Jump to content
IGNORED

Deqx?


Recommended Posts

A lot of people doing active bi-amping swear by it. Usually good reports.

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deqx owner here. Had the hdp-3, hdp-4 and now hdp-5. How can i help you ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

 

I'm wondering how much of a sound quality difference it will make, how much trouble it is to set up, etc.

 

Which one to get?

 

and... why you are a former owner, not a current one

 

I am using either a mac mini with iTunes Apple Lossless via WiFi to an Apple TV3, then a Cambridge DacMagic

or a Cal Audio CD player with PowerBoss (will likely soon replace with an Oppo Universal player)

 

Either way the Dacmagic feeds into a Sonic Frontiers Line One pre; Sunfire Cinema grand amp is bi-amping the Maggies 1.5QR

 

So, there is also the issue of maybe replacing something else in the chain first. And then there's MQA ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a current owner. I had the hdp-3 and hdp-4 and now i useing hdp-5. I like the "Deqx" sound if there is a such thing, and i like the things i does to. The hdp-5 is a pre amp, a Dac and a active xo, with the option of doing room correction aswell. it easy to setup and easy to controll aswell. It would even be a option to ad a subwoofer to the qr 1.5 if needed. I think you will find a better source solution then iTunes via Apple tv in this forum. if you go the Deqx way or a nother way wich include a DAC wich USB input, i would use jRiver, HQplayer or other such program, and go directly from Mac mini to DAC.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of a sound quality difference it will make, depends on what signal you plan to feed it, and what format you choose to output. Essentially, the ADC in the DEQX is just plain nasty. You do not want to feed it an analog signal. Send it a digital signal only. If you wish to use an analog source, consider an outboard ADC.

 

The DAC's in the DEQX aren't the best quality either, but this has less of an impact than the ADC's. Depending on the DAC you are using, there is a possibility that the DEQX is its equal, or might be better, or might be worse! In my case, it was definitely inferior to the DAC I was using (Playback Designs MPS-5), so inserting the DEQX in the signal chain resulted in a "you win some, you lose some" scenario. What you lose is all the sonic properties you get from a good DAC - things that are hard to quantify but easily heard.

 

What you gain are all the benefits of the DSP based speaker correction - and again, how much you will gain depends on the particulars of your system and room. For example, overall speaker correction and time alignment ALONE makes a massive difference - but you would gain less if your speakers are already linear and time coherent.

 

What you need to realize is that there are different sonic gains that come from a good DAC/source and from DSP correction. These two are quite different. In the former (which includes - usage of a good DAC, high quality source, attention to jitter suppression, MQA, high bit rate files, etc) you gain refinement, detail, tone quality, clarity, and dynamics. In the latter, you gain coherence, linearity, less distortion*, and soundstaging.

 

(* assuming you are running the steep filters the DEQX is capable of, and you are keeping your drivers away from producing frequencies for which it was not designed for).

 

As for your system, I don't know how to measure a pair of Maggies, or how they measure in the standard form. However, I do have a friend who has a MiniDSP in his Maggies - I just tried to ring him but he's busy. I will have a chat to him later and i'll tell you how he took his measurements.

 

Reading the Stereophile Maggie 1.6 review suggests that it is not a time coherent design with a few frequency response anomalies under anechoic conditions - which suggests that in real world conditions the performance is likely to be significantly worse. In turn this suggests that you would gain a massive benefit from DSP based correction.

 

How difficult is the software to learn? If you are not used to DSP based correction, the learning curve is quite steep. Having said that, and having used multiple other room/speaker correction products, I would have to say that DEQX is one of the easier ones to learn.

 

Why am I a former DEQX owner? Because I have moved to something better - PC based DSP using Acourate. The advantage of this is - it is cheaper, has more processing power, the software is more powerful, you can bring your own DAC, and you can upgrade the components yourself rather than have to buy a new DEQX every time they upgrade it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, DEQX is an Australian based company. Later today, I will be going to the Hifi Show. There is a good chance I will run into Alan Langford from DEQX there. If he doesn't kick my arse over comments I have made on his product, I may be able to ask him some questions for you :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with Keith W, but i think the DAC's is quit god on the hdp-4 and-hdp-5. If u Want you can always use differnt dac's via the digital outputs. Mini dsp is a nother option, but not as good sounding in my opinion (only tried the 8x4 HD). But mini dsp is much cheaper an you get a lot for your money.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Keith,

 

Alan will be there Saturday (as I will) but "doing the rounds". Kim Ryrie will be in the Krix room where they are showing their latest active speakers which use DEQX.

