[Marbles]

This is why loudspeaker designers will soon become dinosaurs in the very near future (they already are in my book).  The DEQX unleashes the power for the average Joe to achieve results that cannot be achieved by conventional means.  

There's more to designing a speaker than just the XO.

There's choosing the drivers, the configuration of the drivers, ie point source or Line array or a combination of the above, placement of the drivers in the cabinet and cabinet construction etc...

But I do agree it makes things easier for the novice or expert builder.

[Bingenito]

This is why loudspeaker designers will soon become dinosaurs in the very near future (they already are in my book). The DEQX unleashes the power for the average Joe to achieve results that cannot be achieved by conventional means.

Sure when you can buy DEQX at Best Buy for $99 and it is so easy that the average customer who thinks BOSE is the SH*T can figure it out.

I can just see the general public using a mic to configure their speakers in room  

[denverdoc]

This is why loudspeaker designers will soon become dinosaurs in the very near future (they already are in my book). The DEQX unleashes the power for the average Joe to achieve results that cannot be achieved by conventional means.

Sure when you can buy DEQX at Best Buy for $99 and it is so easy that the average customer who thinks BOSE is the SH*T can figure it out.

I can just see the general public using a mic to configure their speakers in room  

Many already do when setting up their pre/pro's or HT receivers--the HT in a box crowd will have the DSP's pre programmed for the drivers being used, and one will take mic readings from a few points in the listening area and w/in a couple of minutes the levels will all be balanced and room EQ will be done. This is considerably less difficult than setting up a tonearm/cartridge IMO, and even Joe average consumer willing to invest a grand or so in a HT in a box is up to the task.
 
My 2 cents worth on the issue.
John

[mac]

This is why loudspeaker designers will soon become dinosaurs in the very near future (they already are in my book).  The DEQX unleashes the power for the average Joe to achieve results that cannot be achieved by conventional means.  

There's more to designing a speaker than just the XO.

There's choosing the drivers, the configuration of the drivers, ie point source or Line array or a combination of the above, placement of the drivers in the cabinet and cabinet construction etc...

It goes without saying that someone who's going to be using a $3k DEQX PDC in addition to 6 or more channels of quality amplification will have spent some time selecting (hopefully good quality) drivers.  

Whether one decides on a point or line source topology is a matter of personal preference.

There is of course another approach.  Both John and I have mentioned the impressive results that can be achieved by using ones existing commercial speakers as the basis.  DEQX performed a very impressive demonstration using a set of pedestrian B&W speakers.   The sound that I heard from those speakers when DEQX calibrated significantly surpassed what I heard from most every exotic speaker at the CES (Vandersteen, Thiel, VMPS, MBL, Epiphany, Galo, etc).

But I do agree it makes things easier for the novice or expert builder.

Not only does it [the DEQX PDC] make it easier, the results can far exceed what even the most talented loudspeaker designer can achieve by conventional means.

My first post in this thread was that one has to experience the technology first hand in order to comprehend what is possible.  That still applies IMO...

[John Ashman]

But it does almost go without saying (almost) that pros with good equipment, anechoic chambers, the ability to try 20 different drivers and cabinet designs, then refine, refine, refine then mass produce will always have an advantage over a DIY guy. But it DOES significantly narrow the gap.  Some of my little experiments have been notably better than any convential speaker  I've ever sold (others were worse!), but certainly not as good as what NHT has achieved with Xd and DEQX.  But they've spend over 4 years refining one digital design, I don't have that kind of time or dedication.

[Marbles]

Mac:

My point was re: "average joe"  knowing all the details involved with speaker design.

With regard to your last comment..I fully intend to.

[mac]

With regard to your last comment..I fully intend to.

You'll need a DEQX for that.  A P1-A w/Socs will only take you so far IMO.  

[Marbles]

With regard to your last comment..I fully intend to.

You'll need a DEQX for that.  A P1-A w/Socs will only take you so far IMO.  

I agree with that as well...

Jim Salk is the closest DEQX dealer.  I'm curious how it sounds with his HT3's....

www.salksound.com

[ctviggen]

I don't consider myself an "average joe," being that I have a Master's in Electrical Engineering.  However, if I buy a DEQX (or TACT), I will not be buying it for speakers I make; instead, I'll be buying it for speakers I buy or have.  I personally do not have the time to research and build my own speakers.  I'd rather take the time I do have and tune the speakers I currently own to get the best sound from them.  There's only so much time I have, and the reseach alone to determine how to build speakers, design appopriate boxes, choose drivers, etc., would take me weeks or even months.  I just don't have that kind of time.

