Though the Premate unit was purchased as used, I was told that it was never used just the box was opened up. Perhaps it was used as a demo. Everything about it looks brand new.
Thanks for your comments on the BSG QOL. Tomorrow, I will try the high analog output from the DEQX into the QOL with the QOL then going to my amp. My logic is that I have the speakers and room set up with the DEQX, so I should be able to hear what the QOL adds. But, I also intend to try it the other way too, that is before the DEQX.
I changed the fuse to the SR Black, but I am confused. The unit says to use a 2A fuse but what was in it was a 1Amp.
I also changed the jumpers settings, while inside I noticed that the mother board says HDP-4 which is perhaps a good thing. But, on the power cables going to the IEC there is a cheapo snap on RCA ferret, perhaps a bad thing.
Does anyone think if there is a breakin time for the unit? I am using it
as a Preamp so I assume like most things audio 200 hours of use time
seems to be about right.
Ozzy, I see from your earlier post that you purchased a 'used' Premate so I would expect it is already broken in (if there is such a thing - the process of setup, measuring, calibrating and experimenting over the first few weeks will probably take long enough).
As for the BSG QOL, I have never seen this item before & I'm not clear what it would achieve after the Premate has done its processing. From a very quick look at a few web pages, it seems to work with phase shift. However the DEQX algorithms will correct phase and timing automatically for everything upstream anyway (via the mic measurements).
If you do plan to try this out, I would suggest downstream (before) the Premate but I recommend you set the system up without this and experiment later.
Ok, I've done the speaker measurements and with the dual JL Audio subs and the room calibration. What I found was that it is better to calibrate the JL Audio subs with there own microphone before using the DEQX with them.
I still need to figure out the delay functions and many of the other tweaks.
Does anyone think if there is a breakin time for the unit? I am using it as a Preamp so I assume like most things audio 200 hours of use time seems to be about right.
I also ordered a SR black fuse to match with all my other equipment.
Thanks everyone for your help. I emailed DEQX yesterday and they emailed me back the download file for the mic. After fiddling with that download for a while and rebooting it now shows the mic installed.
However, dummy me, the volume setting was set too high (max) and I blew out a tweeter. I hope to have its replacement tomorrow.
So, I measured the good speaker and then copied those results to the other, then I did my subs.
Once the replacement tweeter is installed, I’ll do the room correction. But, I can already tell that as I get more familiar with the screens and settings I will redo the tests.
Almarg, The mic I have is good to start with, perhaps down the road I will either rent or buy the more expensive one.
Ozzy, if it isn’t on your CD, you can also download your mic file by going to the DEQX website:
From the bar across the top of the page, choose: Owners, then upgrades from the dropdown box, scroll down to Dayton mic files & Dayton all Microphones - download (mic).
You will be asked for authentification..... User name = beta Password = nyquist (all lower case).
Once you unzip the folder, the file "6780EMM6-INV.mic" is in there.
As for the two different mic types, I originally used a Behringer ECM8000 (DEQX predecessor to the Dayton) with the HDP-3 & later upgraded to an Earthworks M23 before I purchased the HDP-5.
I would not worry too much about the different mic’s because the critical frequency range is going to be somewhere between 200hz & 10khz & the reference mic really comes into its own at the highest frequencies, although measurements across the board do appear to be a little more precise. My measurement routine, calibration and setup is quite OCD and therefore the benefits gained by the M23 proved worth it (I am able to use much lower levels of smoothing & greater accuracy in calibration across the entire frequency range if I choose to).
Listening to music via the same speakers based on an outdoor measurement, there is definitely an audible improvement for the M23 but it is not that great. If I had never made the later calibrations, I would still have been extremely satisfied with those from the lower cost microphone.
P.S: I just took a look at the CD that came with my HDP-5. Viewing the files on it via the File Explorer in Windows I see that there is a folder called "Microphones," and under that "Dayton," and under that "Dayton" again, and under that "6780EMM6-INV.mic" among many other listings. If you can find that file on your CD, copy it to a location on your hard drive and proceed as I indicated above.
