DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

[Bjorn]

I'm sorry of my venting here, but I'm quite frustated with the DSP market. One of my own brands, Vera Audio, did consider developing a DSP several years ago. But we found it we take too long. So I've been waiting for other DSPs to get to the market which we could use with planned active speakers. And it's dissapointing what we're seeing. The new DEQX was suppose to cost about the same as the previous model. Something that's expensive but still obtainable for a good number. But now with the high price increase, I fear the market will be very small. It would also be kind of strange to offer a DSP that costs considerable more than several of our speakers.

Both Danville and Analogue Precision has chosen a platform that's simply not user friendly in any way (no matter what they say). miniDSP doesn't offer the quality we need in several areas and also don't care about the OEM market but prioritize selling direct (mark up is super small for those sell their products).

I've used a PC software myself, but obviously not a route to go commercially. So it's all quite frustating. Of course we can use Hypex plate amps and we do plan to offer that as well, but the Hypex DSP isn't stellar neither in sound quality or in processing power and user friendliness.

 

[Trdat]

Apologize if I am hijacking your efforts in your support for an Australian company or any product for that matter but for around $400 Euros you get software DSP with the likes of Audiolense and Acourate that can do just as much, probably more and is automated(not Acourate but has more features and can do more than Audiolense).

What is the advantage of hardware DSP? 8 channel dac? For a 2000 bux you can get 4 SMSL Dacs and a digital to digital converter add another unknown but reasonable amount get some filters made by Mitch and you save the heartache I did of 5 years with the learning curve of how to make filters with Audiolense XO and you have a magic sound system.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

I'm sorry of my venting here, but I'm quite frustated with the DSP market. One of my own brands, Vera Audio, did consider developing a DSP several years ago. But we found it we take too long. So I've been waiting for other DSPs to get to the market which we could use with planned active speakers. And it's dissapointing what we're seeing. The new DEQX was suppose to cost about the same as the previous model. Something that's expensive but still obtainable for a good number. But now with the high price increase, I fear the market will be very small. It would also be kind of strange to offer a DSP that costs considerable more than several of our speakers.

Both Danville and Analogue Precision has chosen a platform that's simply not user friendly in any way (no matter what they say). miniDSP doesn't offer the quality we need in several areas and also don't care about the OEM market but prioritize selling direct (mark up is super small for those sell their products).

I've used a PC software myself, but obviously not a route to go commercially. So it's all quite frustating. Of course we can use Hypex plate amps and we do plan to offer that as well, but the Hypex DSP isn't stellar neither in sound quality or in processing power and user friendliness.

The only short coming for audioweaver is not having multiple profiles you can easily switch between but if you don't need that then it's not an issue. It gets you to an end result very quickly without cutting a single line of code and is not hamstrung like the canned systems are. You can always build your own DSP platform and cut your own custom code which is what I have done for an existing client using our own hardware but that meant cutting the code from the ground up. It's not for the faint hearted so there is no free lunch here and most people would prefer the audioweaver drag and drop GUI any day of the week.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

Apologize if I am hijacking your efforts in your support for an Australian company or any product for that matter but for around $400 Euros you get software DSP with the likes of Audiolense and Acourate that can do just as much, probably more and is automated(not Acourate but has more features).

What is the advantage of hardware DSP? 8 channel dac? For a 2000 bux you can get 4 SMSL Dacs and a digital to digital converter add another unknown but reasonable amount get some filters made by Mitch and you save the heartache I did of 5 years with the learning curve of how to make filters with Audiolense XO and you have a magic sound system.

You should be able to run audiolense or accourate with our preamp and do it in a transparent way on an external PC as though the hardware was built into the preamp itself. Every source unit connected to the preamp from digital to analog will be processed exactly the same way and not limited to those apps running on the PC itself such as Jriver etc. And it doesn't rely on the external sample rate being in sync with external PC audio sample rate either. Everything is done transparently

cheers

 

[Bjorn]

The only short coming for audioweaver is not having multiple profiles you can easily switch between but if you don't need that then it's not an issue. It gets you to an end result very quickly without cutting a single line of code and is not hamstrung like the canned systems are. You can always build your own DSP platform and cut your own custom code which is what I have done for an existing client using our own hardware but that meant cutting the code. It's not for the faint hearted so there is no free lunch here.

