DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

[Keith_W]

So .. as we can summise from your explanations of resources needed for FIRs, the statement in the quote above is just hyperbole.

It isn't. The DEQX has sufficient FIR taps to make high order filters.

There is no such thing as a "linear phase FIR DSP box" for starters and you're claim that it is a "pure FIR box" is an equally odd statement to make.

I am surprised by your response. What do you mean by "no such thing as a linear phase FIR DSP box"? The DEQX is literally a linear phase FIR DSP box, as I have pointed out many times over. Your statement is a bit like having an elephant in front of you and claiming that elephants don't exist.

t uses, as you agree and acknowledge, a generic CPU which can be, and has been, utilised to allow more than FIR filters - where does this "purity" factor in?It's not a specialised chip for FIR creation as that would imply, the opposite in fact ( some of the units using specialised DSP chips could be said to be more 'pure' in that sense .. just that their power is lacking compared to generic processing).

Umm, I have never said that you need a specialised DSP chip for linear-phase FIR's. You made that one up.

And ... let's turn to the elephant in the room here that looms over your posts mentioning DEQX, above : The DEQX gen-4 with 32,00+ taps per channel ... (drum roll)

*does not exist*

lol.

What do you mean it does not exist? I have seen and touched the unit, people on this thread have received their orders. I mean, WTF are you on about? And I assume you made a typo, it's 32768 taps per channel, not 3200.

This statement, along with others, is so factually wrong that I don't think you are arguing in good faith. If you misunderstood something, that is one thing, but to deny reality is another. There is no point replying to you any more.

 

[El Geffe]

The DEQX Pre-8 has actually been on the market for quite a while — around 2.5 years now. I’ve had mine for about 1.5 years, so it’s definitely not some upcoming or unreleased product.

Anyway, I originally joined this thread hoping to find other Pre-8 users to exchange experiences with, but it seems the discussion mostly turned into complaints about the price and capabilities of the unit. I’m not here to defend DEQX or anything, but honestly, that feels like a bit of a dead-end discussion.

Sure, you can run as many FIR taps as you want on a regular i5 CPU for example. Modern processors are far more powerful than any DSP chip, including what’s inside the DEQX. But that’s not really the point. The real difference is in the software implementation.

As I mentioned earlier, the main reason I chose the DEQX is that it’s literally the only device I know of that can do low-latency FIR filtering. That’s a big deal for me since I also use it with video, and I need everything to stay in sync. Of course, you can get similar results for much less money — but only if you’re okay with higher latency (meaning your video will be out of sync) and a more complex setup with multiple boxes and amps.

For me, the key things were:
* FIR crossovers (in my experience they simply sound better than IIR)
* Ease of use — just one box to power on and it works
* Low latency

If those things don’t matter to you, then by all means get a dedicated PC with an 8-channel DAC and your preferred software that can absolutely get the job done. It just depends on what you value most in your setup. Honestly, the pricing debate sounds more like envy than criticism.

 

[HookEm]

The DEQX Pre-8 has actually been on the market for quite a while — around 2.5 years now. I’ve had mine for about 1.5 years, so it’s definitely not some upcoming or unreleased product.

Anyway, I originally joined this thread hoping to find other Pre-8 users to exchange experiences with, but it seems the discussion mostly turned into complaints about the price and capabilities of the unit. I’m not here to defend DEQX or anything, but honestly, that feels like a bit of a dead-end discussion.

Sure, you can run as many FIR taps as you want on a regular i5 CPU for example. Modern processors are far more powerful than any DSP chip, including what’s inside the DEQX. But that’s not really the point. The real difference is in the software implementation.

As I mentioned earlier, the main reason I chose the DEQX is that it’s literally the only device I know of that can do low-latency FIR filtering. That’s a big deal for me since I also use it with video, and I need everything to stay in sync. Of course, you can get similar results for much less money — but only if you’re okay with higher latency (meaning your video will be out of sync) and a more complex setup with multiple boxes and amps.

For me, the key things were:
* FIR crossovers (in my experience they simply sound better than IIR)
* Ease of use — just one box to power on and it works
* Low latency

If those things don’t matter to you, then by all means get a dedicated PC with an 8-channel DAC and your preferred software that can absolutely get the job done. It just depends on what you value most in your setup. Honestly, the pricing debate sounds more like envy than criticism.