 

Not sure what model you are referring too - but we have worked hard to make the DEQX transparent - have a look at some of the reviews - below is a link to review by Michael Fremer:

 

Is Kyron Audio's Kronos the Best Sounding System You Will Ever Hear? | Analog Planet

 

BTW - The last time I saw you was at Mont Albert road SNA afternoon in 2009 - maybe we can catch up for coffee. When will you be at the show?

 

Cheers

David

 

Incidentally, DEQX is an Australian based company. Later today, I will be going to the Hifi Show. There is a good chance I will run into Alan Langford from DEQX there. If he doesn't kick my arse over comments I have made on his product, I may be able to ask him some questions for you :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David, what a surprise to see you here! I will be at the show from 2pm onwards. I was using the HDP-3 at the time. And yes, I have heard the Kyron Kronos and had a chat to Leon and Lee about how they implemented the DEQX. I have sent you a PM with my phone number - give me a call some time in the afternoon.

 

Ralf11 I just had a chat to my friend who owns the Maggies. He had difficulty measuring them because he has a small room and was unable to take the speakers outside to measure (the wind would interfere too much with the ribbons). He measured them in situ, at the listening position. He suggested that if you want to learn more about measuring your Maggies, you should head to audio asylum forum and look for a guy named "Davey".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ralf11,

 

We used Magies for a demo at both the Newport and RMAF shows a year or two back to demonstrate before and after - we try to use something different each show. There is a quick review here:

 

DEQX demo room-correcting Pre-Mate+ at RMAF '14 | DAR__KO

 

In terms of complexity we now include our DEQXpert service with all DEQX units (other than the Express series) - we can either set up your system or teach you how to use the software: see DEQX High Definition Audio

 

Contact Alan at [email protected] - he will be happy to answer any of your questions.

 

Cheers

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm wondering how much of a sound quality difference it will make, how much trouble it is to set up, etc.

 

Which one to get?

 

and... why you are a former owner, not a current one

 

I am using either a mac mini with iTunes Apple Lossless via WiFi to an Apple TV3, then a Cambridge DacMagic

or a Cal Audio CD player with PowerBoss (will likely soon replace with an Oppo Universal player)

 

Either way the Dacmagic feeds into a Sonic Frontiers Line One pre; Sunfire Cinema grand amp is bi-amping the Maggies 1.5QR

 

So, there is also the issue of maybe replacing something else in the chain first. And then there's MQA ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Keith,

 

thanks for your informative posts, and clear comments on the competing advantages of the DEQX and higher quality DACS.

 

I need an active crossover to time-align the bass horns in a biamped (or triamped) system, and the optimum delay is large, about 13 ms. This time alignment alone does make a massive difference in imaging, even when using a basic digital crossover and primitive DSP adjustments.

 

Most of my listening is from web sources, using a Berkeley Alpha interface to reduce jitter and a PS Audio DAC, with the advantages you have described.

 

It seems evident that inserting the DEQX downstream in this chain would merely sacrifice these advantages, and that inserting an ADC wouldn't change the limitations imposed by the DEQX DACs. The result could be better just by eliminating the intermediate DAC and feeding the signal from the interface to the DEQX digital inputs.

 

Is there a configuration that could win more and lose less? Since time and phase adjustment are my primary goals, it might be feasible to feed one delayed digital output from the DEQX to my external DAC and the mid/high amp, and to feed an analog output from the DEQX to the bass amp, where I'm less concerned with nuances of clarity and tone quality. Latency in the external DAC should not be an issue.

 

Or there might be a simpler way to time-correct one channel from an analog crossover.

 

I would appreciate your comments on any of these approaches, and of course hope to benefit from the experience of other members of the forum who have considered similar issues. Biamping and time coherence are critical, and there must be better solutions.

