Just got my copy of the December Stereophile. Kal, thanks much for your characteristically thorough, nuanced, and excellent review. Thanks also to Drewan, Psag, Forrestc, and Bruce for your comments on your DEQX experiences. I'm sold, and I expect to order one sometime this winter (don't want to do it now for unrelated reasons). In my case it would be an HDP-4, in part because I want the three sets of outputs it provides. Regarding Roscoe's mention of the jitter measurements, and the slight misgivings JA expressed about some of the other measurements, those all involved noise and spurii that were so far below the levels of the test signals (in nearly all cases considerably more than 100 db below, at any individual frequency), that IÂd be surprised if they had any audible significance. Plus the manufacturer's response to the review indicates that the jitter performance of the current design has been improved by the addition of a "very low-noise power supply regulator." 11-12-14: Bombaywalla
Bruce,
good to read that you continue to like your purchase of DEQX & that you've come over to the side of time-aligned speakers. :-) Glad you recognize & hear what time-alignment can do for music playback - I feel that all my posts weren't all in vain...... at least one person listened & benefited. :-) So I expect that to become at least two persons! Thanks :-) Regards, -- Al |
Drewan77
Your post makes me want a DEQX. Thanks for pulling all your experiences into one here. |
Thanks for that very informative post on your experiences. Super helpful. |
^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. |
Responding to Roscoeiii - using the 4 DEQX presets as part of the setup process, this has been my experience over the past 2 1/2 years:
1. With DEQX processing switched out of the system, I thought music sounded OK but imaging was rather flat and 2 dimensional. The subs were blended pretty well but occasionally a particular low frequency jumped out or there was some boxiness or a dip. The speakers didn't cope so well with the different frequency wavelengths and room reflections, as well as imperfect time alignment between the drivers themselves
2. With just DEQX speaker correction (I use active crossovers sub-mid-treble) the system sounds very different, images become much more pin-point and the soundstage sounds more natural. Music starts to sound 'realistic'
3. With time correction added (set manually after measuring) it is like turning the focus on a lens and at the right setting the difference is quite stunning, even from the last stage above. Images sit in a believable 3D soundstage (if on the original recording). The acoustics of the recording venue become very apparent for the first time. Vocals sound like the performer in front of the listening seat and even in a complex passage you can hear all the instruments individually and clearly. This is not like being at a live venue however (which I do A LOT), I guess it must be more like being in the original recording studio
4. Room equalisation becomes almost unnecessary even though at stage 1 there were dropouts and humps, especially in the bass. At most I have only needed +/- 2db in a few of the lower frequencies. Switching room eq in/out actually makes relatively little difference. With this in place, I have a system that betters anything else I have heard in over 40 years of trying. Not to say that there isn't something better of course
I use 3 of the 4 preset settings to subtly alter bass response to accommodate different recordings (some albums are bass light, others heavy) - listening most of the time to setting 2 of 4 which is 'flat'. The final preset (same settings as preset 1) uses very steep crossover slopes which give faster dynamics and transient attack on an appropriate recording or when I feel like it!
Time delays have a very marked impact on a speakers' output and in fact you can tailor the sound quite dramatically using this alone. Delaying mid-treble to sub-bass slightly longer than 'correct' will create a quite pleasant 'growl' to bass guitars if that is what you want. Likewise it is worth tweaking the sound slightly beyond 'flat' to give exactly what you prefer...always retaining a smooth response, unaffected by the room in any way. That is a real benefit of DEQX - you only hear the recording via natural sounding speakers, not the room you are in. If you use low order crossover slopes, music is generally more laid back whereas with the steepest slopes, transients can become quite spectacular. Yes, a more forward or laid back sound can easily be produced from any given set of speakers, in fact I have discovered that you can tailor to EXACTLY what you want. For me, DEQX combined with Open Baffle speakers and subs does that
Answering the final point about different brands of speakers, I tried that too back in 2012 (B&W, Shahinian, Royd, Castle, some floorstanders, some not) and in 3 different rooms. All end up sounding remarkably similar which makes sense I suppose because you start the process measuring (outdoors in my case) and calibrating 'flat' and then again in the room. DEQX creates a set of filters that replicate the same 'flat' response, adjusting driver phase and timing accordingly for each type so the end result is much closer than you would expect
I implied it previously in this thread but I will repeat it again - DEQX repays the effort you put into understanding it fully as long as you take advantage of everything it has to offer. This is as near to ideal as I could possibly hope for and in the past few years I tend to just listen to the music itself. Isn't that the whole point of this? |
Just read Kal's review of the DEQX and a few things stood out.