I can't answer your question about the download CD you referred to. I was provided with the calibration file for my microphone by the dealer from whom I purchased my HDP-5 together with the mic kit (see below), Nyal Mellor of AcousticFrontiers.com. The microphone calibration file would have a .mic file extension, and if it is not on the CD I would expect that the person you bought the Premate from should be able to email it to you. Or perhaps DEQX could supply it, if you were to ask them via their support link.
Once you have that file on your computer, the mic would be "installed" into the calibration software by selecting "Install Microphone" under the "File" menu, and then navigating to the calibration file for the particular mic.
That said, it appears that the EMM-6 is the cheapie (approx. $50) microphone that is included with the DEQX units as standard. I chose the much more expensive ($745) Earthworks "Reference Calibration Kit" alternative. Based on my experience with mics in those two price ranges for unrelated applications I suspect that you would get significantly better results if you were to purchase the Earthworks kit. A good source from whom to purchase it would be Nyal Mellor:
Help!... I received the Premate today and I'm stuck on installing the microphone.
There is no dropdown box to select the microphone. My mic is EMM-6 6780. The mic works because I can tap it and the Control panel responds and you can hear it through the speakers. But the control panel shows no mic installed.
Why did the download CD not provide the list of microphones to choose from as per the instructions?
The DEQX really does sound like a game-changer. The reviews so far indicate it provides a very large improvement in sound quality and it makes good engineering and bio-acoustic sense as well.
Room interactions have always been one of the most major impacts on sound quality, and top speaker designers have been working on group delay and related problems for at least 30 years.
Good to hear that you are joining the DEQX ’club’ Ozzy.
When I originally purchased an HDP-3, I used it in the same way as your forthcoming PreMate - in that case using Shahinian Obelisks (including their passive crossovers) with a Miller & Kreisel MX200 sub.
The fist time I measured, corrected, time aligned & listened was the most significant ’wow’ moment I have had with hifi & even though the quality of my setup is now a long way beyond that, I will never forget that first session.
You should be in for a treat & if you need any assistance, then please ask. As with Al, I used the expertise of my dealer, supported by several emails to Alan Langford at DEQX and then an extensive period of research, questioning and self-learning. Quite a few other DEQX users have also emailed me their config files over the years & I notice that various DEQXperts had originally set them up in a very similar fashion.... which has been reassuring for me :)
Ozzy, no, I didn't use the DEQXpert service. I did, though, receive a useful 1 hour walk-through of the calibration software that was provided via web + phone by Nyal Mellor of Acoustic Frontiers, from whom I purchased the unit. And I then spent several months patiently and methodically further familiarizing myself with everything, performing measurements, re-doing some measurements, tweaking settings, listening to a variety of material, etc., before I considered the process done. And my application is simpler than most of the others that have been mentioned in the thread, with just a single pair of speakers, a single stereo amp, and no sub.
My experiences during that process are documented in posts on pages 6 through 9 of this thread.
The amount of time I invested in this process would obviously have been far less if I had
chosen to utilize the DEQXpert service, and obviously I have no way of
knowing whether the results of doing that would have been
better than, worse than, or similar to what I ended up with. But personally I feel
that the learning experience resulting from doing it all myself was sufficiently valuable that I don’t regret not having utilized that
service.
Ozzy, to find the manual go to DEQX.com, and at the top click "Owners," and then "Upgrades" in the drop-down menu that appears. Scroll down to the bottom of the box that will appear, and you'll see a link for the manual.
I have recently discovered linear bass is the single most important thing in my system (to me, to my ears). Now, it is amazing to listen to. I am under the impression that DEQX gives you linear bass. Cannot underestimate linear bass.
