[JohnnyLightOn]

Hi John,  They are Matrix 3 Series 2.  They're three drivers in a single, rectangular box.  If you click on this link,
http:// http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.usermanuals/Label/Range%20Matrix%20Series
  they're the Matrix 3 S2.

[John Ashman]

Jim Griffin's white paper can explain it better than I can. The output of the array has more narrow dispersion and a cylindrical out put pattern. That's why you can be sitting in front of one speaker at a normal listening distance and distinctly hear the other channel (much more than you would with a point source). Jim and I are currently discussing his next array project that will implement the DEQX.

That's what confused me, Jim seems to imply there is no enhanced vertical disperson, but, would the 3dB dropoff instead of 6dB allow the speakers to be more balanced?  And, if that's the case, is that a wider radiation pattern or just the fact that the furthest speaker doesn't drop off as quickly as a point source?

[John Ashman]

Hi John,  They are Matrix 3 Series 2.  .

Do I know my B&W or WHAT?    

That's a 2.5-way.  Great speaker, IMO, the best overall B&W made, especially give the age, I prefer it to the 801.  Not the best choice for DEQX though as I think you'd spend a lot of money, then realize the speaker is now the limiting factor.  Of course, that's okay too.  But newer speakers have greater strengths and often, greater weakness as opposed to something that is a good all around speaker.  DEQX preserves and enhances the strenghts, while generally elimnating or ameliorating the weakness.  It cannot, however, make a poly cone as low in distortion as a metal one or make a 2.5-way work as well as a 3-way with differently sized drivers.  It can't make the 8" drivers have great dispersion like a 4" or 5".  I'd sell the speakers and get a more appropriate one.

[Rick Craig]

Well, I think all speakers would benefit if they're tri-amped, but I do believe some speakers will have a greater delta in performance from stock to DEQXed.  I think line arrays, for instance will benefit, but, for instance, DEQX lowers driver distortion and increases dynamic range, something most line arrays don't need to have fixed.  Or, for instance, the enhanced vertical dispersion wouldn't be noticeable or particularly beneficial.  It could, however, help a big speaker that moves a lot of air deal with ...

What I don't understand is why someone would spend $3K+ to try to fix a $10K+ design that has inherent design problems that cannot be overcome. Why not buy a good speaker in the first place and then try to tweak it with the DEQX?  I think a small 2-way will benefit the most because it involves the largest amount of compromise in a design. Multi-way systems don't stretch the driver's performance as much but driver integration becomes more of a factor.

Rick

[mac]

I think there are many types of systems that could benefit with possibly the exception of one (dipoles). I've had a chance to hear both the NaO dipole (basic active / passive combination crossover) and a dipole using the DEQX. The NaO was much better at depth retrieval and an overall sense of the acoustic space of the recording. I don't know what the problem was with the DEQX but I would be hesitant to use one with a dipole.

Rick

That's a pretty black and white statement to make.  Is is based on your limited exposure to one NaO audition and another of a DEQX dipole in what I'm assuming were different listening environments?

I may have some much more conclusive information to share shortly as I'm wrapping up a new dipole design which I plan to use with my DEQX.  

Btw, a speaker is a reproducer.  Speakers don't "retrieve depth" or "throw images".  When people speak of such things I tend to raise an eyebrow.

[Rick Craig]

That's what confused me, Jim seems to imply there is no enhanced vertical disperson, but, would the 3dB dropoff instead of 6dB allow the speakers to be more balanced?  And, if that's the case, is that a wider radiation pattern or just the fact that the furthest speaker doesn't drop off as quickly as a point source?

I guess the best way I can describe how they operate is to have you visit an owner of my arrays who lives in your area. I've got a new design he's building with nine 6" aluminum cone woofers and eight ribbons per side. Then you can ask me how to become a dealer  

[John Ashman]

What I don't understand is why someone would spend $3K+ to try to fix a $10K+ design that has inherent design problems that cannot be overcome. Why not buy a good speaker in the first place and then try to tweak it with the DEQX?  

That depends on whether it can be or not.  For instance, DEQX can completely avoid the resonances of a metal cone.  It can't make a resonant cabinet better.  It can make a rigid cone sound smooth, it can only do so much to make paper detailed or kevlar non-resonant.  It can make a 10" blend better with a 5", it can't very well make a 15" blend with a 5".  It can make a non-time aligned speaker time/phase coherent.  It can't take the sound of a horn and eliminate it.  It can make a 10" sealed woofer go lower, it can't get rid of the sound of a port.  

So, it depends.  There are problems DEQX can eliminate, problems it can reduce and problems it can't.  But for instance, a speaker that is 95% in several areas and 50% in others *may* DEQX better than a speaker that is 85% or 90% across the board.  It depends on the problem in the speaker and what DEQX can do for it.  That's why I put up my suggestions on what type of speaker would get the most from DEQX.  A Thiel is a better candidate than a B&W, for instance.  The HT3 is nearly ideal.  I haven't had much luck with dipoles.  

