DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

[john61ct]

No. All I want is a device that does what it is told.

In a few decades that may sound not just anachronistic but dangerously iconoclastic

People Used to Control Machines. They Don’t Anymore

In a world regulated by devices, humanity has become disconnected from the physical world—from stick-shift cars to postcards.

www.wired.com

 

[Rikpost]

Hello DEQX users.
Does anyone have an idea what the two subwoofer outputs do when a four-way profile is already active? I’m referring to the two RCA outputs next to the main outputs.

 

[milosz]

Hello DEQX users.
Does anyone have an idea what the two subwoofer outputs do when a four-way profile is already active? I’m referring to the two RCA outputs next to the main outputs.

I have a 4 way setup, I have set my subwoofer outputs to be active below 45 Hz and they feed open-baffle servo subs I made using drivers and amps from GR Research. So it's not 4 way PLUS subs, the 4th channels ARE the subs.

 

[Rikpost]

My set up is also 4 way so I use the low outputs for the subs
But I considering to ad a extra sub on another position .
So I was wandeling what the sub out exit does

 

[Vds]

Any news from DEQX? Have they presented the new units at any trade show yet? The silence from the company is erie and does not create much confidence in the longevity of the brand.

 

[milosz]

My set up is also 4 way so I use the low outputs for the subs
But I considering to ad a extra sub on another position .
So I was wandeling what the sub out exit does

It's the 4th channel. There aren't 4 channels PLUS a sub. That 4th channel is the sub.

Ask DEQX if this isn't clear to you https://deqx.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/user/login?destination=portals

 

[Rikpost]

I haven't received a response to my previous emails yet either, so I thought this would be an easier way.
I have expected a more defined manuall at this point .
And there is not as a Beta user I have no complains but when you buy this unit on the market , than …….?

 

[Keith_W]

I haven't received a response to my previous emails yet either, so I thought this would be an easier way.
I have expected a more defined manuall at this point .

Please check your manual. If it is older than this:

... I can send that manual to you via email. Just inbox me with your email address.

Just to be clear: I am not here to defend them nor provide product support for them. I am not a DEQX owner, but I do visit my friends who own DEQX and help them take measurements and help them tune their DSP. I have told them in the past that their product support needs improvement, and it's all very simple: just upload the manual to their website! And why is it so hard to find drivers on their website? You can't reach the correct link through browsing, you have to use Google to find the link. Or use the manual, which brings up another problem: why does the link from the manual to the driver 404? There is someone very stupid working in DEQX, and that person needs to be fired!

 

[Rikpost]

Hello Keith that is verry kind of you
What I have is the DEQX Beta v1.4.0 getting started guide .
I presume that newer than the Cal version ?

Greatings Richard

 

[Keith_W]

If that is the only document you have, you might benefit from this:

Please inbox me with your email address.

 

[Rewind]

It has been three years, are there any proper alternatives to DEQX for mere mortals with non-dentist salaries?

 

[Keith_W]

It has been three years, are there any proper alternatives to DEQX for mere mortals with non-dentist salaries?

Hang Loose Processor. ASR thread here. It still isn't on the market yet, I suppose @mitchco is still ironing out the product. Hopefully soon ... although you can see that thread is quite old now.

IMO HLP removes two of the biggest flaws of the DEQX. (1) its price, and (2) its proprietary nature. And I especially dislike how all processing is done in the cloud, on their server. there is a real risk your $20k DEQX will be a very beautiful brick if DEQX goes belly up. And if Kim and Alan are reading this ... sorry guys. I tried to warn you.

 

[mitchco]

Hang Loose Processor. ASR thread here. It still isn't on the market yet, I suppose @mitchco is still ironing out the product. Hopefully soon ... although you can see that thread is quite old now.

IMO HLP removes two of the biggest flaws of the DEQX. (1) its price, and (2) its proprietary nature. And I especially dislike how all processing is done in the cloud, on their server. there is a real risk your $20k DEQX will be a very beautiful brick if DEQX goes belly up. And if Kim and Alan are reading this ... sorry guys. I tried to warn you.

Thanks @Keith_W just ironing out the final FPGA firmware programming. Yes, HLP is designed as an open platform, no processing or reliance on cloud services. Also, HLP is not limited by the number of FIR filter taps and, of course, one can also install virtually any audio plugin on the market. It has been a long haul, but almost there

 

[Rikpost]

I really have to defend Deqx here.
Okay, the DEQX is pricey, but so is a lot of other equipment.
Plus, you get multiple functions in a single unit.
What exactly happened with the cloud is indeed a mystery,
but it sounds magical.
I hope they succeed and that the device only gets better; I expect more possibilities to become available in the future thanks to new software developments. Until then, I’ll just wait and enjoy the sound every day.

