Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

[Prabie]

I want to do some projects but I'm too lazy for all the work that a good crossover demands. I'm more on the woodworking side of the work.

I rather prefer to go triamp, with a device able to separate bands, delaying, gain & phase compensation per driver, equalizing, etc. Specially if you consider that you can tune the system up to the more pleasant soound and that's what is all about.

How can I go wrong with DBX's 260? Behringer units are cheaper but I read comments that they are less musical.

Please feel free to express your mind about this issue.

Saludos

Pedro

[gdmoore28]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

Pedro,
My experience with active crossovers comes from the ProSound side of the industry. We rarely used passive crossovers, and found the active crossovers to be so much more versatile than passive xovers. The dbx units are certainly more "musical" than the Beringers. I've used them both, and the difference in sound is quite noticeable. And the ability to change xover frequency, xover depth, and driver delay instantaneously just seals the case. If you can swing the cost, there is really no argument. And don't get slack over which amplifier/preamp to use. As is well known, some amps/preamps are MUCH more musical than others.
GeeDeeEmm

[Melby Audio]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I have a DBX 223 that I use to integrate subwoofers in my mains, and it works quite nicely for that. If you use drivers with fairly flat responses it should work well, but you cant use it to fix peaks like you can designing a passive crossover. You could do that if you added an eq. with enough bands though.

[hipcheck]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I have the entry level model Drive Rack PX, I like it more than the DCX units I had from Behringer!

Steve

[Prabie]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

Thank you for commenting!!

I had experience with a dbx 234 for a couple of years, fine piece of hardware, but if the driver had a nasty peak you have to use some sort of zobel that, as mentioned before, I'm too lazy to do. That's why the DBX 260 is perfect because the integrated parametric crossover and the capability of self adjustment using his own internal routines. But at $1K/each I want to be sure.:rolleyes:

Any recommendations on amplifiers? I do like brute force PA amplifiers for this job. When I was triampd', I had 3 soundtech stereo PA amplifiers that were very musical and did the job effortlessly. That was 12 years ago and I'm sure technology is offering now better/lighter/cheaper amplifiers. Suggestions? I'd like to have large power reserve even though I never use it because of the STF.

Saludos

Pedro

[Sydney]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

Any recommendations on amplifiers?...I'd like to have large power reserve...

Is there much of a used market in Santiago?

[Melby Audio]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

The Crown XLS line is popular. I used a couple XLS 1000's in a pro setup, and I really like them. Lightweight is nice too.

[wg_ski]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I have the entry level model Drive Rack PX, I like it more than the DCX units I had from Behringer!

Steve

My experience is that it's way too easy to run out of processor power on the Behringer. I've never run out of EQ bands or delay with the DR260. I have with the 2496. High order slopes cost more than 12dB ones do, but you usually want it. Then you add 8 ms to the tops, two bands to get a horn sub flat, one for baffle step, another on the primary breakup mode on the mid, and one for CD horn correction. That doesn't leave much for fixing room problems and shaping the response - you're lucky to have one free band after doing everything else that's mandatory.

[DE Focht]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

My experience is that it's way too easy to run out of processor power on the Behringer. I've never run out of EQ bands or delay with the DR260. I have with the 2496. High order slopes cost more than 12dB ones do, but you usually want it. Then you add 8 ms to the tops, two bands to get a horn sub flat, one for baffle step, another on the primary breakup mode on the mid, and one for CD horn correction. That doesn't leave much for fixing room problems and shaping the response - you're lucky to have one free band after doing everything else that's mandatory.

Be ready to stop drop and roll, when I suggested these limitations 5 years ago, it was not received well.

Luckily Minidsp has made an even cheaper processor so there won't be as many Behringer Users.

For the OP, also consider Ultimate Equalizer, which offers a great deal more functionality and the price will be right if you have a spare PC.

[Sydney]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

Be ready to stop drop and roll, when I suggested these limitations 5 years ago, it was not received well....

Issues I've run across with "B" products include poor implementation and general reliability.
I have a CX2310 in an active home system and it's mechanical switches started becoming intermittent after 18 months.
Running the Sound Equipment for bands: I often see "their" signal processing products following the same brief life cycle: Tried out in the field they often end up taken out of the system.

[Tin_Ears]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I'm not lazy... or at least I didn't used to be. My problem is loss of brain cognition, plasticity and memory plus loss of fine motor movement and physical weakness. I also lost most of my income due to early medical retirement. So I must keep things easy, simple and cheap. I bought several of the MCM/Dayton bi-amp plates. Unfortunately the ones I bought are the older models with 3KHz fixed crossover. The price was right though. These can be modified but it's easier to get the ones that have adjustable crossovers if one really needs that. Rather than modify these amps I just bought speakers that match very well at the 3KHz crossover... lots of excellent options available. Since these will be two-ways plus woofers I bought subwoofer plate amps to power the 8 inch woofers and will buy some inexpensive outboard high-pass crossovers to go between the sub amps and bi-amps... maybe just line-level Bass Blockers. All this may seem more complicated than just using a full-blown outboard crossover unit but it's what I have and it's easy for me to set up. Passive crossovers, though some software makes initial design fairly easy, seem to be an art form and can become very complicated. When I was younger I would devoured such challenges but I just can't anymore.

[Sydney]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I want to do some projects

"Projects" is very vague - Implementation depends on details

...less musical...

...that were very musical...

These are subjective terms... haven't seen a definitive measurement to quantify :D

[greywarden]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

DCX2496 and 3x XLS1500s ( I recommend the 1500s because they're a bit cleaner than the 1000s) would do nicely. Fire up REW and it will do the EQ for you, the DCX has 9 filters available per channel available, the MiniDSP has 6.

The only issue with going fully active is if you want to change/upgrade the system, you either sell off the used drivers or attempt to find a buyer for the entire system.

[killa]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

Either way you have to measure response regardless of whether it is active or passive. I find active to be just as much of a pita as passive.

[Prabie]

Re: Too lazy for "crossovering" - what about DBX driverack 260?

I'm not lazy... or at least I didn't used to be. My problem is loss of brain cognition, plasticity and memory plus loss of fine motor movement and physical weakness. I also lost most of my income due to early medical retirement. So I must keep things easy, simple and cheap. I bought several of the MCM/Dayton bi-amp plates. Unfortunately the ones I bought are the older models with 3KHz fixed crossover. The price was right though. These can be modified but it's easier to get the ones that have adjustable crossovers if one really needs that. Rather than modify these amps I just bought speakers that match very well at the 3KHz crossover... lots of excellent options available. Since these will be two-ways plus woofers I bought subwoofer plate amps to power the 8 inch woofers and will buy some inexpensive outboard high-pass crossovers to go between the sub amps and bi-amps... maybe just line-level Bass Blockers. All this may seem more complicated than just using a full-blown outboard crossover unit but it's what I have and it's easy for me to set up. Passive crossovers, though some software makes initial design fairly easy, seem to be an art form and can become very complicated. When I was younger I would devoured such challenges but I just can't anymore.

Dear Tin_Ears,

I'm going to turn 51 tomorrow, so I understand your point more than you think. Your approach is interesting and also more DIY oriented than mine, no doubt. My main reason to avoid many "small" parts that require power is that ussually these are 110 volts only and in my country we have 220V and I do not want to deal with transformers.

Regards

P.