Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Planar Speaker Asylum

Interesting...

192.249.47.198

In Reply to: RE: NO, But.... posted by Davy on August 10, 2010 at 07:43:05

I am active biamping with a modded Behringer DCX2496 and am very happy with my system. Perhaps I'll try the cap for the mid/high some day to see if I can hear a difference. You don't know if it is better or worse if you don't try it!

Thanks,

Steve

Follow Ups:

RE: Interesting... - Davy 08:30:53 08/10/10 (31)
That Cool and good to know. It great the Behringer does not sound that bad, - so perhaps Satie was exaggerating a little bit!!

I will find out myself too when I try the two options out (and I will try both for sure to hear the difference) but I'd be very interested to hear as well your opinions if you try the line level cap in between preamp and power amp on the mid tweeter section, bypassing the Behringer on that side.
I can see from connections and adjustments point of view its a lot easier/more convenient using Behringer on both sides, but if there is a big improvement in sound quality to be had from doing it the other way....?!!!! Look forward to hearing it you try it out! Its sort of a half active/half passive line level crossover scheme!! (active line level on the all important bass side, and passive line level on the mid/tweeter side!)
Cheers,
Colin

Edits: 08/10/10 08/10/10 08/10/10
- RE: Interesting... - MaggiesAndCats 09:06:17 08/10/10 (30)
  Satie is much more knowledgeable than I am. The stock Behringer was acceptable, definitely a step up from using the Magnepan supplied external boxes and XO-1, but the mod is very good IMHO. I bought the DCX2496 with the intention of having it modded. I've included a link to the Endler Audio site. He even has some basic information on how to do the mod yourself. Of course, not having heard anything else I can't make a judgement. The Behringer has alot of flexibilty in crossover selection and setup. I have a spare pair of dead MGIII's that I intend to semi-Frankenpan/semi-Razor/semi-etc. one of these days. The Behringer would be quite useful for dialing in the XO for that.
  
  Regards,
  
  Steve
  - Endler Audio DCX2496 mod (Open in New Window)
  - RE: Interesting... - Davy 09:27:10 08/10/10 (29)
    Cool, its great to know the stock Behringer is still acceptable so I can use that to get started with the 3.3Rs. Satie did mention the input impedance of the Behringer is a little low so the preamp would have to work a bit hard if you were using the line level passive crossover on the mid/tweeter side. But he said a buffer will help if you have an impedance matching issue from preamp to power amp on that side. So there might be some fine tuning to do but at least I'll be able to use the Behringer for everything initially to get started then I can choose the cap and tune that up for the other option of operation.
    
    Many thanks for the link to the mod, - looks good. It might not be cost effective for me to do that with the shipping etc as I am in the UK. And its looks beyond my DIY capabilities! There is a place here Satie told me about that does Behringer mods too, - not sure if its the same thing, but I will look into it.
    
    In the meantime I'd be very interested to hear the results if you tried the half active/half passive line level crossover approach in your setup, - to see if it sounded better than the upgraded Behringer. I understand though if you think its too much hassle to try and you are happy with your system the way it is now!
    
    Cheers,
    Colin
    - RE: Interesting... - Davy 16:15:28 08/10/10 (28)
      Randy, I hope all my posts have not confused you more!, are you OK now with the options available to sort things out?
      Steve, just wanted to ask, - I assume you run your Behringer DCX2496 using its analogue inputs only. I will be doing this too most of the time when I get mine, but I will also probably try its AES/EBU digital input as well as that bypasses the A/D converters. Most CD players don't have a AES/EBU output though of course, so I'd have to get a pro CD player or recorder, a CD player like a Roksan that has them, or use a coax digital to AES/EBU converter). I've heard too that SOME CD players can work from their coax digital output if you use a RCA to XLR converter, (but I need to look into that further)
      I know you probably haven't , but was just wondering if you've used this digital input on the Behringer at all and if it is an improvement over using a CD player into the analogue inputs?
      Of course I realise that if you ran a CD player into the digital input on the Behringer, Satie's half active/half passive crossover scheme would not work, you'd need to run active only.
      Cheers,
      Colin
      All the best,
      Colin
      
      Edits: 08/10/10
      - Analog only - MaggiesAndCats 20:33:51 08/10/10 (25)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Interesting... posted by Davy on August 10, 2010 at 16:15:28
        
        Colin,
        
        I haven't tried the digital input, just the analog. There was a significant drop in the output when I had the mod done, i.e. I could turn the pre up very high and not get close to a red bar on the DCX input. I was using a pre that only had RCA outputs so I was using RCA/balanced adaptors. When I got a pre with balanced outputs I went balanced from the pre to the DCX, and from the DCX to the power amps. That helped to get the volume back. Then I used the adapators from the RCA output on the CD player to the balanced input on the pre and pretty much got back to where I was. Recently I put an audiophile fuse in the CD player and the output appears to be higher - I get more bars on the DCX input with the same volume knob position on the pre. Haven't put much thought into why this happened, but I'm enjoying the improved sound.
        
