• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

dbx 223xs Crossover Review

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Mine is about 30 years old and still working, and I have installed many that worked for 10+ years without failure. One bad one should not condemn an entire product line, or company. These things are all over the pro world where they survive lots of abuse for many years. That said, I have not bought one recently, but the ones most likely to post are the ones with problems -- for any product.
 

NYfan2

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
209
Likes
446
Location
Netherlands
Same here we have several DBX crossovers and signal processors in use, most crossovers are 10+ years, only problem we had were the back-up battery that fails after 5+ years. But we have a backup of the settings so after changing the battery (and finding the old laptop with RS232 connection) these are again good to go.
 

Rrobot

Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
12
Likes
6
Now, I will be interested to know if the Chinese copies measure the same or are essentially the same?
Indeed. Here in Australia, Swamp Industries sell a crossover with essentially the same functionality and a very similar name for a mere $150AUD which seems to have almost identical (sometimes better) published specs than this unit. I'm quite tempted to give it a go.

Edit: Just downloaded the manual and it looks like it possibly is actually made by DBX, just rebadged!
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
I blame Harman, not the Chinese manufacturers.

They are screwing down the manufacturers to the point they can't make reliable, well made product.

dbx gear made in the US in the 70s is STILL working perfectly. I know, I have plenty of pieces. I looked at a dbx (by Harman) EQ the other day. It was utter junk.

As mentioned, I've been using an original 215 quite a few years now (dbx EQs were 'updated' a couple of years ago, now claiming better S/N, although with essentially the same layout and features). For the most part (and in my location) it is 'set it and forget it'. I wouldn't argue that constant (or even frequent) use of the sliders, buttons, and knobs might cause 'premature' failure. That said, for the price it is quite solid, IMO.

As I also mentioned somewhere, a dbx 223 crossover failed out of the box, requiring an immediate return. Typical, or just my luck?

Finally, as far as point of manufacture, the basic dbx analog crossover design/faceplate is found on a handful differently branded products. Which leads me to believe all these units are sourced from the same OEM factory.

For those needing an analog EQ, the only alternative is to buy a used model, many years old. Within consumer space, analog EQ was once pretty popular, many with extensive features/capabilities. However it would surprise me if the few remaining hi-fi manufacturers offer them. The Yamaha site (both consumer and pro) doesn't show any.

So for consumer EQ you probably have to go 'pro'. But pro doesn't always mean a bargain--Yamaha pro lists their CD303RK CD player ($490.00), which appears to be the exact same model as the consumer oriented CD303 ($330.00), sans rack ears. LOL
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,155
Likes
1,665
Location
James Island, SC
inability to easily adjust the crossover (filter) frequencies to dial in the design (though 80 Hz would do it for most sub systems), etc. The box might not be all that small given the size of caps and coils required.

IMO - Don
Use the Harrison Labs PFMOD (I do) and you solve these 2 issues.
image800.png

image765.png
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Use the Harrison Labs PFMOD (I do) and you solve these 2 issues.
image800.png

image765.png
Passive filters have their own set of drawbacks, discussed endlessly elsewhere and listed in the rest of the post you did not quote:

Thanks for the review. ... but why on earth is it so complicated or expensive to keep one's existing high-end components and do a high and low pass for stereo pair and sub(s) with a proper passive crossover in a small nice looking box !??
Lots of reasons, but rather than list them all again I'll note you can buy inline filters like Harrison Labs' FMOD, a Marchand crossover, and there are a few kit crossovers and such. May be some other inexpensive models in boxes, not something I have researched.

Among the cons for passive filters are difficulty in achieving high-order roll offs (and suppressing noise pickup when inductors are used), interaction with source and load impedances, inability to adjust phase or amplitude/attenuation to assist in system integration, inability to easily adjust the crossover (filter) frequencies to dial in the design (though 80 Hz would do it for most sub systems), etc. The box might not be all that small given the size of caps and coils required.

IMO - Don
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,155
Likes
1,665
Location
James Island, SC
Passive filters have their own set of drawbacks, discussed endlessly elsewhere and listed in the rest of the post you did not quote:


Lots of reasons, but rather than list them all again I'll note you can buy inline filters like Harrison Labs' FMOD, a Marchand crossover, and there are a few kit crossovers and such. May be some other inexpensive models in boxes, not something I have researched.