No envy here! ... Just curious:
How's is your experience with the DEQX so far?... Is the software finished (or "real close")?... How is the sound quality compared to previous x-over setups you've had?
(It'd sure be refreshing to hear a "positive" story, because I've not being able to find one to this point)

By the way, lip-sync is not an issue for me (music listening only), but I'm aligned with your other bullets (ease-of-use, and optimal x-overs)... just not sure the DEQX is the only answer for that.

Thanks!

 

[El Geffe]

I’ve been using DEQX since 2003, and over the years I’ve tried just about every crossover and room correction platform out there: MiniDSP, Hypex DSP, Audioweaver, Audiolense, Ekio, RePhase, and Dirac, either for full crossover duties or room correction experiments. With my loudspeaker system, DEQX and Audiolense have consistently delivered the best sound: clean, coherent, and musically engaging. Nothing else has matched that level of naturalness and time alignment.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Hypex DSP was the worst in my setup. It made everything sound like a 128 kbps MP3, thin, flat, and lacking in life. In hindsight, that probably comes down to the fixed-point internal architecture, limited headroom, and basic crossover topologies togehter with just basic hardware. The Hypex units are great for convenience, but their DSP implementation simply isn’t transparent enough for high-resolution systems.

The MiniDSP offerings were a bit better, but they also suffer from low-cost analog stages, jittery internal clocking, and budget-grade DSP chips. You can modify the hardware to make it sound decent, especially the output stages but they’re not in the same sonic league as DEQX.

By contrast, the Danville DSPMusik running Audioweaver sounded fantastic and was actually the most flexible of all the systems I tried. It’s a serious platform with extremely capable software, but it demands a fair bit of engineering knowledge to really take advantage of its potential.

Ekio offers roughly the same functional scope as MiniDSP, but since it runs on your own hardware, you can choose much higher-quality DACs and interfaces, which immediately puts it a few steps ahead sonically.

RePhase is a nice companion tool rather than a full solution. I’ve used it together with Audioweaver to generate phase-correction filters for my IIR crossovers, a subtle but worthwhile improvement in coherence and imaging. It’s not night and day, but it adds polish.

As for Dirac, I never really liked it. It does some clever optimization, but in my system it sucked the life out of the music. It’s too focused on achieving a mathematically perfect target curve, and in doing so, it tends to flatten dynamics and make everything sound a bit sterile. At first I thought it was just me not capable of configuring it right but I heard it in other systems as well so I gave up on it.

After four or five years of looking for a true DEQX replacement, I eventually gave up and bought another DEQX. I still wish it were more flexible, that’s been my wish for 20 years, but it just works and it sounds right. My old DEQX still plays very nice in my bedroom system, which says a lot about how solid its core design has always been and it says a lot about the hardware reliability. In the end, I didn’t replace DEQX because it sounded bad, I just couldn’t find anything that sounded much better and offered the same convenience. The next best in my experience was Audiolense, and probably Acourate too, though I haven’t tested Acourate myself.

If you’re aiming for DEQX-level results on a smaller budget, I’d recommend getting an Audiolense license, a dedicated fanless PC, and a high-quality eight-channel DAC with proper volume control. With some careful configuration, that setup can come remarkably close to, or even surpass, DEQX performance, as long as you can live with the latency inherent in software-based convolution systems. If I could have integrated it more neatly, I probably would have been perfectly happy with Audiolense. The only real downside in my case was the hardware complexity, a separate source switcher, a separate PC, a separate streamer, and a separate AES-to-USB converter. It all worked, but it wasn’t exactly elegant.

As for my experience with the Pre-8, it’s still in Beta. A significantly updated user interface is supposed to be released sometime this month. To be honest, I don’t expect a revolution, the underlying processing engine will remain the same. What I’d really like to see is more clarity about what each stage in the setup process actually does, which would make it much easier to make informed adjustments. That said, the learning curve isn’t nearly as steep as with Audioweaver or Audiolense.

