StigErik said:
Thanks Stig, congrats on the beautiful setup you have. From reading your website it comes across that you don't do things by halves and the PCXO route takes some commitment but glad you persevered and wrought the benefits.
BTW As Arthur points out there's a relatively new kid in town that you might be interested in - Acourate. I find it be very good and sounds even better than the original method.
Let me just go back and dig up some old posts I made illustrating the functionality and philosophy of Acourate... just a minute.
OK found it:
Hope you'll agree that its an incredibly powerful tool and moves things even further on from the Wave/Console method you currently use.
BTW there's a trail version of Acourate available but it can't generate useful filters because its only a demo to show the functionality of the software. To really hear what Acourate can do you have to buy the full version which is 340Euros.
But if you like, why don't you email me and we can work together to get a test example of some correction filter generated. Then you can hear for yourself. Its quite a simple process and all you'd need to provide is some swept sine measurements. We can talk about the details via email should you wish to do so. I think you'll be surprised at the sound though.
m0tion said:
For video I have ffdshow and use that to set an output delay matched to the latency of the filters bringing the audio/video in sync. Now the most qualitatively demanding tasks such as music and video are run through FIR filtering.
For real time applications such as gaming the delays are no good and here I use IIR. Compared to FIR these aren't quite as coherent or precise but the difference is small and not easily noticed unless your directly switching back and forth between the two. Audio quality in games isn't really made to tax half decent loudspeakers so it doesn't really matter whether the filters are IIR or FIR. It all sounds pretty much the same.
The two different modes(FIR&IIR) are on scripts set up and controlled by AutoIT. From here I've set the iMON remote software to issue a hotkey command which AutoIT picks up and initiates. The end result is I can switch seamlessly between modes using the convenience of a single key press via the remote.
Screen grab of ffdshow with delay shown:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Not particularly wanting to 'butt in', but I have recently heard the deqx PDC 3.0 and can let anyone who cares know that it is significantly cleaner, more spacious and open than the 2.6, and I do think it represents an significant upgrade over the 2.6.
Another important point perhaps (not to me particularly) was that we couldn't pick a difference between the digital input or the analog input...sound wise that is, there was maybe a half db level difference which allowed us to pick it, but apart from that it was almost impossible to p[ick them. So any analog lovers out there the pdc 3 becomes a must over the pdc 2.6 for example.
They acknowledge someone for being the inspiration behind the upgrades..
>The unit is based on the PDC-2.6/P Rev-6 PCB that many of you have,
> where there are changes to main PSU, grounding, EMI filtering, op-amps and
> capacitors. The results have been stunning, and frankly I had not believed
> would have been possible were it not for the initial work of Steve Nugent of
> Empirical Audio, who was the first to achieve these type of results with even
> earlier Revisions of the PDC main board (where earthing issues were
> particularly tricky to improve on) so thank you Steve!
I was lucky to have Alan Langford from deqx come out and have a play with it in my system, and interestingly he also showed me a 'new way' of measuring the speakers, completely different from the procedure in the manual (which of course was the method I had always used).
To say the new results were revelatory would be an understatement, my system (which was always pretty darn good) went to a new plane, one that I have never heard before in any other system. Period.
He also showed me a 'pioneering' method of room and bass correction, evidently mine was only about the fifth system they'd tried it on..again completely different from the manual (I think Alan has brought a new way of looking at things in the short time he's been there and so is pioneering new applications etc), again the bass I had previously ( a pair of PHL 18's) which never failed to impress people ha ha took on a new dimension of speed, attack and accuracy.
All in all, after having the deqx for over a year now, and always reckoning it was great stuff for the system (as anyone reading this thread should know eg pc based similar stuff), it's only now that I have realised what the deqx is capable of.
I personally would be very interested in learning this pc based stuff, but unfortunately my computing skills are simply not up to it...so I can fully relate to what Shin was talking about earlier about ease of use etc and pros and cons of pc vs deqx or tact.
I would imagine that many users of deqx would have more smarts than me and so perhaps had better measurements in their correction file than I did so giving them a closer sound to the ideal, but then again I wonder. If you have done the 'old by the book' measurements, well I'd be very interested in finding out if you get any improvement from the new method of measuring and room correction (and hope you get the same dramatic improvements as I did!!)
Not to leave anyone in mystery, but I think the plan is at some stage that deqx will do some sort of video presentation on the new methods they have developed which will be accessible from the website, if I find out I'll let people know if they're interested then they can have a look for themselves.