I have worked with AudioWeaver and I disagree strongly. Even the miniDSP software is way too advanced for most. Not to mention the customer could screw everything up in AudioWeaver and even damage drivers. The end user here is not your typical DIYer who are used to work with crossovers and measurements. All of this is completely unkown to the majority. Changing presets should of course be done with the remote or on the unit iself. An abolsutely minimum here would be 3 presets for a low cost product and more for higher cost units.

AudioWeaver is for the engineer who builds the background bone. There's needs to a super easy front end software to do simpe PEQS and shelving and the most advanced setting would be adding crossover plus delay for subwoofer integration. Even the latter would require assistance for most or done automatically. It shouldn't require one to connect it to a PC/Mac at all, but it should be controllable from a phone/tablet additionally to doing it physically on the unit. Take a look at how KEF does this.

Obviously I'm talking about locking away many of the features away when a DSP is sold together with a speaker. This would be different approach when selling to a DIYer.
What Analogue Precision is offering instead is a product for very knowledgable DIYers and that's fine. However, the market for that is small and especially when the price tag is that high. If one is going to reach audiophile market the product needs to look generally good. Your product has what I would describe as an industrial cheap PA look, and that doesn't quite live up to the price tag IMO. The new DEQX looks on the other hand great, which means quite a bit for many audiophiles. Just unfortunate the price went up a lot.

earik has shared a bit of the AudioWeaver software in the Danville dspNexus thread below for those who are interested.

dspNexus DSP Audio Processor - DANVILLE SIGNAL - SHIPPING NOW?

Except that it doesn't have this functionality at all... And measures generally poorly or mediocre at best. Perhaps you don't understand what an advanced DSP with manual controlling is and what it can be used for. Trinnov would be an AVR that has something similar. Which functionality is it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Keith_W]

Apologize if I am hijacking your efforts in your support for an Australian company or any product for that matter but for around $400 Euros you get software DSP with the likes of Audiolense and Acourate that can do just as much, probably more and is automated(not Acourate but has more features and can do more than Audiolense).

What is the advantage of hardware DSP? 8 channel dac? For a 2000 bux you can get 4 SMSL Dacs and a digital to digital converter add another unknown but reasonable amount get some filters made by Mitch and you save the heartache I did of 5 years with the learning curve of how to make filters with Audiolense XO and you have a magic sound system.

I created this thread NOT in support of an Australian company, but in support for more DSP products reaching the market. It just so happens that these guys are Australian, and I was able to speak to them extensively about their product.

I agree with you about the advantages of software DSP over hardware DSP. You pay less and get more. In fact, this is what I do at home with my own system. But, as I explained in this post, you lose a lot of convenience features by going this route and it is definitely more complex. For example, four SMSL DAC's and a DDC as you mention means five additional devices you need to power on when you want to listen to music, not to mention the computer. And you won't be able to take measurements with your suggested solution, you need to add an audio interface. And if you want to play any external source, like a DVD player, a turntable, or use your stereo with your TV, you need additional hardware and even more complexity.

There is a role for one box solutions like MiniDSP and DEQX. In none of my posts have I ever said that this was the ultimate solution for the best possible quality, instead I have taken pains to point out where they fit in the market and who they are for. The DEQX is not for me personally, in the same way that many audio products aren't. The reasons why were explained in my first post - it is because I place high value on modularity, and I dislike proprietary solutions. If one module fails in my system, or a company goes bust, or Windows stops supporting it, I just yank it out and replace it with something else. Some other people do not place the same weighting on the importance of modularity and interoperability, and that's fine. I have no quarrel with them, it's still DSP and still better than no DSP at all.

