Bill, I am another DEQX owner in Brisbane. To see what difference the DEQX unit could make I recently bypassed the passive crossovers, then active triamped a set of Whatmough Signature 503's using the DEQX unit to set the crossovers, apply speaker correction and room correction. The improvement was amazing. The Whatmoughs would not be my first choice of speakers to use with the DEQX. However a friend of mine from Cleveland lent me the speakers to try out the DEQX. The Whatmoughs are tri wirable and have an external crossover. Hence we were able to bypass the passive crossovers without open heart surgery.
Now that we have determined that a fully active setup with the DEQX is the way to go, I am looking at either making or getting some speakers made up specifically for the DEQX.
I don't have your level of knowledge about speaker design but through a completely different route I seem to have come up with similar direction for speakers for the DEQX.
I don't know if what I am considering would be classed as 3 ways or 2 ways with stereo subs. Per speaker I would have one sealed 2 way enclosure for mid and highs (probably d'Apolita, 2 midrange, 1 central tweeter per speaker) sitting on or beside a separate bass enclosures using (2of) 8 or 10 inch bass drivers which would probably be ported (although I would like to consider sealed). It would probaly be considered a 3 way with seperat enclosures for mid/highs and bass. I am keen to try and get the mid range right. The bass enclosures will probably cross over at about 200hz. I am not trying to use them as subwoffers. The aim is not to force the mid range drivers to go too low. This should allow me to use smaller, lighter mid range drivers in a smaller, narrower enclosure. Current thoughts are to use 2 Accton C- 79- 6 per enclosure,either side of a scanspeak R29 04 - 700000. I have not decided on what bass drivers to use yet.
I had looked at a ribbon tweeter. They may be better than the revelator. However for my first attempt I thought it would be safer to stick with conventional drivers.
Any advice or comment would be great.
As I also live in Brisbane I am keen to keep up with how you are progressing. Feel free to contact me if it suits.
Now that we have determined that a fully active setup with the DEQX is the way to go, I am looking at either making or getting some speakers made up specifically for the DEQX.
I don't have your level of knowledge about speaker design but through a completely different route I seem to have come up with similar direction for speakers for the DEQX.
I don't know if what I am considering would be classed as 3 ways or 2 ways with stereo subs. Per speaker I would have one sealed 2 way enclosure for mid and highs (probably d'Apolita, 2 midrange, 1 central tweeter per speaker) sitting on or beside a separate bass enclosures using (2of) 8 or 10 inch bass drivers which would probably be ported (although I would like to consider sealed). It would probaly be considered a 3 way with seperat enclosures for mid/highs and bass. I am keen to try and get the mid range right. The bass enclosures will probably cross over at about 200hz. I am not trying to use them as subwoffers. The aim is not to force the mid range drivers to go too low. This should allow me to use smaller, lighter mid range drivers in a smaller, narrower enclosure. Current thoughts are to use 2 Accton C- 79- 6 per enclosure,either side of a scanspeak R29 04 - 700000. I have not decided on what bass drivers to use yet.
I had looked at a ribbon tweeter. They may be better than the revelator. However for my first attempt I thought it would be safer to stick with conventional drivers.
Any advice or comment would be great.
As I also live in Brisbane I am keen to keep up with how you are progressing. Feel free to contact me if it suits.
Hi,
I would call that a 3way.
consider using a higher cross frequency than 200Hz. Possibly as high as 400Hz to lighten the load on the mid drivers.
A general rule used by many builders is to select cross frequencies for each driver that leave a full one octave margin of clean response above and below the crossover pass band.
I would call that a 3way.
consider using a higher cross frequency than 200Hz. Possibly as high as 400Hz to lighten the load on the mid drivers.
A general rule used by many builders is to select cross frequencies for each driver that leave a full one octave margin of clean response above and below the crossover pass band.
Thanks for the advice on the crossover point from mid to bass. After I made the post I thought about it a bit more and was starting to think that 200 hz was too low. The Whatmoughs we used in our trial crossed over at 370 hz.
If we have a bass driver that crosses over at 400 hz- so I assume it needs to go cleanly out to 550 hz or so (I will have to get my son to convert hz to one octave at this frequency) for a conventional speaker, with plenty of room to use a fairly large enclosures is there a lowest frequency that is reasonable to try and achieve before we get significant roll off ? I don't want to compromise the rest of the bass frequencies just to get down to a low number.
