# DCX2496 does this work like the FBQ2496 to eq?



## random username

I have done a bunch of reading on these units, and really like the looks of the DCX2496 for its speaker management abilities. But I can't find much info on the parametric and band pass eq abilities. Does this have 1/60 octave para eq like the BFD and FBQ?

My goal is to be able to take a two channel input, and split it into three (or four) outputs, that way I can high pass and eq my mains, and low pass and eq the sub separately without one effecting the other. Nice features on the DCX but for the additional money, I could buy an FBQ and a BFD. Hmmmmm...

Thanks!


----------



## brucek

> Does this have 1/60 octave para eq like the BFD and FBQ?


I don't have a DCX, but I believe it only has the (0.1 - 10) capability, but not the 1/60th steps.

brucek


----------



## random username

I saw that in the specs...a Q of 0.1 - 10.0, found a formula for that and if I calculated correctly thats about 1/8 octive at the narrowest. Pretty narrow but a far cry from the (admittedly overkill of ) 1/60 of some of the other units


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

random username said:


> I have done a bunch of reading on these units, and really like the looks of the DCX2496 for its speaker management abilities. But I can't find much info on the parametric and band pass eq abilities. Does this have 1/60 octave para eq like the BFD and FBQ?


The BFD's 1/60-octave capability is actually a double feature (for lack of a better term).

It has 1/60-octave resolution on the _frequency_ scale (e.g. 60 stops between say, 50-100 Hz), and also on the _bandwidth_ scale (i.e. between the narrowest filter and a 1-octave filter, and between a 1-octave and 2-octave filter).

By comparison, the FBQ also has 1/60-octave resolution on the frequency scale, but not on the bandwidth scale, where its resolution significantly decreases at wider filter settings.

This might be something to take into account for subwoofer equalizing. Typical subwoofer equalizing requires filter bandwidths between ~1/8-1/3 octave. In that range, the BFD has 14 available settings, while the FBQ only has five. As you can see, the BFD is capable of more precise and accurate filter settings. Overkill? Perhaps. But surgical precision is what a parametric EQ is all about, is it not?

I don't know if the DCX's EQ settings are the same as the FBQ, but as least now you have some guidelines for determining how capable it is.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## random username

thanks for the reply. I ended up stumbling upon a BFD for $45 in good shape, made some adaptors to convert to the TRS 1/4" last night and am up and running now. Pretty easy to use, really...I don't think i'll ever go to the trouble of hooking a MIDI cable up to link with REW..I like the hands on approach. I really wish there was a unit just like the BFD, low cost but three channels (two input and three out).

I wish to high pass the mains without affecting the sub. Also wish to smooth out the 80-150 Hz region and will need to boost part of that for the mains, as my mains roll off in that area. I may just end up with two BFDs, stacked...or a BFD for sub and FBQ for mains.


----------



## Mika75

random username said:


> I really wish there was a unit just like the BFD, low cost but three channels (two input and three out).


There is ......


random username said:


> I wish to high pass the mains without affecting the sub. Also wish to smooth out the 80-150 Hz region and will need to boost part of that for the mains, as my mains roll off in that area. I may just end up with two BFDs, stacked...or a BFD for sub and FBQ for mains.


psst :newspaper: ..it's called the DCX!


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

random username said:


> I really wish there was a unit just like the BFD, low cost but three channels (two input and three out).


What do you mean, "low cost?" For all that it does, the DCX is dirt cheap. :huh:

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## random username

true. Really the entire brand name we are talking about here sells a low cost alternative to other "premium" brands. I don't mind paying as long as I know I"m getting what I want.

after playing with the BFD today, I gotta say I wouldn't want to give up much on how narrow the bandwidth will go. Just getting started, I'm using a 3/60 bandwidth eq...and expect to probably need even narrower eventually. Now, one could argue that if there's a peak or valley that narrow that you can't hear it, which in some cases may be true. All I know is on REW, what i'm correcting looks like something that needs to be fixed unless I use the 1/3 octave smoothing. Also, I can hear the peaks/valleys during the sweep.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

random username said:


> after playing with the BFD today, I gotta say I wouldn't want to give up much on how narrow the bandwidth will go.


I think you may have misunderstood. Assuming that the DCX's EQ is like the FBQ (and it's just that - an assumption; I have no idea) there is no problem with narrow filters. It's with _wider_ filters that it's less capable.



