Digital Surfaces Digital Signal Processors (DSP)
- Thread starterBrentR678
- Start date
When Harman found themselves with JBL, Crown, dbx, Lexicon and BSS they realized they had five companies building some competing DSP products so they basically decided that JBL would be the speaker brand since that's what they focused on, Crown the amp brand since that was their focus and Lexicon, dbx and BSS would be the brands for processing devices as each had an established name in different markets. So that's probably when the DSC280 went away.
Except for a few speaker specific processors, 2x8 or dual 1x4 processors are currently not that common, most of the newer processors are 2x6 or 4x8 or similar. If you need eight outputs that could be a factor with your budget as there are a very limited number of 8 output DSP devices selling for around $1,000. So I still have to go back to the original question, what makes you say that the DSC280 is exactly what you need? Is it being two 1x4 processors? Is it the MIDI control interface? Is it something about the processing? Is it having preset processing configurations available for your system and speakers?
Except for a few speaker specific processors, 2x8 or dual 1x4 processors are currently not that common, most of the newer processors are 2x6 or 4x8 or similar. If you need eight outputs that could be a factor with your budget as there are a very limited number of 8 output DSP devices selling for around $1,000. So I still have to go back to the original question, what makes you say that the DSC280 is exactly what you need? Is it being two 1x4 processors? Is it the MIDI control interface? Is it something about the processing? Is it having preset processing configurations available for your system and speakers?
The Audio Auction has 10 DBX Driverack 480T's for sale for $1,100 each.
DBX DriveRack 480T digital speaker processor - eBay (item 310262767368 end time Dec-17-10 08:36:08 PST)
DBX DriveRack 480T digital speaker processor - eBay (item 310262767368 end time Dec-17-10 08:36:08 PST)
If you need eight outputs and MIDI control that might be a good option, although you would be buying a used product that has been discontinued and that probably has no warranty.
I was really thinking more along the lines of schools and groups that for various reasons limit or prohibit purchases of used equipment than about the condition of the gear.
Being completely honest Im not sure exactly what we need. Im thinking a 4x8 with the MIDI interface. All this is completely replacing is our crossover so while it would be really nice to have a lot of added features its not necessary. At this point im more looking for suggestions of known popular models then comparing that to if it would work for our system or not. New would be the way were looking.
The dbx DriveRack PA+ is probably the most popular 'low budget' speaker processor with the Behringer ULTRADRIVE PRO DCX2496 and Peavey VSX26 being common alternatives. I don't see how knowing that matters since it sounds like none of these might work for your application, but those are probably the most popular speaker/system processor models.
With a $1,000 budget the options for a new processor larger than 2x6 are quite limited. There's the BBE DS48 and the Peavey VSX48 within your budget with the Ashly 4.24C or 4.8SP being a bit over your budget. So if a 2x6 would work that would really open up a lot more options. While you may not be able to tell us exactly what you need but you should be able to tell us how you plan to use the device, any control required and since it is replacing an existing device, the inputs and outputs involved (e.g. left and right in with high, mid and low out for each channel or left and right in with left, right, subwoofer and a miscellaneous output).
TimmyP1955
Well-Known Member
The BBEs seem decent, but their service before the sale is non-existant.
Xilica units seem to be well liked.
The dbx units are all good values (especially used 260s).
We switched from dbx 480s to Rane RPM88s, owing to both more inputs and greater configurability. They are not nearly as user friendly (no stereo linking save for compressors), but I'm happy with them. They can be quite a bargain (under $1000) on eBay. (I can wirelessly connect to the RPM88 and the LS9 simultaneously if desired - which is mostly just for fun.)
Xilica units seem to be well liked.
The dbx units are all good values (especially used 260s).
We switched from dbx 480s to Rane RPM88s, owing to both more inputs and greater configurability. They are not nearly as user friendly (no stereo linking save for compressors), but I'm happy with them. They can be quite a bargain (under $1000) on eBay. (I can wirelessly connect to the RPM88 and the LS9 simultaneously if desired - which is mostly just for fun.)
