Personally I think the idea of speakers that lend themselves well or not well to DEQX is a bit of a misnomer. I think that was is really going on is whether the DEQX is worthwhile with a particular set of speakers or not. Its a lot of power and it isn't the least expensive piece of equipment so choosing a set of speakers that works well with the design goals of DEQX seems to make sense. What are those goals?
I think you want to look for a pair of speakers that you can comfortably measure with accuracy, because what good is all the digital hand waving if your measurements are flawed? MTMs, dipoles, line arrays, etc are a little tougher to measure than a more traditional 2-way, so keep that in mind when choosing a speaker. Second, I think you want to choose a set of speakers that uses (or with the help of DEQX can use) its drivers only in their pistonic range. Mac's pictured system is probably a very good example of such a system, with maybe the exception that ribbon tweeters don't technically move in a pistonic way.
I think you want to look for a pair of speakers that you can comfortably measure with accuracy, because what good is all the digital hand waving if your measurements are flawed? MTMs, dipoles, line arrays, etc are a little tougher to measure than a more traditional 2-way, so keep that in mind when choosing a speaker. Second, I think you want to choose a set of speakers that uses (or with the help of DEQX can use) its drivers only in their pistonic range. Mac's pictured system is probably a very good example of such a system, with maybe the exception that ribbon tweeters don't technically move in a pistonic way.
Hi All
Just reading and thinking about Joshk's reply. I guess that brings up the other issues of my post. What drivers and enclosure to use. Considering the price of the DEQX and the fact it relieves you of any crossover design problems it makes sense to use the best drivers possible - or does it? My investigation leads me to think the focal utopia and the seas excel are two of the best around with the peerless HDS not far behind but being much better value. One advantage of the peerless is that a guy here in Australia already has ready made cabinets for them available reliving me of getting them made. So what do people think would be the better choice? Also is it superior going for the transient perfect closed box or is the difference not all that marked? Would an MTM design be better or the straight MT? Is a ribbon worth the trouble of the extra capacitor or would the Hiquphon be as good?
Any views welcome
Bill
Just reading and thinking about Joshk's reply. I guess that brings up the other issues of my post. What drivers and enclosure to use. Considering the price of the DEQX and the fact it relieves you of any crossover design problems it makes sense to use the best drivers possible - or does it? My investigation leads me to think the focal utopia and the seas excel are two of the best around with the peerless HDS not far behind but being much better value. One advantage of the peerless is that a guy here in Australia already has ready made cabinets for them available reliving me of getting them made. So what do people think would be the better choice? Also is it superior going for the transient perfect closed box or is the difference not all that marked? Would an MTM design be better or the straight MT? Is a ribbon worth the trouble of the extra capacitor or would the Hiquphon be as good?
Any views welcome
Bill
Bill Hobba said:
None of those get to my personal shortlist
MT, an MTM forces the XO to the tweeter too low (unless you are using a physically very small T and 2-3" Ms)
Yes
dave
Hi Planet 10
Your post certainly piqued my curiosity. What drivers would you recommend? I am also confused about your MTM comment. How does the configuration affect the crossover point? I had planed to crossover fairly low anyway - about 1.2 k.
Thanks
Bill
Your post certainly piqued my curiosity. What drivers would you recommend? I am also confused about your MTM comment. How does the configuration affect the crossover point? I had planed to crossover fairly low anyway - about 1.2 k.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba said:
I'm a firm believer that the best midrange is a "full-range". The mid that 1st comes to mind is Fostex FE168eSigma ... with the budget involved F120A perhaps. Jordan JX92 or JX53. Maybe CSS WR125 (a real bargin that one)
The spacing of the centres of the 2 M drivers determines a maximum XO frequency before comb filtering becomes a problem. I don't like any crossovers in the 300-5k range (preferably even further out than that), which pretty much rules out MTMs
dave
Hi Again Planet 10.
Interesting comment. In that case do you think a manger driver would be a good choice? At $1000 a driver not cheap but then again neither is the DEQX. It would eliminate an extra amp. My concern is the enclosures I have read about for that driver all have exoteric things like lead lining.
Thanks
Bill
Interesting comment. In that case do you think a manger driver would be a good choice? At $1000 a driver not cheap but then again neither is the DEQX. It would eliminate an extra amp. My concern is the enclosures I have read about for that driver all have exoteric things like lead lining.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba said:
By all reports the manger should work well... Overkill uses this driver and modified DEQX (analog supplies added & a better case -- at least this is what the OK told me when he phoned me out of the blue). The few reports that have come thru seem quite positive (althou i find it onscenely expensive)
The only implementation i've heard of the manger was just awful -- but i don't think it was the driver's fault.
dave
Hi Planet 10
While researching the DEQX I came across the overkill and is where I learnt of the manger drivers. It is ludicrously expensive - overkill in more ways than one. I seriously doubt the performance it has above say a DEQX equalized Orion or other well respected high end design warrants the cost. But that is for those who can afford that sort of outlay to decide - way outside my price range. If you are say Bill Gates and like its sound you might say - what the heck. Do you think it would be worthwhile starting another thread on the manger?