So, pdc 3.0 is a worthwhile improvement, the new methods (to me anyway, your measurements may be perfect) of measurement also wrought vast improvements, and Alans expertise in driver x-over points and slopes (which he also changed) has led to my system being absolutely top notch, and that is not said in a bragging manner but simply a statement of fact.
BUT, has anyone who is conversant with setting up this stuff on a pc ever used it to give the iterative process on Ambiophonics a go?? and if so what were the results for you? I don't need the pc stuff right now fro stereo as I use the deqx, but I'm very interested in trying ambiophonics with it's crosstalk cancelling algorithms...which throws me straight back into my computer illiteracy.
If however people have tried it and think it's worth someone else investigating Ambiophonics, well it at least gives me an incentive to try and work this stuff out.
Another important point perhaps (not to me particularly) was that we couldn't pick a difference between the digital input or the analog input...sound wise that is, there was maybe a half db level difference which allowed us to pick it, but apart from that it was almost impossible to p[ick them. So any analog lovers out there the pdc 3 becomes a must over the pdc 2.6 for example.
They acknowledge someone for being the inspiration behind the upgrades..
>The unit is based on the PDC-2.6/P Rev-6 PCB that many of you have,
> where there are changes to main PSU, grounding, EMI filtering, op-amps and
> capacitors. The results have been stunning, and frankly I had not believed
> would have been possible were it not for the initial work of Steve Nugent of
> Empirical Audio, who was the first to achieve these type of results with even
> earlier Revisions of the PDC main board (where earthing issues were
> particularly tricky to improve on) so thank you Steve!
I was lucky to have Alan Langford from deqx come out and have a play with it in my system, and interestingly he also showed me a 'new way' of measuring the speakers, completely different from the procedure in the manual (which of course was the method I had always used).
To say the new results were revelatory would be an understatement, my system (which was always pretty darn good) went to a new plane, one that I have never heard before in any other system. Period.
He also showed me a 'pioneering' method of room and bass correction, evidently mine was only about the fifth system they'd tried it on..again completely different from the manual (I think Alan has brought a new way of looking at things in the short time he's been there and so is pioneering new applications etc), again the bass I had previously ( a pair of PHL 18's) which never failed to impress people ha ha took on a new dimension of speed, attack and accuracy.
All in all, after having the deqx for over a year now, and always reckoning it was great stuff for the system (as anyone reading this thread should know eg pc based similar stuff), it's only now that I have realised what the deqx is capable of.
I personally would be very interested in learning this pc based stuff, but unfortunately my computing skills are simply not up to it...so I can fully relate to what Shin was talking about earlier about ease of use etc and pros and cons of pc vs deqx or tact.
I would imagine that many users of deqx would have more smarts than me and so perhaps had better measurements in their correction file than I did so giving them a closer sound to the ideal, but then again I wonder. If you have done the 'old by the book' measurements, well I'd be very interested in finding out if you get any improvement from the new method of measuring and room correction (and hope you get the same dramatic improvements as I did!!)
Not to leave anyone in mystery, but I think the plan is at some stage that deqx will do some sort of video presentation on the new methods they have developed which will be accessible from the website, if I find out I'll let people know if they're interested then they can have a look for themselves.
So, pdc 3.0 is a worthwhile improvement, the new methods (to me anyway, your measurements may be perfect) of measurement also wrought vast improvements, and Alans expertise in driver x-over points and slopes (which he also changed) has led to my system being absolutely top notch, and that is not said in a bragging manner but simply a statement of fact.
BUT, has anyone who is conversant with setting up this stuff on a pc ever used it to give the iterative process on Ambiophonics a go?? and if so what were the results for you? I don't need the pc stuff right now fro stereo as I use the deqx, but I'm very interested in trying ambiophonics with it's crosstalk cancelling algorithms...which throws me straight back into my computer illiteracy.
If however people have tried it and think it's worth someone else investigating Ambiophonics, well it at least gives me an incentive to try and work this stuff out.
Thanks for the info Terry. Its good to hear the DEQX aren't resting on their laurels, the PDC2.6 hardware is essentially over 5 year old(my how time flies) and whilst the most important part, the core software has seen updates I felt it was high time for a new part to debut.