Anonymous067
Active Member
As I read through this thread, I'm still missing the objective. It looks to be replacing a "bad" device. Is there a need for a DSP, instead of just replacing the current crossover? Do you need distributed audio, or advanced eq/limiting some DSPs have to offer?? Yes, this is all fine and dandy, but do you already have it in place? What are the quality of the other components in the system? (ie-I wouldn't suggest a dbx DSP if you had DB line arrays...you get the idea). If you're just a small in house rig, why not just get a 223 crossover from dbx and be done with it? Is there a need to spend the excessive $?
Just some things to keep in mind. :]
It just seems the objectives at this point are a little unclear to suggest a specific model of DSP without knowing what else is going on with this system...
Just some things to keep in mind. :]
It just seems the objectives at this point are a little unclear to suggest a specific model of DSP without knowing what else is going on with this system...
While yes just replacing the crossover would be easiest, we are slowly trying to crossover (pun) to a digital system. We have people higher up in ranking that wont allow us to replace the entire system so when we have an opportunity to replace some equipment we are going digital.
Thats also why at this point i really dont have an exact one im looking for. It could be a really cheap model that basically replaces just the crossover if one even exists. Or it could replace our feedback eliminator, crossover, eq, etc. We have a budget of around $1000 so while its nice to have good equipment saving money is also nice.
Thanks so far for the suggestions, im slowly looking at them to see how they match what were loosely looking for.
Thats also why at this point i really dont have an exact one im looking for. It could be a really cheap model that basically replaces just the crossover if one even exists. Or it could replace our feedback eliminator, crossover, eq, etc. We have a budget of around $1000 so while its nice to have good equipment saving money is also nice.
Thanks so far for the suggestions, im slowly looking at them to see how they match what were loosely looking for.
DiscoBoxer
Active Member
Brent, there are many many options here. Tell us your system setup and maybe the model number of the crossover that just went bust.
Are you running an all mono system, stereo, or LCR (left,center,right)? Do you have subwoofers in your system? Do you have speakers in other locations besides your mains like a balcony or narthex?.....Why do you think you want a midi interface? Would an RS232 communication or usb to the computer for remote control be useful? etc...
Give us some more details so that we can help you make the right choice. Blindly, I like XTA for DSPs but I believe they are out of your budget here.
Are you running an all mono system, stereo, or LCR (left,center,right)? Do you have subwoofers in your system? Do you have speakers in other locations besides your mains like a balcony or narthex?.....Why do you think you want a midi interface? Would an RS232 communication or usb to the computer for remote control be useful? etc...
Give us some more details so that we can help you make the right choice. Blindly, I like XTA for DSPs but I believe they are out of your budget here.
Currently we have a mono system starting with the GL3300. That goes to a Rane 355 Dual 31 Band EQ. Then to the Rane AC22 active crossover. Then the Sabine FBX-900 Feedback eliminator. Then finally to QSC amps models 1200,1400, and 1700. We have four main speakers with no subs.
We are looking within the next year to get new speakers and subs with a stereo system. So the DSP needs to be able to do both mono and stereo. I appreciate all of your help I know I have not been the easiest person on CB.
We are looking within the next year to get new speakers and subs with a stereo system. So the DSP needs to be able to do both mono and stereo. I appreciate all of your help I know I have not been the easiest person on CB.
I don't know your comfort or experience in this area, but if you plan to use the processor in the new system then the best approach would likely be to sketch out the signal flow you envision for the new system and from that determine what DSP devices can provide the connectivity and processing required for both the current application and the future application. If you don't feel comfortable doing this or don't know what the new system may be in concept then it is going to be difficult to assess what would be required to make the device appropriate for an undefined future application.
