[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

However, the ca. -96 dB dynamic range of the device will be referenced to
+22 dB which is about 10 volts. The noise at the analog output terminals of
the DCX 2496 will be about 74 dB down.

That's pretty poor really.

Graham

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:39:10 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote:

No EQ filters set, in and out sliders to 0dB
Tthe 0 dB are local levels and translate to +22 dB in
the real world.


So what does that mean? That if I put a 1V signal into
the Behringer with 0dB set throughout I'll get 22V out????

Where this seems to be headed is that:

(1) If the DCX 2496 is set up to be overall, a unity gain device
(2) If the input is 1 volt

then:

The output will be 1 volt.

However, the ca. -96 dB dynamic range of the device will be referenced to
+22 dB which is about 10 volts. The noise at the analog output terminals of
the DCX 2496 will be about 74 dB down. If you put that into a really large
power amp whose gain control is set to max, and the speakers are fairly
efficient, then there will be considerable audible noise.

If you set up the DCX 2496 so that its overall gain is 5 or 14 dB, and you
set the gain of the power amp to be 14 dB less than max, then the noise
floor of the DCX2496 will be effectively 14 dB lower, or about 88 dB down.
This will reduce the noise at the speakers to a very significant degree.
There will still be about 6 dB worth of headroom in the DCX 2496, which
should be enough for a controlled circumstance like this.

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know why the DCX should
be so much worse than the XTA.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

However, the ca. -96 dB dynamic range of the device will
be referenced to +22 dB which is about 10 volts. The
noise at the analog output terminals of the DCX 2496
will be about 74 dB down.

That's pretty poor really.

It is pretty typical of high-output digital equipment. One reason why most
audio interfaces have FS output voltages between 1 and 6 volts.

An effective method for managing this sitaution was provided: Make the
amplifier the DCX drives far less sensitive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:39:10 +0100, Dirk Bruere at
NeoPax wrote:

No EQ filters set, in and out sliders to 0dB
Tthe 0 dB are local levels and translate to +22 dB in
the real world.


So what does that mean? That if I put a 1V signal into
the Behringer with 0dB set throughout I'll get 22V
out????

Where this seems to be headed is that:

(1) If the DCX 2496 is set up to be overall, a unity
gain device (2) If the input is 1 volt

then:

The output will be 1 volt.

However, the ca. -96 dB dynamic range of the device will
be referenced to +22 dB which is about 10 volts. The
noise at the analog output terminals of the DCX 2496
will be about 74 dB down. If you put that into a really
large power amp whose gain control is set to max, and
the speakers are fairly efficient, then there will be
considerable audible noise. If you set up the DCX 2496 so that its
overall gain is 5
or 14 dB, and you set the gain of the power amp to be 14
dB less than max, then the noise floor of the DCX2496
will be effectively 14 dB lower, or about 88 dB down.
This will reduce the noise at the speakers to a very
significant degree. There will still be about 6 dB worth
of headroom in the DCX 2496, which should be enough for
a controlled circumstance like this.

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know why
the DCX should be so much worse than the XTA.

I suspect that there are differences in default gain staging.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:39:10 +0100, Dirk Bruere at
NeoPax wrote:

No EQ filters set, in and out sliders to 0dB
Tthe 0 dB are local levels and translate to +22 dB in
the real world.

So what does that mean? That if I put a 1V signal into
the Behringer with 0dB set throughout I'll get 22V
out????
Where this seems to be headed is that:

(1) If the DCX 2496 is set up to be overall, a unity
gain device (2) If the input is 1 volt

then:

The output will be 1 volt.

However, the ca. -96 dB dynamic range of the device will
be referenced to +22 dB which is about 10 volts. The
noise at the analog output terminals of the DCX 2496
will be about 74 dB down. If you put that into a really
large power amp whose gain control is set to max, and
the speakers are fairly efficient, then there will be
considerable audible noise. If you set up the DCX 2496 so that its
overall gain is 5
or 14 dB, and you set the gain of the power amp to be 14
dB less than max, then the noise floor of the DCX2496
will be effectively 14 dB lower, or about 88 dB down.
This will reduce the noise at the speakers to a very
significant degree. There will still be about 6 dB worth
of headroom in the DCX 2496, which should be enough for
a controlled circumstance like this.