        I didn't notice a drop in output with the stock DCX. To be honest, I've only scratched the surface of what can be done with the DCX. I've replicated the original crossover points and slopes but haven't played around to see if I can do better. Maybe when the snow flies again...
        
        Regards,
        
        Steve
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 03:52:58 08/11/10 (24)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by MaggiesAndCats on August 10, 2010 at 20:33:51
        
        Cheers Steve,
        Thanks for the info, - so are you saying before you had the mod done there was more volume? (it sounds like the DCX was more sensitive to input then), - adn you were using exactly the same equipment as you were using before the mods?
        I think it might be (from what I've read about balanced/pro/XLR connections) that the output level coming from a device with an actual XLR Pro socket (like a preamp or CD player) is 10dB higher level than standard RCA, - this is the Pro standard output level I think. So this explains why you were getting more volume when you changed your CD and Preamp for ones with balanced/XLR connections. When you were using the older preamp with RCA to XLR adaptor the output level of that preamp was a lot lower than pro standard.
        The DCX2496 is indeed a Pro device of course. And I guess its better running it at the intput levels it was designed for so I might get a preamp with XLR outputs that have the higher output level (and maybe a CD player with analogue XLR outputs too)
        I am not sure exactly but from what I have read the digitial input on the Behringer is better (if you are using CD) becuase it cuts out the A/D conversion stage used for the analogue inputs, and I think a lot of the mods for the unit address the quality of the A/D stage to get it those inputs up to the same scratch as the digital input (having said that though it looks like the mods you linked were for upgrading the output stages of the DCX).
        I look forward to getting one of these Behringers. I will probably do the same as you and just really scratch the surface of what it can do, - I think Satie recommended doing bass management, - time deay for phase etc and other stuff to tune the unit to your room acoustics in the bass (he reckons it makes a big improvement ), - but I think you need a good microphone to do that to set it up, and I would have no idea where to start really! But if I find out how to do it and its not that hard I'll let you know!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/11/10
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Satie 14:49:11 08/11/10 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 03:52:58
        
        Get a Behringer SRC2496 to provide the necessary functionality: RCA inputs (or XLR) digital coax SPDIF - A/D - D/A and provide the AES/EBU digital out.
        Here again, mods are available from Audiosmile's Behringer mods site and from Endleraudio.com and tweakaudio.com. Each do their thing differently, but achieve similar sonic results.
        
        Re Endler audio, I pimp his mods and those from Tweakaudio.com very often - very cost effective, and make junk priced products useful to the audiophile. That said, I went to fish for the Audiosmile site for you since you are in the UK and shipping stuff for the US modsters to work on with incompatible line voltages and plugs is not my first choice in efficiency and cost control.
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Davy 16:09:13 08/11/10 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Satie on August 11, 2010 at 14:49:11
        
        Thanks again Satie,
        Sounds very useful, - I will look out for an SCR2496 as well then. My priority for the time being though is to try to find a used DCX2496. Nothing here at the moment (I missed a couple of cheap ones the other week). Hope something turns up soon. I plan to just set it up basically for the time being (perhaps running the mid/treble from it as well to start off with (before I get into finding the right cap values for the passive line level operation on that branch) and of course I'll look into setting up with a microphone after that is all sorted.
        You are right about the modding, - very good thing to do. It looks like the Endler and the Audiosmile mods both alter the analogue output stage,. So you reckon that although they are different mods they probably both achieve a similar upgrading in sound quality from stock form?
        Cheers again,
        Colin
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Satie 23:04:46 08/11/10 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 16:09:13
        
        Yes, they all take care of the output stage so as to take out the insane pile of redundant gain pull down and gain architecture that Behringer put in.
        
        Take a look at the post I left for rrob on the crossover, yours is similar, and not like the 3.6 (cap only). The model 3.3 has a 90 uF cap and an 8.5 mH inductor.
        
        For the line level equivalent, you need two caps and a resistor.
        
        The circuit is in the pic above.
        
        General rules
        
        R1 = Ramp / 10
        
        C1 = 1/ 2 Pi R1 f
        
        C2 = C1/ 10
        
        Values of caps are typically in the nanofarads and tens of nanofarads.
        