I'd happily take a complete unit at half price, in the name of supporting them, but it would have to be a production unit, not a pre-production unit.
Is that what you meant by "prototype", Keith_W?
I have been after a plug-in DSP solution for my passives, but am heading towards a fully-active system- this covers both options!

I don't know what is meant by "prototype", because I do not speak officially for DEQX. I am only reporting what they told me. I understand the hardware is finalized, but the software and final pricing are not. It is best if you contact them directly and speak to them.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

I have worked with AudioWeaver and I disagree strongly. Even the miniDSP software is way too advanced for most. Not to mention the customer could screw everything up in AudioWeaver and even damage drivers. The end user here is not your typical DIYer who are used to work with crossovers and measurements. All of this is completely unkown to the majority. Changing presets should of course be done with the remote or on the unit iself. An abolsutely minimum here would be 3 presets for a low cost product and more for higher cost units.

AudioWeaver is for the engineer who builds the background bone. There's needs to a super easy front end software to do simpe PEQS and shelving and the most advanced setting would be adding crossover plus delay for subwoofer integration. Even the latter would require assistance for most or done automatically. It shouldn't require one to connect it to a PC/Mac at all, but it should be controllable from a phone/tablet additionally to doing it physically on the unit. Take a look at how KEF does this.

Obviously I'm talking about locking away many of the features away when a DSP is sold together with a speaker. This would be different approach when selling to a DIYer.
What Analogue Precision is offering instead is a product for very knowledgable DIYers and that's fine. However, the market for that is small and especially when the price tag is that high. If one is going to reach audiophile market the product needs to look generally good. Your product has what I would describe as an industrial cheap PA look, and that doesn't quite live up to the price tag IMO. The new DEQX looks on the other hand great, which means quite a bit for many audiophiles. Just unfortunate the price went up a lot.

earik has shared a bit of the AudioWeaver software in the Danville dspNexus thread below for those who are interested.

dspNexus DSP Audio Processor - DANVILLE SIGNAL - SHIPPING NOW?

Except that it doesn't have this functionality at all... And measures generally poorly or mediocre at best. Perhaps you don't understand what an advanced DSP with manual controlling is and what it can be used for. Trinnov would be an AVR that has something similar. Which functionality is it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Sure you can have a fancy cnc milled case but you are certainly going to pay for it. We are looking to upgrade the case whilst avoiding cnc if we can. See, you can do what you want to do and make it accessible by a human interface but you have to write custom code to do it which most likely is how those commercial products were designed. There is no other way around it.

cheers
david

 

[Trdat]

I created this thread NOT in support of an Australian company, but in support for more DSP products reaching the market. It just so happens that these guys are Australian, and I was able to speak to them extensively about their product.

Point taken.

I agree with you about the advantages of software DSP over hardware DSP. You pay less and get more. In fact, this is what I do at home with my own system. But, as I explained in this post, you lose a lot of convenience features by going this route and it is definitely more complex. For example, four SMSL DAC's and a DDC as you mention means five additional devices you need to power on when you want to listen to music, not to mention the computer. And you won't be able to take measurements with your suggested solution, you need to add an audio interface. And if you want to play any external source, like a DVD player, a turntable, or use your stereo with your TV, you need additional hardware and even more complexity.

100% agree, like I mentioned it took me 5 years to fully understand software DSP let alone the initial stages of understanding the chain through DDC, actually the hardest part was routing the UDIO-8 in Jriver 15 emails back to back with Minidsp to no avail. Eventually, the Jriver forum helped out, sometimes I think that was luck and not hard work. I think people need to be aware of this, because as much as I want to support software DSP it does have its negative sides.

There is a role for one box solutions like MiniDSP and DEQX. In none of my posts have I ever said that this was the ultimate solution for the best possible quality, instead I have taken pains to point out where they fit in the market and who they are for. The DEQX is not for me personally, in the same way that many audio products aren't. But that does not mean that others won't benefit from it.