Well recently I upgraded my Mate to a Premate. What a world of difference. The loss of harmonic warmth and fullness with the Mate is no longer and issue. When I received my Premate, I actually pulled my DAC out of the signal chain and utilized the premate as the DAC between my music server and preamp. This was suppose to be an initial test of quality but boy was I surprised. With the premate in bypass I was instantly aware the signal was more clear and presenting firm pratt. My existing DAC was no slouch. It was a Bel Canto 1.5 with a $700 linear power supply replacing the wall wart. Shall I say my hot-rodded Bel Canto is a little smoother with a touch of bloom. The Premate is as I stated above plus articulate. This may be a bit much for some systems, but it blended perfect with mine. I have 135 watt 811A tube push pull monoblocks and a tubed preamp. I already have warm rich harmonic tone. A bit of clean clear signal did the setup well.
I am particularly excited to start utilizing the actual room correction features of the DEQX. I have not done anything yet because I just ordered a new set of DIY speakers. I purchased the PureAudioProject Trio 10 with AMT and Mundorf silver oil crossovers. The gentlemen at PureAudioProject are very professional and easy to work with. I ordered just the drivers and crossover. I have a decent woodshop so I am going to build the baffles my self. Yes these are open baffle speakers. Once I ordered my parts they provided very detailed plans along with some picture on how to make my baffles.
In the future I may utilize my DEQX more fully by byamping the system, but for now, my equipment takes up enough room, and amps cost $.
I did start reading the manual. It is pretty clear on how to open projects and measure the speakers. That is about as far as I got. Larry is going to calibrate the setup once I have it complete. I am doing the preliminary work to save time. I have been laboring over where to do the outdoor measurement. I live in a city so my fence is about 22 feet from my deck. I have trees and shrubs in my yard plus some rock walls. The front porch/yard is more open, but I feel a little funny having my gear on the lawn for all the neighbors to see. I'm sure the calibration sound would call some people from their houses to see what going on.
Thanks all for putting this page together. This forum helped push me to get the DEQX. So far it has improved upon my setup and I only have it in bypass. In time I will try and put links to the build of my speakers and post on how the calibration goes.
Yes Jeff, DEQX inspired me to build my own speakers.
I had always been impressed with Open Baffle designs because of the lack of cabinet colouration and great transient speed so I set about building various prototypes several years ago, using my original HDP-3. Once voiced exactly as wanted, I then commissioned a CNC workshop to produce the final frames in zebrano bamboo.
When you master the workings of DEQX (no mean task!), speaker building and tweaking is fascinating. I recommend going to the trouble to take measurements outdoors which produce an almost pure anechoic response (in my most recent example, windowing calibrations to 31ms before even a slight reflection, only from the mic stand). The cleaner the initial data, the better will be the final result.
Being able to use 4 preset configs with differing crossover types, frequencies and slopes enables you to listen instantly ’on-the-fly’ with music playing, although I suggest newcomers start with the DEQX defaults until you understand the various interactions. You can then go much deeper, configuring for minimum phase or minimum delay etc and learning exactly how to bring the best out of each individual driver. It’s also great that DEQX measurements treat everything downstream of the processor as one, meaning that the impact of your cabling & amplification is also taken care of by the resulting calibration - as long as you don’t change anything of course!
I learned quite fast, for instance that the tweeters in my setup had one ’perfect’ crossover point for both they & the midranges below - above this frequency there was some beaming and thickening but crossing lower, treble became subtly more brittle. Also, by trying various natural wool tweeter surround shapes & placements, measuring & listening again in-room, everything was finally clearer, more focused & smooth than any other speaker I have heard. Being able to make a change, set it into your main config and listen to music for days or even weeks before further adjustment in one of the other 3 presets means you really can be sure that changes are beneficial. Everything is also reversible or repeatable.
Please let us know how you get on & various of us here will be happy to assist if needs be. I was asked to look through the draft of the most recent DEQX manual as an experienced ’user’ by Kim Ryrie before it was published & I can confirm that it is now much more user friendly & logical to follow. It should be much easier than when I started out!