Thanks
Bill
While researching the DEQX I came across the overkill and is where I learnt of the manger drivers. It is ludicrously expensive - overkill in more ways than one. I seriously doubt the performance it has above say a DEQX equalized Orion or other well respected high end design warrants the cost. But that is for those who can afford that sort of outlay to decide - way outside my price range. If you are say Bill Gates and like its sound you might say - what the heck. Do you think it would be worthwhile starting another thread on the manger?
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba said:
I'm pretty sure there are already a couple manger threads... you might want to survey those 1st.
dave
for those considering a DEQX, I'd suggest looking into a Rane RPM 26Z.
you get the functionality of a DCX and DEQ plus some with arguably better algorithms and sound, along with an integrated 6-ch volume control. you get digital and analog inputs, and the software is great. street price in the US is around $800.
-Robert
you get the functionality of a DCX and DEQ plus some with arguably better algorithms and sound, along with an integrated 6-ch volume control. you get digital and analog inputs, and the software is great. street price in the US is around $800.
-Robert
Crossing Over with the DEQX
Some of the previous responses have expressed preferences for specific drivers and suggesting the avoidance of specific frequency ranges for a crossover. The DEQX (or any other active crossover) can not correct all of the inherent sound characteristics of a driver but clearly, lower distortion drivers (Seas Excels as measured by Dr. Linkwitz come to mind) would yield superior results.
While full range drivers have their place, with the DEQX you have the ability to correct for phase/time/amplitude/room imperfections so you can achieve the best possible results for a speaker with a crossover. With the DEQX you no longer have to accept subpar performance across part of the frequency band just to satisfy individual bias. But rather with the choice of drivers you can achieve optimal performance without limitations.
Jim
Some of the previous responses have expressed preferences for specific drivers and suggesting the avoidance of specific frequency ranges for a crossover. The DEQX (or any other active crossover) can not correct all of the inherent sound characteristics of a driver but clearly, lower distortion drivers (Seas Excels as measured by Dr. Linkwitz come to mind) would yield superior results.
While full range drivers have their place, with the DEQX you have the ability to correct for phase/time/amplitude/room imperfections so you can achieve the best possible results for a speaker with a crossover. With the DEQX you no longer have to accept subpar performance across part of the frequency band just to satisfy individual bias. But rather with the choice of drivers you can achieve optimal performance without limitations.
Jim
This is a great thread. My understanding of running deqx with a pair of speakers is that you run the output of the deqx directly to the amps and then to the drivers. Without a normal passive crossover I'm wondering if it's possible to address factors like off axis response and baffle diffraction effects. Are these mostly things that are dealt with during the physical design? Are there any other problems, maybe concerning impedence, that can't be addressed using a deqx as a crossover? Thanks for your patience 😉
DEQX advertisements show impressively flat frequency response is practical for loudspeakers with active filtering. But, recording engineers favor very nonlinear monitors (Google "John Leckie" or "Steve Hoffman"). And, these same pros believe recordings sound best on those original speakers.
It seems the best use for active filters ought to be recreating the frequency response curve of the original studio monitors for your favorite recordings?
It seems the best use for active filters ought to be recreating the frequency response curve of the original studio monitors for your favorite recordings?
Hi Vintage Kirk
I think you have a point. Although I do not know if it is the best use. DEQX allows you to store individual equalizations for each CD you play. Trouble is how do you know what is the best equalization for the particular CD unless the producer publishes it? Your own preference? Maybe if devices like DEQX become popular you can find this sort of information for CD's.
Thanks
Bill
I think you have a point. Although I do not know if it is the best use. DEQX allows you to store individual equalizations for each CD you play. Trouble is how do you know what is the best equalization for the particular CD unless the producer publishes it? Your own preference? Maybe if devices like DEQX become popular you can find this sort of information for CD's.
Thanks
Bill
What you are doing is the same as car audio installers have been doing for years on SQ installs. The flexablity of your crossover can overcome many of the problems that seem to come with higher end drivers. The drivers you had in mind to begin with sound like great ideas. You should also consider the fact that you can use high order slopes without their inhearent problem you find in passive versions. This will alow you to use a larger midbass and should be able to push your tweet lower.
My point is that what I've been reading implies playback on a perfectly flat loudspeaker isn't optimum ... unless the mix was done with similarly flat equipment.
Books now note the typeface they're printed with, I think the studio monitors used mixing a recording are far more important...
Anyway, active filtering certainly presents lots of possibilities. Enjoy.
Books now note the typeface they're printed with, I think the studio monitors used mixing a recording are far more important...