        R2 is necessary when using tube preamps in order to bring up the load for the preamp, Typically this should be about 15 k ohms min. It will increase the insertion loss substantially, so don't put it in if you are using a SS preamp with single volt outputs (like the quad 66) with low output impedance.
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Davy 06:33:18 08/12/10 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Satie on August 11, 2010 at 23:04:46
        
        Cheers Satie, Great info, really appreciate your help once again!
        Am a bit lost again though to tell the truth though, but will try to understand this and get back to you!
        Could using these caps resistors etc, be avoided output if I run mid/treble section actively from the Behringer instead (via power amp)? (like Steve is doing?). I know it won't sound as good as your suggestion, but for something more simple to get up and running?!, Or does it depend on what power amp I am using to power the mid/treble section?
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Satie 09:55:03 08/12/10 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Davy on August 12, 2010 at 06:33:18
        
        Yes, for sure you can do it, but you need to understand that the original stock crossover slope here is second order not first.
        
        The other thing is that it will make it necessary (rather than a nice thing to do) to upgrade the Behringer DCX. Our friend Keith here couldn't stand the Behringer at the mids/highs but was unwilling to put anything into modding till he had proven to himself that biamping works for him. Obviously it couldn't because the top end was irritating and he eventually gave up.
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Davy 13:09:23 08/12/10 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Satie on August 12, 2010 at 09:55:03
        
        Thanks a lot Satie,
        Well Steve said he used the Behringer in stock form before he got it up graded and whilst it was better upgraded and has better (less) gain, stock form was still acceptable to him. So I will try it to see how it sounds.
        
        I'm a bit lost when you say
        "you need to understand that the original stock crossover slope here is second order not first."
        
        So are you saying if I use the Behringer it will be a first order slope whcih is wrong, - and it should be second? I am a bit lost, - I thought the Behringer was splitting at the bass/mid junction only which is 3rd order?
        
        I'm going to also have to try to understand the diagram and notes you posted for me and Rob/Randy. So Randy should definitely put his 2 caps and resistors at speaker level becuase he is using that Threshold amp but I shoudl be OK doing this at line level? (and save a lot of money getting smaller components?, - hopefully!!)
        
        Thanks once again,
        Colin
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Satie 12:59:29 08/14/10 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Davy on August 12, 2010 at 13:09:23
        
        Hey Davy you got a little lost.
        
        First, the Behringer has adjustable slopes, it is not a fixed slope device. So what I am saying is that you will need to program in a second order slope rather than a first order (which is appropriate for an MG 3.6).
        
        Magnepan normally builds crossovers asymmetrically, the low pass is an order higher than the high pass to the next higher driver. They then space the crossover somewhat widely to minimize phase or closely to fill in the dip in the crossover region, in which case the asymmetry allows the avoidance of cancellation off axis.
        
        the IIIa 3.3 and 3.6 external crossovers are all different.
        The IIIa and 3,3 have second order crossovers for the mid/tweeter combo. The values are different for both, with the 3.3 having a lower crossover frequency and hence a higher value cap and inductor. The line level equivalent would be like the one I posted above.
        
        The MG3.6 has a simpler crossover for the midrange (1st order HP, 3rd LP) but a fourth order for the bass, a departure from prior maggie crossovers. I initially gave you a structure that is appropriate for the 3.6 (as I was helping a couple of folks with that model just before) but not right for your 3.3 or rrob's IIIa. It would work, but not be an exact equivalent to stock.
        
        In the 3.3 you have the woofer with third order low pass, The midrange has a second order high pass (in the external crossover) and inside the speaker we have a third order low pass for the midrange and a second order high pass for the tweeter.
        
        The 3.3 can be successfully crossed over with a third order electronic crossover for triamping, though the stock crossover differs in having a second order midrange high pass and a second order tweeter high pass. The sharper orders on the low pass filters cut off the drivers one to two octaves below their cavity resonances, for the benefit of clarity. The stock high pass filters follow the natural second order rolloff. With the third order electronic crossover, the asymmetrical crossovers are replaced with symmetrical ones and the alignment becomes orthogonal - thus allowing a somewhat broader sweet spot. The crossover area would not be as well integrated as in the stock crossover's careful alignment.
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Davy 14:35:18 08/14/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Satie on August 14, 2010 at 12:59:29
        