I still really like the DEQX, its very easy to use, almost fool proof infact. And the latency, stability and tidy integration into a small 1U enclosure were real draws for those wanting a set and forget unit. However I couldn't escape the fact that it was audibly inferior to filters, created by programs such as Acourate, that were then played back through high quality converters and clocking. If I had to attribute these sonic inferiorities to specifics then it would be down to a couple of things. First and most obvious was it had virtually no real DRC, well it did have a few bands of PEQ intended to be used in the bass but this is just basic amplitude correction rather than the phase/amplitude seen in more sophisticated correction. Another was the basic driver linearisation which wasn't of the same power as the stuff I've shown a few post above this one. Lastly the hardware and converters were quite old designs, although they were admittedly very good when the unit was first released all those years ago.
A point that isn't related to any performance issues but something I none the less was aware of - I found the stereo 3-way only configuration slightly restrictive for my own uses. I'd be out of luck with my current setup since they're a 3.5way design. I could buy two DEQX's and it would work but that's silly money.
The new unit addresses at least one of these issues - the hardware. I'm not so sure about improvements to the software such as amplitude/phase DRC or more rigorous driver correction. I'd imagine given the DSP horsepower of the DEQX these things are probably a stretch for the Dual Sharc's so it could be impossible. Or maybe their aim to keep latency down to a very low sub 10ms is another factor. More info on this would help clarify my guess work, fingers crossed they addressed not only the hardware but improved the software too.
As you can probably tell, I'm quite firmly entrenched back into the PCXO camp despite flitting to and fro over the past few years. Even so, given the slightest chance, I'd jump at hearing the new model in action.
You've also got my interest piqued with the alternative measurement scheme you mentioned Alan was using. Please let us know more if you find out anything new.
I still really like the DEQX, its very easy to use, almost fool proof infact. And the latency, stability and tidy integration into a small 1U enclosure were real draws for those wanting a set and forget unit. However I couldn't escape the fact that it was audibly inferior to filters, created by programs such as Acourate, that were then played back through high quality converters and clocking. If I had to attribute these sonic inferiorities to specifics then it would be down to a couple of things. First and most obvious was it had virtually no real DRC, well it did have a few bands of PEQ intended to be used in the bass but this is just basic amplitude correction rather than the phase/amplitude seen in more sophisticated correction. Another was the basic driver linearisation which wasn't of the same power as the stuff I've shown a few post above this one. Lastly the hardware and converters were quite old designs, although they were admittedly very good when the unit was first released all those years ago.
A point that isn't related to any performance issues but something I none the less was aware of - I found the stereo 3-way only configuration slightly restrictive for my own uses. I'd be out of luck with my current setup since they're a 3.5way design. I could buy two DEQX's and it would work but that's silly money.
The new unit addresses at least one of these issues - the hardware. I'm not so sure about improvements to the software such as amplitude/phase DRC or more rigorous driver correction. I'd imagine given the DSP horsepower of the DEQX these things are probably a stretch for the Dual Sharc's so it could be impossible. Or maybe their aim to keep latency down to a very low sub 10ms is another factor. More info on this would help clarify my guess work, fingers crossed they addressed not only the hardware but improved the software too.
As you can probably tell, I'm quite firmly entrenched back into the PCXO camp despite flitting to and fro over the past few years. Even so, given the slightest chance, I'd jump at hearing the new model in action.
You've also got my interest piqued with the alternative measurement scheme you mentioned Alan was using. Please let us know more if you find out anything new.
Shin, I've sent an e-mail if you could check please, I'd be very appreciative.
I understand about the PEQ for room correction, I always felt it did a good job tho and would much rather have it than not!!ha ha However your next comments made my ears prick up ( phase and group delay correction in the room correction step). It most definitely WAS something along these lines that Alan did as part of the new procedure..evidently there was the power and facility within the existing software (or whatever, don't want anyone to think I know what I'm talking about) that simply required this new procedure to realise it. The 'discovery' came out of a completely disrelated research line that is still a bit hush hush so won't go into it. However to their surprise it worked in the existing deqx setup.
The measurement manages to take into account the phase and group delay effects of the room on the bass driver (or so I'm told, remember at all times I'm an idiot). Then we still have the parametric bands after that for any remaining anamolies.
All I can say (whatever the truth or otherwise of what Alan said to me) my excellent bass got faster and cleaner with even more slam than before. So something is different. Funnily enough, the old 'walk around the room and hear the wildly fluctuating bass response' has lessened remarkably, as if it corrects throughout the room now, not just the sweetspot.
yeah that would be silly money, and I too can't see any way to use the deqx in a 3.5 way. Another 'strange' thing about the new bass/room correction methodology..I have never, no matter how much eq and power I threw at it, get my 18's below 29 hz in the room - flat to there then dropped like a stone. So I built subs using peerless xls 10's (someone you may know did a build with them on AVS ha ha) and used a behringer dcx to add extra para etc for the subs. In other words, to get full range I had to resort to extra subs, processors and amps, ie it was a four way.
