# Behringer DCX2496 ?



## vince

Hello. I have been using the parametric Bheringer 2496 units in my home theater for EQ purposses. I have gotten to love what they can do in conjunction with my measurment software and mic. I am currently using a multi channel Marchand MX1 setup that I have custom built so that all my speakers are electronicly crossed over at 24 db per octave. This setup of course is not digital. If I decide to go with these DCX2496 units to take the place of my DIY Marchand setup, what benifit can be relized with going digital? The manual says you can adjust for time arival differences at the listening position for each driver, but I am not so sure I could even measure this accuratly??? I have the RplusD Acoustisoft program with there external B&K mic and sound card setup, (not cheap). Anyway has anyone upgraded to these units and been blown away by the difference (digital) can make??? Seems the wave of the future of course! I have three 2496 units and one BFD unit.
Thanks for any input!:bigsmile:


----------



## brucek

*Re: Bheringer DCX2496 ?*

I thought someone with a 2496 might answer, but no luck.

Since you already own the unit, you may be the best one to test it out to see if you like it in place of the Marchand XM1 system.

If you put the XM1 system together well and took care, I doubt that the 2496 unit will beat it. I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality).....

BTW, REW has a distance measuring feature....

brucek


----------



## avaserfi

*Re: Bheringer DCX2496 ?*

While I am not very familiar with the XM1 system what I do see about it online makes me believe it is a simple crossover system that is not adjustable. The Behringer DCX2496 is not only a far more advanced, flexible, crossover unit it also has a variety of other features such as the ability to be used as a high quality, precise, equalizer which would allow one to tailor virtually any desired response presuming one is using sufficiently linear speakers. 



brucek said:


> ... I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality).....


With proper DACs being used such as those in the DCX2496 there is no reason to worry about using a digital device. Furthermore, despite Behringer's poor name in the audiophile community* the company has a handful of offerings that are superbly designed and built such that they are completely transparent, unless being used to alter the signal. The DCX2496 is one such unit.

*One can only speculate at why the self proclaimed 'audiophile community' looks down upon various products and companies. In this case, it is likely due to the fact that Behringer mass produces inexpensive gear coupled with their poor production methods in the past.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

brucek said:


> I'd much rather the analog unit than the digital route, especially when substituting with a Behringer (not known for being audiophile quality)....





avaserfi said:


> With proper DACs being used such as those in the DCX2496 there is no reason to worry about using a digital device.


Ordinarily I'd wholeheartedly vote with brucek in this, but recently I inserted the Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric I've been using for my sub EQ across my mains - just for grins, not expecting much. I was blown away by its transparency and sonic purity, even better than the analog AudioControl 1/3-octave EQs I've been using for the past 12 years. You'd never guess it wasn't analog. Needless to say, I'm looking at these digital processors in a whole new light now. 

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## vince

Yea, I think I am going to purchase one of these units and see what it can do. The features are astounding. I am building three way speakers and one of these units can service a stereo pair just fine with six outputs. The 48db per octave ability is very nice, time delay control for each speaker in the cabinet so no worry about lining up on baffle which introduces problems, EQ functions built in. For three hundred bucks! got to try it and see... I have a ton of man hours involved in building the XM1 multiple setup I,ve built, it is only 24db per octave period, and had to build 12 position high quality pots to control the level of each driver. The whole piece is black powder coated and very attractive, and works well, but still need the 20band parametrics to smooth the in room response. As far a crossover selection, you need to purchase a DIP plug in module for each board, they are only six dollars each, but if you want to experiment it can get quite expensive. I have about $800.00 invested in this piece and it has seven boards total and seven level control pots, so in comparison to the Bheringer DCX with all its functions, it seems like a total no brainer, not to mention one does not have to build the thing!!!

I have looked at some other processors and they seem to look like a more refined looking piece. The thick brushed aluminum face plate with the fancy silk screening, but when you get into the digital rhelm it seems you don't get quite the differences in quality as you do in other electronics, it either works or it does not, having no inbetween. I am no engineer so you guy's tell me if you think that's a true statment or not. I mean do other manufactures use different "1's" and "0's" that are better than someone else??? :dumbcrazy:Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but the funtions seem awesome for the money!!!:dontknow:

Anyone?
Vince


----------



## brucek

> "1's" and "0's" that are better than someone else???


How do you suppose they get the signal to and from the digital section?

brucek


----------



## vince

I see your point... I have looked at the manufacture of the D to A converters and can't seem to find anything in the way of people in reviews say that they are astounding, or bad for that matter. Is there perhaps a better unit by a different man. that does not cost 27 times the amount for the DCX??? 

