2. tech-talk
  3. 1381679264

DSPeaker Anti Mode 2.0 evaluation

I have read all of the glowing reviews of this product and I just don't understand why I am not impressed. I have been lucky to find a very kind dealer to allow me to try one the DSPeaker Anti Mode 2.0 units.
I have 2 JL Audio F113 subwoofers that I have set up in stereo and are based on their own microphones measurement calibration.

So, with those sub settings and then switching out the LF Filter, I then used the DSPeaker unit to eq just my JL subs. That is, I tested the unit by playing my Andra 2 speakers full range via my Pass Labs Preamp and Amp and with the other Preamp outputs I plugged in the DSPeaker in and then the JL subs are plugged into the DSPeaker.

I ran the DSPeaker calibration. I used the DSPeaker in and out of the flow by using its bypass button and I really couldn’t tell much of any improvement. In fact I believe I like the bypass sound better.

Why is this? All of the glowing reviews and it is only marginal different if at all.

Now, there is an update for the DSPeaker in June 2013 but my Norton Virus control will not allow the download. Perhaps, if I was able to download that update it would be better, but I doubt it.

So, before I end my trial of the unit, is my configuration flawed , what do you guys think?
ozzy
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Ozzy, I'll look forward to an update if/when you do.

Couldn't you also try the QOL after the AntiMode 2.0 and if you wish send it (or not) to the subs? Seems to me you have five or six discrete possibilities for arrangement of the components singly or collectively. It would be interesting if you choose to chase down all the permutations of systems and share about the experience. With the products you currently have on hand if you work through all the variables there is a good chance you will find a combo which is your new favorite.
doak
199 posts
 
"All such products diminish absolute definition/clarity - no exceptions. They must, as they are not necessary devices inserted into the signal path. It is to be expected that the system will sound cleaner without any non-necessary device inserted." Doug

Amen.
Yeah you right.
Right On!
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,305 posts
 
Could someone please define "necessary device"?

Kr4 is asking the right question.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
A necessary device is one without which there is no music. Products like QOL, or in this application the AntiMode 2.0, are not necessary. They may be perceieved as enhancing the system's sound, but their removal does not halt it.

Now, if the AntiMode 2.0 is used as the preamp then it becomes a necessary device, assuming the source has no attenuation.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,305 posts
 
By that definition an analog preamp in a digital system with digital volume control is not a necessary device. Many people have phono preamps with high gain settings, but prefer the sound with a step-up transformer and the preamp set to lo gain. Is the step-up transformer a necessary device? If I have a CD player with a digital out and use a separate D/A converter is the dedicated D/A necessary? What about outboard jitter reduction devices? Or products like auto-formers or the Bybee things you place at your loudspeaker inputs?

What I'm getting at is that the idea of a necessary device is not very descriptive or helpful. If there is a problem in your system and an additional device can correct that problem without introducing other problems, then it's a useful device.
More to discover