There is role for a one box solution, originally I was looking for something along the lines of something like the Deqx and opted for a analoge crossover instead with the software DSP then moved onto digital crossovers with Audiolense. So, I can see how if this was in a decent price range I think no doubt at least I would have considered the solution if measurements were transparent.

 

[ppataki]

And you won't be able to take measurements with your suggested solution, you need to add an audio interface.

I have a multichannel DDC and I connect FDAs to it and I can take measurements without an audio interface, I simply use UMIK-1

 

[Keith_W]

I have a multichannel DDC and I connect FDAs to it and I can take measurements without an audio interface, I simply use UMIK-1

In your case you wouldn't be able to use ASIO. I am not sure if Audiolense allows you to use non-ASIO devices, but Acourate requires an ASIO device.

 

[ppataki]

In your case you wouldn't be able to use ASIO. I am not sure if Audiolense allows you to use non-ASIO devices, but Acourate requires an ASIO device.

For playback I am using ASIO
For measurement I use REW that works fine without ASIO
For optimization I use Dirac which again is fine without ASIO
But if I wanted to have ASIO I could just easily use ASIO4ALL

 

[Draki]

I’ve never understood why nobody does this: all these DSPs can downsample to a much lower rate. This way you can apply your FIR filter at say 6 kHz sampling and get 5hz resolution. For a multiway system, this is an ideal solution to gain lots of resolution without spending much more resources.

AFAIK the HD2 processor from FourAudio uses variable sample rates: as low as 4 kHz (or 8 kHz, don't hold me to it) for the bass range. I knew more details but forgot many in the meantime.

HD2 - FIR Loudspeaker Measurement System - Four Audio

19" loudspeaker management system with FIR filters

www.four-audio.com

 

[Bjorn]

Jriver is very powerful but the company has completely failed to make many features user friendly or make a proper manual IMO. Finding out how thing works require asking at the forum. Like for instance how "the blocks" on the side works according to the position from the top.

And personality I didn't find out how to measure with the driver with Asio. So I could never check the delay. While there's a description for this, it's not well explained and I gave up.

If Jriver had made things easier and teamed up with someone making a multichannel DAC with volume controle and inputs, they could at least reached a decent size group.

 

[Old Hi-Fi Guy]

. . . . so I guess you just can't please everyone.

cheers

. . . . and you shouldn't even try. It's a sure way to run yourself ragged and go out of business. Find your niche and dominate it (which is exactly what miniDSP has done). Just be sure that your niche is big enough to be worthwhile.

 

[Old Hi-Fi Guy]

I have worked with AudioWeaver and I disagree strongly. Even the miniDSP software is way too advanced for most. Not to mention the customer could screw everything up in AudioWeaver and even damage drivers. The end user here is not your typical DIYer who are used to work with crossovers and measurements. All of this is completely unkown to the majority. Changing presets should of course be done with the remote or on the unit iself. An abolsutely minimum here would be 3 presets for a low cost product and more for higher cost units.

AudioWeaver is for the engineer who builds the background bone. There's needs to a super easy front end software to do simpe PEQS and shelving and the most advanced setting would be adding crossover plus delay for subwoofer integration. Even the latter would require assistance for most or done automatically. It shouldn't require one to connect it to a PC/Mac at all, but it should be controllable from a phone/tablet additionally to doing it physically on the unit. Take a look at how KEF does this.

Obviously I'm talking about locking away many of the features away when a DSP is sold together with a speaker. This would be different approach when selling to a DIYer.
What Analogue Precision is offering instead is a product for very knowledgable DIYers and that's fine. However, the market for that is small and especially when the price tag is that high. If one is going to reach audiophile market the product needs to look generally good. Your product has what I would describe as an industrial cheap PA look, and that doesn't quite live up to the price tag IMO. The new DEQX looks on the other hand great, which means quite a bit for many audiophiles. Just unfortunate the price went up a lot.

earik has shared a bit of the AudioWeaver software in the Danville dspNexus thread below for those who are interested.

dspNexus DSP Audio Processor - DANVILLE SIGNAL - SHIPPING NOW?