This may have been touched on earlier, but the potential power of the DEQX has inspired me to seriously consider attempting to build my own speakers. I've been researching this quite a bit and it appears that the real challenge of speaker building is the cross over and time alignment -both issues that are addressed by the DEQX with near infinite flexibility. So putting really good drivers in really rigid cabinets and then bi or tri amping with the DEQX crossover could yield some pretty amazing results.
I've gotten a lot of feedback on a terrific DIY forum. I am leaning towards building a translam two way sealed cabinet made from laminated layers of Baltic birch with approximately 2" thick walls. I'm still working out the details, but the design resembles a Magico Mini. I will likely use ScanSpeak drivers with either a berillium or ring radiator tweeter. If this comes out nicely, I plan to add a bass cabinet with 2 10" woofers. Ultimately, the stack will be tri-amped and all controlled by an HDP5. I've identified a number of very fine and very expensive speakers that use similar drivers and architecture but of course use passive crossovers. It seems like I could build something pretty extrodinary for a fraction of the cost and far superior dedicated amps, electronic crossover, and time alignment.
Does anyone here have experience with DEQX units and DIY speakers? I would love to hear your feedback.
@jeffrubin I am not sure I am clear if the HDP5 contains the Roon Server - or is just a Roon endpoint. If it is a full on server - how do you configure it with music sources etc? Is there a remote configuration app? Can the app running on your smartphone configure the server running on your DEQX?
I understand if it is a Roon Endpoint and you have a server running on a machine elsewhere how this would work - but I see nothing on the Roon site or DEQX site that says that the HDP5 comes with the server pre-installed.
@jeffrubin, I'm glad you reached out to DEQX and shared their general feedback. I was curious to get their take. I'm not surprised at the response at all. Despite my enthusiasm for MQA, I think i'm in the same boat as you. I think the positives of speaker/room correction and crossover of the DEQX would outweigh the benefit of MQA. That's my current leaning, anyway.
That said, my music library is HEAVILY based on CD-quality digital streaming via Tidal (controlled by Roon which I'm now using and ecstatic about). If Tidal flips the switch on MQA this century and starts streaming most if not all of their library in that format, I hope it sounds as good or better through a non-MQA DAC than the current format. That's what MQA promises, but I've heard doubters. I tend to trust MQA, backed by reviewers at Stereophile, Audiostream, etc.
I too have followed MQA very closely. Very promising, crazy enthusiasm, but so far...nothing.
I wrote to DEQX a few weeks ago with some questions, one of which regarded MQA integration. Their response was that the jury is still out on MQA, they place significant burdens on the DAC manufacturer, and the availability of media remains far too limited. So it does not sound like they are getting on board anytime soon.
MQA integration was one of my few hesitations regarding the HDP5. I assumed that something would be lost in the additional AD/DA required using a separate DAC. The comments above more than confirmed my suspicions. So I recognize that if I go forward with the HDP5, MQA is likely not happening for me for quite a while and I think that's okay. The real benefits of the DEQX seem to outweigh the promises of MQA.
I'm sorry but what exactly do you mean by "linear" bass? I'm afraid I could interpret that about a half dozen ways and not be sure I got your intention.
Goldmond did that as well, but they were one of the best sounds I ever heard coming from a box speaker in my life. Mechanical coupling. That is how they achieved linear bass. Seems to be the key to that uber sound. The non-linear bass just smears everything in the midrange just a tad. Linear bass and incredible things happen.
And on top of all that, some designers like B&W or Focal do totally wonky things like putting the tweeters ahead of the mids. Never ends well.
One odd thing I'm still wrapping my head around are companies that make multiple driver enclosures, but are still not fully time aligned. Wilson, the old KEF robots, B&W, among others do this. Check the step response in a review, if available.
By the way, I think time and frequency correction is very cool. However, there’s a few points I want to make.
