I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the digital forum, we'll see.
Our little aussie hi fi forum just had a tornado pass through, and many locals are still reeling in shock. The weather people have yet to classify the phenomena, but for all intents and purposes could call it Hurricane Romy.
The day started off rather uneventfully, and the unsuspecting locals had little warning of the force of nature about to strike and innocently went about their daily business.
It was not too difficult however to pinpoint the catalyst for the amazing events about to unfold, and took the form of an innocent enough looking post, an excerpt follows
""""""there was a discussion about integrating multiple drivers in an open baffle design and the idea of using a digital crossover with steep slopes came up.
One of the posters was the infamous Romy the Cat, who maintains his own highly opinionated website.
Romy said some very negative things about digital crossovers in this particular thread.....
"....by nature digital can not filter. When you introduce a crossover slope in digital domain you are effectively loose volume with frequency. Dropping volume at digital domain is made by tossing away bits, so in d-croosivers you have full resolution (15 bit or 20 bit for instance) only at full passband and as volume goes down (in a crossover slope) your sound is cared by much lower resolution. At minus 30-40dB the d-crossovers sound like a telephone in 1920. This is a fundamentals basis and no modification can cure it, particularly the Behringer. In context of any more or less capable playback the nastiness of d-crossover are well auditable…""""""
a bit of rather desultory discussion followed, mainly as we didn't really know one way or the other.
Then Hurricane Romy hit us, and after a few 'interesting' comments it was over as soon as it began.
Anyway, all of us 'morons' on the forum were in the end left completely unenlightened by the GOD of audio, but we were left feeling very chastised for being complete idiots and either having cloth ears or completely unrevealing and substandard systems (or even worse...both!), as we are unable to fully comprehend the infinitely wise words of the audio GOD.
Are any of the more knowledgable people here able to first decipher Romy's holy writ, and secondly explain in such a way that we morons in Aus can understand??
He did not deign to explain the simple yokel questions we asked in trembling awe, such as 'can you then give us a rundown of the relative advantages/disadvantages of both passive and digital' ??
So, what is true/untrue about digital x-overs, can we be enlightened please???
We antipodean "Indomitable Morons ™" from the aussie forum that breed idiocy ... "" If you folks at this forum breed those cretins then good luck to all of you. I too much know all those games to have any inters to play them""" would like to thank any help you give to enlighten us.
Our little aussie hi fi forum just had a tornado pass through, and many locals are still reeling in shock. The weather people have yet to classify the phenomena, but for all intents and purposes could call it Hurricane Romy.
The day started off rather uneventfully, and the unsuspecting locals had little warning of the force of nature about to strike and innocently went about their daily business.
It was not too difficult however to pinpoint the catalyst for the amazing events about to unfold, and took the form of an innocent enough looking post, an excerpt follows
""""""there was a discussion about integrating multiple drivers in an open baffle design and the idea of using a digital crossover with steep slopes came up.
One of the posters was the infamous Romy the Cat, who maintains his own highly opinionated website.
Romy said some very negative things about digital crossovers in this particular thread.....
"....by nature digital can not filter. When you introduce a crossover slope in digital domain you are effectively loose volume with frequency. Dropping volume at digital domain is made by tossing away bits, so in d-croosivers you have full resolution (15 bit or 20 bit for instance) only at full passband and as volume goes down (in a crossover slope) your sound is cared by much lower resolution. At minus 30-40dB the d-crossovers sound like a telephone in 1920. This is a fundamentals basis and no modification can cure it, particularly the Behringer. In context of any more or less capable playback the nastiness of d-crossover are well auditable…""""""
a bit of rather desultory discussion followed, mainly as we didn't really know one way or the other.
Then Hurricane Romy hit us, and after a few 'interesting' comments it was over as soon as it began.
Anyway, all of us 'morons' on the forum were in the end left completely unenlightened by the GOD of audio, but we were left feeling very chastised for being complete idiots and either having cloth ears or completely unrevealing and substandard systems (or even worse...both!), as we are unable to fully comprehend the infinitely wise words of the audio GOD.
Are any of the more knowledgable people here able to first decipher Romy's holy writ, and secondly explain in such a way that we morons in Aus can understand??
