Is DEQX a game changer?

@blang11

Another thing that is not clear is how MQA encoding plays with regular studio work.

The way it should to work is that the MQA encoding process should take your A/D converers into account and compensate for it’s shortcomings. Well, what does that mean if you are mixing several tracks, or doing level changes, EQ, compression, or expansion? Does MQA somehow magically know how to compensate for these algorithms? Mind you, this is all work done before we even encode the signal. 

It is possible some of this could be overcome, like with DSD. What’s not clear to me is that there’s any benefit at all to MQA encoding. I remain unimpressed.

Best,


Erik

"Roscoeiii: drewan77, Sorry if I missed it, but have you tried DEQX digital out --> external DAC --> preamp (if volume control is needed)? If so, how did that compare to the setup you are currently using ( external DAC =>A/D =>D/A =>out)?"

No I have not - My setup would require at least 3 external DACs & a
multi-channel preamp.

I have no need to change anything except daisy-chain the HDP-3 to the HDP-5 at some future point to add additional mid-bass amps/drivers (for now the HDP-3 is running a system in another room).

From a practical perspective, this whole thing is looking more and more like Enron or "Dark Energy Generators."

"Enron" - I haven't heard that word in a long time..... ;-)

By the way, I think time and frequency correction is very cool. However, there’s a few points I want to make.

Many speakers are just not very neutral in the frequency domain and an EQ is the only way to fix it. From B&W to Martin Logan, some highly touted speakers are not objectively neutral. While we can argue about the overall importance of frequency response, it’s usually the thing people hear first and most. So, the good news is modern EQ can correct this, the bad news is it may leave your speakers sounding like something else.

Second, speaker designers know how to do time and phase matching, it’s just not worth it for many of us. If it were all that, we’d hear about Thiel and Vandersteen exclusively, and no other brands would dare compete. However it’s not the case. There are also some negatives. The hardest part about doing time/phase alignment is actually finding drivers that will let you. You need particularly well behaved drivers, AND you’ll possibly give up significant amounts of dynamic range for it since you may be limited to using first order networks.

Could I design a time/phase coherent speaker? Sure. Would I? Meh. Honestly the Thiel and Vandersteens I’ve heard didn’t do it for me enough that I gave up all other designs. Still, the idea that I can just get a DiracLive or DEQX to fix that all up for me is intriguing!

The one thing to remember too is EQ by itself is not nearly as good as with a balanced, low compression, low distortion speaker with good room treatment.

As with all things, please make yourself happy! :) This is just my own impressions and experience, which doesn’t matter a bit when you shell out your hard earned cash.

Best,

Erik

And on top of all that, some designers like B&W or Focal do totally wonky things like putting the tweeters ahead of the mids. Never ends well.

One odd thing I'm still wrapping my head around are companies that make multiple driver enclosures, but are still not fully time aligned. Wilson, the old KEF robots, B&W, among others do this. Check the step response in a review, if available.

Best,

Erik