[Brian Cheney]

The time is ripe for a true audio revolution, one where speakers, amplification, listening environment, and most importantly, user taste and requirements are all equally important and addressed, and the full capabilities of modern digital signal processing can be exploited.  And all this in a compact, affordable, user-friendly package--no engineering degree required.

When the High End started nearly sixty years ago it was hobbyist-driven and had its primary appeal to fanatics and crackpots.  The priceless "Mad Magazine" article (recently linked over at audioasylum) from the late fifties summed it up nicely.

Well, it's once again the hobbyist, here our own Mike Galusha, who has shown this audio engineer what can be done, and how much better home high fidelity can be.  Kudos to Mike, may he and his kind live long and prosper!

Thanks to Mike I have now experienced a 17"W by 2" H sonic powerhouse combining the following functions and attributes, all essential to good sound reproduction in the home:

1. A state of the art preamp with remote volume and balance.  Although it has only two inputs (one analog, one digital), a passive pre could easily be shunted in front of it for full switching functions.  Such a unit could also contain a phono preamp for analog enthusiasts.

2. A very flexible electronic crossover (two or three way, or 3.1) with your choice of slopes and filters from 6dB/oct to 48dB/oct, mix and match.  This takes lossy passive components out of the speaker and requires only an additional bass amp, which can be inexpensive or not, depending on budget.  Dynamics improve mightily, as do distortion specs.

3. Eight bands of parametric EQ in 0.1dB steps with 30dB of range and Q selectable from 0.1 to 10.0 (wide to very narrow).  This means you can eliminate the floor-to-ceiling room mode which plagues all rectangular, enclosed spaces and cannot be eliminated any other way.  Plus you have seven bands left over to take care of the front-to-back and side-to-side primary modes (if you are so inclined) or eliminate small FR deviations in speakers and electronics--believe me, all speakers and electronics have them.  VMPS speakers with Constant Directivity respond particularly well to such correction, since their on-axis and off-axis response is the same.  EQ in the past has been like "pushing on jello" because correcting a problem on axis usually made things worse off axis, where most of the reflected energy in a room comes from.  Not so with a Constant Directivity speaker.

4. Digital delay lines for true at the ear time alignment.  Since the concept was invented in the early 70's I have been a fan of time alignment but no fan of doing it by physically lining up the drivers on a staggered or pregnant baffle.  This works if you listen anechoically at the measurement point in space, usually 1m or 2m away at one tight location on the speaker's vertical axis.  Unfortunately I have never met anyone who listens this way, so most of the currently available "time aligned" speakers aren't, at least whereever you do your actual listening.  With digital delay, time alignment can be done where the listening is done and is an audible improvement.

5. Dynamic range expansion.  Hate those highly compressed recordings that make music sound so unnatural?  Now you can uncompress them.  Or, if you prefer, add dynamics to recordings which have been limited by saturation of the storage media, which is basically all recordings.

6. First-class ADC and DAC functions at no extra charge.  All you need is a transport, or if you already have a SOTA digital source, hook it right up and have it converted to analog in first-rate quality. 

I've just scratched the surface, and I hope other AC'ers will contribute to this thread with their ideas.  Point is, you can now get much better sound for little outlay, thanks to guys like Mike.  Maybe there's something we can do to encourage him, or set up a cottage industry of modders, or offer the whole package--modded preamp/processor/crossover/EQ with speakers designed to complement its unique features.  Hey, there's an idea!

Our RMAF display does most of this, so if you're planning to attend drop by our booth.

[PLMONROE]

Hear! Hear! 

[John Ryder]

Make sure it has a top notch world class power cord so as to have the best possible sound.

 

[mgalusha]

Wow, thanks Brian.  

I'm glad you liked the changes to the DCX. I was fortunate enough to have several on hand when working on the mods so it was easy to compare versions to see if the result was positive, negative or none. I fully agree that using an active crossover offers abundant benefits that far outweigh the additional complexity of an active system.

As my signature shows, I'm not really in the business but I am open to commissioned work.

mike

[Brian Cheney]

You may get much more business than you can handle, Mike.

Be sure to investigate that power cord matter.  John Ryder has a thing going about that.

[lifewithmusic]

Well said, Brian. 

This is the kind of "article" we should be reading in the mainstream audio rags.  But, unfortunately, the fodder often paraded as equipment reviews seems more like paid promotion.  Brian has taken a step to put himself out of the passive crossover business, and Mike doesn't realize he really is in for big business.

[Brian Cheney]

Just because a new technology (or variation on an old technology) is superior does not guarantee its success in the marketplace.  I could cite myriad examples.

I think after this RMAF where the 626Jr SDE is being exhibited there should be magazine interest in a review, and maybe the word will spread.

Anyone who hears it should be convinced quickly. What a glorious sound.