So no, I’m not going to tell anyone it’s a “must buy,” because I don't want to be responsible for your marriage but for me, it has definitely been worth it.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

I’ve been using DEQX since 2003, and over the years I’ve tried just about every crossover and room correction platform out there: MiniDSP, Hypex DSP, Audioweaver, Audiolense, Ekio, RePhase, and Dirac, either for full crossover duties or room correction experiments. With my loudspeaker system, DEQX and Audiolense have consistently delivered the best sound: clean, coherent, and musically engaging. Nothing else has matched that level of naturalness and time alignment.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Hypex DSP was the worst in my setup. It made everything sound like a 128 kbps MP3, thin, flat, and lacking in life. In hindsight, that probably comes down to the fixed-point internal architecture, limited headroom, and basic crossover topologies togehter with just basic hardware. The Hypex units are great for convenience, but their DSP implementation simply isn’t transparent enough for high-resolution systems.

The MiniDSP offerings were a bit better, but they also suffer from low-cost analog stages, jittery internal clocking, and budget-grade DSP chips. You can modify the hardware to make it sound decent, especially the output stages but they’re not in the same sonic league as DEQX.

By contrast, the Danville DSPMusik running Audioweaver sounded fantastic and was actually the most flexible of all the systems I tried. It’s a serious platform with extremely capable software, but it demands a fair bit of engineering knowledge to really take advantage of its potential.

Ekio offers roughly the same functional scope as MiniDSP, but since it runs on your own hardware, you can choose much higher-quality DACs and interfaces, which immediately puts it a few steps ahead sonically.

RePhase is a nice companion tool rather than a full solution. I’ve used it together with Audioweaver to generate phase-correction filters for my IIR crossovers, a subtle but worthwhile improvement in coherence and imaging. It’s not night and day, but it adds polish.

As for Dirac, I never really liked it. It does some clever optimization, but in my system it sucked the life out of the music. It’s too focused on achieving a mathematically perfect target curve, and in doing so, it tends to flatten dynamics and make everything sound a bit sterile. At first I thought it was just me not capable of configuring it right but I heard it in other systems as well so I gave up on it.

After four or five years of looking for a true DEQX replacement, I eventually gave up and bought another DEQX. I still wish it were more flexible, that’s been my wish for 20 years, but it just works and it sounds right. My old DEQX still plays very nice in my bedroom system, which says a lot about how solid its core design has always been and it says a lot about the hardware reliability. In the end, I didn’t replace DEQX because it sounded bad, I just couldn’t find anything that sounded much better and offered the same convenience. The next best in my experience was Audiolense, and probably Acourate too, though I haven’t tested Acourate myself.

If you’re aiming for DEQX-level results on a smaller budget, I’d recommend getting an Audiolense license, a dedicated fanless PC, and a high-quality eight-channel DAC with proper volume control. With some careful configuration, that setup can come remarkably close to, or even surpass, DEQX performance, as long as you can live with the latency inherent in software-based convolution systems. If I could have integrated it more neatly, I probably would have been perfectly happy with Audiolense. The only real downside in my case was the hardware complexity, a separate source switcher, a separate PC, a separate streamer, and a separate AES-to-USB converter. It all worked, but it wasn’t exactly elegant.

As for my experience with the Pre-8, it’s still in Beta. A significantly updated user interface is supposed to be released sometime this month. To be honest, I don’t expect a revolution, the underlying processing engine will remain the same. What I’d really like to see is more clarity about what each stage in the setup process actually does, which would make it much easier to make informed adjustments. That said, the learning curve isn’t nearly as steep as with Audioweaver or Audiolense.

So no, I’m not going to tell anyone it’s a “must buy,” because I don't want to be responsible for your marriage but for me, it has definitely been worth it.

What CPU/DSP does it use ? After 20 pages we still don't know what this mystery part is ! Since you have one, perhaps you can lift off the lid and take some close-up shots I mean, you're pretty critical of what mindsp etc uses so it's only fair that we get to know what it's got hiding under the bonnet It's pretty much like buying a car. You don't usually buy a car unless you know what's under the bonnet

 

[El Geffe]

The first thing I did when the Pre-8 arrived was take the lid off. In fact, you have to remove the lid if you want to change the output gain. But no, I’m not able to reveal what processor it uses. There are three PCBs stacked on top of each other: the top layer holds the DAC and output stages, the second layer is the control board, and the bottom layer houses the processor, which is mounted to a heatsink attached to the bottom of the case. So no, I’m not going to take it apart just to identify the processor type, I’m not interested in that. I know what it can do, and that’s enough for me. For your information, it’s a 64-bit ARM processor, but that doesn’t really say much, of course. The Pre-8 is basically a computer with a convolution engine and a control board.

