MarkZ
05-19-2006, 12:40 AM
Method
An unmodified Behringer DCX2496 was tested using Rightmark Audio Analyzer (http://audio.rightmark.org/products/rmaa.shtml). The recording device was an M-Audio Transit in loopback mode, set to 24-bit/48kHz sampling rate. The digital optical output of the Transit delivered the signal to a Behringer Ultramatch SRC2000 to convert the optical input to an AES/EBU XLR connection, which in turn delivered the digital signal to the Behringer DCX2496. Two channels of the DCX2496 (all processing options turned off) were then tested with the analog input of the Transit at -1 dB.
Baseline. First, a baseline was recorded (labeled "analog") using the analog output of the M-Audio Transit connected directly to the analog input -- a simple loopback test to determine the capabilities of the Transit. It's been found in a previous test (http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/playbackrecord.html) that the measurements were subtly changed by changing the balance between record level and playback level; specifically, noise, dynamic range, and crosstalk performance improved by a few dB when the playback level was at the maximum and the record level low, but distortion remained largely unchanged. Therefore, playback levels were set high and recording levels were set low and remained constant throughout all the tests. The analog loopback data is shown below; note that there's a slight deviation (underperformance) in this test in comparison to the other, probably because of the difference in sampling rate. As expected, the simple loopback test yielded the best performance. This performance was similar to other tests (http://learjeff.com/RMAA/results.html) using the same software.
Behringer DCX2496 performance. Next, the DCX2496 was tested at the same software playback/record level settings. The frequency response showed virtually no degradation in performance until about 10kHz, where there was a very slight (and steady) drop in level. Particularly noteworthy is the effect of the specialized anti-aliasing filter in the SRC2000 which resulted in a dramatic dropoff in frequency response at precisely 20kHz. Distortion performance was degraded slightly with the DCX2496, but remained surprisingly low. The biggest differences come with the noise, dynamic range, and crosstalk performance, perhaps due to the obvious requirement of a separate power supply for the Behringer devices, providing another opportunity for noise to enter the signal path and crosstalk to occur due to its naturally imperfect PSRR.
Inverter test. The next series tested the performance of the Behringer DCX2496 when powered by a low-cost inverter. The inverter, a 160w Jensen JP20, was powered off a 12v source -- the same source that powered the computer that provided the source tones. In addition, the playback level was decreased in this test (columns 3 and 4), accounting for the slight decrease in performance in comparison with the first test (column 2), consistent with previous data. Indeed, the inverter generated a substantial level of noise. The artifacts were particularly strong in the distortion tests, evident in the graphs provided, due to the nature of the signals used for those tests. However, the noise was still reasonably low (roughly -80 dB) and undetectable by ear. It's expected that an improvement may be achieved with a pure sine inverter. It's also possible that RF radiation or noise in the power source contributed to the degraded noise performance. However, it's been reported that the noise performance can be quite poor when using an inverter when the analog input of the DCX2496 is used, so its use is probably application dependent.
Shortcomings of the test. I was unable to verify the measurements on the oscilloscope, since I'm not equipped to make measurements on the order of microvolts. In addition, the paradigm relied on the assumption that the quality of the digital output of the M-Audio Transit was roughly equivalent to the analog output.
Summary
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/summary.jpg
Frequency Response
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/fr.png
Noise Level
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/ns.png
Dynamic Range
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/dr.png
THD+Noise
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/thd.png
Intermodulation Distortion
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/imd.png
Stereo Crosstalk
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/ct.png
An unmodified Behringer DCX2496 was tested using Rightmark Audio Analyzer (http://audio.rightmark.org/products/rmaa.shtml). The recording device was an M-Audio Transit in loopback mode, set to 24-bit/48kHz sampling rate. The digital optical output of the Transit delivered the signal to a Behringer Ultramatch SRC2000 to convert the optical input to an AES/EBU XLR connection, which in turn delivered the digital signal to the Behringer DCX2496. Two channels of the DCX2496 (all processing options turned off) were then tested with the analog input of the Transit at -1 dB.
Baseline. First, a baseline was recorded (labeled "analog") using the analog output of the M-Audio Transit connected directly to the analog input -- a simple loopback test to determine the capabilities of the Transit. It's been found in a previous test (http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/playbackrecord.html) that the measurements were subtly changed by changing the balance between record level and playback level; specifically, noise, dynamic range, and crosstalk performance improved by a few dB when the playback level was at the maximum and the record level low, but distortion remained largely unchanged. Therefore, playback levels were set high and recording levels were set low and remained constant throughout all the tests. The analog loopback data is shown below; note that there's a slight deviation (underperformance) in this test in comparison to the other, probably because of the difference in sampling rate. As expected, the simple loopback test yielded the best performance. This performance was similar to other tests (http://learjeff.com/RMAA/results.html) using the same software.
Behringer DCX2496 performance. Next, the DCX2496 was tested at the same software playback/record level settings. The frequency response showed virtually no degradation in performance until about 10kHz, where there was a very slight (and steady) drop in level. Particularly noteworthy is the effect of the specialized anti-aliasing filter in the SRC2000 which resulted in a dramatic dropoff in frequency response at precisely 20kHz. Distortion performance was degraded slightly with the DCX2496, but remained surprisingly low. The biggest differences come with the noise, dynamic range, and crosstalk performance, perhaps due to the obvious requirement of a separate power supply for the Behringer devices, providing another opportunity for noise to enter the signal path and crosstalk to occur due to its naturally imperfect PSRR.
Inverter test. The next series tested the performance of the Behringer DCX2496 when powered by a low-cost inverter. The inverter, a 160w Jensen JP20, was powered off a 12v source -- the same source that powered the computer that provided the source tones. In addition, the playback level was decreased in this test (columns 3 and 4), accounting for the slight decrease in performance in comparison with the first test (column 2), consistent with previous data. Indeed, the inverter generated a substantial level of noise. The artifacts were particularly strong in the distortion tests, evident in the graphs provided, due to the nature of the signals used for those tests. However, the noise was still reasonably low (roughly -80 dB) and undetectable by ear. It's expected that an improvement may be achieved with a pure sine inverter. It's also possible that RF radiation or noise in the power source contributed to the degraded noise performance. However, it's been reported that the noise performance can be quite poor when using an inverter when the analog input of the DCX2496 is used, so its use is probably application dependent.
Shortcomings of the test. I was unable to verify the measurements on the oscilloscope, since I'm not equipped to make measurements on the order of microvolts. In addition, the paradigm relied on the assumption that the quality of the digital output of the M-Audio Transit was roughly equivalent to the analog output.
Summary
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/summary.jpg
Frequency Response
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/fr.png
Noise Level
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/ns.png
Dynamic Range
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/dr.png
THD+Noise
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/thd.png
Intermodulation Distortion
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/imd.png
Stereo Crosstalk
http://mdz.no-ip.org/audio/benchtest/source/behringer/ct.png