 

thanks to all, Ken

 

 

 

How much of a sound quality difference it will make, depends on what signal you plan to feed it, and what format you choose to output. Essentially, the ADC in the DEQX is just plain nasty. You do not want to feed it an analog signal. Send it a digital signal only. If you wish to use an analog source, consider an outboard ADC.

 

The DAC's in the DEQX aren't the best quality either, but this has less of an impact than the ADC's. Depending on the DAC you are using, there is a possibility that the DEQX is its equal, or might be better, or might be worse! In my case, it was definitely inferior to the DAC I was using (Playback Designs MPS-5), so inserting the DEQX in the signal chain resulted in a "you win some, you lose some" scenario. What you lose is all the sonic properties you get from a good DAC - things that are hard to quantify but easily heard.

 

What you gain are all the benefits of the DSP based speaker correction - and again, how much you will gain depends on the particulars of your system and room. For example, overall speaker correction and time alignment ALONE makes a massive difference - but you would gain less if your speakers are already linear and time coherent.

 

What you need to realize is that there are different sonic gains that come from a good DAC/source and from DSP correction. These two are quite different. In the former (which includes - usage of a good DAC, high quality source, attention to jitter suppression, MQA, high bit rate files, etc) you gain refinement, detail, tone quality, clarity, and dynamics. In the latter, you gain coherence, linearity, less distortion*, and soundstaging.

 

(* assuming you are running the steep filters the DEQX is capable of, and you are keeping your drivers away from producing frequencies for which it was not designed for).

 

As for your system, I don't know how to measure a pair of Maggies, or how they measure in the standard form. However, I do have a friend who has a MiniDSP in his Maggies - I just tried to ring him but he's busy. I will have a chat to him later and i'll tell you how he took his measurements.

 

Reading the Stereophile Maggie 1.6 review suggests that it is not a time coherent design with a few frequency response anomalies under anechoic conditions - which suggests that in real world conditions the performance is likely to be significantly worse. In turn this suggests that you would gain a massive benefit from DSP based correction.

 

How difficult is the software to learn? If you are not used to DSP based correction, the learning curve is quite steep. Having said that, and having used multiple other room/speaker correction products, I would have to say that DEQX is one of the easier ones to learn.

 

Why am I a former DEQX owner? Because I have moved to something better - PC based DSP using Acourate. The advantage of this is - it is cheaper, has more processing power, the software is more powerful, you can bring your own DAC, and you can upgrade the components yourself rather than have to buy a new DEQX every time they upgrade it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ken, thanks for your question. I do have to say something though - between that last post of mine and now, I have to withdraw some of the comments I made on the DEQX. I want to be clear that the DEQX I was referring to was an older version which I owned and operated for a number of years - the HDP-3. I have since heard a DEQX HDP-5, which I understand has a much superior ADC and DAC and it is not the same animal as the HDP-3. The system I heard it in was a Kyron Chronos speaker system - this is an Australian made active speaker worth $130k, which has a modified HDP-5 at its heart. I chatted to its designers (Lee and Leon), and I understand it has an improved analog output stage which is directly connected to some custom designed amplifiers. The system I heard it in compared the Kyron system with a straight digital feed from a Mac based transport with the ADC fed from a Mark Doehmann designed turntable (same Mark Doehmann who designed the Continuum Caliburn stack that Michael Fremer uses). I was suitably impressed - whilst the two sources did sound different, the analog source was not so terrible that I would be unable to live with it.

 

I am therefore going to withdraw my remarks about the deleterious effects of sending analog signal through the DEQX to be re-digitized and re-converted to analog. My new position is this: the effect of the ADC-DAC in the HDP-5 model of DEQX is much less than before. For sure, there is an audible difference and I would STILL prefer to avoid analog-digital conversion. But it is no longer a completely unacceptable solution, as far as I am concerned.

 

Having said that, I still believe you would be better off sending a digital signal to the DEQX. And I still believe that using your PC to generate the crossovers, applying convolution, time alignment, etc. and sending the digital signal to your own BYO DAC's is a superior solution. The quality of your BYO DAC's is only limited by your budget.