Anyway, I came here to find other users and share experiences. I’m not here to defend DEQX in any way, I have no connection with them whatsoever. I’m just a customer and a DIY loudspeaker enthusiast. I simply shared my experience, and if that comes across as harsh criticism of MiniDSP, so be it. I’m just comparing it to what I’m used to. Does that mean MiniDSP is bad? No, it just means I’ve been spoiled by better options. And yes, I do have quite a bit of criticism about the Pre-8 at this stage, but I share that directly with DEQX. Since it’s still in beta, I don’t think it’s fair to share those details publicly because once something’s out there, it tends to stick.

---

 

[Bjorn]

The MiniDSP offerings were a bit better, but they also suffer from low-cost analog stages, jittery internal clocking, and budget-grade DSP chips. You can modify the hardware to make it sound decent, especially the output stages but they’re not in the same sonic league as DEQX.

Have you seen the measurements of the Flex?
See bottom in the link:

miniDSP Flex

Pocket size processor with flexible Input/Output configuration, Audiophile converters, 400MHz Sharc DSP processor, BT connectivity, DSP toolbox for subwoofer and multiway crossover, Dirac Live optional upgrade

www.minidsp.com

 

[Tranquility Bass]

The first thing I did when the Pre-8 arrived was take the lid off. In fact, you have to remove the lid if you want to change the output gain. But no, I’m not able to reveal what processor it uses. There are three PCBs stacked on top of each other: the top layer holds the DAC and output stages, the second layer is the control board, and the bottom layer houses the processor, which is mounted to a heatsink attached to the bottom of the case. So no, I’m not going to take it apart just to identify the processor type, I’m not interested in that. I know what it can do, and that’s enough for me. For your information, it’s a 64-bit ARM processor, but that doesn’t really say much, of course. The Pre-8 is basically a computer with a convolution engine and a control board.

Anyway, I came here to find other users and share experiences. I’m not here to defend DEQX in any way, I have no connection with them whatsoever. I’m just a customer and a DIY loudspeaker enthusiast. I simply shared my experience, and if that comes across as harsh criticism of MiniDSP, so be it. I’m just comparing it to what I’m used to. Does that mean MiniDSP is bad? No, it just means I’ve been spoiled by better options. And yes, I do have quite a bit of criticism about the Pre-8 at this stage, but I share that directly with DEQX. Since it’s still in beta, I don’t think it’s fair to share those details publicly because once something’s out there, it tends to stick.

---

I found this picture online. Is this what yours looks like inside ??

 

[Tranquility Bass]

Guys, just because a box does DSP does not mean that the DSP is the same. The DEQX is a linear phase FIR DSP box. The only one in existence on the market. What disappoints me is that even in 2025 it is still the only one on the market. All the others - MiniDSP, Colinear, and Danville DSPNexus are all minimum-phase IIR. The only one I would avoid or caution about is the DSPNexus, because you program it with Audio Weaver. If you think DSP is difficult, wait till you see Audio Weaver. Add to that, Audio Weaver requires an annual subscription if you want to keep making filters. All other filter making software I can think of is a one-time purchase. Don't get me wrong, Audio Weaver is extremely powerful and flexible, and you can probably design any filter that you can think of. Read about something in an engineering journal, and you could probably implement it with Audio Weaver. But for the average consumer, you can forget it.

How do you know that if you've never actually used it ? I don't know anyone who has had trouble using it except for you, who has never used it !!

And for those playing along at home, I put together a two-way linear phase crossover using rePhase and Audioweaver. This easily runs on a 4th gen 400MHz SHARC DSP and at 192kHz. However, be cautious of pre-ringing artifacts leaking through, as they are prevalent and can be audible, unlike those ubiquitous IIR filters.

https://analog-precision.com/forum/fir-filter-designs/lets-build-a-linear-phase-crossover/

You see easy-peasy

 

[Keith_W]

How do you know that if you've never actually used it ? I don't know anyone who has had trouble using it except for you, who has never used it !!

And for those playing along at home, I put together a two-way linear phase crossover using rePhase and Audioweaver. This easily runs on a 4th gen 400MHz SHARC DSP and at 192kHz. However, be cautious of pre-ringing artifacts leaking through, as they are prevalent and can be audible, unlike those ubiquitous IIR filters.

https://analog-precision.com/forum/fir-filter-designs/lets-build-a-linear-phase-crossover/

You see easy-peasy

I'll leave people to follow that link and decide for themselves if it is easy-peasy or not.

