Does pro gear have different 'sounds'?
Mera.
Posts: 7
Hi,
When I say 'different sound' I mean between units that perform the same function from different manufacturers and ranges. Not at the level of one is obviously terrible, and one is good, but in a case of 'yes one unit is fine and would function without worry, but another produces a noticeably finer grade of output precision and playback.'
I converted my home speakers for use with an active crossover, directly bypassing the passive network in the cabinets (the speakers are KEF's, a decent enough domestic gear manufacturer as far as I can tell) and then installed enough amps, and a Behringer CX3400 crossover.
I chose this device pretty much because it was low-cost, and I wanted to see if the active idea worked without throwing lots of money at it if I was wrong. After confirming everything worked fine, I've lived with the system a while and the result sounds a lot better than the passive set up, especially in the area of fiddly little details and signals that eventually end up doing all those interesting 'sonic placement' effects that stereo can give. However, there comes a time when you start to look at if you are getting the best from a system, and of course suspicion falls on low end components as areas that could be doing better.
So, I started looking here as I have used DBX equipment before whilst doing ent's crewing for the student union venue at my university and it seems to justify it's reputation easily enough. However is it likely that a dbx 234 crossover will sound particularly different, especially at not losing small signals or keeping left-right sides tied together without distortions, than the CX3400 or are things now at the level of "everything has enough range/headroom/low noise floor" that as long as it works, then it will work well enough?
It's not a case of anything that is wrong per-se, but more 'can I get more from the system I have?'.
Many thanks (mostly for working through all that
)
When I say 'different sound' I mean between units that perform the same function from different manufacturers and ranges. Not at the level of one is obviously terrible, and one is good, but in a case of 'yes one unit is fine and would function without worry, but another produces a noticeably finer grade of output precision and playback.'
I converted my home speakers for use with an active crossover, directly bypassing the passive network in the cabinets (the speakers are KEF's, a decent enough domestic gear manufacturer as far as I can tell) and then installed enough amps, and a Behringer CX3400 crossover.
I chose this device pretty much because it was low-cost, and I wanted to see if the active idea worked without throwing lots of money at it if I was wrong. After confirming everything worked fine, I've lived with the system a while and the result sounds a lot better than the passive set up, especially in the area of fiddly little details and signals that eventually end up doing all those interesting 'sonic placement' effects that stereo can give. However, there comes a time when you start to look at if you are getting the best from a system, and of course suspicion falls on low end components as areas that could be doing better.
So, I started looking here as I have used DBX equipment before whilst doing ent's crewing for the student union venue at my university and it seems to justify it's reputation easily enough. However is it likely that a dbx 234 crossover will sound particularly different, especially at not losing small signals or keeping left-right sides tied together without distortions, than the CX3400 or are things now at the level of "everything has enough range/headroom/low noise floor" that as long as it works, then it will work well enough?
It's not a case of anything that is wrong per-se, but more 'can I get more from the system I have?'.
Many thanks (mostly for working through all that
) 0
Comments
What you propose is going to help your sound, just not as you currently perceive it... You are talking about making more of a lateral move than an actual move that will IMPROVE the system like you want. In short, the 234 isn't going to make ENOUGH of a difference... but here's how to get it...
Yes, there is a level of change with a level of expense, not ALL systems are equal and some sound better than others, this is true of speakers (the individual components are the determining factor here} and processors ...amps, not so much, but there IS something there as well...
What I want you to consider here is moving to a digital signal processor, like the Driverack, and getting away from the analog (think ancient
Imagine a processor that you can set an EXACT 90 hz crossover point AND select from multiple different crossover types and slopes at the touch of a button... Imagine the same processor with a 28 band stereo graphic Eq, additional parametric eq's and alignment delay for time aligning the components, and tuning the response! add to that an auto EQ process that allows you to either flatten your systems response, or that offers several different presets to tailor your sound for different music types..(with optional measurement mic) there's more...
No more wondering "What the hell IS my crossover point? what slope IS used.. and why can't I set my own? What would a Butterworth filter type sound like versus a Linklwitz Riley? Well, with this type processor you have the tools available to really fine tune what you have...