If we have a bass driver that crosses over at 400 hz- so I assume it needs to go cleanly out to 550 hz or so (I will have to get my son to convert hz to one octave at this frequency) for a conventional speaker, with plenty of room to use a fairly large enclosures is there a lowest frequency that is reasonable to try and achieve before we get significant roll off ? I don't want to compromise the rest of the bass frequencies just to get down to a low number.
Did anything further happen with these Brisbane projects.
I would be very keen to be involved and aren't afraid to get my hands covered in glue, sawdust, or overspray if it helps.
I would be very keen to be involved and aren't afraid to get my hands covered in glue, sawdust, or overspray if it helps.
Things have been fairly slow in my area and unfortunately I never did hear Bill Hoba. However you will be glad to hear I ordered the ply today so thinks are starting to speed up again.
I have made a few changes to the design since my last post. I am still going for an active 3 way with separate TM and W boxes.
However I am now using RAAL 140 -15D for the tweeter, PHL 1220 for mid and a Peerless 830845 XXLS for the bass. Bass will use a large sealed box (approx 114L). The active crossover will be done with a DEQX and 6 mono amps. Don't know how it ill all work but I think it is time to build and try. If you are still interested drop us a line.
I have made a few changes to the design since my last post. I am still going for an active 3 way with separate TM and W boxes.
However I am now using RAAL 140 -15D for the tweeter, PHL 1220 for mid and a Peerless 830845 XXLS for the bass. Bass will use a large sealed box (approx 114L). The active crossover will be done with a DEQX and 6 mono amps. Don't know how it ill all work but I think it is time to build and try. If you are still interested drop us a line.
Interested, you bet, don't mind getting my hands dirty on the construction side of things either.
I can't email via the forum yet (not enough legitimate posts) so can you please shoot me an email with your email address.
What side of town are you on? I'm at Joyner.
Cheers,
Rob.
I can't email via the forum yet (not enough legitimate posts) so can you please shoot me an email with your email address.
What side of town are you on? I'm at Joyner.
Cheers,
Rob.
rob323
Hi rob323
I do have DEQX as well and recently working on 2 way speaker MTM using 1 of
Raal 140 -14D and 2 off PHL 1220.It will be close box which is currently being design
by Alex (Raal)
I have 4 single ended tube monoblocks for the tweeters and the PHL midbass divers and also H2O S 250 amp to drive my hungry subs
My 2 subs are from Whise acoustic 624 which I would like to cross at 80 Hz.As twist222 mentioned earlier DEQX is way to go if you want build your own speakers and I belive it will improve most of passive crossovers when bypassing as we found with mine Whatmought 503 not to mention the room correction which I have found very effective regarding my small room.Have you got DEQX or you thinking about it and what design
you would like to do.
JiriAu Brisbane
Hi rob323
I do have DEQX as well and recently working on 2 way speaker MTM using 1 of
Raal 140 -14D and 2 off PHL 1220.It will be close box which is currently being design
by Alex (Raal)
I have 4 single ended tube monoblocks for the tweeters and the PHL midbass divers and also H2O S 250 amp to drive my hungry subs
My 2 subs are from Whise acoustic 624 which I would like to cross at 80 Hz.As twist222 mentioned earlier DEQX is way to go if you want build your own speakers and I belive it will improve most of passive crossovers when bypassing as we found with mine Whatmought 503 not to mention the room correction which I have found very effective regarding my small room.Have you got DEQX or you thinking about it and what design
you would like to do.
JiriAu Brisbane
Attachments
Oh crap, I'm bloody envious now.
Nice subs!
At present, I don't have anything worth noting apart from some dynaudio drivers laying around and a dream of something like that in your photo and the curiosity to learn how it all works.
But at the moment, I'm lacking the time and the funds to make it all happen (too many other unfinished projects to get out of the way first). So I figured if I can lend a hand to others, I can learn about it all first hand and it won't cost me anything in doing so.
Nice subs!
At present, I don't have anything worth noting apart from some dynaudio drivers laying around and a dream of something like that in your photo and the curiosity to learn how it all works.
But at the moment, I'm lacking the time and the funds to make it all happen (too many other unfinished projects to get out of the way first). So I figured if I can lend a hand to others, I can learn about it all first hand and it won't cost me anything in doing so.
Hi,
What is it with all these Brisbane people. Yes I'm Brisbane too and have DEQX. Jiri and Twist I met you guys at the Brisbane audio club meeting at Admiralty Quays last year.
I probably told you I disconnected my crossover from my Dynaudio bookshelves and DEQX'ed them. Just a week or two ago I got the Rotel 7x100W class D RMB1077 power amp. I thought that was a nice easy way to play with DEQX.