        Hi Satie,
        Sorry for my technical incompetance!, - thanks for the explanation, - I think I just about roughly understand that (well sort of!). So tiamping the maggies with an active crossover such as the Behringer would not be as straightforward as I thought (if you wanted to get the same good driver integration as with the stock crossover) due to the asymmetrial arrangement of the stock crossover.
        So sorry for the misinformation Randy!
        However back to biamping and our current dilemmas, - am I right (in the post from easlier today), - in thinking Rob could just drive the bass panel actively using an active crossover and then use his now available MGIIIa external crossover box on the end of the Threshold amp?, - feeeing the mid/tweeter inputs on the speaker from the mid/mid tweeter outputs on the external crossover box, - as it has the same cap and inductor in it as the schematic you put up for him? Obviously the bass outputs on the external crossover box would be unused as the Behringer is being used as the crossover for the bass.
        As for me I am in a different situation as I don't have the external crossover boxes. I am now tempted to buy them having reaslised you could do the above and that's quite simple to hook up, - would the above be accetpable from a sound point of view?, - basically drive the bass driver actively using Behringer and the mid/tweeter completely passively after the power amp? It would be nice to have the external crososver boxes in case I ever need to use just one amp on its own or if I ever wanted to resell the 3.3Rs.
        Obviously I could just buy the Behringer and use that for the bass and put the first stage of the mid crososver passively at line level like you suggest in your diagram (2 resistors and 2 caps). I would not then need the external crossover boxes. Might the sound be a little better on the mid and treble doing this , as the first stage of that part of the crossver would then be line level not speaker level ? is that right?
        Could I also instead go all the way and build myself a version of the entire external crossover box at line level instead? The mid/tweeter first stage does not look too hard (using the 2 resistors and 2 caps in you diagram), but is the bass part straightforward to replicate at line level too? Or is that not possible? And if it was possible would the results be as good as using the Behringer on the bass?
        If I did it all passive line level I suppose I could use my Moth passive preamp between active preamp and the Quad 606 power amp (which has higher gain than the NAD208 amp I have) to balance the volume levels for the two sections.
        Of course this option (building it all at line level) looks like it might be quite a bit cheaper than the other options!
        Thanks for the advice yet again!,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/14/10
        
        RE: DIGITAL only - Satie 16:30:17 08/15/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Davy on August 14, 2010 at 14:35:18
        
        The Behringer allows for any filter alignment you can conceive, so it is not a problem to perfectly reproduce the stock slopes and obtain Magnepan's chosen driver integration. After some time with the Behringer you can also try to tailor the bass - midrange crossover to fit the acoustics of your room better. So you were right earlier.
        
        Re rrob's option of doing the bass with an active and crossing the mid/treble passively with the stock box, it is plainly doable. But that would mostly improve the bass. The top end will benefit from the Threshold remaining within its class A power delivery envelope for the bulk of playback time rather than only some of it (as is the case when it is tapped to power the bass too).
        
        Sound wise, the parts in the mid/treble high pass in both the IIIa and 3.3 are really weak and old components and their replacement with good quality line level components would be a substantial benefit - in some aspects, even the stock Behringer will sound better.
        
        "Obviously I could just buy the Behringer and use that for the bass and put the first stage of the mid crososver passively at line level like you suggest in your diagram (2 resistors and 2 caps). I would not then need the external crossover boxes. Might the sound be a little better on the mid and treble doing this , as the first stage of that part of the crossver would then be line level not speaker level ? is that right?"
        YES absolutely!!! and it would be more than a little better.
        
        You can build a purely passive version at line level for the bass and mid/treble, but it is no easy task (I tried it) as the insertion loss of a third order crossover for the bass will make it necessary to put in a gain stage and a volume control unless you build it with inductors - which will be warehouse sized spools of magnet wire or will have to have a ferrite core like Marchand uses for their passives. Since you have excess preamps, you can use one for the extra gain stage on the bass.
        
        You will need at least one active preamp if you go all passive with the Quad, because its output voltage is low and will be used up in the insertion loss of the crossovers. The diagram I gave you contains an extra resistor R2 that would not be necessary with a solid state preamp like your quad.
        
        Thanks Satie, I'm getting there! - (slowly!) - Davy 17:43:28 08/15/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: DIGITAL only posted by Satie on August 15, 2010 at 16:30:17
        
        Thanks Satie,
        Thanks a lot for your great advice once again.
        I have got the point now about the external crossover boxes, - it really is a waste of money buying them and the only advantage of having them is if I ever want to resell the speakers. So I will definitely try active or PLLXO options first, as I don't intend the sell the 3.3Rs anytime soon! (though mind I've not heard them in my room yet, they might terrible!, - lets hope not!)
        
        Ahh I see you if you want to use two PLLXOs you get too much insertion loss, particularly from the 3rd order one for the bass, unless you build one with inductors which I obviously can't do easily.
        
