It appears this is the best product of its kind available on the market at this time (please correct me if I am wrong).
Has anyone had enough experience with it and empirical evidence confirmed with measurements that it is possible to achieve relatively easily a flat and uniform off axes response across entire spectrum, including crossover regions, or it is still a very hard task that requires lots of prototyping?
By reading description of DEQX capabilities it seems it is a child’s play to get speakers behaves uniformly, but is there any truth in it?
Has anyone had enough experience with it and empirical evidence confirmed with measurements that it is possible to achieve relatively easily a flat and uniform off axes response across entire spectrum, including crossover regions, or it is still a very hard task that requires lots of prototyping?
By reading description of DEQX capabilities it seems it is a child’s play to get speakers behaves uniformly, but is there any truth in it?
I haven't used the DEQX, but a number of other active crossovers. "Child splay" would be a vast under estimate, IMO. Crossovers always take work and skill, no matter the technology.
That said, something like this will get you there faster than just about anything else.
That said, something like this will get you there faster than just about anything else.
I have used a DEQX preamplifier version calibration processor for more than 6 years so I'll try to address your question. I use my system with my line arrays.
You can read all of the features--three-way active crossover, corrects phase, amplitude, and time across the band, full band equalization, etc. and capabilities on the DEQX website so I will not repeat those factors. Essentially, a DEQX processor is foremost a measurement system and it comes with a calibrated microphone. Your computer controls the DEQX software during this process. The calibration process begins with a measurement of each 'way' within the speaker. I generally use on axis measurements as my drivers are selected for smooth off axis performance.
Your ultimate results depend on your ability to achieve good measurements of your speaker. My best results have started with outdoor measurements as I make most line array measurements at 2 meters (6 feet) distance versus the usual one meter distance. Outdoor or measurements in a large room yield better (near anechoic chamber) results.
You follow the procedure in the DEQX software to set-up specific crossover filters with slopes and frequency cross points as you select. It is a matter of using a few mouse clicks to 'design' the filters. Once you establish the 'filter design' you can run another measurement to ascertain the calibration you've achieved. Of course your results will be virtually perfect if you measure it within the same environment as the original measurements. You'll be impressed with the plots that you can yield with this system. You can download three different designs into the processor and then select them later in your room environment. Once you are satisified with the results, you can download the filter design(s) into the DEQX processor and disconnect your computer from it.
When you place your speakers in the actual listening room, you can do another measurement and see the effects that your room has on their performance. (Of course you have to reconnect the computer for additional measurements.) Then the DEQX procedure permits you to do a room correction at your listening position so that you can mitigate room imperfections. I use the room correction to mainly reduce any room mode effects. You likely would not try to EQ every peak or valley but you get the idea that you can positively adapt the speaker system to your actual room. Your then download your room corrected parameters and you are done.
Bottom line is that the DEQX process depends on making a good set of initial measurements. It rewards you with the ultimate capability of your speakers.
You can read all of the features--three-way active crossover, corrects phase, amplitude, and time across the band, full band equalization, etc. and capabilities on the DEQX website so I will not repeat those factors. Essentially, a DEQX processor is foremost a measurement system and it comes with a calibrated microphone. Your computer controls the DEQX software during this process. The calibration process begins with a measurement of each 'way' within the speaker. I generally use on axis measurements as my drivers are selected for smooth off axis performance.
Your ultimate results depend on your ability to achieve good measurements of your speaker. My best results have started with outdoor measurements as I make most line array measurements at 2 meters (6 feet) distance versus the usual one meter distance. Outdoor or measurements in a large room yield better (near anechoic chamber) results.
You follow the procedure in the DEQX software to set-up specific crossover filters with slopes and frequency cross points as you select. It is a matter of using a few mouse clicks to 'design' the filters. Once you establish the 'filter design' you can run another measurement to ascertain the calibration you've achieved. Of course your results will be virtually perfect if you measure it within the same environment as the original measurements. You'll be impressed with the plots that you can yield with this system. You can download three different designs into the processor and then select them later in your room environment. Once you are satisified with the results, you can download the filter design(s) into the DEQX processor and disconnect your computer from it.
