nope , I reckon that is what the OP believes.
ask the OP his definition of "quality", Im sure he'll have an equally ridiculous solution to his pricing schemes. POV of from the bottom up comes to mind
Finally had the time to finish the set-up i wanted.
So it keeps on-axis vertically AND horizontally... on bearing swivel platform... dual plate amps + switch board... Speakon 8ch. for quick change of Driver's Cubes.
Will start with one cube, then will built one or two more.
So it keeps on-axis vertically AND horizontally... on bearing swivel platform... dual plate amps + switch board... Speakon 8ch. for quick change of Driver's Cubes.
Will start with one cube, then will built one or two more.
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.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
awesome!!
how will you level match the drivers? making sure the drivers all play at the same spl is VERY important. variation of 1db is enough to bias the results!
Id love to see a audax pr170mo midrange in the test. the best mid ive heard
how will you level match the drivers? making sure the drivers all play at the same spl is VERY important. variation of 1db is enough to bias the results!
Id love to see a audax pr170mo midrange in the test. the best mid ive heard
variation of 0.5dB is enough to bias the results.
My RTA + SPL calibrated mic will do it @ 0.1dB precision.
Everything will be carefully made.
as mentionned in pages earlier, the main goal will be to identify the drivers not to put one on the ''Best midrange'' throne.
That being said, depending on how the identification part goes, it might as well lead us to find statistics evidence that some drivers are prefered than others.
But it's too soon to tell.
... as said before: my gut feeling is people won't find it THAT easy to identify the drivers, in a blind, controlled environment.. EQed and SPL matched.
I really hope the first Cube has enough contrasty drivers to give participants a fighting chance. ...It should!
I really hope the first Cube has enough contrasty drivers to give participants a fighting chance. ...It should!
2016 DEQX HDP-4
Not sure where to post this but I think most DSP / active crossover users will be interested in this 2016 update:
I have spent the last couple of months testing and comparing a new DEQX HDP 4 with the USB in option.
Bottom line is that using the DEQX internal DAC's is no longer a compromise and the HDP-4 is genuinely a "one stop shop" solution to any front end DSP / DAC / A to D / Pre-amp and USB interface requirements.
I have ran extensive tests and comparisons with very high end external DAC's and USB to I2S converters and there is no doubt in my mind the DEQX is a fully fledged high end solution. Its totally silent in operation, runs cool and has performed flawlessly in all modes.
Of course it retains the superb FIR filters and Eq and continues to lead the DSP pack in loudspeaker management with a superbly musical performance and a great user interface.
Lastly I would add the customer service and back from Kim, Alan and the team are second to none.....How many MD's would come out of a club at 2am to answer a tech support call....!!!!
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
Not sure where to post this but I think most DSP / active crossover users will be interested in this 2016 update:
I have spent the last couple of months testing and comparing a new DEQX HDP 4 with the USB in option.
Bottom line is that using the DEQX internal DAC's is no longer a compromise and the HDP-4 is genuinely a "one stop shop" solution to any front end DSP / DAC / A to D / Pre-amp and USB interface requirements.
I have ran extensive tests and comparisons with very high end external DAC's and USB to I2S converters and there is no doubt in my mind the DEQX is a fully fledged high end solution. Its totally silent in operation, runs cool and has performed flawlessly in all modes.
Of course it retains the superb FIR filters and Eq and continues to lead the DSP pack in loudspeaker management with a superbly musical performance and a great user interface.
Lastly I would add the customer service and back from Kim, Alan and the team are second to none.....How many MD's would come out of a club at 2am to answer a tech support call....!!!!
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
Hope this helps and all the best
Derek.
Try a Lynx E22/E44 (or Hilo Reference) Derek and compare it to DEXQ HDP 4, and I believe you will find that there's still a way to go.
Bjorn,
Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe the HDP-4 and Lynx products you are referring to have very different functionalities.
BTW, I use Acourate and Lynx Hilo and perform many of the functionalities the HDP-4 does, but I do need Acourate software in there to do so.
Could you please clarify?
Cheers
I was referring to sound quality, which was what Derek talked about.
I have tried DEQX HDP 4 and did a AB test. In IMO it doesn't rival a high-end DAC.
What DAC's did you compare with DEQX
Hi Bjorn,
Which DAC's did you compare the DEQX DAC's to?
Thanks
Derek.
Hi Bjorn,
Which DAC's did you compare the DEQX DAC's to?
Thanks
Derek.
Hi Derek,
Lynx Two-B, but the newer Lynx E22 and E44 are better, at least on paper. Two-B isn't sold anymore.
There are many other high quality sound cards/DACs (Metric Halo, DAD, etc) out there as well. However, my impression is that Lynx gives the best value for the money. Especially when choosing a PCIe card like E22/E44.
Lynx Two-B, but the newer Lynx E22 and E44 are better, at least on paper. Two-B isn't sold anymore.
There are many other high quality sound cards/DACs (Metric Halo, DAD, etc) out there as well. However, my impression is that Lynx gives the best value for the money. Especially when choosing a PCIe card like E22/E44.
Thanks Bjorn,
I have not been able to test sound card based DAC's as my set up is not compatible with them, but its interesting to hear your results.
