[bhobba]

Hi Bob and Eveyone

It has been a while since I posted.  I have had a few financial issues to sort out that are now slowly coming under control.  I am now in a position where I can at least see light at the end of the tunnel and expect to be in the market for speakers within the next year or so.  I see Bob has a new low end model - the Timepiece mini.  I still am entranced by the DEQX and hope to eventually build my system around one.  I can either get the speakers and later upgrade it to a DEQX or get the DEQX and speakers at the same time.  What do the regulars (or anyone who simply has some ideas) think?

BTW it feels good to post again - I missed it.

Thanks
Bill

[lonewolfny42]

Welcome back Bill....

I see Bob has a new low end model - the Timepiece mini.

Yep....their being built as we "speak"....soon to be in a few systems. I have a pair on order....

As for DEQX....I don't have much experience with that....
But I'm sure others do....

                          Chris

[bhobba]

Welcome back Bill....

Thanks Chris.  Nice to hear from you as well.

As for DEQX....I don't have much experience with that....   But I'm sure others do....

The few people who have given me some feedback is that the DEQX may not be worth the dosh.  Might be better to spend the money on better amps or speakers.  My amp is fixed - it will be Hugh's Soraya.  Like Bob, I have great faith and respect in his technical skill.  Also, like Bob, he is self effacing about that skill.  One advantage of delaying the DEQX is I only need one amp.  But then again I will need a preamp DAC etc, which when you add it all up, comes close to the cost of a DEQX anyway - decisions, decisions.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Hi Again All

I forgot to mention it before.  A question for Bob.  If I decide to go the DEQX route, is the mini available without crossover for direct connection to the DEQX if I wanted it?  A few have commeted the DEQX is not sonically superior to a well designed passive crossover.  But if you have a device like a DEQX, you may as well use its capabilities.  And I have not heard anyone say the DEQX crossover is audibly inferior to a well designed passive.  And as I mentioned to Chris, once you add the cost of preamp, dacs etc, they soon start to approach the cost of a DEQX anyway.

Thanks
Bill

[TomS]

Bill,

Bob has been very busy developing state of the art Mundorf based passive crossovers and Mundorf based internal wiring for his whole line.  A LOT has happened in this regard, perhaps making the debate of active XO vs. passive less relevant, at least for SP Techs.  You should definitely look at some of the old threads on what other people have heard with the top line Mundorf (Karsten) and then have that discussion with Bob before setting off in the direction (big $$$) of multiple amps/active xo.

By the way, welcome back!

Tom

[bhobba]

Bob has been very busy developing state of the art Mundorf based passive crossovers and Mundorf based internal wiring for his whole line.  A LOT has happened in this regard, perhaps making the debate of active XO vs. passive less relevant, at least for SP Techs.  You should definitely look at some of the old threads on what other people have heard with the top line Mundorf (Karsten) and then have that discussion with Bob before setting off in the direction (big $$$) of multiple amps/active xo.

Yes - so I have found out.  My research has led me to believe that, properly done (and that is the key point - there is no doubt in my mind Bob's crossovers are properly done) audible differences between a DEQX and passive - not taking into account room and speaker correction - can be rather minor.  This is from a number of sources such as Dennis Murphys experience with using the DEQX; his words, not mine: 'Frankly, the improvement on the much more complex HT3 is subtle.'.  For me the question is about cost.  For a DEQX you need extra amplification and good amplification is not cheap.  The pro argument is that audible differences between well designed amps is non existent so this cost can be minimised.  Those that tout this view point to blind listening tests that supposedly prove no audible differences exist.  I am a believer in blind listening tests, but of recent times have formed the view they are only valid for those that have listened to the products extensively - there is just too much evidence from guys like Bob who rave about how much better their speakers etc sound when driven by higher quality amps.  The amp I am interested in is the Soroya, which is $4000.00.  Doubling that for a DEQX set up means and extra $4,000.00.  The cost benefit may simply not be their in a DEQX. 