 

At this point in time, if you are after an "all in one" system that does it all, I can heartily recommend the DEQX. But if you are after a "cost no object" solution, where your budget would include buying as many individual DAC channels as you need, AND you are willing to climb the Acourate learning curve - you are better off with your PC, Acourate, HQPlayer, and BYO DAC's. The reason I say this is because it can potentially cost less, you get more for your money, each individual component is separately upgradeable, and you are not stuck with the hardware choices made by DEQX. It is truly a modular system that you can tweak to your heart's content.

 

The MAJOR downside is the learning curve - Acourate is an order of magnitude more difficult to learn than DEQX software, which itself is difficult to learn if you have no experience with DSP. But it offers much finer control over anything you could wish to adjust (or at least, it offers options to adjust parameters of my system which I do not yet understand). I have already achieved superior sound to what I managed with my old HDP-3. Bear in mind though - if you get it wrong, it is easier to get it disastrously wrong with Acourate than it is with DEQX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

Looking at the photo of your room a DEQX may not be what you are looking for. Particularly if one of your primary objectives is to adjust for the asymmetric room using room correction.

I am also a long term DEQX user and have found the DEQX does a great job of speaker correction if you are able to supply the DEQX with good speaker measurements. Speaker correction with the DEQX is even better if you have an active setup. The DEQX can also do a good job of sub intergration.

However the DEQX's limited room correction functionality may impact with your current room layout. The DEQX will allow you to take room measurements for the L and R speakers and will then allow you to apply up to 10 EQ points to correct your room measurements (amplitude correction only using IIR filters). However the big one for you is that any EQ you apply to correct your room measurements will be applied equally to both L and R speakers. The DEQX does not allow separate L and R EQ's. This isn't a big issue in a reasonably symetrical room with a symetrical speaker layout but if you are planning on trying to correct for an asymmetric layout you may need to consider if the DEQX is the correct option for you.

Regards

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx - yes, I think L & R need to be done separately. The 1.5QRs sound good, but I am always interested in having better sound. With everything out of the room (flooring is being redone) I am thinking of what I can do to get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, thanks for your comments - I didn't know that Acourate could generate crossovers, and have months to spend tinkering with tuning a modular system. I've gone back through your other posts, and am at the same spot you started - what modules do I need, and how do the BYO DACS interface with the PC/Acourate/HQP/JRM? What is necessary for making the measurements for Acourate?

 

Did you find a way to use the high-end DACs you initially had in mind, in a parallel configuration? If the only solution is a multichannel DAC or A/D D/A (Hilo, Hapi) this is a significant restriction. Can the mid-range from the crossover can be passed through a Hilo/Hapi to a high-end downstream DAC? Dallas had comments on clocking and drift that I could not understand, but they sounded like serious reservations.

 

I'm on the verge of a major DAC upgrade, but would reconsider if it can't be used in a software-implemented active crossover system. That would be disastrously wrong.

 

thanks, Ken

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ken, thanks for your question. I do have to say something though - between that last post of mine and now, I have to withdraw some of the comments I made on the DEQX. I want to be clear that the DEQX I was referring to was an older version which I owned and operated for a number of years - the HDP-3. I have since heard a DEQX HDP-5, which I understand has a much superior ADC and DAC and it is not the same animal as the HDP-3. The system I heard it in was a Kyron Chronos speaker system - this is an Australian made active speaker worth $130k, which has a modified HDP-5 at its heart. I chatted to its designers (Lee and Leon), and I understand it has an improved analog output stage which is directly connected to some custom designed amplifiers. The system I heard it in compared the Kyron system with a straight digital feed from a Mac based transport with the ADC fed from a Mark Doehmann designed turntable (same Mark Doehmann who designed the Continuum Caliburn stack that Michael Fremer uses). I was suitably impressed - whilst the two sources did sound different, the analog source was not so terrible that I would be unable to live with it.

 

I am therefore going to withdraw my remarks about the deleterious effects of sending analog signal through the DEQX to be re-digitized and re-converted to analog. My new position is this: the effect of the ADC-DAC in the HDP-5 model of DEQX is much less than before. For sure, there is an audible difference and I would STILL prefer to avoid analog-digital conversion. But it is no longer a completely unacceptable solution, as far as I am concerned.