For many people, it wouldn't make sense to DEQX their current speaker - for the expense entailed, it wouldn't match up to what NHT is doing with Xd because Xd is the first speaker ever made that is designed from the ground up specifically for DEQX.  It never was a passive speaker and never will be.  Speakers of similar design will respond better than speakers of dissimilar design.  

DEQX may make the line source array seem quaint.  OR, it will make a line source array even better than a point source.  That would be a fun comparison.  Or maybe make a point source better for small rooms, arrays better for big rooms.  Or maybe it would just come down to taste.  Hard to say.  But it would be an interesting comparison.  Especially with a monopole line array.  It may come down to the acoustics of the room which sound better.

[John Ashman]

Btw, a speaker is a reproducer.  Speakers don't "retrieve depth" or "throw images".  When people speak of such things I tend to raise an eyebrow.

Simply insert "fake" for the other verbs above

[John Ashman]

I guess the best way I can describe how they operate is to have you visit an owner of my arrays who lives in your area.

Let me know!  He might be a customer.  I'd be surprised if he weren't.

[Rick Craig]

I guess the best way I can describe how they operate is to have you visit an owner of my arrays who lives in your area.

Let me know!  He might be a customer.  I'd be surprised if he weren't.

I'll email him to let him know that you're interested. He may possibly lurk here and contact you directly.

[mac]

it wouldn't match up to what NHT is doing with Xd because Xd is the first speaker ever made that is designed from the ground up specifically for DEQX...

Cough.  Well, yes, the XD's are first main-stream commercial speakers that are being sold with a "feature light" version of the DEQX PDC.  The PDC has been available as a separate product for some time now and many people are using them quite effectively with their own designs or existing speakers.  I for one bought mine before I ever heard about the Xd.  I do believe that the Xd is a ground breaking product but also think that it can be bested if one carefully chooses a slightly different approach.

[JohnnyLightOn]

Do I know my B&W or WHAT?    
That's a 2.5-way.  Great speaker, IMO, the best overall B&W made...

I am very impressed with your knowledge of this ancient speaker that most people have never seen or heard of!    

Your impression is exactly how I would describe my B&Ws, as "all-around" speakers.  My questions were not really about how to integrate the DEQX into my current system, but to be able to understand how the DEQX works in an easy-to-describe way.  So I used my current system as the example.  

It seems like many high-end enthusiasts have eventually gravitated towards high-efficiency speakers with a low-power amp, or towards planar speakers.  Those have produced the most "wow" and have captured a lot of audiophiles.  Now technology like the DEQX  is producing a third type of "wow" and are drawing people to be as enthusiastic about this technology as they have been about the other two.  Perhaps it is making the middle-of-the-road systems so much better that they don't need single-driver speakers or SET or planar speakers to produce that same intense enjoyment.  Just my impression...

[Rick Craig]

That's a pretty black and white statement to make.  Is is based on your limited exposure to one NaO audition and another of a DEQX dipole in what I'm assuming were different listening environments?

I may have some much more conclusive information to share shortly as I'm wrapping up a new dipole design which I plan to use with my DEQX.  

Btw, a speaker is a reproducer.  Speakers don't "retrieve depth" or "throw images".  When people speak of such things I tend to raise an eyebrow.

The difference was very clear and I used the same recording on both. The room wasn't an issue; in fact, the NaO was in a room that was less than favorable. Whether it was the steep crossover or time domain "correction" I don't know but the lack of depth was very obvious. Yes, it was reproduction of depth. Do you have to be so anal?

[John Ashman]

Cough.  Well, yes, the XD's are first main-stream commercial speakers that are being sold with a "feature light" version of the DEQX PDC.  The PDC has been available as a separate product for some time now and many people are using them quite effectively with their own designs or existing speakers.  I for one bought mine before I ever heard about the Xd.  I do believe that the Xd is a ground breaking product but also think that it can be bested if one carefully chooses a slightly different approach.

Well, let's put it this way, NHT has been working on Xd in collaboration for almost as long as DEQX has existed, over 4 years now, long before you heard of DEQX  So, while you can buy modified tri-ampable versions of passive speakers, this project is substantially more purposed and thorough.  Can it be bested?  Possibly.  Depends on what you like.  A line array would play louder.  A dipole system would be more "spacious".  A 15" woofer would go deeper.  You could spend a lot more money on the amps.   But it would just be *extremely* difficult to make a speaker sound more integrated, image better or have more clarity.  The only thing is that you can design a speaker to your taste with DEQX.  Like soft domes?  Do it.  Ribbons?  Why not?  Horns?  Your project.  Single drivers?   The cool thing about DEQX is the way you can design your own speaker or make the speaker of your choice better.  Better than Xd?  Like I said - maybe.  If you *really* know what you're doing and spend a good chunk of change

[John Ashman]

Your impression is exactly how I would describe my B&Ws, as "all-around" speakers.  My questions were not really about how to integrate the DEQX into my current system, but to be able to understand how the DEQX works in an easy-to-describe way.  So I used my current system as the example.  