[mac]

However, if I buy a DEQX (or TACT), I will not be buying it for speakers I make; instead, I'll be buying it for speakers I buy or have....

BINGO!  

[denverdoc]

But it does almost go without saying (almost) that pros with good equipment, anechoic chambers, the ability to try 20 different drivers and cabinet designs, then refine, refine, refine then mass produce will always have an advantage over a DIY guy. But it DOES significantly narrow the gap.....

Exactly. But from another angle: that of bang for the buck, it may put the DIY guy at a significant advantage. To illustrate take my case: 2 B&G 75 inch "ribbons" at 1100. 18 SEAS aluminum drivers about another 1100. 2 Ascendant Audio 18 inch woofers at 800. Total driver outlay 3K. Now to be fair, I think we need to figure that since the DEQX functions as my preamp and dac, only about 1500 (1000 for the software/500 for the hardware involved in doing the speaker EQ) should count towards the development cost. So adding 500 in for the cabinetry costs brings the total up to 5k.

If this can't keep up with the Wisdom Adrenaline series as an example of a commercial unit using similar ribbons, I will be very surprised. I think we can safely say that it should achieve comparable performance in many areas unless I really botch this mission. What do the top of the line Wisdom's cost?  

Of course there is my time, but this is a labor of love and I have met so many interesting people and learned so much on the way, there is no replacement for the experience. Plus the pride of ownership factor, put it all together I think the DIY guys are way ahead.

Sure no argument that a pro could put together a better DEQX based system than I, but to make any money at all would have to cost 25k for a similar pair of line arrays.  Look at the Overkill system 75k for cabinetry, souped up DEQX,  plus 4800 bucks worth of Mangers and maybe another 1200 for the woofs. Not saying it isn't worth it, I was most impressed with his products, just that kind of change will never be available to me unless I do another residency--say in cardiothoracic surgery. But then I would never have time to play!
J

[mac]

Jim Salk is the closest DEQX dealer.  I'm curious how it sounds with his HT3's....

www.salksound.com

When he emailed me a few weeks ago he didn't say.  I'm interested in hearing his impressions too.  I can only imagine that his HT3's with a DEQX will perform nearly as well as my current setup.

[John Ashman]

Jim Salk is the closest DEQX dealer.  I'm curious how it sounds with his HT3's....

The HT-3 is an ideal design for DEQX.  The NHT Xd which comes with DEQX is arguably even better for a few small, but possibly important reasons.  However, I've seen few other speakers that would respond as well to DEQX as the HT-3, based on my experiments.  

The most important criteria, IMO, are:

Rigid "pistonic" drivers with very linear motor structures.
Minimum, low diffraction baffles
Rigid cabintry
Acoustic suspension design
Proportional driver design (1"/4"/8" or 1"/5"/10" or thereabouts)
Arguably one midrange, one tweeter to eliminate lobing.  

Others will disagree, but I firmly believe this offers the best performance from DEQX, though I also believe DEQX will make the most of any design, used within that designs limitations with respect to DEQX's capabilities.

[woodsyi]

Don't shoot me.  I come in peace.  I am sitting out on the sideline to see how DSP matures.  As an active multi-amping person, the digital x-over and phase correction for any slope is really really tempting.  But as a person with many analog sources, I wait for more feedback/development on AD/DA conversions.  If I keep my old speaker cabinets, I may just get some drivers,  drill holes, put some binding posts and get DEQX to play with it.  How much of the improvement do you think comes from multi amping--single amp per driver -- and how much from DSP?

[mac]

But as a person with many analog sources...

Me too.            

How much of the improvement do you think comes from multi amping--single amp per driver -- and how much from DSP?

Based on my experience, I'd say something like Multi-amping == 30%  DEQX == 70%.

[denverdoc]

Don't shoot me.  I come in peace.  I am sitting out on the sideline to see how DSP matures.  As an active multi-amping person, the digital x-over and phase correction for any slope is really really tempting.  But as a person with many analog sources, I wait for more feedback/development on AD/DA conversions.  If I keep my old speaker cabinets, I may just get some drivers,  drill holes, put some binding posts and get DEQX to play with it.  How much of the improvement do you think comes from multi amping--single amp per driver -- and how much from DSP?