He did not deign to explain the simple yokel questions we asked in trembling awe, such as 'can you then give us a rundown of the relative advantages/disadvantages of both passive and digital' ??
So, what is true/untrue about digital x-overs, can we be enlightened please???
We antipodean "Indomitable Morons ™" from the aussie forum that breed idiocy ... "" If you folks at this forum breed those cretins then good luck to all of you. I too much know all those games to have any inters to play them""" would like to thank any help you give to enlighten us.
Romy's analysis is right in a way but his conclusions are flawed. When he says that the resolution is reduced when a digital signal is attenuated he is right. This is a fundamental property of quantization, the process of converting an analog signal with an infinite number of possible levels to a digital signal with a finite number of levels.
However, he's missing the concept of dynamic range. 16 bits gives you almost 90dB of dynamic range when skillfully deployed. If you set 0dBFS (loudest digital signal) to be the loudest you want to listen, 116dBSPL for arguments sake, then the noise floor is around 26 dBSPL which is recording studio quiet. The 16 bit system will faithfully reproduce all signals in this range.
Now, if you were to apply 24dB of digital attenuation (shift word right 4 times, backfill with 0's) and turn up your amp to compensate then yes, it will sound pretty crummy, like a 12 bit system in fact. Thats because you just turned up the noise floor by 24dB not because the digital reproduction broke down.
BTW, if you think my example is rather marginal, you're right. This is why we have 24bit audio.
Full disclosure: I'm running a DSP crossover into a triamped speaker and I love the sound. Noticeable improvement over my Rane AC23. But then the DSP uses a 40bit multiply-accumulate for all the FIR filtering and only quantizes back to 16 bit for output.
So rest assured that there are good digital audio solutions out there. Just like everything audio, it's very easy to mess it up.
However, he's missing the concept of dynamic range. 16 bits gives you almost 90dB of dynamic range when skillfully deployed. If you set 0dBFS (loudest digital signal) to be the loudest you want to listen, 116dBSPL for arguments sake, then the noise floor is around 26 dBSPL which is recording studio quiet. The 16 bit system will faithfully reproduce all signals in this range.
Now, if you were to apply 24dB of digital attenuation (shift word right 4 times, backfill with 0's) and turn up your amp to compensate then yes, it will sound pretty crummy, like a 12 bit system in fact. Thats because you just turned up the noise floor by 24dB not because the digital reproduction broke down.
BTW, if you think my example is rather marginal, you're right. This is why we have 24bit audio.
Full disclosure: I'm running a DSP crossover into a triamped speaker and I love the sound. Noticeable improvement over my Rane AC23. But then the DSP uses a 40bit multiply-accumulate for all the FIR filtering and only quantizes back to 16 bit for output.
So rest assured that there are good digital audio solutions out there. Just like everything audio, it's very easy to mess it up.
Digital x-over
Oops! someone should have told me earlier I just bought a digital x-over. maybe I should return it.
seriously I have confident that it will improve the sonic quality of my system if installed correctly. Furthermore the audio system must be reconfigured to take into account of the present of the x-over, eg sound level across all drivers, etc . BTW I am designing my system from scratch.
I visited Romy the Cat's website, this subject was discussed. I have not read all the discussions only a few. I don't know the Cat's background or his system setup, is there a possibility that his X-over is faulty or system incorrectly setup? Just ask those guys from Behringer DCX2496's thread, they will tell you a different story.
Furthermore the Cat has a section on horns for beginners, honestly I learn very little after reading 7 pages of so call notes....
there is more I can add but irrelevant here.
Oops! someone should have told me earlier I just bought a digital x-over. maybe I should return it.
seriously I have confident that it will improve the sonic quality of my system if installed correctly. Furthermore the audio system must be reconfigured to take into account of the present of the x-over, eg sound level across all drivers, etc . BTW I am designing my system from scratch.
I visited Romy the Cat's website, this subject was discussed. I have not read all the discussions only a few. I don't know the Cat's background or his system setup, is there a possibility that his X-over is faulty or system incorrectly setup? Just ask those guys from Behringer DCX2496's thread, they will tell you a different story.
