[John Ashman]

Al, I'm not saying that some speakers aren't good candidates - in their own way, just about every speaker is at least a "candidate" if you own it and like it.  But some are clearly better candidates than others so if you're looking for something that is a great candidate, there are specific things that I recommend that you look for (sorry for the repeat):

proportional drivers (woofer is no more than twice the size of the mid, but at least 1.5x)
low diffraction, minimum baffle (measures better, fewer problems that can't be fixed!)
3-way or 2-way + sub
acoustic suspension (my own personal thing for a variety of reasons)
preferably (IMO) one mid and one tweeter (easier to measure!)
monopole (easier to measure!)
Rigid drivers, the more rigid, typically, the better (DEQX avoids the problems with these drivers while maximizing their advantages)

Now, I know that, because this is a diverse industry, there will be people and designers DEQXing dipoles, line arrays, horns, crappy old speakers, weird new speakers, single driver "full range" designs, bipoles, electrostats, etc.  Ideal?  Well, I'd say the monopole line array is the second best candidate, followed by bipoles, dipoles/electrostats., non-proportional speakers, single drivers, horns and crappy old speakers in more or less that order (too many variables!).

[Al Garay]

For a two-way with a subwoofer approach, have you found a difference/preference for:
* sealed subs
* PR
* Dipole :  H-frame, U-frame and W-frame

Crossing below 100Hz versus high around 300Hz?

Al

[John Ashman]

I would go either sealed or dipole subs.  I don't know though if the measurements on a dipole sub will be odd or not, I haven't tried it.  Mac swore by it.

I'd probably cross low unless the woofers are pretty small.  NHT is crossing to the subs at 120Hz/48dB

[Rick Craig]

I would go either sealed or dipole subs.  I don't know though if the measurements on a dipole sub will be odd or not, I haven't tried it.  Mac swore by it.

I have a friend using a DEQX with dipole subs (two Peerless 12" XLS per side) and it sounded really good.

[ludavico]

Hi doug s.

"john, i think yure missing the point. unless you can configure active atc's so that their x-overs can be disabled, & that their amplification comes *after* the deqx's x'over/eq, it's kinda defeating the purpose of what the deqx can do. it mite be easier (and less expensive) to get a pair of passive atc's, disable their x'overs, & use your own amplification w/a deqx system."

If you look at original post I mention using DEQX without the amp packs and crossovers.  

That is why I am so intrigued with the DEQX...I can use external (non-ATC) x-overs and amplification on an otherwise brilliant speaker system.    

The ATC sound is already pretty addicting...the mind reels at what might be possible with DEQX.  

Unfortunately I live in Houston, a very audio-impoverished city (even though Bob Crump of CTC and TGAudio fame lives ~3 miles from my house   ), so hearing the new NHTs in going to be tough...


John

[John Ashman]

Hi John,
     I've been looking at the ATC catalog and while there are a few speakers that are probably okay like the 20-2 or 10 passive that you could try to DEQX, I'm not sure I see anything there that would compete with or be as appropriate for DEQX as a Thiel, NHT Xd, Veracity HT3 or a handful of other speakers that spring to mind.  If you *had* ATC speakers, sure, I suppose you could do that, but I wouldn't buy them for DEQX from what I can tell thus far (compared to other products) and they don't seem to have anything special about them that would yield better results than the above products mentioned.   I have no ideas on cost, but the HT3 is virtually ideal for DEQX and is $3500 and up depending on finish.  NHT's Xd comes without amp/crossover for $2700 and a good Thiel that is appropriate would be ~$4000 or so.  And I'm sure I can think of other products.   I'm sure you like the ATCs, but I don't think they'd be the obvious choice for DEQX.  Some of them are clearly not appropriate, some *might* be.  Thiel, Xd and the HT3 all have rigid, pistonic drivers, low diffraction, minimum baffle designs.  I think this is critical for making the difference between "good" and "great".  If I see other speakers, I'll post them, I'm sure there are others that would be obviously great choices.  Well, the Joseph Black Pearl and RM33s would be good ones too.  

Most of how a speaker has sounded in the past came down to the skill with which the designer blended the drivers through the crossover.  With DEQX, it comes down to who has the best drivers for the job and the best cabinet design.  Very few speakers really fit the optimum profile for DEQX, to be honest, though almost all could gain substantially from it.

[doug s.]

Hi John,
     I've been looking at the ATC catalog and while there are a few speakers that are probably okay like the 20-2 or 10 passive that you could try to DEQX, I'm not sure I see anything there that would compete with or be as appropriate for DEQX as a Thiel, NHT Xd, Veracity HT3 or a handful of other speakers that spring to mind.  If you *had* ATC speakers, sure, I suppose you could do that, but I wouldn't buy them for DEQX from what I can tell thus far (compared to other products) and they don't see ...

hi john,  

re: speakers that mite be a good match w/deqx, how about the following two-way monitors, w/subs?
-diapason adamantes
-proac tablette reference 8 signatures
-meret re's (if yure not familiar w/this discontinued product, it has a focal inwerted dome ti-tweet & eton 7" carbon/kevlar midwoof.  i have pics in my gallery.)

i have heard all these (owning the last two pairs, used in a 26x38x8.5 room w/subwoofers), & am especially partial to them.

i also think thiel 3.6's (awailable used for <$2k) are excellent speakers in their own right.

regards,

doug s.