 

Having said that, I still believe you would be better off sending a digital signal to the DEQX. And I still believe that using your PC to generate the crossovers, applying convolution, time alignment, etc. and sending the digital signal to your own BYO DAC's is a superior solution. The quality of your BYO DAC's is only limited by your budget.

 

At this point in time, if you are after an "all in one" system that does it all, I can heartily recommend the DEQX. But if you are after a "cost no object" solution, where your budget would include buying as many individual DAC channels as you need, AND you are willing to climb the Acourate learning curve - you are better off with your PC, Acourate, HQPlayer, and BYO DAC's. The reason I say this is because it can potentially cost less, you get more for your money, each individual component is separately upgradeable, and you are not stuck with the hardware choices made by DEQX. It is truly a modular system that you can tweak to your heart's content.

 

The MAJOR downside is the learning curve - Acourate is an order of magnitude more difficult to learn than DEQX software, which itself is difficult to learn if you have no experience with DSP. But it offers much finer control over anything you could wish to adjust (or at least, it offers options to adjust parameters of my system which I do not yet understand). I have already achieved superior sound to what I managed with my old HDP-3. Bear in mind though - if you get it wrong, it is easier to get it disastrously wrong with Acourate than it is with DEQX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other option for room correction, much cheaper and very easy to use is dirac. A miniDSP unit with digital input and output between source and DAC is dead easy to setup. You can even get rid of preamp and dac and just configure a unit with digital in, volume control and one or more analogue outputs.

 

I have used this before with great results, but now use HQP uspampling to high rate dsd with filters generated in Acourate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, thanks for your comments - I didn't know that Acourate could generate crossovers, and have months to spend tinkering with tuning a modular system. I've gone back through your other posts, and am at the same spot you started - what modules do I need, and how do the BYO DACS interface with the PC/Acourate/HQP/JRM? What is necessary for making the measurements for Acourate?

 

Did you find a way to use the high-end DACs you initially had in mind, in a parallel configuration? If the only solution is a multichannel DAC or A/D D/A (Hilo, Hapi) this is a significant restriction. Can the mid-range from the crossover can be passed through a Hilo/Hapi to a high-end downstream DAC? Dallas had comments on clocking and drift that I could not understand, but they sounded like serious reservations.

 

I'm on the verge of a major DAC upgrade, but would reconsider if it can't be used in a software-implemented active crossover system. That would be disastrously wrong.

 

thanks, Ken

 

Hi Ken, to answer your questions:

 

1. What you need for Acourate. At a minimum you need (a) a microphone, and (b) an interface for the microphone. However, if you wish to use Acourate as a replacement for your crossover, you would also need a multi-channel DAC, enough channels of power amplification for each channel you plan to implement, and suitable software (e.g. HQPlayer, Acourate Convolver, JRiver, or BruteFIR).

 

2. Implementing Acourate with multiple DAC's. You have two options: (a) buy a multichannel DAC like the exasound E28, Lynx Hilo, RME Fireface UC, or Merging NADAC/Hapi/Horus, or (b) buy a multichannel output card like the RME HSDPe AES32 (which has multiple AES/EBU outputs) and enough individual DAC's for your needs.

 

As for "each individual DAC", I have been lead to believe they need to be clock synchronized to avoid clock drift. At least, in theory. I do not know anybody who has tried using four DAC's in an 8 channel multi-DAC setup, and this is after a year of hanging around various forums and keeping a close eye on everyone's Acourate setup. Everyone whom I am aware of who uses Acourate as a crossover replacement is using it with a multichannel DAC for simplicity and to avoid the said theoretical problems with clock drift. How much of a problem this is IN REALITY, I do not know - and I am hoping to find out. Ask me this same question in a year - my next move will be to replace my Merging NADAC with four DAC's, driven by my RME HDSPe AES32 sound card. I have not yet decided on which DAC's I will buy, because at this moment I am lacking in money, in knowledge, and because I have other audio priorities which I need to address first.