When you place your speakers in the actual listening room, you can do another measurement and see the effects that your room has on their performance. (Of course you have to reconnect the computer for additional measurements.) Then the DEQX procedure permits you to do a room correction at your listening position so that you can mitigate room imperfections. I use the room correction to mainly reduce any room mode effects. You likely would not try to EQ every peak or valley but you get the idea that you can positively adapt the speaker system to your actual room. Your then download your room corrected parameters and you are done.
Bottom line is that the DEQX process depends on making a good set of initial measurements. It rewards you with the ultimate capability of your speakers.
Last edited:
In my opinion it's like leraning how to play guitar.
I can let you play a simple song in just a moment.
But if you want to play like Pat Metheny you realy have to study....
Yes you can get a very satifying sound in just a few hours time with DEQX, but to get the most out of your loudspeaker units you just have to know what you're doing....
Please take a look at my latest post at: Required viewing! Awesome videos from DEQX explaining how the HDP-3 and HDP-Express can correct your speakers androom - Blog - Acoustic Frontiers
Best regards,
Rudo
I can let you play a simple song in just a moment.
But if you want to play like Pat Metheny you realy have to study....
Yes you can get a very satifying sound in just a few hours time with DEQX, but to get the most out of your loudspeaker units you just have to know what you're doing....
Please take a look at my latest post at: Required viewing! Awesome videos from DEQX explaining how the HDP-3 and HDP-Express can correct your speakers androom - Blog - Acoustic Frontiers
Best regards,
Rudo
Thank you all for responses.
I have seen the videos linked, but I am still not clear on DEQX capabilities.
As far as off axis response goes, how do you solve this without actually doing in room measurements and correction at listening position? I get the part with on axis measurements simulating anechoic chamber. But with the room in equation at listening position there are no ways you can get off axis response uniform, only equalized response in specific position in the room, what does absolutely nothing for the objective of achieving uniform off axis response.
Correct me if I am wrong, but DEQX cannot not help you if you want to build speakers that measure uniformly well off axis? The process does not call for taking a series of measurements at different degrees off axis, with anechoic chamber simulated, and deriving appropriate parameters at cross-over points that would provide balance between good on axis and off axis response, does it? All you can get is good response at single listening position in your room, right?
I have seen the videos linked, but I am still not clear on DEQX capabilities.
As far as off axis response goes, how do you solve this without actually doing in room measurements and correction at listening position? I get the part with on axis measurements simulating anechoic chamber. But with the room in equation at listening position there are no ways you can get off axis response uniform, only equalized response in specific position in the room, what does absolutely nothing for the objective of achieving uniform off axis response.
Correct me if I am wrong, but DEQX cannot not help you if you want to build speakers that measure uniformly well off axis? The process does not call for taking a series of measurements at different degrees off axis, with anechoic chamber simulated, and deriving appropriate parameters at cross-over points that would provide balance between good on axis and off axis response, does it? All you can get is good response at single listening position in your room, right?
firstly, I back up rudo's 'warning', it is not really plug and play. To get the best you need to know it and your system well.
does not mean it won't be an improvement first up either, but equally not to give the idea it is a piece of **** to get fantastic results. (and they can be)
If I have it wrong let me know, but the answer to what I think is your question is 'no'. It is not like an advanced audessy but used for mains, ie no you don't take a series of measurements at different off axes and it then computes some universal filter.
Was that what you were asking?
Even your last sentence shows you don't quite 'have it'. (not a criticism)
Re the off axis smooth response first, well you'd go about it in the same way you'd normally go about achieving that I guess (have not pursued that personally, so a bit of guesswork here from me). Just measure the drivers at these differing degrees (use rew for stuff like that, not deqx. It's not that it cannot, but it is not set up for ease of use that way)
Then as always, work out the points where the directivities match, set your filters and verify. adjust accordingly.
It does not have any 'magic button' called 'best sound possible'. You can go far with generic srossover points, but that is when experience and familiarity with your own system and tastes can start to make a difference.
