CA 840c vs modded Behringer 2496 DEQ

M

Mr_Sukebe

Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
912
Reaction score
0
Location
London
Probably a question best for Tenson, but others may have also run a comparison.
How does an audiosmile DEQ compare to a CA 840c (excluded the additional functionality of room correction, which the DEQ brings to the party)?
 
I haven't done a direct comparison, but both are competent machines so I suspect they sound pretty similar.

I might hazard a guess that the modded Behringer sounds ever so slightly rounder and warmer. Though both will be very neutral.
 
I have not heard Tenson's modded Behringer kit but unmodded it is pretty much the worst 'pro' (ha, ha) gear that you can buy. It is like saying that you are considering buying a Ford Focus ST and a mate has modded a Lada. The build quality and reliability on stock Behringer is not good. Unless Tenson has replaced pretty much everything I would proceed with a demo before buying!
 
dominicT said:
It is like saying that you are considering buying a Ford Focus ST and a mate has modded a Lada.
Click to expand...

Well, firstly it strongly depends what you are buying. Some things, cheap is cheap, other items the line is not so clear.

Its not really a very good analogy since the engines and chassis in those two cars are completely different.

If anything its more like saying a new Skoda vs. VW. They are very similar underneath the bonnet except for a few changes and a different skin. Though my car knowledge is rather poor.

If you look under the hood of the SRC2496 for example, you will find the same input receiver and DAC chips found in a huge array of players - because there are only a handful of manufactures out there with the ability to produce such chips, and they are pretty close to theoretical perfection. For example the same DAC chip is used in the Chord integrated CD player and nearly all the current E-MU range of interfaces as well as Edirols. The older RME Digi96/8 and DigiDesign 882 used an older version of the same DAC chip. I don't know about the newer DigiDesign and RME kit.

Once it goes to the analogue side of things you have the output stage, and that is where things fall apart a bit with the cheaper gear. Most seem to use an excessive number of poorer quality parts and not too clever design. As is the case with stock Behringer. DigiDesign seem to favor discrete I/O circuits which is a very nice solution and is no doubt one of the main reasons for their great sound. I prefer the transformer solution as it works especially well with the AKM DAC chip.

The power supplies can also usually be improved in the more affordable kit by separating out analogue from digital circuitry with separate regulators and filtering. Again though its usually the same stuff as in the pricier kit (Naim and CA step up!), just implemented in a more cost friendly way.

Still I don't expect this to make much difference to anyones opinion, as most people have strong preconceptions to do with cost and brand that won't change overnight. Also the fact that most of the pro-budget manufactures make a lot of stuff that really is pants doesn't help much.
 
Hi Guys

If the Behringer DEQ Modded is as good as you say then I would expect it to be a fair bit better than the A840C. Last time I heard one against other pieces of equipment I don't think the 840C quite got to the Bel Canto CD2 standard and was definitely not up there with the ESOTERIC X-03 in WM's room with his kit.

I know it is system dependent but if the modded DEQ is indistinguishable from the DCS player (P8i?) then I'd say the A840 wouldn't be up there.
 
Hi I think your right it was the P8i. I don't know if it was quite on the same level but the difference was certainly not night and day.

The 840C is a great player too, and I don't think it can be significantly improved on. I mean.. the technology just isn't there to improve on it much.

Speakers... yeah spend all you want for a great speaker. Room acoustics... definitely! Power amps, yeah there is a difference though you don't need to spend tons. But digital sources? You don't need to spend more than the 840C costs to get a top flight machine. The rest is a combination of differences, not improvements and preconceptions about price, looks and brand. My opinion anyway, experience tells me I won't change anybody elses.
 
Tenson said:
Well, firstly it strongly depends what you are buying. Some things, cheap is cheap, other items the line is not so clear.

Its not really a very good analogy since the engines and chassis in those two cars are completely different.

If anything its more like saying a new Skoda vs. VW. They are very similar underneath the bonnet except for a few changes and a different skin. Though my car knowledge is rather poor.

If you look under the hood of the SRC2496 for example, you will find the same input receiver and DAC chips found in a huge array of players - because there are only a handful of manufactures out there with the ability to produce such chips, and they are pretty close to theoretical perfection. For example the same DAC chip is used in the Chord integrated CD player and nearly all the current E-MU range of interfaces as well as Edirols. The older RME Digi96/8 and DigiDesign 882 used an older version of the same DAC chip. I don't know about the newer DigiDesign and RME kit.

Once it goes to the analogue side of things you have the output stage, and that is where things fall apart a bit with the cheaper gear. Most seem to use an excessive number of poorer quality parts and not too clever design. As is the case with stock Behringer. DigiDesign seem to favor discrete I/O circuits which is a very nice solution and is no doubt one of the main reasons for their great sound. I prefer the transformer solution as it works especially well with the AKM DAC chip.