 

[Keith_W]

I really have to defend Deqx here.
Okay, the DEQX is pricey, but so is a lot of other equipment.
Plus, you get multiple functions in a single unit.
What exactly happened with the cloud is indeed a mystery,
but it sounds magical.
I hope they succeed and that the device only gets better; I expect more possibilities to become available in the future thanks to new software developments. Until then, I’ll just wait and enjoy the sound every day.

There is no question that it works and you can get it to do a good job. That part I am not disputing. What I worry about is that they have priced themselves out of the market! Competitors are coming to eat their lunch, and when they go broke from lack of sales, it will leave all DEQX owners SOL. I don't want to see that happen. I am not anti-DEQX, I really do like those guys. And of course I would root for an Australian company over those Canadians But I have to call it like I see it.

You might like to look up what happened to Fairlight, which was an early product from a couple of decades ago, also by Kim Ryrie of DEQX. Brief history: they were one of the first DAW's on the market with many revolutionary features. But they were really expensive. Part of the reason was because they designed and made everything themselves - from the PCB's, to the cases, and even the keyboard. They were so expensive that only big studios could afford their product. They struggled - sales of one unit funded the manufacture of the next unit. Eventually, other cheaper competitors came along and finished them off.

The same "hang the expense, we'll design and manufacture our own keyboard" mentality when they could have bought an off-the-shelf keyboard seems to be still prevailing. There is no need to develop their own filter design software. No need to make it proprietary. All it does is increase the expense whilst providing a more limited product and leaving customers high and dry if the company goes kaput. I wonder if they are suffering from the sunk cost fallacy - already spent so much on software development that they can't reverse course and MUST rely on continued sales to recoup their cost. Which means continued cost on software development.

It's not a good time to be a DEQX shareholder, for sure.

 

[Rikpost]

It is suspiciously quiet around DEQX; that certainly isn't reassuring.
It would be good for them to release some news.

 

[Cu Boy]

It is suspiciously quiet around DEQX; that certainly isn't reassuring.
It would be good for them to release some news.

Agreed. I raised a 'request' in June and have not had a reply.

 

[fatoldgit]

If we look at the PEQ/room correct market, we have two tiers:

(1) consumer grade products where you wave around a mic or a phone and the endpoint is magically configured and maybe you get some sliders you can can move up and down.

(2) geek grade products like the old and current DEQX product line

What we also need to recognize is the venn diagram between DSP geeks and rich audiophiles is basically two overlapping circles (i.e. rich audiophiles don't do geek stuff)....in all the decades of looking at photos of poorly treated/not treated glass and marble tombs with $$$$$$ audio systems used to impress friends and relatives with their cost and not performance, I have yet to see any that included a DSP device.

So what I am saying is the market for geeky room correction DSP stuff is very small and the market for expensive geeky room correction DSP stuff is even smaller.

I have commented on this thread before about this but this has to be one of the worst audio product rollouts ever and as a current HDP-4 DEQX owner (an obvious target for an upgrade) I will not be going near DEQX for my next DSP purchase.

Between the shit rollout, the massive price hike, the lack of communication, a website that provides no information, cloud connection etc etc, I will be looking elsewhere. It just seems this new prduct line was a step to far for DEQX... a lack of resources with a two man team spinning their wheels.

And in all honesty, the user interface/workflow on my HDP-4 is poor and difficult to navigate so I dread to think what this "new and improved" software is like. Many software developers are super smart in regard to backend smarts but suck at GUI design/front end workflow /end user viewpoints and the guys at DEQX fall into this category.

Peter

 

[Rikpost]

The tech niche is indeed very small. I think they want to make their product more user-friendly by developing cloud-based software.
In any case, I have heard from a reliable source that work is still proceeding hard behind the scenes on a software update; it should be ready soon. Information directly from DEQX would have been appropriate, though.

 

[3ll3d00d]

think they want to make their product more user-friendly by developing cloud-based software.

Two entirely separate concerns, cloud based is easier to manage for them and enables them to control access, basically imposes costs/restrictions on the user. For example they could write an app to do filter design that runs on a local pc and connects to the device in the same way (over the network).