Boy, Behringer shure makes the converter sound awesome in there discription, still trying to think of a way to get the best of features, I would even pay twice as much for a different unit if it was "in fact" better and had the same control features. Anyone know of one??:dontknow:
Vince


----------



## avaserfi

vince said:


> I see your point... I have looked at the manufacture of the D to A converters and can't seem to find anything in the way of people in reviews say that they are astounding, or bad for that matter. Is there perhaps a better unit by a different man. that does not cost 27 times the amount for the DCX???
> 
> Boy, Behringer shure makes the converter sound awesome in there discription, still trying to think of a way to get the best of features, I would even pay twice as much for a different unit if it was "in fact" better and had the same control features. Anyone know of one??:dontknow:
> Vince


The DCX2496 is the proverbial swiss army knife of the audio world. It is completely inaudible unless being used to alter the signal. In cases where it is being used to alter the signal it does exactly what it is programed to do - no more, no less. The large versatility and high build quality of the unit make it an easy choice for anyone looking for a high quality processor.


----------



## mike c

threadjack...

is the DCX2496 capable of doing this:
taking in inputs from L, C and R
outputs highpassed L, lowpassed L, highpassed C, lowpassed C, highpassed R, lowpassed R?
and what are the crossover points selectable?


----------



## Matt34

mike c said:


> threadjack...
> 
> is the DCX2496 capable of doing this:
> taking in inputs from L, C and R
> outputs highpassed L, lowpassed L, highpassed C, lowpassed C, highpassed R, lowpassed R?
> and what are the crossover points selectable?



Don't quote me on this Mike but I've been messing around with the GUI program that you can download from the Behringer home page and I believe you can do what you described. I haven't quite figured out how to set X-over points though.


----------



## mike c

thanks Matt! interesting. it's too bad ONE DCX2496 is not the price of TWO DCX2310's ...

but i will download that program though


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

> but when you get into the digital rhelm it seems you don't get quite the differences in quality as you do in other electronics, it either works or it does not, having no inbetween.


Not necessarily, there is still a "build quality" factor. Theoretically, modern 24-bit processors should have dynamic range on the order of 140 dB or so, but even the priciest pro audio digital processors seem to be able to muster only ~100-115 dB at best. The reason is that there are other electronics in the signal path besides the AD/DA converters that affect the EQ's performance.

The BFD, for instance - we can extrapolate from its noise and maximum signal input specs that it should have a dynamic range of ~120 dB. 

Sorry, but it ain't so. I also inserted my BFD across my mains, and it was noticeably noisier than my Yamaha YDP2006, an older digital equalizer with only "inferior" 20-bit converters. The Yamaha is dead silent with the input-level switches in the consumer position; the BFD has audible background hiss - faint, but audible if you put your ear to the speaker. With the input switches in the pro position, the BFD's noise floor increases significantly. The Yamaha is much quieter in the pro setting than the BFD is in the consumer setting. 

That the 20-bit Yamaha can outperform the 24-bit BFD shows how a manufacturer's attention to the rest of the circuitry makes a difference.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## piercaub

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Not necessarily, there is still a "build quality" factor. .....
> That the 20-bit Yamaha can outperform the 24-bit BFD shows how a manufacturer's attention to the rest of the circuitry makes a difference.


Hello Wayne and all,

do you think that for HiFi equalization of stereo mains, this old YDP2006 can be a better choice than the DEQ2496, if I can get it for the same price? 
This device will be inserted between a Denon AVR-1907 as a pre-amp and a Quad-405.
I will probably use a FBQ2496 for my sub (Audience D10) equilization.

Thanks for your advice.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Welcome to the Forum, Pierre!

Can't say if the Yamaha is better because I've never used the DCX. The YDP will be much easier to operate, though, as it is similar to a traditional parametric and has fewer "tricks" than the DCX.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## piercaub

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> ... Can't say if the Yamaha is better because I've never used the DCX ...


Thank you Wayne,
my concern is about the signal alteration that can be introduced by the equilizer.
According to your experience the Yamaha seems very transparent to the original signal.

And according to comments on the french HCFR forum, the DEQ2496 is supposed to need tweaking in order to be used for mains correction.
The DCX2496 seems to be more oriented toward band of frequencies splitting.

Regards.
Pierre.


----------



## terry j

depends on the rest of the system I spose. I have found the deq to be very good value indeed. maybe I wouldn't put it into the higher end systems, but for most systems I would recommend it. very vague, but I have no idea what we're talking about system wise.

I'm also a bit wary of what 'audiophile' forums might recommend...else I'd be having expensive cables in my system. it may not be that type of forum of course, but an awful lot of 'criticisms' are often based on pre-concieved ideas rather than actual experience. that may be a full on tweak forum in which case listen I guess, and upgrade the unit as you see fit. In any case the first step is the unit itself, you may find no upgrade are necessary.


----------



## bjs

piercaub said:


> ...The DCX2496 seems to be more oriented toward band of frequencies splitting...


It does much more than that. Have a look at the manual.

Anyway, it does everything I want and sounds perfectly fine to me.