And i'll also ask for a quick show of hands: how many people know the difference between "Biquad Sparse V3" and "Biquad Sparse V4"?

In your thread, you say that we "pretend" that pre-ringing is inaudible. If it is kept below psychoacoustic thresholds, it IS inaudible. Read the section on "temporal masking" here.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

I'll leave people to follow that link and decide for themselves if it is easy-peasy or not.

View attachment 482236

And i'll also ask for a quick show of hands: how many people know the difference between "Biquad Sparse V3" and "Biquad Sparse V4"?

In your thread, you say that we "pretend" that pre-ringing is inaudible. If it is kept below psychoacoustic thresholds, it IS inaudible. Read the section on "temporal masking" here.

Like I said, you haven't actually used it, have you, because if you had, there is a dedicated crossover block that makes it very easy to design crossovers in minutes. Instead, you have intentionally singled out a less-used module for the purpose of creating a strawman. Nor have you actually used the said product that this thread is about, but you have a strong bias towards one, whilst totally discounting the other, and never having experience with either.

And didn't you write a book or two on how to use your mate's software ?? I'd hardly call that simple to use.

Just to add that the Audioweaver solutions are pretty cheap by comparison, and you can still roll your own linear phase filters if that is your cup of tea !! It is certainly not the exclusive domain of one particular vendor, like you keep alluding to !

 

[Keith_W]

And didn't you write a book or two on how to use your mate's software ?? I'd hardly call that simple to use.

There are two free guides that I wrote on how to use that software, yes. And I wouldn't call him "my mate", I have never met him.

Just to add that the Audioweaver solutions are pretty cheap by comparison, and you can still roll your own linear phase filters if that is your cup of tea !! It is certainly not the exclusive domain of one particular vendor, like you keep alluding to !

I NEVER said that linear phase is the exclusive domain of one particular vendor. This is yet another example of you flat out lying. I regularly mention other software capable of linear phase, not just Acourate - there's Audiolense, Focus Fidelity, Eclipse Audio's FIR Designer (another Australian product). As for high tap count FIR hardware, I know of only one vendor. If you know another, tell me what it is. In fact, I do know of another linear phase hardware competitor that is currently in development, but I don't know anything about its capabilities to say very much about it. Or even whether it is going to make it to market.

I know from previous experience of you, and reading your rants on other people, that you are not here to have a good faith conversation. I would like to remind everyone who @Tranquility Bass is. He makes a similar product to DSPNexus called "Ultimate Preamp" - SHARC based (4th or 5th gen, I can't remember), IIR + FIR, requires Audio Weaver to program. He has a very long history of despising DEQX and another guy named Arthur Rappos who makes Elektra amplifiers. It seems as if he has cleaned up his forum recently, the last time I had a look there were very long unhinged rants about various characters in Australian hi-fi including attacks on the moderator of another forum for recommending Elektra amps as if it was a conflict of interest. Please provide those links, it would be great reading for ASR so that they know who you really are.

 

[Tranquility Bass]

There are two free guides that I wrote on how to use that software, yes. And I wouldn't call him "my mate", I have never met him.



I NEVER said that linear phase is the exclusive domain of one particular vendor. This is yet another example of you flat out lying. I regularly mention other software capable of linear phase, not just Acourate - there's Audiolense, Focus Fidelity, Eclipse Audio's FIR Designer (another Australian product). As for high tap count FIR hardware, I know of only one vendor. If you know another, tell me what it is. In fact, I do know of another linear phase hardware competitor that is currently in development, but I don't know anything about its capabilities to say very much about it. Or even whether it is going to make it to market.

I know from previous experience of you, and reading your rants on other people, that you are not here to have a good faith conversation. I would like to remind everyone who @Tranquility Bass is. He makes a similar product to DSPNexus called "Ultimate Preamp" - SHARC based (4th or 5th gen, I can't remember), IIR + FIR, requires Audio Weaver to program. He has a very long history of despising DEQX and another guy named Arthur Rappos who makes Elektra amplifiers. It seems as if he has cleaned up his forum recently, the last time I had a look there were very long unhinged rants about various characters in Australian hi-fi including attacks on the moderator of another forum for recommending Elektra amps as if it was a conflict of interest. Please provide those links, it would be great reading for ASR so that they know who you really are.

