Correct order?: Mixer>EQ>Crossover>PowerAmp(s)

[Arranger]

I'm not sure if the EQ comes before or after the Crossover.

Is this the right order?:
Mixer > EQ > Crossover > PowerAmp

Also, the dbx Crossover comes in a TRS or XLR version. Is there any real life reason to pick one over the other?

Thanks for the help -

 

[RicPlaya]

So you want to use an EQ besides what you already have on the board?

Which models crossovers are you looking at? Any newer DBX crossover should have eithier the LW, or butterworth slope whick would be what you want for an active cross over. (google crossover slope for more info). I cannot tell with my ear the difference between them.

 

[baba]

I'm not sure if the EQ comes before or after the Crossover.

Is this the right order?:
Mixer > EQ > Crossover > PowerAmp

Yes.

As far as the dbx, I'd go with XLR since they snap in, but check the amp and eq connections to see what they are...this may help dictate which would work better for you and your existing cables.

 

[Arranger]

So you want to use an EQ besides what you already have on the board?

Yep. I'm looking for more control. I've always found an outboard EQ helpful for correcting certain room problems.

Which models crossovers are you looking at? Any newer DBX crossover should have eithier the LW, or butterworth slope whick would be what you want for an active cross over. (google crossover slope for more info). I cannot tell with my ear the difference between them.

I'm looking at the 223 and 223XL, both advertised by dbx Here in this way, "All dbx crossovers all feature Linkwitz-Riley 24dB per octave filters, the professional standard." I hope this is a sensible choice for the amateur that I am.

 

[RicPlaya]

Yep. I'm looking for more control. I've always found an outboard EQ helpful for correcting certain room problems.



I'm looking at the 223 and 223XL, both advertised by dbx Here in this way, "All dbx crossovers all feature Linkwitz-Riley 24dB per octave filters, the professional standard." I hope this is a sensible choice for the amateur that I am.

LR not LW like I said..LOL yeah just a simple dial crossover is all you need. You are correct with the EQ..I think when you use an EQ like that your going to be cutting unwanted frequencies more so then boosting. I would maybe have it in the chain and run it on bypass. That way if you need it and the board cannot correct the problems you are having you can use the EQ only when you have to. Less is more IMO.

 

[JustDavid]

You are right; that's the usual order.

As for TRS or XLR, it should just be a different type of connector; same signal level & impedance. I'd go for XLR because it latches in, matches my snake & power amps, and because I have lots & lots of XLR to XLR already.

 

[JustDavid]

+ 1 on 'cut only'.

 

[Zooberwerx]

The dbx Xover is a good choice and relatively inexpensive if you can find one used. The small buttons in the back can be a PIA if you frequently cable and de-cable the rig. They're located adjacent to the XLR jacks and can be easily activated / deactivated if you're not careful. Our guitarist was complaining that some of the vocals were bleeding through the subs. Turns out the "crossover point X 10" had accidentally been activated. I had it set at ~80 hz so the resulting crossover point was actually 800 hz. I've learned to be more careful!

Riis

 

[modulusman]

If your mixing board has main inserts you could use insert cables and patch your EQ in that way instead of inline.

 

[Zooberwerx]

If your mixing board has main inserts you could use insert cables and patch your EQ in that way instead of inline.

+1. Dynamic enhancers and EQ should be applied at the insert point(s) so as to address the entire signal. Effects processors should be placed in the appropriate Aux Send / Return loop. This allows you to regulate the wet / dry ratio on each channel.

Sorry, not trying to be a know-it-all but, betweenst studying the manual and maintaining an ongoing on-line dialogue with Behringer's tech support (pretty good, actually), I've picked up quite a bit over the past week.

Riis

 

[georgestrings]

If your mixing board has main inserts you could use insert cables and patch your EQ in that way instead of inline.

I'm currently running a Soundcraft fx16 mixer with a dbx231 EQ, and an 223XL crossover - I've been told that either in line, or mains inserted are both correct methods of using an EQ in this situation... So, I've tried both - IME, there isn't any real sound difference between the two, but by going in line, one is afforded another way of regulating PA mains gain structure with the input level control and meters on the dbx231 - so, that's how I've been running it, and with very good results...



- georgestrings

 

[georgestrings]

+1. Dynamic enhancers and EQ should be applied at the insert point(s) so as to address the entire signal. Effects processors should be placed in the appropriate Aux Send / Return loop. This allows you to regulate the wet / dry ratio on each channel.

