[mac]

the RM40s wouldn't be my pick for the most DEQX-able speaker as it would be hard to measure and correct....

Even more of a challenge is the RMX.  Its driver spacing is, um, er, hmm... let's just say that it's rather unconventional.  

[ted_b]

the RM40s wouldn't be my pick for the most DEQX-able speaker as it would be hard to measure and correct....

Even more of a challenge is the RMX.  Its driver spacing is, um, er, hmm... let's just say that it's rather unconventional.  

Exactly.  You're now understanding why I was proud I used even 20%.

Ted

[ekovalsky]

the RM40s wouldn't be my pick for the most DEQX-able speaker as it would be hard to measure and correct....

Even more of a challenge is the RMX.  Its driver spacing is, um, er, hmm... let's just say that it's rather unconventional.  

C'mon... what's so unconventional about a swiveling ribbon tweeter, a line array of planar magnetics, then a passive radiator bass system needing picogram mass adjustments    

TacT gear (along with some surgery to bypass the factory crossovers) has totally transformed these speakers.  The TacT RCS function is quite sophisticated, achieving combined room and driver correction and time alignment to a customizable target response, but is limited in that it only works well at a particular point in the room -- actually nine points since that is how many presets are available.

The next evolution of my system will probably see a switch from the TacT RCS to the DEQX (I've heard rumors of an upgraded PDC with better power supply and DACS -- any truth?) and different speakers.  Maybe the crossover-less HT3, maybe a custom line array, maybe even something with Manger drivers...  

I do plan on sticking with the TacT amps, or maybe the higher end BOZ line coming out, and I would go for the PDC-2.6 with the digital outputs.  I have found the TacT 2150 to be superb as both a power amplifier and as a DAC.  The design is pure genius and I'm surprised no one else has copied it.

[ekovalsky]

that kind of change will never be available to me unless I do another residency--say in cardiothoracic surgery

Ah... but then you won't have time to enjoy all the cool things you'd be able to afford.  That's why I went for radiology, I can have most of the cool toys and still retain the lifestyle to enjoy them.  And spend time with my family too, of course  

[mac]

I've heard rumors of an upgraded PDC with better power supply and DACS -- any truth?...

Well, if it's on the drawing board I'm not aware of it (not that I'm privy).  My impression is that they have their hands full with software enhancements for their current product and getting their self-contained PDC/multi-channel amplifier finalized.

[ted_b]

I've heard rumors of an upgraded PDC with better power supply and DACS -- any truth?...

Well, if it's on the drawing board I'm not aware of it (not that I'm privy).  My impression is that they have their hands full with software enhancements for their current product and getting their self-contained PDC/multi-channel amplifier finalized.

That's my understanding, as well.  The DeqxBeta Yahoo group is a good place for product statements-of-direction, and the most R&D currently seems to be in rolling out the 24/96 capability soon (software upgrade), getting a multichannel capability, and better integration with HT (unity gain, etc.)  This is aside from the requisite work being done to keep the current code SOA.

Ted

[John Ashman]

A "higher-end" model has been discussed, but with all the things on their plate, it's hard to know when they could get to it if at all.  But, look, if you run digital out to the TacT amps and digital in, the power supply doesn't matter, it's not connected to anything that's analog.  Use a Meridian or something as a digital switching device and run everything into it pure digital.  But, as with many scientists, when you talk to them about better power supplies, the question for them is "why?!?" since the current one works well.  Then you have to explain the need to cater to "perception".  And the say "really?" and then I say "really".  and then they think about it some more, but with a confused look on their faces.

[ekovalsky]

A "higher-end" model has been discussed, but with all the things on their plate, it's hard to know when they could get to it if at all.  But, look, if you run digital out to the TacT amps and digital in, the power supply doesn't matter, it's not connected to anything that's analog.  Use a Meridian or something as a digital switching device and run everything into it pure digital.  But, as with many scientists, when you talk to them about better power supplies, the question for them is "why?!?" since the cur ...

