DEQX Pdc:2.6

John Ashman · « **Reply #200 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 08:13 pm »

Back to DEQX, I just realized that Jim Griffin, my DEQX customer is Jim Griffin who works somehow or another with Rick Craig and Selah. Right? I *never* made the connection until just now.

So, Rick, maybe that answers your previous question about what some of my DEQX customers use for speakers

csero · « **Reply #201 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 08:17 pm »

Quote from: John Ashman

No offense, but Bob Stuart is an expert in psychoacoustics, and his explanations make a lot more sense ...

And we still not have a working surround recording/reproduction method for music

John Ashman · « **Reply #202 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 08:31 pm »

The technology is there, it's just that recording engineers haven't figured out how to use 5, 6 or 7 channels of sound yet. Just like they had a hard time with Quad.

Have you heard Tri-field or Logic 7?

csero · « **Reply #203 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 08:49 pm »

Quote from: John Ashman

The technology is there, it's just that recording engineers haven't figured out how to use 5, 6 or 7 channels of sound yet. Just like they had a hard time with Quad.

Have you heard Tri-field or Logic 7?

Quad was theoretically failed, not just economically or artistically.

Same with 5.1 or the other existing surround solutions, the technology is not there, just very nice ideas and explanations, and different x.y numbers every months. Have you ever seen a "surround mic" setup? Audiophiles worst nightmare. Makes a multimiked stereo clean and simple.

But jut do the tonality test and hear how much a "perfect speaker" worth if used wrong.

John Ashman · « **Reply #204 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 09:21 pm »

Could you actually even EXPLAIN what you're talking about with this? Like in two or three sentences. You're speaking in riddles, alluding to problems that aren't even the subject of this thread. Or maybe you can start a thread and tell everyone about it, but at this point, you're just hijacking the thread for no apparent reason.

jhenderson010759 · « **Reply #205 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 09:33 pm »

Do you think that, given my DEQX response plot posted earlier, that it would be more appropriate for me to instigate a room acoustics thread, or does it seem that I could wrench improved performance out of the PDC subsystem?

On a related note, I still have the Behringer DEQ2496 in my rack, so I could employ some shelving filters in that unit to address the tail in my room response and possibly even each of the remaining individual peaks and troughs, since all 7 of the PDCs parametric bands are already in use. Think this is worth pursuing?

BTW, is there any way to use both parametric and graphic equalizer features on the PDC simultaneously? Looked to me like they were mutually exclusive.

mac · « **Reply #206 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 09:41 pm »

Quote from: jhenderson010759

On a related note, I still have the Behringer DEQ2496 in my rack, so I could employ some shelving filters in that unit to address the tail in my room response and possibly even each of the remaining individual peaks and troughs, since all 7 of the PDCs parametric bands are alread ...

I would see if some of the 7 bands could be "repurposed" to address the other issues. In my particular situation, some of the "auto corrected" bands were used to minimal effect so I removed them altogether.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #207 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 09:42 pm »

Quote from: John Ashman

Back to DEQX, I just realized that Jim Griffin, my DEQX customer is Jim Griffin who works somehow or another with Rick Craig and Selah. Right? I *never* made the connection until just now.

So, Rick, maybe that answers your previous question about what some of my DEQX customers use for speakers

Jim and I have worked together on several projects. He and I have talked about his next speaker design using the DEQX and it should be really good.

John Ashman · « **Reply #208 on:** 7 Mar 2005, 11:17 pm »

Jim, I think your problems are mostly acoustic, so it wouldn't hurt to start a thread dedicated to that. The DEQX can deal with room modes, but not echoes. You could also try moving your sub around and remeasure.

ludavico · « **Reply #209 on:** 11 Mar 2005, 04:12 pm »

I just caught up with this thread...

So, what speakers would make ideal candidates for the DEQX using the x-overs?

I was thinking that active ATC speakers (with their internal amp packs and x-oers removed) would work well since active ATCs use killer drivers and high performance enclosure designs.

I have owned active ATCs and they sound pretty awesome on their own.

DEQX'ing might take them into a whole other realm...

John

Rick Craig · « **Reply #210 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 02:45 am »

Quote from: ludavico

I just caught up with this thread...

So, what speakers would make ideal candidates for the DEQX using the x-overs?

I was thinking that active ATC speakers (with their internal amp packs and x-oers removed) would work well since active ATCs use killer drivers and high performance enclosure designs.

I have owned active ATCs and they sound pretty awesome on their own.

DEQX'ing might take them into a whole other realm...

John

I think they would work well with the DEQX.

Rick

ekovalsky · « **Reply #211 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 05:33 am »

Quote from: ludavico

I just caught up with this thread...

So, what speakers would make ideal candidates for the DEQX using the x-overs?

John

A little while ago I was very much interested in a line array system. But time smear from the mid/bass drivers being at different physical distances from ear cannot be corrected with DSP. Only way around that is a concave baffle, to my knowledge only implemented in the Gryphon Poseidon at $140,000 (and also one DIY project I've read about). Also the combing and lobing effects will make meaningful measurements, the basis for proper correction, difficult if not impossible to obtain. I am curious to see how much success Rick, Danny, and other line array gurus get with the DEQX. Certainly a point source system is a much easier starting point.