----------



## piercaub

terry j said:


> ... I have no idea what we're talking about system wise...


My system is not really sophisticated : CD, DVD (Oppo 981) signal go through a Denon AVR-1907.
Then I use the pre-out of the Denon to send:
- LFE + stereo low frequencies (< 80hz) to the Sub (a french Absolute D10)
- left and right stereo channels to a Quad 405
- others channels (central and backs) through the Denon amplifiers

Speakers are the pack KVK4 from Davis Acoustics, not perfect but acceptable.

My objective is to improve both the bass and stereo response in my small room (12 m²) .
Then I need to correct tree channels: sub and stereo.

Apart the DEQ and FBQ association, I have now an other option: the DCX.


----------



## piercaub

bjs said:


> It does much more than that. Have a look at the manual.


Good advice!
The DCX seems to have what I need in a single device: 3 separate channels with parametric and dynamic filters.
According to the manual, It should be possible to control signal to the sub and the mains.
Do you use the DCX this way and is it possible to apply REW corrections on this device?


----------



## terry j

the dcx is mainly designed to replace crossovers etc and go active, The deq is designed to be inserted into the path and provide correction, and is transparent enough to provide quality full range correction. If you describe your system as 'not really sophisticated' then the quality of the deq is easily more than adequate.

having said that, I suppose there is nothing stopping you from inputting the signal into the dcx and only outputting two signals (bands)...one hi passed to the mains (and using their internal x-overs) and low passing to the subs, which now that you've made me think of it is not a bad idea at all. That gives you the result of the mains not receiving any of the sub signal, good idea.

The dcx in this application would only allow you parametric eq, but if you are only using two channels there would be plenty (it doesn't have a set number, but is memory limited).

In any case, the comments on the french forum about 'needing to upgrade the deq to better specs' also apply to the dcx, ie there are a lot of people who 'mod' the dcx to remove/improve perceived inadequacies of the dcx. Again it all depends on the system it's going into whether these mods are worth it. So same reasoning applies, try it and see if you think it needs upgrading. After all, in any case you would need it and it may be perfectly 'fine' stock in your system (which I suspect it will be)


----------



## bjs

piercaub said:


> Good advice!
> The DCX seems to have what I need in a single device: 3 separate channels with parametric and dynamic filters.
> According to the manual, It should be possible to control signal to the sub and the mains.
> Do you use the DCX this way and is it possible to apply REW corrections on this device?


I use it to bi-amp my front stereo speakers plus manage the subwoofer. This includes providing the required crossovers as well as notch filters to address cone breakup of my dynamic drivers and filters for dipole equalization of my electrostatic panels. I also use it to time/phase align each driver and I do the parametric EQ of my sub with it also.

REW works fine in the "Generic EQ" mode but doesn't download the filter values into the DCX if that is what you mean. The DCX has a PC based GUI so entering the REW filter values is straightforward.

Having said all that, it's not clear to me what you are actually trying to do. If it is just EQ'ing your sub then the 1124 is good enough and much cheaper. What do you intend to do with your mains?


----------



## bjs

terry j said:


> ...having said that, I suppose there is nothing stopping you from inputting the signal into the dcx and only outputting two signals (bands)...one hi passed to the mains (and using their internal x-overs) and low passing to the subs, which now that you've made me think of it is not a bad idea at all. That gives you the result of the mains not receiving any of the sub signal, good idea...


Yes, or he could leave his system the way it is and just insert the DCX into the Sub and Stereo (mains) paths since it has three independant channels.


----------



## piercaub

bjs said:


> ... leave his system the way it is and just insert the DCX into the Sub and Stereo (mains) paths since it has three independant channels.


Yes, it is what I want to do: adjust the room response of both the Sub and the two mains.
Mains are importants because I use my system for HC and HIFI (50/50) and their current response in low frequencies could be better.

If I can insert the DCX between the Denon pre-amp and Sub and mains amplifiers, then I can EQ these three channels both for stereo and DVD 5.1/7.1.

The copy/paste of correction values from REW to the DCX GUI will be fine. 
Do you know is the DCX GUI works under Windows Vista?

bjs and Terry thanks again for your advices.


----------



## terry j

if you simply wish to equalize the entire path, I'd probably go with the deq. that is what it's designed to do, ultimately the dcx is a 'speaker management' system (read set up for active)

maybe price will be the ultimate determinator, but I guess they are roughly the same.

if you are not interested in hi passing the mains then go for the deq. (IMHO)


----------



## bjs

piercaub said:


> ...Do you know is the DCX GUI works under Windows Vista?...


I use it under XP so can't help on that one.

However you can download the GUI from the Behringer site and try it. It will work without a DCX attached.

Playing with the GUI is also a good way to see what the DCX can or cannot do since all the functions are still available.


----------



## Ricci

Can you control the DCX EQ's through REW as you can with the DEQ and FBQ? I assume yes?