Furthermore the Cat has a section on horns for beginners, honestly I learn very little after reading 7 pages of so call notes....
there is more I can add but irrelevant here.
Iain McNeill said:it's a Blackfin evaluation board from Analog Devices that I coded myself. I'm trying to find a DEQX to compare it to - do you have one? I looked at the DEQX but wanted more control over the filter responses.
P.S. sorry for threadjacking Terry!
P.P.S. I think the DEQX uses TWO Blackfins!
hey, it's all for learning Iain!!
I use a deqx myself, and am curious about the dacs in it. I'm a complete idiot with all this stuff, so am very interested indeed to learn more.
A common 'point to be wary of' re the deqx is the dacs, they can't be as good as this or that, I've no idea about the truth or otherwise.
Is a blackfin good?? Indeed, what IS a blackfin?
I'd lend you a deqx, but that may be a bit impractical!!
Romy certainly spices up things eh??
Since both CD players and digital crossovers work in the digital domain, this "experts" deduction has to apply for both. Do cd's sound like cheap telephones on quiet passages in the music?
Since digital crossovers have even more resolution than cd technology (24 bits with the behringer, 16 with cd), they should modify the sound less than recording to cd does.
Second thought, this analogy of a cheap telephone is flawed in itself. The telephone works in the analogue domain. He should have said "like an old video game". 8 bit style
Third thought, what is a filter other than a device that decreases volume? So digital can filter. The problem is the noise floor. But this is so ridicously low on modern technology that i dont mind it at all. I would rather say, the noise floor in 24 bit gear is lower than with old analogue stuff like vinyl players, only the mechanism that induces noise is different. on vinyl its mechanically introduced on the recording and the playback, in digital technology it is due to the quantisation.
I really wonder why people stop to listen to the music once they have found an sophistic argument, why it should sound the way they want it to.
Since digital crossovers have even more resolution than cd technology (24 bits with the behringer, 16 with cd), they should modify the sound less than recording to cd does.
Second thought, this analogy of a cheap telephone is flawed in itself. The telephone works in the analogue domain. He should have said "like an old video game". 8 bit style
Third thought, what is a filter other than a device that decreases volume? So digital can filter. The problem is the noise floor. But this is so ridicously low on modern technology that i dont mind it at all. I would rather say, the noise floor in 24 bit gear is lower than with old analogue stuff like vinyl players, only the mechanism that induces noise is different. on vinyl its mechanically introduced on the recording and the playback, in digital technology it is due to the quantisation.
I really wonder why people stop to listen to the music once they have found an sophistic argument, why it should sound the way they want it to.
Terry,
You have a great piece of gear there. I hope you've spent the time to measure your speakers and calibrate the DEQX for driver and room correction. If you haven't then you're only hearing about 10% of what that thing can do. The clarity, detail and 3D spacial imaging of the soundstage will knock your socks off!
Kim Ryrie, designer of the Fairlight synth from the '80's and founder of DEQX knows what he's doing. They use 2 Analog Devices SHARC DPS chips to do all the processing in floating point math, that just blows my 40bit math out of the water (but that's why he needs 2x SHARCs!)
DACs are the Analog Devices AD1853 and ADC's the AKM AK5393, both excellent performing devices in my experience.
The SHARC and Blackfin are both digital signal processor chips from Analog Devices. The SHARCs are a bit older whereas the Blackfins are newer and integrate more system functions on the chip. They're both excellent chips, just optimized differently.
Now you've got us all interested you gotta tell us about your system?????
You have a great piece of gear there. I hope you've spent the time to measure your speakers and calibrate the DEQX for driver and room correction. If you haven't then you're only hearing about 10% of what that thing can do. The clarity, detail and 3D spacial imaging of the soundstage will knock your socks off!
Kim Ryrie, designer of the Fairlight synth from the '80's and founder of DEQX knows what he's doing. They use 2 Analog Devices SHARC DPS chips to do all the processing in floating point math, that just blows my 40bit math out of the water (but that's why he needs 2x SHARCs!)
DACs are the Analog Devices AD1853 and ADC's the AKM AK5393, both excellent performing devices in my experience.
