Author Topic: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"  (Read 11869 times)

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« on: September 22, 2009, 08:40:15 AM »
Having recently installed a DCX in the system with five output channels being full active, I've been warned about the "pro sound" I would be creating.
Just curious as to your definition of "Pro Sound".

Thanks guys,  :D
Bob

Offline bpape

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Sensible Sound Solutions
    • Owner - Sensible Sound Solutions
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2009, 09:27:20 AM »
When I think of good pro equiment, I think of:

- Very dynamic
- Somewhat sterile
- Somewhat 2 dimensional
- Lacking that ultimate detail and micro-resolution

Bryan
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2009, 09:57:08 AM »
Alright, good deal. Thanks for the info.
But are saying the DCX (in stock form) would be in your list of "good" pro equipment?
My self serving goal here is in specific reference to the DCX.

Thanks again!
Bob

p.s. Just a couple days after I got the DCX wired up, I got a nasty cold/flu thing that has affected my hearing and hasn't quite gone away yet. After reading my original post, it has the appearance of a loaded question which was unintended. But in all honesty, I won't make any public claims to the sound quality of the unit, other than that my slightly handicapped ears are fairly happy so far.  :lol:

Offline bpape

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Sensible Sound Solutions
    • Owner - Sensible Sound Solutions
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2009, 10:21:58 AM »
I wouldn't call the DCX in the top tier of pro equipment.  That said, some of the things Mike Galusha did to his evidently were transformational. 

In the less expensive equipment, they just generally don't spend a lot of time on power supply stability, isolation of digital hash from the rest of the circuitry, don't use the best AD/DA chips in the world, etc.  Think about the difference when changing PS on the SB from the little wall wart switcher to a regulated linear supply...

Bryan
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 10:32:32 AM by bpape »
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2009, 10:42:57 AM »
Fair enough. I honestly did think you were referring to the DCX as being "up there", but just wanted to check.

Thanks Bryan!  :D

Anybody else have a definition of "pro"?

Bob

Black Sand Cable

  • Guest
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2009, 10:44:13 AM »
Quote
Just curious as to your definition of "Pro Sound".

ProSound to me equals Genelec. I have been in a few studio's and when I hear a set of Genelec's, I always think studio sound or Pro sound. They are very dynamic.....in your face kind of sound.

Offline bpape

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Sensible Sound Solutions
    • Owner - Sensible Sound Solutions
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2009, 10:50:54 AM »
Don't get me wrong, the DCX offers a ton of features and flexibility for the money.  Not sure anything else will touch it.  It's a great thing to tweak on.

Bryan
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2009, 11:00:17 AM »
The value of the DCX is the software programming and the 32 bit DSP. That is worth the $300 all by itself when compared to less configurable, lower resolution, higher priced processors from Rane, dbx, Bryston, Marchand, etc.  Everything else inside the box is of questionable quality. Behringer is the cheapest of pro audio brands in price and quality. If everything but the brain is replaced you could build yourself a true high end source. It's a lot of money time and work.  But some measure of mods is necessary to all Behringer processors because they have notoriously bad reliability. Usually power supply storage caps fail within 2 years.  Easy to fix before or after.

Pro sound in this context just means less refined, less detailed, grainy, harsh, whatever. The stock output stage of the DCX is truly ugly. There is no consideration to sound quality whatsoever, only cost and features and ease of use. Several $0.50 opamps are used for buffering yes, but more are used to accept balanced and unbalanced loads, emphasis on ease of use over sound quality. Available commercial DCX mods do away with the stock output stage at a minimum and then go further to refine PS, clock, etc.

Pro sound means focus on cost, because pro's are trying to make money. Do it with an opamp instead of a discrete circuit and you can lower the cost to compete with other cheapo brands. High end audio means focus is on sound quality for consumers who will pay for the difference. The last 1% improvement will attract some customers who will accept nothing less.   Most products fall somewhere in the middle. But Behringer, like Wavac, is closer to an extreme. The low price appeals to young musicians with no money and big dreams, they still need gear.

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2009, 11:02:48 AM »
Here is Gary Pimm's analysis of the DCX output stage, and his fixes. But there are many ways to skin the cat.

http://home.comcast.net/~pimm1028/web/behringer.htm


Offline allenzachary

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2009, 01:05:03 PM »
I'm big on analogies.  If nervosa inducing audio is your favorite sports car, "pro" sound equipment is a delivery truck.

The sports car is designed to react quickly to subtle direction.  The delivery truck is meant for durability and abuse.   Driving a sports car is fun; driving a delivery truck is work.

Listening to hi end audio is fun (analyzing it to the point of nervosa is work...but that's another conversastion) and listiening to pro sound is work to be avoided.

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2009, 01:52:24 PM »
Eeww....crap....  :?
It's beginning to sound more bleak by the post.  :duh
Oh well, I've made my bed, now I've got to lay in it (for awhile at least).

Good news, the fellow in Norway that Mr Galusha was kind enough to link me too in my > Cable thread < just now (finally) was successful in receiving my $9.  :roll:
Paypal made that much harder than it needed to be.
But that PCB will be one of the first things I do in the path to upgrading the unit.

Thanks for the definitions fellas, don't be shy with more opinions/definitions.

I'm also looking for a few pair of ears to drop by my house periodically to check on my audible progress.
hint hint..... ;)

Bob

Offline bpape

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Sensible Sound Solutions
    • Owner - Sensible Sound Solutions
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2009, 01:58:20 PM »
Baby steps Bob.  This is  something you can tweak on for a long time a little at a time as budget allows.  I suspect Mike could give you a few pointers for some pretty good improvements for small investments.

Bryan
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2009, 02:04:13 PM »
Oh yea, baby steps for sure. Mainly just from a financial standpoint (you know the story).
The last thing I want to do is gut the whole thing and do several mods all at once.
cuzz......What if it's messed up, that makes it very hard to diagnose. So, I'll just do one at a time.
I know Mike is the king of the modded DCX and I'd love to get in his head, but my main goal is to leave him alone as much as possible. I don't want to become a pest.  :lol:

Bob

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2009, 02:55:27 PM »
Mike helped me a lot with my DCX. Thanks mike!

Sorry I didn't mean to piss on your DCX Bob.  I hope it's not shorted out? I can be an audiophile snob sometimes.  :-P

It is what it is, and that makes it very popular because it's got a lot to offer at a great price. If the sound bothers you after a while, then go for some mods.  Until then just enjoy the benefits of active xo.

Offline Bob in St. Louis

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Definition needed: Having a "Pro Sound"
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2009, 03:04:18 PM »
No piss received here Rich. It's all good dude. Until you talk about my Mother, we're cool.
The benefits.....Wow......Endless. Lot's of fun, lots of cool adjustments. The ability to change XO point, channel gain, turning one "section" of a tri amped rig on and off, etc.... without leaving my chair is priceless.

But what I was really going for, is what does pro sound, sound like.
You guys have given some great examples. Thanks for that.  :D

Bob