Keith_W
Major Contributor
I was at the Melbourne Hifi show today and spoke extensively to Kim Ryrie, one of the founders of DEQX. DEQX does the same job as MiniDSP, but there are a few points of difference. I have no affiliation with DEQX. However, I do have an interest in DSP and I want more people to adopt it.
What is it? DEQX is a digital crossover which is able to linearize drivers, generate a crossover, do time alignment, apply a target curve, and perform overall room correction. It has a built-in ADC, digital inputs, and a microphone input. I was told that it has an integrated streamer, but I could not find this feature listed when I looked at their webpage.
DEQX has been in business for about 20 years, and I owned a DEQX HDP-3 many years ago. I replaced it with Acourate / PC / 8 channel DAC. However, they stopped manufacturing in 2019 and have been developing this product since. Older versions of DEQX are available on the second-hand market only.
How many sharks does it have? The basic DSP unit is a tap which is a frequency-delay pair. The number of taps and your sampling rate determines the resolution you are able to correct at. MiniDSP does not publish how many taps it has, but they are known to use an Analog Devices SHARC ADSP21369 processor, which has about 2048 taps in total. If you sample at 48kHz and correct two channels, that means you have a frequency resolution of (48000 / 1024) = 46.9Hz. This means that you only have 3 bins to correct frequencies below 100Hz, which is woefully inadequate. This reason alone is why I do not consider the MiniDSP to be a "serious" solution, it simply does not have the computing power to deliver adequate correction. The older version of DEQX used the same SHARC processor as MiniDSP, but this new DEQX uses an ARM processor which is 64 bit instead of 32, and allows for 4096 taps per channel, or 32,768 taps in total. At 48kHz, this is a resolution of 11Hz, which is a substantial improvement.
What software does it use? Unlike MiniDSP which comes with Dirac and allows you to use Audiolense and other third party software, DEQX comes with its own software and the profiles are saved on the DEQX itself. I do not know if you can generate filters in Acourate / Audiolense and load it into the DEQX. I was told that there have been substantial improvements to the software since I owned a unit (an earlier DEQX HDP-3) and it is much easier to use now. HOWEVER ... the software is in an alpha state, and they are trying to get it to beta before they release the units to the public for sale. At the show today, a DEQX Premate-8 was on display, but it was not actually doing anything because they were concerned about the reliability of their early prototype.
Is there a learning curve? All DSP products have a learning curve. It is intimidating for beginners because you are confronted with unfamiliar choices. Nearly all of us understand what a Linkwitz-Riley crossover is, what x-over points and slopes are, phase rotations, group delay, and so on. But there are some DSP specific terms which we have to get to grips with - e.g. do you want a minimum phase or linear phase filter, the difference between FIR and IIR filters, etc. A developer can remove some choice and increase automation to make it simpler for consumers, or you can force them to make those decisions (like Acourate) at the cost of a very steep learning curve. I asked them which approach they chose? They said they went with making it easier for consumers.
I have not seen the software myself, so I do not know what simplifications or automation has been implemented. I would LOVE to look at the software and see what they have done, but given my history with them (let's say they think I am too opinionated) it may be unlikely.
How much does it cost? Pricing has not been finalized, but they expect it to cost >A$19,000 (USD$12,000). I was disappointed when I heard this and said so to Kim - "I want to recommend your unit as an alternative to MiniDSP. How am I going to do that when it costs this much?".
I can see where the money was spent - the fit and finish of the case is head and shoulders better than the MiniDSP, everything was designed and manufactured in Australia, they are using a vastly more powerful processor than the MiniDSP, and they have written their own software instead of using third party software, and every DEQX sold comes with "DEQXpert" support. I am not sure if it is an advantage to undertake the cost of development of such complex software by themselves and amortize that cost over the sales of so few units (instead of say, licensing software from Dirac or Audiolense), but that is their decision. Likewise, only Australians care that the product was manufactured in Australia, it has no value proposition for anyone else - for them, the price tag is more important. I can also understand that small businesses need to be able to service their market, and they may be too small to service a customer base of thousands (like MiniDSP), instead preferring to sell fewer units and providing better support (this is my speculation, it did not come from DEQX).
Nevertheless, they said that they would consider bringing out a cheaper unit. I said "I hope you do", because if you look at the market there is only one sensible choice, and that is MiniDSP. The alternative is to DIY your own solution, like I did (with Acourate, JRiver, a PC, and an 8 channel RME interface). While there are advantages of a solution like mine and @dualazmak who runs a similar system, namely more computing power, less cost, more software features, flexibility, and modularity; there are advantages to one box solutions like MiniDSP such as simplicity and are much more approachable for newcomers to DSP. There is simply no one box solution which is better than a MiniDSP, and a USD$12,000 product is not competition.
At the moment, given their software is in alpha state, they are selling early prototypes for half price. The downside is that you have to put up with a few months of updates and the software not working reliably.