Except that it doesn't have this functionality at all... And measures generally poorly or mediocre at best. Perhaps you don't understand what an advanced DSP with manual controlling is and what it can be used for. Trinnov would be an AVR that has something similar. Which functionality is it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'm just a single data-point in this debate, but for what it's worth. . .

I'm not an electrical or DSP engineer. I'm just a fellow who likes building speakers. I couldn't tell you how to arrange a resistor, capacitor, and inductor to get a particular kind of analogue filter, so when miniDSP came along I was very interested. Here was a product that would enable me to build crossovers for speakers of my own design. It took me some time to figure out how to set up the miniDSP "plug-in" software (plug-in software - what's that?) and a lot longer to set up and learn REW and get some sensible frequency responses. I still don't understand a lot of what goes on inside REW. Nonetheless, my project was a success and my speakers sound wonderful to my wooden ears. If my only option had been to buy and learn some streaming software, some kind of DSP configuration software, several pieces of hardware, and make them all work together, I wouldn't have bothered.

Everything is easy when you know how to do it, but for me this is a brave new world of FIR and IIR, taps, Dante (?), ASIO, sample rates, minimum and linear phases, and dozens (if not hundreds) of other esoteric terms. I don't want to spend countless weeks learning all this stuff that's just a means to an end for me. I'm tempted by Danville's dspNexus, but Audio Weaver is a deterrent. Similarly for Audiolense and many others. Do I really want to have to learn selective parts of some much bigger enterprise-level tool? I probably would if I have to, but I'd much prefer a one-box solution please (just not a US$12k solution).

 

[Tranquility Bass]

I'm just a single data-point in this debate, but for what it's worth. . .

I'm not an electrical or DSP engineer. I'm just a fellow who likes building speakers. I couldn't tell you how to arrange a resistor, capacitor, and inductor to get a particular kind of analogue filter, so when miniDSP came along I was very interested. Here was a product that would enable me to build crossovers for speakers of my own design. It took me some time to figure out how to set up the miniDSP "plug-in" software (plug-in software - what's that?) and a lot longer to set up and learn REW and get some sensible frequency responses. I still don't understand a lot of what goes on inside REW. Nonetheless, my project was a success and my speakers sound wonderful to my wooden ears. If my only option had been to buy and learn some streaming software, some kind of DSP configuration software, several pieces of hardware, and make them all work together, I wouldn't have bothered.

Everything is easy when you know how to do it, but for me this is a brave new world of FIR and IIR, taps, Dante (?), ASIO, sample rates, minimum and linear phases, and dozens (if not hundreds) of other esoteric terms. I don't want to spend countless weeks learning all this stuff that's just a means to an end for me. I'm tempted by Danville's dspNexus, but Audio Weaver is a deterrent. Similarly for Audiolense and many others. Do I really want to have to learn selective parts of some much bigger enterprise-level tool? I probably would if I have to, but I'd much prefer a one-box solution please (just not a US$12k solution).

How much are you prepared to pay is the question otherwise no one is going to build a niche product and lose money on it ?? The reason I incorporated Auidoweaver into my preamp was I didn't want to spend the next five or more years reinventing the wheel when it was already available. Had I gone down the route with the canned software solution I would have kept getting requests to add more and more stuff to it that was already in Audioweaver so I made a decision to use that instead. What you get with Audioweaver is years of R&D and testing on various platforms so I just couldn't see myself being bogged down with that when I had so many other issues to deal with such as the hardware and firmware design as well manufacturing etc which are major jobs in themselves. Having said that if you have never programmed a DSP such as a SHARC, Audioweaver does bring that flexibility and power without having to write a single line of code and the learning curve is really not that difficult if you are willing to spend the time like any of these other DSP apps.

cheers

 

[Nutul]

Just went through CamillaDSP's GIT repo and found this:

"A Raspberry Pi 4 doing FIR filtering of 8 channels, with 262k taps per channel, at 192 kHz. CPU usage about 55%"

Now, that looks no bad to me... especially as I do have a Pi4 with moOde and Camilla. Its CPU's usage during normal playback is a about 4%...
Even using Camilla for room correction and reaching maybe 30% sounds nice to me. Certainly not 12K USD...