Most DSP devices should be able to replace not only the crossover but also the EQ and the feedback eliminator. If you did replace those devices with a DSP unit then since you already have it you may want to use the Rane EQ at FOH so that people can adjust the FOH system as desired or you could use it for any monitor/tie line feeds.
Off the original topic, but why are you looking at changing the system? Why a stereo system and will it really be stereo or just speakers located left and right? What you plan may be totally appropriate, but I've also seen such changes made based on some assumed benefit or because it's what everyone else does without considering whether it really makes sense for that specific application.
what are the speakers you are currently using are the Bi- Amp'd or tri amp'd or ???
As a first choice, try taking the Sabine FBX out of the signal path and see if it fixes things.
Brad is correct in that these sort of decisions are best made after a lot more information and planning
Some thoughts and these are just non specific things to think about
Typically if the Main FOH speakers are placed properly there is little or no need for a Feedback eliminator, on monitors one can argue for or against, but again IN GENERAL, speaker placement should be the first line of defense on FOH feedback in a fixed install (a lot of the lower end units Behringer/DBX have a Feedback eliminator included but in a lot of cases it is for the less than perfect placement of the Portable speakers
It is easy to think of a fixed install in a performance space in terms of home stereo which leads to the typical request to "upgrade" to stereo. BUT and again this is broad generality, and as Brad said there can be specific requirements that would alter this, typically stereo FOH systems are more trouble than they are worth. The main issue is that home stereo systems assume a limited area for seating with a "sweet spot" in a Performance space PA in general you are looking at broad even coverage where each seat has good sound, So USUALLY you wind up with a MONO system, but with speakers placed for the coverage NOT generating a wide soundscape. At home you are in a small space using Stereo to simulate a large space, in a Audience chamber you are in a large space and the Characteristics of the space are providing that "soundscape"
Sharyn
As a first choice, try taking the Sabine FBX out of the signal path and see if it fixes things.
Brad is correct in that these sort of decisions are best made after a lot more information and planning
Some thoughts and these are just non specific things to think about
Typically if the Main FOH speakers are placed properly there is little or no need for a Feedback eliminator, on monitors one can argue for or against, but again IN GENERAL, speaker placement should be the first line of defense on FOH feedback in a fixed install (a lot of the lower end units Behringer/DBX have a Feedback eliminator included but in a lot of cases it is for the less than perfect placement of the Portable speakers
It is easy to think of a fixed install in a performance space in terms of home stereo which leads to the typical request to "upgrade" to stereo. BUT and again this is broad generality, and as Brad said there can be specific requirements that would alter this, typically stereo FOH systems are more trouble than they are worth. The main issue is that home stereo systems assume a limited area for seating with a "sweet spot" in a Performance space PA in general you are looking at broad even coverage where each seat has good sound, So USUALLY you wind up with a MONO system, but with speakers placed for the coverage NOT generating a wide soundscape. At home you are in a small space using Stereo to simulate a large space, in a Audience chamber you are in a large space and the Characteristics of the space are providing that "soundscape"
Sharyn
DiscoBoxer
Active Member
Brent, how are your speakers currently arranged in the space? Are they spread evenly on a horizontal plane or in clusters, or do you have two at the stage and another set further into the house or another location? This info may or may not help in selecting a proper DSP.
As stated above, a proper DSP will take the job of some of the equipment you have in-path. The FB-Eliminator could possibly be hurting your sound quality more than it helps and Sharyn hit it on the nail that proper speaker placement is your biggest ally in resolving most feedback issues. That plus some monitor placement/volume control and some technique training for your team on mic control.
I personally prefer a stereo or LCR system over a mono. These systems do not benefit in all environments and can be a challenge, but they do offer benefits. If you have a wide stage and space, it can help the connection with the stage by putting the sound where the guitar or keyboard may be if they are far stage left/right for example. This way the audience hears what they see. Also, you can create separation in the sound of instruments by panning them more one side or the other so that the freq. aren't always in battle. If you have an audio guy who may be less than experienced, you can route every thing evenly/mono quite easily. In an effort to support the wisdom of Sharyn on the stereo issue, I have seen many venues where stereo setups were useless due to the speaker configuration of the environment.