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know why
the DCX should be so much worse than the XTA.

I suspect that there are differences in default gain staging.

FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and XTA at £1500
why don't they fix it?
What really ****es me off about Behringer products is that they cut
corners that need not be cut.

Dirk



--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you set up the DCX 2496 so that its overall gain is 5 or 14 dB, and you
set the gain of the power amp to be 14 dB less than max, then the noise
floor of the DCX2496 will be effectively 14 dB lower, or about 88 dB down.
This will reduce the noise at the speakers to a very significant degree.
There will still be about 6 dB worth of headroom in the DCX 2496, which
should be enough for a controlled circumstance like this.

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know why the DCX should
be so much worse than the XTA.

Looks like Behringer ****ed up the design.

Reading the spec sheet, they fudge the output noise spec so as to reference it to
+22dBu. According to that, the output noise is -68dBu which is shockingly bad.

And they did the PC soundcard maker's trick of quoting the converter's theoretical
performance instead of how it actually performs in their kit.

Laughable ! And shameful. A totally useless pice of kit for the domestic
environment.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

I suspect that there are differences in default gain staging.

FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and XTA at £1500
why don't they fix it?
What really ****es me off about Behringer products is that they cut
corners that need not be cut.

It's an attitude thing I suppose. They only feel the need to make things 'good
enough'.

Theoretically one could reprogram the thing I suppose.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know
why the DCX should be so much worse than the XTA.

I suspect that there are differences in default gain
staging.

FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and
XTA at £1500 why don't they fix it?

I suspect it has something to do with the design philosophies of the chief
engineer.

What really ****es me off about Behringer products is
that they cut corners that need not be cut.

The choice we are discussing should cost $0.00 to make either way.

I suspect that they made the DCX 2496 the way they did because they thought
it was best that way.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Laughable ! And shameful. A totally useless pice of kit
for the domestic environment.

If you use pro audio power amps at home like I do, you just set the input
level control appropriately, and move on.

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...
FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and XTA at £1500
why don't they fix it?

Frankly I don't see that one as a major problem. A proper sound engineer
should understand gain structure and equipment levels.

What really ****es me off about Behringer products is that they cut
corners that need not be cut.

If you think that's bad, consider their USB and firewire audio adapters that
can overload when used with a domestic CD player, let alone any pro-audio
set up. :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Laughable ! And shameful. A totally useless pice of kit
for the domestic environment.

Which is probably why it's not targeted at the domestic user.

If you use pro audio power amps at home like I do, you just set the input
level control appropriately, and move on.

Yep, but getting sufficient input level to the X-over, in a domestic
environment may be more tricky?

MrT.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and error.
Still not good enough though, plus I still don't know
why the DCX should be so much worse than the XTA.

I suspect that there are differences in default gain
staging.

FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and
XTA at £1500 why don't they fix it?

I suspect it has something to do with the design philosophies of the chief
engineer.

What really ****es me off about Behringer products is
that they cut corners that need not be cut.

The choice we are discussing should cost $0.00 to make either way.

I suspect that they made the DCX 2496 the way they did because they thought
it was best that way.

Well, the s/w is total **** as well.
I was ****ing about with the RS232 comms protocol with a PC connection
(Behringer won't release details) and one of the packets I sent
overwrote the boot flash. No CRC (or any) checks on packet data etc etc
Utter crap.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Mr.T wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...
FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150 and XTA at £1500
why don't they fix it?

Frankly I don't see that one as a major problem. A proper sound engineer
should understand gain structure and equipment levels.

What really ****es me off about Behringer products is that they cut
corners that need not be cut.

If you think that's bad, consider their USB and firewire audio adapters that
can overload when used with a domestic CD player, let alone any pro-audio
set up. :-)

MrT.