That's enough for now, I may as well make sure I have got your question rioght before any more eh?
does not mean it won't be an improvement first up either, but equally not to give the idea it is a piece of **** to get fantastic results. (and they can be)
If I have it wrong let me know, but the answer to what I think is your question is 'no'. It is not like an advanced audessy but used for mains, ie no you don't take a series of measurements at different off axes and it then computes some universal filter.
Was that what you were asking?
Even your last sentence shows you don't quite 'have it'. (not a criticism)
Re the off axis smooth response first, well you'd go about it in the same way you'd normally go about achieving that I guess (have not pursued that personally, so a bit of guesswork here from me). Just measure the drivers at these differing degrees (use rew for stuff like that, not deqx. It's not that it cannot, but it is not set up for ease of use that way)
Then as always, work out the points where the directivities match, set your filters and verify. adjust accordingly.
It does not have any 'magic button' called 'best sound possible'. You can go far with generic srossover points, but that is when experience and familiarity with your own system and tastes can start to make a difference.
That's enough for now, I may as well make sure I have got your question rioght before any more eh?
Thanks Terry,
That pretty much answers my question, and the question was indeed “is there a magic button that will take all on and off axis measurements at various degrees and compute the best possible crossover that provides the best possible on and off axis response”.
Then we take such well balanced speaker into the room and do EQ if desired to take care of detrimental influence of the room.
Reason I am asking this is that I do not see any cost benefit of DIY route if you are after top performing speakers, you really have to go through a lot of iterations till you reach good result, and that costs time and money.
I thought that DEQX may be a way to achieve good design through a less timely and costly process, but apparently that is not the case.
That pretty much answers my question, and the question was indeed “is there a magic button that will take all on and off axis measurements at various degrees and compute the best possible crossover that provides the best possible on and off axis response”.
Then we take such well balanced speaker into the room and do EQ if desired to take care of detrimental influence of the room.
Reason I am asking this is that I do not see any cost benefit of DIY route if you are after top performing speakers, you really have to go through a lot of iterations till you reach good result, and that costs time and money.
I thought that DEQX may be a way to achieve good design through a less timely and costly process, but apparently that is not the case.
Just don't be afraid on differences on and off axis.
With the use of steep filterslopes (e.g. 96 dB/oct as I'm using) the tweeter can begin much earlier on the frequency scale and the midrange stops at the crossover frequency, so the soundstage is very homogeniuous. In fact the sweetspot is quite huge compared to the traditional passive crossovers speakers....
Nevertheless always use good speakerunits, as you will reach the limits of the units.
With the use of steep filterslopes (e.g. 96 dB/oct as I'm using) the tweeter can begin much earlier on the frequency scale and the midrange stops at the crossover frequency, so the soundstage is very homogeniuous. In fact the sweetspot is quite huge compared to the traditional passive crossovers speakers....
Nevertheless always use good speakerunits, as you will reach the limits of the units.
Hi SashaV,
I made a measurement study on the DEQX a while ago, which you might find interesting.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...eqx-system-loudspeaker-measurement-study.html
In order to get the most out of the DEQX you must have some experience in the concepts of building loudspeakers . There is no magic button in it, but it has a simple and easy user interface to work with.
Regards
/Goran
I made a measurement study on the DEQX a while ago, which you might find interesting.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...eqx-system-loudspeaker-measurement-study.html
In order to get the most out of the DEQX you must have some experience in the concepts of building loudspeakers . There is no magic button in it, but it has a simple and easy user interface to work with.
Regards
/Goran
Nice, however I do not see any benefit in using a passive crossover....
See my little You tube movie about my active/passive show two years ago.
The difference between the active and passive version was great.
That is the active sounded better ;-)
active passive with DEQX, English version - YouTube
See my little You tube movie about my active/passive show two years ago.
The difference between the active and passive version was great.
That is the active sounded better ;-)
active passive with DEQX, English version - YouTube
Thanks Goran,
That was very informative reading, and it covers exactly my questions, for example the effects of 0 degrees correction filter on off-axis response at different degrees (the overcompensation you have demonstrated).
I am not surprised your subjective finding was that 0 degrees correction filter was the worst and you chose one of those derived from off-axis measurements.
