BBE Sonic Maximizer

[parus]

what does this actually do and does it work?
thanks parus

[unknownuser]

most recordings are pretty compressed, this "blows them up " a bit. The music sounds more real. However there is a drawback.

I ran a 60 watt receiver to a 3 way vega with a 12" (v12f i think) and it was thumping along in a small room at 6 watts registering on the meter. I then switched in the maximizer. These sound level was a little louder, but not much. But it was more dynamic, so it sounded more life life.

But Now the meters were pegging at 60 watts. Hmm 10db more dynamic range. If you go from 6 watts and add 10db then, wow, this stuff is actually right. Sure enough, 60 watts is about 10db louder than 6.

Remember it sounded better but used a lot more watts to do it.


(Originally posted by: norman bates)

[Paul O]

> what does this actually do and does it work?

It's hogwash and snake oil. It boosts certain frequencies and messes with the time alignment of a couple frequency bands. It's generally equavilent the the loudness button on your receiver. It will make a dull low-end set of speakers sparkle, but it's not doing anything you can't do with an EQ. They talk a good story on the BBE web site describing how the maximizer works, and what they say about the problems with speakers is valid. But there's simply no way you can combine "the fix" for all the possible different speakers and combinations of speakers into 1 little magic box and control it with a couple knobs on the front. Some very big speaker manufacturers build custom DSP processing algorithms into their powered speaker models, and they admit they cannot fix all the problems associated with audio transducers, as we know them. If that's the case there's no way BBE is doing it for everything with 1 box.

[unknownuser]

I did have one for about a week. It gave a nice 50-100hz boost.

So far as the slowing the highs so the mids, bass can catch up, not sure on that one.

Paul is right, algorithms to number crunching the converted analog into digital. I hate to say it but i did like the improvement.

Was it worth the >$250 ? I didn't think so. Ask a local sound shop to loan one, or simply bring in your amp and speakers and switch it on or off (there is a bypass button i believe). Or just buy one and you make the decision.


(Originally posted by: norman bates)

[parus]

I saw that the bbe active crossovers had this sonic maximizer built in to them so it made me curios what it was since I will be running the signal through an
eq already it doesn't sound like it will be neccessary but hell maybe one day I will give it a shot
thanks for the info
Parus

[unknownuser]

> what does this actually do and does it work?
> thanks parus
The BBE adds a bunch of high frequency phase **** and EQ.

A local club had this and some other junk in their system. You would think 12 JBL 15" Eons, 4 Cerwin Vega 18s, and 8 Crown CE1000s should sound reasonable?

Think again.

I unhooked the BBE and it sounded much better, then I unhooked the dual 31 band DBX EQ and it sounded better.

The next thing going away is the Rane AC23, after I find a used TDM 24CX-2.

Then I will mod the Crown amps.

Then start in on the mixer.

Audio is like a chain, you end up being limited by the weakest link, in this case the BBE was the weakest link.


(Originally posted by: djk)

[Mr.Thomas Aaron Hero]

> what does this actually do and does it work?
> thanks parus
I use a Behringer Tube Ultrafex,this does similar things but alot less money,$129,It has an expander,bass enhancer,adds warmth,ect.I use it on most of my music,cant beat it for the price!

A.H.

[rodh]

I have a TDM 24CX-2 in my system and it has served me well for about 17 years. Just curious...what's wrong with the Rane and right with the TDM?

Rod

[Paul O]

Out of all the items in this list, the speakers are clearly at he bottom. The Rane crossover and DBX EQ are the best pieces, with the Crown amps next. If it sounded like *** it's far more likey to be the source material or mixer, or simply the way is was configured. A DSP PA processor will certainly help with that, these should be mandatory for installs.

[unknownuser]

> Out of all the items in this list, the
> speakers are clearly at he bottom. The Rane
> crossover and DBX EQ are the best pieces,
> with the Crown amps next. If it sounded like
> *** it's far more likey to be the source
> material or mixer, or simply the way is was
> configured. A DSP PA processor will
> certainly help with that, these should be
> mandatory for installs.
The Rane and DBX have pleny of room for improvement, as does the Crown.