Many speakers are just not very neutral in the frequency domain and an EQ is the only way to fix it. From B&W to Martin Logan, some highly touted speakers are not objectively neutral. While we can argue about the overall importance of frequency response, it’s usually the thing people hear first and most. So, the good news is modern EQ can correct this, the bad news is it may leave your speakers sounding like something else.
Second, speaker designers know how to do time and phase matching, it’s just not worth it for many of us. If it were all that, we’d hear about Thiel and Vandersteen exclusively, and no other brands would dare compete. However it’s not the case. There are also some negatives. The hardest part about doing time/phase alignment is actually finding drivers that will let you. You need particularly well behaved drivers, AND you’ll possibly give up significant amounts of dynamic range for it since you may be limited to using first order networks.
Could I design a time/phase coherent speaker? Sure. Would I? Meh. Honestly the Thiel and Vandersteens I’ve heard didn’t do it for me enough that I gave up all other designs. Still, the idea that I can just get a DiracLive or DEQX to fix that all up for me is intriguing!
The one thing to remember too is EQ by itself is not nearly as good as with a balanced, low compression, low distortion speaker with good room treatment.
As with all things, please make yourself happy! :) This is just my own impressions and experience, which doesn’t matter a bit when you shell out your hard earned cash.
"Roscoeiii: drewan77, Sorry if I missed it, but have you tried DEQX digital out --> external DAC --> preamp (if volume control is needed)? If so, how did that compare to the setup you are currently using ( external DAC =>A/D =>D/A =>out)?"
No I have not - My setup would require at least 3 external DACs & a multi-channel preamp.
I have no need to change anything except daisy-chain the HDP-3 to the HDP-5 at some future point to add additional mid-bass amps/drivers (for now the HDP-3 is running a system in another room).
Another thing that is not clear is how MQA encoding plays with regular studio work.
The way it should to work is that the MQA encoding process should take your A/D converers into account and compensate for it’s shortcomings. Well, what does that mean if you are mixing several tracks, or doing level changes, EQ, compression, or expansion? Does MQA somehow magically know how to compensate for these algorithms? Mind you, this is all work done before we even encode the signal.
It is possible some of this could be overcome, like with DSD. What’s not clear to me is that there’s any benefit at all to MQA encoding. I remain unimpressed.
We have a couple of other threads re:MQA going on, but yes, it’s true, but ONLY if you are EQ’ing in the digital domain. Using something like a miniDSP or DiracLive which does AD -> EQ -> DA is not affected! Except that if you do that, you are going to do away with the fairy dust MQA sprinkled. More below.
The reason this happens is that the extra octaves are being hidden in the lowest bits of the signal. So, change any of those bits and you ruin the ability to decode the signal. Just like if you took a ZIP file and started messing with the lowest 2 bits of every byte.
Even if you include your DSP in more advanced DAC’s (of which I know of like 2) It’s not at all clear that the alleged benefits of MQA’s digital decoding filters would live through it. Like doing this in your player: MQA-> PCM -> EQ -> MQA ouptut filters -> D/A converter
Then you take the reason the filters allegedly work. They claim less time smearing than conventional digital filters. Well, if you stick a miniDSP (or equivalent) your going to be putting your sound through another A/D, D/A signal without any of the fairy dust present.
To my mind this whole house of mirrors starts to unravel when you start asking what happens with multi-track sources, and when the MQA encoding filters gets applied.
By the way, I went to 2L.com and listened to a few MQA encoded tracks. I could not tell a difference between the 96/24 and the MQA which claimed to be doing 384k/24.
From a practical perspective, this whole thing is looking more and more like Enron or "Dark Energy Generators." I’ve yet to either hear a difference, and I have asked, repeatedly, to be given access to a pair of demo tracks which would demonstrate this alleged superiority.
In addition, what I did not know, is that the whole encode/decode system is lossy. Based on the origami charts I had assumed it was lossless. Not so,
WARNING, I’m about to bring up the controversial subject of MQA. I have been following MQA with great interest these last couple years. I haven’t had the opportunity to hear it myself, but have read as much as possible about the technical aspects as well as subjective sound quality from likes of Stereophile, AudioStream, Digital Audio Review, The Absolute Sound, and others. I’ve been crossing my fingers for the major labels to adopt the process and for content to start streaming in (pun intended). I feel MQA could be the next big thing in hifi.