My question was really if there was now some kind of summation that would result in best compromise correction filter that would take a bit from on-axis and improve off-axis, resulting in best possible power response and what should be in theory (and usually in practice) subjectively the best result.
Obviously you arrived to it by listening.
What happened with final design in the end?
Since it seems to be workable, I have another question to all.
Based on your experience, can you significantly improve a passive (or even analog active) speakers design, by replacing original cross-over with DEQX and amps of choice?
I am trying to get a feel for benefits DEQX brings (or does not). If you take for example a very good pair of passive 3 way speakers, rip cross-over out and turn them into active using DEQX and amps of your choice, will it result in better performance?
That was very informative reading, and it covers exactly my questions, for example the effects of 0 degrees correction filter on off-axis response at different degrees (the overcompensation you have demonstrated).
I am not surprised your subjective finding was that 0 degrees correction filter was the worst and you chose one of those derived from off-axis measurements.
My question was really if there was now some kind of summation that would result in best compromise correction filter that would take a bit from on-axis and improve off-axis, resulting in best possible power response and what should be in theory (and usually in practice) subjectively the best result.
Obviously you arrived to it by listening.
What happened with final design in the end?
Since it seems to be workable, I have another question to all.
Based on your experience, can you significantly improve a passive (or even analog active) speakers design, by replacing original cross-over with DEQX and amps of choice?
I am trying to get a feel for benefits DEQX brings (or does not). If you take for example a very good pair of passive 3 way speakers, rip cross-over out and turn them into active using DEQX and amps of your choice, will it result in better performance?
Hi Rudo,
I placed my post before seeing the last one from you, so you already did it.
Do you have sets of measurements of MA PL300 in passive and active version that would substantiate better performance?
I placed my post before seeing the last one from you, so you already did it.
Do you have sets of measurements of MA PL300 in passive and active version that would substantiate better performance?
You can read my showreport (in English) at:
http://www.audiosense.nl/pdf/AudioSense Actief Passief showreport.pdf
I do not understand your question: Do you have sets of measurements of MA PL300 in passive and active version that would substantiate better performance?
I measured the units of the MA PL300 with the DEQX software to build a x-over. But the better soundquality is not to view in just a graph.
http://www.audiosense.nl/pdf/AudioSense Actief Passief showreport.pdf
I do not understand your question: Do you have sets of measurements of MA PL300 in passive and active version that would substantiate better performance?
I measured the units of the MA PL300 with the DEQX software to build a x-over. But the better soundquality is not to view in just a graph.
Hi Rudo,
I was referring to measurements of speakers with passive cross-over in place and with active one that show for example on-axis and several off-axis measurements, possibly even distortion measurements. I found in almost every case that good set of measurements correspond to subjectively good sound.
I was referring to measurements of speakers with passive cross-over in place and with active one that show for example on-axis and several off-axis measurements, possibly even distortion measurements. I found in almost every case that good set of measurements correspond to subjectively good sound.
Hi sash
yep always good to clear things up. I love the deqx (have two in my system) BUT I always strenuously make sure people do not fall into the trap of thinking it is 'just a more advanced audessy'...meaning you 'press the button'.
Gornir did a very good job with his thread, did not feel the need to contribute it was that good!
You have now touched on another pet interest of mine.
There seems to be this idea floating around that active murders passive. It is not quite my view. A few caveats along the way, it has to be a well designed passive for a start!! and that a) I am no expert at all and b) this conclusion was based on a very limited test.
After a LOT of rigmarole and hassle! (tons of switches and wires into the box blah blah) I managed to rig up a pair of small (but well designed) little bookshelves, such that I could go from passive crossover in play or fully active via the deqx.
W/out boring you with details you need to know that you can set it up with 'varying degrees of deqxness'..you can have four different setups and flick between them with the remote.
Anyway, just going from (well designed) passive to straight bog standard boring old everyday active (straight normal slopes at the same points)...well I and another were very hard pressed to hear a difference. They were only small two ways, so not a lot of bass to handle or fix (RC stuff) but still, a valid test in it's own way.
Flick to the 'full tricks and whistles' profile and then yes, clear improvement.