Well that's enough for now... you chew on that for a bit and see if you have any more questions...
Gadget
Firstly, a processor like a driverack is certainly a fair step up from the idea I started out with, but I've had a little look at it further. It would seem that I'd need at least a PA+ to get my 2 sets of 3-way output.
However such a system does of course raise a further set of questions.
( I was going to mention the price here, but actually I couldn't really call them inaccessible given the features they have.)
1) That's a lot of buttons...and a very quick way to making a a big hash of everything.
2) A great deal of my early information on sound was from the 'hifi' side of the fence, with a lot of emphasis on doing as little as possible to modify signals, beside making them loud enough to hear. Can deconstructing the sound and then rebuilding it really make it better, or does the improvement come from making the system work properly in its environment?
3) Active room management :- A wonderful tool for large venue operators surely, but I only have an ordinary household room, or is this even more of a reason to use compensating logic in the signal path?
4) Analogue-Digital-Analogue conversions. At first glance, this looks like a good way to lose information, especially at low levels. Though is it now that the losses are a good deal less than the losses in older 'simple analogue ' systems?
5) This is probably a simple configuration question, but would a digital device need to be given a decently large signal (IE, keep the pre-amplifier volume turned a good way up) to make the most of the s/n+dynamic range benefits of a high quality input stage, and then use attenuation on the output to keep levels sensible?
Heh, I think my qualification level would rate as "just enough knowledge to be dangerous
Many thanks once more.
I dare say that with the analog crossover you didn't even get close to the proper tuning for that setup.. and so the details your looking for still elude you...
The driverack platform has always blown me away with how everything I have ever hooked it to sounds better even before the optimization process is employed. The process is pretty well set up and maybe you could even say somewhat foolproof.. If you follow the rules, and the proven processes... you will get detail and performance the system couldn't possibly achieve without it.
Note: Old analog freak here.. I have Carver silver series processing, and amps... Infinity RSII speakers, A Thorens turntable with a Grado cartridge, Sunfire True sub, and Mobile Fidelity sound labs vinyl... and that's just my living room setup... Is that the kind of "early analog devotion" your speaking of? Look, were not talking about THAT kind of analog perfection with a Behringer analog POS (sorry) crossover...Actually If I was going to replace THAT level of kit (like Carver, Conrad Johnson,Mark Levison) I would be using my 4800... now THAT is a sonically pure device...pretty much a strait wire preamp kind of device...the 260 is actually the lowest "professional " grade processor to be sure...
Note that the DRPA+ has a switch on the back for -10, and +4 operation so it can be used in MANY different platforms. So no you don't have to
hit it hard to maintain that "analog" signal to noise... in fact once digitally converted the signal to noise is no linger a concern, and so there is NO need to get a "good signal to noise ratio... The higher the bit ratio's the better the fidelity...as stated above the higher dollar processors SOUND better... yes
Again, if you thought the Behringer sounded good?? :? The new processors are far better than cheap analog ones.. no comparison...
I had behringer crossovers and worked MANY OUT of systems and replaced them with driveracks...NO comparison.. This is NOT behringer brand bashing, I own quite a few BEH pieces... but the crossovers are... :roll: well they have a digital one that's ~noisy~... but better than the analog stuff...
Gadget
I have no special affiliation to beh as a brand, only that they let me have a go at something that I wouldn't have tried if things like the driveracks had been the entry level. I've seen mentions of their dsp crossover, and the number of people modding them doesn't inspire confidence.
So, this comes down to some slightly fiddly queries. Below the price of the PA+ all the dsp units apparently fall down to being near twins of the beh system, so a PA+ is the starting point, but the issue comes down to whether pushing for a 260 is worth it. The manuals for the two show the jump you make to the 260, but as you say, that is aimed mostly at the 'pro' user, with all the extra signal routing and the rack units that you can replace all with the one box.
I don't know if the extra 'bessel' filter, and the 36+48db/octave slopes of the 260 are required, or if the -10/+4 button on the PA+ has matching settings in the system of the 260. That is if a 260 is enough of an improvement over a pa+. I don't 'need' a professional unit, just a good sounding one that doesn't have too many numbers in the price
Thanks,
Mera.