For those of you concerned about 24/192, it looks like the DEQX downsamples (right word?) it to 24/96. As for the other DAC measurements, looks like there is room for jitter improvement. Might be worth looking into a reclocker like the Wyred4Sound Remedy, or a pricier one.
I was very interested to read that the speaker correction and calibration seemed to make a larger impact than room correction in Kal's set-up. Though Kal also suggested that with more time and effort, better room correction and EQing could be achieved. Of course the smaller impact of room correction could also be because Kal has a well treated room already.
Oddly enough, Kal decided not to rip the crossovers out of his speakers to evaluate the DEQX ability to replace passive crossovers. Huh, go figure. :)
This thread and Kal's review certainly have me intrigued. I came to this looking at DEQX as quite similar to my DSPeaker Dual Core 2.0 as a DSP room correction device, but it seems to offer considerably more than that (Kal I'd be most interested in your thoughts on the DEQX relative to the Dual Core if you'd care to share them). Though I also felt grateful for the ease of interface on the Dual Core, after reading about the steep DEQX learning curve.
From other threads and forums, it also seems that the manual EQing possibilities can potentially change the character of a speaker, allowing home users to tweak the voicing of the speaker. Still hoping to somewhere find a useful tutorial on what bumps and valleys at what points on the frequency spectrum have what impacts on a speaker's sound. But it may be possible to have presets that equate to a more forward or laid back sound, etc. Very intriguing. For example, wonder how much Kal's Brystons could be made to sound like his B&Ws or vice versa by using something like the DEQX. |
Stereophile doesnt do reviews guys, they do equipment narratives. |
Thanks KR. Hadn't seen that usage before. |
Kal, Did you calibrate it yourself or did the dealer do it? |
|
What's an epitome in this context? |
I choose not to answer it but that is because I do not believe that making such an epitome is useful. |
Kal,
Can you answer the OP's question, "Is DEQX a game changer?" or do we have to wait for your report? |
Not really. Mine comes through the same distribution channel and, most months, it comes after others have begun to discuss it. Just random luck. |
11-12-14: Kr4
Got mine in the mail today! some insider benefits, Kal! ;-) some of will have to wait until the near end of Nov before we see the Dec issue.... |
Got mine in the mail today! |
Bruce,
good to read that you continue to like your purchase of DEQX & that you've come over to the side of time-aligned speakers. :-) Glad you recognize & hear what time-alignment can do for music playback - I feel that all my posts weren't all in vain...... at least one person listened & benefited. :-)
I'll be sure to read Kal's review of the DEQX in the Dec issue of S'phile. Thanks for this heads-up. |
Drewan77 ... well our A'gon audiophile pals won't have to believe us for much longer. Kal Rubinson's DEQX PreMATE review will be published next month in the December Stereophile issue. I am not concerned that we will have to eat our hats.
If my surmise is correct, the OP's question, "Is DEQX a game changer?" will be answered shortly, and the answer may be "Yes." |
I agree Bif, I thought my old Shahinian Obelisks were pretty good until I heard what DEQX did to them . I literally swore out loud in amazement the first time I played them afterwards |
Drewan ... IME, as I stated above and/or elsewhere, room EQ what effects cannot be understated ... unless your sound room is an anechoic chamber. I was *VERY* surprised at how my sound room/man cave twisted the mid and bass frequencies in my right front facing speaker. The result was smeared imaging. Didn't appreciate the impact of the room issues until the DEQX effected room EQ.
Time alignment, I think goes more to tonal attributes because the impact of high order x-overs is to skew/jumble the speaker's output signal. See Roy Johnson's White Paper. Having said that, ... perhaps correcting time alignment might have other qualitative sonic benefits too.