The power supplies can also usually be improved in the more affordable kit by separating out analogue from digital circuitry with separate regulators and filtering. Again though its usually the same stuff as in the pricier kit (Naim and CA step up!), just implemented in a more cost friendly way.

Still I don't expect this to make much difference to anyones opinion, as most people have strong preconceptions to do with cost and brand that won't change overnight. Also the fact that most of the pro-budget manufactures make a lot of stuff that really is pants doesn't help much.
Click to expand...

Interesting point about some of the electronics but in my case it is not preconceptions it is actual direct experience. Your base starting point is very low however if some of the electronics are identical to other gear then that is a start. However from a business perspective you do not appear to be helping yourself by modding an unattractive brand; surely better to mod something more acceptable and probably better quality to start with like Townsend did with the Pioneer CDP? Alternatively respray the front panel, remove all logos and call it Tenson hifi and flog it for a lot more money. Best of luck with it.
 
scott_01 said:
Hi Guys

If the Behringer DEQ Modded is as good as you say then I would expect it to be a fair bit better than the A840C. Last time I heard one against other pieces of equipment I don't think the 840C quite got to the Bel Canto CD2 standard and was definitely not up there with the ESOTERIC X-03 in WM's room with his kit.

I know it is system dependent but if the modded DEQ is indistinguishable from the DCS player (P8i?) then I'd say the A840 wouldn't be up there.
Click to expand...

Indistinguishable from a DCS player? Has someone other than Tenson formed this view? If so how much is this modded player? Can you do it gold plated with diamonds and cover the logo - would not want it spoiling the look of my lounge - joke!
 
Tenson

I do think it's a great machine and see what you mean about how the technology at base level isn't too different from brands much higher up. The parts inside are by all accounts pretty cheap and build quality while not sloppy isn't Esoteric.

In my experience:

Dynamatting made a huge difference and if I had to pluck a figure out of the air I'd say you get 68.36% more performance from the machine when the chassis is properly damped.

WM changed loads of parts, all the PS Caps and Rectification Diodes and it improved the basic player yet again but not by the same margin the Dynamat did.

As I understand it to really take things further you are probably looking at the analogue output stage and OP AMP changes next. Given that this imprints a large part of the sonic character on the player you are probably going to change the sound as well as 'improve' it. I spent 750 on the stock machine, 50 quid on dynamat and 5 hours to fit it then 300 (I think) on WM's Mods (96 parts changed).

It's now cost me 1100 and I really like it. I'm still tempted to take it a bit further and think there is more to be had. But I think that the law of diminishing returns is definitely kicking in now. Besides I am being inexorably drawn towards importing an Accuphase E-530 and will save money for that.

From a layman's POV the transport doesn't seem to hold the disk totally stable when playing and maybe this is where the likes of Bel Canto and Esoteric have the edge in addition to the vastly superior stock build quality. If I had the cash I'd just buy an X-03.

An 'ultimate' A840C would be a nice project though.

As for the topic, er sorry.
 
dominicT said:
Interesting point about some of the electronics but in my case it is not preconceptions it is actual direct experience.
Click to expand...

Experience coloured by preconceptions... unless you did it blind, ABX etc..? (Oh no, not that again!)

Your base starting point is very low however if some of the electronics are identical to other gear then that is a start. However from a business perspective you do not appear to be helping yourself by modding an unattractive brand; surely better to mod something more acceptable and probably better quality to start with?
Click to expand...

All affordable brands seem to be perceived as 'unattractive'. The Behringer units I choose to mod are a very good staring point in terms of the internals, better than most other kit at a sensible price.

Alternatively respray the front panel, remove all logos and call it Tenson hifi and flog it for a lot more money. Best of luck with it.
Click to expand...

I have tweaked the looks of one of my own, but I think unless an entire new case is made as well as a new control panel its still going to be recognisable as Behringer.

I had a Behringer DEQ myself and wanted better sound from it so I worked on the modifications. Then I offered them to others.

I can see this thread could easily turn in to a heated debate about double blind tests and the like and I really don't fancy that so I am going to step out now, I've posted my thoughts.

Best of luck with whatever you choose to buy Dom, and Mike.
 
Tenson, I make records, the kit either works or it doesnt. There is much better kit out there in terms of sound quality and reliability. When my business depends on these things do not tell me that my preconception gets in the way.

Based on what you have said I am sure that it could be an interesting proposition, so much so that I asked for a price from you, but you have declined to answer - weird - I thought that you sold these for a living?
 
dominicT said:
Tenson, I make records... When my business depends on these things do not tell me that my preconception gets in the way.
Click to expand...

Like I said I'm not going to argue this one, people always take it personally and there are no winners.

I asked for a price from you, but you have declined to answer - weird - I thought that you sold these for a living?
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't see that, was it on ZG or an email?