By the way, welcome back!

It feels good to be back.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Hi Again All

I also want to add the issue is still not clear cut.  Even though the audible differences in using a DEQX is subtle, the room correction, especially in the bass region, is not.  Integrating the T-sub with Timpiece-mini would be a snap with a DEQX.  Also reports I have heard is that a modded DEQX will sonically beat just about anything on the planet as a pre-amp/dac when fed from the I2S of a computer.  Now adding the cost of a high quality preamp, dac, and usb converter as separate units - the cost soon mounts and you may end up forking out more in the long run.  For me this is a decision that requires carefull thought. 

Right now the option I am favouring is to get the crossover version and power it using a cheap panny to begin with.  I can add the Sorya later as finances permit.  Then comes the crunch time.  I will need to decide wether to get a good preamp dac etc or go the DEQX route.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Thanks
Bill

Thanks
Bill

Woops.  Sorry for the stuttttter.  Finger problems.

Thanks
Bill

Only one this time.

[Karsten]

Bill,

It is hard to beat a well implemented passive cross-over the digital route. If you are free to position your speakers in a reasonable room, you don't need any correction.

Since the entire digital platform is moving towards the PC system, which holds practically any option for digital manipulation, I don't really see the need for a discrete unit.

Get the best DAC and power amplifiers you can afford as top priority. Along with a laptop you are pretty much done with the system.

Regards,
Karsten

[zybar]

Bill,

It is hard to beat a well implemented passive cross-over the digital route. If you are free to position your speakers in a reasonable room, you don't need any correction.

Since the entire digital platform is moving towards the PC system, which holds practically any option for digital manipulation, I don't really see the need for a discrete unit.

Get the best DAC and power amplifiers you can afford as top priority. Along with a laptop you are pretty much done with the system.

Regards,
Karsten

That is a pretty broad brush you are painting with Karsten.   

I think it might be more accurate to say that both digital and passive crossovers can be done very well and each have their place.  I am not sure one is better than the other when properly implemented.

While I am sure that Bob's top of the line Mundorf crossovers are excellent, that's not to say a well done digital crossover couldn't equal or beat it.  Also, when you factor in the flexibility and realtime changes a digital crossover can offer, it starts to make a strong case for that path.

Lastly, when you factor in the cost of Mundorf crossovers, maybe money would be better spent (assuming that there are some budget constraints) going with better associated gear + digital crossovers.

Just throwing out a different point of view.

George

 

[bhobba]

I think it might be more accurate to say that both digital and passive crossovers can be done very well and each have their place.  I am not sure one is better than the other when properly implemented.

From what I have read digital has a slight edge - but it is subtle.  Cost/performance - I am starting to form the view that comes down on the side of convectional crossovers well implemented.

Just throwing out a different point of view.

And its great to hear them too.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Since the entire digital platform is moving towards the PC system, which holds practically any option for digital manipulation, I don't really see the need for a discrete unit.

Now that is something to consider.  I have believed for a long time the future of audio is battery powered laptops connected to USB dacs.  As time goes by I have no doubt programs will become available that do most of what the DEQX does.

Thanks
Bill

[Christof]

From what I have read digital has a slight edge........

I can hear Bob typing right now

Somewhere hidden in the archives is a very informative reply Bob made about the pros/cons of active vs passive....very interesting, but I've not a clue where it's located

[bhobba]

Somewhere hidden in the archives is a very informative reply Bob made about the pros/cons of active vs passive....very interesting, but I've not a clue where it's located

Maybe this is it.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=35532.0

Slowly my view is turning toward the passive route.  If anyone want to shift me back I am listening.

Thanks
Bill

[Christof]

Yup 

[Double Ugly]

The advent of consumer-oriented digital crossover equipment (DCX, DEQX, et al.) has made it much easier for the average joe to 'build' a good-to-great crossover.  And though removing distortion from the speaker has obvious advantages, it doesn't necessarily mean the digital crossover is by default better than the best passive designs.