Anyway, active filtering certainly presents lots of possibilities. Enjoy.
Almost all recordings are mixed and mastered on studio monitors. These monitors have flat frequency response from at least 60hz to 20khz +/- 1-2db. Mastering studios usualy have flat response from 20hz to 20khz +/- mabey 1db.
Hi Guys
Thanks for all the great info. After searching around on the internet and thinking about it a bit I have some tentative (and I do mean tentative) drivers in mind. I am thinking of a Seas 10inch W26FX001 in .5 Q closed box crossed over around 600hz, a Accuton C44-8 midrange crossed over around 3k and a Cantus G2Si driven via a 25uf solen
I know all speakers are a compromise but in choosing the above I decided on the C44-8 over the C79-6 because of the woofers fantastic distortion (<.5%) out to 1K. The distortion of the C79-6 was only marginally better if at all and increased above that around 3k - my anticipated crossover. Also the C44-8 looks as though it may not require a separate enclosure. Do others think the C79-6 may be a better choice? Should the midrange and tweeter be put in a small enclosure?
I also choose the cantus over the raven because I could not find any information indicating the raven was audibly superior. I have been in contact with a guy from WAR audio here in Australia who has done a lot of work on the DEQX who claims the raven is in a different league. I am thinking of getting him to actually build the speakers or I may do it myself - I have not decided yet although I am tending towards getting him to do it. So I guess another possibility is the W26FX001 crossed over around 300hz, the C79-6 crossed over around 2.5 k (to avoid the rise in distortion around 3K) and a Raven R1.
Any comments and suggestions most welcome
Thanks
Bill
Thanks for all the great info. After searching around on the internet and thinking about it a bit I have some tentative (and I do mean tentative) drivers in mind. I am thinking of a Seas 10inch W26FX001 in .5 Q closed box crossed over around 600hz, a Accuton C44-8 midrange crossed over around 3k and a Cantus G2Si driven via a 25uf solen
I know all speakers are a compromise but in choosing the above I decided on the C44-8 over the C79-6 because of the woofers fantastic distortion (<.5%) out to 1K. The distortion of the C79-6 was only marginally better if at all and increased above that around 3k - my anticipated crossover. Also the C44-8 looks as though it may not require a separate enclosure. Do others think the C79-6 may be a better choice? Should the midrange and tweeter be put in a small enclosure?
I also choose the cantus over the raven because I could not find any information indicating the raven was audibly superior. I have been in contact with a guy from WAR audio here in Australia who has done a lot of work on the DEQX who claims the raven is in a different league. I am thinking of getting him to actually build the speakers or I may do it myself - I have not decided yet although I am tending towards getting him to do it. So I guess another possibility is the W26FX001 crossed over around 300hz, the C79-6 crossed over around 2.5 k (to avoid the rise in distortion around 3K) and a Raven R1.
Any comments and suggestions most welcome
Thanks
Bill
Well, maybe some studios have flatline monitors today.
But to quote Steve Hoffman: http://www.netassoc.net/dougspage/Hoffman_TAS.htm
"(Tannoy) Windsors were the monitors in the old Olympic Studios in England. Everything was mixed on them -- the Stones, Rod Stewart, the Who, Hendrix. And when you listen to those recordings through these speakers you go, "Oh my God! I get it!" Hendrix on other speakers may sound a little off, but on the Tannoys, he's perfect. Try "Jumpin' Jack Flash," and you can actually hear what the mixer was striving for. . ."
and that was after he describes the Tannoy's deficiencies.
For everyone interested in music made before last week, flat's just a starting point.
But to quote Steve Hoffman: http://www.netassoc.net/dougspage/Hoffman_TAS.htm
"(Tannoy) Windsors were the monitors in the old Olympic Studios in England. Everything was mixed on them -- the Stones, Rod Stewart, the Who, Hendrix. And when you listen to those recordings through these speakers you go, "Oh my God! I get it!" Hendrix on other speakers may sound a little off, but on the Tannoys, he's perfect. Try "Jumpin' Jack Flash," and you can actually hear what the mixer was striving for. . ."
and that was after he describes the Tannoy's deficiencies.
For everyone interested in music made before last week, flat's just a starting point.
DEQX
I am interested in DEQX calibration system too. I think that any of loud speakers can make high quality sound if you use DEQX technology. I was surprised that DEQX can fix phase error and frequency response. Oh my goodness! (Is that true?)This device is a revolution for us to love that making our own audio systems sound real music(real sound). Sorry about my strange English.
I am interested in DEQX calibration system too. I think that any of loud speakers can make high quality sound if you use DEQX technology. I was surprised that DEQX can fix phase error and frequency response. Oh my goodness! (Is that true?)This device is a revolution for us to love that making our own audio systems sound real music(real sound). Sorry about my strange English.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.