You can't win the argument, so you have to shoot the messenger and resort to ad hominem attacks. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are spreading the same untruths about me like you did the last time. I haven't sold a preamp for at least three years and probably don't intend to sell anymore at the moment. To set the record straight, the original thread you said I had cleaned up is still there regarding anti-competitive behaviour. I suggest you read it before you jump to the wrong conclusions. Anyone with a sense of decency and fairness would find it abhorrent that this sort of behavior was allowed to go on unchecked for such a long time, even when complaints were being made and people were being banned for making the complaints.

And getting back to this thread, which you started nearly two years ago, and so far we still don't know what the CPU/DSP is. What's the big secret about it ? You still don't have a working unit to evaluate, and yet you are so sure of its capabilities, whilst being totally critical of any competing platforms, including stuff you've never actually owned or evaluated. And you always talk about tap count, but you never mention it on the original DEQX product. How come ? Care to enlighten us - I dare you

I actually wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore, but when you were being obnoxious to that last poster, I had to say something in defence of free speech and the true spirit of ASR, which is about critical thinking and being objective. You, trying to stifle the debate by spreading untruths about other vendors' equipment and attacking posters, make this whole thread sound like nothing more than a glorified advert.

It's a nice day today and I'm going for a ride on my bike. Have a nice day

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I present an example of “critical thinking and being objective”

You, trying to stifle the debate by spreading untruths about other vendors' equipment and attacking posters, make this whole thread sound like nothing more than a glorified advert.

 

[Keith_W]

Andrew (ASLAN) is a good friend of mine. He stayed with me once when he drove past Melbourne, and i've had him over for dinner a few times. So yes, I know what happened to him, and I know what he's doing these days. Enjoy your bike ride.

I don't see the relevance of what ARM chip is inside the DEQX, what is important are its capabilities. Just like I don't care what CPU is in my PC, as long as it does what I want - run Windows, have 20 Chrome tabs open, run REW, run Acourate, run Tidal, and do it all at the same time.

 

[LuckyNat]

The DEQX Pre-8 has actually been on the market for quite a while — around 2.5 years now. I’ve had mine for about 1.5 years, so it’s definitely not some upcoming or unreleased product.

Really? The Dutch importer's website has a list of latest news on the products and, for example, the December 2024 entry says it's still unreleased .

There is chat in 2024 on Facebook of a pending release ..

The UK distributor webaite says pricing has still to be confirmed .. whilst showing pricing on the same page. Click for more details and whilst it says there is a 10-14 day lead time (that could also be their automated maximum for whatever shop software they use, who knows..) it tells you there is a Beta testing scheme available to join as an early adopter.

And finally - the important one - DEQX.com says it is unreleased. Here's a screenshot of their landing page.

Funny, it seems a confused picture. Did you purchase yours as a beta tester, previous owner or something along those lines?

 

[LuckyNat]

The first thing I did when the Pre-8 arrived was take the lid off. In fact, you have to remove the lid if you want to change the output gain. But no, I’m not able to reveal what processor it uses. There are three PCBs stacked on top of each other: the top layer holds the DAC and output stages, the second layer is the control board, and the bottom layer houses the processor, which is mounted to a heatsink attached to the bottom of the case. So no, I’m not going to take it apart just to identify the processor type, I’m not interested in that. I know what it can do, and that’s enough for me. For your information, it’s a 64-bit ARM processor, but that doesn’t really say much, of course. The Pre-8 is basically a computer with a convolution engine and a control board.

Anyway, I came here to find other users and share experiences. I’m not here to defend DEQX in any way, I have no connection with them whatsoever. I’m just a customer and a DIY loudspeaker enthusiast. I simply shared my experience, and if that comes across as harsh criticism of MiniDSP, so be it. I’m just comparing it to what I’m used to. Does that mean MiniDSP is bad? No, it just means I’ve been spoiled by better options. And yes, I do have quite a bit of criticism about the Pre-8 at this stage, but I share that directly with DEQX. Since it’s still in beta, I don’t think it’s fair to share those details publicly because once something’s out there, it tends to stick.

---

Ah, ok . So it still is in beta.

