Take the last plunge or stay passive

[Tony T]

Got to go for it after doing much legwork. You’d probably have a nagging doubt about it if you didn’t proceed now.

 

[Jazid]

I can't possibly recommend anyone use any form of digital crossovers with unnecessary A/D conversion. The conversion process is easily audible in the upper keys of the piano on a decently resolving system.

You are been off doing any DSP upstream of your DAC.

Unless Ive missed something (sadly quite likely) it seems to me prudent to do all your DSP before the DAC, excepting of necessity any analogue source. No unnecessary ADC to DAC should be used if possible but, in the recording studio many conversions may have already been done. If, @Psilonaught, you consider that piano music sounds adequate from your digital source it suggests to me that the ADC/DAC conversion process you were using was in some way inadequate compared to the rest of your system?

As I wrote earlier, there are many here who apparently have not heard what a DEQX can do, but who have an opinion about it anyway. Yes it is expensive, £10k sounds frightening when a second hand 3.0 will come in at maybe £1.2k, so loss of re-sale value is a valid consideration for the OP. What you get for your cash is an all in one dsp with 8 channels of extremely high quality DACs, 8 channels of very high quality pre-amps, various digital in/out, and 8 channels of single ended and balanced analogue outputs. You also get excellent proprietary software which sets out to correct the entire playback chain including the room. The difference with it in vs. out is remarkable. On the downside (if it is one); it is not as completely tweakable as miniDSP/Dirac, and still has quite a steep learning curve (although for me not as steep as miniDSP/Dirac). I think it is transparent to the source.

I have had a 2.6, upgraded to 3.0 in my system since maybe 2012, it remains the only item in the whole playback chain which I have never considered swapping out.

To give you an idea:
Is the difference when using it greater than between different amps or DACs? Yes, far greater.
Is the difference when using it greater than between record and cd playback? Yes, far greater.
Is the difference when using it greater than between different makes of loudspeakers? It's about the same scale I'd say.

 

[Lancslinn]

I had already purchased Linn Isobarik speakers and was running them passive with Linn Majik 4100 amp. I went active by buying another 4100 amp and a set of set of cross over cards. All ex dem. Total cost of upgrade was £2100. Was it worth it? Slightly better but not light and day. Maybe higher up the food chain the difference becomes really noticeable.

 

[Psilonaught]

I respect to

Unless Ive missed something (sadly quite likely) it seems to me prudent to do all your DSP before the DAC, excepting of necessity any analogue source. No unnecessary ADC to DAC should be used if possible but, in the recording studio many conversions may have already been done. If, @Psilonaught, you consider that piano music sounds adequate from your digital source it suggests to me that the ADC/DAC conversion process you were using was in some way inadequate compared to the rest of your system?

As I wrote earlier, there are many here who apparently have not heard what a DEQX can do, but who have an opinion about it anyway. Yes it is expensive, £10k sounds frightening when a second hand 3.0 will come in at maybe £1.2k, so loss of re-sale value is a valid consideration for the OP. What you get for your cash is an all in one dsp with 8 channels of extremely high quality DACs, 8 channels of very high quality pre-amps, various digital in/out, and 8 channels of single ended and balanced analogue outputs. You also get excellent proprietary software which sets out to correct the entire playback chain including the room. The difference with it in vs. out is remarkable. On the downside (if it is one); it is not as completely tweakable as miniDSP/Dirac, and still has quite a steep learning curve (although for me not as steep as miniDSP/Dirac). I think it is transparent to the source.

I have had a 2.6, upgraded to 3.0 in my system since maybe 2012, it remains the only item in the whole playback chain which I have never considered swapping out.

To give you an idea:
Is the difference when using it greater than between different amps or DACs? Yes, far greater.
Is the difference when using it greater than between record and cd playback? Yes, far greater.
Is the difference when using it greater than between different makes of loudspeakers? It's about the same scale I'd say.

If the unit also acts as a streamer then I assume the DSP functionality is done at source so doesn't require further AD/DA conversion lower down which is why it doesn't alter the sound.

 

[newlash09]

The thing we probably really all know about this hobby is that there are an infinite number of system combinations that have the potential to offer wonderful musical joy.

Sounds like you've been building towards an active system for a while, so go for it.

It will probably sound amazing. Just like the other million amazing systems out there which you can pursue when circumstances and finances allow.

The only bad decision in this hobby is spending beyond your means.

Thanks sir ... Just the encouragement I need

 

[newlash09]

Iam sorry for being absent from my own thread. Was away on a holiday in the himalayas with family. My daughters first introduction to snow and skiing .

And I did send a email to Deqx before I left and now it seems they want me to beta test their pre-8 HD active which iam so stuck on.

But I've said no so far, as I don't think I could do justice to what they might be expecting in terms of feedback.

