[Brucemck]

How would you think about the tradeoffs between an "open baffle" diploe like design (your new one looks really interesting) and one of your line arrays?

What are pro's / con's and tradeoffs?

Thanks.

[Rick Craig]

How would you think about the tradeoffs between an "open baffle" diploe like design (your new one looks really interesting) and one of your line arrays?

What are pro's / con's and tradeoffs?

Thanks.

It all depends on what your preferences are and what works best in your listening room. The 3-way dipoles have the edge in tonality (assuming you don't have a DEQX with the arrays) and greater depth of soundstage. The arrays of course have higher sensitivity and output capability for larger rooms and / or lower powered amps. Arrays will throw a wider soundstage if they have enough room from the side walls. Dipoles are more tolerant of walls to the side by virtue of their side cancellation.

Hope this helps.

[Brucemck]

Thanks for feedback ... four related questions ...

(1) In your experience does the DEQX make a large difference in arrays?  (In the Salk forums I read that there was little difference between a well executed passive and a DEQX for a three way box.  I'm already a believer in advanced digital room correction ... just trying to understand raw crossover functionality benefits.)

(2) If your criteria was "holographic imaging" (think a duet with Johnny Cash or Willie Nelson at moderate levels, or, the guitar solo "Big Big Love" performance by Fleetwood Mac at pretty loud levels) which approach would you go?

(3) Are the dipoles efficient enough to drive with a decent tube amp, or do they really require the get up and go of a really large solid state (or massive tube amp) to deliver the dynamics?  (Put differently, how much power would you recommend for each design in a moderately sized 3,000 ft sq room?)

(4) If you already had three 15" subs in the room, would that sway you to one design over another?

Thanks.

[Rick Craig]

Thanks for feedback ... four related questions ...

(1) In your experience does the DEQX make a large difference in arrays?  (In the Salk forums I read that there was little difference between a well executed passive and a DEQX for a three way box.  I'm already a believer in advanced digital room correction ... just trying to understand raw crossover functionality benefits.)

(2) If your criteria was "holographic imaging" (think a duet with Johnny Cash or Willie Nelson at moderate levels, or, the guitar solo "Big Big Love" performance by Fleetwood Mac at pretty loud levels) which approach would you go?

(3) Are the dipoles efficient enough to drive with a decent tube amp, or do they really require the get up and go of a really large solid state (or massive tube amp) to deliver the dynamics?  (Put differently, how much power would you recommend for each design in a moderately sized 3,000 ft sq room?)

(4) If you already had three 15" subs in the room, would that sway you to one design over another?

Thanks.

Well if you read further you'll see that Jim & Dennis declared that after a weekend (day?) of working with the DEQX. They also didn't have a measurement system to verify the changes after room correction (DEQX may soon add this capability). As a DEQX owner I can tell you that it takes longer than a weekend to know how to get the best results and there also have been some upgrades to the software / firmware since Jim & Dennis did their comparison.

That said, I think the DSP crossover has some capabilities for an array that wouldn't be possible and / or practical with a passive crossover. The same may be true for some conventional systems (point source) but I've not experimented with the DEQX in that way. If a point source speaker has a good passive crossover design then the extra cost of the DEQX may be of more benefit for the room correction aspect. You also may consider what could be done by investing the extra $ in a better speaker instead of the $3K+ for the DEQX and extra amplifiers.

The line arrays have a very engaging sound which I think is very realistic. If you crave soundstage depth then a dipole is better in that regard. If you have a problematic room in the lower octaves then an array will be a great help and the DEQX is the icing on the cake. Dipole bass can also be quite good but I tend to prefer monopole with active correction for problem rooms.

A dipole design can be tube friendly but the amount of power needed will depend on your listening distance and the level of output that you want. With three 15" subwoofers you can easily keep up with the arrays or dipoles - it's just a matter of properly integrating everything.

[Brucemck]

Rick, thanks.

We can continue the conversation at RMAF!