----------



## brucek

No, you can't use the midi transfer capability for the DCX or the DEQ.

brucek


----------



## Ricci

AH! Bullocks!:no: That's not what I'd hoped to hear at all. Oh well.


----------



## brucek

That doesn't say you can't use REW for your filter recommendations. You simply have to input the filters by hand.
Be sure to match the filter type used in the DCX (Q BW) to the correct device in REW that uses the same formula.

brucek


----------



## avaserfi

Behringer has designed a free and powerful program that can be downloaded from their site for the DCX2496. The program allows full control of the unit with a simple RS232 connection. Also note, you can download the program without owning the unit to get familiar with how it works directly from Behringer's site under the DCX2496 page.


----------



## Ricci

Thx guys. I'll be getting the program that Behringer has. I'm just super lazy sometimes:R and was hoping. Maybe in the next version of REW (if there is one) a few more units can be added.


----------



## CZ Eddie

piercaub said:


> Do you know is the DCX GUI works under Windows Vista?


Well, I'm running Vista Ultimate SP1 and the software "appears" to work fine for me. But I don't have a DCX2496 yet and I haven't exactually stressed the software at all. So there could be bugs, but so far it seems to work fine?





mike c said:


> threadjack...
> 
> is the DCX2496 capable of doing this:
> taking in inputs from L, C and R
> outputs highpassed L, lowpassed L, highpassed C, lowpassed C, highpassed R, lowpassed R?
> and what are the crossover points selectable?


I just started researching this device tonight. But after downloading the software from Behringers website, it does appear that each of the three input channels can each have two output channels. Each of the six individual output channels can have both a high and low pass filter assigned to it. And each filter is adjustable from 20 to 20k.

See the attached file for a picture of what it looks like to setup channel 6 as a "low" channel with a 20hz to 20,000hz filter. Which actually, is setting it up as full-range. But you can adjust it anywhere in between. It doesn't look too difficult?


----------



## RobertR

I didn't find it necessary to use the external software to set up the DCX2496. I find that the built in graphic display is sufficiently informative to make set up straightforward.


----------



## Larry McConville

Gentlemen,

I've read the manual and messed with the GUI; do I have the proper understanding that each of the six output channels may be configured to accomodate any desired band (L/M/H)? For instance, if I were to install six subs, three across the front and three across the rear; would the DCX2496 allow me to adjust each sub independently?

I have my three subs finished for the front and will likely not expand upon this until mid 2009; however, having the ability to do so without adding additional hardware would be nice.

Larry


----------



## Otto

Larry McConville said:


> do I have the proper understanding that each of the six output channels may be configured to accomodate any desired band (L/M/H)? For instance, if I were to install six subs,


Hi Larry,

I've been looking at this thing as well. I believe it has three inputs, so if you had six subs, you could only control three of them at once (unless you took pains to mix signals before they got to the DCX).

Good luck!


----------



## Otto

Hi there,

So I'm looking for a device that will provide parametric EQ, mix and apply LPF to whatever signals.

Specifically, on my mono sub signal (at the LFE output of my preamp), I want to:



Apply PEQ
And on the other inputs to the DCX2496, I will connect my main L/R outputs from my preamp. The DCX2496 will then apply the following to that L/R stereo input like this:



Take L/R stereo input and mix to mono
Apply PEQ
Apply LPF
Is there some device other than the DCX2496 that I should be considering?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Pretty much every pro-audio company makes a digital speaker processor these days...

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## WmAx

Otto said:


> Hi Larry,
> 
> I've been looking at this thing as well. I believe it has three inputs, so if you had six subs, you could only control three of them at once (unless you took pains to mix signals before they got to the DCX).
> 
> Good luck!


Well, do you have more then 2 dedicated sub signals? For example, usually LFE is mono. The DCX can apply separate processing and EQ to each input and output separately. So, if you start with a single mono LFE input, then you patch it to all 6 outputs, you can then apply custom EQ/processing/xover to each output in an isolated fashion. Or you can derive the the bass signal from stereo inputs and mix to mono and then patch to the channel outputs desired.

Now, of course, if you want to send full range input for each channel of a surround system, then you need 2 x DCX2496 devices.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Pretty much every pro-audio company makes a digital speaker processor these days...
> 
> Regards,
> Wayne


True. But Behringer appears to have the best value by far. Comparable processor from other makes tend to be 2x or more higher in cost. Yet, the Behringer units are very high quality devices despite their price.

-Chris


----------



## Sonnie

Mine is on its way... I finally broke down and purchased one that I will use in my great room. Playing around with the software, I really had no idea just how flexible this unit is. Remarkable!


----------



## Larry McConville

WmAx,

Yes, your first scenario is exactly how I intend to utilize the unit. I want to manage each sub independently from my listening position to arrive at the best response each location has to offer. Once each is established, I'll then assess the system as a whole.

