• 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 many 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

Last link, in my previous setup, was the McIntosh MEN220 before the power amps.

Ok, then the problem may be your r2r dacs. What are they? What are the output specs?

If you connect deqx to power amps using deqx analogue outs (xlr/rca) do you get enough volume?

Edit: the gain structure of an r2r dac may not be comparable to a McIntosh pre.
 
Ok, then the problem may be your r2r dacs. What are they? What are the output specs?

If you connect deqx to power amps using deqx analogue outs (xlr/rca) do you get enough volume?
Aqua La Voce S3 and Aqua La Scala.

La Voce:
UNBAL 2 RCA Output 2.4 V RMS
BALANCED (asymmetrical output) 2 XLR Output : 4.8 V RMS

La Scala:
UNBAL 2 RCA Output 2.2 V RMS
BALANCED ( passive transformer's symmetrical ) 2 XLR Output : 2.2V RMS

I'm using RCA from both. La Voce for the bass driver, La Scala for the horn.

I meant to get another La Scala later for synergy.
But if the output V are going to be an important factor, I might not want to go with La Scala since its output V for XLR and RCA is the same.
I'm looking at HoloAudio May DAC instead perhaps.
Will need to get a tube power amp with a balanced input as well then.

I haven't tried the analogue outs yet from the DEQX, but I should try.
 
Aqua La Voce S3 and Aqua La Scala.

La Voce:
UNBAL 2 RCA Output 2.4 V RMS
BALANCED (asymmetrical output) 2 XLR Output : 4.8 V RMS

La Scala:
UNBAL 2 RCA Output 2.2 V RMS
BALANCED ( passive transformer's symmetrical ) 2 XLR Output : 2.2V RMS

I'm using RCA from both. La Voce for the bass driver, La Scala for the horn.

I meant to get another La Scala later for synergy.
But if the output V are going to be an important factor, I might not want to go with La Scala since its output V for XLR and RCA is the same.
I'm looking at HoloAudio May DAC instead perhaps.
Will need to get a tube power amp with a balanced input as well then.

I haven't tried the analogue outs yet from the DEQX, but I should try.


Before you buy anything definitely try deqx analogue outs.

Its not just about output V. Need to also make sure there is no impedance mismatch. Not familiar with your dacs, but the new deqx is supposed to have much better dac performance than previous line. Its one of the selling points, and the reason people look to it is for system/box count simplicity ie an all in one dsp/dac/multichannel pre
 
hello, is there apart from the low output volume.
made a hopeful first draft, sonically?
Greatings Richard
The Netherlands
 
hello, is there apart from the low output volume.
made a hopeful first draft, sonically?
Greatings Richard
The Netherlands
With state-of-the-art DSP room correction, and with the ability to use my own DACs, the Pre-8 allows my system to reach it's full performance sonically.
I'm very pleased with the purchase.
 
Good to hear !
Are you going to experiment with the pre-8 Dac as well .
I am curieus about the sonic different’s
Greatings Richard
 
Have been testin the Pre-8 now couple of weeks. Sounds good and there is a lot of potential. Started to use Volumio with Qobuz. Not as good usability as ROON, hopefully Pre-8 will be ROON ready soon.

I have big triamped 3-way speakers without passive crossover. Have noticed that it would be beneficial to measure the speakers outdoor.
 
Last edited:
How nice that initial findings are satisfactory.
I have now received mine too.
but I'm still painting outside, I want to get that done first.
but I'm already reading up on it.
What strikes me is the short measuring distance.
what is your experience with that?
Greatings Richard
 
How nice that initial findings are satisfactory.
I have now received mine too.
but I'm still painting outside, I want to get that done first.
but I'm already reading up on it.
What strikes me is the short measuring distance.
what is your experience with that?
Greatings Richard

I'm quite sure that big speakers needs longer measuring distance. Minimum 1 meter.
 
What strikes me is the short measuring distance.

Microphone placement is absolutely crucial. For tweeters and mids, the mic needs to be placed a minimum of about 2x baffle width distance away from the speaker to account for baffle diffraction step. If you place your mic too far away, you will be unable to window out reflections (don't forget about floor and ceiling reflections). For woofers, it is easier to take an extreme nearfield measurement, mic almost touching the woofer. If you are correcting the whole speaker, then at least 1m away.
 
Then my speakers should be measured minimum 153cm distance.

Microphone distancing is absolutely critical. It is also a complex subject! There is no single mic distance that will work for every measurement. The first thing you need to realize is that high frequencies are corrected to the anechoic response. Low frequencies are corrected to the in-room response. So you have to ask what you are trying to measure.

The first thing to do is calculate your Schroder frequency (Fs), because this tells you the limit where you need to take an anechoic or quasi/anechoic measurement. Read this before proceeding. The transition zone is up to 4Fs. You can decide if you want to do in-room bass correction up to Fs or 4Fs or something in between. The typical Schroder frequency is 100-200Hz depending on your room, so 4Fs is 400Hz - 800Hz. If you decide on 2Fs, that will be 200Hz - 400Hz. 200Hz has a 1.7m/5.6ft wavelength.

Now you need to decide if you want to measure your drivers, or your entire speaker.