But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...
If you think that's bad, consider their USB and firewire audio adapters
that
can overload when used with a domestic CD player, let alone any
pro-audio
set up. :-)

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Partly a poor choice of engineers maybe, and mainly a desire to make the
specs look better regardless of useability it seems to me.

Pity, because I still think they make some outstanding value for money
products.
You do need to check what you are buying though, and accept the limitations.

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Eeyore" wrote

Laughable ! And shameful. A totally useless pice of kit
for the domestic environment.

Which is probably why it's not targeted at the domestic user.

If you use pro audio power amps at home like I do, you just set the input
level control appropriately, and move on.

Yep, but getting sufficient input level to the X-over, in a domestic
environment may be more tricky?

Impossible for all practical purposes..

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Because it would cost more to get it right ?

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Because it would cost more to get it right ?

The real shame is that it often wouldn't.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message

Which is what I ended up doing through trial and
error. Still not good enough though, plus I still
don't know why the DCX should be so much worse than
the XTA.

I suspect that there are differences in default gain
staging.

FFS, if that is all it is between a Behringer at £150
and XTA at £1500 why don't they fix it?

I suspect it has something to do with the design
philosophies of the chief engineer.

What really ****es me off about Behringer products is
that they cut corners that need not be cut.

The choice we are discussing should cost $0.00 to make
either way. I suspect that they made the DCX 2496 the way they did
because they thought it was best that way.

Well, the s/w is total **** as well.

It can be useful. I know people who do well with DCX 2496s.

I was ****ing about with the RS232 comms protocol with a
PC connection (Behringer won't release details) and one
of the packets I sent overwrote the boot flash. No CRC
(or any) checks on packet data etc etc Utter crap.

Seems like some refinement might be in order. Given that I'm seeing DCX
2496s going for like $200 it may well be that Behringer is either going to
quit the market (as they did with the DDX 3216) or come out with a new
model.

If its a new model, then the software will get a good going over, and the
serial port will be replaced or augmented by USB or FW.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote
in
message

Laughable ! And shameful. A totally useless pice of kit
for the domestic environment.

Which is probably why it's not targeted at the domestic
user.

If you use pro audio power amps at home like I do, you
just set the input level control appropriately, and move
on.

Yep, but getting sufficient input level to the X-over, in
a domestic environment may be more tricky?

Most modern consumer sources provide signals that peak in the 1 to 2 volt
range, which is usually enough to get pro audio signal processors out of the
mud.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Because it would cost more to get it right ?

The real shame is that it often wouldn't.

They'd have to employ a better design team.

Graham

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Eeyore wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Because it would cost more to get it right ?

Graham

And for a 10% price hike they could compete with stuff costing 10x the
price.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Eeyore wrote:

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.
Because it would cost more to get it right ?
The real shame is that it often wouldn't.

They'd have to employ a better design team.

I suspect that's the real truth of the matter - peanuts buying monkeys.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what components are used.
They seem overall to be pretty good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps.
What I can't reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of possibilites that
I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p are carried on
an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It is very, very
impressive. It's S/N performance is excellent.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what components are used.
They seem overall to be pretty good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps.
What I can't reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of possibilites that
I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p are carried on
an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It is very, very
impressive. It's S/N performance is excellent.

Trevor Wilson

But nowhere near as impressive as the XTA at around $3500.
Why?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.

Because it would cost more to get it right ?


And for a 10% price hike they could compete with stuff costing 10x the
price.

Such things don't seem to bother them.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Mr.T" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

But why do they do it? It wouldn't take much more effort to make a truly
excellent product. They've done the hard bit ie metalwork, shiny knobs,
mass production etc and they (generally) use the right components.
Because it would cost more to get it right ?
The real shame is that it often wouldn't.

They'd have to employ a better design team.

I suspect that's the real truth of the matter - peanuts buying monkeys.