Well, I think what's happened is that everyone is bored with "all-around" speakers.    Why?  I guess that desire to push the envelope, regardless of what you leave behind.  Talk to a horn guy and the'll go on and on about "dynamics".  Do they image?  No.  Accurate?  Hardly.  Single driver guys talk about midrange coherence.  That's great, but what about sweetspot, imaging?  Dipole guys like the spacious, "live" sound.  Accurate?  Rarely.  Dynamic?  Not usually.  Line arrays are dynamic and low distortion.  But you need to be further away from them and, IMO, they're far more appropriate for a big room.  And I could go on - electrostats, bipoles, omnidirectional, etc.  

But what DEQX does is ties it all together (with the right speaker) - the dynamics of a horn, the low distortion of a line array, the precision imaging of a mini-monitor, the coherance of an electrostat or full range driver, the spaciousness of a dipole, the sweetspot of an omnidirectional speaker.  All from a single tweeter, midrange and woofer.  It should appeal to everyone, as long as they can get over the fact that is digital.  After 25 years of digital, one might think that this unreasonable fear would have gone away.

[denverdoc]

Yes but that is unfortunately cost prohibitive.  I was thinking a way around this might be to run the low freq part out to a Behringer or analog xo to split the midbass from the bass.

Josh,

I have considered this as well if I do decide to run a tweeter above the B&G 75's for more air--I think what i would do is use a Behringer to run the subs and utilize the DEQX for 70 to 20k and then use the room measurement DEQX fx to integrate everything. I have had lousy confidence ratings measuring my IB sub so i think a simpler solution like the Behringer might actually work better at EQ'ing the real low stuff anyway, and frees up another filter set,
John

[denverdoc]

The shootout I mentioned was with and without DEQX not with and without room correction.

In terms of deciding what compromise you prefer that is the way to do it IMO.

All analog/ passive crossover vs. a bi or tri-amped active system. You may say why bother DEQX will blow the analog system away. All I am saying is prove it. Again I do not doubt it but hearing is believing.

I can tell you that room correction from a DBX DriveRack made my system sound like crap. Now I now a DriveRack and DEQX are not comparable just saying that I would need proof before making my system more complex.

Fostex drivers are reported to be very good, even better in the estimation of most are Manger drivers. I have heard both. I think what you may be missing is that every last one of wishes that there was a single driver that could accurately reproduce the entire audio spectrum. THis is beyond debate. What some of us are trying to do is have our cake and eat it too--in other words enjoy the seamless coherent soundfield of a single driver but giuld the lilly as it were in terms of better extension, more uniform dispersion, etc. Sure piano plays great thru a fostex, but when was the last time you listened to a really demanding piece of music--there the single driver tends to flail a bit, esp at realistic SPL's.

The best system to date I have heard used a Manger based DEQX system. No single driver is perfect, but the DEQX can go long ways toward overcoming deficiencies. And Magnesium or Aluminum has certain advantages over bannana pulp or what have you.

In sumary, I think no matter how well you like your system, feed a good analog signal into a DEQX, use its abilities to correct the one driver in this case, and the world no longer is sitting on the backs of tortoises!
John

[denverdoc]

It seems like many high-end enthusiasts have eventually gravitated towards high-efficiency speakers with a low-power amp, or towards planar speakers. Those have produced the most "wow" and have captured a lot of audiophiles. Now technology like the DEQX is producing a third type of "wow" and are drawing people to be as enthusiastic about this technology as they have been about the other two. Perhaps it is making the middle-of-the-road systems so much better that they don't need single-driver speakers or SET or planar speakers to produce that same intense enjoyment. Just my impression... ...

Johnny,
I think that is as close to a summary statement as this thread will likely ever see.
John

[John Ashman]

I hate when reason throws water on a perfectly good thread.

[doug s.]

You can, but here's the thing - a secondary preamp would just add another analog circuit and lower the resolution needlessly. If you add a DAC, you would be going CD out to a DAC then to an ADC, then through a DAC again. But if you go digital into the PDC-P, you get only one DAC, with two steps removed. You could have a $20,000 DAC and/or preamp, but as soon as you put it in line, you are lowering the fidelity of the system as opposed to running straight into the PDC.

The ONLY way to improve upon it without hurting the sound is to use bypass the AD/DA processes of the of PDC as well as its preamp function, keep it entirely digital and that requires 3 DACs, a switcher/AD coverter (a la Meridian) and a 6-channel analog preamp. So, I hate to say it, but your preamp and DAC would be obsolete in all reality.

hi john,

this is where, i guess, we yust have to agree to disagree.  it's similar to the argument as to whether a preamp-based system is better than a system w/passive preamp, or no preamp.  i'm in the camp that sez active preamp is better.  yust cuz something add'l is added "in line" as you say, it does *not* necessarily mean the fidelity has been lowered.  in fact, i would submit that adding a quality preamp will *raise* the system's fidelity.

the way i look at the deqx, it's yust another crossover type, imo - so what if it operates on a-d/d-a; no reason not to use a conwentional analog preamp w/whatever preferred sources you choose...  the deqx would yust be replacing a marchand active x-over in my system...

ymmv,

doug s.