Is DEQX a game changer?

Hi Lewinskih01
No problem, I will mail you. I am in the UK

Yes a single DEQX processor handles 6 channels/6 amps. You could add a second of course (I may one day add the latest HDP4, these things are very expensive but worth every penny)

My setup is:
Treble, 2 channels +3145hz
Mids, 2 channels 100-3145hz
Bass, 2 channels -100hz (2 separate subs, different placements)

I originally purchased the HDP3 because I could not integrate the sub (single M&K MX200 at that time) to the Obelisks without occasional audible crossover dips or humps which drove me crazy. The DEQX made the crossover seamless and I was happy for the first time. It's going to be a compromise for you: Because with only 6 channels you may need to either take the clarity and image realism using the DEQX for the main speakers and live with imperfect sub integration or maybe combine mid-bass or mid-treble on the main speakers so you achieve the cleanest bass. I would take this route personally. Whatever you do I am happy to assist as much as I can

Hi Lewinskih01
No problem, I will mail you. I am in the UK

Yes a single DEQX processor handles 6 channels/6 amps. You could add a second of course (I may one day add the latest HDP4, these things are very expensive but worth every penny)

My setup is:
Treble, 2 channels +3145hz
Mids, 2 channels 100-3145hz
Bass, 2 channels -100hz (2 separate subs, different placements)

I originally purchased the HDP3 because I could not integrate the sub (single M&K MX200 at that time) to the Obelisks without occasional audible crossover dips or humps which drove me crazy. The DEQX made the crossover seamless and I was happy for the first time. It's going to be a compromise for you: Because with only 6 channels you may need to either take the clarity and image realism using the DEQX for the main speakers and live with imperfect sub integration or maybe combine mid-bass or mid-treble on the main speakers so you achieve the cleanest bass. I would take this route personally. Whatever you do I am happy to assist as much as I can

Drewan77,
That is a great peek into why more audiophiles aren't using DEQX. Perhaps DEQX's R&D will be able to make user interfaces/optimization much less cumbersome in the near future. From my encounter with DEQX (obviously dialed in) it clearly qualifies as the big dog in the final frontier of products in the quest for glorious 2 channel.

I have a question if you could answer...

Have you found that the sonic differences of amplifiers any less apparent when going through DEQX? Considering you've used different amps.

Thanks

So far I seem to be hearing a strong yes. Any dissent and if so why.

Not really dissenting, but just want to make the point DEQX is not the only option. I think what is to me a game changer is DSP, and the ability to room-correct plus time-align the drivers. This is my opinion and I still need to try it for myself.

DEQX is attractive in that it's a one box solution that performs very well, allows you to also correct non-computer sources, but sells for $5500 or so. So rather expensive.

BTW, the same DEQX owner who told me it replaced a $30k DAC with it and was very happy, now told me the exaSound e28 is a sonic equivalent of the DEQX HDP4. The e28 retails for $3800 or so and allows for 8 channels, but needs the DSP software on the server, and it doesn't have an analog input so taking measurements is a lot more complicated. This guy is not bypassing the passive XO on his YG speakers, so he is not doing time-alignment as far as I know.

Yet another option is a Lynx Hilo, that sells for $2300 and has six channels and analog inputs so measuring is easy, but it also needs DSP software on the server.

I basically just listed the three options I'm considering. It is not easy to abandon the beated path and ignore the shinny comments about new 2-channel DACs such as Chord Hugo and others. Decissions!!