        So are you saying I could build a 3rd order PLLXO without inductors and use it for the bass if I use another active preamp?. I have another 2 available apart from the 2 Quad preamps (I will sell the Quad 66 but have have two NAD active preamp which sound fine (both with 2v output I think and capable of 12V peak). So where would I put the extra preamp? Between the main premamp and the 3rd order PLLXO or between the 3rd order PLLXO and the bass power amp? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question!
        
        I bought the other NAD 1000 1990s preamp recently (not got it yet) as a spare preamp. Its similar to my NAD 1155, but a little newer. I was trying the 1155 today against the Quad 66 and 99 preamps. It does sound comparable, - more attacking than the 66 and a but less clinical than the 99. So its not bad at all. Its perhaps not QUITE as good as either of the Quads but surprisingly close, and it got a lot more gain too.
        
        I like the Quad 99 preamp as it has it has remote volume, the tilt (which does work OK I've found out), and the adjustable phono stage (which I tried to day and it pretty good as well and very convenient). And of course it has adjustable input sensitivity on all inputs. The 66 sounds good too and a bit more musical but a bit too laid back so I'll resell that and keep the 99 for its more attacking sound and better features.
        I'm guessing the NAD 1000 preamp will sound pretty similar to the 1155. Will find out when it comes.
        So yeah I'd like to use the Quad 99 as the main preamp if possible. But like you say it has low output, so I if necessary I could use one of the NADs instead as the main preamp if that would be better for PLLXOs. The NAD 1155 has two sort of preamp outputs, - one is normal level and one is "high" level, - looking at the specs. The high one does have more gain than the normal one. And according to the specs the high level output can output a max peak voltage of of 15V in 10K (normal output gives 12V max into 20K). The output impedance of them is 600 ohms for the normal output and 220 for the high. So I think either of these outputs on this NAD 1155 preamp is more beefy than either of the Quad preamps. The NAD 1000 preamp only has the normal level output but according the specs again it can also output 12V into 20K max output, (and its output impedance is 220ohms).
        
        So yeah do you think it would be possible to use one of these higher output NAD preamps feedling 2 PLLXOs, or would I still need another active preamp for the bass side? Like I say I could use the Quad 99 (or a NAD) and one of the NADs on the bass side if needed.
        
        I hear what you say about the Behringer, the problem is right now I missed those used ones on Ebay (and none more have turned up) and I can't afford to buy a new one right now until I sell the Quad 66! (its summer and selling is slow!), and I need to pay for the 3.3Rs this week too (got them for �700 without the crossover boxes).
        So I was thinking of maybe trying the 2 PLLXOs just to get started, then get the Behringer which I have the funds. I recognise the Behringer is great to have because the flexiblilibty it has in optimising the bass, and the sound potential if you get the output stage upgraded.
        
        I've been reading aroudn about PLLXOs and foudn diagrams of 1st and 2nd order one but now 3rd order ones. I read though that a 3rd order low pass PLLXO is just three caps and three resistors? Is that right? And if so have you any ideas how I calculate the values? (haven't a clue!) If this is a really bad idea then let me know (and I'll wait and get a DCX2496 instead) but like I say I have 3 active SS preamps (Quad 99, Nad 1155 and NAD 1000) I could use for this 2 PLLXO set up if it might work.
        
        Thanks again for your patience and help!
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 11:34:49 08/11/10 (13)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 03:52:58
        
        You can get a calibrated Behringer for not that much:
        
        http://www.cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_behringer.html
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 12:12:21 08/11/10 (12)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 11, 2010 at 11:34:49
        
        Thanks Josh,
        Thats cool, - I will consider that, - its pretty cheap you are right. Err, - how hard is it to use it?, - it is nearly as simple as locate the mic, then press a button on the DCX2496 to take some measurements or do you need to be a rocket scientist to use it?!!
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 12:59:57 08/11/10 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 12:12:21
        
        I've never used the DCX2496, but AFAIK it doesn't have automatic calibration. In which case you'll have to do some response sweeps using your computer, and adjust the filters/crossover frequency to get the LF response (I assume you're using it on your subs?) that you want. Don't forget a mic pre and a stand! A little boom is good for response measurements. Keep in mind that you should try to get as close to the response as you can before applying EQ, since it can have audible side effects. Also, that you can't EQ out a null.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 13:33:51 08/11/10 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 11, 2010 at 12:59:57
        
        Thanks for the tips!, I am a bit lost with it really, - so you do test tone from the computer (do you mean play through the DCX2496). And you are hooking up the mic to the DCX? Have you any ideas how much a suitable mic preamp and stand cost.
        As for the subs, I have two but not sure how they are going to blend with the Maggies. So you can use the Mike to set it up for the subs too (the crossover points for the sub etc?)
        