Good point John.  

My current source is a Meridian G98DH -- all digital.  And very good  

[doug s.]

Hell, I'm the one that brought up the damn coffee table to Florian in that post in the first place (my post is right under his first pix)!!!!

I have a thick blanket on it, and underneath that blanket is some foam. It's fine, really. It's marble table that ain't gonna move for listening, then back again for HT chips-beer-what not. With the foam and blanket, and the side sonex first reflection points it's pretty good, I gotta tell ya.

yes, that *is* funny!    but, my only comment is - remove the table once, & lemme know how ya tink it changes the sound...  

And yes, Mac, I AGREE that I was using only 20% of it, and stated it in other posts more than a few times (I don't want to bash the DEQX; Kim, Ian and my wonderful dealer...he knows who he is....were very supportive.. )That's why I said the million lines of code for the FIR and room correction are State of the Art, no question. A bargain at $3k. I just didn;t like the DACS and am stuck with analog.

here's my take on the deqx.  i am *wery* interested in getting one of these things for use as a crossover for (bi-tri-quad)-amping.  but no way i'd get it in the preamp iteration.  i have no issues w/hi-rez digital x-overs.  but, i wanna choose my own dac, & have my own choice for analog (and tubed) preamp.  some day i *will* be running a x-over such as this, w/a multi-amped configuration driving my speakers.

ymmv,

doug s.

[John Ashman]

Doug, there is a way of using your own preamp/DAC, etc, but it's a little complicated.  First, you'd have to have a digital switcher, the obvious choice being something from Meridian - a 562 or a G91 or 800.  The you take the digital out into the PDC that has digital outputs.  Then, you go into 3 DACs of your own choice.  Then you take the output of the DACs (2xtreble, 2xmidrange, 1 or 2xbass) and go into one of a very few analog 5.1 preamps such as the McCormack or McIntosh, then from their into 6 channels of amplification.  So, you need to add 5 components to make this happen.  

If you put the DAC before the DEQX, it adds nothing but additional, though slight, distortion.  If you put the preamp in front of the DEQX, you lose resolution.  So the above way, which could cost you $5000+, even $10,000+ is the only way to do it that will actually improve your sound, not make it worse.  Now, maybe, DEQX will come out with a "high-end" model with a nicer power supply (its main arguable deficiency) for ~$5000 or so, and that would be nice, but I wouldn't count on it.  It would be nice if someone like Conrad-Johnson could buy the boards from DEQX and do a tricked out version for $6K or so.  But would it sell?  Hard to say.  The DEQX has more appeal to the DIY guy than the "audiophile" because most audiophiles like to buy solutions or pay someone to do it for them, not tinker with it.  But who knows, maybe all DEQX is missing is the right packaging (and power supply)?

[John Ashman]

BTW, Ted, I'm going to find a dealer where you can listen to Xd and then after a week or so, after you pick your jaw off the floor, you can tell me again how DEQX doesn't sound all that great  

We'll just see how long it takes to put half your system up for sale  

[mac]

Now, maybe, DEQX will come out with a "high-end" model with a nicer power supply (its main arguable deficiency) for ~$5000 or so, and that would be nice, but I wouldn't count on it. It would be nice if someone like Conrad-Johnson could buy the boards from DEQX and do a tricked out version for $6K or so....

I may have something in the works...

[Davey]

listen to Xd and then after a week or so, after you pick your jaw off the floor  

Oh, puleeeez.  

Davey.

[JoshK]

I think making your own outboard DIY linear PSU for the analog and/or the digital section(s) and bring this into the DEQX wouldn't be terribly difficult to do.  I imagine that is what Mac is talking about doing.

I think the only limitation I can see with the DEQX for my application is more to do with its limit to 3 way only.  The excludes 3 way plus sub or 4 way systems.  That is a drag IMHO.

