DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

[fatoldgit]

I am an existing DEQX user and the strange things to me about this rollout are:

1- The cost of the new gear (as much as can be determined)

So I have a HDP4 which has six analogue outs and cost $US 5k when last sold. The new pre-8 costs retail I think around $US 14k. So the pre-8 is 3x the price of it's predecessor. Sure it has two more outputs but this won't encourage people like me to upgrade as is the pre-8 three times better?

No pricing for the other gen 4 products after 4 years... really?

2- The time to market

There are three gen 4 products: the pre-8, pre-4 and integrated and as far back as October 2021, they had announced these products:

Home - DEQX.com

World-class digital preamp processors combined with DEQX's renowned "speaker first, then the room" calibration and correction.

web.archive.org

Yet today, four years latter, as far a I know, only the pre-8 has been released and it is still in beta.

They have blamed COVID for the delay but that is a lame excuse... the primary component of their BOM is software.... so a pandemic doesn't stop you writing software.

So again, as a existing user, how does a product range announced 4+ years ago and still mainly missing in action/still in beta provide me with any confidence that I am not buying an expensive lemon.


3- still in beta and where is the user manual

As per DEQX:

Gen-4 software is still in beta. We have a Gen-4 Beta Customer Service Desk setup for beta users to access documentation and new beta software releases

So I as a potential end user I can't, after 4 years, download a manual to see what features/functions I get for my $14k?

Is the software that much in flux that they can't provide a user manual.

Again, doesn't help provide me with any confidence that I am not buying an expensive lemon.


Peter

 

[Keith_W]

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!

I'm ignoring him. He's just nitpicking and misrepresenting facts. I have better things to do.

 

[LuckyNat]

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!

To you and I .. yes. Had to be explained a little more for some .. and I'm happy to do that if it helps other's understanding of something said. we've all the time in the world here - we're not going to run out of thread space.. People misunderstanding each other just leads to daft arguments otherwise.

The bigger point of DEQX (assuming a full production run), I agree with. That leads though to an assessment of value of software to people when so many would baulk at, say, a $300 yearly subscription to a complex DAW or CAD package in a private capacity.

When the elephant in the room is one of the actual audibility of FIRs utilising so many taps, I am just surprised to see the non-objective direction the discussion was taking in regard to the very expensive DEQX and the actual results it will achieve for that layout vs other DSP.. Hence wanting to bring it back to reality .

 

[fatoldgit]

When the elephant in the room is one of the actual audibility of FIRs utilising so many taps, I am just surprised to see the non-objective direction the discussion was taking in regard to the very expensive DEQX and the actual results it will achieve for that layout vs other DSP.. Hence wanting to bring it back to reality .

Not quite following you with regard to "reality" but then I ain't the smartest spoon in the woodshed.

It is my understanding that generally there is no point in correcting room anomalies above say 300HZ... simply because it's not that accurate at higher frequencies and secondly they are easy to deal with via traditional treatments or if limited by WAF, with some well positioned furniture.

So with that hopefully accepted, the number of room nodes you need to deal with from say 30HZ to 300HZ is smallish, lets say typically ~5

Thus while I am sure having an minimal number of taps is important, like many things in audio, the opposite isn't always true/needed (i.e. 192/24 digital is overkill)

At the end of the day, while Golden Ears such as yourself might hear "audibility of FIRs utilising so many taps" (which I assume means not enough), for most of us lessor mortals we just want a nice even low end response via PEQ and for those running an existing older gen 2 DEQX (or any other device like a minidsp), for high pass/low pass filtering.

If as part of improving our inroom response by 98.7% means we leave 1.3% on the table due to not enough taps then I would be happy with that.

Obviously the extra piece of the pie with DEQX is the POTENTIAL to correct for the speakers themselves.

Summary: Are you suggesting the gen 3 DEQX is the only game in town cause of it's number of taps (aside from doing similar inside a powerful PC... which is probably beyond the skills of many users) and thus we should bow down at the new golden DEQX altar and ignore the perceived (real?) issues around rollout and cost of the new gen 3 DEQX?.

Peter

PS. If I have it all wrong then please point this out... but treat me nicely as I am a bit of a snow flake and melt easily.

 

[HookEm]

Not quite following you with regard to "reality" but then I ain't the smartest spoon in the woodshed.