        I will no doubt just do as Steve has done for the time being and try to replicate the stock crossover points and volume. Then I'll look into doing the mic! And setting up the subs as well!
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 16:57:48 08/11/10 (9)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 13:33:51
        
        The mic goes into the preamp, the preamp into your computer. Stand maybe $20-30, mic preamp not much more -- if you do a search online you'll find suggestions on preamps (or semi-pro sound cards) that are suitable, you might begin by checking that Beringer calibration site to see if they have a FAQ.
        
        The test signal originates in your computer. You'll need a program to generate the signal and plot the results, I believe there are some that are free.
        
        Agree that beginning with the stock crossover points makes sense. Then you can experiment with different slopes/characteristics/crossover points. Are you going to be using the Beringer for everything, or just the bass?
        
        Also, yes, you should add the subs in after you have the main speakers tweaked out. When you do add the sub, you may find that you want to tweak out the resonant boost in the Maggie woofer.
        
        I suggest that, at least to start, you equalize only the bass, maybe the 100-200 Hz Allison suckout. Higher frequency EQ can easily do more harm than good. You have to take multiple readings and it's difficult to get consistent results. Then you have to know what to tweak and what to ignore. So you'd want to bone up on the topic and get the bass and crossovers OK first, and even then, you may find, depending on the tools at your disposal, that EQ in the mids and highs can do more harm than good. Whereas bass EQ is fairly simple, the rules being optimize bass first as much as possible and you can't take out deep dips caused by cancellation. Those require changes in listening/speaker location, and to the extent that that doesn't work, bass traps.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 17:57:01 08/11/10 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 11, 2010 at 16:57:48
        
        Thanks a lot for the info Josh, - suppose it does not sound too hard...!, - I will give it a go though I reckon! I'll start with sotck crossover points and take it from there
        Do you think the bass equilisation etc you can do with the DCX2496 will really make a huge difference to the overall sound in one's particular room? I knwo you've not used the DCX2496 yourself but I guess you've probabyl used seomthign similar.
        
        I have a Quad 66 preamp I just bought to go with my Quad 606 (driving my 2.7s, - not got the 3.3Rs yet). The spectral tilt tone control on this preamp is better than any other tone control I have ever used and works wonders with the 2.7s in my room (I use a profile that raises post 1Khz and lowers below 1Khz). I think the 2.7s have a falling frequency response tendency in my room (they sound dark and a bit bloated), and this tilt control really does work wonders to fix the problem to a large extent!. Its an invaluable control for anyone using dipole speakers I think, - particularly as its so easy to use, - its up or down and that's it, - a toddler could use it! I guess I can try to change things using the Behringer but if I get stuck I can still use this great and very easy adjustment on the Quad preamp to equalise the Maggies in my room.
        Saite says full triamping Maggies obviously give you better even better control to finely adjust things if you have a rising or falling FR tendency in your room (as you can adjust the relative volume of each section with triamping) but until I get there I live do without this tilt control! Now I've experienced this there is no way going back to a preamp without it! Might sell most of my other preamps actually!
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 18:17:09 08/11/10 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 17:57:01
        
        That tilt control sounds like a great idea. The ear is tolerant of that sort of gradual change. What it doesn't seem to like is mismatched attempts at precision EQ, e.g., with a 10 band equalizer or a parametric. Some of this may have to do with the sonic characteristics of the circuit, and some may have to do with curves that aren't minimum phase. But trying to fix peaks and dips with a 10 band always seems to degrade the sound, you need at least a 1/3 octave EQ and even then it's chancy. You can EQ the room to within +/- 1 dB, but it doesn't sound natural. More sophisticated digital equalizers like DEQX, on the other hand, can work wonders and I'm looking forward to playing with Thuneau Allocator.
        
        I'd say that the EQ in the DCX2496 can indeed work wonders in the bass. It just isn't possible to get a smooth bass response in a small room without some very serious room treatment, most good speakers are fairly reasonable in the mids and highs but below 200 Hz you're always going to be stuck with very audible peaks and dips. I don't know if they can run enough filters in the DCX to properly equalize the treble, people tend not to use it there because it doesn't sound as good in the highs as it does in the lows.
        
