is it worth the extra dollars to spring for the Deqx? As we're talking of a +10x price differential over the Behringer, that's a tough question to answer... The Deqx does sound better in all respects; however, I listened to a unit that's not mine, so I couldn't open it up & sneek preview its belly:). I remember the s/ware is more complicated than the standard 2496 one, too. Also, I heard it in a system using Lowther EX4, Supravox 400 bass & a professional Murata supertweet -- i.e. $~8k worth for the drivers alone -- so the deqx's cost wasn't overwhelming by comparison. I can tell you what I did: nothing. I didn't buy one. Suppose I'm dreaming that the price for good (sounding) dsp's will become more reasonable, while the spkr system I'll be using one in (i.e. mine) will grow up to become equivalent to this friend's system:). Cheers |
A good question to be sure. I might try asking it at: http://www.madisound.com/The forum there is mostly orientated to speaker questions. I bought the DBX ($500), as it was rated a bit better than the Behringer ($300). There are some Rane units, which are more money, and of course the DEQX which is very highly regarded. If I had to guess, I'd say that units like the DEQX will probably be the wave of the future. Pre-amp, crossover, room equalization, DAC, etc all in one. I've read that the DAC is as good as some that cost between 1-2K$. Right now I'm using the DBX as a crossover between my subwoofer and a two way speaker system. It has room correction which I will be trying soon. If I decide to bi-amp my two ways, then I would consider moving up to the DEQX. |
Thanks for your comments guys.
I am already biamped. Triamped actually using the Behringer as a 3 way crossover with seperate amp channels for all drivers. It sounds very good. Very good! But with the quality of amps I have a passive crossover would sound very good if properly designed.
I am just trying to figure out whether the jump up to the DEQX would be a significant audible difference to my system.
Are there others who have made the jump from low cost digital (Behringer or DBX) to Deqx crossovers? Maybe most Deqx users have never used other digital crossovers?
Are there any direct comparisons in the same speaker system?
Thanks.
|
Are there any direct comparisons in the same speaker system Uh, yes, see my post above! I'll add that the guy upgraded fm the Behringer to the Deqx. But, again, given the total cost of the spkr system, the Deqx was judged an acceptable outlay. Finally I'll add my own comment: AFA crossovers go, a passive line-level could do the job well. It's the extra features (delays, phase, versatility) that prompted this friend to get the Deqx NOT the xover function alone. (He's triamped, too) |
Sorry Gregm. In reading your post I didn't realize a Behringer was used in the system before the Deqx. I simply thought that you had heard a system with a Deqx. My bad.
Maybe I should just give the Deqx a try myself.
It's only money, right?
What choice do I have? Sit back and listen to the music?
No way!
Us crazy audio adicts always have to be fiddling with something. |
I am also tri-amping a reference system (CAT-PASSx-600/Classe - IRSV) using simple Ashley (pro-PA type) Crossover, bypassing the built-in passive xovers in IRS-V. I am also wondering whether it is time for me to upgrade the single cheapest unit in my chain of sound. (Ashley cost me less than 1/10 of any of my units or some cables) Deqx, Accuphase DF-35 and Behringer are all contenders. The only reason I would change Ashley would be to go all digital in CD-DSP-Xover before D/A conversion for power-amps. Any body with real experience of sound improvement for having gone digital in these areas? |
Coe, I was originally going to get the Behringer, but bought a DBX Driverack instead. As I mentioned above, some of the speaker builders at the Madisound site gave me the recommendation. I did not get to compare them myself.
Sonny |
I have a background in studio and live sound work. Behringer is the laughing stock of the industry. They make cheap knockoffs with the cheapest parts they can possibly find and cheap Chinese labor. They don't have an R&D department so much as a legal team for their onging lawsuits over said knockoffs. I don't mean to knock your box and I say this with all due respect, but I'm surprised to hear of a Behringer in a high end system, and even more surprised it hasn't died on you yet.
I haven't heard or seen the deqx but will be seeing it demoed at the end of the month in NEWAS. (http://www.newaudiosociety.com) |
"They make cheap knockoffs with the cheapest parts they can possibly find"
Well I paid $227 for my unit, so I guess you get what you pay for. Right? We all new that.
I must add, since I have gone all digital with the Behringer I have become unsatisfied with the sound. It is a little harsh or cold. Reminds me of the Analog vs. CD differences debate. The DEQX is undoubtedly more refined and musical for Audiophile use. I am quite sure I have my answer.
The Behringer is a very flexible and easy to use unit. It is also very inexpensive. But it is clearly not quite up to Audiophile SQ standards for high end home systems. |
Yes, like I say, I'm not trying to knock it, just making you hip to what they're about insomuch as I know. I agree it's not up to audiophile standards. I wish I had something to say about the deqx but I won't hear it until the 29th. I wish you luck with your upgrades =) |
I am not so thrilled with the "room correction" ability of DEQX. I haven't heard DEQX; but I heard Accuphase room correction digital EQ, which struck me as a very very expensive toy. The only way a "digital x-over" makes sense to me is if I keep digital source signal unconverted up to x-over and do D/A conversion only once. The big issue is volume control. The only descent true-digital preamp that sends out unconverted signal I know is made by Goldmund and Accuphase. DEQX says it has volume control after D/A conversion, which somehow sounds not so audiophile. I would appreciate a real verdict form someone who has played wih DEQX. |
Coe -- I have a feeling the Accuphase offers more of an equaliser functionality rather than a "xover" one (as in the dexq or the Behringer).
Controlling volume is indeed a tricky issue. In my case, we fed an analogue signal to the dexq via a passive control... I suppose what you'd like, ideally, is to feed the digital signal direct from a transport to the deqx dsp xover function: the dsp would then split frequencies, convert to analogue and send to output from where you then feed the amps.
But why not use the deqx's attenuator?? |
I have been thinking about going to an active crossover myself and have been doing a little homework and asking questions. A friend of mine is a sound man (studio) and I asked him about the Behringer and his comments egoed the earlier post. NO! NO! NO! NO! But he was very keen on the new Ashly digital X/O Protea 3.24CL as a friend of his just picked one up and is very happy with it. Check it out. http://www.ashly.com/ |
I went from the Behringer to an audio smiles modded Behringer (very good) to a DBX 360 and the 360 (I use room correction for the bass) is incredible. The key is to achieve linear bass. Its the unlinear bass response which smudges your images. You don't even realize it until you clean it up. |
