DEQX Calibrated™ PDC-2.6 Processor

brj · « **Reply #20 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:22 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

in terms of correction the DEQX has several advantages over the current TacT products. In particular the ability to implement driver correction separate from room correction will allow for better sound over a larger listening area -- with the TacT the best results are definitely obtained only at the listening position. The software of the DEQX seems a bit more user friendly too.

So your observation is that the sweetspot is larger with the DEQX than with the TacT?

How does the sweetspot size of the DEQX controlled system compare to the standard sweetspot size (i.e. with your traditional component chain)?

Thanks!

mac · « **Reply #21 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:35 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

In terms of correction the DEQX has several advantages over the current TacT products. In particular the ability to implement driver correction separate from room correction will allow for better sound over a larger listening area

This is due to their use of linear phase FIR filters which allow ultra-high order crossover slopes to be used and reslts in little driver overlap. Their calibration process also corrects the acoustic phase response of the system. IMO the end result is better driver integration and much better imaging. Of course, you also reap the benefits of true multi-amping.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #22 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 05:52 pm »

Hello Guys,

Thought I would post up the links to both the DEQX website and a 6moons review of the DEQX.....just for the info.

[/list:u]

Also, hope all's well....been seeing a lot of reports about flooding and mudslides in CA on the news. Take care !![/list:u]

JoshK · « **Reply #23 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:20 pm »

Quote from: mac

Quote from: ekovalsky
In terms of correction the DEQX has several advantages over the current TacT products. In particular the ability to implement driver correction separate from room correction will allow for better sound over a larger listening area

This is due to their use of linear phase FIR filters which allow ultra-high order crossover slopes to be used and reslts in little driver overlap. Their calibration process also corrects the acoustic phase response of the system. IMO the end result is ...

One thing I learned recently that promoters of this technology don't tell you is that such FIR tech can and does cause 'pre-ringing' which has been demonstrated to be audible. TACT does something that gets around this for the listening spot ONLY, I have no idea how DEQX deals with this issue.

mac · « **Reply #24 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:37 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

One thing I learned recently that promoters of this technology don't tell you is that such FIR tech can and does cause 'pre-ringing' which has been demonstrated to be audible. TACT does something that gets around this for the listening spot ONLY, I have no idea how DEQX deals with this issue.

All I can say is that if ringing is inherent with the use of FIR filtering (and I'm not saying that it is) the sonic benefits of using it far outweigh the disadvantages (IMO). Also, if you were to look at the measured impulse response of a DEQX calibrated system, which the software & hardware allow you to do, you'll see the most nearly perfect impulse curve you could imagine with no visual signs of ringing.

If you have the opportunity to ever listen to a DEQX calibrated system you should take advantage of it. I used to be a naysayer myself so I do understand your skepticism. Cheers, mac.

Charles Calkins · « **Reply #25 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:43 pm »

Mac:
Great looking puppy!!! I'll bet it's spoiled rotten!

Cheers
Charlie

Russtafarian · « **Reply #26 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:43 pm »

Quote

Also, hope all's well....been seeing a lot of reports about flooding and mudslides in CA on the news. Take care !!

I am in no way making light of the tragic circumstances some of my neighbors are going through, but...

Because the weather is so mellow here most of the time, a lot of people have no sense as to how to respond to storms when they do roll through. "That intersection has three feet of flowing water in it and is roped off to traffic, but I'm sure my Civic can make it". "Hey, I dare you to swim across that torrential storm drain. You're on buddy!".

The mud slides are most unfortunate, but the construction of housing on hills has increased exponentially over the last 40 years. Unfortunately, the circle of life in the hills of Southern California is brushfire > landslide > regrowth > brushfire > landslide > regrowth, etc. So when you buy or build a home in the middle of that, you have accept the risk. It's almost impossible to get a hill home insured anymore because the risk is so high that it will eventually burn down or slide down.

Just my 2 cents.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #27 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:44 pm »

I guess

no one has both the DEQX and TACT to compare the two in a system ?

JoshK · « **Reply #28 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:51 pm »

MAC,

I am not a skeptic, for the record, but a cautious optimist. I am just curious is anyone who knows what to look for or what to listen for has experienced the DEQX and can comment on the theoretical pre-ringing issue. I still dig the concept of the DEQX entirely.

ted_b · « **Reply #29 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 06:52 pm »

I won't speak fully for Eric, but I think he meant that, given the same speakers, the Tact (or DEQX for that matter if you just do room correction only on it) measures and corrects at the listening position. This means that filters and "distortion" is sent to the speakers for the sweetspot or listening position, regardless of off-axis listeners. In theroy, if you do speaker correction (which comes before room correction, and is speaker-specific, not listening position specific) it should correct the speakers for all listening areas, or at least not be so targeted in its correction filters. If that's all you do (as far as correction, that is) then the DEQX solution is friendlier to off-axis listening.

I own the DEQX. It arrived this weekend, and I've done nothing but set it up, upgrade firmware, and do my first room measurement and corrections (just to get used to the eq interface, etc.). I will play the new eq'd profiles tonight. My next step will be to correct the RM/X's in single amp mode (cuz that's all I've got so far), then run the room again. I will then try integrating the subs. Biaamping and triamping are the future, and tapping the ultimate value out of the DEQX. I won't be there for sometime yet. I am a newbie when it comes to all this, but I know what I like, and am hoping the DEQX gets me closer to IT.

Ted_B

brj · « **Reply #30 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 07:19 pm »

Just out of curiosity, has anyone compared the DEQX or TacT solutions to what Meridian has done with some of their DSP Speaker systems? Meridian has been working on such things for quite a while now, and I've been impressed with what I've read, although I've never been lucky enough to audition one of their systems.

mac · « **Reply #31 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 07:23 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

I am just curious is anyone who knows what to look for or what to listen for has experienced the DEQX and can comment on the theoretical pre-ringing issue.

Josh, Like I said, hearing is believing. Also, looking at the measured acoustic impulse response would certainly show you any evidence of ringing. I'll try to post some impulse graphs as soon as I have some time to take the measurements. Next time you're in the Seattle area, the invite I extended to you is still open. Cheers, mac.

JoshK · « **Reply #32 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 07:54 pm »

It would be interesting to see both the impulse response from in front of the speaker and from the listening area.

mac · « **Reply #33 on:** 11 Jan 2005, 07:58 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

It would be interesting to see both the impulse response from in front of the speaker and from the listening area.

The impulse response wouldn't contain meaningful data if measured from the listening area.