I dont want to integrate a PC / software / soundcard into my set up.
I use various sources from PC music to AV reciever / Blu Ray / analog / XBox / Sky TV etc....
As the DEQX has 6 channels of DAC I have been comparing with 2 or 3 external stereo DAC's, also a 4 channel AKM 4495 DAC which is really great.
I keep coming back to the value for money....To equal or beat the HDP 4 with USB interface at £4,500 UK RRP, I would need to buy a lot of external boxes of high quality:
6 channels of DAC....Min £1,500 per stereo DAC
2 channel A to D ......Min £1,000
USB interface .....Min £500
Pre amp .....Min £1,000
Top of the range loudspeaker management DSP with FIR plus IIR plus speaker and room correction .......£4,000 min.
So approx £12,500 plus cables and power cords and rack space and hassle....
IMO the DEQX is stunning all round....Performance, value, flexibility, reliability and customer back up....
Cheers
D.
I have not been able to test sound card based DAC's as my set up is not compatible with them, but its interesting to hear your results.
I dont want to integrate a PC / software / soundcard into my set up.
I use various sources from PC music to AV reciever / Blu Ray / analog / XBox / Sky TV etc....
As the DEQX has 6 channels of DAC I have been comparing with 2 or 3 external stereo DAC's, also a 4 channel AKM 4495 DAC which is really great.
I keep coming back to the value for money....To equal or beat the HDP 4 with USB interface at £4,500 UK RRP, I would need to buy a lot of external boxes of high quality:
6 channels of DAC....Min £1,500 per stereo DAC
2 channel A to D ......Min £1,000
USB interface .....Min £500
Pre amp .....Min £1,000
Top of the range loudspeaker management DSP with FIR plus IIR plus speaker and room correction .......£4,000 min.
So approx £12,500 plus cables and power cords and rack space and hassle....
IMO the DEQX is stunning all round....Performance, value, flexibility, reliability and customer back up....
Cheers
D.
I have not heard the HDP-4, but I'm afraid I have a diferent opinion on the Lynx. I own a Lynx Hilo, which Lynx told me is the better sounding DAC they make and I think it's great but there are better sounding 2-channel options out there, even at that price.
The Hilo does allow for a 6-channel active system with good DAC capabilities, though, and that's the key for me. When you get to that point it becomes difficult to break down the sound contribution of the digital linear phase crossovers, digital room correction, DAC, and active nature of the system. It really becomes a system, so I can't comment much on the Hilo in isolation.
Yet others I've exchanged use it in 2-channel mode and have compared it to other DACs and reported the Hilo is good but not among the best. Some still choose it for it's ADC capabilities. Search for user dallasjustice, he has done some comparisons. Search at computeraudiophile.com.
Derek:
You only need Hypex DLCP to beat the DEQX HDP 4 in sound quality IMO. I don't regard the DLCP as top of the line either, but I think it's slightly better in sound quality than DEQX. The software is getting stable now, while we're still waiting on FIR filter. It cost a lot less than DEQX.
LweinskiH01:
You may be right. For the sake of matter; when I talk about sound quality I always refer to the lowest distortion and transparency. Not some kind of colouration that may sound nice in a certain system. Because if that's bar, there are basically no answers.
I admit I would be surprised if anything is more than microscopically more transparent (audible) than Lynx Hilo, but I can't know for sure. A blindtest with same level would be needed. The difference between the best DACs is so small, that I personally don't trust anything else.
You only need Hypex DLCP to beat the DEQX HDP 4 in sound quality IMO. I don't regard the DLCP as top of the line either, but I think it's slightly better in sound quality than DEQX. The software is getting stable now, while we're still waiting on FIR filter. It cost a lot less than DEQX.
LweinskiH01:
You may be right. For the sake of matter; when I talk about sound quality I always refer to the lowest distortion and transparency. Not some kind of colouration that may sound nice in a certain system. Because if that's bar, there are basically no answers.
I admit I would be surprised if anything is more than microscopically more transparent (audible) than Lynx Hilo, but I can't know for sure. A blindtest with same level would be needed. The difference between the best DACs is so small, that I personally don't trust anything else.
Last edited:
The sound difference between two different DACs is going to be so miniscule, relative to the differences between speakers/headphones, rooms, source material, etc. that it seems almost absurd to even discuss it, other than in their own dedicated threads - certainly not worthy of derailing a thread about midrange drivers. It would be nice if we could get back to the original topic in this thread and continue it.
For example, I'd be really interested in an experiment such as this: take a completed speaker design which is accepted generally to be excellent, which uses one type of a midrange such as the Morel MDM-55 and modify the speaker with another midrange [not just diffrent, but different type of driver even] such as the ScanSpeak Discovery 10F and do thorough blind listening comparisons with both objective measurements and extensive subjective comments from multiple listeners.
For example, I'd be really interested in an experiment such as this: take a completed speaker design which is accepted generally to be excellent, which uses one type of a midrange such as the Morel MDM-55 and modify the speaker with another midrange [not just diffrent, but different type of driver even] such as the ScanSpeak Discovery 10F and do thorough blind listening comparisons with both objective measurements and extensive subjective comments from multiple listeners.