 

I have much respect for Dallas, who has actually been one of my mentors in my journey. He did this before I did, and my current system as it stands is very much a copy of his. However, he has not entirely convinced me that the clock sync issue is so serious that it is an absolute necessity. I always have time for what he says, so I would be very appreciative if he could weigh in. If you were concerned enough about this, you could always make sure that the DAC's that you purchase have clock inputs so that you could clock sync them if required. Suitable candidate DAC's which include clock inputs would include - DCS, Esoteric, and Antelope.

 

3. Can digital audio be passed through a Hapi/Horus to multiple DAC's - the answer is NO. What you need is a sound card like the RME HDSPe AES32, or equivalent (I believe Marian makes such a sound card). The RME has a single ASIO driver, which reports 16 available digital outputs to any software that asks. On the back of the RME card, you connect channel 1 to your first DAC, channel 2 to your second DAC, channel 3 to your third DAC, and so on. You then set your convolution engine to something like this:

 

Input Channel 1 (Left) --> Convolution filter 1 --> Output to DAC Channel 1

Input Channel 2 (Right) --> Convolution filter 2 --> Output to DAC Channel 2

Input Channel 1 (Left) --> Convolution filter 3 --> Output to DAC Channel 3

Input Channel 2 (Right) --> Convolution filter 4 --> Output to DAC Channel 4

Input Channel 1 (Left) --> Convolution filter 5 --> Output to DAC Channel 5

Input Channel 2 (Right) --> Convolution filter 6 --> Output to DAC Channel 6

... etc.

 

Hope this clears it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken, if it helps - this is my hardware/software list and approximate prices in AUD$.

 

Hardware: Microphone: Earthworks M30 calibrated - $1100

Tripod for above microphone (REQUIRED if you want to take consistent measurements!) - $100

Sound card for measurement: RME Fireface UC, 8 channel DAC with microphone input - $1500

Sound card for playback: Merging NADAC MC-8, 8 channel DAC - $16000

Enough amplification for each DAC channel - $don't ask.

RME HDSPe AES32 sound card - $1500 *

Intel i7-6700 based PC

 

Software:

Acourate

AcourateConvolver *

REW

HQPlayer

JRiver *

 

Everything marked with an asterisk * has been purchased but is not being actively used in my current configuration. In other words - it is not strictly necessary, or its function is being duplicated by something else which I own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Implementing Acourate with multiple DAC's. You have two options: (a) buy a multichannel DAC like the exasound E28, Lynx Hilo, RME Fireface UC, or Merging NADAC/Hapi/Horus, or (b) buy a multichannel output card like the RME HSDPe AES32 (which has multiple AES/EBU outputs) and enough individual DAC's for your needs.

I know it is almost too cheap to be respected but the miniDSP U-DAC8 (https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/u-dac8) also qualifies and might, at the least, be a testbed device for this project.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the claims to fame of DEQX is that it has a function which impulse/time aligns speaker drivers.

Are there any standalone DRC software packages that do this? Audiolense XO?

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: RPi 3B+ running RoPieee to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the claims to fame of DEQX is that it has a function which impulse/time aligns speaker drivers.

Are there any standalone DRC software packages that do this? Audiolense XO?

 

Dirac. But, it works on an overall speaker channel basis. It does not do DSP xovers or work on indidual drivers. Nor, does it provide parametric adjustability, except to the frequency response target curve. In Mch, it does calculate channel by channel level and distance settings. It provides all I am interested in, and it is fairly easy to use. I am quite happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but thanks, and OUCH! That's quite a bite, the amps must make up the difference in $100K. What horns are you driving?

 

 

Ken, if it helps - this is my hardware/software list and approximate prices in AUD$.

 

Hardware: Microphone: Earthworks M30 calibrated - $1100

Tripod for above microphone (REQUIRED if you want to take consistent measurements!) - $100

Sound card for measurement: RME Fireface UC, 8 channel DAC with microphone input - $1500

Sound card for playback: Merging NADAC MC-8, 8 channel DAC - $16000

Enough amplification for each DAC channel - $don't ask.

RME HDSPe AES32 sound card - $1500 *

Intel i7-6700 based PC

 

Software:

Acourate

AcourateConvolver *

REW

HQPlayer

JRiver *

 

Everything marked with an asterisk * has been purchased but is not being actively used in my current configuration. In other words - it is not strictly necessary, or its function is being duplicated by something else which I own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...