Am I going to get one? Short answer: no. For me personally, I do not place any value in a one box solution. However, a lot of people do. I definitely want an alternative to MiniDSP enter the market.
What is it? DEQX is a digital crossover which is able to linearize drivers, generate a crossover, do time alignment, apply a target curve, and perform overall room correction. It has a built-in ADC, digital inputs, and a microphone input. I was told that it has an integrated streamer, but I could not find this feature listed when I looked at their webpage.
DEQX has been in business for about 20 years, and I owned a DEQX HDP-3 many years ago. I replaced it with Acourate / PC / 8 channel DAC. However, they stopped manufacturing in 2019 and have been developing this product since. Older versions of DEQX are available on the second-hand market only.
How many sharks does it have? The basic DSP unit is a tap which is a frequency-delay pair. The number of taps and your sampling rate determines the resolution you are able to correct at. MiniDSP does not publish how many taps it has, but they are known to use an Analog Devices SHARC ADSP21369 processor, which has about 2048 taps in total. If you sample at 48kHz and correct two channels, that means you have a frequency resolution of (48000 / 1024) = 46.9Hz. This means that you only have 3 bins to correct frequencies below 100Hz, which is woefully inadequate. This reason alone is why I do not consider the MiniDSP to be a "serious" solution, it simply does not have the computing power to deliver adequate correction. The older version of DEQX used the same SHARC processor as MiniDSP, but this new DEQX uses an ARM processor which is 64 bit instead of 32, and allows for 4096 taps per channel, or 32,768 taps in total. At 48kHz, this is a resolution of 11Hz, which is a substantial improvement.
What software does it use? Unlike MiniDSP which comes with Dirac and allows you to use Audiolense and other third party software, DEQX comes with its own software and the profiles are saved on the DEQX itself. I do not know if you can generate filters in Acourate / Audiolense and load it into the DEQX. I was told that there have been substantial improvements to the software since I owned a unit (an earlier DEQX HDP-3) and it is much easier to use now. HOWEVER ... the software is in an alpha state, and they are trying to get it to beta before they release the units to the public for sale. At the show today, a DEQX Premate-8 was on display, but it was not actually doing anything because they were concerned about the reliability of their early prototype.
Is there a learning curve? All DSP products have a learning curve. It is intimidating for beginners because you are confronted with unfamiliar choices. Nearly all of us understand what a Linkwitz-Riley crossover is, what x-over points and slopes are, phase rotations, group delay, and so on. But there are some DSP specific terms which we have to get to grips with - e.g. do you want a minimum phase or linear phase filter, the difference between FIR and IIR filters, etc. A developer can remove some choice and increase automation to make it simpler for consumers, or you can force them to make those decisions (like Acourate) at the cost of a very steep learning curve. I asked them which approach they chose? They said they went with making it easier for consumers.
I have not seen the software myself, so I do not know what simplifications or automation has been implemented. I would LOVE to look at the software and see what they have done, but given my history with them (let's say they think I am too opinionated) it may be unlikely.
How much does it cost? Pricing has not been finalized, but they expect it to cost >A$19,000 (USD$12,000). I was disappointed when I heard this and said so to Kim - "I want to recommend your unit as an alternative to MiniDSP. How am I going to do that when it costs this much?".
I can see where the money was spent - the fit and finish of the case is head and shoulders better than the MiniDSP, everything was designed and manufactured in Australia, they are using a vastly more powerful processor than the MiniDSP, and they have written their own software instead of using third party software, and every DEQX sold comes with "DEQXpert" support. I am not sure if it is an advantage to undertake the cost of development of such complex software by themselves and amortize that cost over the sales of so few units (instead of say, licensing software from Dirac or Audiolense), but that is their decision. Likewise, only Australians care that the product was manufactured in Australia, it has no value proposition for anyone else - for them, the price tag is more important. I can also understand that small businesses need to be able to service their market, and they may be too small to service a customer base of thousands (like MiniDSP), instead preferring to sell fewer units and providing better support (this is my speculation, it did not come from DEQX).
Nevertheless, they said that they would consider bringing out a cheaper unit. I said "I hope you do", because if you look at the market there is only one sensible choice, and that is MiniDSP. The alternative is to DIY your own solution, like I did (with Acourate, JRiver, a PC, and an 8 channel RME interface). While there are advantages of a solution like mine and @dualazmak who runs a similar system, namely more computing power, less cost, more software features, flexibility, and modularity; there are advantages to one box solutions like MiniDSP such as simplicity and are much more approachable for newcomers to DSP. There is simply no one box solution which is better than a MiniDSP, and a USD$12,000 product is not competition.
At the moment, given their software is in alpha state, they are selling early prototypes for half price. The downside is that you have to put up with a few months of updates and the software not working reliably.
Am I going to get one? Short answer: no. For me personally, I do not place any value in a one box solution. However, a lot of people do. I definitely want an alternative to MiniDSP enter the market.
. The hardware can do it just fine though.