Thinking of trying a simple DIY bookshelf now. I have no handyman skills at all so thought I might buy a Parts Express enclsoure and perhaps some Scan Speak drivers, see how we go.
Trevor
What is it with all these Brisbane people. Yes I'm Brisbane too and have DEQX. Jiri and Twist I met you guys at the Brisbane audio club meeting at Admiralty Quays last year.
I probably told you I disconnected my crossover from my Dynaudio bookshelves and DEQX'ed them. Just a week or two ago I got the Rotel 7x100W class D RMB1077 power amp. I thought that was a nice easy way to play with DEQX.
Thinking of trying a simple DIY bookshelf now. I have no handyman skills at all so thought I might buy a Parts Express enclsoure and perhaps some Scan Speak drivers, see how we go.
Trevor
Trevor, good to hear from you again. From your posts on the DEQX users group I knew you must have been making good use of the DEQX. I didn't know you had bypassed the crossovers on your Dynaudio's. How did they compare after the change ? Were you able to measure them properly ? Jiri and I should both be building our speakers shortly. The ply should be here this week.
obiwan
HI Obiwan
I do remember you Trevor How was it at Sydney did you have a chance to listen the new EQUINOX speakers?Also I thought that you got the
new Bel Cantos amps (ref.300&ref1000)I have tried the ref 1000 but did not like it as much.I have bought H2O S 250 instead as I think it is better and it is really good
Amp.I'm using it for the subs as I have 4 tubes monos Opera Cyber 845 for the mid and high.I have find them to be very good only 27Wats of power but when
I build the new speakers which should be around 95bd than it should be efficient enough.I have heard the Rotel you got and thought to be very good I have recently sold Rotel RB 1090 and think it was not even close musically verse the digital amp you have.Regarding your speakers I do not think that you would be better off buying a box from parts express with the drivers to be better that your dynaudio's.I don't mine that scan speak drivers but think the raal is better choice but that is personal.l don't have a much still ether or better say have no room and equipment to do it just yet so
what I'm doing is getting the drivers I want have the speaker design by Alex as he is very good at it as I have seen some of his design and know he knows his stuff than we have already bought a ply which was not that expensive(you can also go for MDF as it is cheaper) than have them CNC cut and than we just have glue it together.Twist 222 have a friend who is cabinet maker so there is one option also I believe if you ask most of the workshops here they will put it together as well.
Ok Trevor just few words from me also sending some pictures if you want to have a look
Jiri AU
HI Obiwan
I do remember you Trevor How was it at Sydney did you have a chance to listen the new EQUINOX speakers?Also I thought that you got the
new Bel Cantos amps (ref.300&ref1000)I have tried the ref 1000 but did not like it as much.I have bought H2O S 250 instead as I think it is better and it is really good
Amp.I'm using it for the subs as I have 4 tubes monos Opera Cyber 845 for the mid and high.I have find them to be very good only 27Wats of power but when
I build the new speakers which should be around 95bd than it should be efficient enough.I have heard the Rotel you got and thought to be very good I have recently sold Rotel RB 1090 and think it was not even close musically verse the digital amp you have.Regarding your speakers I do not think that you would be better off buying a box from parts express with the drivers to be better that your dynaudio's.I don't mine that scan speak drivers but think the raal is better choice but that is personal.l don't have a much still ether or better say have no room and equipment to do it just yet so
what I'm doing is getting the drivers I want have the speaker design by Alex as he is very good at it as I have seen some of his design and know he knows his stuff than we have already bought a ply which was not that expensive(you can also go for MDF as it is cheaper) than have them CNC cut and than we just have glue it together.Twist 222 have a friend who is cabinet maker so there is one option also I believe if you ask most of the workshops here they will put it together as well.
Ok Trevor just few words from me also sending some pictures if you want to have a look
Jiri AU
Attachments
I think I was able to measure them reasonably properly. I was able to get 11.4 ms to the first reflection. They are definitely smoother with the midrange not sounding so forward now. The biggest thing though is the sound is more spacious. Only thing is I also have the little Dynaudio Contour SR's and vocals on those (non-DEQX'd) sound very natural but I think that's a function of the smaller mid-bass driver being better suited to vocals than the 8 inch driver on the Special 25's.
obiwan
Me Again
I was just wondering if you are using the latest software 96kHz with firmware 63 I think you do as I have seen you posts on DEQX forum however I'm curios if you are feeding
signal at 96kHz or 44kHz from your source.