[woodsyi]

I will definitely check it out.  I hope Wayne will set up TT as well.  I am sure digital will be good.  I really want to hear an analog source on the modded DCX.

[RGordonpf]

I second Woodsyi's suggestion of having an analog source if Wayne thinks the A-D and D-A converters in the modded DCX are up to the task.  I have heard a number of A-D D-A converters, including some very expensive ones.  All of them damaged the sound of the analog signal to varying degrees.  The Holy Grail for those of us with analog material is to find an A-D D-A converter that is transparent.  If the DCX is transparent for analog signals, I would love to hear it.  If the DCX converts analog signals to mid fi, then Wayne should probably leave the turntable at home.  Just my two cents worth.

[Brian Cheney]

Wayne is exhibiting his modded Squeezebox and will likely not have an analog source.

However, in just three months (a twinkling of an eye!) we will.  And I'm not talking turntables here, though I could certainly bring one.  Our CES demo in the Zeus Ballroom of the Alexis Park will feature the DCX, V60's and RM30's playing back live sound as recorded by Ray Kimber on his multichannel DSD equipment. 

I will be posting more details once the roster of performers and show times are finalized.  There will only be about 30 seats available for each set (we plan 3 or 4 per day) and AC'ers will get priority.

[Wayne1]

I do not plan to have a TT at the show.

I will have an analog source

I will be showing my latest modded SB3. This will have a tubed, SE analog output section. That is what will be fed into the DCX.

I can also feed the digital signal from the same unit into the DCX for comparison. I have heard this comparison at Mike Galusha's and all who have heard it, prefer the analog source.

[woodsyi]

Sounds good, Wayne.  I definitely want to hear both ways.  Can you use old sb2s in your rebox or do you have to start with a new unit?

[BrassEar]

I'm glad you liked the changes to the DCX. I was fortunate enough to have several on hand when working on the mods so it was easy to compare versions to see if the result was positive, negative or none. I fully agree that using an active crossover offers abundant benefits that far outweigh the additional complexity of an active system.
As my signature shows, I'm not really in the business but I am open to commissioned work.
mike

Are we talking about a modified Behr DCX here? If so, what is the cost, er...commission charge?

[mgalusha]

The analog inputs of the modified DCX are very good but without question are not 100% transparent, just like every other audio component that the signal passes through they will alter it in some way. I have a pretty decent vinyl setup  (Teres/Scheu-Benz/Morch/Cornet) and I run the phono preamp into the DCX to spin vinyl. At an analytical level this bugs me as I'm doing an A/D -> D/A conversion to a purely analog signal, however subjectively it sounds very good. The A/D and D/A conversions are done at 24/96 inside the DCX and all of the digital/dsp sections are running synchronously with a very low jitter clock. Undoubtedly it's not invisible but my records still sound like records.

IMO the advantages offered by a DSP driven XO outweighed the downside of doing the conversions on my vinyl. I used a Marchand XO for a year before I switched over to the modified DCX because of this very reason, I had (have) a strong aversion to digitizing vinyl but the improvements I was able to get from being able to fine tune the XO (baffle step, ceiling/floor bounce, time delay etc) easily were too great to ignore.

That said if I was exclusively an analog guy I might not choose to go this way but most of the time I use my Squeezebox as a source and not the TT. I do however use the analog inputs even with the Squeezebox as I prefer the sound of it's tubed output stage through the analog inputs over the straight digital inputs even though it adds an extra A/D -> D/A conversion.

Last winter I had a get together and as Wayne mentioned we switched between the analog and digital inputs. The DCX makes this quite easy and the active analog stage allows the gain to be set for those inputs, so I level matched the analog to the digital and could thus swap between them in real time. I believe everyone present chose the SB analog out -> DCX Analog in over the SB digital -> DCX digital in. No doubt there is something in my SB output stage that is providing a pleasing sound and the DCX seems to be transparent enough to preserve it.

I built one for another fellow who uses it with a ModWright Transporter and I know he uses the analog inputs. I'll see if he's willing to post his thoughts on this.

Short version is, yep it's going to affect the signal this way but IMO it's worth it for most people but I'm equally certain others can't abide this. That's OK by me.

mike

[mgalusha]

Are we talking about a modified Behr DCX here? If so, what is the cost, er...commission charge?

Yep, a lowly Behringer DCX2496. The one the Wayne has and Brian head has been extensively modified. There is more information in this thread: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=60047.msg534895#msg534895

It's not inexpensive, the parts cost is very high and there is a lot of labor involved. Feel free to PM or email me if you're interested.

mike

[Brian Cheney]

I certainly want one asap and can send you a DCX.  I think the full active analog output stage and remote is what I need.  You can PM me with costs.

[mgalusha]

I certainly want one asap and can send you a DCX.  I think the full active analog output stage and remote is what I need.  You can PM me with costs.