But here is another 'lesson' from that exercise. I said these were cheap but well designed bookshelves...it turned a $1000 pair of booksheves into a $6000 pair of bookshelves.
That's good, but take into account the cost of the deqx etc, you would have been better off by just buying the better quality bookshelves in the first place!
make sense?
So a few factors to juggle, a lot of it common sense when you think about it.
So from my perspective (again, limited testing...but at least I did the test) yes, you CAN achieve significant improvements going deqx active and that I (personally) would not do it UNLESS it was deqx active. Again, given you like and enjoy the speakers to be used (ie well designed and sorted passively).
yep always good to clear things up. I love the deqx (have two in my system) BUT I always strenuously make sure people do not fall into the trap of thinking it is 'just a more advanced audessy'...meaning you 'press the button'.
Gornir did a very good job with his thread, did not feel the need to contribute it was that good!
You have now touched on another pet interest of mine.
There seems to be this idea floating around that active murders passive. It is not quite my view. A few caveats along the way, it has to be a well designed passive for a start!! and that a) I am no expert at all and b) this conclusion was based on a very limited test.
After a LOT of rigmarole and hassle! (tons of switches and wires into the box blah blah) I managed to rig up a pair of small (but well designed) little bookshelves, such that I could go from passive crossover in play or fully active via the deqx.
W/out boring you with details you need to know that you can set it up with 'varying degrees of deqxness'..you can have four different setups and flick between them with the remote.
Anyway, just going from (well designed) passive to straight bog standard boring old everyday active (straight normal slopes at the same points)...well I and another were very hard pressed to hear a difference. They were only small two ways, so not a lot of bass to handle or fix (RC stuff) but still, a valid test in it's own way.
Flick to the 'full tricks and whistles' profile and then yes, clear improvement.
But here is another 'lesson' from that exercise. I said these were cheap but well designed bookshelves...it turned a $1000 pair of booksheves into a $6000 pair of bookshelves.
That's good, but take into account the cost of the deqx etc, you would have been better off by just buying the better quality bookshelves in the first place!
make sense?
So a few factors to juggle, a lot of it common sense when you think about it.
So from my perspective (again, limited testing...but at least I did the test) yes, you CAN achieve significant improvements going deqx active and that I (personally) would not do it UNLESS it was deqx active. Again, given you like and enjoy the speakers to be used (ie well designed and sorted passively).
I am sorry, I do not have such....
Only a group delay picture... from just the active one.
Hi Rudo,
I have seen your video on Youtube before and it was interesting. 🙂
I don’t agree with you that an active solution is always better. A well designed passive system can in my opinion sound as good as an active one. My current reference loudspeaker is a passive one. I also tried and used it in an active version, but I preferred the passive. The active version did sound very good, but I think the passive version sounded more musical.
One thing I really think is far better with an active solution is that you don’t need resistors for padding down the tweeter. I think padding resistors in series with the tweeter degrades the sound, especially on ribbons and even though you use high quality resistors.
I also think that for the DEQX to perform as its best, you need well behaved drivers with a smooth frequency response with no or small cone break-ups etc. Even though the DEQX supports very high cross-over slopes it sounds best when used with slopes around 48-60db. This is also the recommended slopes by the DEQX team. If you use e.g. metal cone drivers with nasty cone break-ups you need much higher cross-over slopes in the DEQX, which by it self degrades the sound.
Another great function in the active DEQX solution is that you can use room correction and/or EQ at the lower frequencies <150Hz. You can obviously do the same for a passive speaker connected to the DEQX.
I have seen your video on Youtube before and it was interesting. 🙂
I don’t agree with you that an active solution is always better. A well designed passive system can in my opinion sound as good as an active one. My current reference loudspeaker is a passive one. I also tried and used it in an active version, but I preferred the passive. The active version did sound very good, but I think the passive version sounded more musical.
One thing I really think is far better with an active solution is that you don’t need resistors for padding down the tweeter. I think padding resistors in series with the tweeter degrades the sound, especially on ribbons and even though you use high quality resistors.