When the new software came Mark told me that he bought a Sample Rate Converter from Behringer and was happy with.I was looking for some but bought the Behringer as well as I find it really good for the money.It does a lot of things and also is useful to me as I can feed all my sources to it and have just one digital(XLR) going to DEQX
in 96kHz sample rate.In regards to sound I have found a an improvements a specially with bass I would say sweeter and also the trebles lost some of it's hardness.
Here is a link if you like to have a look at it there are better around like Esoteric G 25V but many times more expensive.Here is the link for the Behringer - Ultramatch Pro Src 2496
http://www.behringer.com/SRC2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
Me Again
I was just wondering if you are using the latest software 96kHz with firmware 63 I think you do as I have seen you posts on DEQX forum however I'm curios if you are feeding
signal at 96kHz or 44kHz from your source.
When the new software came Mark told me that he bought a Sample Rate Converter from Behringer and was happy with.I was looking for some but bought the Behringer as well as I find it really good for the money.It does a lot of things and also is useful to me as I can feed all my sources to it and have just one digital(XLR) going to DEQX
in 96kHz sample rate.In regards to sound I have found a an improvements a specially with bass I would say sweeter and also the trebles lost some of it's hardness.
Here is a link if you like to have a look at it there are better around like Esoteric G 25V but many times more expensive.Here is the link for the Behringer - Ultramatch Pro Src 2496
http://www.behringer.com/SRC2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG
My posts are coming through delayed as I'm being monitored being a relatively new poster here so these are coming out of order.
Yep I do have the 96kHz update. But I'm only feeding a normal CD source through the digital input. I do have a turntable and home theatre stuff going through the analogue input so that will be done at 96kHz. I should have a look at that Behringer unit.
I do have the Bel Canto eVo2i integrated and I was looking at getting the new Bel Canto power amps, but after much procrastinating, I ended up thought I may as well just start with Rotel unit and if I didn't like it I could still use it for surround duties. But so far I do like it. Its been a pleasant surprise, not to mention dirt cheap.
I didn't make it to Equinox. Someone from planetaudio brought around a trial pair of Solstices last year. They didn't have the spaciousness of the Dyns nor the bass extension. We had them on different amps so hard to really compare.
Yep I do have the 96kHz update. But I'm only feeding a normal CD source through the digital input. I do have a turntable and home theatre stuff going through the analogue input so that will be done at 96kHz. I should have a look at that Behringer unit.
I do have the Bel Canto eVo2i integrated and I was looking at getting the new Bel Canto power amps, but after much procrastinating, I ended up thought I may as well just start with Rotel unit and if I didn't like it I could still use it for surround duties. But so far I do like it. Its been a pleasant surprise, not to mention dirt cheap.
I didn't make it to Equinox. Someone from planetaudio brought around a trial pair of Solstices last year. They didn't have the spaciousness of the Dyns nor the bass extension. We had them on different amps so hard to really compare.
what is it with the air in Brisbane???
Jiri, could you expand a little on the benefits/otherwise of the sample rate converter units you mentioned?? What are there uses, why should a deqx owner consider one??
Hi trevor!!
Jiri, could you expand a little on the benefits/otherwise of the sample rate converter units you mentioned?? What are there uses, why should a deqx owner consider one??
Hi trevor!!
Hi Terry,
Fancy catching up in an overseas forum. Terry is it only me that has noticed that using the remote eq only works on the active profile with the latest software? Or is that a problem with everyone with the latest software?
Jiri, nice photos, very pleasing on the eye. Bound to have a positive effect on the perceived sound.
Fancy catching up in an overseas forum. Terry is it only me that has noticed that using the remote eq only works on the active profile with the latest software? Or is that a problem with everyone with the latest software?
Jiri, nice photos, very pleasing on the eye. Bound to have a positive effect on the perceived sound.
hi trev, have to admit I haven't upgraded the firmware yet on the one on my main system!! At least I just dragged the computer into my listening room, so will have to get onto it. So, at the moment, have no bass control on my remote.
However, I actually would prefer the remote to only work on the active profile, as I assume each profile will be different then why does it automatically follow that a change made on one profile will be the one you want on another?? You can at least quickly compare the changes if you a/b'd between identical profiles.
Anyway, make sure you give notice when you come down, would like to catch up with you if you are in Syd.
However, I actually would prefer the remote to only work on the active profile, as I assume each profile will be different then why does it automatically follow that a change made on one profile will be the one you want on another?? You can at least quickly compare the changes if you a/b'd between identical profiles.