I'll get together a current list of all the materials costs and options and shoot you a PM.

mike

[zybar]

The analog inputs of the modified DCX are very good but without question are not 100% transparent, just like every other audio component that the signal passes through they will alter it in some way. I have a pretty decent vinyl setup  (Teres/Scheu-Benz/Morch/Cornet) and I run the phono preamp into the DCX to spin vinyl. At an analytical level this bugs me as I'm doing an A/D -> D/A conversion to a purely analog signal, however subjectively it sounds very good. The A/D and D/A conversions are done at 24/96 inside the DCX and all of the digital/dsp sections are running synchronously with a very low jitter clock. Undoubtedly it's not invisible but my records still sound like records.

IMO the advantages offered by a DSP driven XO outweighed the downside of doing the conversions on my vinyl. I used a Marchand XO for a year before I switched over to the modified DCX because of this very reason, I had (have) a strong aversion to digitizing vinyl but the improvements I was able to get from being able to fine tune the XO (baffle step, ceiling/floor bounce, time delay etc) easily were too great to ignore.

That said if I was exclusively an analog guy I might not choose to go this way but most of the time I use my Squeezebox as a source and not the TT. I do however use the analog inputs even with the Squeezebox as I prefer the sound of it's tubed output stage through the analog inputs over the straight digital inputs even though it adds an extra A/D -> D/A conversion.

Last winter I had a get together and as Wayne mentioned we switched between the analog and digital inputs. The DCX makes this quite easy and the active analog stage allows the gain to be set for those inputs, so I level matched the analog to the digital and could thus swap between them in real time. I believe everyone present chose the SB analog out -> DCX Analog in over the SB digital -> DCX digital in. No doubt there is something in my SB output stage that is providing a pleasing sound and the DCX seems to be transparent enough to preserve it.

I built one for another fellow who uses it with a ModWright Transporter and I know he uses the analog inputs. I'll see if he's willing to post his thoughts on this.

Short version is, yep it's going to affect the signal this way but IMO it's worth it for most people but I'm equally certain others can't abide this. That's OK by me.

mike

I had Mike modify my DCX2496 which I use as the crossover for my Emerald Physics CS2 speakers and I couldn't be happier!   

As Mike mentioned above, I currently use the analog inputs of the DCX rather than use its digital input.  With my current source (a Modwright Transporter) as well as my previous source (a top of the line, fully loaded Bolder Cable SB2 with  Statement mods and Nirvana Ultimate II PS, Summit DC cable, Bybees, etc...) I feel that the analog input provides a less digital sound that is smoother and less edgy, without losing any detail.  I also find that the music is more dimensional and full sounding when compared to the straight digital path.  The only area that I think the straight digital path has a very slight edge in was transient response.  In this area the purely digital setup is just a touch faster and sharper.

Just in case somebody isn't familiar with the sources, the Modwright Transporter has tubed output stage while the Bolder Cable SB2 does not.  Again, in both cases, I always preferred the analog input over the digital input.  It's not that the digital input is poor or unsustainable, its simply isn't as organic and "analog" sounding.   

A couple other notes on Mike's work on the DCX...

The quality of Mike's work isn't just in the end product (aka the sound) but it is also in the craftmanship and service.  Take a peek inside and you will see meticulous work with great attention paid to even the smallest details.  Mike was easy to communicate with and was super responsive - frankly, I think many other vendors out there could learn a thing or two from Mike. 

In terms of transparency, it is difficult to quantify.  I can't use my CS2's without the DCX in place, so I can't compare things with and without.  There is no point in comparing a stock DCX to Mike's work (yes, it truly is a night/day level of improvement) so I don't feel like I do much other than to say I am extremely happy with Mike's DCX and I have no problems identifying changes in the system.

Lastly, a little word on the cost...While the mods weren't cheap, I think that they represent a tremendous value, especially when one understands the functionality gained and the high level of performance .  As Brian stated above, getting a very good preamp, DAC, EQ, and crossover in one fairly easy to use package for Mike's asking price is just not something that you can find out there in the market right now.

Brian, I am glad you had a chance to hear what Mike is able to accomplish with his mods and that improves your offering.  I wish you and Wayne a great show at RMAF.

George

[Brian Cheney]

Thanks, George, I hope Wayne does well at RMAF.

I'll have you know I've appointed Mike Galusha our new Director of Communications and Customer Responsiveness.  Please route all your messages through him.

Curt Manners
Director, VMPS Customer Disservice Dept

[JeffB]

On the surface it would seem that the digital input would be better than the analog input.
Could the problem be with the interface hookup.
From wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF

SPDIF is 75 Ohm with a signal between 0.5 to 1 V.
AES/EBU is 110 Ohm with a signal between 3 to 10 V.

There are some boxes out there to help convert between the two formats.

How were the digital connections made?