The SHARC and Blackfin are both digital signal processor chips from Analog Devices. The SHARCs are a bit older whereas the Blackfins are newer and integrate more system functions on the chip. They're both excellent chips, just optimized differently.
Now you've got us all interested you gotta tell us about your system?????
I must say that the 'essential question' or assertion of Romy's has not really been discussed/challenged much, I'm not sure if that means theoretically he's right or wrong, or part right or wrong as Iain thinks.
All I can say is that with my experiences with the deqx, if he's right then any disadvantages he says digital x-overs have are far outweighed by their advantages.
Which isn't too much a stretch, as it is engineering we are discussing, and so automatically brings compromises everywhere, it's up to the listener to judge for themselves which compromises they accept or refuse.
Thanks Iain, yep have done all the corrections and setups, if I were only interested in using it as a preamp, well to be honest there would be better value pre's out there.
However, although the deqx can be a pre, no pre can be a deqx!
My system looks a dog's breakfast at the moment, cut and shuts on the box, new drivers inserted etc etc,well I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.
I am now however getting very much to the stage where the experimenting could be over,and when I have the time the construction of the final incarnation can happen.
The only other possible test I may do is running the mids in OB config, and why not? as I have not yet the finished box etc so one more experiment won't hurt.
I hope this link will work, it's from our local forum and has pics, descriptions etc of my setup, as you seemed to be interested!!
To access it normally, you have to be a member logged in etc, but maybe this way it will come up. As it's my system I've got no probs with anyone seeing it, the forum usually has them in a restricted section for privacy reasons I think.
http://www.stereo.net.au/forum/index.php?showtopic=4666
Saves me explaining it all again here ha ha.
Back to Romy's point quickly, I did get an explanation from deqx on this, but as this stuff is way over my head (as you can tell) I didn't really follow it, but in terms of x-over filters they didn't agree at all that bits were thrown away.
In terms of global volume control, then yes bits are thrown away, but for whatever technical reason it doesn't apply to filters we're discussing.
Trouble with me making a blanket statement like that is I can't explain it better, so it's essentially worthless.....
Ahh, just tried the link and no go, I had to be logged in to see it.
REAL QUICK description then, PHL 18" bass driver, 300 hz x-over to PHL 1660 mid driver 3000 hz cross to Cabasse DOM 40 tweeter.
As the 18 is a pro driver, doesn't really want to go real low (with tons of power and eq I could flat in room to 30), so I added subs, four peerless xls 10'/side. That gets me flat to 15 hz, and I only listen to music so HT rumblings are not needed.
The description I linked to explained my latest changes, the addition of rear channels that utilise the left minus right signal and sent delayed and attenuated to the rears.
I use splitters on the deqx to do that, and send the signal to a behringer dcx 2496 to do the frequency response shaping, as well as the attenuation and delays.
I additionally used another dcx 2496 to handle bass duties, and instead now of two subs of four drivers each, I use four subs of two drivers each, but spread out around the room and me.
I'd previously tried that ( I think it's a paper by Toole that talks about multiple subs around the room) but didn't like it.
What I think I didn't like was the MULTIPLE physical 'thuds' from the subs as they were at varying distances from the LP. The use of the dcx allows me to set varying delay times on the subs depending on distance from the LP, effectively 'unifying' the bass, if that makes sense.
All in all, I am very happy indeed with it now, and had a 'sudden realisation' that I finally had reached the end of the road with fiddling and experimenting, I'd arrived at the summit and any step is now a downward step.
Sorry for the detour, would have been easier if the link had come up.
You are of course free to join and meet some of us aussies downunder!!
All I can say is that with my experiences with the deqx, if he's right then any disadvantages he says digital x-overs have are far outweighed by their advantages.
Which isn't too much a stretch, as it is engineering we are discussing, and so automatically brings compromises everywhere, it's up to the listener to judge for themselves which compromises they accept or refuse.
Iain McNeill said:
Thanks Iain, yep have done all the corrections and setups, if I were only interested in using it as a preamp, well to be honest there would be better value pre's out there.
However, although the deqx can be a pre, no pre can be a deqx!
