DEQX Pdc:2.6

John Casler · « **Reply #300 on:** 27 Mar 2005, 11:20 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

What I'd really like is to mate a SoundLab Ultimate-1 (which I can assure you is not dynamically limited above 35hz) to the ML bipole bass towers. Mmmmmmm.....

.

Shouldn't we be out hunting Easter Eggs or better yet Bunnies???

Just took a look at the SoundLab which might be worth the price of admission, except they are "dipoles".

I'm all good with (can live with) Dipolar Bass, but when you start intentionally bouncing the rear wave of Mids and Highs off the wall, you lose me. In the mid/hf area, I wan to hear what cam stright off the recording and not too much else.

Maybe in a LEDE, but I would still think it would be a tough set up.

I think DEQX set up, would also be a nightmare, but maybe John Ashman can answer that.

The "phase" shifts and patterns of dipoles should be very hard for the DEQX to deal with, if it truly does what it says it does. Maybe the room correction might offer something, but even then room correction works best (as I understand it) on bass frequencies.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #301 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 12:31 am »

Quote from: John Casler

Shouldn't we be out hunting Easter Eggs or better yet Bunnies???

Yes, with the SoundLab speakers or other big dipoles I would use correction just for the bass (cutting output at the excitation frequencies). That opens the door to the Meridian processors, besides DEQX and TacT. My room is somewhat LEDE treated so the back wave would largely be absorbed at mid and high frequencies. And side wall reflections are minimized because of the lateral cancellation. Since these crossoverless designs have flat frequency response across the spectum there is no need to mess with correction above the bass range. With box speakers I think this is extremely beneficial (hence the NHT xD system).

Remember a big advantage of dipoles is there is no sound from the enclosure, since there isn't any. The RM/X cabinets are about as dead as a bunny eating my landscaping

but I cannot say the same for most other closed box systems, including the (non-MLS) RM-40 I used to own.

I still think the best sound in my room was from the Apogee Divas. Selling them was a big mistage though it did make the wife happy.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #302 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 12:38 am »

Hey John, how's this for a nice sweet spot ?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #303 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 12:46 am »

Now thats a "sweet spot".....

[/list:u]

John Casler · « **Reply #304 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 01:21 am »

Quote from: ekovalsky

Hey John, how's this for a nice sweet spot ?

Now you're talking,

forget audio

I think that picture is titled a Sweet Spot between "infinities" and a hard place

Heck with DEQX (how about SEQX) Who needs room or speaker correction?

Marbles · « **Reply #305 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 01:29 am »

That speaker in the center looks rear ported.........

John Casler · « **Reply #306 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 01:30 am »

Quote from: ekovalsky

Remember a big advantage of dipoles is there is no sound from the enclosure, since there isn't any. The RM/X cabinets are about as dead as a bunny eating my landscaping but I cannot say the same for most other closed box systems, including the (non-MLS) RM-40 I used to own.
..

Dead Bunny eating your landscaping

That one got me

Your observations about cabinet talk are right on. I went to CES this year listening for just that from every room I went in. Wish I had a SPL meter with me.

I can't comment at this time, but I know "some" manufacturers are working to further "silence" these nasties.

John Casler · « **Reply #307 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 01:31 am »

Quote from: Marbles

That speaker in the center looks rear ported.........

Marbles,

I though you if anyone could tell a "slot loaded" passive radiator when you saw one

Bingenito · « **Reply #308 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 01:38 am »

Quote

I though you if anyone could tell a "slot loaded" passive radiator when you saw one

By the looks of it that PR needs some putty adjustments

ekovalsky · « **Reply #309 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 02:17 am »

Quote from: lonewolfny42

Now thats a "sweet spot".....
How was this sweet spot.....[/list:u]
[/list:u]

Hey that brings back some memories!

Actually it was very sweet, although when that picture was taken the system was stuffed in a 13x16 bedroom in a house I was renting. Before that it was in a 15' x 35' great room with a pair of Muse18's (great sub) and the sweet spot was definitely very, very good!

John, the SoundLabs have a nice sweet spot too. Hope that panel doesn't arc!

John Ashman · « **Reply #310 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 02:44 am »

Oh my, I don't think this thread will every be the same!

