If cost is no object I think there is no question high slope/phase accurate digital XO + DSP is the clear winner. High quality implementations such as the DEQX, when coupled with really great DACs, and then augmented with extensive room-correction become very, very hard to beat. For the DIYer, it's about the only way to go if the objective is to build something that will compete (and possibly go further) than the top high-end systems like Magico, etc... just be prepared to shell out a lot of money ($40K+ or so?) for DEQX, outboard DACS and 2 good quality amps, plus whatever the speakers end up costing.
One particular advantage of the above approach is that with the DEQX type implementation, you can cross over the HF units waay lower than usual, and thus avoid a whole lot of issues caused by lobing and interference. This is one area which is VERY hard (impossible?) to duplicate using passive EQ and still keep time-coherence which I regard as essential.
About cost: it's true this can also be done on PC's using other SW than what DEQX offers so conveniently, in which case subtract a couple of grand. Also, if you do like I've done and find/mod some high quality Class-d boards from China, then the amps are much less costly, with still superlative performance.
Which leaves us with the DACs - not one, but twin or triplet DACs - that's a big $$$ ouch if top quality is what you are after. But yes at that point, all other factors being of equal quality (amps, speakers, cables, etc), I would say the fully active route is the way to go. And for inexperienced DIYers, the chances of getting it work really well is much, much higher if they have something like the DEQX on hand.
Hmmm.... good to know. I'll listen to some straight ahead recordings (and make some) and let you know what I find.
It had always been my guess that the slight downward tilt sounds more like what we expect in natural sound because of the roll off with distance. At least, it sounds that way to me. When I used to mix front of house, we'd occasionally get a studio engineer (He mixed our CD, dude!) to try his hand at a mix. Always far too bright - rip your ears off. I suppose that's because the studio guys sit very close to the monitors and are used to super detail and want to hear it in the P.A. You just don't get that kind of detail in a big venue. If you try to get it, it sounds awful.
I remain unconvinced. One could just as easily say:
"If you think that your active implementation sounds better then all that really means is a) you're imagining it, or b) you failed with your passive crossover."
Both are just as valid.
As for never going back to passive - yeah, I used to think that. But not any more.
I still like the sound of active crossovers too, so really have no favorite horse in this race. Both can be very good if well implemented. For some systems one makes more sense than the other, so it could be called "better". You just have to know when that is.Decent is one thing, top notch is another.
but that $40K looks like the minimum if you want to have really great DACs to truly compete with the big boys. Count'em: three DACs. If you want something top-notch like the EMM labs that starts looking like $40K+ all by itself.
If you're like me, you settle for the DACs on the DEQX while lusting after the better DACs you've had the pleasure of exposing yourself to and simply accept the pain of not having enough scratch to afford 'em.
Me, I'm waiting for another 2 years to see what DACs sound like then. They're definitely gettin' better all the time, and quickly.
We're definitely not on the same page. I'm thinking most people here are trying to get the most for the lea$t .. trading some sweat equity to achieve that higher level of audio satisfaction. ... a hobby, an experiment.
A $40K+ system in my house will need to do the laundry, mow the lawn. chop wood, ... Then, ... will probably be too tired to sound any better than what I have now.
Could you expand on this a bit more? (might be OT in this thread, but why bother with a new one)
To help out, I use the deqx two (haha, meaning 'as well' AND two of them....well I thought it was clever
) so in the most part I am up to speed.What I don't quite get is why you need to use the deq and it's memory when the deqx has about four hundred of them. I presume you mean 'salting to taste?', so what can the deq do that the deqx cannot? (oh, and just to make things that bit more spooky, I use a deq in the system as well! Not two of them haha)
Ouch!
One of mine has the digital out, but hey I balk at that sort of expenditure! Definitely dbt time when going that far.I thought I was hardcore, I dips me lid to you sir.
I get your point, and see your horror, but tbh I think it about time this angle WAS raised.
I am not sure about the 40k bit (see above) but I do think, as a general guide, most of the projects and discussions on this forum DO revolve around the bang for the buck end, and that is NOT being dismissive.
So, maybe every once in a while, and it does seem appropriate maybe in a thread like this, let's at least look at this rarely mentioned approach. Not quite 'cost no object' (mine prob owes me around 20k) but hey, I'd put mine up against any of the 'big boys' and then some.
So anyway, personally I think it fine and cool that we also throw the expensive systems into the mix, even on the same basis as the budget projects...'bang for the buck'.
Sure, lot's of bucks, but when you look at the idiotic cost of 'hi end' and compare results....
That's one that cannot be easily determined for sure, but I certainly believe so.
some time ago, in another thread, I was looking at what will happen when offsetting a uni pivot bearing point
you would think its the same, and I thought so too
but try the experiemnt with a model
it actually works
tho it might have other less good side effects from the 'unbalanced' design
needs some weight compensation
could be its best to combine it the AR type arm bearing that looks more like the turn table bearing
thats the sidewards movement
up and down movement bearing/control could be simple adjustable side mounted double pivot points, and placed closer to the pickup, with a shorter arm
there might be a few like that already
you would think its the same, and I thought so too
but try the experiemnt with a model
it actually works
tho it might have other less good side effects from the 'unbalanced' design
needs some weight compensation
could be its best to combine it the AR type arm bearing that looks more like the turn table bearing
thats the sidewards movement
up and down movement bearing/control could be simple adjustable side mounted double pivot points, and placed closer to the pickup, with a shorter arm
there might be a few like that already
Attachments
Even though it's a long time since I listened to any vinyl I'm pretty certain of my memory that almost ALL records sounded VERY different on the inside to the outside. The only exception I can think of to this general rule is the very outside of Side one of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" compared to the very inside of Side four of "The Wall" These in fact are very similar....
Tony.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.