I never got as far as discovering what Behringer might pay.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what components are used.
They seem overall to be pretty good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps.
What I can't reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of possibilites that
I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p are carried on
an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It is very, very
impressive. It's S/N performance is excellent.

We just established it's s/n ratio is rubbish though. It's -90dB or so ref **
+22dBu** or somesuch. That's an absurd way to spec such a device.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what components are used.
They seem overall to be pretty good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps.
What I can't reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of possibilites that
I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p are carried on
an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It is very, very
impressive. It's S/N performance is excellent.


But nowhere near as impressive as the XTA at around $3500.
Why?

Possibly down to both a different DSP processor and the EQ algorithms used. You
can get serious internal clipping problems in digital equalisers esp at low
frequencies IIRC and that results in you having to discard what might otherwise
seem to be adequate headroom to compensate and that then brings up the noise
floor.

What's the DSP chip in the DCX2496 ? If it's that TI TMS something (TMS57002 ?)
, that'll be the problem.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Yep, but getting sufficient input level to the X-over, in
a domestic environment may be more tricky?

Most modern consumer sources provide signals that peak in the 1 to 2 volt
range, which is usually enough to get pro audio signal processors out of
the
mud.

But ~20dB worse than it should be in this case.
Looks like a market for a buffer amp, maybe unbalanced to balanced with
adjustable gain.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Because it would cost more to get it right ?

The real shame is that it often wouldn't.

They'd have to employ a better design team.

Or at least employ a design team :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...
And for a 10% price hike they could compete with stuff costing 10x the
price.

Hardly, the people who are convinced you always get what you pay for, MUST
pay top dollar. That's a whole market segment based on image, not
performance.
Behringer can never compete on image.

But hey why would they bother for a few percent more gross income. I'll bet
Behringer makes far more net profit P.A. than Lake does!

MrT.

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Because it would cost more to get it right ?
The real shame is that it often wouldn't.
They'd have to employ a better design team.

Or at least employ a design team :-)

Yes. Let's find whoever Behringer ripped the design from and give *them*
the kicking.

I do believe this is actually one of their own designs.

So what's the DSP chip inside it then ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what components are used.
They seem overall to be pretty good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps.
What I can't reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of possibilites that
I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p are carried on
an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?
**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It is very, very
impressive. It's S/N performance is excellent.

But nowhere near as impressive as the XTA at around $3500.
Why?

Possibly down to both a different DSP processor and the EQ algorithms used. You
can get serious internal clipping problems in digital equalisers esp at low
frequencies IIRC and that results in you having to discard what might otherwise
seem to be adequate headroom to compensate and that then brings up the noise
floor.

What's the DSP chip in the DCX2496 ? If it's that TI TMS something (TMS57002 ?)
, that'll be the problem.


I think it's Analog, maybe the 21262?

Yes, it has a SHARC. I'd expect them to be able to do better with one of those.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what
components are used. They seem overall to be pretty
good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps. What I can't
reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of
possibilites that I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of
a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p
are carried on an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It
is very, very impressive. It's S/N performance is
excellent.


But nowhere near as impressive as the XTA at around
$3500. Why?

Possibly down to both a different DSP processor and the
EQ algorithms used. You can get serious internal clipping
problems in digital equalisers esp at low frequencies
IIRC and that results in you having to discard what might
otherwise seem to be adequate headroom to compensate and
that then brings up the noise floor.

What's the DSP chip in the DCX2496 ? If it's that TI TMS
something (TMS57002 ?) , that'll be the problem.

It's an Analog Devices SHARC chip.

The converters are AKM parts.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what
components are used. They seem overall to be pretty
good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps. What I can't
reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of
possibilites that I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a
linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p
are carried on an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?

**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It
is very, very impressive. It's S/N performance is
excellent.

We just established it's s/n ratio is rubbish though.
It's -90dB or so ref ** +22dBu** or somesuch. That's an
absurd way to spec such a device.