My system looks a dog's breakfast at the moment, cut and shuts on the box, new drivers inserted etc etc,well I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.
I am now however getting very much to the stage where the experimenting could be over,and when I have the time the construction of the final incarnation can happen.
The only other possible test I may do is running the mids in OB config, and why not? as I have not yet the finished box etc so one more experiment won't hurt.
I hope this link will work, it's from our local forum and has pics, descriptions etc of my setup, as you seemed to be interested!!
To access it normally, you have to be a member logged in etc, but maybe this way it will come up. As it's my system I've got no probs with anyone seeing it, the forum usually has them in a restricted section for privacy reasons I think.
http://www.stereo.net.au/forum/index.php?showtopic=4666
Saves me explaining it all again here ha ha.
Back to Romy's point quickly, I did get an explanation from deqx on this, but as this stuff is way over my head (as you can tell) I didn't really follow it, but in terms of x-over filters they didn't agree at all that bits were thrown away.
In terms of global volume control, then yes bits are thrown away, but for whatever technical reason it doesn't apply to filters we're discussing.
Trouble with me making a blanket statement like that is I can't explain it better, so it's essentially worthless.....
Ahh, just tried the link and no go, I had to be logged in to see it.
REAL QUICK description then, PHL 18" bass driver, 300 hz x-over to PHL 1660 mid driver 3000 hz cross to Cabasse DOM 40 tweeter.
As the 18 is a pro driver, doesn't really want to go real low (with tons of power and eq I could flat in room to 30), so I added subs, four peerless xls 10'/side. That gets me flat to 15 hz, and I only listen to music so HT rumblings are not needed.
The description I linked to explained my latest changes, the addition of rear channels that utilise the left minus right signal and sent delayed and attenuated to the rears.
I use splitters on the deqx to do that, and send the signal to a behringer dcx 2496 to do the frequency response shaping, as well as the attenuation and delays.
I additionally used another dcx 2496 to handle bass duties, and instead now of two subs of four drivers each, I use four subs of two drivers each, but spread out around the room and me.
I'd previously tried that ( I think it's a paper by Toole that talks about multiple subs around the room) but didn't like it.
What I think I didn't like was the MULTIPLE physical 'thuds' from the subs as they were at varying distances from the LP. The use of the dcx allows me to set varying delay times on the subs depending on distance from the LP, effectively 'unifying' the bass, if that makes sense.
All in all, I am very happy indeed with it now, and had a 'sudden realisation' that I finally had reached the end of the road with fiddling and experimenting, I'd arrived at the summit and any step is now a downward step.
Sorry for the detour, would have been easier if the link had come up.
You are of course free to join and meet some of us aussies downunder!!
Sorry, we got a bit OT there didn't we.
DEQX uses floating point math so they essentially have infinite dynamic range for their filter math. Nothing is lost until the end where they cut it off at 24 bits which is the same resolution as what went in. I think this is what they mean when they say it doesn't apply to their filters.
You can argue that attenuating a digital signal is throwing bits away (Romy does) but the fact is that it doesn't matter. The distortion/noise artifacts associated with throwing those bits away are inaudible.
Sweet system BTW!
DEQX uses floating point math so they essentially have infinite dynamic range for their filter math. Nothing is lost until the end where they cut it off at 24 bits which is the same resolution as what went in. I think this is what they mean when they say it doesn't apply to their filters.
You can argue that attenuating a digital signal is throwing bits away (Romy does) but the fact is that it doesn't matter. The distortion/noise artifacts associated with throwing those bits away are inaudible.
Sweet system BTW!
If you analyze what is happening when you play your digital audio straight from a CD player through an analog preamp, analog crossover and analog power amplifiers, each with its own noise floor and dynamic range, you will see that what's coming out of your drivers at normal listening levels is very comparable and possibly worse than performing the same processes in digital domain with high precision and using a good sound card directly into the amps. That is the reason why digital crossovers can sound very good and hold their own against very good analog designs. Resolution is only a part of the big picture and can be dealt with through very simple solutions. A 5 position, 6-way ganged passive attenuator with 12dB steps is all you really need. You adjust it manually to the closest volume that is appropriate for given listening session with full scale playback in your digital crossover, and ride the digital volume no more than 12dB- or 2bits of resolution. With effective 20 bit quality sound card and 24 bit software output, you are always above the resolution of your CD in every situation - dB SPL for dB SPL for 3 or 4 way systems. It gets fuzzy with more than 4 amps per speaker, but we should not worry about it too much.