I also think that for the DEQX to perform as its best, you need well behaved drivers with a smooth frequency response with no or small cone break-ups etc. Even though the DEQX supports very high cross-over slopes it sounds best when used with slopes around 48-60db. This is also the recommended slopes by the DEQX team. If you use e.g. metal cone drivers with nasty cone break-ups you need much higher cross-over slopes in the DEQX, which by it self degrades the sound.
Another great function in the active DEQX solution is that you can use room correction and/or EQ at the lower frequencies <150Hz. You can obviously do the same for a passive speaker connected to the DEQX.
Hi SashaV,
No I haven’t saved that particular design (SU551-RS28F). It was just a test loudspeaker I did from drivers I had in stock and in between a new design (diyAudio - Search Results) re-using the same enclosure. I wanted to show that an active solution can be as hard to design as a passive one if you don’t apply some of the basic loudspeaker design rules when building an active speaker as building a passive one.
I would never use a DEQX correction filter based on the on-axis measurement. Depending on how the loudspeaker box and drivers behave together (baffle diffraction), I would use a correction filter based on a measurement done at 15-30 deg off-axis and at 2m meters distance or more, if possible. Otherwise you will over correct the on-axis response and it won’t sound as good as expected.
Yes, it’s possible, but it’s more likely that you get greater results with a less expensive loudspeaker. In most cases a high-end loudspeaker has undergone an extensive R&D before it’s released.
You must consider things like:
• Baffle diffraction
• Baffle step correction
• Each drivers frequency response behaviour including on and off-axis responses.
• Distortion parameters to know each drivers “comfort zone”.
• By removing the cross-over coils and it’s resistance for e.g. the woofers you change the drivers T/S parameters, which in turn might affect the enclosure volume and port tuning needs.
The DEQX doesn’t offer all the tools needed to answer all this questions if you want perfection. You would also need another measurement system tool to verify all of the above.
I don’t want to scare you off. The DEQX is a great tool and is easy to use. The learning curve is much smaller and forgiving than building a passive loudspeaker from scratch, but you do need to study and learn basic loudspeaker design concepts in order to get the most out of it.
If you don’t do it, it’s like shooting from the hip and hope that you hit the target. 😉
Regards
/Goran
No I haven’t saved that particular design (SU551-RS28F). It was just a test loudspeaker I did from drivers I had in stock and in between a new design (diyAudio - Search Results) re-using the same enclosure. I wanted to show that an active solution can be as hard to design as a passive one if you don’t apply some of the basic loudspeaker design rules when building an active speaker as building a passive one.
I would never use a DEQX correction filter based on the on-axis measurement. Depending on how the loudspeaker box and drivers behave together (baffle diffraction), I would use a correction filter based on a measurement done at 15-30 deg off-axis and at 2m meters distance or more, if possible. Otherwise you will over correct the on-axis response and it won’t sound as good as expected.
Yes, it’s possible, but it’s more likely that you get greater results with a less expensive loudspeaker. In most cases a high-end loudspeaker has undergone an extensive R&D before it’s released.
You must consider things like:
• Baffle diffraction
• Baffle step correction
• Each drivers frequency response behaviour including on and off-axis responses.
• Distortion parameters to know each drivers “comfort zone”.
• By removing the cross-over coils and it’s resistance for e.g. the woofers you change the drivers T/S parameters, which in turn might affect the enclosure volume and port tuning needs.
The DEQX doesn’t offer all the tools needed to answer all this questions if you want perfection. You would also need another measurement system tool to verify all of the above.
I don’t want to scare you off. The DEQX is a great tool and is easy to use. The learning curve is much smaller and forgiving than building a passive loudspeaker from scratch, but you do need to study and learn basic loudspeaker design concepts in order to get the most out of it.
If you don’t do it, it’s like shooting from the hip and hope that you hit the target. 😉
Regards
/Goran
Well, I only can speak from my own experience. During my pré-deqx period I modified and upgraded quite a few commercial speaker, e.g. a Celestion SL 600 from a good friend. He is still using this speaker with a lot of pleasure. For example I used better components in the crossover, amongst a much better capacitor. Well, using no capacitor at all in a DEQX based system is preferred, sounding still much better….
I converted several comercial speakersystems from to passive to active with DEQX, they all sounded much better.