Among the cons for passive filters are difficulty in achieving high-order roll offs (and suppressing noise pickup when inductors are used), interaction with source and load impedances, inability to adjust phase or amplitude/attenuation to assist in system integration, inability to easily adjust the crossover (filter) frequencies to dial in the design (though 80 Hz would do it for most sub systems), etc. The box might not be all that small given the size of caps and coils required.

IMO - Don
I was not saying that the PFMOD solved anything but the 2 problems that I quoted. I was just presenting a solution to those two problems. Nothing else, which is why I did not quote anything else.
I am trying to figure out your point.
Maybe it's because I left the USA once and came back not speaking English, which I had to learn again.
Since then I have left many times (including 18 years of living on Islands and Atolls in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific [Oceana]).
Maybe I have a perception problem stemming from those things.
I am not sure, as I had not been back long before this crazy COVID-18 thing happened.
Please enlighten me.
 

Bach

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
64
Likes
32
An analog xo like this is mostly useless for homehifi, certainly for two way systems. At least a baffle step correction shoud be possible. An analog equalizer can provide this, whith some luck, by appox., if all has to be done by analog circuits.
A good analog xo should be adapted to a specific speaker. Just like Siegfried designed for the B139, B110 and Audax 25.
The dbx is useful for pa setups. An equalizer is then also a standard part of the equipment.
 

EJ3

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
2,155
Likes
1,665
Location
James Island, SC
An analog xo like this is mostly useless for homehifi, certainly for two way systems. At least a baffle step correction shoud be possible. An analog equalizer can provide this, whith some luck, by appox., if all has to be done by analog circuits.
A good analog xo should be adapted to a specific speaker. Just like Siegfried designed for the B139, B110 and Audax 25.
The dbx is useful for pa setups. An equalizer is then also a standard part of the equipment.
An analog xo like this is mostly useless for homehifi, certainly for two way systems. At least a baffle step correction shoud be possible. An analog equalizer can provide this, whith some luck, by appox., if all has to be done by analog circuits.
A good analog xo should be adapted to a specific speaker. Just like Siegfried designed for the B139, B110 and Audax 25.
The dbx is useful for pa setups. An equalizer is then also a standard part of the equipment.
In my use case I have a pair of custom built (by me) subs with a FR of 20-80 HZ to XO to main 2 way internal custom analog XO speakers that have been measured at -2 Db at 26 Hz (+-2 Db 26-20 KHz). I am using the 18 DB slope Low pass at 70 Hz and the 12 DB High Pass at 20 HZ on both of my subs to cross over to the mains which have a frequency. It does what I intended it to do for me: XO and integrate my subs into my stereo in a way that sounds good to me in the room I am using this in.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
A number of years ago, I put one of these I found on Chicago craigslist for $100 (when one could almost always find one for sale in the musical instruments category) in between an SMSL SU-8 and Emotiva PA-1s driving Paradigm Studio 40v3 mains and a HSU VTF-3 sub.

There was no audible hiss at the listening position until I added the dbx, which also added some 60 Hz hum. I disconnected the cable to the sub which was the only balanced-to-unbalanced connection in the system, and made sure everything was connected to the same power outlet--no improvement. After some searching on pro audio forums, I found that another user discovered that a power cable inside his unit with the hum problem was routed differently than in another older one that didn't hum. I made the same change and the hum went away, but I never was satisfied with the audible hiss at a listening distance of 2.5-3 meters.

It was a really clean unit that only had a few tiny marks on the rack mount slots from the screws that were previously used, and it didn't appear to have been abused in any way. Sold it in less than 24 hours for $75.
 
Last edited:

Thunder240

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
58
Likes
21
Location
NorCal
Several posts in this thread have mentioned noise floor and hiss (or lack thereof), so I thought I’d share my experience.

I used to own a dbx (by Harmon) 223s. This is the version with TRS sockets instead of XLR, but otherwise identical to the 223xs. I used it in an unbalanced configuration, with RCA cables and RCA to TRS adapters on the output. (My balanced preamp fed the 223s input using standard balanced cables, 223s HP fed stereo power amp using the unbalanced connection described above, 223s LP fed powered sub also with unbalanced connection.) My speakers were Ascend Cmt-340SE (rated sensitivity 96dB @ 2.83v / 1 meter).

