# DCX-2496 and a DSP-1124 is this a match made in heaven?



## XC967 (Apr 24, 2008)

It seems like combining these two products might be the ticket for HT room EQ if your processor doesn't have it built in. I am new to this so if there is a flaw to my thinking please let me know. I am pretty much 95% HT use.

I happen to have an extra 5ch amp laying around (another in use) so I was thinking I would use the DCX on LCR to EQ and actively X-over (filter may be a better word) the speakers to bi amplify (which my speakers set up for from Linn) these speakers then use the BFD for sub.
My processor LMC-1 from Emotiva will allow me to turn off front x-over while still passing along all LFE info from 5.1 so I would run mains with a 70hz (example only, I would need input from you experts) to whatever cutoff the 5" mid would use with one channel of amplification and send the upper frequencies to high input on my speakers through another amp channel. I would leave internal speaker x-overs intact since I am a novice and can't design the proper active only x-over, the DCX would be an electronic filter limiting the range of frequencies to each input of the speakers.

What say you'all, good idea or a waste of time and money?

If I wasn't going to bi amp I still think the DCX is better (for better than average HT equip use) than the DEQ since it can do mains and sub or all three fronts etc.. if I don't need audiophile perfection just good sound or am I wrong on this.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

I don't really see the advantage in what you're attempting.

The receiver will do a fine job of bass management, so why not utilize it.

The only bandwidth that ever needs equalizing is the subwoofer.

A simple BFD will take care of that.

brucek


----------



## XC967 (Apr 24, 2008)

So all these receivers that include auto EQ have little to no benefit in non LFE circuits?
Do you also consider Bi amping channels which would double the power to those speakers not worth the time and work involved vs the gain you might see in headroom and possible clarity. As a quick note towards bi amping I do play movies in the upper end of volume that is still clear and non fatiguing.

I guess if I take the time to REW my system which adapters are on order to do so I would be able to help with making an informed decision.

My speakers are the Linn AV 51 line which are designed to go active through their line of amp and x-over modules which above would be my cost effective solution. All the reviews I have been able to find on the subject have stated something to the effect of best upgrade and amazing difference after going active led me to think along this path.

Thank you for your thoughts on this, I appreciate your help and input.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> So all these receivers that include auto EQ have little to no benefit in non LFE circuits?


That's not really in question. A processor has a built in bass management that operates in the digital domain. You are proposing to bypass it, and then feed the pristine analog signal from your processor through an additional analog to digital convertor, reprocess the signal and then pass it through a digital to analog convertor and on through an amp to the speakers with the internal speaker x-overs intact.

What have you gained? The reprocessed signal can never be as distortion free as it was when it left the original processor. You might accomplish some low Q filtering that would be better taken care of with careful speaker placement.



> Do you also consider Bi amping channels which would double the power to those speakers not worth the time


Not if the speaker crossovers are still engaged. If you are going to drive the driver, it has benefit, but not if you are driving a crossover.

brucek


----------



## XC967 (Apr 24, 2008)

I understand if your pre/pro or AVR has EQ built in but mine does not so the only way to know is after a REW to see if there is anything to fix as far as upper EQ frequency goes, is this a somewhat correct assumption? Then if there is a need for correction of frequencies I would need a BFD for LFE and EQ for three main audio (left, center and right) but most likely since I am not an audiophile the LCR will probably be good enough so focus on the sub.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

> I understand if your pre/pro or AVR has EQ built in but mine does not so the only way to know is after a REW to see if there is anything to fix as far as upper EQ frequency goes, is this a somewhat correct assumption?


Yes, that would be the first step.



> Then if there is I would need a BFD and EQ for HT use due to three main audio and a sub or most likely since I am not an audiophile the LCR will probably be good enough so focus on the sub.


Umm, I think something there got lost in the translation...

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## XC967 (Apr 24, 2008)

edit above to make it more readable.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

> most likely since I am not an audiophile the LCR will probably be good enough so focus on the sub.


Not necessarily. If REW showed some problem spots, you'd probably hear a difference if they were corrected. A good buddy of mine, I wouldn't call him an audiophile, but when I used my RTA to help set his receiver's quasi-parametric EQ to address problem areas in his system, he was impressed. Said it sounded much better.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2008)

The Linn speakers he is talking about are designed to be configured several different ways. One of those ways is to configure them to 'bi-amp active' mode which will give a direct signal to each driver, completely bypassing the internal cross-over in the speaker.


----------