However, with this new measurement to my surprise the PHL's now go to twenty as we always wanted...????!!I no longer need or use the subs, the PHL's now go down loud and low, don't ask me how or why that worked but what the heck, less boxes in the room now.
So with the correct choice of drivers a three way can be perfectly adequate (that was NOT to imply you had a poor choice of drivers!! IIRC it only became a 3.5 during the build...it was originally 'only' a three way??)
Anyway, maybe that kinda answered your last couple of questions.
I don't want to go into these new measurements stuff, I'd probably do more damage than good simply because I don't know enough to respond to queries, but hopefully all will be revealed sooner rather than later.
I still hope someone will report experiences with Ambiophonics. I didn't mean to hijack the thread.
ShinOBIWAN said:
I understand about the PEQ for room correction, I always felt it did a good job tho and would much rather have it than not!!ha ha However your next comments made my ears prick up ( phase and group delay correction in the room correction step). It most definitely WAS something along these lines that Alan did as part of the new procedure..evidently there was the power and facility within the existing software (or whatever, don't want anyone to think I know what I'm talking about) that simply required this new procedure to realise it. The 'discovery' came out of a completely disrelated research line that is still a bit hush hush so won't go into it. However to their surprise it worked in the existing deqx setup.
The measurement manages to take into account the phase and group delay effects of the room on the bass driver (or so I'm told, remember at all times I'm an idiot). Then we still have the parametric bands after that for any remaining anamolies.
All I can say (whatever the truth or otherwise of what Alan said to me) my excellent bass got faster and cleaner with even more slam than before. So something is different. Funnily enough, the old 'walk around the room and hear the wildly fluctuating bass response' has lessened remarkably, as if it corrects throughout the room now, not just the sweetspot.
ShinOBIWAN said:
yeah that would be silly money, and I too can't see any way to use the deqx in a 3.5 way. Another 'strange' thing about the new bass/room correction methodology..I have never, no matter how much eq and power I threw at it, get my 18's below 29 hz in the room - flat to there then dropped like a stone. So I built subs using peerless xls 10's (someone you may know did a build with them on AVS ha ha) and used a behringer dcx to add extra para etc for the subs. In other words, to get full range I had to resort to extra subs, processors and amps, ie it was a four way.
However, with this new measurement to my surprise the PHL's now go to twenty as we always wanted...????!!I no longer need or use the subs, the PHL's now go down loud and low, don't ask me how or why that worked but what the heck, less boxes in the room now.
So with the correct choice of drivers a three way can be perfectly adequate (that was NOT to imply you had a poor choice of drivers!! IIRC it only became a 3.5 during the build...it was originally 'only' a three way??)
ShinOBIWAN said:
Anyway, maybe that kinda answered your last couple of questions.
I don't want to go into these new measurements stuff, I'd probably do more damage than good simply because I don't know enough to respond to queries, but hopefully all will be revealed sooner rather than later.
I still hope someone will report experiences with Ambiophonics. I didn't mean to hijack the thread.
Fascinating thread gents! I commend you on the bleeding edge approach.
I can't get comfy with the idea of trusting my tweets to m$.
Has anyone tried or thought of trying XP embedded as a host?
I've read the entire thread. I'm left wondering if the DRC is completely dependant on the px-xo or can advantages be gain running just DRC to external, to the PC, passive or active x-overs.
Shin that CSD blows me away, man I'd love to hear these systems.
Regards
I can't get comfy with the idea of trusting my tweets to m$.
Has anyone tried or thought of trying XP embedded as a host?I've read the entire thread. I'm left wondering if the DRC is completely dependant on the px-xo or can advantages be gain running just DRC to external, to the PC, passive or active x-overs.
Shin that CSD blows me away, man I'd love to hear these systems.
Regards
Ambiophonic related talk has been moved to the Ambiophonics thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36254
Please keep to DRC and PCXO talk in this thread.
OTMOPO3OK said:
Hi Everyone,
Last year, I only managed test the DEQX PDC2.6 against my usual Esoteric D70 and two Pass Labs XVR1 x-overs (one per channel to give me a 3-way x-over).
I used Hypex HG700 amps (four per channel) and my rewired Wilson Benesch Chimera speakers to carry out all listening.
