Is DEQX a game changer?

Thanks Andrew. Based on the collective comments coming in from you and Bombaywalla, I am thinking that I am at a "stop point" with speaker evolution. If there is a next step, it may be an off the beaten track approach that Andrew has taken.

Btw Andrew, if I correctly understand your custom design, your drivers are mounted in an open baffle frame. What is your experience with back reflection from the drivers? Any wave interference and cancelation effects? Many manufactures try to damp the back reflections in damped sealed structures (e.g., Paradigm and Magico) or use a transmission line approach (e.g., Vandersteen).

Also, many manufacturers like Revel design the front baffle to minimize wave inference effects. How does your design speak to front baffle interference issues?

Back to my original point, ... I am interested in reading about Al's set up experience with the sound box. As previously posted, it is not physically possible for me to move my speakers outside for an "anechoic-type" set up. Nevertheless, perhaps Al's sound box experience will persuade me that I can approach that goal.

P.S. Although I have reported this before, I believe that the DEQX PreMate has been a high yield investment in my rig. I am dubious that dropping $30K Magicos ("sans" DEQX) into my rig would yield a lot of grins if the music doesn't "sound" quite right because of time alignment issues, or if the room twists the FR of each speaker into a pretzel.

Thanks again guys.

Bruce

Thanks again Bifwynne. Glad I was able to contribute.
Very good responses from Almarg & Drewan77 esp. his feedback from personal usage over the past 3 yrs. I've also heard Magicos sometime back & agree with Almarg's findings.

Agree with Unsound - the Joseph Audio slopes are called "infinite slope". yes, they sure appear to be brickwall filters. He often gets a best of show award & I've heard his speakers - good sound but they never stood out.

Bifwynne, it looks like you've convinced yourself that your Paradigms are at the end of the line now. Only you can tell this & we take your word for it. If you try open baffle speakers, there are a few commercially available - Emerald Physics & DIY kits from Siegfried Linkwitz of Linkwitz-Riley fame. Maybe you want to order his kit & make it yourself?? This might be another option (other than building Drewan77's design)??
At RMAF2007 Nelson Pass was there himself in one of the rooms showing off his open-baffle speaker driven by one of his First Watt amps. It was quite experimental at that time but maybe that design is mature now & ready for ordering as a DIY kit?
Thanks.

Hi Bruce, my OBs only handle 100hz and upwards - each using four mid range drivers plus ribbon tweeters. All these are physically aligned (to the originating point of each) within a flat, tall and wide baffle & the speakers also have shallow tapering 'sides' which blend to the top edge. Sound waves can pass across the front surface and away to the sides but are constrained so they also transmit (only) to the rear. Nothing else behind the speakers apart from cabling and a single protective capacitor for each tweeter

There is free space beside and behind the speakers and I have no obvious issue with back reflections or wave effects/cancellations - but that's not to say they aren't there, it's just not apparent and I have no reason to check. The music room also has a lot of diffusing and absorbing material including a great deal of vinyl (+ CD storage)

In everything I have done, listening and then adapting has been the mantra until I achieve the sound I want - this has always been referenced to natural sounding live music. Research, theory and specifications are extremely useful but the real question should be 'what does music actually sound like'?

Sure, I made mistakes and I produced multiple low cost OB prototypes - each time I heard something I wasn't happy with, I then researched that particular aspect and adapted until it sounded right. My original intention was to try out OBs, learn and then build a pair of Linkwitz-Rileys but my own developments started to sound so good that I saw no need to follow that path. Maybe I just hit lucky or it's probably more likely that DEQX is capable of fully correcting something that is nearly there already?

I am confident that in my room and with my (mostly analogue source) preferences, this system is about as good as I could hope for

I have done nothing more to my setup for at least 2 years and can find no fault (so far). For the previous 40 odd years I constantly replaced and upgraded.... 'chasing the wind' as it were. Not any more and that's why I am very happy to see Bruce, Al and others starting on the same path because I know that the end point can be so satisfying

Wanted to post a report about an interesting and enjoyable audio experience.

Several years ago, I bought a Best of Roy Orbison 2 record reissue set. I was always disappointed because it seemed that Roy's voice was shifted to the right. It got to the point that I used the balance control on my linestage to shift the imaging. But the music still didn't sound right. Imaging was smeared across the sound stage, even when I played the record in mono mode.

Well, I got bored with the record set. Actually ... disappointed. So I put the record set away. I haven't played it since I bought my DEQX PreMATE ... that is until now.

So here's the report: Roy's voice is exactly where it should be ... dead center. The background singers and band appear to be properly placed too. Also, Roy's voice is not screechy like it was when I first played the LPs (Pre DEQX). As many may recall, the guy could belt out a song and he had quite a vocal range.

Since I'm still using the same phono pre, TT and cartridge, I attribute the sound improvements in staging and voicing to the PreMATE. Just sayin' IMO.

Cheers

BIF

Hi Almarg, I'll add my voice to those interested in your DEQX results.

My system uses a TacT 2.2X to provide DRC and crossover to subs. This is a big improvement in most cases, but with about 15% of my music library, the added grain or hardness from the TacT outweighs the benefits of DRC, so I bypass it. Besides being much newer, the DEQX apparently resamples only by integer amounts, which I suspect helps. (The TacT resamples everything to 24/96).

So, thank you for documenting this and the other participants for many interesting comments, also.