The price is on my website, a modified DEQ is £399, DCX with all outputs modded is £576 and the SRC is £285. All have pretty much equal sound quality but differing features.

I don't make a huge profit on them but they keep things ticking over.
 
If you want a good integrated CD player buy the Cambridge.

If you have a good transport (of whatever variety) and want a good DAC buy the AudioSmile Behringer.

Whatever you do, please resist the temptation to start pulling bits out of the 840C and stuffing it with Audiofool components.
The parts fitted and fine - leave them alone.

The stock Behringer I owned sounded fine and worked without flaw. Unless you plan to hurl it around the room or use it as a cricket bat it should last for years. The Audiosmile mods improve the PSU and output stage which are necessarily built down to a price in the standard unit. When you add in the extras such as the room correction it rapidly becomes a no brainer purchase if it does what you want.

Mike, if you want to hear an 840C you are welcome to hear mine anytime and I'm sure Simon would supply his unit for you to compare. I promise I will say absolutely nothing to sway you in any way.
 
The DEQ is a good starting point for modifications for sure, but in stock form I can't see it being much cop!

I own a modded M-Audio Superdac which is a very similar topology to the DEQ (providing the latter is used as a straightforward DAC), using the same input receiver, DAC chip and a similarly 'budget' output stage with very cheap components throughout, and used it for a while unmodded and to be fair it sounded pretty grim - better than a Marantz CD4000 which was an £80 new bit of kit, but not by miles by any means.

I remember using it as Isaacs old place to compared to his modded one for a couple of tracks and everyone was wincing a bit! (Dean, W-M and Gary present too)!

Saying that though when modded the Superdac sounded completely different, really far superior and a rather good sound for the cost (£200 for the lot inc mods), so don't see why the DEQ wouldn't benefit from the same sort of mods given the similarities between it and the Superdac. As to how it compared to other kit, I can't say, but I can still see there being a huge divide between a stock unmodded unit (which will be poor) and one thats been breathed on (which can be pretty good, especially given price).
 
RobHolt said:
If you want a good integrated CD player buy the Cambridge.

If you have a good transport (of whatever variety) and want a good DAC buy the AudioSmile Behringer.

Whatever you do, please resist the temptation to start pulling bits out of the 840C and stuffing it with Audiofool components.
The parts fitted and fine - leave them alone.

Mike, if you want to hear an 840C you are welcome to hear mine anytime and I'm sure Simon would supply his unit for you to compare. I promise I will say absolutely nothing to sway you in any way.
Click to expand...

I will be away from my system for a while (maybe 6 months) but next time I am on the mainland I would be more than happy to bring my player over for anyone to listen to. I'd be really interested to A/B with a stock unit. I'm positive there is a difference. I'll start a thread when I return. But in the mean time, if you have the time, an anti stat mat and a steady hand then Dynamat makes a huge difference.
 
FWIW, I have a Behringer DEQ2496 in my moderately high end system (see my signature below). I use it as a room correction device only - bypassing the Behringer's own ADC and DAC. Used like that I think it's a fantastic bit of kit - pretty much transparent sonically in digital-only mode, it really doesn't seem to get in the way of the music at all, imho, just takes away room-resonance effects.

I can well imagine there are real benefits to be had to the ADC/DAC sections with sensible modifications.
 
i'd go with the CA if you actually want to spin discs as well, but for a DAC only solution it seems an awful waste of casework.

It does hugely benefit from damping the casework, all the other mods you can throw at it are subtle, even chnaging op-ampos in the output stage which are as good as they get anyway.

i have a very differentyl modded flavour of c840 to scotts that i'd be willing to throw in to the mix.
 
The DEQ is a very good machine and i really dont know where some people are comming from when they say its flimsy and unreliable. Mine did a wonderful job with my speakers getting rid of bass boom and lifting the performance levels up a notch or two. I also had no trouble with reliability. I think these people who moan and groan about other peoples gear are either enept at setting it up properly or havent even tried one.
 
Dominic,

I am going to have to agree with the other guys. The Cambridge is not worth modding.

It is OK and probably represents excellent value at the price. BUT as you have heard (forget the ABX bollox) it is not the sonic equivalent of an Esoteric X03 (or anything near it). If you hear the X03 as better it is. All this palaver about being fooled is foolish, it sounds better 'cause it is.

I have never heard the Audiosmile modded kit but his prices look really, really good. BUT you may need to operate at the other end of the market if you are after hearing things close(ish) to what the engineers heard.

PRO gear is meant to be bullet proof with sound quality not being the main consideration. Now I am not saying PRO gear is crap but if it fails then that is a real problem for a studio as opposed to 50% sound quality improvement. There is soem studio gear that is bullet-proof and great sound quality (Tims) but it ain't the Behringer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top