Is DEQX a game changer?

Psag and Mapman, thanks very much.

Obviously I don't have to finalize any decisions just now, and we'll see how things develop in the coming weeks. But while I certainly value the experience-based inputs from Drewan and Psag, and while it's certainly clear that realizing the full potential of DEQX requires an essentially anechoic measurement, what doesn't seem clear (and probably can't be, given how many application-specific variables are involved), is the degree of compromise that will result in any given situation from doing the measurement indoors.

Obviously Drewan and Psag are strong advocates of outdoor measurement. On the other hand, though, in this post by Forrestc, who also seems very experienced, indoor measurement is described as "by no means a deal breaker." And in Kal's (Kr4's) review in Stereophile the speakers he calibrated on his own, and I presume also the other pair he used, which were calibrated remotely by DEQX, were done indoors. The pair he did himself, with good results, were done with the impulse response truncated at only 5.5 ms after the direct sound arrival, and with the correction performed down to 200 and 150 Hz in the two profiles he created, with the latter even being slightly preferred!

Perhaps one relevant variable influencing the degree of compromise resulting from indoor measurement, btw, is how much correction is needed by the particular speakers that are involved. In that regard I've noted that the impulse and step responses I've measured on my speakers, during the first few tenths of a millisecond or so and with no panels near them or the mic, seem to me to look pretty good. Relative, that is, to the step response plots I've seen JA present in Stereophile in conjunction with reviews of other floor-standing speakers which do not use first order crossovers.

So we shall see. Thanks again for your inputs.

Best regards,
-- Al

I'd love to hear other folks POV on the cutoff frequency that worked best for their speaker calibration.

I can only report my own experience and with music playing, it sounds totally believable from the outdoor measurements. Using the same settings from calibration to configuration with the best indoor readings I could achieve, music and especially mid-bass had a slight hollow-nasal quality to it and was not as natural

I am using Open baffle speakers which I appreciate are very different to those being used by Al, Bruce etc but this quality was also present in the full range Shaninians when comparisons were originally made

I feel at a loss to convey with words just how close to perfect a well set up DEQX enabled system can get. For sure there are still going to be a lot of very satisfied users provided measurements are taken to the optimum in the environment available

For sure there are still going to be a lot of very satisfied users provided measurements are taken to the optimum in the environment available
Drewan77

the fact that anechoic or outdoor measurements is the only way to get the best out of the DEQX has to be considered a (big) down-side to this piece of software. The people at DEQX are obviously smart (since they've come up with this clever DEQX box). At the same time don't they realize that audio gear is almost always very heavy esp. speakers? They've got to realize that 99% of people will simply not have the opportunity to take their gear outside or to an anechoic chamber for many reasons. This, then, would create a sub-optimum DEQX setup & would eventually count against DEQX in the long run. It's also going to be a (big) deterrent for many others reading this thread & realizing that there's no way to get the best from or the most natural sound from DEQX unless they carry their gear outdoors/anechoic chamber...
In my books this is a major ding against DEQX.

I'm sorry to say that I don't quite agree with that last sentiment Bombaywalla. Unless someone has heard this themselves, they may not understand how good the resulting sound can be from a good indoor measurement and the majority of people will be extremely satisfied with that

Its a bit like saying that someone buys a top-range sports car but only drives it to 60% of its speed-handling capability. Another owns the same car but takes it to track days at a local circuit. Who is to say which owner gets the most pleasure?

DEQXs' main selling point is the ability to tame the room/speaker interface and it does that better than anything else I have experienced - we are talking about degrees of perfection here and each user will have different expectations

I mentioned a slight nasal quality to mid bass and by 'slight' I really do mean that. Many people probably wouldn't even notice or worry about it. I have listened to two other European DEQX setups, both sounded amazing and the owners were very pleased. Neither sounded quite as smooth or natural as mine does....to MY ears and MY tastes, which is the point I am trying to make