Overall, I was disappointed with the DEQX unit.
I liked the flexibility it offered and the room correction functionality. I could easily adjust for the annoying 50 Hz peak and 100 Hz dip in my room.
Oh and the software was great - I loved it.
However, in comparison to D70/XVR1 combo, the PDC2.6 sounded flat and lifeless.
I returned the unit to DEQX and explained my reasoning to Kim. He suggested that I try the PDC3.0 when it is available and seemed to understand my findings (although he didn't explicitly say this as such) .
I'm still hoping to be able to carry out the full test with the PDC3.0 at some point.
Mani.
Great to see that Stig Erik is going the PC path. I am still using my 200kg "Petit Filou" speakers. They combine Lynn Olsens Ariel ME2 and Stig Eriks Almghty Subwoofer in a two meter tall tower.
I use my speaker setup together with my HTPC and 46inch LCD, so mostly TV, Film and a little music, no gaming (I have another PC for that).
Since I have been sensitive to delayed sound in film I have used Thuneau's "Frequency Allocator Light". Given that the FF codec pack allow to set an image delay that point now seems obsolete. I will start playing with Acourate ASAP (I have had a Behringer mike for two years but never got around to use it).
Now over to a few questions, does Acourate support Vista?
I am using an RME HDSP 9632 with a 8 channel expansion board. The sound quality is great, but there is something that really annoys me. That is changing volume! The RME does not allow volume control with a remote control. Shinobiwan has written about it earlier I think, but I have never understood fully how his solution work.
What I have done instead is that I have taken an Audiotrak Produgy 7.1 Hifi and routed the SPDIF into the the RME. So the Wave volume is Controlled on the Audiotrak. The Audiotrak is in effect the default soundcard. I would like to get rid of the Audiotrak card and only use the RME, however I still would like to use a remote, can someone explain how this is done? I need a solution with a high WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The remote/mouse/keyboard I use at the moment is the Logitech S 510, I have noted that the Wireless signal is badly affected when my Amplifier is on. If anyone have had similar problems, what was your solution?
Here is a rundown if some of the equipment I use:
PC: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 1 Gb Ram (due for an upgrade)
Case: Origenae X15e
Media Library: I have a dedicated Windows Home Server with 2 TB of fully duplicated storage
Power Amp: Audiodigit T-AMP 8*100W
This is a fantastic thread, I have followed it from the very beginning. Shinobiwan has been a great inspiration.
Many Thanks,
Fredrik Karlsson Peraldi
I use my speaker setup together with my HTPC and 46inch LCD, so mostly TV, Film and a little music, no gaming (I have another PC for that).
Since I have been sensitive to delayed sound in film I have used Thuneau's "Frequency Allocator Light". Given that the FF codec pack allow to set an image delay that point now seems obsolete. I will start playing with Acourate ASAP (I have had a Behringer mike for two years but never got around to use it).
Now over to a few questions, does Acourate support Vista?
I am using an RME HDSP 9632 with a 8 channel expansion board. The sound quality is great, but there is something that really annoys me. That is changing volume! The RME does not allow volume control with a remote control. Shinobiwan has written about it earlier I think, but I have never understood fully how his solution work.
What I have done instead is that I have taken an Audiotrak Produgy 7.1 Hifi and routed the SPDIF into the the RME. So the Wave volume is Controlled on the Audiotrak. The Audiotrak is in effect the default soundcard. I would like to get rid of the Audiotrak card and only use the RME, however I still would like to use a remote, can someone explain how this is done? I need a solution with a high WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The remote/mouse/keyboard I use at the moment is the Logitech S 510, I have noted that the Wireless signal is badly affected when my Amplifier is on. If anyone have had similar problems, what was your solution?
Here is a rundown if some of the equipment I use:
PC: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 1 Gb Ram (due for an upgrade)
Case: Origenae X15e
Media Library: I have a dedicated Windows Home Server with 2 TB of fully duplicated storage
Power Amp: Audiodigit T-AMP 8*100W
This is a fantastic thread, I have followed it from the very beginning. Shinobiwan has been a great inspiration.
Many Thanks,
Fredrik Karlsson Peraldi
ackcheng said:
Thanks ackcheng for you quick reply! And I assume Convolver will run on Vista.
One thing that confuses me (given my previous post I must seem like a very confused person) is Vistas Audio Stack. I get the impression that the Vista API's are capable of replacing ASIO and all the Steinberg stuff. But nobody seem to develop applications to run with Vista natively. Am I completely wrong?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.