Behringer DCX2496 v. DBX Drive Rack?

[RedGTiVR6]

I know that there's a lot of discussion on here about these two units, but I've not seen a direct comparison.

Yes, they are in a different price ranges, but I'm still interested in comparing the two. I will have to run two of the Behringers so my price jumps to around $800 for the Behringers and $2000 or so for the DBX.

I've messed with the software some for the Behringer and am impressed with most of the functionality. I still need to pull settings from the 701 in the car and plug them into the software and see if there's enough processing power to do what I need on two units.

Can anyone compare in more detail the Behringer and the DBX?

Audio quality wise, tuning ability wise, useability wise, etc.

It would be greatly appreciated!

[durwood]

hahaha. Remember when I mentioned using the Behringer as an alternative to the driveracks over at mp3car.

Are you looking for subjective comparisons? or comparisons regarding processing power/limitations, or internal electronics?

I just saw recently threads/links that talked about upgrading specifics on the behringer.

[RedGTiVR6]

both?

care to link me to the upgrades on teh Behringer?

[durwood]

Crap I think I lost them unless these were it. Iread one that a guy said he had an altered output opamp board but I don't remember the link.

Pics

Mods?

[RedGTiVR6]

I had seen the PSU mods thread...I was hoping there might be a thread about modding the guts of the processor its self...might have to look into that a bit more.

[chad]

Saying DBX Driverack is like saying I have a Chevy car. It is a name for a whole line of products. Specifcally what model of driverack? Some really suck IMHO and some are awesome.

[RedGTiVR6]

sorry - I was under the impression that most people are using the 480 in the car.

[durwood]

I think the mod discussion was from the huge long thread here tha twas linked before

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...943&highlight=

[chad]

Originally Posted by RedGTiVR6

sorry - I was under the impression that most people are using the 480 in the car.

I think the 480 smokes the DCX, adjustments are finer, more ins, and more outs. That's just a few. But... you pay more... alot more.

But now that the 4800's are prevalent the 480's will be hitting the used market hard, they can probably be had soon for the price of 2 DCX's, which you would need to equal the number of in's and out's of the 480.

Chad

[thehatedguy]

The dBX is a much better processor...Mark had one in the 4-Runner and Doug Wrinker uses one in his BMW.

My 2 cents.

Winslow

[sqkev]

i've been using the dcx2496 for about 2-3 years now, not much to rave about in terms of absolute details. Stage seems rather compressed and narrowed. The pros really outweighs the cons though.
Ease of use, flexibility and price.

If I were to spend money on another processor, i'd get the deqx. DRC and crossover in an all-in-one unit.

Really though, the future of dsp is the computer and the dsp softwares. I prefer the cheap maya soundcard's sound much over the dcx2496.

[durwood]

Originally Posted by sqkev

Really though, the future of dsp is the computer and the dsp softwares. I prefer the cheap maya soundcard's sound much over the dcx2496.

You know I recently checked on Audiotrak and they finally updated the us site with the prodigy Hifi. A few sites are expecting the cards in soon. It looks like they disappeared for a while but are now making a small comeback. I don't know.

[RedGTiVR6]

Originally Posted by sqkev

Really though, the future of dsp is the computer and the dsp softwares. I prefer the cheap maya soundcard's sound much over the dcx2496.

If someone would take all of the software and write it into one program, then make a single sound card that would give the outputs needed, all would be good...but I don't think that's possible right now.

Currently you have to run a handfull of programs and have to make due with sound cards...which isn't ideal is most situations....actually, not even close to ideal...

[RedGTiVR6]

Originally Posted by thehatedguy

The dBX is a much better processor...Mark had one in the 4-Runner and Doug Wrinker uses one in his BMW.

I understand that and I'm aware of it...I've talked with Doug about making a PSU for the dbx for me.

However, at more than twice the price of this solution, and with the DBX being much more difficult to place into my vehicle in it's current configuration I have to consider my options.

Originally Posted by sqkev

not much to rave about in terms of absolute details. Stage seems rather compressed and narrowed.

See, this is what I'm concerned about...I would like to hear a comparison between it and the 701 really.

If it's better than a 701 but not as good as the dbx, then I'm fine.

Dono, maybe there's another processor option out there that I haven't been exposed to yet?

[audiguy]

Originally Posted by sqkev

i've been using the dcx2496 for about 2-3 years now, not much to rave about in terms of absolute details. Stage seems rather compressed and narrowed. The pros really outweighs the cons though.
Ease of use, flexibility and price.

If I were to spend money on another processor, i'd get the deqx. DRC and crossover in an all-in-one unit.

Really though, the future of dsp is the computer and the dsp softwares. I prefer the cheap maya soundcard's sound much over the dcx2496.

