• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,377
Likes
5,450
Location
Melbourne, Australia
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.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,126
Likes
17,594
Location
Netherlands
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
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. If you have access to SigmaStudio you can do this with relative ease.

Regarding the DEQX, for the price, it better have SOTA performance and excellent tooling. I won’t buy one..
 

mdsimon2

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
2,453
Likes
3,285
Location
Detroit, MI
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. If you have access to SigmaStudio you can do this with relative ease.

Regarding the DEQX, for the price, it better have SOTA performance and excellent tooling. I won’t buy one..

I agree.

It is crazy that the only miniDSP platforms offering user defined FIR filters and a 48 kHz sample rate are the old miniSHARC (9600 taps total, 8 ch output) / OpenDRC 2x2 (12296 taps total, 2 ch output). It is nice that the Flex Eight now has FIR taps on the input channels but the 96 kHz sample rate is very limiting.

Michael
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,267
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
I guess if they develop for an ARM processor, they could produce a version of their software for a Mac computer in the future, rather than a cheaper device to run it on.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,126
Likes
17,594
Location
Netherlands
I guess if they develop for an ARM processor, they could produce a version of their software for a Mac computer in the future, rather than a cheaper device to run it on.
There is plenty of (free or affordable) DSP software available for MacOS. Besides, we don’t know which ARM cpu they use. There are many with various differences. And possibly there is a DSP core next to the CPU as well to handle processing in hardware. Software compatibility with an Apple Arm CPU is probably too far away.

CamilaDSP will give you an insane amount of FIR taps on an M1 or M2 Mac.
 

james57

Member
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
83
Likes
36
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.
Hi Keith, thanks for the update, I thought they were dead after all that time postponing the new release. If you are in the market for such a device ( me personally am leaning toward rme adi2/4 with filters from rew) there is a device that will probably (pure speculation on my behalf) kill their business case.. Trinnov Nova, should be fully release very shortly, it seems head above the minidsp and DEQX. Even with all the bells and whistles will come half under their insane pricing and knowing Trinnov`s reputation I doubt they will release a subpar device since they target the pro market. But unfortunately its just out of my budget.
 
OP
Keith_W

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,377
Likes
5,450
Location
Melbourne, Australia
There are a few things I forgot to mention in my first post.

They are using ESS 9038 DAC's, one chip per chassis. Kim slipped and told me how many chips he bought (thus inadvertently revealing how many units he expects to sell), but I won't share that here. Suffice to say, I do not think they are expecting to reach MiniDSP volume. I also alluded in my post that each unit comes with "DEQXpert" support, basically one of them will talk you through installation of the unit and they will help you get it up and running. This kind of support is expensive and time consuming, so once again they are probably not aiming for large market share and the price reflects that.

They also claimed -140dB noise floor. This is well below the noise floor of an E1DA so I may not be able to confirm that claim myself even if I get my hands on a unit. I think it is close to the noise floor of the APX555 that Amir uses, and if it's true it would be the best DAC on the market by a long shot.

I have said elsewhere on ASR that the most important thing about DSP is to make the correct filters, because good filters on an entry level product like the MiniDSP will sound better than bad filters on a high end product like Acourate. IMO, good filters are even more important than hardware differences like taps, DAC noise floor, and maybe even software choices like FIR vs. IIR. Kim agreed with that opinion, and he said that's why they are designing the new DEQX with ease of use in mind. Without seeing the software, I do not know how many of the settings can be bypassed.

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. If you have access to SigmaStudio you can do this with relative ease.

Regarding the DEQX, for the price, it better have SOTA performance and excellent tooling. I won’t buy one..

I was not aware that MiniDSP is able to sample at 6kHz instead of 48kHz? I have no need for a MiniDSP myself, so i will not buy one. I should ask my friend if I can borrow his unit since he has my DAC at the moment and he is trying Acourate so I can play around with it a little.