Well given my experience with the little JBL's which were used in single amp mode, a lot owes to the correction.  Within a minute I had flat (+/- 0.1 from point of baffle rolloff which DEQX does not attempt to correct at 160 or so  out to 20K. Phase angle was zero til about 5k then began a soft monotonic change. Group delay was w/in a couple of msec across the band. As I had another Harmon product in the same room recently--Prelude/MTS--can compare it with that (which is/was Stereophile Class A transducer for many years) and except for the bass and a tendency to get a little hard when pushed, very comparable sounding to the Infinity's w/o DEQX. This is a 10K and highly regarded speaker system.

Tonite I will see what the effects of biamping will be with the drivers I mentioned before, only using 16 8 inch Etons I have on loan.  Stay tuned.
J

[woodsyi]

Mac,

How is anolog sound through converntional preamp different from what you hear through DEQX?  I have read about how good DAC is in DEQX but how good is ADC?

[John Ashman]

Sure no argument that a pro could put together a better DEQX based system than I, but to make any money at all would have to cost 25k for a similar pair of line arrays. Look at the Overkill system 75k for cabinetry, souped up DEQX, plus 4800 bucks worth of Mangers and maybe another 1200 for the woofs. Not saying it isn't worth it, I was most impressed with his products, just that kind of change will never be available to me unless I do another residency--say in cardiothoracic surgery. But then I would never have time to play!

Yes, but it depends on the design.  Take what NHT has done, if you were to buy the drivers, it would cost you about $750 (or there abouts), then add in a budget of about $1500 for the most basic of amplifiers, $3000 for the PDC and you're at $5250, leaving you a $750 budget for wood, stands, cables and, most importantly, your time.  So, yes, it needs to be a labor of love, a hobby, something you can do and be proud of, but for most, and off the shelf system will perform a little better and *can* be as affordable.  The fun of it would be to change drivers on a regular basis and update/upgrade whenever you wanted.  Of course, you'd want to have a lot of free time on your hands!

The Overkill Audio rig is insane (as one might expect) and I would be surprised if it even was as good as Xd at $6000.  I looked at it and saw what I would consider to be less than optimum choices for DEQX.  It looks to be an adapted system, not an ideal one.  I would choose the Salks over their solution.

[JLM]

John,

Boy, this is a fast moving thread.  But to reply to your observations regarding single driver speakers:

Full range sound? My Fostex F200A based speakers do 30 - 20,000 Hz in room, which bests most multiple driver designs I know of.

Lack of driver resonances? Isn't resonances from a single high quality driver this better than cheaper multiple drivers plus crossover that can't integrate as well as a single driver?

Low distortion? Is this better than mixing drivers across a baffle?  How much distortion is there at 80 dB (typical audiophile output levels)?  A line array or field of drivers cannot image.

Good dispersion? Please define "good" dispersion.  Wide dispersion causes reflections from side walls/floor/ceiling that interferes with imaging.  Narrow dispersion can be aimed to adjust response.

All the OTHER things you get since one driver can't do it all?  My speakers reach 103 dB continous and 109 dB peaks in a 2,000 cu. ft. (12 x 20 x 8)room.  The 80 - 8000 Hz range is covers the essential musical range and more than covers the all important midrange.  This is where single extended (full) range drivers live and thrive.  Marketing hype has brainwashed the majority into believing that 20 - 20,000 Hz response at 120 dB with wide dispersion is needed.  This mantra has sold a lot of product over the years.  And has costs much in terms of coherence and a natural presentation.  What examples of single driver speakers have you heard?  For under $400 buy a pair of Visaton B200 drivers and a sheet of OSB.  Cut the OSB in thirds and mount the drivers in two of the pieces using the third as a props.  Compare to live unamplified music or any other $400 speaker.  I own two pair of two ways that I like, one below $400/pair, and wouldn't dare to compare.

Not to say that DEQX isn't good or that a wonderful system can't be assembled using it with the right drivers/etc.  Just that simplier is better where good enough will do, and single driver speakers can be a lot better than most folks realize.

[mac]

Mac,

How is anolog sound through converntional preamp different from what you hear through DEQX?  I have read about how good DAC is in DEQX but how good is ADC?

Analog sounds great through the DEQX!  IMO, any theoretical degradation caused by the ADC process is more than made up for by what the unit does for overall sound.