> Just getting started, I'm using a 3/60 bandwidth eq...and expect to probably need even narrower eventually. Now, one could argue that if there's a peak or valley that narrow that you can't hear it, which in some cases may be true. All I know is on REW, what i'm correcting looks like something that needs to be fixed unless I use the 1/3 octave smoothing. Also, I can hear the peaks/valleys during the sweep.


I have a hard time believing you can actually hear a 1/60-octave or narrower peak. Typically peaks that narrow are not severe and can/should be ignored; indeed, many times they're not really peaks at all, but merely comb filtering.

The object of equalizing is not to create a perfect graph. Ultimately it's to improve sound quality, and you don't need razor-sharp filters to accomplish that, as typically the most audible problems are broad and/or deep deviations in response.

I suggest taking the time to peruse my minimal EQ article. You can find a link in my signature.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## random username

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> I think you may have misunderstood. Assuming that the DCX's EQ is like the FBQ (and it's just that - an assumption; I have no idea) there is no problem with narrow filters. It's with _wider_ filters that it's less capable.


The DCX's bandwidth range in different, and is listed in Q which requires conversion with a formula in order to be expressed in relation to octaves (see my post above), the narrow end of this range is at about 1/8 octave. I agree 1//60 is probably narrower than needed but i'm just getting started and have already fixed a nasty peak I could easilly hear using the 3/60 setting, so I wouldn't want the NARROWEST width available to be wider than that.

The FBQ's minimum bandwidth is 1/60 just like the BFD.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Well, I can see that if it's a "nasty peak," meaning (I assume) that it's really severe, an ultra-narrow filter like that would be needed simply to minimize the filter "bleeding" into areas on either side of it where there is no problem - if that makes sense. This is because of a filter's natural tendency to spread wider and wider as gain changes increase.

So - I guess you'll be adding a BFD dedicated to the Subs... 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Speaking of BFD's and multiple subs, how exactly do you hook up multiple subwoofers? Would I need to use a splitter at the sub out of my receiver/preamp, or is there a different way to hook things up? I have the 1124p.


----------



## brucek

You can split the sub signal leaving the receiver and feed both channels of the BFD, then feed the two subs with the two channels of the BFD, then each sub can have it's own set of filters.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Or, if your subs are co-located, you could single-cable it all the way, and split right at the sub inputs.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Thanks guys. I tried the splitter at the receiver's "sub out" and it sounded pretty bad. Measurements confirmed that from 30 - 15hz, the FR dropped 15dB pretty quickly. I am powering dual sealed TC2000 15's with a Behringer EP2500. I assume it just doesn't have enough power to bring up the low end on dual TC drivers? Once I switch back to bridged mode and run one sub, it's beautiful. I know they are power hungry suckers, so...

I will using one cable and splitter at the amps connection instead. Thank you both.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Spitting the signal will effect only its level. It will have no effect on frequency response. You probably didn't have something downstream set up right - like mismatched filters in the two BFD channels, some setting on the amp, etc.

Also, if you're using a single EP2500 for the two subs, you don't need a splitter at all. You can set the amp to "parallel" mode and drive both outputs with either input.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Spitting the signal will effect only its level. It will have no effect on frequency response. You probably didn't have something downstream set up right - like mismatched filters in the two BFD channels, some setting on the amp, etc.
> 
> Also, if you're using a single EP2500 for the two subs, you don't need a splitter at all. You can set the amp to "parallel" mode and drive both outputs with either input.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


You know what, I may have forgotten to switch the EP2500 to parallel mode. DOH! I think I left it set to stereo. What is the difference?

So how would I not need a splitter from the amp to the receiver's subwoofer out? I still have two cables going from the amp to the receiver's one subwoofer output. Can I connect one subwoofer to the receiver's subwoofer out and another to the receiver's preout?

I will give it a go again. Thank you.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> You know what, I may have forgotten to switch the EP2500 to parallel mode. DOH! I think I left it set to stereo. What is the difference?