I have the unit on order and expect to receive this Friday; I'll spend some time this morning assessing mics.

Regards,

Larry M.



WmAx said:


> Well, do you have more then 2 dedicated sub signals? For example, usually LFE is mono. The DCX can apply separate processing and EQ to each input and output separately. So, if you start with a single mono LFE input, then you patch it to all 6 outputs, you can then apply custom EQ/processing/xover to each output in an isolated fashion. Or you can derive the the bass signal from stereo inputs and mix to mono and then patch to the channel outputs desired.
> 
> Now, of course, if you want to send full range input for each channel of a surround system, then you need 2 x DCX2496 devices.
> 
> -Chris


----------



## Sonnie

Larry... FYI or heads-up... I have yet to see (no one has shown me any different thus far) what you are trying to do work out properly. When the subs are combined for playback, in all cases I have seen or experienced, the combined response varied greatly from the response of each optimized sub. I will not say that it cannot be accomplished by this method, just very unlikely. Hopefully that is not the "only" reason you are purchasing the DCX. 

The easiest and best proven method of equalizing multiple subs is to combine the signal and equalize all subs together. AFAIK, it is really the only accurate way to equalize them. I had two subs for the longest time moved about from position to position... it was impossible to equalize them separately and get good response when combined. I initially thought this was the only way to do it and fought with it for the longest time... then twa-la... just like that I combined the signals and was able to easily equalize the low end response. Same thing when I added the third sub... the only way I could ever get a good response was to equalize them together. Well... actually, I later ended up not even equalizing my last setup of three subs with my BFD when it was all said and done. Instead I let Audyssey equalize them (again combined) for a super smooth response in the low range. Here was my last equalized response:











If you do attempt optimizing them separately, be sure to let us know how it goes. It would be very interesting to see if someone could actually accomplish good results via the separate optimizing method... or should I say, "better" results.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

My experiences were a bit different. I had left and right subs in a non-symmetrical family room (Sonnie's room was a symmetrical shoe-box type), with one in a corner and the other on a wall near an opening. Playing 1/6-octave sine waves I could tell their response was not matching because I could tell a volume difference between the two from one tone to another. I knew this would not be good for music, so I equalized the two subs separately so that their response matched as close as possible.

Bottom line, experiment, because every room is different! But if you have a symmetrical room like Sonnie's chances are good his method is the one you'll end up doing. :T

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Sonnie

I am thinking that certain frequencies of the multiple subs may very well not match, other than getting the subs themselves level matched with broad band pink noise. If one is producing a 40Hz signal at 90db and the other is producing a 40Hz signal at 100db and you have a combined peak at 40Hz, after eq'ing that combined peak, it makes sense that there will still be the same variance between the two subs at that 40Hz frequency. The eq has no idea which sub to reduce it from... it is reducing the combined signal sent to the subs, therefore both subs get the same cut or boost. Hearing a louder tone out of one over the other would be natural in many cases for varying frequencies... some higher in one, some higher in the other, but that should not ultimately matter since we don't play one or the other, we play both or all and look for the combined response at the listening position.

There have also been several here with various rooms who ended up only being able to eq them combined.

Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:

It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:


----------



## Andysu

I forget all about the remote software for the DCX2496 I’d have to download it again and get that RS-232 lead for it. I think it’s less than £10.00 pounds for lead?

How about a Basic LFE.1, sub bass extension connection to assemble with FBQ2496 patched in with the DCX249 and fruity delicious amplifier with plenty of headroom.

Now you have control over the 20 parametric bands and of course delay time setting on the DCX2496 as well as crossover slopes and as well monitoring a slightly different signal because the FBQ2496 will have lower behaviour when feed to the DCX2496.












Oh that was better! No script error popping up this morning, whew.

Merry Christmas


----------



## Sonnie

Well you really wouldn't need the FBQ2496 since the DCX has plenty of filters that would do the same thing. That DCX is one sweet unit after playing around with the software.


----------



## Andysu

Sonnie said:


> I am thinking that certain frequencies of the multiple subs may very well not match, other than getting the subs themselves level matched with broad band pink noise. If one is producing a 40Hz signal at 90db and the other is producing a 40Hz signal at 100db and you have a combined peak at 40Hz, after eq'ing that combined peak, it makes sense that there will still be the same variance between the two subs at that 40Hz frequency. The eq has no idea which sub to reduce it from... it is reducing the combined signal sent to the subs, therefore both subs get the same cut or boost. Hearing a louder tone out of one over the other would be natural in many cases for varying frequencies... some higher in one, some higher in the other, but that should not ultimately matter since we don't play one or the other, we play both or all and look for the combined response at the listening position.
> 
> There have also been several here with various rooms who ended up only being able to eq them combined.
> 
> Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:
> 
> It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:


You mean if you lifted the sub up off the floor the signal changes strength or it may lower what the individual user is striving for smooth excellence without the huff puffing you wish. Stacking them up is the goal but large ones I mean large ones for the home is impractical. I mean you wouldn’t have room to swing a cat around.