 

[Tony_J]

Iam sorry for being absent from my own thread. Was away on a holiday in the himalayas with family. My daughters first introduction to snow and skiing .

And I did send a email to Deqx before I left and now it seems they want me to beta test their pre-8 HD active which iam so stuck on.

But I've said no so far, as I don't think I could do justice to what they might be expecting in terms of feedback.

Go for it. Part of their beta testing will be about how they do remote support.

 

[Andrei]

Hi sirs,

As some of you might be aware, I've been on a seven year plan to go active, first hatched in 2017.

Took 2 years to fund the DIY speakers. Then funds for the amps and cabling. And here iam now, at the last fork in the road.

The next purchase will be a substantial outlay in funds. It will either be an end game dac or a Deqx 4 way active processor. And it's been an endless sleepless debate in my mind for this last one year. I came really close to buying a end game dac, but invested in a digital transport instead, as I had not made up my mind and wanted to retain the flexibility to choose between the two roads ahead.

Iam somehow bullish that dsp and active will be the next big sonic jump, rather than going with a newer and better dac through the same passive crossovers and the speakers.

Considering that the next purchase will be upwards of 10k, wanted to seek the combined wisdom of the Wam. So below are the options I think I have :

1. The current speakers are built with top of the Line drivers that SB acoustics have to offer. So spend on a Deqx and go active to improve the sound.

2. Get a newer dac and use the same speakers in passive mode.

3. Get new speakers for the same amount and retain the rest of the chain.

Considering that my speakers are DIY, and have practically no resale value, the last option is the least desired. So any advise or experience is graciously accepted. Thanks in advance for your time.

Hi Newlash. The short answer is speakers - not what you want to hear I am sure :-<

The way I look at things is via a hierarchy, that is to say what makes more or less difference in sound quality. Number one is transducers; things that convert one energy source to another. So microphones, cartridges and speakers will always make the most difference. Second is conversion between analogue and digital sounds; ADCs and DACs. Third is digital to digital conversions. These are always benign.

(There are other variables. For example amplification is important because amplification and speakers should be viewed as a single entity as it is the power amplifier that actually drives the speakers. More important is that the room and its setup has a profound impact on overall sound. As an aside that is the weakness in my system.)

As for Deqx, I know as much about that as you know about the Venus Variation of 15th century Indian Rope Dancing - oops did I really just say that? Anyway I cannot comment on this sort of thing as I have never done anything more than twiddle with some equaliser knobs.

Also thanks for sharing about the personal situation. It really does put things in a context. If you will allow a bit of thread drift I too have had to curtail discretionary spending. Here in New Zealand we were influenced by The Plague, Cyclone Gabrielle, Interest Rate hikes; so my business has suffered. Net result is that my audiophilia nervosa disorder is presently untreated.

 

[Tony_J]

Then adding Deqx processing will completely eliminate the difference between cheap and the best existing drivers.

Err...no.

To elaborate a little...

To quote the old saying, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In this context, you can't start with average-to-piss-poor drivers and expect a spot of DSP to change them into state of the art drivers - it just isn't going to happen, so get over it. Certainly, IMHO at least, DSP can help you get the best out of the drivers you have, but if you want excellent results, there's no substitute for starting with excellent drivers.

 

[newlash09]

To elaborate a little...

To quote the old saying, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In this context, you can't start with average-to-piss-poor drivers and expect a spot of DSP to change them into state of the art drivers - it just isn't going to happen, so get over it. Certainly, IMHO at least, DSP can help you get the best out of the drivers you have, but if you want excellent results, there's no substitute for starting with excellent drivers.

Fully agree sir .

Iam Infact starting out with the best drivers that SB acoustics currently make.

However, what I meant to convey was that Deqx claims that all transducers are flawed to start with. And will benefit from their correction.

 

[newlash09]

Go for it. Part of their beta testing will be about how they do remote support.

I gave it a real serious thought sir. But wasn't certain I could do justice to what would be expected of me feedback wise. Besides, I don't think I can spare much serious time too.

So I have conveyed my limitations honestly to the Deqx team. And if they are still fine with that, then I am not averse to the idea of getting one of their early units to tinker with.

Edit : I haven't asked them yet, but I guess the beta testing ones come at a significant discount as per my reading elsewhere. Mostly at distributors price I think.

 

[DomT]

Fully agree sir .

Iam Infact starting out with the best drivers that SB acoustics currently make.

However, what I meant to convey was that Deqx claims that all transducers are flawed to start with. And will benefit from their correction.

Of course they would. In the same way the MD of Harbeth used to say that any functioning amp will sound the same as another with his speakers. Many examples of this. It’s all just marketing to a greater or lesser degree.

Slightly off topic I saw the Mark Warburg Film Contraband last night and was thinking of you. Not implying anything about you at all but it did make me wonder about whether the film was complete fantasy or in some cases might be true.