It is my understanding that generally there is no point in correcting room anomalies above say 300HZ... simply because it's not that accurate at higher frequencies and secondly they are easy to deal with via traditional treatments or if limited by WAF, with some well positioned furniture.

So with that hopefully accepted, the number of room nodes you need to deal with from say 30HZ to 300HZ is smallish, lets say typically ~5

Thus while I am sure having an minimal number of taps is important, like many things in audio, the opposite isn't always true/needed (i.e. 192/24 digital is overkill)

At the end of the day, while Golden Ears such as yourself might hear "audibility of FIRs utilising so many taps" (which I assume means not enough), for most of us lessor mortals we just want a nice even low end response via PEQ and for those running an existing older gen 2 DEQX (or any other device like a minidsp), for high pass/low pass filtering.

If as part of improving our inroom response by 98.7% means we leave 1.3% on the table due to not enough taps then I would be happy with that.

Obviously the extra piece of the pie with DEQX is the POTENTIAL to correct for the speakers themselves.

Summary: Are you suggesting the gen 3 DEQX is the only game in town cause of it's number of taps (aside from doing similar inside a powerful PC... which is probably beyond the skills of many users) and thus we should bow down at the new golden DEQX altar and ignore the perceived (real?) issues around rollout and cost of the new gen 3 DEQX?.

Peter

PS. If I have it all wrong then please point this out... but treat me nicely as I am a bit of a snow flake and melt easily.

@fatoldgit: When you say "gen 3 DEQX" perhaps you mean the "gen4 DEQX", which is the main topic of discussion on this thread?

@All: As I see it, at least on paper, the "gen4 DEQX" may have great features, but to this point it has not fulfilled its promise (software-wise)... and until that happens (which I hope it does), it will remain a glorified and expensive brick.

 

[Vds]

Anybody hear any news about a next software upgrade/ final retail version ?

 

[LuckyNat]

Not quite following you with regard to "reality" but then I ain't the smartest spoon in the woodshed.

It is my understanding that generally there is no point in correcting room anomalies above say 300HZ... simply because it's not that accurate at higher frequencies and secondly they are easy to deal with via traditional treatments or if limited by WAF, with some well positioned furniture.

So with that hopefully accepted, the number of room nodes you need to deal with from say 30HZ to 300HZ is smallish, lets say typically ~5

Thus while I am sure having an minimal number of taps is important, like many things in audio, the opposite isn't always true/needed (i.e. 192/24 digital is overkill)

At the end of the day, while Golden Ears such as yourself might hear "audibility of FIRs utilising so many taps" (which I assume means not enough), for most of us lessor mortals we just want a nice even low end response via PEQ and for those running an existing older gen 2 DEQX (or any other device like a minidsp), for high pass/low pass filtering.

If as part of improving our inroom response by 98.7% means we leave 1.3% on the table due to not enough taps then I would be happy with that.

Obviously the extra piece of the pie with DEQX is the POTENTIAL to correct for the speakers themselves.

Summary: Are you suggesting the gen 3 DEQX is the only game in town cause of it's number of taps (aside from doing similar inside a powerful PC... which is probably beyond the skills of many users) and thus we should bow down at the new golden DEQX altar and ignore the perceived (real?) issues around rollout and cost of the new gen 3 DEQX?.

Peter

PS. If I have it all wrong then please point this out... but treat me nicely as I am a bit of a snow flake and melt easily.

Hey Peter,

If that was all directed in response to my post, and not to other's .. I do agree with you and what you are expressing here is what I am also considering the reality of DSP needs for 99.9% of people, even those still going much further than most in their room correction.

It did appear to being suggested that the DEQX gen 4 (yep, gen 4 is the new one being talked about, as Hookem has pointed out already) is the only game in town for one-box DSP commercial products .. I don't think it was an intentional suggestion, for everyone .. just that Keith_W appears to be one of the 0.1% for whom a minimal phase FIR room correction application to the nth degree *IS* their interest and they happen to have a way of writing that expresses that personal enthusiasm in a way that comes across to me as slightly reverential about it's capabilities, even if they are very high specs for FIRs ..

Anyway .. I probably also expressed myself a bit too over keenly too.

 

[Rikpost]

Heeft iemand nieuws over een volgende software-upgrade/

I have just recieve the latest version of the software 1.4.60b but not try it jet .
The upcoming release version , again a new one ?
Is at the end of november so they call

 

[atmer]

I have just recieve the latest version of the software 1.4.60b but not try it jet .
The upcoming release version , again a new one ?
Is at the end of november so they call

I just went to the DEQX help desk and the firmware shown is still at 1.4.0.
Where did you download the newer version from?