        There's also an interesting little bass-only equalizer that someone makes for about $350, I think it has automatic EQ. Don't remember what it's called but it was reviewed in a recent Stereophile. You could get one of those and dispense with the measurement mic, although you'd lose the ability to tailor the mids and highs later on, except by ear. Also, a frequency display is invaluable for matching subwoofer levels, you can try to do it with tones or music but it's a fairly frustrating business, among other things, the Fletcher-Munson effect means that the ear's sensitivity to bass is strongly dependent on how loud the music is.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 19:11:56 08/11/10 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 11, 2010 at 18:17:09
        
        Hi Josh,
        Thanks a lot for the info, - I can see the DCX2496 is a great option for bass equalization (or maybe the other unit you mention but were not sure of the name of).
        
        Having Maggies I think I really am going to be stuck with a Quad preamp for a long time now due to these tone controls, - I am picking up a newer Quad 99 preamp tomorrow that has the same tone controls, - it should hopefully sound a little better than the 66 though (will sell one of them on).
        The 66 preamp also has an effective bass cut filter of two possible levels. The first level works well too with the 2.7s in my room and you can use it in combo with the tilt as well. There is also a treble cut filter of two steps but I don't use that (perhaps someone else would in a different room). I am pretty sure these tone controls were designed for use with the ESL63 electrostatic speaker of course, - where the same rising or falling FR tendency can occur in some rooms, but like you say they these tone controls are probably effective as they change things over a large amount of frequencies very gradually, and in my opinion it really does work,- and does not degrade the sound either, - I can't live without these controls now, - and I understand now why everyone else who tries out these tone controls says the same thing.
        
        So perhaps I can begin to tune the sound with my Maggies with the tilt using the Quad preamp to get a nice starting point, like you say its probably very hard to equalize the treble and mid very accurately without something very sophisticated but the Quad will give me something quite nice to start with that I can live with. Then I can of course I can then use the DCX2496 to equalize the bass on top of this.
        
        Thanks too on the info about bass, - I can see its hard to reproduce accurately in small room if you have dips etc. I have noticed that for sure in my small room. When you say drastic treatment what do you mean? Concrete again?!!
        
        Here is the Quad 66 preamp manual, -
        http://www.dadaelectronics.eu/_literature_32811/Quad_66_User_manual
        
        You can see on page 7 amd 8 (real pages) that the tilt control, bass cut, and treble cut is explained there, and if you look at the appendix on page 12 it shows you the graph of what the controls do in full for all the steps. My ONLY SINGLE complaint about these tone controls is that whilst there is enough range of adjustment the steps of each change could do with being a little finer, - on the tilt for example there are 7 positions (including flat) , - what would be ideal in my opinion would be for there to be 13 steps of the same range (so double the fineness/resolution if you see what I mean. The way it is now the change on each step is 1dB difference between the middle 1Khz position and ends. 0.5dB steps would have been better but I'm still not complaining that much! These tone controls are still THE business for something so effective that's also so very simple to use!
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 20:12:43 08/11/10 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 11, 2010 at 19:11:56
        
        No concrete, just bass traps in the corners, then along the walls if you really want to go to town. The idea is to absorb the bass reflections so as to minimize standing waves.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 06:27:52 08/12/10 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 11, 2010 at 20:12:43
        
        Cool Thanks Josh, I might try this. I see you can get quite cheap bass traps on Ebay etc, but I guess the situation is the same as it is with the sounds insulation tiles etc?, - is the cheap stuff not worth buying as its not as effective?
        I could for sure put bass traps in the corners of the room(I assume you mean bottom corners of the room, do you mean all 4?), - do you need to put them in the top corners as well?
        
        What I have really noticed a problem with the bass when using dynamic speakers in my room, - with my big Proac 3.5s. The bass sound fine when you are standing up, BUT when you sit down it decreases a LOT!, - which is obviosuly not great, and there are indeed I am sure suckouts and peaks throughout the bass region. running the two REL subwoofer with the Proacs can help the bass be a bit more even, but there is still obvious peak and dips and the bass does still decrease when you sit down. I guess this might tbe due to standing waves?
        With the Maggies the bass does not disappear like this when you sit down, which is nice - though there are some other problems of course, - the Maggies don't have enough space to breathe in my small room and there is the falling FR response with increased frequency and the 2.7s for sure sound a bit bloated and dark in this small room and the bass is a bit too much in general, but like I say the Quad tilt control works wonders to improve things a lot for a easy fix that makes the speakers sound a lot more acceptable without doing anything drastic. I bought the Quad 99 preamp today, am going to try it out tonight vs the 66.
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 08:26:39 08/12/10 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 12, 2010 at 06:27:52
        
        Depends on the kind of bass trap. Sometimes panels are put in the corners where three walls meet, up to eight of them. Tube traps, on the other hand, are as the name suggests big tubes that stand in the corners, so you'd use a maximum of four in the corners, then if you wanted to go to town, maybe one in the middle of the speaker wall and some more along the walls at integral divisions. The idea is to get the trap where the standing wave has a pressure maximum so that you can absorb the most energy.
        