Or simply use a PC with Jriver, Dirac, whatever.....
Much much cheaper and potentially better quality too

That is true, but a lot of people do not want this solution. A one box unit with a built-in ADC is much simpler and more convenient. For example, suppose you have a turntable, or a DVD that you want to apply DSP to. If you have a PC, you will need an audio interface and a HDMI converter. You then have to route the signal through your convolver and out into the DAC. In JRiver, you have to turn on a "live session" and tell it to listen for an ASIO input every time you want to use an external digital source. It works theoretically, but in practice it is a pain in the butt and it's inconvenient. With a one box solution like DEQX and MiniDSP, switching sources is as simple as changing the input on a preamp. Then there is lack of a remote control (I use an Android tablet with BubbleUPNP, but this is flakey and unreliable compared to a standard remote control), and other convenience features you expect in consumer hi-fi.

All of us consumers place different value on different aspects of our systems. For me, I was after ultimate quality and I was prepared to overcome the inconvenience, the difficulty, the learning curve, the expense, and all the headaches and read about DSP until early hours of the morning to achieve it. Not everybody wants to go down that route, and I can totally understand that. We need more devices like this on the market, and we especially need competition for the MiniDSP. Can you imagine how they would respond if they saw their market share being taken by competitors? It would only be good for us consumers.

Hi Keith, thanks for the update, I thought they were dead after all that time postponing the new release. If you are in the market for such a device ( me personally am leaning toward rme adi2/4 with filters from rew) there is a device that will probably (pure speculation on my behalf) kill their business case.. Trinnov Nova, should be fully release very shortly, it seems head above the minidsp and DEQX. Even with all the bells and whistles will come half under their insane pricing and knowing Trinnov`s reputation I doubt they will release a subpar device since they target the pro market. But unfortunately its just out of my budget.

The Trinnov Nova is an intriguing product, particularly with their interesting microphone they developed which is able to measure direction of sound. However, it does have some limitations, e.g. it does not appear to be designed as a replacement crossover (correct me if I am wrong), instead it does whole speaker correction. And, it can only have up to 6 channels. Also, no mention of what processor is being used and how many taps it has.
 

fatoldgit

Active Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
270
Likes
314
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?".

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.

I have a DEQX HDP-4 and it retailed for $US 5000... I got mine as a dealer demo unit for half that.

So lets say the the new platform is significantly better than the previous generation.. is it 2.4 times better?..noting the model you mention has more outputs (8 verses 6).

$5000 -> $12000 is a huge leap and prices me out of upgrading.

I also did hear rumours of a cheaper model range but the "issue" is, the release of this first new model in the three model range is at least 1.5 years behind schedule so before they even get to selling a cheaper model range they have to get this first model out the door in reasonable numbers then the other two before moving onto the cheaper range.

Might be a long time before we see the cheaper models or maybe not at all.

Peter
 
Last edited:
OP
Keith_W

Keith_W

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2016
Messages
2,377
Likes
5,450
Location
Melbourne, Australia
So lets say the the new platform is significantly better than the previous generation.. is it 2.4 times better?..noting the model you mention has more outputs (8 verses 6).

If you look at the number of taps the new unit has compared to the old one, it is four times better. And that's not taking into account the better build quality, newer software, and additional DAC channels. BUT ... like I said, your filter is more important than your hardware. Better hardware only unlocks the potential for better sound, you have to be able to exploit it. And whether you exploit it or not depends on your use case and your skill. I can't tell you if your system will sound 4x better, likely it will not.

They badly need a more affordable unit. I told them that. The software cost will go down if they can amortize their fixed cost over more sales. Hardware costs can go down if they use stamped metal chassis instead of machined aluminum and get the Chinese to make units for them. They can forego "DEQXpert support" and sell the service as an optional extra for cheaper units. I want as many people as possible to get into DSP, you could call me a bit of a DSP evangelist. But that's not going to happen with DEQX at this price.
 

boxerfan88

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
334
Likes
381
AUD19001 … pass …
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,295
Likes
3,366
Location
San Diego
If you look at the number of taps the new unit has compared to the old one, it is four times better. And that's not taking into account the better build quality, newer software, and additional DAC channels. BUT ... like I said, your filter is more important than your hardware. Better hardware only unlocks the potential for better sound, you have to be able to exploit it. And whether you exploit it or not depends on your use case and your skill. I can't tell you if your system will sound 4x better, likely it will not.