[John Ashman]

Now, if someone could combine, in one box, a switching circuit with A/D conversion and digital inputs with a high-end 6-channel volume control circuit (completely separate circuit), possible with 6 channels of DAC in front of it, THAT would be cool.  Basically you'd plug in the PDC as though it were a pure DSP external processor.  And a unity gain function.  The problem is, it would only be useful for this one application.  

Actually, I had requested a 5-channel integrated amplifier from Meridian that had three SPDIF inputs to run the G91 or G98 directly, but I doubt that is remotely on their agenda.  I'm not sure if a G68 could operate as a high-end DAC/6-channel preamp, but it *might* be able to in DVD-A mode.  I may check into that one, but at $6500, it would be an expensive add on, especially as a DAC/volume control with now other usefulness.  Especially if you had to run a G91 as the preamp/switcher and buy a 6-channel on top of it.

[mac]

I think the only limitation I can see with the DEQX for my application is more to do with its limit to 3 way only.  The excludes 3 way plus sub or 4 way systems.  That is a drag IMHO.

PDC's can be daisy-chained to support n-way designs.  Also, and I'm sure this has been pointed out, the PDC allows drivers to operate well-behaved over a broader range.  This reduces the need to use more than 3 bands for 20-20khz coverage.  IMO, of course.

[John Ashman]

Oh, puleeeez.  

Don't be jealous Davey!  NHT will sell you one too  

[JoshK]

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.

[John Ashman]

The only problem with daisy chaining would be latency.  You'd could get into some pretty long delays.  You could do a 4-way, I think, in parallel, without additional delay.  For instance, you'd split the signal, one PDC would engage an 80Hz crossover and output that on the sub out, set up an 80Hz and 500Hz crossover to be output on the midrange out, then leave the HF output unconnected.  The second unit woult have the same 500Hz crossover setup for the midrange with, say, a 2500Hz crossover and then the HF output would run 2500Hz and up.  The LF out on that would be unconnected.  

As chips get more powerful though, I suspect that 4-way and 5-way will be supported.  Or perhaps the same unit could be switched from 5-way stereo mode to 3x3-way with a subwoofer out, maybe even be able to run 5 2-way speakers.  THAT would be cool.  Remember that DEQX is a TINY company with big ideas.  They aren't as big as one might imagine give what they've accomplished.

[doug s.]

Doug, there is a way of using your own preamp/DAC, etc, but it's a little complicated. First, you'd have to have a digital switcher, the obvious choice being something from Meridian - a 562 or a G91 or 800. The you take the digital out into the PDC that has digital outputs. Then, you go into 3 DACs of your own choice. Then you take the output of the DACs (2xtreble, 2xmidrange, 1 or 2xbass) and go into one of a very few analog 5.1 preamps such as the McCormack or McIntosh, then from their into 6 channels of amplification. So, you need to add 5 components to make this happen.

If you put the DAC before the DEQX, it adds nothing but additional, though slight, distortion. If you put the preamp in front of the DEQX, you lose resolution. So the above way, which could cost you $5000+, even $10,000+ is the only way to do it that will actually improve your sound, not make it worse. Now, maybe, DEQX will come out with a "high-end" model with a nicer power supply (its main arguable deficiency) for ~$5000 or so, and that would be nice, but I wouldn't count on it. It would be nice if someone like Conrad-Johnson could buy the boards from DEQX and do a tricked out version for $6K or so. But would it sell? Hard to say. The DEQX has more appeal to the DIY guy than the "audiophile" because most audiophiles like to buy solutions or pay someone to do it for them, not tinker with it. But who knows, maybe all DEQX is missing is the right packaging (and power supply)?

ok, what am i missing here?  why cannot you yust run the standard analog outs of your analog preamp into the analog inputs of the deqx?  then, you run the low/mid/hi outs from the deqx to your separate amps.  if this dewice cannot be used this way, then i would yust wait for dbx/behringer/ashly/etc to introduce their next generation units w/96khz or 192khz resolution. (which i would likely do anyways, due to cost!   )

and, i agree w/josh - 4-way is better than 3-way.

doug s.