Well, I assume you know that stereo mode is. With parallel mode, a speaker is connected to each channel as with stereo, but you only need a single input signal to one channel, not both. It works the same as if you used a splitter - which basically sends the same signal to both inputs - only the amplifier does the "split" internally. Make sense? Page 7 of the EP2500 manual tells how to configure the amp for parallel mode.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Well, I assume you know that stereo mode is. With parallel mode, a speaker is connected to each channel as with stereo, but you only need a single input signal to one channel, not both. It works the same as if you used a splitter - which basically sends the same signal to both inputs - only the amplifier does the "split" internally. Make sense? Page 7 of the EP2500 manual tells how to configure the amp for parallel mode.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Ah yes, that does make sense. Very cool! So I assume bridged mode will not work with it setup this way?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Nope. Bridging basically turns a stereo amp into a mono amp.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

As an update, here is what I ended up with for an in-room FR after switching to parallel mode (which is what my issues was - thanks Wayne).










I only had to add a few filters. The subs are co-located and sound great, but I definitely need more power (a behringer ep2500 for each). In which case, I assume I'd have no choice but to split the signal right at the receiver's subwoofer output? Or is there some way to pigtail the EP2500's?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> I assume I'd have no choice but to split the signal right at the receiver's subwoofer output? Or is there some way to pigtail the EP2500's?


This can easily be done with no splitters by switching both the EP2500s to parallel mode. A single cable will bring the signal to one input of the first amp, then a jumper cable between the first amp's other input and the second amp's input. It's all in the manual - look up the section on parallel inputs.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> This can easily be done with no splitters by switching both the EP2500s to parallel mode. A single cable will bring the signal to one input of the first amp, then a jumper cable between the first amp's other input and the second amp's input. It's all in the manual - look up the section on parallel inputs.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


I got the EP2500 used without a manual, but I'll get it off the Behringer site. 

You've been a HUGE help, Wayne. I am just reading through your tips on house curves now...really good stuff. You've given something to "play with" (as my wife calls it) this weekend. Thanks again!


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Thanks for the kind words, Brandon. :T You'll want the EP-2500's manual, for the details on parallel mode, not the BFD's.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Thanks for the kind words, Brandon. :T You'll want the EP-2500's manual, for the details on parallel mode,not the BFD's.
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


Oops - yeah, that's what I meant (the ep2500 manual). Thanks again!


----------



## Nuance

Well, I got everything going and am extremely happy with the results. 

When talking before about running the amps together in parallel, I didn't realize that meant them being unable to be bridged. The point of using two amps was that one wouldn't power two TC2000 15"s sufficiently, so bridged mode for both amps is necessary. I had to use a splitter at the receiver's subwoofer output, but it's working great.

Here's a stupid question: Is a subwoofer cable just a long RCA cable? I ran out of "subwoofer" cables and used RCA cables to run from the BFD to the splitter to the subwoofer output. Will normal RCA's degrade the sound and negatively influence the signal path?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

There's nothing special about a subwoofer cable, except perhaps its length. Indeed, lots of people use plain-vanilla coaxial cable (RG-6 or -59) with screw-on RCA adapters, since it's cheap and subwoofer sends are perhaps the least demanding of audio signals.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Nuance

That's what I figured. Thank you Wayne. Just to show the final product, here is my final in-room response with only 4 filters added (with one sub I had 7, so it just goes to show you that properly placed multiple subs gives a better in-room response). 

This plot is with dual amps and duals subs, both gain matched rather than level matched at the listening position. This is so the subwoofers will reach their maximums together instead of separately. 










Thanks to everyone for their help. I have learned a LOT from you all. :T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Nuance said:


> Well, I got everything going and am extremely happy with the results.
> 
> When talking before about running the amps together in parallel, I didn't realize that meant them being unable to be bridged. The point of using two amps was that one wouldn't power two TC2000 15"s sufficiently, so bridged mode for both amps is necessary. I had to use a splitter at the receiver's subwoofer output, but it's working great.
> 
> Here's a stupid question: Is a subwoofer cable just a long RCA cable? I ran out of "subwoofer" cables and used RCA cables to run from the BFD to the splitter to the subwoofer output.


Another way to accomplish this, if you only need one set of filters (one channel), is to let the BFD do the spitting for you. Just run the sub out cable from the receiver to one of the BFD inputs. Then use both of the outputs for that channel – they’ll both be active. The only trick is that you’ll have to rig or buy a cable with an XLR on one end and an RCA on the other.







​

Regards,
Wayne


----------

