Is DEQX a game changer?

Drewan77, so you are taking the 'raw' digital data and converting it to analog, then feeding it to the DEQX, which then converts it back to digital for processing, etc.

I do the same for CD/SACD. My CD/SACD player has digital out, but the analog out seems to sound better to my ear. However for computer audio I prefer running the digital computer signal directly to the DEQX, rather than introduce additional digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital conversions.

Alan Langford from DEQX Australia has viewed this forum topic and emailed me as below:

"....Andrew, Just noticed your last few posts, it would be good to point out that your HDP3 used DACs from Analog Devices AD1853. The New HDP-4 & PreMate use a DAC by Burr Brown PCM-1795 and completely new I/V and analog output stages that has completely changed the sound when compared to the HDP-3. All the latest models are complete redesigns other than the DSP and some logic...."

I will only find out when I eventually change to an HDP4, it is quite possible that I may prefer this DAC over the HDP3

Drewan ... it's unfortunate that there hasn't been more buzz about the DEQX. I still believe that my rig sounds better with it. But not sure if using my CDP's on board DAC is better than the DEQX's DAC. A little different sounding for sure ... just not sure if the DEQX DAC is better. Both are very good.

Btw, I think the DEQX brings a very important plus to the table that even the best first order x-over speakers cannot do. Namely room EQ. I can't overstate the important of room EQ. A crappy room can make the best speaker system sound like crap. In my case, the FR of my speakers was so out of wack that the imaging was smeared all over the place. The DEQX significantly improved imaging.

Hopefully, more folks will road test the DEQX and post their comments.

Bruce

P.S. - I caught your last post about time aligning my speakers outside. Simply not feasible. I'd have to schlepp hundreds of pounds of gear upstairs.

^One could always get a dedicated room correction only system and add it to properly designed from the ground up 1st order cross-over time aligned speakers.

Unsound ... on paper, I think that's true. But I wonder out loud just how time coherent so called time coherent speakers really are. That's just a question.

Presumably, if one was to use the DEQX on a 1st order time coherent speaker, there would be no need for further time alignment. That's the theory anyway.