The DBX has over 60 sleazy opamps, and I don't know how many crummy capacitors.

I am trying to find a pair of old semi-active White EQs.

The Rane has crummy opamps and caps like the DBX, and an un-regulated supply with no supply bypass caps.

The Crown has cheap opamps and caps, and no supply bypassing.

While the JBL EONs are not my favorite speaker, at least the non-powered ones aren't as bad as their powered cousins. I can (and have) built much better sounding, but they already own them.

The C-Vs are built in and cannot be considered for replacement either, I'm going to try a better amp here.

I'm also going to try some delay on the EONs as they are out front from the subs. That may be tough as most DSP stuff has very low quality parts in the analog sections.

If the DCX 2496 is ever put back in production, I have a mod worked up to make it sound audiophile quality. Less than $100, and all the $0.135 opamps (yes, I said 13-1/2 cents!) and crummy electrolytics in the signal path will be tossed in the trash.


(Originally posted by: djk)

[unknownuser]

> I have a TDM 24CX-2 in my system and it has
> served me well for about 17 years. Just
> curious...what's wrong with the Rane and
> right with the TDM?

> Rod
The TDM has a much better power supply, opamps, and bypassing. There is still room for improvement. I like the use of duals, as there are more choices for upgrades than for quads (as in the Rane).

The ones Tim Miller made for Fender go for very little on eBay. I picked up the Fender version of the 24CX-4 for about $80 in brand new condition.


(Originally posted by: djk)

[Paul O]

I'm not going to dispute that the electronics in the amps and processing equipment is not absolute top notch, but your reasoning for changing it is all *** backwords. You can only hope to make fractions of a percentage improvement in sig-noise ratio and distorton numbers for all that work. The distortion and phase anomolies created by the speakers themselves is typically in the 10-20% range, and that combined with the complete lack of correct processing, possible wrong speaker placement, and little or no acoustic room treatment is the root of the problem. The signal path is by far the least of your trouble.

[rodh]

NM

[peterelliott]

I had bad results. I bought the 362SW with the sub-out for my home stereo, which was somewhat pa-based. I bought a BBE because I had a variation of it in an older car stereo which I loved, largely because the younger me didn't realize it was boosting (+12dB!) 50 Hz and 5kHz when I turned it on. Sounded great! (Duh.) Once I got the 362, with seperate e.q. controls, I could never tell the difference between "process on" and "process off" with the EQ flat. Disappointing. So I have an 3rd order mono sub xo with a mostly useless "bass" and "treble" tone control on the main outs. Ebay is calling.

> I saw that the bbe active crossovers had
> this sonic maximizer built in to them so it
> made me curios what it was since I will be
> running the signal through an
> eq already it doesn't sound like it will be
> neccessary but hell maybe one day I will
> give it a shot
> thanks for the info
> Parus

[unknownuser]

> I'm not going to dispute that the
> electronics in the amps and processing
> equipment is not absolute top notch, but
> your reasoning for changing it is all ***
> backwords. You can only hope to make
> fractions of a percentage improvement in
> sig-noise ratio and distorton numbers for
> all that work. The distortion and phase
> anomolies created by the speakers themselves
> is typically in the 10-20% range, and that
> combined with the complete lack of correct
> processing, possible wrong speaker
> placement, and little or no acoustic room
> treatment is the root of the problem. The
> signal path is by far the least of your
> trouble.
How come it made such a big difference in the sound?

I'm sorry you just don't get it, and I'm glad the customer can hear.


(Originally posted by: djk)

[Paul O]

> How come it made such a big difference in the sound?

You haven't said how the crossover and EQ were adjusted... you would likely get the same result from just hitting the bypass on the EQ if it was all hacked to pieces. It's entirely likely the midrange was cut heavily and the bass boosted, so the increase in midrange after you removed it was percieved as an improvement. Also. there's no way removing the crossover from the system could make an improvement. In any event, the level of change made by removing the EQ dwarfs anything inprovement you could make with the best electronics on the planet. You did this yourself but you don't seem to recognize it. Good sound in installs is all about speaker placement, correct processing, and room trearment. The actual equipment used makes little difference overall.