MiniDSP vs DCX2496 - Page 2

The DCX does everything I needed it to do. I can bottom my subs and clip the clone with it (if I wanted it to).
The only thing I wish it had, is more inputs/outputs and shaping to 10hz; and a more "2013" friendly interface.

I've had both, IMO I'd say the DCX is superior for my use anyways. Though I can't say I had a very good experience with my minidsp's being faulty, I will not be using them again in my setup.

I have no experience with the miniDSP but I do adore my DCX.
In my opinion it is one of the best bargains is audio.

I don't mind the interface at all, in fact I find it easy and intuitive.
However, I do wish I had the ability to apply filters down to at least 10Hz to include HPF, etc.

It's possible to 'cheat' the EQ a little to do what you want to do. As an example, I could create a fairly broad (Q=0.5) boost at 20Hz, and then a couple of narrower (Q=1.0-2.0) cuts at say, 30Hz and 60Hz or so. The three filters will interact, and the result would be that the boosted area above 20Hz would be nulled out by the cuts, but the area below 20Hz would not -- hence a sub-20Hz boost. I'm doing this in my head right now, so the exact values for Q and Fc might be off, but the principle is sound. The only issue is whether the DCX rolls off quickly below 15Hz or 10Hz, in which case one might be 'spitting into the wind,' so to speak.

Here is an example from EasyQ. It doesn't go down below 20Hz, either, so I constructed the example to boost 40Hz by a Q=0.5 boost at 50Hz, then cuts at 75Hz, 125Hz, and 200Hz. If we pretend that the issue is a lack of boost below 50Hz, the example makes sense.



On of the issues with doing this is that there are smaller distortions, like the dip at 70Hz in the picture. If I took an hour or so and played with the Q and Fc values, I could probably improve the response. Adding more narrow cut filters might help, too: I've simulated 'brick wall' filters with 5-6 filters in the past.

Regards,
-BW

I agree with your first paragraph. I personally have no use for a remote, since I'm sitting at the desk most of the time, and my BT headset automatically turns down WinAMP when a phone call comes in. But it adds to the value of the 4x10HD.

As far as switching from analog to digital, it can be done on the DCX -- although not in the same program. Use Input A as the digital in, and Input B+C as the analog ins. Then create two presets that are essentially the same, except the first one maps AES/EBU in to your speaker system, while the other on maps Input B to the left side, and input C to the right. There's no preset in the DCX to do exactly this, but there's nothing I can see stopping one from programming it in that manner.

Regards,
-BW

Good point drawbacks. I forgot you could do that with the DCX. I'm actually putting together an office setup that will use a digital OpenDRC box feeding a 4x10HD through the AES/EBU inputs. It will allow me to keep a full digital signal from my source through to the amps. I'm not really a stickler on converting back and forth but this is sort of a small uber project/test bed. My original plan a while back was to use the modded for volume control DCX but I think the 4x10HD will work better for me. The extra channels might be useful too.

Jpmst, the DCX is still an awesome value no doubt. It would be neat to see Behringer update it but I doubt that will ever happen. They have no competition at their price point in pro audio to motivate them. The next closest is the Dbx stuff and it is 2x4 and about 2x the cost.

Actually, I bought two DCXs this past month for under $300, delivered. The first one was $241, but they ran out, so the second one was a bit more ($280). At that price, the DCX is almost untouchable.

Regards,
-BW

[drawbars = those things that go in and out on a Hammond Organ to change the timbre]

Sorry it was my iPad autocorrecting. Did you get those new at those prices? That is pretty good.

There is one other advantage to the MiniDSP that doesn't apply to all cases: biquad programming. I like being able to program custom crossover slopes. My simulation software does the calculation and I can get nearly perfect acoustic rolloff with minimal tinkering. For most this feature isn't all that useful.

Nice. I got all three of my DCX's for well under $300 shipped as well.

My DCX was $245 and that was 5-6 years ago.

+1

I think mine was $245 as well, 5+ years ago. I am still amazed by the piece for the price.

i'm using the following:

Marantz AV8801 pre/pro <--> miniDSP 2x4 balanced <--> 2 x Crown K2 amps <--> 4 x 18" sealed maelstrom 18's.


1. I've used both the 2V and 0.9v input sensitivity and I still can't get the output to be up...it's very VERY low

2. the only way I've been able to get multiple EQ filters to work on it is to do it off line via REW, and import the txt file in the plugin, and write it all at once.

3. It's great for what it is, but I'm honestly considering selling my pieces.... considering going back to the DEQ or just getting a marchand bassis

Yes, that was part of my decision. I figured that even if I couldn't get the levels/noise issues worked out, $245 for a room setup tool wasn't so bad. And it serves as a not-quite-perfect backup for my Driverack PA that I gig with.

Yes, that's something that I always hoped Behringer would add, but as noted, they have no real competition and little reason to sink money into software updates.

Good luck getting a Bassis. I've lost contact with the Marchand guys and I don't think they are building anything anymore. However, if you do get word from them, please let me know.

You're better off going back to the Behringer DEQ or DCX. I'd opt for the DCX, honestly.

Keep on eye on ebay, I have seen several over the last couple years.

For what, a Bassis? I've checked and have never seen one on eBay.