My thought so far is that you do not need a DSP larger than a 2x6, so the options Museav mentioned earlier seem sufficient. If the environment remains mono, you will have the most flexibility with your system for wiring. If you decide to go Stereo, that will limit you some, but you should still have enough outputs to cover your amps by linking them in the future. The only need for more outputs on the DSP would be for more "zones", such as speakers that need to be delayed when they are further from your main house speakers, or in different rooms, or in some cases a record out (I like record out to come from the console), and for allocating certain bandwidth to specific speakers like your subs.
As stated above, a proper DSP will take the job of some of the equipment you have in-path. The FB-Eliminator could possibly be hurting your sound quality more than it helps and Sharyn hit it on the nail that proper speaker placement is your biggest ally in resolving most feedback issues. That plus some monitor placement/volume control and some technique training for your team on mic control.
I personally prefer a stereo or LCR system over a mono. These systems do not benefit in all environments and can be a challenge, but they do offer benefits. If you have a wide stage and space, it can help the connection with the stage by putting the sound where the guitar or keyboard may be if they are far stage left/right for example. This way the audience hears what they see. Also, you can create separation in the sound of instruments by panning them more one side or the other so that the freq. aren't always in battle. If you have an audio guy who may be less than experienced, you can route every thing evenly/mono quite easily. In an effort to support the wisdom of Sharyn on the stereo issue, I have seen many venues where stereo setups were useless due to the speaker configuration of the environment.
My thought so far is that you do not need a DSP larger than a 2x6, so the options Museav mentioned earlier seem sufficient. If the environment remains mono, you will have the most flexibility with your system for wiring. If you decide to go Stereo, that will limit you some, but you should still have enough outputs to cover your amps by linking them in the future. The only need for more outputs on the DSP would be for more "zones", such as speakers that need to be delayed when they are further from your main house speakers, or in different rooms, or in some cases a record out (I like record out to come from the console), and for allocating certain bandwidth to specific speakers like your subs.
Stereo systems can be great for reproducing stereo or sources. However, as Sharyn noted, one problem with "stereo" systems is that they work based on the differences in level, frequency response and timing between the two signals. When dealing with larger listener areas, because every seat has a different relationship to the speakers and room then those differences tend to vary over the larger listener area. Thus too often the benefits noted exist for the person mixing and some of the audience but do not translate as well to other members of the audience. At the same time, due to the very fact they involve the same sound emanating from speakers in two different locations, stereo systems can be detrimental to intelligibility, especially for mono sources (like vocals and speech).
Just think about the "hear what you see" aspect. Envision of someone starting stage right and moving to stage left. To someone seated front center this is a large movement from far left through center to far right. To someone seated center in the rear of the house it is the same left-center-right movement but not nearly as large of an angular movement. To someone house left they are moving center to right. To someone house right more left to center. Because they have different relationships to the stage, people seated in different locations also have different perceptions of a physical location based on visual cues. A speaker system that will create corresponding aural clues for the entire listener area is more complex than simply having speakers located left and right.
LCR systems with left, center and right channels can a very good compromise to allow for the benefits of mono and stereo systems, however many of the same issues exist and many "LCR" systems are improperly designed. Some are also actually stereo plus center mono systems rather than true LCR. Again, just having left, center and right speakers does not really make a proper LCR system, there is more to it than that.
I bring all of this up because I too often see venues "upgrading" from mono systems when what they really end up doing is simply having more speakers and creating a more complex system with an assumption the results will be better. There are certainly situations where a properly designed stereo system can provide benefits, however given that many often have to work within tight budgets, I find that people too often spend their money on lesser quality 'stereo' systems when they would likely be better served by a higher quality mono system.
