, that extra 5.5 pounds will feel like a lot more!

Any comments or advice? I will not be purchasing until 2007, but I am spending a lot of time researching, and using, the equipment that interests me.

Tomorrow, I will be doing an all day workshop and evening dance using a DRPA, with a Yorkville A4.4 amp, two E12 Elite speakers, Elite LS700p sub, and Numark PPD9000 mixer, along with various other bits and pieces, such as AT wireless mics, PCs, laptops, CD player, etc, etc.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Robert Fielder on September 29, 2006, 10:06:30 am
Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 17:59


I hope they have it fixed, however we will not use them again.  It is simply not worth the risk.  I kinda liked the little unit-when it was working.  It does things our current replacements don't.

Can you say what you replaced them with?
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Mario Salazar on March 06, 2007, 03:56:57 pm
I have read all 8 pages of this thread.  I am interested because I have been happy with my DEQ2496 but not so much with the dbx 260.  I can do aux feed subs because it only has 2 inputs and the networking is non existent.  Additionally there have been troubles using them wirelessly.  I thought I would take a look at the DCX2496 because it has 3 ins.  I know the feature set of the DEQ2496 blows away what I can do with my 260, though really, they are not meant to do the same thing.  The only problem I have with the deq2496 is that if I insert it into the signal path that has been set up just below feedback, I start to get feed back, even without anything turned on.  This is curious and if anybody has thoughts on this I would appreciate it.
Back to the DCX, what are your recent experiences with it?  If I bought one I would put the fishpaper in there, but other than that is there any other problems with it?
Let me know any comments, suggestions or questions you have on this issue.
Thanks!
Regards,
Mario
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover-Behrigner did good!
Post by: Mark "Bass Pig" Weiss on March 07, 2007, 02:30:28 am
2 years in service here, no problems to report. I do get a lot of compliments on how much better my system sounds though.
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Mike Butler (media) on March 13, 2007, 01:41:24 pm
Robert Fielder wrote on Fri, 29 September 2006 10:05

...It also sounds like a lot of people would have kept using the DCX2496 except for one flaw, which may or may not be a design flaw. The flaw can be fixed. In reality, who wants to spend the time and money buying something, than having to fix it? But, if you get a good one, pretty much everyone who has actually used the DCX2496 only says good things about it. Even those who had them fail, have a lot of good things to say.....

Robert, I have also been weighing the +/-'s of the DCX2496. I have heard the same rave reviews as well as Ivan's hard times with these. Seems to me there have also been scare stories about ribbon cables in certain Mackie products, and I know you love your Mackie mixer (and I love the few Mackie amps and one Mackie mixer I still have left). You may get a DCX and love it. And if it does act up, they will replace it. I hadn't heard until now the fate of Ivan's dud units. I can certainly understand his reluctance to use more of them, especially since it involves so much more when you have sold and installed these in a customer's venue.

I'd still set aside a few inches of gaffer's tape to put over the logos on the DCX.  Laughing
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Robert Fielder on March 14, 2007, 10:04:34 am
Mike Butler (media) wrote on Tue, 13 March 2007 13:41

Robert, I have also been weighing the +/-'s of the DCX2496. I have heard the same rave reviews as well as Ivan's hard times with these. Seems to me there have also been scare stories about ribbon cables in certain Mackie products, and I know you love your Mackie mixer (and I love the few Mackie amps and one Mackie mixer I still have left). You may get a DCX and love it. And if it does act up, they will replace it. I hadn't heard until now the fate of Ivan's dud units. I can certainly understand his reluctance to use more of them, especially since it involves so much more when you have sold and installed these in a customer's venue.

Once burned, twice shy is very appropriate when it is your reputation, and possibly your livelyhood, that gets burned.

One of the things I like about the DCX2496, DRPA, etc is the EQs built in.

However, I am having a personal internal debate about using an EQ. This is a debate I am both winning and losing.

My concern is that the EQ is for your entire system. I have two laptops using two different sound cards. The sound from the two different sound cards might not be the same. This implies, to my limited understanding, that each laptop should be EQ'd just a little differently to produce the same sound. Which implies a software EQ on the laptop, not a hardware EQ that changes everything.

Another concern I have about Behringer prodcuts is their "WARANTEE EXCHANGE PROGRAM". My concern is because it appears that each retailer can choose to be a part of this program - or not be a part of the program. Which means that if you don't ask the right questions when buying the products, you may be in for an extended wait for any repairs, rather than an across the counter swap of a defective unit.

Mike Butler (media) wrote on Tue, 13 March 2007 13:41

I'd still set aside a few inches of gaffer's tape to put over the logos on the DCX.  Laughing

I hear you. I don't agree, but I hear you.  Laughing
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Andy Peters on March 14, 2007, 03:17:55 pm
Robert Fielder wrote on Wed, 14 March 2007 07:04


One of the things I like about the DCX2496, DRPA, etc is the EQs built in.

However, I am having a personal internal debate about using an EQ. This is a debate I am both winning and losing.

My concern is that the EQ is for your entire system. I have two laptops using two different sound cards. The sound from the two different sound cards might not be the same. This implies, to my limited understanding, that each laptop should be EQ'd just a little differently to produce the same sound. Which implies a software EQ on the laptop, not a hardware EQ that changes everything.


I think you misunderstand the reason for the EQ in this sort of box.

It's for use as a system equalizer.  You use it to get the system response flat.  Once you do this, you lock it and leave it (unless the system configuration changes.)

You then use mixer channel-strip tone controls to fix individual inputs.  If one sound card sounds different from the other, then you fix that with the mixer.  (If one sound card sounds different from the other, then one or the other might be broken.)

-a
Title: Re: DCX2496 Behringer Crossover
Post by: Robert Fielder on March 21, 2007, 12:01:00 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 14 March 2007 15:17

I think you misunderstand the reason for the EQ in this sort of box.

It's for use as a system equalizer.  You use it to get the system response flat.  Once you do this, you lock it and leave it (unless the system configuration changes.)

Andy:

Thank you for the response. What you say is making me think, and possibly change how I very my setup.

I understand what you are saying. Guess I asked the wrong question, or did not express myself clearly. What you are saying makes sense, but could be tricky to do if you don't have a DSP that produces pink noise or somesuchlike. A simpler system with mixer => crossover => active speakers, for example.

Do you consider the "system" to be everything from the crossover/DSP out, or do you consider the "system" to be everything from sound source out?

I have been looking at "system" to mean everything from the sound file/CD to the listener's ear.

Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 14 March 2007 15:17

If one sound card sounds different from the other, then you fix that with the mixer.  (If one sound card sounds different from the other, then one or the other might be broken.)

I am not sure I can agree with that. Different mixers sound different, different DSP's sound different, different speakers sound different, and different sound cards sound different. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for pro and consumer level sound cards, and no difference between brands.

Ideally, one will have one USB or Firewire sound card with multiple stereo outs. Failing that, multiple sound card cards of the same brand and model. That would eliminate the potential difference between sound cards. Unfortunately, we don't always live in a perfect world, and I have a USB sound card and a firewire sound card.