Small ones for modest good low end extension may be more practical providing you don’t have large CRT rear projection or flat screen obstruction the front with limitations on where to place the multiples of subs. Video projection and screen is the key to success, because the speakers will no longer be in your face, more rather behind the screen.

I’ve noticed the change in signal (sine wave) the front has some strong 50Hz 60Hz 80Hz I think and the tone is deep and unbearable on the ear at high level, “the bells the bells” no, no, (the sine wave the sine wave).:bigsmile:

What about what about real life lows that may come into the room from the outside. I have variety of sounds from Yellow Buses airplanes cars motorbikes and so on. It’s the Yellow Buses that stop over the road the tone is low in the room, I’ve monitored something down as low as 30Hz and down it’s the engine sound as it idly hums away.

I haven’t yet walked around the room when it pulls up across the road, to check for dips and peaks just for fun though.


Merry Christmas


----------



## Andysu

Sonnie said:


> Well you really wouldn't need the FBQ2496 since the DCX has plenty of filters that would do the same thing. That DCX is one sweet unit after playing around with the software.


Yes, yes agree and I’ve found the DCX2496 to be more user-friendly I find the FBQ2496 a bit of pigs ear sometimes. Providing the user selects filters on the DCX2496 then you’ll have 9 parametric filters to address and is 1 dynamic EQ filter, LOL all my parametric bands are used up and (I no space left for free percentage space left for dynamic EQ) unless I cut-back on the crossover filters that truly sucks doesn’t it. LOL

I might tinker with it again and look at the crossover filters that provide a smooth easy on the ear though my JBL LCR fronts might take some doing, but it’s doable.

So are you using the DCX2496 sounds like it from your post and is it used for sub bass or LCRS and sub bass?

Merry Christmas


----------



## Sonnie

I just ordered mine, but only plan to use it for my sub. 

I suppose you could loop the channels if you needed more filters... or combine two of your outputs to the sub, thereby having two channels of filtering. The DCX is not going to know you combined them. :huh:


----------



## Andysu

Sonnie said:


> I just ordered mine, but only plan to use it for my sub.
> 
> I suppose you could loop the channels if you needed more filters... or combine two of your outputs to the sub, thereby having two channels of filtering. The DCX is not going to know you combined them. :huh:


I would say there’s ample, of trail and error experiments that you can achieve with the unit, good luck on the buy hope it works out fine for your sound system. I plan to get a few more these once I’m cleared up my water bill and phone internet changes LOL whew that’s a steep bill! No comment LOL.

Do plan to use the single input for the LFE.1 and feed the outputs to six channels and adjust the differences in time arrival phase polarity and so on. I think its nifty little affordable unit that doesn’t bust the bank. :T

Merry Christmas


----------



## Sonnie

I will only be using it on the sub for now. I might tinker with more later... you can never tell.


----------



## Andysu

Sonnie said:


> I will only be using it on the sub for now. I might tinker with more later... you can never tell.


Afternoon there 

How much did you pay for it? I paid around £179.00 if I remember rightly I could have saved £30.00 if I only had used Google product search only a few weeks late LO, still at under £200.00 best audio investment and improvement I’ve spent on for the LCR fronts.:T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Sonnie said:


> Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:


That's absolutely right. They should both have the same response in that situation; the only good reason to EQ them separately would be if you were running them stereo.



> It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:


Oh, it was extremely difficult and time consuming! Can't count the number of hours spent equalizing them, back before REW and with only 1/3-octave EQs. I originally went the left/right route when I first got subs, because I could localize it if there was only one in the corner, and it irritated me, as I was used to "centralized" bass from both speakers. Life sure got easier (or at least equalizing did!) once I moved them both to the same corner!

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Sonnie

lol... that reminds me of when we started using the BFD... heehee... the sinewaves, pencil and paper, Excel workbooks, etc. It would take a few minutes to get it all done. I remember spending a few hours all along doing that stuff. :sweat:



> How much did you pay for it?


It ended up being about $240. Not too terribly bad. I'll probably sell my BFD for $65 or so... or who knows, I might just give it away. :spend:


----------



## Andysu

Sonnie said:


> lol... that reminds me of when we started using the BFD... heehee... the sinewaves, pencil and paper, Excel workbooks, etc. It would take a few minutes to get it all done. I remember spending a few hours all along doing that stuff. :sweat:
> 
> 
> It ended up being about $240. Not too terribly bad. I'll probably sell my BFD for $65 or so... or who knows, I might just give it away. :spend:


So the software program used to be Excel wow.