But after all, it is a matter of taste.
I do not want to be rude, but the words ‘sounding more musical’ has no meaning to me…
With the DEQX software and measurement, you measure the total output, there is no need for extra baffle-step correction, as this correction is taken in.
With DEQX my musical taste has developped. Not listen to just a few cd’s, or even pieces of the cd, where everything in de soundstage lookes correct. Now I am enjoying the music as for the music. Something to wish for,for all people.
I think the topic starter has his answers, it was nice being here….
I converted several comercial speakersystems from to passive to active with DEQX, they all sounded much better.
But after all, it is a matter of taste.
I do not want to be rude, but the words ‘sounding more musical’ has no meaning to me…
With the DEQX software and measurement, you measure the total output, there is no need for extra baffle-step correction, as this correction is taken in.
With DEQX my musical taste has developped. Not listen to just a few cd’s, or even pieces of the cd, where everything in de soundstage lookes correct. Now I am enjoying the music as for the music. Something to wish for,for all people.
I think the topic starter has his answers, it was nice being here….
Hi Rudo,
Thanks for your input. I hope you didn’t misunderstand me, I love my DEQX system. As you say it’s a matter of taste and even though the DEQX most of the time sounds great it’s to my ears very neutral sounding, even when used as a plain pre-amp. That’s sometimes a good thing, but at the same time it can be a bit boring sometimes. That’s why I have two different system set-ups. The second system consist of a Primare pre-amp and a tube-amp. This system isn’t as neutral as the DEQX, but it sounds a bit more musical at times for me, depending on what kind of mood I’m in. “Musical is perhaps a cliché word, it should perhaps be more engaging and coloured sounding 😉
Obviously English isn’t my native language so it’s kind of hard for me to express in writing how I perceive the sound from the loudspeakers.
I think its great fun to build passive loudspeaker and I think it’s equally fun to build active loudspeakers with the DEQX. Since it’s a hobby for me, why not play in both worlds? 🙂 Some love horns, line arrays, planars or open baffles etc. I’m quite open-minded, if I hear music through them and enjoy it, they are good even though they perhaps not measure perfect etc.
Regarding the baffle step, it’s possible to choose from which frequency to start the correction if a full baffle step isn’t desired. The baffle step is always there, but it’s handled differently in the DEQX correction as you say, than in a passive loudspeaker cross-over.
By the way, I love the look of your 3-way Active-3 van AudioSense - YouTube I’m sure it sounds great. I have used the same midwoofer with my DEQX and it sounds great (if it is the 15w/4531G00). It would be nice to here them.
Regards
/Goran
Thanks for your input. I hope you didn’t misunderstand me, I love my DEQX system. As you say it’s a matter of taste and even though the DEQX most of the time sounds great it’s to my ears very neutral sounding, even when used as a plain pre-amp. That’s sometimes a good thing, but at the same time it can be a bit boring sometimes. That’s why I have two different system set-ups. The second system consist of a Primare pre-amp and a tube-amp. This system isn’t as neutral as the DEQX, but it sounds a bit more musical at times for me, depending on what kind of mood I’m in. “Musical is perhaps a cliché word, it should perhaps be more engaging and coloured sounding 😉
Obviously English isn’t my native language so it’s kind of hard for me to express in writing how I perceive the sound from the loudspeakers.
I think its great fun to build passive loudspeaker and I think it’s equally fun to build active loudspeakers with the DEQX. Since it’s a hobby for me, why not play in both worlds? 🙂 Some love horns, line arrays, planars or open baffles etc. I’m quite open-minded, if I hear music through them and enjoy it, they are good even though they perhaps not measure perfect etc.
Regarding the baffle step, it’s possible to choose from which frequency to start the correction if a full baffle step isn’t desired. The baffle step is always there, but it’s handled differently in the DEQX correction as you say, than in a passive loudspeaker cross-over.
By the way, I love the look of your 3-way Active-3 van AudioSense - YouTube I’m sure it sounds great. I have used the same midwoofer with my DEQX and it sounds great (if it is the 15w/4531G00). It would be nice to here them.
Regards
/Goran
- Status
- Not open for further replies.