Thanks!
John

 

[Rikpost]

Maybe it is not visible jet u just recieve the message from Alan .
I have not look myself yet .
Greatings Richard

 

[Vds]

I also got 2 emails with several downloads. I cannot access set up menu though. Not sure what’s going on. New interface seems better, with some new functionality options.

 

[NavnFugl]

I've updated mine successfully.

Haven't gotten further than that though; when I attempt to do a new measurement the browser page gets stuck with a seemingly infinite loading screen after clicking "Upload" under the "Create a Speaker" tab. Perhaps a server issue since it's trying to connect to the cloud to process the measurement. I'll attempt again tomorrow.

Anyone else with the same problem?

 

[Vds]

I had to reboot my modem and router. Unplugged both for a minute, plugged in modem, let it set up, then plugged in router. That helped. This advice was from Deqx.

 

[NavnFugl]

Well I figured it out. It doesn't like when there are any "spaces" when naming the profiles; so I managed to finish the process and make a new profile now. I'll have a listen later to hear if there's an improvement over the previous profile I made in April.

 

[Rikpost]

Do you have also make new meassurements .

 

[NavnFugl]

Do you have also make new meassurements .

Yes. The only thing that is kept from before is the crossover profile since those will be the same values anyway.

 

[Rikpost]

Okey i am curius of there are als sonic improvements .
If you like to share it .
I must find the time for making meassurements myself

 

[TheoSweden]

I have tried the new software, like 15hours last 3 days It looks much better, a little less Beta-looking. Big improvement in the right direction! I hope they put even more funtionality in it soon.
Having some trouble with the new lowpass-filter function (i might have use for it). Doesnt work to 'create a system' every time, measurement gets very strange for some reason and it sounds awful.

If I run it like before with normal 4-way filters I can get it to sound very nice, maybe maybe even a little better than before but it might be imagination.

Still missing:
-Subsonic filter
-Quicker processing/uploading of measurements etc. still laggy and unstable.
-It stopping to randomly send out "sparks", very irritating and just wants you to throw it all out of the house when it happens more often.
-Options for the remote control buttons, like what the voulme up/down does. With this update it goes + - 1db instead of 2 per click like before. Would like it to go up/down when holding the up/down button instead of all this clicking.

 

[NavnFugl]

I have tried the new software, like 15hours last 3 days It looks much better, a little less Beta-looking. Big improvement in the right direction! I hope they put even more funtionality in it soon.
Having some trouble with the new lowpass-filter function (i might have use for it). Doesnt work to 'create a system' every time, measurement gets very strange for some reason and it sounds awful.

If I run it like before with normal 4-way filters I can get it to sound very nice, maybe maybe even a little better than before but it might be imagination.

Still missing:
-Subsonic filter
-Quicker processing/uploading of measurements etc. still laggy and unstable.
-It stopping to randomly send out "sparks", very irritating and just wants you to throw it all out of the house when it happens more often.
-Options for the remote control buttons, like what the voulme up/down does. With this update it goes + - 1db instead of 2 per click like before. Would like it to go up/down when holding the up/down button instead of all this clicking.

Definitely a better UI experience on the front page at the moment. UI in the setup environment is largely the same and has some quirks still.

Haven't tried the low-pass option as I have no use for it myself, but nice that they're adding more features still.

There is potential for a sonic improvement with this new update, it believe it comes down to the measurements you take and the room itself. There're still sliders I'm not sure where to put or what they're for like truncation and smoothing, I suppose this will be addressed in the next update at the end of November.

I've not experienced these "sparks" you speak of, are they loud and from all the drivers or just some?

 

[Cu Boy]

I'm only getting familiar with the new UI at the moment and have not tried a new measurement yet. That's partly because I need to understand the 'sliders' better too and up until now have left them in their default position. This potentially has now been made more complicated by the changes in the new release, so I too am hoping for better explanations in the next release.

I have experienced the 'sparks' too. In my case it came about whilst fine-tuning the PEQ and when switching to the Levels tab, the music stopped and was replaced with 'noises' for a few seconds and then the music continued. The screen on my Pre-4 also changed during that episode!! This has never happened before.