If you only lived down the road from me, I’ll give you $£65.00 Sonnie, but I’m not going to. I would hold onto it because it will find a new purpose in the sound system or something new and inspiring idea that may be eluding you right now, but in a few months time, you’ll be kicking yourself mate,:hissyfit::bigsmile: (I should have kept the FBQ2496). 

I also noted that some Behreinger products have been discontinued and that makes it doubly hard in find a brand new in the box product, Fleabay sod Fleabay the units properly got coca cola sticky stains all over it scratched up and dented in.:rofl:

Merry Charismas


----------



## Otto

I got the DCX2496 for Christmas. I'm very pleased with it. I have a special need in which I mix my stereo L/R and use it as a mono sub signal. That signal is used in addition to my "normal" LFE sub signal. Previously, I was using a little Peavey mixer to mix the L/R to mono, but that's no longer necessary. The DCX2496 accepts three inputs, so I was able to input both my L/R main signals as well as my LFE input. 

I also apply a 40Hz LPF to that mono L/R mix, so that I can use it with my relatively full range mains. I used to do that with a bunch of filters on the BFD1124, but it wasn't a very good LPF (though it worked). The DCX2496 can apply a proper LPF easily, so I no longer have to goof around with "making it work" with the BFD1124 and any unused filters I had available.

The PC interface supplied by Behringer to control the DCX2496 is very nice. It makes the signal path intuitive because it's represented visually. I read some of the manual, but really just got it working by playing with the software. I didn't try to set up the DCX2496 through the front panel because it's rather cryptic (as it has to be on such a small interface). The PC GUI is the way to go. 

I measured my room's response using REW and then made a good guess as to what filters were needed with the DCX2496. The PC software for the DCX2496 makes its changes to the DCX2496 almost immediately, after which I would immediately measure using REW again. I repeated that process until I found a reasonable response. I did this for both a music and movie setting, and was done with all of it (setup, using the GUI, measurements, etc.) in about two hours. Next time, if necessary, will be much quicker since I now know how to use the thing.

All in all, the Behringer DCX2496 is a great device, especially if you have special requirements above and beyond the norm (in my case, mixing L/R to mono and applying a LPF). I've had the BFD1124 for at least a couple years, and it's a great device as well. The DCX2496 just ups the ante somewhat.

Happy holidays!


----------



## Sonnie

I haven't even taken mine out of the box yet. I want to take a few measurements with REW and see what it looks like... and make sure I will need it, but I can't get my wife to leave for a little while. Could I give someone my phone number and you call my wife and tell her she won a $500 shopping spree at the mall, but she has to use it today? :devil:

I have really debating on keeping my BFD 1124p and buying an ED eQ.2 since it has a variable subsonic filter down to 5Hz, which I will need for my IB setup. We'll just have to see how everything pans out.


----------



## danielmichael

try the ultra curve iv got both if its 4 theater use ie sub u can control more ie 10 band para eq 1 set as <24 db high cut any ware from 20hz to 20khz 
has on board limiters real time rta dynamic eqs u can use 4 night viewing 31 band eq feed back destroyer 10 band u have all the tools and the same price ultra drive is better suited in pa system as xover less suited 4 theater sub at that price


----------



## Otto

danielmichael said:


> try the ultra curve iv got both if its 4 theater use ie sub u can control more ie 10 band para eq 1 set as <24 db high cut any ware from 20hz to 20khz
> has on board limiters real time rta dynamic eqs u can use 4 night viewing 31 band eq feed back destroyer 10 band u have all the tools and the same price ultra drive is better suited in pa system as xover less suited 4 theater sub at that price


Just so you know, it's much easier for people to understand what you're saying when your writing has punctuation, capitalization, complete sentences, etc.


----------



## Sonnie

Amen... :hail:


----------



## danielmichael

sorry dude , my bad.


----------



## PonyLove

So, Behringer updated their site and the software is no longer available for the DCX2496. Maybe my Google skills are bad tonight, but I can't find the software anywhere. All the links on the web simply get redirected to Behringer's home page. Would someone be willing to upload the 1.16a software to the forum or website?

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## Sonnie

Try this... :T

View attachment DCX2496_remote_1_16a.zip


----------



## PonyLove

You rock so hard.


----------



## Sonnie

What else would you expect... :dontknow:


----------



## Mika75

Just a quick question regarding the use of REW with the DCX.

I'm wanting to do full range EQ, I own the Radio Shack Digi spl meter but I read it isn't accurate enough for this purpose, and only for bass correction duties. 
Should I also be ordering the Behringer ECM800 and a Mic amp ? A good friend of mine can loan me the Mic, but as far as the amp is anything sufficient? 
It don't think DCX is worth doing if I'm only guessing the filters through trial and error...If only it had the capabilities of the DEQ built in as well ....can someone chime in and tell me my options here ?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

The pre amp will need phantom power and a line level output.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## atledreier

Well, got a brand new DCX2496 and got it set up. Turns out I got one with the 'frying bacon' noise. Anyone found a reliable fix for this, or will i have to return it and pray they fix it?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Since you just got it, I would expect that they'd trade you outright for another one.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## atledreier

Yeah, you'd expect. I have no such hopes for my local pro-gear dealer, though.... I'll give it a shot anyway.