They badly need a more affordable unit. I told them that. The software cost will go down if they can amortize their fixed cost over more sales. Hardware costs can go down if they use stamped metal chassis instead of machined aluminum and get the Chinese to make units for them. They can forego "DEQXpert support" and sell the service as an optional extra for cheaper units. I want as many people as possible to get into DSP, you could call me a bit of a DSP evangelist. But that's not going to happen with DEQX at this price.
If you want more taps, which you might for LF FIR filters, a PC has orders of magnitude more processing power (allowing for way more taps) for a fraction of the cost.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,126
Likes
17,594
Location
Netherlands
I was not aware that MiniDSP is able to sample at 6kHz instead of 48kHz?
I said “nobody does that”, that includes MiniDSP ;) . The hardware can do it just fine though.
 

Tranquility Bass

Member
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
94
Likes
132
Location
Australia
There are a few things I forgot to mention in my first post.

They are using ESS 9038 DAC's, one chip per chassis. Kim slipped and told me how many chips he bought (thus inadvertently revealing how many units he expects to sell), but I won't share that here. Suffice to say, I do not think they are expecting to reach MiniDSP volume. I also alluded in my post that each unit comes with "DEQXpert" support, basically one of them will talk you through installation of the unit and they will help you get it up and running. This kind of support is expensive and time consuming, so once again they are probably not aiming for large market share and the price reflects that.

They also claimed -140dB noise floor. This is well below the noise floor of an E1DA so I may not be able to confirm that claim myself even if I get my hands on a unit. I think it is close to the noise floor of the APX555 that Amir uses, and if it's true it would be the best DAC on the market by a long shot.

I have said elsewhere on ASR that the most important thing about DSP is to make the correct filters, because good filters on an entry level product like the MiniDSP will sound better than bad filters on a high end product like Acourate. IMO, good filters are even more important than hardware differences like taps, DAC noise floor, and maybe even software choices like FIR vs. IIR. Kim agreed with that opinion, and he said that's why they are designing the new DEQX with ease of use in mind. Without seeing the software, I do not know how many of the settings can be bypassed.



I was not aware that MiniDSP is able to sample at 6kHz instead of 48kHz? I have no need for a MiniDSP myself, so i will not buy one. I should ask my friend if I can borrow his unit since he has my DAC at the moment and he is trying Acourate so I can play around with it a little.



That is true, but a lot of people do not want this solution. A one box unit with a built-in ADC is much simpler and more convenient. For example, suppose you have a turntable, or a DVD that you want to apply DSP to. If you have a PC, you will need an audio interface and a HDMI converter. You then have to route the signal through your convolver and out into the DAC. In JRiver, you have to turn on a "live session" and tell it to listen for an ASIO input every time you want to use an external digital source. It works theoretically, but in practice it is a pain in the butt and it's inconvenient. With a one box solution like DEQX and MiniDSP, switching sources is as simple as changing the input on a preamp. Then there is lack of a remote control (I use an Android tablet with BubbleUPNP, but this is flakey and unreliable compared to a standard remote control), and other convenience features you expect in consumer hi-fi.

All of us consumers place different value on different aspects of our systems. For me, I was after ultimate quality and I was prepared to overcome the inconvenience, the difficulty, the learning curve, the expense, and all the headaches and read about DSP until early hours of the morning to achieve it. Not everybody wants to go down that route, and I can totally understand that. We need more devices like this on the market, and we especially need competition for the MiniDSP. Can you imagine how they would respond if they saw their market share being taken by competitors? It would only be good for us consumers.



The Trinnov Nova is an intriguing product, particularly with their interesting microphone they developed which is able to measure direction of sound. However, it does have some limitations, e.g. it does not appear to be designed as a replacement crossover (correct me if I am wrong), instead it does whole speaker correction. And, it can only have up to 6 channels. Also, no mention of what processor is being used and how many taps it has.

