DSPeaker Anti Mode 2.0 evaluation


I have read all of the glowing reviews of this product and I just don't understand why I am not impressed. I have been lucky to find a very kind dealer to allow me to try one the DSPeaker Anti Mode 2.0 units.
I have 2 JL Audio F113 subwoofers that I have set up in stereo and are based on their own microphones measurement calibration.

So, with those sub settings and then switching out the LF Filter, I then used the DSPeaker unit to eq just my JL subs. That is, I tested the unit by playing my Andra 2 speakers full range via my Pass Labs Preamp and Amp and with the other Preamp outputs I plugged in the DSPeaker in and then the JL subs are plugged into the DSPeaker.

I ran the DSPeaker calibration. I used the DSPeaker in and out of the flow by using its bypass button and I really couldn’t tell much of any improvement. In fact I believe I like the bypass sound better.

Why is this? All of the glowing reviews and it is only marginal different if at all.

Now, there is an update for the DSPeaker in June 2013 but my Norton Virus control will not allow the download. Perhaps, if I was able to download that update it would be better, but I doubt it.

So, before I end my trial of the unit, is my configuration flawed , what do you guys think?
ozzy

Showing 6 responses by douglas_schroeder

All such products diminish absolute definition/clarity - no exceptions. They must, as they are not necessary devices inserted into the signal path. It is to be expected that the system will sound cleaner without any non-necessary device inserted.

This is not to say that such devices cannot confer a pleasing quality, and some people may like it better. But do not expect superior cleanness when inserting a non-necessary device into an existing rig.
Ozzy, you may even consider the physical placement of the subs; I use Legacy Audio XTREME HD Subs following the review at Dagogo.com, however I use them backwards. They are normally backwards firing, but I feel the sound is far superior when they are turned around and the primary driver is firing forward. I also placed them on hockey pucks to elevate the downward firing passive radiator. I discuss this in the review.

Such experimentation can have a nice improvement in store, and you may be able to get both improved definition and bass response.
Rocsoeiii, yes, I have heard the Dual Core DSP unit and found it both intriguing and good sounding. I would consider the Dual Core as potentially highly efficacious because it has preamp funcitionality and as such would allow the removal of a traditional preamp and set of cables. I read one review, perhaps Greene's, I don't recall, and thought that it might have a high degree of transparency if replacing a preamp.

I have had similar experiences where CD players with preamp functionality have sounded cleaner than when in use with even very high quality preamps. Mind you, not necessarily superior overall, but in terms of cleanness and definition.

Ozzy, I suggest you try using the XLR outs of the Cary to the AntiMode 2.0, which would bypass the QOL and Pass Labs preamp. You may have too much of a good thing ahead of the Antimode and by streamlining you may like the result far better. If you have been running QOL/PASS/AntiMode 2.0 to the subs I would think that the simple removal of these two other devices will greatly enhance the bass performance and perhaps cause a reversal of your view of the AntiMode 2.0

One of the beautiful things about hockey pucks is they don't require two people to use, simply tip the sub and shove them underneath. :)
Ozzy, I'll look forward to an update if/when you do.

Couldn't you also try the QOL after the AntiMode 2.0 and if you wish send it (or not) to the subs? Seems to me you have five or six discrete possibilities for arrangement of the components singly or collectively. It would be interesting if you choose to chase down all the permutations of systems and share about the experience. With the products you currently have on hand if you work through all the variables there is a good chance you will find a combo which is your new favorite.
A necessary device is one without which there is no music. Products like QOL, or in this application the AntiMode 2.0, are not necessary. They may be perceieved as enhancing the system's sound, but their removal does not halt it.

Now, if the AntiMode 2.0 is used as the preamp then it becomes a necessary device, assuming the source has no attenuation.
Ozzy, that's great; you have taken half the step toward demonstrating the Pass preamp to be preferable to the pre function of the DSPeaker. How about trying this combo: DSPeaker acting as preamp to the Bryston BDA-2 DAC (bypassing the SDPeaker's DAC, if you can). That could be interesting, too if you can run it that way and would be closer to an apples to apples comparison as regards preamp.

So, you're concluding the new model has changed your opinion of the efficacy of the DSPeaker for the bass? If so, congratulations on your improvement.

I still think it would be interesting to see what the result would be to use the Pass pre with the DSPeaker for the bass and bypass the QOL, just to see what the result would be. You may not perfer it, but may as well try since you have the gear on hand. Every experiment gains one a bit more experience and can yield surprising result. On the positive side, if you do so and don't care for it, you've reaffirmed that QOL is your gotta have baby.