Rick Craig · « **Reply #311 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 04:43 am »

Quote from: ekovalsky

I was largely rehashing what Derek Wilson of Overkill had told me. Some of what he said did make sense, but no doubt it is mostly marketing talk.

The Salk HT3 definitely makes a nice target for DSP (be it with the TacT or DEQX). I am still waiting to hear from Rick and others how things work out with line arrays. The more reading I've done, it seems line arrays may be best with passive crossovers for the mid/bass cones and tweeter ribbons and limit DSP for the signal division between the arrays and separate subs.

There are some good design features of the HT3's passive crossover that will be somewhat difficult to emulate with DSP so I'm not so sure that the DEQX is the ultimate solution. I recently had some time to further explore the DEQX and the results were interesting.

Rick

John Ashman · « **Reply #312 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 05:04 am »

Rick,
Salk himself is working on a DEQXable HT3 sans crossover. I'm not sure what a passive crossover could do that DEQX couldn't. If the box is the right size for the driver, that's all that matters (relative to the crossover part). Unless there's something really odd about the box that somehow requires added inductance or something (?!?), I don't think there's any downside. Got any more info on that idea?

DSK · « **Reply #313 on:** 28 Mar 2005, 06:11 am »

Rick,

I've skimmed through this huge thread, so please forgive me if I've missed something, but do you have immediate plans to compare say, your Carnelian as is, versus with the DEQX and no passive XO?

Cheers,
DSK.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #314 on:** 29 Mar 2005, 01:53 am »

Quote from: John Ashman

Rick,
Salk himself is working on a DEQXable HT3 sans crossover. I'm not sure what a passive crossover could do that DEQX couldn't. If the box is the right size for the driver, that's all that matters (relative to the crossover part). Unless there's something really odd about the box that somehow requires added inductance or something (?!?), I don't think there's any downside. Got any more info on that idea?

The response shaping for the transfer functions and power response is critical to a good design. That's where many people will have trouble with optimizing the sound. Well-executed passive crossovers are more complex than what you may think.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #315 on:** 29 Mar 2005, 01:57 am »

Quote from: DSK

Rick,

I've skimmed through this huge thread, so please forgive me if I've missed something, but do you have immediate plans to compare say, your Carnelian as is, versus with the DEQX and no passive XO?

Cheers,
DSK.

No immediate plans but possibly something that I would try in the future.

ludavico · « **Reply #316 on:** 30 Mar 2005, 01:24 am »

Yikes...anyone catch Robert Greene's comments in the latest TAS on the DEQX'd Overkill system at CES?

Damn, that is the first time I ever heard him say he had to leave a room (well, running actually) clutching his ears.

This is the same guy that publicly drooled over the Dali Megalines (which is also somewhat uncharacteristic).

John

Bingenito · « **Reply #317 on:** 30 Mar 2005, 01:41 am »

Quote

Yikes...anyone catch Robert Greene's comments in the latest TAS on the DEQX'd Overkill system at CES?

Guess he didn't like them much...

Got a link? I do not see this online at CES report.

Thanks[/quote]

John Ashman · « **Reply #318 on:** 30 Mar 2005, 01:41 am »

Quote from: Rick Craig

The response shaping for the transfer functions and power response is critical to a good design. That's where many people will have trouble with optimizing the sound. Well-executed passive crossovers are more complex than what you may think.

It becomes *substantially* less complex when you can run the crossover at 100dB/octave or more. At that point, there's really not much, IMO, that any passive anything can do to improve transfer functions or power response. These things are important in an analog speaker because the slopes are so shallow, you are using almost the entirety of the driver response, you will have some beaming in the midrange, cone resonances, etc, etc. This all goes out the window with DEQX.

DEQX the Carnelians and tell me what passive components you need to tweak the performance.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #319 on:** 30 Mar 2005, 02:34 am »

Quote from: John Ashman

It becomes *substantially* less complex when you can run the crossover at 100dB/octave or more. At that point, there's really not much, IMO, that any passive anything can do to improve transfer functions or power response. These things are important in an analog speaker because the slopes are so shallow, you are using almost the entirety of the driver response, you will have some beaming in the midrange, cone resonances, etc, etc. This all goes out the window with DEQX.

DEQX the Carnelians and tell me what passive components you need to tweak the performance.

Well there's more to it than what you think but in order to explain I would have to divulge some of the tricks of the trade

Maybe I need to become a DEQX consultant