Is DEQX a game changer?

Al, please clarify/confirm what you are reporting. At this point, I think you are saying that your DEQX is being used in bypass mode ... no signal corrections yet. If so, presumably there should be little or no impact on the signal as it passes through the gizmo, which is pretty much what I am getting from your post.

Btw, your dealer's cautionary comment about resisting over-correction is what Larry, the DEQXPert, told me.

Please keep us posted about progress.

Regards,

Bruce

05-16-15: Bifwynne
Al, please clarify/confirm what you are reporting. At this point, I think you are saying that your DEQX is being used in bypass mode ... no signal corrections yet. If so, presumably there should be little or no impact on the signal as it passes through the gizmo, which is pretty much what I am getting from your post.

Yes, that's correct, Bruce. But a logical concern in using the DEQX in conjunction with a phono source would be the transparency of the A/D and D/A conversion processes that it inserts into the signal path, and perhaps also the transparency of its digital volume control function. Some of the experienced DEQX users posted comments earlier in the thread attesting to that transparency, but obviously before getting into calibrations and corrections I wanted to confirm that with my own system, recordings, and ears. As well as assessing the differences resulting from replacement of my preamp with the DEQX, and replacement of analog interconnections to my digital sources with digital interconnections, and substitution of the DEQX's DAC function for their internal DACs.

Best,
-- Al

Got is Al. So, at this point, have you completed your empirical assessment of the DEQX's D/A and A/D "pass-through" transparency??

Al ... as I have already posted a couple of times, a respected dealer once told me that sometimes you have to take 2 steps back to go 5 steps forward. My point is simply that empirical observations re the DEQX's touted transparency aside, ... it's still an artifact.

This may come off as a contradiction, but I believe the DEQX does something to the signal integrity on top of what it's supposed to do. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't use it. But with my speakers, in my room, the DEQX adds a lot more than it takes. Life is about compromises.

Regards and please keep us posted about your progress.

Bruce

P.S. -- Al ... You may have caught the thread about the Ref 150 SE upgrade. ARC upgraded the circuits in my Ref 150 to better accommodate the KT-150 tubes. Wasn't cheap, but I think there's a significant improvement in SQ. The upgrade is still in break-in mode, so I hope to hear some continued improvements.

Hi Bruce,

Yes, I've been following the ARC KT-150 upgrade threads to some extent, particularly including your posts. Glad it appears to be working out well.

And yes, at this point I'm satisfied with the transparency of the DEQX, and I'm ready to move on to the measurement and calibration/correction processes. As I indicated, though, progress may be a bit slow in the coming weeks, due to other activities. Also, before moving the speakers to the center of the room for the measurements (outdoors measurement being a non-starter in my case, as it was in yours), I'm planning to first dry run the entire process with the speakers in their normal position. That way I won't risk moving the speakers to the center of the room and then back, finding that I've screwed up or at least not done things optimally, and then having to move them again. Even though the bases and footers I have the speakers on only raise them a bit less than 5 inches above the floor, I don't relish lifting/sliding their 108 pound weight off of those bases, and subsequently raising and maneuvering them back on.

Best,
-- Al

Bifwynne, could you describe this artifact?