So it is not yet "on the market" and therefore can't be considered "the only one on the market" to do X Y and Z in any shape or form . Which is what I did say.

It may feel like it is "released" when a limited number of folks in the know have one, but sometimes those products also disappear and never make a full release .. because of lack of funding for development, economic problems, personal business problems etc etc .

When it is fully released, we can then say it is "on the market" .

By which time, someone may have released a box that holds an RPi 5 with all the io functionality needed on well spec'd boards for very cheap .. RPi 5 having just a Quad-Core 64but ARM processor Vs the DEQX'a hexacore .. if there isn't such a thing available already on the market (potentially 10s of thousand of FIR taps with the RPI 5).

What determines a box sold as a complete product Vs a box with a bunch of different products inside .. is kind of blurred and mostly down to software, attention to detail (of setup, casing etc) and branding. So again, the "only box on the market" to do X,Y and Z .. loses significance if one can readily make such a box (albeit with terrible software clunkiness). With the former, you're really just paying someone to put it together for you and make it user friendly ..

 

[El Geffe]

Hey everyone, I’m bowing out of this conversation. As I mentioned before, I’m not here to defend DEQX, and I’m certainly not going to spend my time arguing with strangers on the internet. If you want to criticize or bash DEQX, that’s entirely your choice, but please don’t expect any replies from me. I find this kind of back-and-forth pretty pointless. Anyway, have a great day!

 

[LuckyNat]

It isn't. The DEQX has sufficient FIR taps to make high order filters.



I am surprised by your response. What do you mean by "no such thing as a linear phase FIR DSP box"? The DEQX is literally a linear phase FIR DSP box, as I have pointed out many times over. Your statement is a bit like having an elephant in front of you and claiming that elephants don't exist.



Umm, I have never said that you need a specialised DSP chip for linear-phase FIR's. You made that one up.



What do you mean it does not exist? I have seen and touched the unit, people on this thread have received their orders. I mean, WTF are you on about? And I assume you made a typo, it's 32768 taps per channel, not 3200.

This statement, along with others, is so factually wrong that I don't think you are arguing in good faith. If you misunderstood something, that is one thing, but to deny reality is another. There is no point replying to you any more.

Maybe it's just the manor in which you write that's the issue here because what I read in your posts is quite different to what you appear to think you have said ..

Everything implies it does all types of filters - therefore it is a general filter box ! The processing power can be utilised as the user wishes ..

There is nothing "Pure" about it either. As you rightly agree - it does not have any specialist, linear phase FIR specific processing, the only way one could use that phrase without it being a hyperbolic statement . QED you must surely agree that this notion of purity a hyperbolic expression on your part?

I did exaggerate for effect that it "does not exist" (hence the lol) but it is certainly not yet "on the market" !

A company can chose to do beta testing in-house, externally, or for free via enthusiasts in the public domain. It is still in development, even if those who have one don't consider themselves to be affiliated with the company. They either provided funding (via early adopter schemes) or beta testing services in exchange for a cheaper unit.

either way . It doesn't appear to be on the market.

 

[HookEm]

Maybe it's just the manor in which you write that's the issue here because what I read in your posts is quite different to what you appear to think you have said ..

Everything implies it does all types of filters - therefore it is a general filter box ! The processing power can be utilised as the user wishes ..

There is nothing "Pure" about it either. As you rightly agree - it does not have any specialist, linear phase FIR specific processing, the only way one could use that phrase without it being a hyperbolic statement . QED you must surely agree that this notion of purity a hyperbolic expression on your part?

I did exaggerate for effect that it "does not exist" (hence the lol) but it is certainly not yet "on the market" !

A company can chose to do beta testing in-house, externally, or for free via enthusiasts in the public domain. It is still in development, even if those who have one don't consider themselves to be affiliated with the company. They either provided funding (via early adopter schemes) or beta testing services in exchange for a cheaper unit.

either way . It doesn't appear to be on the market.

The point about "not yet on the market" is clear!... Let's please move on!
But the bigger point, IMO, is about the need for products like the DEQX, with a useful set of "in the box" features: DSP Xovers. ADC (LineIn and Phono), DACs, Volume control etc.... Software for the DSP stuff seems to be the hardest to implement in a user-friendly way, and DEQX is giving that a "go"... And I hope they make it!