----------



## Cyber_Murphy

atledreier said:


> Well, got a brand new DCX2496 and got it set up. Turns out I got one with the 'frying bacon' noise. Anyone found a reliable fix for this, or will i have to return it and pray they fix it?


The "frying egg" is a commonly known problem withe sample rate converter chip used in the DCX2496, the CS8420.. There are many many mods to the DCX that gets rid of this problem by replacing this chip.. My complete set of mods to the DCX2496 incorporates a replacement clock/src module which involves removing the CS8420 and replacing with CS8416.. Not only is the fying egg issue fixed,, but the improvement to the sound is huge (along with the other mods too)!!

Hope this helps..

Murphy


----------



## atledreier

Then why is it only one channel out of the six?


----------



## Cyber_Murphy

atledreier said:


> Then why is it only one channel out of the six?


Hmmm,, that's interesting..
The "frying bacon/egg" problem does usually affects all outputs.. If you google search there is a lot of info about this, particularly in the European forums..

You could look inside and see if the src chip is still the CS8420, Cirrus Logic have released an official document describing the "bug" with this model of chip, that unfortunately Behringer was caught up in by using it in the DCX..

Maybe your issue is not the same that I'm thinking of..
From memory, there is a company in the US that offers upgrades to the DCX that gets it sounding pretty good

Hope this helps..
Cheers..


----------



## atledreier

Could be a different issue altogether. The issue is a pretty strong hiss and noise in one channel in particular. This seems to be an issue with a cable running to the output board. Most of the fixes involve moving and jiggling this cable, so I think I will try this first. If not, then I'll return the unit and hopefully get a new one. I've had a DCX before, and that was completely transparent, so this is a bummer.


----------



## Xind

Sonnie said:


> I am thinking that certain frequencies of the multiple subs may very well not match, other than getting the subs themselves level matched with broad band pink noise. If one is producing a 40Hz signal at 90db and the other is producing a 40Hz signal at 100db and you have a combined peak at 40Hz, after eq'ing that combined peak, it makes sense that there will still be the same variance between the two subs at that 40Hz frequency. The eq has no idea which sub to reduce it from... it is reducing the combined signal sent to the subs, therefore both subs get the same cut or boost. Hearing a louder tone out of one over the other would be natural in many cases for varying frequencies... some higher in one, some higher in the other, but that should not ultimately matter since we don't play one or the other, we play both or all and look for the combined response at the listening position.
> 
> There have also been several here with various rooms who ended up only being able to eq them combined.
> 
> Actually I would think symmetrically located subs in a symmetrical room would be the easiest to equalize separately. They both should have the same response with all things being equal. I don't know... maybe my thinking is skewed. :huh:
> 
> It just seems nearly impossible to eq one sub by itself, then eq another by itself in a different location, and then combine them for an acceptable response, regardless of the room. When those signals interact, there will most likely always be some drastic effects to the response. I won't say there are not exceptions, but I would say they are very rare. :dumbcrazy:


I'm not sure what you're saying when you explain that the problems come in due to a 40Hz signal being reproduced as something other than 40Hz? 40Hz is 40Hz, it's the representation of an AC signal that oscillates the cone of the speaker so it moves 40 times per second to produce a 40Hz tone. The cone cannot move more or less times since the wave is limiting the movement in the magnetic flux created in the pole gap where the coil resides.

What can differ greatly (whether the drivers are exact models and have exact amplifiers or are all different) is the volume output (which should be set individually using db meter) since there will be slight variations between batches. Especially if materials used vary slightly. It's not uncommon for manufacturing processes to change quickly as companies develop. The other major difference is position. It's impossible for them all to be in the exact same place since they all the up real space in the same dimension this makes the distance from you to differ and there is 1 last factor that comes from the different positions is reflections. As the sound radiates outward it will interact with solid objects as well as other soundwaves that ate travelling within that same common area. As the waves move they will meet. Some waves will have traveled that tiny bit further or less than other exact same frequencies and they will not always be timed at the sane phase as the other waves and will either add volume (in phase) or cancel causing loss of sound (out of phase) how much sound is lost depends on how far out of phase they are and how many waves are moving at the same time. This is why multiple subs (or any multiple drivers) can become a problem and harder to tune.

Positioning correctly is more trial and error than planned programming and the smaller the sub cabinets are, the easier it is to move them around and offers a larger number of positions within the same room.
I would consider using 2 good subs over 4 cheaper models simply due to the difficulty of getting good flat response and the amount of space used in the room. 1 in front and 1 in rear should be plenty unless your room is gigantic or your entertaining deaf people.


----------