Let's face it. Most of the tippy-top big dollar brands on the market are not time coherent, yet people still rave anyway. For example, Magico, Wilson, B&W, Daedalus, and so forth. Maybe if one gets used to sonic swill, it sounds good after a while. LOL :) |
One of the reasons I jumped in with DEQX was because every review I could find was 'enthusiastic' (rather an understatement, read John Atkinsons previous comment here: http://www.stereophile.com/content/gob-smacked-deqx). Then I heard what it did for myself and I knew it was what I needed - initially just to sort out the bass my room. The speaker correction part was a bonus |
John Atkinson just e mailed me and advised that Kal Rubinson is reviewing the DEQX PreMATE in the December issue of Stereophile. JA said that Kal's review is "enthusiastic." Looking forward to reading the review. |
Thanks, Kal! I'm looking forward to reading it.
Best regards,
-- Al |
|
Upcoming Stereophile review in press now. |
Ptss ... forgive my cynicism, but DEQX might get more attention if it advertised in the so-called high-end audiophile hard copy mags or web sites. |
Ptss ... ditto. I'll check my e mails, but I think I asked John Atkinson and Marc Mickelson to review the DEQX. No answer yet. |
I would like to see a STEREOPHILE review comparing measurements of say a Revel Salon 2 (multiple crossovers but not time aligned) versus the current best 'time aligned" speakers, both before and after DEQX. Along with comments on the sound of course. |
Unsound ... on paper, I think that's true. But I wonder out loud just how time coherent so called time coherent speakers really are. That's just a question.
Presumably, if one was to use the DEQX on a 1st order time coherent speaker, there would be no need for further time alignment. That's the theory anyway. |
^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. |
Drewan ... it's unfortunate that there hasn't been more buzz about the DEQX. I still believe that my rig sounds better with it. But not sure if using my CDP's on board DAC is better than the DEQX's DAC. A little different sounding for sure ... just not sure if the DEQX DAC is better. Both are very good.
Btw, I think the DEQX brings a very important plus to the table that even the best first order x-over speakers cannot do. Namely room EQ. I can't overstate the important of room EQ. A crappy room can make the best speaker system sound like crap. In my case, the FR of my speakers was so out of wack that the imaging was smeared all over the place. The DEQX significantly improved imaging.
Hopefully, more folks will road test the DEQX and post their comments.
Bruce
P.S. - I caught your last post about time aligning my speakers outside. Simply not feasible. I'd have to schlepp hundreds of pounds of gear upstairs. |
Alan Langford from DEQX Australia has viewed this forum topic and emailed me as below:
"....Andrew, Just noticed your last few posts, it would be good to point out that your HDP3 used DACs from Analog Devices AD1853. The New HDP-4 & PreMate use a DAC by Burr Brown PCM-1795 and completely new I/V and analog output stages that has completely changed the sound when compared to the HDP-3. All the latest models are complete redesigns other than the DSP and some logic...."
I will only find out when I eventually change to an HDP4, it is quite possible that I may prefer this DAC over the HDP3 |
Drewan77, so you are taking the 'raw' digital data and converting it to analog, then feeding it to the DEQX, which then converts it back to digital for processing, etc.
I do the same for CD/SACD. My CD/SACD player has digital out, but the analog out seems to sound better to my ear. However for computer audio I prefer running the digital computer signal directly to the DEQX, rather than introduce additional digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital conversions. |
Psag: "Drewan77 if you are using the HDP3, then you are utilizing its DAC. The device operates in the digital domain. The last step is digital to analogue conversion."
Partly true...I will explain:
The internal DAC for processing incoming CD or streamed data is not used as the processing is handled by an external DAC & these sources enter the DEQX as analogue signals (via balanced input)
You are of course correct that once inside the HDP3, digital conversion takes place but this is to process the crossovers, speaker calibration, phase, timing etc which is entirely different to the internal DAC handling the initial music processing. That is a separate standalone component of DEQX which I am not using |
Drewan77 if you are using the HDP3, then you are utilizing its DAC. The device operates in the digital domain. The last step is digital to analogue conversion. |
I tried the a/b without DEQX/with DEQX online demo at the deqx site with a pair of decent headphones. Glad to say most of what I hear at home off my OHMs with CLS (Coherent Line Source) Walsh style drivers sound much more like the with DEQX samples, as I would expect. Also I can relate to how things degrade from there in some other cases I am familiar with to various degrees, though the "without" samples in the demo sounded pretty extreme.
No doubt the "with" DEQX samples are much easier to sort through than the "without" samples. |
Psag: "Drewan77, I didn't realize you were using the DEQX mate, which does not have the digital inputs."