If it is the entire speaker, you will need to measure in the acoustic nearfield, which is either the greatest dimension of the speaker (usually its height) or the lowest wavelength of interest, whichever is greater. If you decide on measuring down to 2Fs, you place your mic 1.7m away.

If it is individual drivers, you have additional considerations. Upper frequencies are influenced by the baffle diffraction step (BDS), so must be measured from 2x baffle width away at minimum. The BDS is a volume loss of about 6dB that occurs over 4 octaves. You can calculate the centre frequency of the BDS f3 with 115824/W (W = width in mm) 4560/W (W = width in inches). The upper limit of the BDS is 2 octaves above f3, and the lower limit is 2 octaves below f3.

As you can imagine, measuring further away means greater risk your measurement will be contaminated by reflections. The closer the reflective surface (usually the floor or ceiling), the higher the risk. You can calculate the lowest reflection-free wavelength with this formula:

1724134425508.png


This is why people take their speakers outside and elevate them on stands to obtain quasi-anechoic conditions.

Taking measurements alone requires a book to explain. It is very poorly explained in typical DSP user manuals. "Measure from 1m away" is completely arbitrary, yet it is the standard recommendation in most manuals. If you can take a 1m measurement under anechoic conditions - great! But many people can't!
 
Thank you very much for your responses. I am familiar with measuring as I now also use a four-way DSP filter. The Groundsound DNC28 where I measure each unit separately at a distance of 1 meter. According to DEQX it should be at a distance of 160 mm. It could of course be that it was done to only measure the sonic characters of the units. The baflle step and edge defractions are of course not taken into account. When that is done, the entire loudspeaker must also be measured halfway or at the sweet spot . maybe it is because of the software used , I don't know and will try different things later .
 
I believe I should measure outdoor. Minimum 150cm away, every driver separately, and then whole speaker with DEQX active crossover. After that I believe the speaker should be put on its plaze inroom and take the system measurement.

I need to contact DEQX before doing anything. My speakers weight too much to move many times.
 
I have mine pre-8 playing !
And must say , its sounds fantastic verry life like and full of detail !
I have make measurements like its propose in the manuall.
So 16 cm of each driver and than the full system halfway the sweatspot.
I like to experiment with this but for the moment I just Enjoy the music :)
 
I have mine pre-8 playing !
And must say , its sounds fantastic verry life like and full of detail !
I have make measurements like its propose in the manuall.
So 16 cm of each driver and than the full system halfway the sweatspot.
I like to experiment with this but for the moment I just Enjoy the music :)
Hello Rikpost. I have a Groundsound dcm28 and ar looking to upgrade, either with the DSPNexus or the new DEQX premate8. How does it sound compared to the Groundsound?
Cheers from Denmark :)
 
The Groundsound is a very good device .
and off course are the results depending on the implementation but i have 12 years off experience with it so i must have done things right in te end ;-)

Now ,The DEQX , despite i do not have make any serious measurements i was surprised of the outcome .
its sounds already better than the Groundsound by just playing a bit with the driver channel volume .
you get more of everything more 3D sound ,voices are beautifull , there is more and thighter bass , and the sound is very life like !

So aldo its a lot of money i am verry glad with my purchase .

I was looking for the DSP Nexus as well by the way .
way cheaper , works with audio weaver software i thought !
but never heard one .

greatings Richard
 
Hello Rikpost. I have a Groundsound dcm28 and ar looking to upgrade, either with the DSPNexus or the new DEQX premate8. How does it sound compared to the Groundsound?
Cheers from Denmark :)

In brief, these are the differences. DEQX vs. Groundsound:

- 32k taps FIR filters vs. 180 biquad IIR's
- Linear phase vs. minimum phase
- Software <--- I have no idea how good the software is on the DEQX, I have yet to test drive it.

AFAIK the DEQX is the only hardware DSP unit I am aware of that has linear phase FIR filters. This alone is a massive advantage. If you want to learn more about why we should be using linear phase FIR filters, read this.

There are other differences, e.g. DAC's, power supply, and so on. All these other differences are extremely minor. I keep saying over and over again, the three biggest differences in DSP units are: the user, the software, and the hardware. In that order.
 
Thanks' for the swift reply's.

The DSPnexus claims to also have linear phase FIR-filters using Rephase, as far as I can see.
Do any of you know the internal sample rate, at which the processing is done in the DEQX? -The DSPnexus operate @192Hz but 384Hz capable

I must say that the technical information I can find about the DEQX is sparse, and the USD$ 7.975 requires a major blind leap of faith
 
Thanks' for the swift reply's.

The DSPnexus claims to also have linear phase FIR-filters using Rephase, as far as I can see.

Mixed phase. I think the DSP Nexus has something like 1024 FIR taps per channel, which is not enough. So they also have min phase IIR's as well. The DEQX has a much more powerful processor, so it has 32768 FIR taps per channel in linear phase.

Do any of you know the internal sample rate, at which the processing is done in the DEQX? -The DSPnexus operate @192Hz but 384Hz capable

Older units were 96kHz. The sample rate does not matter unless you are concerned about latency.

I must say that the technical information I can find about the DEQX is sparse, and the USD$ 7.975 requires a major blind leap of faith

I agree, they are not publishing enough information to convince me to part with my money. I will probably be seeing the DEQX guys next month at a hi-fi show. I can ask them a few more questions then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Back
Top Bottom