When we talk DSP there are a number of considerations to understand... One, the bit rate, is how often the analog signal is sampled... note here that the higher the bit rate then, it follows that details between the samples are lost with lower bitrates. Here it is interesting to understand that much of the music we listen to today that was recorded past about a year or 2 ago, is played back at Compact disk 44.1khz sampling rates. Now rates of 96khz and 128khz are commonplace and are superior sounding, but with the drawback of dramatic file size increases...
So, with the fact that most people (majority) have systems that you really couldn't hear the difference on anyway, and the addition of "are they ACTUALLY able to perceive the difference"? That is where the audiophile system came into play, BUT it takes electronics capable of throughputing the details, and transducers capable of reproducing the details...and an ear capable of discerning that difference, not ALL of us can...
With the above understood... we can also add that not ALL dsp is equal. advances in technology have increased the fidelity of most chips, but the most dramatic improvement seems to have been on the low end, but again, not all low end dsp is equal, and ancillary components play a big role in the sound quality. So, that said you will see a pretty big difference in the way the V1 DRPA, and the V2 DRPA+ sound. Some of that is probably an improvement in the code, and some in the improvements in dsp chip populations and manufacturing techniques. Before the DRPA, the DPS processors were ALL thousands of dollars... and extremely complex and difficult to implement for those that were not VERY educated in audio, and physics.
The DRPA was designed for the novice sound guy, the drummer or guitar player. The 260 is the lowest "serious" sound professional processor and it's "sound" is different, form the DRPA/PA+ in what I can only describe as "more pleasant" by the same token, the fact that they have a "sound" would tend to trigger debate as to the merit of the platform...BUT only where we compare it to say the sound of an XTA processor...If however, we didn't HAVE those type devices... there would be no such debate. The 4800 then is a more "audiophile" processor since it is described as being transparent, and uncolored, unlike the XTA's definitive description as "warm" and "pleasant" sounding.
If you have a local dealer that sells the driverack product perhaps you can get a demo, or go there and see if you can get a demo there and see if you don't perceive an audible difference in the sources with the driverack... have them play a system that is fullrange, but with the ability to be bi-amped/tri-amped, and then the same system that is PROPERLY set up, using active processing...the difference is even more dramatic than what you experienced with your system, but again, the detail is in the drivers...also...
Gadget
Eventually managed to find someone here with one. It's not easy to compare my system against the system they were using directly as they had it rigged to gear designed for covering a bit more space than my home stuff, but I could hear easily enough the way the output improved as the computer took over the work. So, having hunted one down, I decided to give it a shot...you can enthusiastically await lots of interesting questions soon, I'm sure. I'm not sure if a full setup for gain structure can be done, no clipping indicators in anything.
I'm not quite 'old country' as such.. technically I'm older than CD's, though only just. It was just that the 'old way' made sense, but times change, and improvements abound. You'd probably either laugh, cry, or cry with laughter if you saw what I was working with, and the dr-260 will be the largest single investment so far...so sadly a 4800 is slightly out of scope of the budget. Not that I should complain too much, the system seems to make a nice enough noise.
Just have to wait for it to get here and plug it all in (rta-mic and all).
Mera.
G
Yes, I am, however I now live a bit further south, pretty much in the back left corner of a corn field. The market for technology here is...limited, to say the least.
I love the configurabilty, setting upper and lower sides of a crossover point asymmetrically is real revelation...as is finding that my late 1990's kef uni-q's really like a fat, lazy 1st order b/w filter against the LR-24 filters of the beh. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as the concentric structure of the driver does make them suited for it, and the old passive network only had 6 components.
Anyway, the DR is a real box of magic for my set up. It's pretty much electronically invisible against the equipment level of the rest of my system, and certainly worth the investment. You can chalk up another driverack transplant from behringer Gadget, and thanks very much for the suggestion.
Now, back to listening to all my cd's again....
That's EXACTLY why I do this... If I could just have been mouse in the corner when you were making all these discoveries...priceless! enjoy
Improving sound... one individual at a time
G