I also feel that DSP ala DEQX has major potential for improving hifi. But here’s the rub, we might not be able to have both. According to Benchmark, “MQA requires a lossless transmission system from the file source to the final D/A converter. Benign DSP processes such as a digital volume control (used in moderation) immediately defeat the MQA decoding. The same is true for digital crossovers, digital EQ, and room correction. The MQA stream will be corrupted if any of these common processes are encountered. These common forms of digital processing will shut down the MQA decoder and revert the system to a 44.1 or 48 kHz sample rate and an effective bit depth of 13 to 15 bits.” https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/163302855-is-mqa-doa
I haven’t heard any hifi journalists/reviewers mention this. I’d feel more confident in the truth of this claim if it were echoed by another trusted and knowledgeable source. But it seems to make sense. If true…that sucks. Both MQA and DEQX are trying to get to better sound through, among other things, timing accuracy. It’s too bad both technologies can’t play nice together.
Sorry if I missed it, but have you tried DEQX digital out --> external DAC --> preamp (if volume control is needed)? If so, how did that compare to the setup you are currently using (
external DAC =>A/D =>D/A =>out)?
I see that my recent post may have confused a few people so I will attempt to clarify.
Most of my listening is with vinyl rather than digital and I prefer a very natural analogue sound whereas (to me) a lot of digitally reproduced music has a slight glare to treble which sounds unnatural. Different DACs can either exaggerate or lessen this. As a result I’ve auditioned and used a variety of these over the years until I found something that, in my opinion was as close to the pure ’analogue’ sound I was after. That is what inputs to the HDP-5 via balanced analogue connection.
Therefore I prefer to use the balanced XLR input where digital sources (CD, FLAC etc) are already processed so in effect the processor sees everything as analogue. Processing of digital inputs to the DAC in the HDP-5 is certainly a step up from the HDP-3 - both are very good. It’s just that I am rather picky & have a setup (using the external DAC) where it is pretty difficult to tell the difference between a vinyl or digital copy of the same album. Using any digital inputs into the DEQX DAC, treble is a little more ’brittle’ (I just did a swap to make sure I could qualify this remark - the DEQX processors are so good that we are talking small degrees here & I continue to be astounded by the life-like realism that the system produces).
note: from the DEQX product overview of the HDP-5... "provides transparent analogue pass-through.......Analogue inputs utilize Cirrus Logic’s reference ‘professional’ ADC to provide absolute transparency for analogue sources such as vinyl preamps and surround receivers"....I agree with that.
For sure, in theory removing the sequence that I use (external DAC =>A/D =>D/A =>out) should benefit from reduced processing. From living with DEQX & comparative listening for over 4 years, that isn’t the case for me.
Jeff, yes, all of the questions you raised in your previous post seem to me to be logical and valid concerns. Although as you’ve probably seen earlier in the thread many DEQX users having very high quality systems consider the DAC function and the overall transparency of their units to be excellent.
Also, while I’m not in a position to comment on how the sonic quality of the HDP-5’s D/A converter compares to the sonic quality of its A/D converter, as an electrical engineer who has designed several A/D and D/A circuits over the years (for defense electronics), I can say that generally speaking it is a considerably greater challenge to design a good performing A/D circuit than a comparably good D/A circuit, assuming both are required to perform at similar sample rates and resolutions/bit depths.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if keeping a DEQX’s A/D converter out of the signal path would have the potential to provide greater benefit than keeping its D/A converter out of the signal path. Although, again, I’ve personally been very pleased with the transparency and overall performance of my HDP-5 with both in the signal path.