I also own a DEQX unit, a 2.6P, one that I modified every single point, including re-doing the input and output caps, resistors, etc. All brown dog stand up adapters with OPA627AP's on them. 56 of them, I believe. Each op-amp PS buffer pad has the ceramic cap removed, and an electrolytic, with polystyrene bypass. The boards are mechanically damped, grounding straps have been added across the output and input RCA's as they are, oddly enough, the most remote grounding point in the entire unit. The digital section(s) has been PS buffered everywhere, with SP series OS-CON caps and appropriate electrolytics. There is even stuff in there that I will likely never release to the public. Too much information.
As well, I have the transformers needed, and I'm looking to install them, right at the dacs and input. Should be a major improvement.
It's a damned miniature forest in there. I estimate the final Retail Price of doing such work at the manufacturing level would bring the unit up to about $12kUS. Ouch.
It should be a damned fine sounding DEQX unit, and it is likely one of the single best sounding examples of a 'digital crossover' around.
Compared to true analog crossovers, yes it has advantages. But I also design a wicked analog passive crossover.
But digital crossovers have their faults. The big point, is the phasing agreeance. But..out of the areas where phase disagreeance comes into play in a pure analog crossover..and the drivers are working largely on their own..a pure analog crossover totally bones,owns, and 'pwons' ANY digital crossover.
Much of the true heart of the music is lost in the digital crossover, when attempting to use a high resolution analog source. If the source is TRUE 96khz digital data, then that's not too bad. But always remember that the ear is designed to 'figure out' difficult signals. The trick, in audio, is to 'relax' INTO a perfectly reproduced high-resolution signal, not force the ear to do decoding work-with badly done signals. And at the price level of a $12k digital crossover..then loosing that 1-2% of the signal quality..that becomes everything. The whole caboodle. The loss of the very reason you invested in a $12k crossover-those last few percentage points.
And that's about all there is to say about it.
PS. I think I can do better with a purely analog electronic crossover. I have my ideas......
As well, I have the transformers needed, and I'm looking to install them, right at the dacs and input. Should be a major improvement.
It's a damned miniature forest in there. I estimate the final Retail Price of doing such work at the manufacturing level would bring the unit up to about $12kUS. Ouch.
It should be a damned fine sounding DEQX unit, and it is likely one of the single best sounding examples of a 'digital crossover' around.
Compared to true analog crossovers, yes it has advantages. But I also design a wicked analog passive crossover.
But digital crossovers have their faults. The big point, is the phasing agreeance. But..out of the areas where phase disagreeance comes into play in a pure analog crossover..and the drivers are working largely on their own..a pure analog crossover totally bones,owns, and 'pwons' ANY digital crossover.
Much of the true heart of the music is lost in the digital crossover, when attempting to use a high resolution analog source. If the source is TRUE 96khz digital data, then that's not too bad. But always remember that the ear is designed to 'figure out' difficult signals. The trick, in audio, is to 'relax' INTO a perfectly reproduced high-resolution signal, not force the ear to do decoding work-with badly done signals. And at the price level of a $12k digital crossover..then loosing that 1-2% of the signal quality..that becomes everything. The whole caboodle. The loss of the very reason you invested in a $12k crossover-those last few percentage points.
And that's about all there is to say about it.
PS. I think I can do better with a purely analog electronic crossover. I have my ideas......
Latest update:
Assessors are still evaluating the amount of damage left by Hurricane Romy, concern is now largely directed to random aftershocks still being felt after the main event, locals can't quite know when it's over just yet, the sporadic aftershocks seem to be waning, only time will tell when life returns to normal.
There were only a few isolated reports of injuries, the local emergency room released a statement saying 'a fit of uncontrolled hysterical laughter (as shown by many forum members) can be painful indeed, and as such is no laughing matter itself!'
No doubt the events of the last few days will pass into folklore, and be raised to the levels of 'the great flood of 63', or the 'even bigger wet of 79', perhaps be as elevated and cherished as the 'unbelievably humungous storm of 56'.
Yep, he's a character all right, still coming on and abusing the heck out of everyone, it's a great hoot!
Jan, thanks for your input, but I must say I didn't follow what you meant, it seemed to simply be talking about volume control, though it is more likely that I'm just too dense to follow it.
I wish I could work out stuff like your website!! I'll have another browse tonight, but at least for idiots like me there is something like the deqx.
It is interesting that there have only been a few comments on this topic, is that because it is in the wrong subforum?? or that not many people use digital x-overs so no interest in it?? Or not many people know the intricacies of the topic??
Jan, are you able to explain simply how a x-over is actually achieved digitally??
Assessors are still evaluating the amount of damage left by Hurricane Romy, concern is now largely directed to random aftershocks still being felt after the main event, locals can't quite know when it's over just yet, the sporadic aftershocks seem to be waning, only time will tell when life returns to normal.
There were only a few isolated reports of injuries, the local emergency room released a statement saying 'a fit of uncontrolled hysterical laughter (as shown by many forum members) can be painful indeed, and as such is no laughing matter itself!'
No doubt the events of the last few days will pass into folklore, and be raised to the levels of 'the great flood of 63', or the 'even bigger wet of 79', perhaps be as elevated and cherished as the 'unbelievably humungous storm of 56'.
Yep, he's a character all right, still coming on and abusing the heck out of everyone, it's a great hoot!
Jan, thanks for your input, but I must say I didn't follow what you meant, it seemed to simply be talking about volume control, though it is more likely that I'm just too dense to follow it.
I wish I could work out stuff like your website!! I'll have another browse tonight, but at least for idiots like me there is something like the deqx.
It is interesting that there have only been a few comments on this topic, is that because it is in the wrong subforum?? or that not many people use digital x-overs so no interest in it?? Or not many people know the intricacies of the topic??
Jan, are you able to explain simply how a x-over is actually achieved digitally??
For the last few weeks I've been playing with a pretty heavily modded DEQX (by Steve Nugent at Empirical Audio) into some recently purchased line arrays from Selah Audio (5" Accutons and Fountek ribbons in sealed cabinets) + dual Submersive subs from Mark Seaton.
The line arrays had very nice passive crossovers (mundorf caps, etc.) The DEQX, properly configured, made an enormous positive improvement in both the arrays and in the array to sub integration.
The "hardest" aspect was spending enough time with the DEQX to mitigate "over correcting". For instance, the ribbons have a natural high end roll off that sounds better "uncorrected." I probably tried 50 different crossover configurations before finally settling down with the ones I've got playing now.
Every single aspect of the speakers improved materially. Precision, tone, imaging, slam. In my system it's not even close.
In years past I've played with convolver software, with Behringer units, and with Tact units. While all were interesting, in all cases I found the negatives outweighed the positives. (More accurately, the Tact was worthwhile as an adjunct to a horrible living room setup, but was not in a well configured well treated dedicated two channel room. Similarly, the Behringer's become a decent PEQ for a bedroom setup.)
This former two channel purist analog only guy is a DEQX convert.
The line arrays had very nice passive crossovers (mundorf caps, etc.) The DEQX, properly configured, made an enormous positive improvement in both the arrays and in the array to sub integration.
The "hardest" aspect was spending enough time with the DEQX to mitigate "over correcting". For instance, the ribbons have a natural high end roll off that sounds better "uncorrected." I probably tried 50 different crossover configurations before finally settling down with the ones I've got playing now.
Every single aspect of the speakers improved materially. Precision, tone, imaging, slam. In my system it's not even close.
In years past I've played with convolver software, with Behringer units, and with Tact units. While all were interesting, in all cases I found the negatives outweighed the positives. (More accurately, the Tact was worthwhile as an adjunct to a horrible living room setup, but was not in a well configured well treated dedicated two channel room. Similarly, the Behringer's become a decent PEQ for a bedroom setup.)
This former two channel purist analog only guy is a DEQX convert.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.