Anyway, make sure you give notice when you come down, would like to catch up with you if you are in Syd.
terry
Hi terry
Regarding to your question about Behringer .I can’t give you a lot of technical detail maybe Twist222 would be better to answer that in technical terms. I can just mention that I have find B2496 to be very useful in many ways. The first one is I have turntable,CDplayer,SACD(universal) DVD also intending to buy HDD –CD recorder and as you see I have no enough inputs on the DEQX.What I’m doing now is having SACD,CD player and DVD video going to the beringer (analog,digital,optical) than from behringer just one balance Digital to the deqx which gives me already 3 free inputs ready to use on deqx itself and also still having one spare inputs on behringer (XLR digital)Secondly I think that higher sampling rate is better for playback like some expensive audio companies already producing equipments in the higher sampling rate like Teac- Esoteric, Meridian ….And now when deqx can handle 96Khz digital why not use it at least to try it if it works. I have found it better as I mentioned before it could be just me but remember twist222 came with the same observation as me. And also I have find that SACD disc has got really low inputs in db the same apply for turntable on behringer analog inputs is possibilities to manually increase the gain so that is a another reason for me to use it. There is more in this regards and that is if SACD or turntable is better going to directly to deqx but with mine speakers with efficiency of 87 db and my amps having just 27 watts it is better to go this way at least for now until the new speakers being build. Headphone input is another bonus not the best quality but reasonable.
Hi terry
Regarding to your question about Behringer .I can’t give you a lot of technical detail maybe Twist222 would be better to answer that in technical terms. I can just mention that I have find B2496 to be very useful in many ways. The first one is I have turntable,CDplayer,SACD(universal) DVD also intending to buy HDD –CD recorder and as you see I have no enough inputs on the DEQX.What I’m doing now is having SACD,CD player and DVD video going to the beringer (analog,digital,optical) than from behringer just one balance Digital to the deqx which gives me already 3 free inputs ready to use on deqx itself and also still having one spare inputs on behringer (XLR digital)Secondly I think that higher sampling rate is better for playback like some expensive audio companies already producing equipments in the higher sampling rate like Teac- Esoteric, Meridian ….And now when deqx can handle 96Khz digital why not use it at least to try it if it works. I have found it better as I mentioned before it could be just me but remember twist222 came with the same observation as me. And also I have find that SACD disc has got really low inputs in db the same apply for turntable on behringer analog inputs is possibilities to manually increase the gain so that is a another reason for me to use it. There is more in this regards and that is if SACD or turntable is better going to directly to deqx but with mine speakers with efficiency of 87 db and my amps having just 27 watts it is better to go this way at least for now until the new speakers being build. Headphone input is another bonus not the best quality but reasonable.
obiwan
Hi obiwan
Thanks I just have to mention that it is not currently right as I’m having some trouble with DEQX waiting to be solved also those speakers are just a pain!!!!!Can’t wait to build the new pair as it should be really good recording some knowledge of people who used the tweeter and similar midbass drivers also the enclosure boxes are going to be really good design
Hi obiwan
Thanks I just have to mention that it is not currently right as I’m having some trouble with DEQX waiting to be solved also those speakers are just a pain!!!!!Can’t wait to build the new pair as it should be really good recording some knowledge of people who used the tweeter and similar midbass drivers also the enclosure boxes are going to be really good design
The Beringer that Jiri mentioned is (a) a digital sample rate converter (b) a DAC (c) ADC (d) headphone amp. I only use the sample rate converter to convert the digital output from the CDP from 16 bits at 41.1 to 24 bits at 96 khz. It will output at 44.1, 48, 88.2, and 96 in 16, 20, or 24 bits. To me the 96 24 sounds best going into the DEQX. Although the 88.2 is very close. My understanding is that if you feed the DEQX a 44.1 16 bit signal it ill convert to 24 bits but leave everything at at 44.1 The whole DEQX processing then runs at 44.1 khz because this is the sample rate of the incoming signal. I don't use any analog source and I couldn't bear the thought of not utilizing the new 96 DEQX software fully. I didn't think the Beringer would make any improvement. There not renowned for their high quality. But as it was only $260 I thought I would buy it just to see if upsampling worked on the DEQX. To my ears it was a definite improvement. I expect if you used the Esoteric G25U or some other fancy sample rate converter you would get greater benefits. I was considering this as a future step. But at the moment the Beringer cost me less than a set of interconnects and the improvement was more than I have ever achieved out of changing interconnects. Although before I try the G25U I will probably try a computer based CD Rom drive as a transport. I have only just been catching up on this one. Looks interesting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.