Yes, that's what I was wondering too. Wouldn't the signal be limited to the weakest link in the chain? Would the analogue output of the superior DAC not be limited to the same quality as if the original digital signal was just sent through the DEQX directly?
I’m not sure I understand the first paragraph of your post just above. If you are using an external DAC via the HDP-5’s balanced analog inputs, aren’t you then still using the HDP-5’s built-in DAC as well, and also inserting the HDP-5’s A/D converter function into the signal path?
I am using an external DAC which processes CD and FLAC files via the balanced analogue inputs on the HDP-5. The DEQX DAC is excellent but my preference is for something which is almost indistinguishable from other analogue sources - without any sense of digital glare which is present in every other DAC I have experienced.
In my system, the HDP-5 RCA analogue input takes the main turntable & the balanced XLR analogue input has the external DAC which also has a pass through for a second turntable & an SACD player. I do not use any of the digital inputs.
How would you add a better DAC to a DEQX preamp? If it comes before the DEQX and goes into the analogue input, isn't the superior DAC's signal then reduced to the limits of the DEQX's DAC? I read that you can use a superior DAC after the DEQX on the output side, but if you are using the crossover function (I would be) then you have the better DAC between the DEQX and the high frequency amp, but the DEQX DAC direct to the low frequency amp. This does not seem right to me.
This consideration is even greater if MQA rises to ubiquity. Do you decode the MQA file in a DAC before the DEQX, then what happens to the decoded MQA signal when it goes through the new A/D and D/A processing in the DEQX? Is the higher resolution preserved?
Ozzy, looking at the photos of your setup and room in your system description thread I suspect that you would want to do something along the lines of what I did for the speaker calibration measurements. Namely moving the speakers to the center of the room for the measurements (one at a time, of course). And perhaps considering doing as I did in placing large sound absorbent panels against the nearest reflective surfaces (e.g. the side walls and the floor), when the measurements are performed.
In my case the resulting impulse response measurements were not nearly as "clean" as, for example, the results linked to earlier in the thread by Andrew (Drewan77), which he obtained by measuring outdoors. That in turn necessitated that I "window" the impulse response many milliseconds earlier than he did, which in turn resulted in me choosing to just implement speaker corrections at frequencies above 400 Hz, rather than down to 200 Hz which seems to be the optimal goal. (Lower frequencies are addressed in the room correction process, based on measurements at the listening position with the speakers in their normal positions).
So while I suspect that my results would have been at least a little better if I had measured outdoors, as I said in a post dated 12-2-2015 on the previous page of this thread:
Summing up my experience with the DEQX to this point, I would say that it has provided significant benefit to me as a result of its speaker calibration function, its room correction function, and as a preamp, and as a DAC. As I alluded to in an earlier post, speaker calibration seems to be especially beneficial in my system on recordings that are sonically mediocre, or worse. Bombaywalla had said some time ago, either in this thread or in the “Sloped Baffle” thread, that that can be expected to be a consequence of improvements in time coherence, and my experience with the DEQX appears to confirm that.
Also, regarding your own system, one thing I would wonder about is how the phase-related processing of your BSG QOL would interact with the timing corrections DEQX implements.
Finally, I should mention that for my critical sources I am using unbalanced analog inputs and outputs on my DEQX (as well as digital inputs), and so I have no meaningful knowledge of the sonics of its balanced analog inputs and outputs, one or both of which I suspect you might be using if you were to introduce a DEQX into your setup.
Ozzy, I think most users of big speakers like you and me are not doing measurements outside. Even taking indoor measurements, the improvement I heard was pretty drastic
My speakers weigh 215 lbs. each. So, moving them outside is out of the question.
Can satisfying results be obtained by just placing the included mic in front of one speaker at a time and have the unit read that info and make adjustments?
Thanks blang. That's a terrific article, I had not scene it. I am currently attempting to learn everything I can about speakers and acoustics prior to pulling the trigger on a DEQX (now more "when" than "if"). I'm slowly working my way through the dense but brilliant, Master Handbook of Acoustics.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
