Bifwynne, Even though such an experiment on the surface might appear to provide a correct time / incorrect time value check with everything else being relatively the same: and on the one hand I don't want to discourage your experiment(heck, I'm curious too), but, on the other hand I'm not sure the DEQX by by itself is the ideal way to determine how important wave fidelity is. I would be concerned that unless the speakers were designed from the start towards those aspirations they might not be hospitable to the demands made upon them by such manipulations. The DEQX might(?) actually be in conflict with the speakers designs intentions.
Perhaps, I'm mistaken, but don't think Bob is too far off course here with the idea that a speaker designed from the get go for wave fidelity combined with digital room correction might be the ideal way to go. I suspect that the future might yet provide for digital signal corrected for room considerations into digital cross-overs into class D amps into individual drivers that might provide the ultimate fidelity for listeners in real rooms.
|
^Count me in as interested too! |
^Makes one wonder; if they're this lackadaisical about a potential sale, how are they going to be, should they be needed for assistance after the sale? |
Bif, thanks for the update, anxiously awaiting the full review. |
As I've alluded to earlier, on the one hand I worry that "after the fact corrections" might make difficult demands on drivers, etc., for which they weren't originally intended.
On the other hand, I wonder if these very same "after the fact corrections" were instead original design implementations they might be superior to the original way in which speakers were designed to achieve some of these performance parameters.
What ultimately arrives at our ears, regardless of how it got there, is really what counts. |
^One could always get a dedicated room correction only system and add it to properly designed from the ground up 1st order cross-over time aligned speakers. |
^I'm both surprised and a bit disappointed that it doesn't maintain native 24/192.
Would be great if they could offer high powered, high current mono amps with direct digital inputs. |
Though I myself find a stand alone dedicated device like the DEQX much more appealing than software loaded onto a computer, it is interesting that though Stereophile gave the DEQX an enthusiastic review, in the very same edition they gave a preferential nod to the far less expensive DIRAC software program (that also seems to be able to better handle 24/192). |
It seems to me that the user friendliness of the DIRAC was a major reason Stereophile seemed to prefer it to the DEQX. As far as I can tell, the DIRAC might not offer the advantages of custom x-overs that the DEQX offers. For those not interested in by passing their existing x-overs, or the expense of additional amplification, there could be substantial cost savings. |
^"The best 67 audio components of 2014" |
^O.K., thanks for the clarification. |
Kal, does the DIRAC handle 24/192 better? |
UPDATE?:
24/192?
Digital output to their own digital input Class D amps? |
|
|
Bifwynne, could you describe this artifact? |
^Joseph Audio describes their somewhat unusual cross-overs as: "infinite slope". |
|
^Thanks for the prompt response. It appears as though your going to be a rather busy audiophile. Best of luck with all the new toys. |
Al, as usual, you've nailed it. My thoughts, exactly! |
^Oh, and something like the DEQX could possibly get me on the way towards analogless;-). |
Hi Al, Any updates to report? |
^Thanks for the prompt response. Obviously I'm curious as to your impressions of this component. |