[John Ashman]

The Diapasons wouldn't be bad except for the porting.  I'd say no on the ProAcs and *maybe* on the Merets - not much info on them.  Like I said, *very* few speakers really could take maximum advantage of DEQX without a total redesign.

[Al Garay]

Inexpensive alternatives for 4- or 6-channel amps while I finish my 2nd set of AKSA amps?

Have you tried powering up the DEQX with a digital receiver or one that has pre-amp outputs? I'm trying to find a temporary solution for 4-channels.

[doug s.]

The Diapasons wouldn't be bad except for the porting.  I'd say no on the ProAcs and *maybe* on the Merets - not much info on them.  Like I said, *very* few speakers really could take maximum advantage of DEQX without a total redesign.

all these speakers are ported, and tho i haven't tried the diapasons in my own home, the proacs & the merets have no issues having their ports plugged when i actively crossed them over to subs.  i see no reason why they wouldn't be a great match w/a deqx if their ports were plugged, & their passive x-overs bypassed.  not to give ya a hard time, john, but whan ya yust say *no*, it doesn't mean much w/out reasoning behind it.  these are some of the best monitors around, imo...

doug s.

[John Ashman]

Inexpensive alternatives for 4- or 6-channel amps while I finish my 2nd set of AKSA amps?

Have you tried powering up the DEQX with a digital receiver or one that has pre-amp outputs? I'm trying to find a temporary solution for 4-channels.

A used 6-channel NAD T762 receiver can be used to drive all the amps through the main-ins.

[John Ashman]

I'm just saying the ProAcs wouldn't be the first choice mainly because of driver complement as I recall.  Like I said, all speakers should benefit from DEQX, but which ones you choose are pretty important - I've laid out my principles on how a speaker should be designed for maximum good results with DEQX (several times in this thread), so I didn't think it made sense to get too elaborate with the explanation as to why.

[Rick Craig]

all these speakers are ported, and tho i haven't tried the diapasons in my own home, the proacs & the merets have no issues having their ports plugged when i actively crossed them over to subs.  i see no reason why they wouldn't be a great match w/a deqx if their ports were plugged, & their passive x-overs bypassed.  not to give ya a hard time, john, but whan ya yust say *no*, it doesn't mean much w/out reasoning behind it.  these are some of the best monitors around, imo...

doug s.

I had a chance this past weekend to work with a DEQX system using a ported subwoofer. Most audiophiles are going to have problems getting the best results because of the complexity involved with rear-ported systems. Simply plugging the ports is not the answer because with many systems this will overdamp the woofer's response and decrease the power handling from additional excursion.

Rick

[John Ashman]

These would be nice for DEQX!

[doug s.]

I had a chance this past weekend to work with a DEQX system using a ported subwoofer. Most audiophiles are going to have problems getting the best results because of the complexity involved with rear-ported systems. Simply plugging the ports is not the answer because with many systems this will overdamp the woofer's response and decrease the power handling from additional excursion.

Rick

rick, it's the *monitors* we're talking about that are ported and plugged, not the subwoofers.  

and, john, thanks for the clarification.  but, i still think the speakers i mention would work yust fine.  the proac's new tweets are not metal, but they are extremely detailed, rivaling good ribbons, imo.  not rolled off at all, extension to 30khz.  and its diminutive 4.5" woofer, tho also not metal, is rated down to 38hz.  these tiny tots were able to literally blow you out of my listening room w/undistorted sound, when crossed over at 70hz to subwoofers.  we're talking about these being 6' out from the back wall, 10' away from one side wall, 8' away from the other.  the room being ~26x38x8.5, w/large openings to two equally large spaces...  the meret's could get a mite louder.  i wish i could audition a pair of diapason adamantes lll's in that space...

regards,

doug s.

[John Ashman]

If you own the ProAcs, fine.  I just wouldn't buy them specifically for DEQX, there are a lot of other speakers, obviously Xd as an example, that are obviously better for the job.

The Proacs are $1700/pr, the XdS monitors are $1500/pr with matching stands.  The NHTs have a better midrange for DEQX and a better cabinet design (more rigid, lower diffraction) than the Proacs.  No money spent on passive crossovers.  And, of course, no ports to cause any issues.

[Rick Craig]

These would be nice for DEQX!

It would be interesting  

[JoshK]

Those, btw, are among the top 3 most attractive speakers i have seen. Far better looking 3-way than the Veracity HT3, imo.

[Rick Craig]

rick, it's the *monitors* we're talking about that are ported and plugged, not the subwoofers.  

and, john, thanks for the clarification.  but, i still think the speakers i mention would work yust fine.  the proac's new tweets are not metal, but they are extremely detailed, rivaling good ribbons, imo.  not rolled off at all, extension to 30khz.  and its diminutive 4.5" woofer, tho also not metal, is rated down to 38hz.  these tiny tots were able to literally blow you out of my listening room w/un ...

Actually I meant that plugging the port on the monitors could be a problem with the resulting issues that I mentioned. This is one of those areas where most audiophiles don't understand how this changes the box tuning. With the DEQX it would be easy to test the results with a nearfield response curve.

[jhenderson010759]

These would be nice for DEQX!

John -

Who makes these?  

Jim