 

[Vds]

I'm sorry of my venting here, but I'm quite frustated with the DSP market. One of my own brands, Vera Audio, did consider developing a DSP several years ago. But we found it we take too long. So I've been waiting for other DSPs to get to the market which we could use with planned active speakers. And it's dissapointing what we're seeing. The new DEQX was suppose to cost about the same as the previous model. Something that's expensive but still obtainable for a good number. But now with the high price increase, I fear the market will be very small. It would also be kind of strange to offer a DSP that costs considerable more than several of our speakers.

Both Danville and Analogue Precision has chosen a platform that's simply not user friendly in any way (no matter what they say). miniDSP doesn't offer the quality we need in several areas and also don't care about the OEM market but prioritize selling direct (mark up is super small for those sell their products).

I've used a PC software myself, but obviously not a route to go commercially. So it's all quite frustating. Of course we can use Hypex plate amps and we do plan to offer that as well, but the Hypex DSP isn't stellar neither in sound quality or in processing power and user friendliness.

I completely agree. I’m looking for a replacement for my Xilica and there is not a lot out there for someone with extremely limited software/computer skills! Mini DSP, but I’m skeptical of the “sonic purity” of the product. The new DEQX looks good, but the price. It seems a competitor for the Trinnov Aymethest. Trinnov Nova looks interesting. Audio Weaver does seem like a daunting learning curve.

 

[Keith_W]

Just went through CamillaDSP's GIT repo and found this:

"A Raspberry Pi 4 doing FIR filtering of 8 channels, with 262k taps per channel, at 192 kHz. CPU usage about 55%"

Now, that looks no bad to me... especially as I do have a Pi4 with moOde and Camilla. Its CPU's usage during normal playback is a about 4%...
Even using Camilla for room correction and reaching maybe 30% sounds nice to me. Certainly not 12K USD...

Everybody has a different skill set and needs, and whether a solution is right for you depends on your situation. For ME, the asking price is not a problem. However, CamillaDSP and Raspberry Pi are major hurdles. I couldn't get Camilla working on my PC, I gave up when I had to download a software library and had to use a command line interface to set it up. For someone familiar with Linux and with not much money, and with far more knowledge than I have, it would be a suitable solution. Likewise, MiniDSP and DEQX target different markets, i.e. people who don't want to learn too much DSP, want more hi-fi convenience features, don't want tangles of cables routing signal to multiple devices, don't need ultimate processing power, and are willing to pay more to get that convenience and simplicity. I wish more people would understand this. If you are happy going down the Raspberry Pi route, by all means go ahead. It works well. I went down the Audio PC/Acourate route to avoid using Linux, and it works well for me. I get asked for advice on DSP all the time, and my answer is usually "MiniDSP" because of the low price point and ease of use, but I am well aware of its shortcomings. MiniDSP is not an "end game" solution, whereas DEQX potentially is.

After finding out the price of the DEQX, I think it is too expensive to recommend for anybody who wants to dip their toes into DSP. I am still going to recommend MiniDSP as a starting point, and then upgrade to something else (maybe DEQX, maybe software based) depending on their situation.

 

[mdsimon2]

I couldn't get Camilla working on my PC

When you say PC, I assume you mean a PC running Windows? If so, I agree that setting up CamillaDSP on a PC running Windows is difficult. For Linux / Mac, if you know how to follow instructions and copy / paste, I haven't run across anyone that can't make it work.

Of course, miniDSP is still a much easier turn key option.

Michael