[Housteau]

The new thread here about the fresh pair of RM-50s leaving the factory mentions use of an unmodified Behringer DCX used as the crossover in the listening sessions.  This reminded me of several of the exhibit rooms at the RMAF that I thought was worth a mention.  I have been seeing this little unit being used in more and more High End places over the last few years and the RMAF was no exception.  The Emerald Physics room was using one with some analog mods, but not too extensive.  Sanders Sound, which I thought had one of the best sounds and presentations of the show, was using a straight stock DCX.  The only thing he mods is the outer case to give it a nicer look.  Roger Sanders told me that he has never run across a component such as this one before, as it measures near perfect on all of the tests he performs and sounds transparent.  I remember similar comments by Brian written here when he first adopted its use as well.  Mr. Sanders also told me that he sees no reason to mod this unit as it would be very hard to improve on what is already there, and often one could easily make it worse.  In all cases at the show this DCX was being used going analog in and being fed by a preamp.

I enjoyed very much seeing and hearing this as there has always been something nagging inside of me that the DCX I use, even though it has been extensively modified properly, is not an 'audiophile grade' component.  I guess the name and price often related to cheap crap in my mind, justified or not.  My ears always told me different, but even so these preconceived notions can be hard to shake.

One of the main highlights for me at shows such as this is the chance to meet and talk with the different manufacturers and designers and get to understand their different philosophies, beliefs and dogmas about audio.  Many do not agree it seems on anything, analog vs digital, tube vs SS, cone vs ribbon vs ELS, on room acoustics and how to set up a proper listening room, on anything.  Yet, they each also seem to make some wonderful components that work really well.  All are different paths to get to the same place I guess.  A friend I was with is setting up a new listening room and has a few issues he wanted to discuss with some of the 'experts'.  It was really amusing to hear so many different and often opposing suggestions on what he needed to do as we went from room to room.

There used to be a time that after returning home from such a show, or from a friends place that had a really nice and properly set up sound system, that I would find my own lacking in many ways.  I don't find that true anymore and haven't for a while.  In fact more and more often I can go and enjoy another system, but still find that I prefer my own as I listen to theirs.  As time goes on and small improvements are made there is less and less I envy from elsewhere.

[John Casler]

As time goes on and small improvements are made there is less and less I envy from elsewhere.

Exactly.

While I thoroughly enjoy listening to all kinds of systems and gear at shows, club meetings and friends homes, I just don't come home and wonder how to change anything in my own system.

Its like that favorite pair of jeans.  It just fits.

I remember one year at CES; Just before hitting the road to come back to LA, I sat and listened to my reference disc on a $50k Line Array system with speakers over 6 feet tall, and amps the size of a small Dog House.

I thought of the system's sound qualities all the way home (like a 5 hour drive) and immediately sat down and played the same cuts.

My system which I had tuned for many months left nothing to be desired and exceeded the Kilo-buck system in most every way as far as MY listening preferences.

But it was still a lot of fun listening to the Kilo-buck system also.

[Tyson]

I agree, even though I'm no longer a VMPS owner, I was one for a long time and still have fond memories of my RM40's.  The idea of actually being happy with your own system is pretty rare in audiophile nervosa circles, but clearly at least 3 people here have achieved it

Having ripped into gear myself and built my own speakers, I understand where a lot of the expense comes from.  But for the truly "mega-buck" systems, I'm not sure the cost of building or the cost of materials actually justifies the price.  Most gear is roughtly 8x retail over the cost of materials.  But the megabuck systems seem to be more like 80x cost of materials.  Maybe it's true what Brian said a while back about this category, "The Price is the Product".

[Brian Cheney]

There appears to be real competition in the marketplace for who can be the most expensive at retail for the least outlay in build cost.  The idea, apparently, is that the target customer wants the best (most expensive, largest, smallest, most cosmetically attractive, technically advanced) products, nothing less. 

From an engineering standpoint, the cost of much extremely expensive audio equipment far exceeds its performance. 

[John Casler]

The new thread here about the fresh pair of RM-50s leaving the factory mentions use of an unmodified Behringer DCX used as the crossover in the listening sessions.  This reminded me of several of the exhibit rooms at the RMAF that I thought was worth a mention.  I have been seeing this little unit being used in more and more High End places over the last few years and the RMAF was no exception.  The Emerald Physics room was using one with some analog mods, but not too extensive.  Sanders Sound, which I thought had one of the best sounds and presentations of the show, was using a straight stock DCX.  The only thing he mods is the outer case to give it a nicer look.  Roger Sanders told me that he has never run across a component such as this one before, as it measures near perfect on all of the tests he performs and sounds transparent.  I remember similar comments by Brian written here when he first adopted its use as well.  Mr. Sanders also told me that he sees no reason to mod this unit as it would be very hard to improve on what is already there, and often one could easily make it worse.  In all cases at the show this DCX was being used going analog in and being fed by a preamp.

I enjoyed very much seeing and hearing this as there has always been something nagging inside of me that the DCX I use, even though it has been extensively modified properly, is not an 'audiophile grade' component.  I guess the name and price often related to cheap crap in my mind, justified or not.  My ears always told me different, but even so these preconceived notions can be hard to shake.

Dave to address your "other" point regarding the implementation of the DCX2496 for our D-OXO.

Most all technologies have their "trade off's" and compromises.

The battle between digital and analog is often waged in the drive chain, but less often in the XO's.

While many can assert that the Passive Analog technology is "more pure", it also has a trade of, and the trade off is in stresses to the amplifier.

Few had had the opportunity to really hear the differences that placing the XO "BEFORE" the amp provides.

Powered speakers in consumer audio are fewer than their Passive counterparts.

So when an amp is placed "after" the XO it has a MUCH easier job and this leads to cleaner and higher performance in most cases.

The D-OXO not only allows this, but has some incredible flexibility and precision in making adjustments to the signal and incredible improvements to the sound.

With VMPS speakers, placing the amp "after" the XO also means that a lower powered amp (that doesn't have to push the Passive circuitry) can be used and will be less stressed (and stress is what generates distortion levels).

So while the path and the digital circuitry may be relatively less expensive (perceived as lower quality) the actual gain by using this technology is great.

Now this doesn't mean many of our customers will be hearing bad sound unless they go digital. . . not at all.  The Passive XO's and the cap upgrades offered reall offer the BEST that anyone can ask for from that technology.  But, the point is, that now the choice is available to go either way, and BOTH are exceptional, but for differtent reasons.