The Manger driver is an ideal match with the DEQX. With very steep, FIR crossovers it will go comfortably to 200-300hz. Any irregularities on the high end are easily fixed with DSP. Finding a woofer system that can keep up with it is challenging, however. Also since a single driver of moderate efficiency is used to cover 7.5 octaves, maximum SPL will be somewhat limited which may prevent use in very large spaces. Horns or line arrays would be better if really high SPL is a must.

Overkill Audio takes the Manger/DEQX concept to the extreme with the "Encore", alas at a very high price. The Manger drivers cost about $700 ea, and the Beyma 12LX60 is only about $300. So the price mainly reflects the amazing enclosures for the Manger "head" and the transmission line bass system, plus R&D, marketing, etc. And of course profit -- it is a business after all.

A cheaper alternative would be to mate the Manger Swing loudspeakers, available at http://www.e-speakers.com with a pair of fast and powerful subwoofers like the Buggtussel Tegmentum 12. About $10k total, maybe less with some discounting. Throw in a good transport, the DEQX, and four channels of amplification and one should have a kick ass DSP system. I haven't heard the NHT xD but think this could probably take it

Val · « **Reply #212 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 01:33 pm »

If I had the money I would try DEQing my favorite, http://www.huffloudspeaker.com/huff3.html">Huff's version of the German Physiks driver. I guess that any decent subwoofer would be easy to blend via DEQX.

John Ashman · « **Reply #213 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 02:21 pm »

The only think I'd caution you both is that drivers that do amazingly good in an analog system because they are relatively extended and problem-free may not do as well as other drivers that are less expensive, but more suited to the job for a variety of reasons. Remember that building an analog speaker is about the delicate balance of compromise. But DEQX avoids about half of those compromises and compensates for the others, which means it changes how you would design a speaker. Flat FR isn't required, nor do you need a driver that is well-behaved over a wide area. Dispersion and lack of in bandwidth dispersion is more important in a DEQX system.

Val · « **Reply #214 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 02:31 pm »

I am already on the DEQX bandwagon; my only doubt at this time is either to fully apply it to a revolutionary speaker like the Gallo Reference III (no crossover, bypassing the woofers, going to external subwoofers) or humbly feeling my way with a basic but good two-way, the Ellis 1801.

Val

opticpit · « **Reply #215 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 03:00 pm »

First, I wonder if any of you think I could improve the performance of my current B & W Nautilus 805's (older non signature versions) with the DEQX enough to make the effort worthwhile? Obviously, I'd have to buy another stereo amp and eviscerate the little guys, to disconnect the passive crossovers. I would envison removing the mid woofer to get at the bits. I'm handy, but not very electronicly inclined. I have a laptop and a passing familiarity with Windows.

Second, have any of you considered making a two way system with either the Raven R3.2 ribbons or Beengineering Alian 24020 ribbon mid/ tweeters paired to an appropriate woofer box, run through a DEQX? It has been said that the Raven can be crossed at 800HZ and the Alian at 600HZ. Both are very efficient and seem to appear on paper, to represent an easy load. A Kiss approach to the high end, if you will. Neither will go as low as the above referenced Manger, but might they have some sonic benefits? John seems to be hinting that this may not be the best idea, perhaps from a dispersion point of view.

goskers · « **Reply #216 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 03:42 pm »

opticpit,

I believe DEQX used a pair B&W 805's at CES to show what a difference it could make. The people who heard it said it was a very worthwhile improvement.

opticpit · « **Reply #217 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 05:13 pm »

Goskers,

Thanks, but I think the CES 2005 DEQX was set up with B and W 704's and a pair of "cheap" subs. The 704's are floorstanders and have a bit more in the bass department than the little 805's. I'm not planning on adding any subs to my 805's.

In the original Stereophile review of the 805's, the reviewer mentioned a significant improvement using a biamped set up with Mark Levinson amps. I can't help but wonder what the DEQX might add to performance of these speakers.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #218 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 05:14 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

A little while ago I was very much interested in a line array system. But time smear from the mid/bass drivers being at different physical distances from ear cannot be corrected with DSP. Only way around that is a concave baffle, to my knowledge only implemented in the Gryphon Poseidon at $140,000 (and also one DIY project I've read about). Also the combing and lobing effects will make meaningful measurements, the basis for proper correction, difficult if not impossible to obtain. I am curious to see ho ...

First of all, you're making an assumption that this "time smear" is a problem and that it is audible. The distances can be manipulated with a delay via DSP (or an active crossover) and of course power tapering can also be used if needed.

I do agree that it would be difficult for most audiophiles to get the best results with DSP and arrays. I'll be working with the DEQX this coming weekend and possibly can add some more insight on this issue.

Rick

Rick Craig · « **Reply #219 on:** 14 Mar 2005, 05:31 pm »

Quote from: goskers

opticpit,

I believe DEQX used a pair B&W 805's at CES to show what a difference it could make. The people who heard it said it was a very worthwhile improvement.

One thing I've noticed missing in all of the comments I've read about DEQX. If we assume that it can improve a $1,000 set of speakers then how will it compare to a set of non-DEQX'd speakers that cost the same ($3,000 (DEQX) + $1,000 (speakers) = $4K). A jump from $1K to $4K in a set of well-designed speakers can be quite a difference in performance, especially if you're going the DIY route. Typically this means moving up to greater bass extension, better drivers (lower distortion, more refined and detailed), and greater output capability.