Sorry, not trying to be a know-it-all but, betweenst studying the manual and maintaining an ongoing on-line dialogue with Behringer's tech support (pretty good, actually), I've picked up quite a bit over the past week.

Riis

Just out of curiousity, how does running EQ in line NOT "address the entire signal"??? - Just wondering,



- georgestrings

 

[projectMalamute]

I'm currently running a Soundcraft fx16 mixer with a dbx231 EQ, and an 223XL crossover - I've been told that either in line, or mains inserted are both correct methods of using an EQ in this situation... So, I've tried both - IME, there isn't any real sound difference between the two, but by going in line, one is afforded another way of regulating PA mains gain structure with the input level control and meters on the dbx231 - so, that's how I've been running it, and with very good results...



- georgestrings

I'd probably run the thing in line, just to avoid unbalancing the signal at the mains inserts.

You would probably never notice a difference.

 

[projectMalamute]

Just out of curiousity, how does running EQ in line NOT "address the entire signal"??? - Just wondering,



- georgestrings

Of course it addresses the entire signal. Only exception I can think of is if the main bus mixes to a mono send which you are using for something. In that case you could be EQ'ing the 2 bus but not the summed mono. Inserts would be ahead of this.

 

[Zooberwerx]

Just out of curiousity, how does running EQ in line NOT "address the entire signal"??? - Just wondering,



- georgestrings

Perhaps my wording is askew. Here's an excerpt from the UB 2442 manual. Hey, all I know is what I read but its a starting point as I attempt to cable a mixer, dyn. processor (BBE SM), para EQ, and effects unit:


"Insert points are very useful to process channel signals with dynamic processors or equalizers. Unlike reverb or other effects devices, whoase signals are usually added to the dry signal, dynamic processors are most effective on the complete signal. In this case, aux send paths are a less-than-perfect solution. It is better to interrupt the signal path and insert a dynamic processor and/or equalizer. After processing, the signal is routed back to the console at precisely the same point it left."

Okay, kinda makes sense but I'm sure there are alternatives.

Riis

 

[georgestrings]

Perhaps my wording is askew. Here's an excerpt from the UB 2442 manual. Hey, all I know is what I read but its a starting point as I attempt to cable a mixer, dyn. processor (BBE SM), para EQ, and effects unit:


"Insert points are very useful to process channel signals with dynamic processors or equalizers. Unlike reverb or other effects devices, whoase signals are usually added to the dry signal, dynamic processors are most effective on the complete signal. In this case, aux send paths are a less-than-perfect solution. It is better to interrupt the signal path and insert a dynamic processor and/or equalizer. After processing, the signal is routed back to the console at precisely the same point it left."

Okay, kinda makes sense but I'm sure there are alternatives.

Riis

Reading what you just quoted, that's talking about channel inserts, not main mix inserts - and in that regard, it's not unusual for live sound pros to channel insert a parametric EQ to nail a particular tone for that channel...



- georgestrings

 

[georgestrings]

I'd probably run the thing in line, just to avoid unbalancing the signal at the mains inserts.

You would probably never notice a difference.

It's my understanding that an insert cable run is short enough so that being unbalanced doesn't have any effect in this circumstance...

As I said, I've actually tried it both ways, and the ONLY difference I noticed was that in line gave me the use of the EQ's input gain level knob and output level meter as another gain structuring and monitoring tool - which I have found to be useful...


- georgestrings

 

[georgestrings]

Of course it addresses the entire signal. Only exception I can think of is if the main bus mixes to a mono send which you are using for something. In that case you could be EQ'ing the 2 bus but not the summed mono. Inserts would be ahead of this.

I believe that to be correct, although I'd have to take a look at a particular mixer's block diagram to verify it...


- georgestrings

 

[JustDavid]

I read the manual quote as referring to any inserts, not just channel or main. Or subgroup or aux.

 

[Zooberwerx]

Reading what you just quoted, that's talking about channel inserts, not main mix inserts - and in that regard, it's not unusual for live sound pros to channel insert a parametric EQ to nail a particular tone for that channel...



- georgestrings

Could be but tech support said I could also place the aforementioned processor and EQ betweenst the mixer and power amp(s) as an alternative. Given this info, I assumed they were referring to main inserts as first choice. We only have one parametric EQ so we have to make the most of it. Each channel does have its own single-band para EQ (located on the channel EQ strips). Its nothing to yell about but it does an OK job.

Riis