This configuration resulted in audible hiss at normal listening levels. I checked with Harmon tech support, and they agreed that this was to be expected, not the result of a bad unit. They said the hiss wasn’t so much caused by my unbalanced connections on the output side per se, as by the fact that the 223 series is optimized for a +4dbu line level that is typical of pro gear, and not the -10 dbV line level used by my consumer gear. (I am not an EE and don’t know a ton about electronics, but I would have thought the line level is dictated by the input, which was a balanced connection from a balanced preamp). what I took away from them is that the noise floor of the 223s is indeed high.

incidentally, I eventually sold it and replaced it with a Marchand XM66 (variable frequency sibling to the XM44 reviewed by Amir). Whatever the differences in transparency, I got a lot more personal enjoyment using the XM66 in my rig because of its lower noise floor. When I compared the two units side by side and level, subjectively I didn’t perceive any differences in transparency/detail or frequency response/tone, just a blacker background when running through the Marchand unit. For me, it was worth the added cost of the XM66. (When I spoke to Phil Marchand, he recommended the XM66 over the XM44 for its adjustability, but he didn’t mention any specs or measurements to me, so I have no idea what if any performance differences there are between these two models.)
 
Last edited:

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
An analog xo like this is mostly useless for homehifi, certainly for two way systems. At least a baffle step correction shoud be possible. An analog equalizer can provide this, whith some luck, by appox., if all has to be done by analog circuits.
A good analog xo should be adapted to a specific speaker. Just like Siegfried designed for the B139, B110 and Audax 25.
The dbx is useful for pa setups. An equalizer is then also a standard part of the equipment.
Playing devil's advocate, you could add an RC LP shelf to get BSC.
 

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
This configuration resulted in audible hiss at normal listening levels. I checked with Harmon tech support, and they agreed that this was to be expected, not the result of a bad unit. They said the hiss wasn’t so much caused by my unbalanced connections on the output side per se, as by the fact that the 223 series is optimized for a +4dbu line level that is typical of pro gear, and not the -10 dbV line level used by my consumer gear. (I am not an EE and don’t know a ton about electronics, but I would have thought the line level is dictated by the input, which was a balanced connection from a balanced preamp). what I took away from them is that the noise floor of the 223s is indeed high.

Caveat: I am an engineer but not an EE, which sometimes means that I get EE things even more wrong.

That being said...my take on the explanation from Harman tech support is that the fixed noise floor added to any signal by the unit would be relatively higher with respect to a -10 dbV full scale output than a +4dBu full scale output, by essentially 12 dB.

In any case, your experience mirrors mine. It was really much more noisy than any other component I ever used in my home system. Many years ago, I had an Outlaw ICBM that was 100% unbalanced and it didn't create any additional hiss. Product info at this page:


Its reason for being was that early SACD and DVD-Audio players didn't implement proper bass management in many cases, but it was quite effective as a crossover for a 2.1 system. Wish I hadn't sold it now.
 
Last edited:

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
The output noise is usually a fixed amount for a given device, and SNR (signal to noise ratio) is usually specified at maximum rated output. That means that if you use a device (any device) at less than rated output the effective SNR is lower.

-10 dBV = 0.3162 Vrms
4 dBU = 1.228 Vrms

The difference is 12 dB (a factor of 4x) as stated above, so running at lower (consumer) voltage levels the noise is relatively higher by that amount. How much that matters depends upon other things, like your amp, speakers and how far you are from them, etc.

In my system, with fairly insensitive speakers (Magnepan MG-IIIa and then Revel Salon2), I heard essentially no increase in noise at the listening position. In other systems the noise could be quite noticeable.

HTH - Don
 
Last edited:

sejarzo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
961
Likes
1,066
The output noise is usually a fixed amount for a given device, and SNR (signal to noise ratio) is usually specified at maximum rated output. That means that if you use a device (any device) at less than rated output the effective SNR is lower.

-10 dBV = 0.3162 Vrms
4 dBU = 1.228 Vrms

Thanks for the correction. I edited my post so as to prevent confusion (I hope.)
 
Top Bottom