behringer 2496 compared to Weiss?

[starcat]

Has anyone compared the mostly AKM based 24/96 DAC of any Behringer ultra precision processor like Pro DEQ2496 or Pro SRC2469 to a Weiss DAC (of course up to 24/96 and not above).

 

[MaartenR]

I've never heard them together but I do know the Behringer and for what I've heard about the Weiss, its waaaaaay better. The behringer is a very poor sounding DAC in my opinion, it's not designed to be a DAC-only.

 

[mpmct]

The Atlantic ocean is filled with Pepsi-Cola.

That's what I heard. ;-)

 

I have the Behr in question: Mac server > Bel Canto DAC3 > Behr > Bel Canto S300s ( 2 ) to Emerald Physics CS2s.

 

Digital to analogue to digital to analogue. Heresy! ;-)

Not to mention these crappy/cheap-o pro-audio drivers in the CS2s.

 

Well ... it all blows away my previous: Mac > BC DAC3 > S300 > passive x-over $5000 monitors. Must be those awful DACs in the Behr. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

[MaartenR]

You are using the Bel Canto as your DAC and the Behringer more as an equalizer I suppose? That could work, but what is the quality of your sound system when you remove the Bel Canto DAC?

 

Also, is your Bel Canto connected to the Behringer with digital or analogue outputs? With the first option, your not using your BC DAC at all and with the second option, the Behringer is not used as a DAC.

 

Btw, I did hear the Behringer, not the Weiss though.

 

[mpmct]

Respectfully ...

 

The BC DAC is fed analogue out to the Behr analogue ins.

Was that not clear from my post?

 

You claimed that the Weiss way 'waaaaay' better than

the Behr, based on things you have never heard?

Well.

 

Please re-read my previous post to answer your questions

regarding D-A/A-D/D-A.

 

From what you 'heard' ( from who, by the way? )

the Weiss, at 10x or more the msrp

of the Behr was 'waaaay' better ( it oughta' be, no? ).

Is it? Let's do a proper AB/X test, and find out.

As of the moment, I don't know, nor do you.

 

Claims based on 'I heard' stuff ...

It's all conjecture, not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)

But they are what they are.

Seriously, let's all us golden-ears be a little careful with

our grandiose generalizations. :-)

 

Both Tim ( aka Van Morrison in a white hat )

and Ashley have, IMHO, been the voices

of sanity in this regard.

 

Just my opinion. Tin ear and all. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[starcat]

I have heard lot of high-end DACs like Levinsons, Lavry's, EMM labs and was *anyway* more than excited how well a $200 Behringer SRC2496 can sound!! I haven't had the chance to do A/B in the same systemm, thus I asked?!

 

[MaartenR]

Well, then your actual D/A converter is your Bel Canto? Are you sure the Behringer is A-D'ing the analogue input and not just keeping it analogue? You're not using the Behringer as a normal DAC, the thing the original poster is interested in. Have you ever tried removing the BC from your system and using the digital ins of your Behringer directly? I would find it hard to believe that it would sound as good as the BC. Anyway, if it sounds good to you you have every reason to be satisfied of course.

 

I did hear the Behringer compared to the Bechmark Dac1, Apogee Mini-dac and Musical Fidelity A3.24. The later three being a lot better in my opinion than the Behringer. Since reviews placed the Weiss in the same league as the Dac1 and Apogee, I supose it is also a lot better than the Behringer, but I did not hear them together no. Of course, the Behringer might be a good piece of equipment at his price, but compared to the others at higher prices, the difference to me was hard to miss.

 

[mpmct]

As I wrote previously: Mac > Bel Canto DAC3 > analogue out,

to analogue in, Behr. The Behr then of course, converts the analogue

signal to digital, back to analogue, and out to amplifiers.

So, lotsa DACs, the final resolution by the Behr DACs.

Assuming the BC DAC3 analogue out has a big effect on the

signal that is then reprocessed by the Behr ... well, you get the point.

 

The Emerald Physics manufacturer Q&A:

 

Question: "From a purist standpoint, it seems redundant to convert the analog signal into digital for processing and back again. Doesn’t that degrade the sound?"

Answer: "Ideally, we would rather process the digital data directly from the CD player or hard drive for the best results, but modern DSP processors available in the marketplace have reached such a performance level that their presence is essentially undetectable. Passive crossover networks in conventional speaker inflict far more damage to the signal..."

 

My larger point is, having spent a lot of money based on claims,

A/B/X testing is one of the few reliable means of judging *audible* differences.

Everyone has an opinion, and everyone who claims he has, has a golden ear.

But it's all conjecture. Nothing wrong with conjecture, but it needs to be

defined for what it is: random opinion. Mine -- just one more of them! :-)

 

I've posted this link previously. Proper A/B testing is not rocket science.

It is however, a lot of work, and the results ... well ...

 

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

[flak]

Being a newbie to computer music I'd very much appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following....

 

I'm thinking of feeding a behringer 2496 (to be used for biamping) with the signal from a V LINK 24 BIT 96 kHz asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converter with coax and optical, the following one:

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/V-Series/V-LINK/v-link.asp

 

The reasoning is that I could play files from HDTRACKS with a common portable computer and interpose the V LINK converter to isolate the computer by data resynchronization and separation from the ground.

There should be almost no jitter and I could than feed the digital output of the VLINK directly to the digital inputs of the Behringer 2496 without unnecessary conversions....

 

Does this approach have some merit or being a newbie I'm missing something?

I apologize if my english is not that good and I thank you for your time.