It's easy enough to just see the 'loudest' frequencies and back them off a tad. To be perfectly honest, I think I prefer just the FLS.
I've also used Peavey's Feedback Ferret and the FLS-equipped EQ's. I've been using it about a year, mostly in my rehearsal space and mostly to see what it will and will not do. If I'm not mistaken, the Driverack PA uses the same device. The dbx is the same price as Peavey's Feedback Ferret. The dbx, while not as inexpensive as Behringer's, Nady's and some others' bargain suppressors, it is $120 less than the Sabine for a two-channel unit. Also they don't seem to like Peavey's or others' competitive products as much as dbx's. Online retailers customers give high reviews for the dbx, none yet for Sabine. They also make the fBX-1020, a single channel version of the FBX-2400 I'm asking about. So, does anyone have experience with one or the other, or both? Sabine's previous models were the FBX-11, much higher priced, I supposed in response to real competition for a change. These are just two of the reasons why dbx's actually sounds like it could be more advanced than Sabine's. 1/10 octave per filter), learning filters (if two frequencies are very close to each other, dbx's filters will recognize that and expand slightly to cover both with just one filter, allowing the other to be available to deal with other frequencies. dbx AFS224: a Senior Engineer from dbx wrote a white paper explaining the theory behimd why he thinks his design is a significant improvement over Sabine's and, though I'm not an engineer (though I am a scientist during the day), it makes at least theoretical sense to me. So, let's be fair and hear from people who know first-hand, not just bias, please. AFter all, it also means there's enough time for others to tear down, copy, improve, etc. OK, first, let 's try our best to not let Sabine's historic dominance in the market bias us too much.
0 kommentar(er)