Building a good passive crossover is relatively difficult, but as evidenced by the virtually barren landscape of examples, building an exceptional passive crossover is exponentially more difficult.

[Aether Audio]

Bill,

Welcome back!   Hope all is well with you these days.

If I were you I'd tread softly regarding any digital crossover.  I was ga-ga over the idea a few years ago - until I heard the DEQX.  We were going to use it at CES just for room correction - no crossover function used at all.

Well, before we started tweaking we listened to it as a simple "pass through" with no EQ or gain.  That took about 30 seconds, we pulled it out of the chain and I literally haven't turned it on since.

So... considering the above and the fact that the DSP had no work to do at all, the only conclusion is that the AD/DA and/or analog output section sucked.  I've heard since that DEQX heard this time and again such that since they've tried to make it better.

The bottom line is that no digital gizmo is any better than the A to D and (if any) DAC and analog output stage it has.  The outboard DAC market alone is huge, so that ought to tell you something.

What I will tell you is that with our stuff you want the most pristine, high speed front end gear you can get.  DU hit the nail square on the head.  If you look at the inherent transfer function linearity of high quality passive components (caps, coils, resistors - as used in passive crossovers) compared to all the inherent non-linearities in active components, you might think twice. 

The one thing a passive component doesn't have (except for maybe a non air-core coil) is any significant dynamic limit.  Well...I guess you can short out a cap if you hit it with a big enough voltage spike, but we use 600 volt caps so I doubt you'd ever have that problem with our stuff.   Be it tubes or solid-state devices, they are all limited by the voltage of the power supply that operates them and then their own dynamic limits.  Most folks think of clipping as something that only happens in power amps - not so by a long shot.

Not only do active circuits have issues regarding rise-time, settling-time, overload recovery time, THD, IMD, TIM, etc... but they are also surrounded by passive parts that bias them, couple stages together, etc.  The quality of those parts have to be factored in as well.  Sure...we have plenty of examples of exemplary electronic devices, but talk to their designers - it ain't easy or simple.  When you think about stringing all that stuff together, a handfull of quality passive parts in a crossover starts looking a little more attractive.

Take care,
-Bob

[dart6]

Bob i've sent a couple of emails

[bhobba]

Welcome back!   Hope all is well with you these days.

Its good to be back and actually see light at the end of the financial tunnel, to the point where I can think about pursuing my hobby again.

If I were you I'd tread softly regarding any digital crossover.

Advice taken.  I have now turned 180%, and will be heading down the conventional passive route.  Your Timepiece-mini and proposed new sup really do appeal.  Now its simply a matter of waiting until my finances are in order.  As it turned out I would have been OK keeping my previous speakers.  But its better to be safe than sorry where financiers are concerned.

Thanks
Bill

[Karsten]

That is a pretty broad brush you are painting with Karsten.   

I think it might be more accurate to say that both digital and passive crossovers can be done very well and each have their place.  I am not sure one is better than the other when properly implemented.

While I am sure that Bob's top of the line Mundorf crossovers are excellent, that's not to say a well done digital crossover couldn't equal or beat it.  Also, when you factor in the flexibility and realtime changes a digital crossover can offer, it starts to make a strong case for that path.

Lastly, when you factor in the cost of Mundorf crossovers, maybe money would be better spent (assuming that there are some budget constraints) going with better associated gear + digital crossovers.

Just throwing out a different point of view.

George

George,

Yes it is a greatly simplified statement I do find the digital cross-over technology very interesting and I'm sure that the technology will be refined to a point where it clearly exceeds what is possible to do with passive cross-over.

I am however quite sure that in Bill's case, the route he had chosen would not give him what he were aiming for, at least not optimally.



If going for a laptop based front end, it is worth noting that there (unfortunately) is a great difference in how suited different models are for audio. Some put out unacceptable amounts of noise, also over USB, and some are not able to do digital attenuation, for some strange reason.

Karsten