BillFitzmaurice.info

For full BFM PA rig (Otops and T60s (or other BFM subs)). I found a DRPA locally for $300 which is about what a DCX costs new. Whats the better setup in your opinions?

Hey baja,
If you have contract riders, or will end up with them, it's probably better to go with the DBX.
If you don't have to contend with such things, then either is fine.

I use the DCX (but use a DEQ2496 for EQ duty, rather than the EQ section of the DCX) with my full BFM rig and it's been faultless to date, even after travelling...

Grant Bunter wrote:Hey baja,
If you have contract riders, or will end up with them, it's probably better to go with the DBX.
If you don't have to contend with such things, then either is fine.

The DBX is not going to make a difference in riders i guess. It's just as much not a "pro" LMS as the DCX. So i would expect no problems there.

In my humble opinion the DCX is the better unit, with more flexibility in output channel assignment, steeper crossover slopes (if i remember correctly) and better delay. But the PEQ + 48db x-over slopes takes up a lot of processing power.
But if you are not planning on upgrading your rig, and all you need is a nice 1u all in one package i'd take the Driverack.

my 2 taiwan dollars worth

Bas Gooiker wrote:

Grant Bunter wrote:Hey baja,
If you have contract riders, or will end up with them, it's probably better to go with the DBX.
If you don't have to contend with such things, then either is fine.

The DBX is not going to make a difference in riders i guess. It's just as much not a "pro" LMS as the DCX. So i would expect no problems there.

In my humble opinion the DCX is the better unit, with more flexibility in output channel assignment, steeper crossover slopes (if i remember correctly) and better delay. But the PEQ + 48db x-over slopes takes up a lot of processing power.
But if you are not planning on upgrading your rig, and all you need is a nice 1u all in one package i'd take the Driverack.

my 2 taiwan dollars worth

Bas is spot on,
I've found processor space disappearing rapidly the moment you start using the PEQ on the DCX, hence switching EQ duty to the DEQ. The two are a great pairing.

Grant Bunter wrote:

Bas Gooiker wrote:

Grant Bunter wrote:Hey baja,
If you have contract riders, or will end up with them, it's probably better to go with the DBX.
If you don't have to contend with such things, then either is fine.

The DBX is not going to make a difference in riders i guess. It's just as much not a "pro" LMS as the DCX. So i would expect no problems there.

In my humble opinion the DCX is the better unit, with more flexibility in output channel assignment, steeper crossover slopes (if i remember correctly) and better delay. But the PEQ + 48db x-over slopes takes up a lot of processing power.
But if you are not planning on upgrading your rig, and all you need is a nice 1u all in one package i'd take the Driverack.

my 2 taiwan dollars worth

Bas is spot on,
I've found processor space disappearing rapidly the moment you start using the PEQ on the DCX, hence switching EQ duty to the DEQ. The two are a great pairing.

Okay so on that note, is a dcx 'enough' eq on its own? Same question for the drpa. I would rather only get 1 component if possible.

I've not heard of anyone here saying that lack of processor space because you used the EQ on the DCX alone is a problem.
I also hadn't seen it mentioned until I set up my DCX for the first time and posted a thread here about that. My comment at the time was something like "I don't want to find out if it's going to become a problem, or make the unit glitch".
Since the DEQ has the RTA and the DCX hasn't, I went that way.

The DBX unit has the lot in one I believe...

Bas Gooiker wrote: In my humble opinion the DCX is the better unit, with more flexibility in output channel assignment, steeper crossover slopes (if i remember correctly) and better delay. But the PEQ + 48db x-over slopes takes up a lot of processing power.

What happens when processing power is taken up? Does it get hot? Does it fail or hic-up or ???

ripNdeb wrote:

Bas Gooiker wrote: In my humble opinion the DCX is the better unit, with more flexibility in output channel assignment, steeper crossover slopes (if i remember correctly) and better delay. But the PEQ + 48db x-over slopes takes up a lot of processing power.

What happens when processing power is taken up? Does it get hot? Does it fail or hic-up or ???

As far as I can work out, no one quite knows. As I said above, I only noticed it when I started to mess with mine. No one else commented that they had noted it, or that it was a problem.
Mine does run quite warm, so much so that I'm presently considering how to address that problem, either by moving it's position in the rack, or ventilating the rack, or some such other thing.
My take on it, since it has a processor akin to a CPU if you treat it like a computer, is that, when you run older puters and filled up their processing capacity, my experience is that they ran slower and had more trouble running multiple applications, or glitching, blue screen blah blah blah. Since you're asking the DCX to do multiple things, I thought that was a similar scenario.
I wanted RTA capability (and you will as well I imagine) it was not a fantastic leap for me to get the DEQ as well.

Hope this helps...

ripNdeb wrote:What happens when processing power is taken up?

It simply won't allow any more filters to be created.

As far as running out of processor, if you're using the DCX correctly, it's a non-issue.

Dialing-in all sorts of PEQ and steep-sloped filters in an attempt to get good sound is wrong.

At a minimum, a stand alone crossover unit like the DCX should be paired with a separate graphic / parametric EQ like the DEQ to provide some degree of core flexibility (the ability to EQ the entire outbound signal apart from the individual power amp channels).