Hi-fi Subwoofer DSP versus DEQ2496 or Driverack PA+

EQ guys are using on their cabs/systems. A good starting place if you don't have your own RTA.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Charles Jenkinson
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:25 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Hi-fi Subwoofer DSP versus DEQ2496 or Driverack PA+

#1 Post by Charles Jenkinson »

This is related to a posting made on Radian's 'THT Slim' thread in the youtube section. There are 2 issues; (1) do the DEQ2496 or PA+ do the same thing as specific Hi-fi subwoofer DSP's? What are the subtle differences? To me it looks like multiple mic positions and integration of more than 1 sub (in a different position in the room) are the key extra functionalities, (2) Hi-fi buffs slate the Behringer and DBX units for their lack of ADC and DAC conversion accuracy, to the point that the errors 'can be heard', preferring to use higher end DAC's: Practically speaking, and to 95% of discerning music listeners, is this issue bordering on audiophile snobbery? Cheers
Charles
2xJ12L (3012HO) switchable/melded
2xT30

Words&graphics - Audio&Acoustics - Hardware&DSP; 3 different paradigms.

User avatar
Radian
Posts: 2028
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Hi-fi Subwoofer DSP versus DEQ2496 or Driverack PA+

#2 Post by Radian »

Charles Jenkinson wrote:(1) do the DEQ2496 or PA+ do the same thing as specific Hi-fi subwoofer DSP's? What are the subtle differences?
Yes and no. They all EQ the incoming signal..but that's where the similarities end. Even within the home, DSP's vary substantially in capabilitiy and features. Subtle differences on the home audio side would be:
-Cost
-User controls and interface
-Intgrated / Stand alone
-Filters (HP, PEQ, graphic)
-Topology (IIR, FIR)
-Software
Charles Jenkinson wrote:(2) Hi-fi buffs slate the Behringer and DBX units for their lack of ADC and DAC conversion accuracy, to the point that the errors 'can be heard', preferring to use higher end DAC's: Practically speaking, and to 95% of discerning music listeners, is this issue bordering on audiophile snobbery?
I can't comment on that A/D DAC issue because my only experience is either running a digital patch (skipping the conversion all together) through a DEQ for full range or having used a DCX to filter my subwoofer channel. The subwoofer channel on any system is pretty tolerant of noise or distortion, and in the past I've run a DCX without any audible issue.

Many "high-end" stand alone DACs employ noise shaping filters to correct any signal anomalies incurred during the conversion. What constitutes "audible purity" beyond that point is highly debatable and the tinder of epic threads on AVS and Audiogon. :horse:

All depends who you talk to regarding the absolute viability of Behringer or DBX for home use. I've read about some amazing things either way. One thing is for sure...the line between a $300 DSP and a $3000 DSP is a getting thinner every year. 8)
Good food, good people, good times.

4 - AT
1 - TT
1 - THT Slim
2 - SLA Pro 4x6 Alphalite

Grant Bunter
Posts: 6915
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:12 am
Location: Ilfracombe Queensland Australia
Contact:

Re: Hi-fi Subwoofer DSP versus DEQ2496 or Driverack PA+

#3 Post by Grant Bunter »

Charles Jenkinson wrote:This is related to a posting made on Radian's 'THT Slim' thread in the youtube section. There are 2 issues; (1) do the DEQ2496 or PA+ do the same thing as specific Hi-fi subwoofer DSP's? What are the subtle differences? To me it looks like multiple mic positions and integration of more than 1 sub (in a different position in the room) are the key extra functionalities, (2) Hi-fi buffs slate the Behringer and DBX units for their lack of ADC and DAC conversion accuracy, to the point that the errors 'can be heard', preferring to use higher end DAC's: Practically speaking, and to 95% of discerning music listeners, is this issue bordering on audiophile snobbery? Cheers
Charles
I think Radian covered the difference in DSP nicely.

Invariably the DBX and DCX would be just not expensive enough to do a proper job for "discerning" audiophiles who probably haven't even had their ears tested to know where their deficits in hearing may exist.
To be fair though, the DCX (and perhaps the DBX) isn't meant to be a high end DSP. It's outside the ethos of the company that produces it, whose aim to to put the otherwise unaffordable in the hands of many. Design compromises and components used will automatically suffer under such ethos. I wonder if that's taken into account when using it.

It wouldn't just be the ADC/DAC conversion. If that was fine there would be some other reason.
I reckon that if the price of the DBX or DCX was suddenly tripled there would be less faults with it.
When you see signal leads with asking prices of thousands of dollars that claim to make a significant difference to sound aimed at the audiophile market, I see someone exploiting a market.

It just doesn't seem that long ago that digital was a dangerous beast threatening to destroy the musical purity of analogue.

I've not long finished reading an article (with a following one from the sound engineer) about Jack White recording his latest album in his mostly analogue studio. Very refreshing.
Built:
DR 250: x 2 melded array, 2x CD horn, March 2012 plans.
T39's: 4 x 20" KL3010LF , 2 x 28" 3012LF.
WH8: x 6 with melded array wired series/parallel.
Bunter's Audio and Lighting "like"s would be most appreciated...

Post Reply