I have prodded kgveteran for his a few times. Give it up!

Ya, I know I have a seen a few.
Of course, one or two may have been from audiogon too....

did you replace the minidsp, or you still driving it?

I saw someone above mention that with the DCX you can get away without using a pre-amp and go straight from the DCX to the amp. Is that correct?

Say I use the DCX to EQ my bookshelf speakers that are powered by a Behringer EP1500, how would you go about hooking the DCX up to the amp?

How would you control the volume?

Does the DCX have digital inputs and outputs?

Actually, I never ended up getting one. With all the issues people are having driving various gear, I'm going to keep waiting for improvements in the MiniDSP.

I've posted this before, but all the input level selector does, is attenuate the 2V to the 0.9V max of the ADAU1701 chip the MD is based on. The chip outputs the same 0.9V for 0dBFS; add an inverter stage to get the opposite polarity and you have 1.8V output.

I made a custom, but there are kit or complete units out there. AMB do a relay based kit, and I seem to recall a digital VC in development.

It has an AES digital in.

I know someone that is currently trying an alternative to the BASSIS. Maybe he will sell his if it works out.

It will also accept S/PDIF via RCA on the digital in. I used one for a couple years this way and it worked great.

I have never needed a preamp with the DCX. It has plenty of gain available for any applications.

You would control the volume the same as you do now, ala your receiver or pre-amp.

Check the Behringer site for all the details.

Yikes! Has it been verified by measurement that the maximum output voltage of the balanced version in balanced mode is 1.8 Volts RMS? The unbalanced one is specified at 0.9 Volts RMS maximum output, so that spec seems to be right. The unbalanced version is powered from the 5V of the USB bus, but can use higher voltages when powered externally. The balanced one is powered from an external 12V supply, and the datasheet specifies the maximum output to be 2 Volts RMS single-ended and 14 dBu balanced (=3.88 Volts RMS, somewhat of a contradiction). It's possible with a gain of a bit higher than 2 after the DAC, and would require a power supply for the op-amps of more than the 3.3 Volts that's applied to the DAC (possible given the 12 Volt supply voltage).

If what you're saying is how the hardware is actually implemented, then their spec for the balanced version is a lie. That wouldn't surprise me at this point given the other things I've read about the device.
Edited by andyc56 - 2/25/13 at 4:50pm

There is no RCA SPDIF in, so you'd need a matching transformer (balun) which for a Canare/Switchcraft runs about $30. Or bodge a cable pins 2-3.

My comment was based upon a discussion I had some time ago with someone who had one in his hand and traced the signal path. Maybe it has changed in the interim, but some of their specs seem less like data than political promises.

I have a 2x8 I picked up from a friend second hand, but haven't got around to using it yet (probably for subs). I'll measure it before use, and simply increase gain via some external opamps if needed.

Okay, I'll reserve judgment for now then. I did look in the 2x8 spec sheet, and it shows a block diagram with +/-15 Volt supplies on the board. They specify a maximum output voltage of 8 Volts RMS balanced from the Phoenix terminals for the 2x8.

This brings me to another issue, related to their "in a box" versions of the balanced miniDSPs. Way back in 1995, Neil Muncy in his classic article identified the "pin 1 problem" for balanced systems. The solution was to connect pin 1 of the XLR input and output connectors to the chassis, not to the board. The packaged versions of the balanced miniDSP boards make this impossible because they expose the Phoenix connector to the outside world. So it looks like it's best to buy the board and put it into a box, following Muncy's grounding recommendations.

There's just so many flaky things about that company that it's really difficult for me to bring myself to buy one, even though its feature set is mostly better than the DCX. In reading the user manual for the balanced 2x4, they specify the maximum output voltage as 2 Volts RMS for both single-ended and balanced modes! Hello? Then, to add insult to that, they say:

LOL!
Edited by andyc56 - 2/25/13 at 6:08pm

^^ Yeah, I get the impression it was started by software guys that have no real understanding of the hardware and interfacing issues. As I said I can work around most issues with extra hardware with little expense and time, so I don't care. I'm building for me, no one else so I'll make it work myyyyyy waaaaayyyy. /Sinatra

I'll read the Muncy paper later, but at a first glance it doesn't appear all that groundbreaking and with a 95 date, I don't think it predates work on the same subject by Jensen and Whitlock. My library is at home but I don't think I have it, so thanks.

Apart from the custom biquad capability, I don't see anything the MD does that the DCX doesn't.

The recommendations from that paper have become part of the AES48 standard "Grounding and EMC Standards". There's a site called pin1problem dot com that has links to articles about grounding of balanced systems, including two from the Jensen company (1995 and 1997), both of which reference the Muncy article, though I don't know which specific author wrote them. Muncy showed lots of measurements that if his recommendations are followed, one can inject a large hum current into the shield of a cable in a balanced system and the system will have very high rejection of the hum. One of the articles from Jensen at the above mentioned site is about how to construct the so-called "hummer" that injects that hum current. Systems that direct that ground current through the circuit board, instead of through the chassis, show much worse hum rejection.

Yes, the custom biquad feature is a biggie for me.
Edited by andyc56 - 2/25/13 at 7:17pm