Actual specs a

http://www.behringerdownload.de/DCX2...PECS_Rev_C.pdf

"Dynamic range 109 dB"

"Input, noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"Output noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"THD+N 0.007% (-83 dB) @ 0 dBu in"

"THD+N 0.004% (-87 dB) @ 10 dBu in"

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Eeyore wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Because it would cost more to get it right ?
The real shame is that it often wouldn't.
They'd have to employ a better design team.
Or at least employ a design team :-)
Yes. Let's find whoever Behringer ripped the design from and give *them*
the kicking.

I do believe this is actually one of their own designs.

So what's the DSP chip inside it then ?

Graham

IIRC AD 21262

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what
components are used. They seem overall to be pretty
good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps. What I can't
reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of
possibilites that I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of
a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p
are carried on an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?
**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It
is very, very impressive. It's S/N performance is
excellent.

But nowhere near as impressive as the XTA at around
$3500. Why?
Possibly down to both a different DSP processor and the
EQ algorithms used. You can get serious internal clipping
problems in digital equalisers esp at low frequencies
IIRC and that results in you having to discard what might
otherwise seem to be adequate headroom to compensate and
that then brings up the noise floor.

What's the DSP chip in the DCX2496 ? If it's that TI TMS
something (TMS57002 ?) , that'll be the problem.

It's an Analog Devices SHARC chip.

The converters are AKM parts.

And looking up the spec of the ADCs etc I'd expect 107dB or thereabouts.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what
components are used. They seem overall to be pretty
good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps. What I can't
reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of
possibilites that I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of a
linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p
are carried on an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?
**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It
is very, very impressive. It's S/N performance is
excellent.
We just established it's s/n ratio is rubbish though.
It's -90dB or so ref ** +22dBu** or somesuch. That's an
absurd way to spec such a device.

Actual specs a

http://www.behringerdownload.de/DCX2...PECS_Rev_C.pdf

"Dynamic range 109 dB"

"Input, noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"Output noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"THD+N 0.007% (-83 dB) @ 0 dBu in"

"THD+N 0.004% (-87 dB) @ 10 dBu in"

Those input and output noise figures should be a lot better given the
converters and opamps they are using.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

[Arny Krueger]

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
in message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
I've been looking inside one of these at what
components are used. They seem overall to be pretty
good eg AKM converters and 4580 opamps. What I can't
reconcile is why the DCX is so (comparatively) noisy
given the specs of the chips. There are a couple of
possibilites that I can see:
a) It uses a switching PSU for some reason instead of
a linear
b) The signals after the DACs but before the opamp o/p
are carried on an unshielded ribbon cable

Any other ideas?
Am I being unreasonable?
**Yep. I've used the 2496 in several installations. It
is very, very impressive. It's S/N performance is
excellent.
We just established it's s/n ratio is rubbish though.
It's -90dB or so ref ** +22dBu** or somesuch. That's an
absurd way to spec such a device.

Actual specs a

http://www.behringerdownload.de/DCX2...PECS_Rev_C.pdf

"Dynamic range 109 dB"

"Input, noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"Output noise -90 dbu (@22 dBu - 112 dB)"

"THD+N 0.007% (-83 dB) @ 0 dBu in"

"THD+N 0.004% (-87 dB) @ 10 dBu in"

Those input and output noise figures should be a lot
better given the converters and opamps they are using.


Remember for the DCX 2496, digital FS is at around +22 dBu.

If the box has 109 dB dynamic range at FS, dropping the level by 22 dB
automagically means that dynamic range can be no better than 87 dB at 0
dBu. Its only about 4 dB worse than that.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

Mr.T wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

Because it would cost more to get it right ?
The real shame is that it often wouldn't.
They'd have to employ a better design team.
Or at least employ a design team :-)
Yes. Let's find whoever Behringer ripped the design from and give *them*
the kicking.

I do believe this is actually one of their own designs.

So what's the DSP chip inside it then ?

Graham

IIRC AD 21262


Just had a look - it's the 21065 which is about 200MFLOPS compared to
the 21262 at 1200

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London