I am not using the DEQX Mate, that was a reply I gave to Ozzy as he was looking for something with only speaker correction. My DEQX is the HDP3 which has both analogue & digital inputs, including a DAC which I no longer use |
Drewan77, I didn't realize you were using the DEQX mate, which does not have the digital inputs. I must have lost track of your contributions to this thread. Sorry 'bout that. |
Psag, maybe you misread what I said - here was my comment from an earlier post:
"when I compared the DEQX DAC to the Chord 64 I was previously using, it was more lively sounding and I happily used this as a replacement. I like very precise transient attack, including bass that is clean & deep but starts/stops very fast. Much more realistic to true life and the DEQX DAC has that"
The Graham Slee DAC sounds more life-like than both, being fed either CD or FLAC files. It's just as dynamic as the HDP3 DAC but more realistic at the top end. You are correct about the logic of converting an analogue signal though, it must surely have a tiny impact (I tend to judge a system on what I hear though) |
"So, if I have a Dac that I like and only want the speaker correction function , is there a Deqx unit that just does that?"
Yes, the DEQX Mate does that. Use this link....
http://www.deqx.com/product-deqxmate-overview.php
....and look at 'comparison' on the drop down RH side bottom to see the various features of each processor
(Apologies to Almarg as I notice I accidentally added a second L to his forum name) |
Drewan77, you wrote that the Chord DAC sounds better than the DEQX DAC. These cannot be directly be compared, because they operate at different points in the chain.
If you are feeding the DEQX an analogue signal, the DEXQ must first convert it to digital before it does anything else with it. I can only conclude that your Chord DAC is adding some 'euphonic' distortion. My preference is to use the EQ presets to alter the signal to suit my personal preferences, rather than inserting an extra component into the chain. |
So, if I have a Dac that I like and only want the speaker correction function , is there a Deox unit that just does that? |
Thanks ALMARG for helping us stay on track. I hope your helpful attitude becomes contagious!Very reassuring. |
Allmarg is correct, apologies if I confused everybody, in my country a single ended input is often called a 'phono' socket. A phono stage is something else entirely
I should also point out that the latest HDP4 processor uses an entirely different (presumably improved) DAC compared to the HDP3 that I have. I still maintain that the primary benefit of DEQX is the speaker correction facility. Anything else is a bonus |
thanks for clarifying, Almarg. RCA/single-ended input might have been a less confusing word to use... |
Bombaywalla, I'm pretty certain that none of the DEQX products, or at least the current ones, include phono stages. Given that, and also given the considerable level of expertise and experience that is evident in Drewan's posts, and also given that RCA connectors are sometimes referred to as "phono connectors," I would expect that the word "phono" in his statement was simply intended to distinguish the unit's RCA input from the balanced XLR input referred to in his next sentence.
Best regards,
-- Al |
10-01-14: Drewan77
Answering about the Chord DAC, this was input to the DEQX via the phono analogue input so maybe this has some bearing on the slightly dull sound. what??? Are you serious?? you input your DAC into the phono analog input of the DEQX & let DEQX RIAA equalize your DAC input?? (The assumption here is that the input is called 'phono' because of the equalization being done to the signal; otherwise, DEQX would have called simply called it an analog input). You know that phono is RIAA equalized because the bass freq are compressed to make them fit in a reasonable amount of space on a LP?? The effect of this would have been to accentuate your bass & make all your music bass-heavy. And, you actually made a critical listening decision based on this connection?? wow, Drewan77, I'm amazed..... |
Just trying to be helpful Drewan. Happy listening. |
Answering about the Chord DAC, this was input to the DEQX via the phono analogue input so maybe this has some bearing on the slightly dull sound. Having said that, my current DAC inputs via the balanced XLR analogue input and sounds fabulous, definitely smoother and more realistic than the DEQX DAC
Answering about isolation, I already use expensive chords, a dedicated electrical circuit and power conditioning so I am confident that is sorted |
Answering about the Chord DAC, this was input to the DEQX via the phono analogue input so maybe this has some bearing on the slightly dull sound. Having said that, my current DAC inputs via the balanced XLR analogue input and sounds fabulous, definitely smoother and more realistic than the DEQX DAC
Answering about isolation, I already use expensive chords, a dedicated electrical circuit and power conditioning so I am confident that is sorted |