        As to which traps are best, I'm not up on what's available now. ASC tube traps are an old standby, but there are many alternatives. The traps you choose, and how many you use, are going to depend on the room itself, as well as cost and WAF. It isn't just a matter of throwing traps in there. You need the right amount of absorption in the right places for your room, and you have to consider whether you just want to absorb bass with a resonant trap or whether you want to absorb mids and highs as well with an absorptive one. If you use resonators, you need to choose the frequencies and the Q of the resonators.
        
        Chances are you'd hear an improvement if you threw a couple of tube traps in the front corners, they're closer to a one-size-fits-all solution than resonators, but I think you're better off if you have some measurements or room mode calculations, particularly since your room is so problematic, and some idea of the reverberation time in your room so you don't over-absorb the mids and highs.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 12:57:39 08/12/10 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 12, 2010 at 08:26:39
        
        Many thanks Josh,
        Those tube traps don't look too hard to fit in the room, - four in the corners and some on the sepaker wall. as for the other type putting one on each place where 3 walls meet obviously mean 8 of them which is quite a lot and it might be hard to put up the high ones!
        
        The ASC tube traps look very highly regarded from what I have read so far, - but to tell the truth the price is a bit of a problem!
        
        I know this might not be as good but how abotu a DIY tube trap like this?
        http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/traps/traps.html
        
        Does not look too hard if I can get the right fibregless wrap
        I'm not bothered about the aesthetics!
        Worth trying do you reckon?
        
        You are right though I need to get some measurements done too, - am going to look into this soon anyway for optimising the Behringer etc
        
        Cheers,
        Colin
        
        RE: Analog only - josh358 13:13:16 08/12/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by Davy on August 12, 2010 at 12:57:39
        
        I think DIY is a great way to go. There are other DIY designs online as well, not sure how good they are but really, perfection isn't needed here. The one thing I'd warn against is overdoing it. People who are getting into room treatment tend to think "Hey, this is great, more must be better!" but what you're aiming at is the sweet point . Two channel stereo requires a contribution from the room because it doesn't include enough ambiance. If the room is too dead, imaging will be great, but the sound won't come alive. So I'd start with a couple in the front corners, then try adding the rear corners, then maybe between the speakers, then along the walls. If the room starts to get too dead and you still don't have the bass resonances under control, you'll need to use resonators instead of absorbers. Also don't forget that planars like diffusers at their first reflection points, particularly behind the speakers as we discussed a while ago, but also on the sides. And that diffusion and mid/high absorption can usually be achieved naturally, with bookshelves, carpets, furniture, wall hangings, and drapes. Used minimally, of course.
        
        RE: Analog only - Davy 13:19:29 08/12/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Analog only posted by josh358 on August 12, 2010 at 13:13:16
        
        Cool,
        thanks a lot for this info Josh, - didn't know these tubes existed until today! And that you coudl possibly make DIY versions and save a lot of money!
        
        I will look into doing it by DIY then and I'll be conservative like you say. Hoepeully it will improve my bass response in this room and with the Procas as well as the Maggies (The Procas are problematic when you sit down like I say). I will look into adding stuff at the first reflection for the Maggies too like you suggest.
        Cheers again,
        Colin
      - RE: Interesting... - rrob 17:26:58 08/10/10 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Interesting... posted by Davy on August 10, 2010 at 16:15:28
        
        Colin, thanks for your help. I was out of town all day.
        
        I'm considering all of the options. I am happy to report that the Threshold does not blow fuses when the wiring is done properly.
        
        RE: Interesting... - Davy 17:39:44 08/10/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Interesting... posted by rrob on August 10, 2010 at 17:26:58
        
        Cool,
        Glad to hear the when you hook up the Threshold to the speakers on its own (via the internal crossover then use both branches coming off it) the speaker is not blowing fuses. Guess its because the signal now reaching the mid/tweeter has less current in it and the midrange panel was being protected as designed when you wired the speakers in the previous way with both amps.
        If you need any help or anything explaining your biamp options then let us know. Not sure what you are thinking but if it was me I would probably try the line level cap first, - that the cheapest option for passive biamping (much cheaper than buying a XO-1). Then I'd probably rapidly go active after that using a Behringer DCX2496.
        
        All the best,
        Colin
        
        Edits: 08/10/10

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable