Why?
I don't quite follow what is going on there. I mean it is a tool to be used and so fix/shape/tailor the sound to what you want.
You did not buy it to use a simply a measuring suite did you? You can use rew for that, much cheaper.
I presume that means you got your cal file?
What speakers are you talking about, and why then do you need an anechoic outdoor measurement? Presumably on this forum it is something you have made yourself and intellectual curiosity is what is driving the desire to find out 'true bass response'?
Why not as a stop gap do a close mic measurement and remove the room that way?
IF they are the final version, then worry about what the bass looks like in room at the LP. That is after all what you will be living with every day.
Anyway, there could be perfectly valid and logical reasons you have, but I could just be viewing thru my own personal filters of thought and so missed it.
I'm not saying you're wrong!
just a quick further point.
I am assuming you bought the deqx for more than just a measuring tool, ie you are going to use it eventually.
Why wait for spring?
I'll tell you a little story. I knew a guy that was buying the deqx, you know on the forum he'd say 'woo hoo, it comes tomorrow' sort of thing.
Anyway, I tell him in no uncertain terms 'get to know the thing. It is NOT simple, and in any case YOU are taking on the mantle of being a speaker designer. So use it and learn it before you do silly things like measuring outdoors'
Well no, of course not. The day he get's it he lugs his huge speakers out doors, all the amps (a big three way it was). all the computers etc etc.
I get this panicked phone call 'I am not getting a mic signal, what am I doing wrong?'
I mean how the hell would I know, he is a thousand miles away.
Half an hour later..'Oh, found it. I was plugging the mic into the xlr input rather than the mic input'.
So he does whatever measuring he did, lugs the entire system back in and 'weaves his magic'..
So we get the reports in public 'huh, the deqx is rubbish blah blah blah'.
I mean the guy didn't even know the back plate enough to know where to plug the mic.
How competent do you think he was in doing anything else right? He was not even a diyer who had built speakers in the past and knew the first thing about measurements or anything.
Of course he was not then the slightest bit interested (or even aware perhaps) that he may have done something wrong to go to the effort of lugging it all outside again to try something else.
Yet the deqx is now a POS.
So, why wait till spring? At least if an outside measurement is important, then use the winter to learn the unit. Save yourself the hassle of lugging all the amps and speakers outside along with the computer and mics etc.
Learn it all and at least make that effort of lugging stuff outside worthwhile.
I am assuming you bought the deqx for more than just a measuring tool, ie you are going to use it eventually.
Why wait for spring?
I'll tell you a little story. I knew a guy that was buying the deqx, you know on the forum he'd say 'woo hoo, it comes tomorrow' sort of thing.
Anyway, I tell him in no uncertain terms 'get to know the thing. It is NOT simple, and in any case YOU are taking on the mantle of being a speaker designer. So use it and learn it before you do silly things like measuring outdoors'
Well no, of course not. The day he get's it he lugs his huge speakers out doors, all the amps (a big three way it was). all the computers etc etc.
I get this panicked phone call 'I am not getting a mic signal, what am I doing wrong?'
I mean how the hell would I know, he is a thousand miles away.
Half an hour later..'Oh, found it. I was plugging the mic into the xlr input rather than the mic input'.
So he does whatever measuring he did, lugs the entire system back in and 'weaves his magic'..
So we get the reports in public 'huh, the deqx is rubbish blah blah blah'.
I mean the guy didn't even know the back plate enough to know where to plug the mic.
How competent do you think he was in doing anything else right? He was not even a diyer who had built speakers in the past and knew the first thing about measurements or anything.
Of course he was not then the slightest bit interested (or even aware perhaps) that he may have done something wrong to go to the effort of lugging it all outside again to try something else.
Yet the deqx is now a POS.
So, why wait till spring? At least if an outside measurement is important, then use the winter to learn the unit. Save yourself the hassle of lugging all the amps and speakers outside along with the computer and mics etc.
Learn it all and at least make that effort of lugging stuff outside worthwhile.
Loving this thread guys !!! I've had my DEQX for four years now
And find it to be the only piece of kit I will never get rid of!!!!!
It seemed like I was building passive crossover and spending lots o money for a one time deal! Now I can measure up and have a very nice sounding speaker in no time! I've used the DEQX on over 16 speakers
That's a lot of copper if ya know what I mean:-D
And find it to be the only piece of kit I will never get rid of!!!!!
It seemed like I was building passive crossover and spending lots o money for a one time deal! Now I can measure up and have a very nice sounding speaker in no time! I've used the DEQX on over 16 speakers
That's a lot of copper if ya know what I mean:-D
My intentions was mainly to use the unit to integrate 4 DIY subs to the main speakers (2 pr side). The subs are based on 10" SEAS L26ROY in a 25L sealed enclosure, meaning they will need quite some equalization if I am to achieve my goal of a flat response down to 20Hz. The subs will be driven by one B&O ASP1000 based monoblock each.
The main speakers are pr now also DIY based on a Thorsten Loesch design:
A Speaker project
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I consider the design final, there have been quite some modifications to the original design with a different tweeter (TDX2) and different mid (don't remember the type). Crossover design is very close to the original design, except it beeing a no-compromise crossover.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It will be difficult to replace the passive crossover with the DEQX as the bass/mid filter is located in the bottom of the speaker, which is filled with an 'epoxy' made of elastic glue and sand. The mid/hi filter is located on the top (not mounted on the picture) also 'drowned' in the epoxy. Dont mind the tape etc, was only used to temporarily hold things in place (20mm^2 cables arent a joy to work with!). Another issue is gaining access to any filter or wiring at all:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
My main speakers have been the 'center of gravity' in my set-up and all of the other equipment used have been matched to fit them, and my personal preferences.
Back to the case, the DEQX, - I bought primarily to integrate the subs... But I have figured it will be very usefull when designing (passive) crossovers, for my other projects, for example the dipoles hiding in one of the pics above:
Fresh out of the box I hooked it up as a pure pre-amp to compare it to my Conrad Johnson ACT2 and it is no doubt that as a pure preamp it isnt anywhere close to the CJ (with respect to my personal preferences). But thats not why I bought the unit, so I don't care, I bought it as it seems to be one of very few units beeing able to work as a good measurement tool, implement and try different crossovers, compensate/adjust the speakers AND work as a room correction unit. Theres really just one thing it lacks, and thats beeing able to play around with lower order crossovers as it would be an additional tool for those still enjoying development of passive crossovers.
I will be playing around with it for a while on my mains, the subs arent done yet (nor the dipoles).
So far I've tried measuring the 'full response' from my mains at 1m just to play with the software and try some simple correction of the response etc. The speaker was located equally spaced from sidewalls, 5m from the rear wall and about 2m from the front wall (referred to me). My room (dedicated AV room) isn't even close to beeing ideal with respect to acoustics as I just recently finished the building of it and haven't gotten around to any extra acoustic treatments yet.
What you suggest is to perform a very near field on-axis measurement (5-10cm/2-4") of all the drivers, is that correct?)
I am able to bypass the mid/high crossover (bot not the low-mid), is it even worth trying to tri-amp the mains, measure each driver (and play around with corrections) knowing the bass will be running through the passive low/mid filter?
My plan (as mentioned) is to use the DEQX to integrate stereo subs (2 pr side) to my mains (basically as a LP crossover + EQ and corrections). I will (initially at least) do this by using both pairs of pre outs on my CJ pre feeding the mains the original signal and feeding the DEQX an equal signal and play around with a LP crossover at around 40-80Hz.
With this in mind, do any of you have any reccomendation on how I should perform the measurements?
-I was assuming I would have to measure the 'system response' (one main + respective subs), while the DEQX' attempts of correcting the response will only affect the subs...
Pr now I am reluctant to replace the sound of the CJ with the DEQX, but it will surely be investigated thoroughly before any final conclusion is made.
I might be able to connect the above 40-80Hz signal via the unity gain input/output of the CJ to get some of its magic and use the DEQX as intended from the factory, but this will introduce some issues with the number of inputs available...
Based on this post (trying to sort my thoughts and concerns) I realize that I really should have had either the HDP4 or the MATE, - but for now the Express II will have to do 😱
Very well done on your build, congrats!
There is a lot in your post, hope I don't miss anything or not make sense.
My first reaction now i know where you are going is that, sadly, you don't need the deqx. Sadly because you have already bought it.
Firstly, let's look at it against your CJ pre. You prefer the CJ so let's not say 'at least according to my tastes'. That's fine, that's just the way it is.
So, we do not want it anywhere in the main signal path, else what is the point? (ie it goes against you preferring the CJ)
Secondly, and it looks like you did not scrimp on the passive network and or parts!, that also means the reason d'etre of the deqx is gone. You will not convert it to fully active This is not a hint or dig that you should BTW, I am only going on what you have written.
So then we are left with it only controlling the subs (which in itself is a bit problematic, we'll come to that soonish). Well, as mentioned (or was it?) something like mini dsp would no doubt be able to do that.
Any needed eq can be done by the deqx of course, as could mini dsp in this case.
It is possible to mention dcx here too. In many ways it would be easier to do exactly what you want better than the deqx, it is much more configurable for that task (to be explained better soonish) However, personally I have not had much luck with behringer QC, seems pot luck which makes me hesitant to recommend them.
Re the designing, REW and a mic and or mixer as needed would help with those measurements. True, they won't actually provide you with the filters needed as the deqx will.
Is it true that you cannot use lower order crossovers? I'll take you word for that without going and having a fiddle. It is obvious that is an area I have never looked at, I usually go reasonably steep in a complex set up like mine.
Well at the time I had no idea of what you wanted to know. A close mic measurement takes the room out of the equation. I only mentioned it cause you had to wait for spring to go outside to do an essentially similar thing.
From where I now sit knowing where you are probably going, it has all changed anyway.
Maybe it will change, but I don't see why it necessarily would. If you prefer the CJ you prefer the CJ.
I think I covered the most of it, now to my thinking based on what you said.
To get it to do what you want kinda goes against how it designed and meant to be used. I think it prob can be done, but it kinda means workarounds rather than using it's native design.
Don't worry, we can probably salvage this!
The set up has to go something like this, signal into the CJ then a y splitter, one goes to your mains amp the other into the deqx and then to the subs. That is the only way I can see atm to get vol control (linked to the CJ output)
Ok, first potential prob I can see. We can only ever DELAY a signal. One of the features active has over passive is the ability to accurately time align all the driver signals. We are not touching any of those signals in your mains, 'you get what you get' there. So we are reduced to the equation of 'aligning subs with the mains'.
Well TBH, I cannot see the mains LAGGING the subs in this setup. If they did then we could delay the subs and match them. All circumstances are different, and only measurements will tell us what the sit is, but I can only see that the subs will already be behind the mains. If so, we can never time align them as all we can do is delay the subs further.
Fully active? Well we can delay the subs OR the mains and get a match.
To not be able to time align the system we have lost one of the main advantages of going this route, indeed due to latency or thru time I'd imagine the time mismatch could be worse than adding subs normally, so not only do we not get the advantage, we have worsened the situation.
Now, two subs would be fine. That fits in with the architecture of the unit. Four subs and we do start hitting the workarounds.
TBH I am not sure how to fully workaround it now I'm thinking about it whilst typing. You'd have to configure the deqx as a two way plus subs, that will allow you two subs off the bat (the subs part).
You'd put the second pair of subs as the bass driver of the top two way (and disable the tweeter output of the top two way). So there are your four channels of output. You'd have to juggle the limit filters on the 'top sub' (getting complicated, hope you follow).
That allows you to do the time alignment. However it does not allow you to do equalisation as you'd want, ie equalise each sub as needed. The way it works simply does not allow it to be done easily. I am pretty sure I could do it, there are tricks to do if you decide to go down this path. Not worth getting into here right now tho...not so easy to explain in words tho we can try later if you want!
An alternative is that each (true) sub output goes to TWO subs, and they are treated as a single unit. That allows full eq control and time alignment as a pair. That means they need to be co located for that to work properly, and you are reducing the deqx to a simple sub output unit.
See what I mean when you start using a unit in a way that does not align with it's design?
So how can we salvage the situation yet hopefully not mean you wasted buying the deqx?
You seem to be a guy that has or wants multiple systems. You could use the deqx on your ob's (based on jamo?) and make them active, and use the deqx and use it how it was designed to be used, no workarounds that ultimately are less than optimal.
Find another unit that is meant to do what you want. For subs we can more easily not worry about 'the quality of the sound' (ever listened to just subs playing? If so then you'll know what I am talking about)
IF I could with confidence recommend the dcx from behringer, then that would be the perfect unit. As I said, IME pot luck. However just to illustrate, you can configure that any way you want (from memory) including for example six sub outputs. In that case none of the workaround of the deqx's completely different architecture. Mini dsp is in all likelihood a more confident thing to recommend.
You are of course free to rig it up however you want to, personally I would have gone for a different unit. If only because it is easier.
There is a lot in your post, hope I don't miss anything or not make sense.
My first reaction now i know where you are going is that, sadly, you don't need the deqx. Sadly because you have already bought it.
Firstly, let's look at it against your CJ pre. You prefer the CJ so let's not say 'at least according to my tastes'. That's fine, that's just the way it is.
So, we do not want it anywhere in the main signal path, else what is the point? (ie it goes against you preferring the CJ)
Secondly, and it looks like you did not scrimp on the passive network and or parts!, that also means the reason d'etre of the deqx is gone. You will not convert it to fully active This is not a hint or dig that you should BTW, I am only going on what you have written.
So then we are left with it only controlling the subs (which in itself is a bit problematic, we'll come to that soonish). Well, as mentioned (or was it?) something like mini dsp would no doubt be able to do that.
Any needed eq can be done by the deqx of course, as could mini dsp in this case.
It is possible to mention dcx here too. In many ways it would be easier to do exactly what you want better than the deqx, it is much more configurable for that task (to be explained better soonish) However, personally I have not had much luck with behringer QC, seems pot luck which makes me hesitant to recommend them.
Re the designing, REW and a mic and or mixer as needed would help with those measurements. True, they won't actually provide you with the filters needed as the deqx will.
Is it true that you cannot use lower order crossovers? I'll take you word for that without going and having a fiddle. It is obvious that is an area I have never looked at, I usually go reasonably steep in a complex set up like mine.
Well at the time I had no idea of what you wanted to know. A close mic measurement takes the room out of the equation. I only mentioned it cause you had to wait for spring to go outside to do an essentially similar thing.
From where I now sit knowing where you are probably going, it has all changed anyway.
Maybe it will change, but I don't see why it necessarily would. If you prefer the CJ you prefer the CJ.
I think I covered the most of it, now to my thinking based on what you said.
To get it to do what you want kinda goes against how it designed and meant to be used. I think it prob can be done, but it kinda means workarounds rather than using it's native design.
Don't worry, we can probably salvage this!
The set up has to go something like this, signal into the CJ then a y splitter, one goes to your mains amp the other into the deqx and then to the subs. That is the only way I can see atm to get vol control (linked to the CJ output)
Ok, first potential prob I can see. We can only ever DELAY a signal. One of the features active has over passive is the ability to accurately time align all the driver signals. We are not touching any of those signals in your mains, 'you get what you get' there. So we are reduced to the equation of 'aligning subs with the mains'.
Well TBH, I cannot see the mains LAGGING the subs in this setup. If they did then we could delay the subs and match them. All circumstances are different, and only measurements will tell us what the sit is, but I can only see that the subs will already be behind the mains. If so, we can never time align them as all we can do is delay the subs further.
Fully active? Well we can delay the subs OR the mains and get a match.
To not be able to time align the system we have lost one of the main advantages of going this route, indeed due to latency or thru time I'd imagine the time mismatch could be worse than adding subs normally, so not only do we not get the advantage, we have worsened the situation.
Now, two subs would be fine. That fits in with the architecture of the unit. Four subs and we do start hitting the workarounds.
TBH I am not sure how to fully workaround it now I'm thinking about it whilst typing. You'd have to configure the deqx as a two way plus subs, that will allow you two subs off the bat (the subs part).
You'd put the second pair of subs as the bass driver of the top two way (and disable the tweeter output of the top two way). So there are your four channels of output. You'd have to juggle the limit filters on the 'top sub' (getting complicated, hope you follow).
That allows you to do the time alignment. However it does not allow you to do equalisation as you'd want, ie equalise each sub as needed. The way it works simply does not allow it to be done easily. I am pretty sure I could do it, there are tricks to do if you decide to go down this path. Not worth getting into here right now tho...not so easy to explain in words tho we can try later if you want!
An alternative is that each (true) sub output goes to TWO subs, and they are treated as a single unit. That allows full eq control and time alignment as a pair. That means they need to be co located for that to work properly, and you are reducing the deqx to a simple sub output unit.
See what I mean when you start using a unit in a way that does not align with it's design?
So how can we salvage the situation yet hopefully not mean you wasted buying the deqx?
You seem to be a guy that has or wants multiple systems. You could use the deqx on your ob's (based on jamo?) and make them active, and use the deqx and use it how it was designed to be used, no workarounds that ultimately are less than optimal.
Find another unit that is meant to do what you want. For subs we can more easily not worry about 'the quality of the sound' (ever listened to just subs playing? If so then you'll know what I am talking about)
IF I could with confidence recommend the dcx from behringer, then that would be the perfect unit. As I said, IME pot luck. However just to illustrate, you can configure that any way you want (from memory) including for example six sub outputs. In that case none of the workaround of the deqx's completely different architecture. Mini dsp is in all likelihood a more confident thing to recommend.
You are of course free to rig it up however you want to, personally I would have gone for a different unit. If only because it is easier.
My post contained a lot, - was thinking while typing trying to sort out what I have, what I want and any limitations I could think of.
You got a good point I completely forgot; - the time-alignment introduces (ofc) only a time DELAY, and as you also state; the subs will lag the mains rendering any additional delay pointless.
Ok, so if I am to use the unit (more or less) as intended I will have to set it up as a 2way system where the lower frequencies are fed directly to the subs (treating each side containing 2 subs as ONE subwoofer).
The higher frequency output will be fed trough the unity gain input/output of the CJ, meaning the DEQX will run as the pre dividing the signal into low and high frequency output.
The obvious approach is to configure the DEQX using the "single-amp stereo subs mode", but what if I choose "Biamp with optional..." and treat the subs as woofers and mains as tweeters in a 2 way design?
Next step is to measure each of the 'drivers', - meaning sub tower and mains...
Time to stop here for now, no point in me firing loads of additional questions if some of my assumptions above are wrong or contain huge drawbacks...
Thank you for the thoughts you share, it really helps me a lot!
You got a good point I completely forgot; - the time-alignment introduces (ofc) only a time DELAY, and as you also state; the subs will lag the mains rendering any additional delay pointless.
Ok, so if I am to use the unit (more or less) as intended I will have to set it up as a 2way system where the lower frequencies are fed directly to the subs (treating each side containing 2 subs as ONE subwoofer).
The higher frequency output will be fed trough the unity gain input/output of the CJ, meaning the DEQX will run as the pre dividing the signal into low and high frequency output.
The obvious approach is to configure the DEQX using the "single-amp stereo subs mode", but what if I choose "Biamp with optional..." and treat the subs as woofers and mains as tweeters in a 2 way design?
- Reason for using the latter is that choosing single amp with subs seem to limit my options with respect to boost/cut settings later
- I was wrong about the filter order, when choosing the biamp mode and dividing as low as 50Hz the DEQX only allows me to use Butterworth or LR 6/12. order filters as the delay when using Linear Phase is around 40ms for 50Hz.
- The crossover guide states "the maximum acceptable delay is affected by the calibration, crossover and limit filters...", Is it possible to extend the acceptable delay (defaults to 5.34 ms)?
Next step is to measure each of the 'drivers', - meaning sub tower and mains...
- Subs beeing stacked yields approximatly 30cm distance from each woofer center, at what distance and height relative to each woofer would you reccomend me doing the measurements?
- Mains are about 110cm tall(?), at what distance and height relative to a specified driver would you reccomend me doing the measurements?
Time to stop here for now, no point in me firing loads of additional questions if some of my assumptions above are wrong or contain huge drawbacks...
Thank you for the thoughts you share, it really helps me a lot!
I forgot, the OB's are based on the design from a swedish DIY site; HiFiForum.nu - MJAO G 098 - The Anagram - nytt delningsfilter
The Jamo's have surely been an inspiration when making the baffles, I do lack access to a CNC machine which would have made everything so much easier though.
Heres a thread where I post any updates on the OB build;
Mjao G098 DIY dipole - Jamo 909
And yes you are correct, - I have several set-ups and enjoy trying new toys and gadgets so whatever happens with the DEQX in my main set-up, I am sure I will be able to put it in good use elsewhere.
The Jamo's have surely been an inspiration when making the baffles, I do lack access to a CNC machine which would have made everything so much easier though.
Heres a thread where I post any updates on the OB build;
Mjao G098 DIY dipole - Jamo 909
And yes you are correct, - I have several set-ups and enjoy trying new toys and gadgets so whatever happens with the DEQX in my main set-up, I am sure I will be able to put it in good use elsewhere.
Why would you do that? If it is to overcome the time thing (is that the reason?) then why have an additional not needed component in the chain? (CJ)
It no longer serves any purpose (it is 'just there set to full on) and once you have the deqx in then you have the things you do not like about the sound in the main signal path.
Yes, that is exactly what I proposed earlier, two way plus subs.
On the mains, 'whatever works'. Start with one metre, why not? Experiment. Compare. Find that one way might start to give better things than another way, start to fine tune the preferred way. Try 10 degrees off axis, if the speakers are toes out try it on 'ear axis'. Experiment.
(starting to get why I told the other bloke 'learn it first'? Starting to get why I thought there was plenty to do whilst waiting till spring?)
On the bass measurement, you can do a near filed then calibrate that. Then you measure from the Lp and adjust the eq to taste and to get rid of peaks and dips.
OR (and this is part of the 'tricks' I mentioned that are available) measure and correct/calibrate the subs from the lp.
That way each sub can be 'made to go as low as you want' (by setting the limit windows in the calibrate step) AND starts to take into account the phase errors that involve room and sub interaction.
That however WILL introduce longer delays. I account for that because I can set any driver individual delays. IF you go that way, and account for the delays, then you do not need to co-locate the subs. The second lot can become the bass driver of the two ways. That way you can effectively 'overcome' the architecture of the unit and have four independant subs out each having been measured, eq'd and phase taken into consideration.
I did not go into that earlier because I took it as given that you did not want the deqx in the main signal path.
I too will stop here, I have no way of predicting what the next questions might be, better to wait and see.
No probs.
You are right, the CJ would just be another item in the chain not having any real purpose, - the reason as to why I want to try this; - is to see if adding the CJ after the DEQX sounds better than bypassing the CJ entirely.
-There isn't any component in an audio chain that can be called truly 'transparent or neutral', any component always add something to the final result, some way more than others. CJ pre's I've tried over the years have been quite 'colourful' and added just what my setup (and preferences) need.
The first time I tried the unit, measurements were done at 1m, with poor results. Did some tests yesterday as well (after my posting), tried different distances (shorter) which gave more confident measurements.
After couple of hours of moving the speaker (only bothered to measure one of them as I am just playing around with the unit getting to know its features and interface) I concluded I WILL wait for spring and do some proper measurements that I know will be valid.
Speakers are 75kg each, and dragging them over a carpet floor is no fun.
What I am getting at is that I got you the first time, and I've started to try out different things, trying to learn how to best use the unit. I must admit I have considered pros and cons of adding some extra terminals to the speakers allowing me to fully test the DEQX as intended (3 way, no subs)...
I have decided to try out the DEQX on the OB's first to gain more understanding of it. They will be relatively easy to move around, and as they aren't done yet, I can make sure triamping is possible. Another advantage is that they are currently located in a HUGE room (8*20meters) that should help getting good measurements.
The subs aren't done either, but they are in the same location as the OB's, so I might be able to get some good measurements of them as well.
It's too early for me to conclude, I've only stated that fresh out of the box, used as a pure preamp I prefer the CJ. Thourough testing and evaluation of the unit itself, with and without the CJ as a 'buffer' for the mains needs to be done.
Thanks again, I will be back with new questions as needed. I personally don't know anyone else owning a DEQX so I am dependent on forums like this to get any tips and ideas.
(A users manual would have been very helpful when starting to use DEQX units, I can't understand why one hasn't been made and included within the box).
Well, ok then. Whatever works best for someone is the right way to go. This might get amplified later.
Yeah, got it. Mine prob weigh 150 kg (??) or something. 'Concrete' cabs will do that ya know haha.
I am lucky, have a pretty big room but anyway I don't even bother moving the speakers. BUT I know by now how to get acceptable measurements blah blah (even then it requires listening...sometimes you do 'what you always do' but it does not sound right).
Anyway, if your tolerances between speakers are good it is 'fine' to do only one set of measurements and apply to both (best to do each to overcome any manufacturing tolerances etc) BUT when it is just learning, more than acceptable. The goal is to learn at this stage, then you can do the 'ultimate'.
So have it down completely pat so that when you go to the trouble you are intending then any drawback will NOT be your understanding or abilities in using the unit.
One possible reason for the poor results could be room reflections...that you got better results measuring closer could indicate that (remember what we said earlier about close micing? Takes the room out. This might not be close micing per se, but at least it is closer micing)
BUT, it could also be that for your ears, or your speakers, it gives better results. All part of this experimenting we have been talking about.
I mentioned earlier that 'you might find one method starts to give better results than another, you can then refine that method'. As an example of that in this case (closer measuring, let's say half a metre) then you can always opt to put a pause between measurements, and move the mic from on axis on the tweeter (say) to on axis on the mid rather than have the measurements from on mic position. Ie, a variation on the variation of the measurement. (hope that made sense).
Of course, the more you do this the more familiar you become with the unit and the software and the procedure so when you take them out you know what you are doing.
On your first part, you WILL eventually be using subs, so it will in effect be a three way PLUS subs, ie a four way. (I think the WW 'clones' are a three way? Will check after the post)
So, as you only have one deqx you WILL need a passive somewhere in the chain. The obvious place to keep it is between the tweeter and the mid. Ie one input above the crossover point (1k say) goes to the passive which then sends the appropriate frequencies to the mid and tweeter.
To the deqx they become 'one driver' that handles everything above the crossover point. The two get measured and corrected as a unit.
The rest get divided up and sent individually to the woofers in your main speakers and the subs.
For interests sake, you could use rew (or deqx, but a bit clunky) to measure from your LP...or where you would normally measure your speakers and just measure the arrival times of your tweeter, mids and woofers in your mains. Ie check how well time aligned they are (which might give you an idea of what benefits time aligning might bring)
If you know the crossover points of the drivers, which you should, then in rew just send an appropriate sweep to the system (above 2k for the tweeter if that is it's crossover point, 800 to 2k for the mids if that are the crossover points, below 800 for the woofer if that is the crossover point) and then have a look and see WHEN they arrive.
On your second part, as the end result of importance of having subs is the IN ROOM at the LP response, I usually think 'who cares what the response natively is, or what the response is elsewhere, all that matters is the response in the room and in the positions they will finally occupy'. By all means learn what they do in the same room as the OBs, but bear in mind that all that matters is the response where they will finally go.
So if this is just an example of learning, yeah go for it. That is about the full extent of it's usefulness tho.
Lot's of learning and investigations that can be done before spring.
For sure, and there is a world of difference between evaluating the deqx 'just inserted in the chain yet not doing ANY of the 'tricks/results' it brings to the table' vs evaluating the deqx doing everything of which it is capable.
As but one other example, did you check when doing the comparisons that even the levels were matched to within close Dbs? There are many cases where small loudness levels can sway perceptions.
Hopefully without causing offense or bringing your capabilities into dispute, but little alarm bells suddenly start ringing!
You don't have a manual? The deqx manual is a couple of hundred pages. (not the easiest to get thru I'll grant!!! 😀 Part of it's problem is that deqx have to assume you are an audiophile-as opposed to an experienced diy'er as an example-so they assume you know NOTHING about anything. MOST audiophiles simply buy and swap, the intricacies of speaker design is simply not known. That does not help in making the manual less dense if you follow)
In any case, and now some of your questions in hindsight become clearer, that you do not have a manual opens up a whole 'nother can of worms about what you have been doing (or not).
It can be downloaded from the website, but you will need to know the passwords etc. That is in the manual! hahahaha, so not a lot of help now is it!
Send them an email, tell them you have the unit but no manual. Maybe they are re-writing it? Dunno, seems odd that you did not get one.
I'd suggest we do that before anything else, good luck. If you have problems contact me and I'll see what I can do to help.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.