It’s ironical that I had this spec well before DEQX did https://analog-precision.com/forum/performance-and-measurements/ and was able to bootstrap additional DSP capability on separate PC hardware without affecting the audio performance thus offering unlimited DSP capability.

BTW Audioweaver which is supported by our preamp allows you to down convert to much lower sampling rates, process at these lower rates and then up-convert when you are finished. However with the power of external PC hardware you probably don't need to do this these days. There is a little bit more elbow grease required over the canned DSP solutions from other platforms but this comes at the advantage of much more flexibility short of writing the DSP code yourself

cheers
 
Last edited:

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,262
Likes
2,500
Location
Norway
It’s ironical that I had this spec well before DEQX did https://analog-precision.com/forum/performance-and-measurements/ and was able to bootstrap additional DSP capability on separate PC hardware without affecting the audio performance thus offering unlimited DSP capability but the aussies completely sidelined me because I am not part of their club and I didn’t build a music keyboard back in the 70’s and wax lyrically about it for the next few decades. Yes I sound a bit bitter but I don’t recommend doing what I did, expecting local support for building anything hi-tech in Australia. Instead of getting the red-carpet thrown in front of you they threw the spike strip in front of me. ☹ It’s a big mistake anyone can make in Australia. And for those playing along at home if you are thinking of doing what I did and think you will get support from the locals DON’T DO IT ! JUST DON’T DO IT ! You have been warned ! And btw I am banned on stereonet and stereonet disables links to ASR for some unknown reason. Maybe because they profit from sponsors of imported mediocre hifi products and snakeoil cable products sold by their sponsors and the bad publicity on ASR for honest objective reviews is bad for business ;)

BTW Audioweaver which is supported by our preamp allows you to down convert to much lower sampling rates, process at these lower rates and then up-convert when you are finished. However with the power of external PC hardware you probably don't need to do this these days. There is a little bit more elbow grease required over the canned DSP solutions from other platforms but this comes at the advantage of much more flexibility short of writing the DSP code yourself

cheers
A bit off topic but the problem with both your product and Danville's is the use of Audio Weaver with no easy front end software for the end user. And it also lacks the ability of having several presets. A product like that will never reach a large crowd. It's basically a product for engineers and especially interested DIYers.

We need to learn from Apple. Sure, there should be the possibility of fully manually control for those who want that. But for the majority, it needs to be easy to use.
 

Tranquility Bass

Member
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
94
Likes
132
Location
Australia
A bit off topic but the problem with both your product and Danville's is the use of Audio Weaver with no easy front end software for the end user. And it also lacks the ability of having several presets. A product like that will never reach a large crowd. It's basically a product for engineers and especially interested DIYers.

We need to learn from Apple. Sure, there should be the possibility of fully manually control for those who want that. But for the majority, it needs to be easy to use.

That's not really true at all. You can create an N-way crossover in a matter of minutes. I'd agree with you if you had to write the code yourself. but if I'd built a canned system like that used on mindsp people would then complain that it is missing this and missing that so I guess you just can't please everyone. All of the people I have sold them too haven't complained about the complexity and you certainly don't need to be an engineer to use it. In fact most people find their own way without my assistance. In fact the author of the software, dspconcepts built it so you didn't need to be a dsp/engineer to use it and I should know because I am one.

cheers
 

Reddoc

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
43
Likes
56
early prototypes
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!
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,262
Likes
2,500
Location
Norway
That's not really true at all. You can create an N-way crossover in a matter of minutes. I'd agree with you if you had to write the code yourself. but if I'd built a canned system like that used on mindsp people would then complain that it is missing this and missing that so I guess you just can't please everyone. All of the people I have sold them too haven't complained about the complexity and you certainly don't need to be an engineer to use it. In fact most people find their own way without my assistance. In fact the author of the software, dspconcepts built it so you didn't need to be a dsp/engineer to use it and I should know because I am one.

cheers
It's 100% true and the fact that you don't even understand it, is large part of the problem.
 
Top Bottom