I agree with you on at least the first two counts. I have had my concerns about the sonic abilities of the dcx2496. On the other hand, I use a DEQX and like it a lot. It does things that other processors just can't do. I haven't yet reached sonic nirvanna with it, but I have more hope of being able to do so than many others.

[chad]

Yall are aware that the 481 is available in one rack space and lacks the front panel programming right? Just with a PC or as a slave to the 480

That could solve space issues for some.

[durwood]

Originally Posted by RedGTiVR6

Dono, maybe there's another processor option out there that I haven't been exposed to yet?

There was mention of a BBE processor by npdang but I don't know if it has all the same features.

[RedGTiVR6]

Originally Posted by chad

Yall are aware that the 481 is available in one rack space and lacks the front panel programming right? Just with a PC or as a slave to the 480

That could solve space issues for some.

yeah - I was looking at the 481 over the 482 because of the connections on the back.

I haven't checked to see if there's a price difference and I wasn't sure if it required the 480 to be connected to function completely?

[sqkev]

Originally Posted by RedGTiVR6

If someone would take all of the software and write it into one program, then make a single sound card that would give the outputs needed, all would be good...but I don't think that's possible right now.

Currently you have to run a handfull of programs and have to make due with sound cards...which isn't ideal is most situations....actually, not even close to ideal...

as of right now, you can use Frequency Allocator if you don't want to go with the Console route. Check it out at http://www.thuneau.com/allocator.htm

I've used audiotrak with console with good results. I'm building another home pc to replace my dcx/deq.

[sqkev]

Originally Posted by RedGTiVR6

See, this is what I'm concerned about...I would like to hear a comparison between it and the 701 really.

If it's better than a 701 but not as good as the dbx, then I'm fine.

Dono, maybe there's another processor option out there that I haven't been exposed to yet?

in both optical modes, the dcx is really similar to the 701, imo. In the car environment, you should be more concern of the vehicle's acoustics moreso than the sonics of the dcx.

Pair up the dcx with the deq and you have a really good combo. Beats the 701 for sure. (you only get 6 outputs though)

[sqkev]

Originally Posted by audiguy

I agree with you on at least the first two counts. I have had my concerns about the sonic abilities of the dcx2496. On the other hand, I use a DEQX and like it a lot. It does things that other processors just can't do. I haven't yet reached sonic nirvanna with it, but I have more hope of being able to do so than many others.

what mic are you using with the deqx? and how do you do your measurements?

[thehatedguy]

IMO, the move from the 701 to the Behringer would be more of a lateral move.

[npdang]

Imho, I'd worry more about features, reliability, and price. The sonic differences tend to get washed out pretty easily in a heavily optimized setup. That being said, the DBX is just on an entirely different level than Behringer, but the fact you could buy a dozen of the latter for the same price is certainly an equalizer.

I don't know why people recommend the DEQ in conjunction with the dcx2496... as I found the EQ to be more than sufficient, if not more flexible in the dcx2496.

[sqkev]

Originally Posted by npdang

Imho, I'd worry more about features, reliability, and price. The sonic differences tend to get washed out pretty easily in a heavily optimized setup. That being said, the DBX is just on an entirely different level than Behringer, but the fact you could buy a dozen of the latter for the same price is certainly an equalizer.

I don't know why people recommend the DEQ in conjunction with the dcx2496... as I found the EQ to be more than sufficient, if not more flexible in the dcx2496.

but the dcx's eq section is limited to it's cpu. I actually drove it to max in certain speaker systems. The DEQ with the rta is probably already worth its price. Don't forget you get optical input on the DEQ as well, you only get aes/ebu with the dcx as far as digital goes.

[RedGTiVR6]

Originally Posted by sqkev

in both optical modes, the dcx is really similar to the 701, imo. In the car environment, you should be more concern of the vehicle's acoustics moreso than the sonics of the dcx.

At the level we're at now, we need to consider everything.

Pair up the dcx with the deq and you have a really good combo. Beats the 701 for sure. (you only get 6 outputs though)

Need at leat 8 outputs...so no go.

Originally Posted by sqkev

as of right now, you can use Frequency Allocator if you don't want to go with the Console route. Check it out at http://www.thuneau.com/allocator.htm

I've used audiotrak with console with good results. I'm building another home pc to replace my dcx/deq.

Yeah - I'm familiar with Frequency Allocator....initially I was going to go the route of tuning on the PC: http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/car-...ns-tuning.html

I'm not interested int eh Audiotrack as I've already purchased the x-meredian and made modifications to it to run RCAs out instead of 1/8" jacks....I might just have to reconsider this option though as finding somewhere to put the DBX is going to be a problem...