DEQX Premate 8 digital active crossover / DSP

[Ibanez]

Apologize if I am hijacking your efforts in your support for an Australian company or any product for that matter but for around $400 Euros you get software DSP with the likes of Audiolense and Acourate that can do just as much, probably more and is automated(not Acourate but has more features and can do more than Audiolense).

What is the advantage of hardware DSP? 8 channel dac? For a 2000 bux you can get 4 SMSL Dacs and a digital to digital converter add another unknown but reasonable amount get some filters made by Mitch and you save the heartache I did of 5 years with the learning curve of how to make filters with Audiolense XO and you have a magic sound system.

And why buy 4 dacs, and an wordclock must be needed?
why not boy an multichannel pro interface for that money instead?
Acourate can't play above 192khz anyway.
Buy like an Antelope Orion SC it has 16 balanced out via 2 DSUB connectors and lots of mic/line ins, or Orion 32/Gem3 32 i/o but then you need and external mic preamp, now OSSC are under €2000 used last i checked, and you get more channels also. And i know Antelope has got bad reputation for drivers in the past, seems to be fixed now, but if you only use it as dac they do their job pretty well without any issue, mine i working as intended on latest Windows 11 and beta driver from Antelope.

 

[Keith_W]

Acourate can't play above 192khz anyway.

It can't sample above 192kHz. But it can generate filters up to 384kHz.

 

[Jorma69]

Anyone received their Pre-8? Any comments? Sound, functionality, how are you using the unit?

 

[milosz]

I got mine a couple of weeks ago. I've been advised to wait for a software update prior to setting it up with my quad-amped speaker system. It's a beta product, I'm part of a beta test, this sort of thing is to be expected.

Some of the beta users haven't waited and are using their units now and will update the software later, but I decided to wait. The update adds features that I am keen to use. Some aspects of the software are not fully finalized yet - for example the remote HTML GUI functions but is quite basic looking. I anticipate it will be six months before the unit is fully in final retail form, in terms of software- just my guess.

All I really know so far is that it is very nicely built. Nice casework, good industrial design. The OLED touchscreen is pretty. LOTS of I/O; mine came with the optional MM phono stage in it, which is made by Dynavector.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I'm looking at this thread, and am amazed at how far we've come with DSP. 12k! Wow! If you are using a PC exclusively you can use JRiver, and/or EAPO for EQ, Dirac Live for DSP, and Ekio or Dephonica or rePhase for crossovers including FIR with an almost unlimited number of Taps. And doing all that you'd have something you could use on multiple channels, and you would be hard pressed to spend more than $1k implementing it. For a hardware solution not based on PC obtained matrial, miniDSP has a multichannel solution complete with eARC and its full suite of adjustments in addition to Dirac Live also for around $1k.

So no reason to buy this. Really a relic of the early 2000's when this kind of thing would have been the only magic bullet in town, and worth the entry fee if you could have afforded it back then.

 

[milosz]

Yeah if you don't have the money you can't buy it.

 

[Keith_W]

I'm looking at this thread, and am amazed at how far we've come with DSP. 12k! Wow! If you are using a PC exclusively you can use JRiver, and/or EAPO for EQ, Dirac Live for DSP, and Ekio or Dephonica or rePhase for crossovers including FIR with an almost unlimited number of Taps. And doing all that you'd have something you could use on multiple channels, and you would be hard pressed to spend more than $1k implementing it. For a hardware solution not based on PC obtained matrial, miniDSP has a multichannel solution complete with eARC and its full suite of adjustments in addition to Dirac Live also for around $1k.

So no reason to buy this. Really a relic of the early 2000's when this kind of thing would have been the only magic bullet in town, and worth the entry fee if you could have afforded it back then.

I think I explained earlier in this thread where the DEQX Premate fits in the market.

It is expensive because the cost of engineering and software has to be amortized over a small production run. Not to mention the after sales support that they advertise prominently. They will not only sell you this thing, but they will also help you set it up.

Even though it has similarities to the MiniDSP, it is not the same. MiniDSP has SHARC processors, and is thus limited in processing power and has to use mixed phase filters. The DEQX has more processing power, it has an ARM chip and uses FIR filters. MiniDSP kept costs low by licensing Dirac. For whatever reason, DEQX decided to design their filter software + convolver from the ground up.

I use PC based DSP myself, and I agree with you that it is cheaper and more powerful. I don't think you could put together a PC setup for <$1k as you mention, don't forget the cost of the multichannel DAC, microphone, the computer itself, and the software. But I get your point, it's still cheap. You do lose some niceties though, e.g. no volume knob, no remote control, routing software is a pain, etc. As for software, the free options (REW/RePhase) are probably too difficult for a DSP beginner to use. Software with a lot of automation (e.g. Audiolense, Dirac) costs a lot more, but are still not easy for beginners.

I do think they have priced themselves out of the market. I said as much to Kim Ryrie when I last spoke with him. He's OK with it, he has a certain number of units he wants to move. He said it's a business decision - moving more units means having to employ and train more staff to provide more after sales support. QC becomes difficult to manage. And there are dangers with rapid business growth - a small company is not the same as a large company. So regardless of what you and I think of the pricing, I can understand it from a business point of view.

 

[Jorma69]

I`m waiting my Pre-8 to come, so that is why I'm asking. I'll be using the unit to quad amplify + quad crossover + speaker correction + room correction + streamer + RIAA + pre-amplify...

The pricing, it is what it is. I haven't found any cheaper option with the same functionality and I'm sure the sound is excellent.

 

[DanUK]

I too am still waiting for the next release because I must have parametric EQ. In the meantime the HDP-5 sounds fantastic using my external dacs.

 

[Vds]

I got mine a couple of weeks ago. I've been advised to wait for a software update prior to setting it up with my quad-amped speaker system. It's a beta product, I'm part of a beta test, this sort of thing is to be expected.

Some of the beta users haven't waited and are using their units now and will update the software later, but I decided to wait. The update adds features that I am keen to use. Some aspects of the software are not fully finalized yet - for example the remote HTML GUI functions but is quite basic looking. I anticipate it will be six months before the unit is fully in final retail form, in terms of software- just my guess.

All I really know so far is that it is very nicely built. Nice casework, good industrial design. The OLED touchscreen is pretty. LOTS of I/O; mine came with the optional MM phono stage in it, which is made by Dynavector.

Are you waiting for the v1.35(?) software ware? Any word on when it will be released? I’m waiting for my unit to be shipped, hoping updated software will be installed.

 

[Rikpost]

Hello, I am new to the forum.
I am currently filtering with the Groundsound DNC28, but I have also signed up for the Beta version of the pre-8. When there is news from users, I would like to see it here if it is not too much trouble.

 

[eboleyn]

I received my Beta Pre-8 unit already and it indeed looks very nice, but due to some work and family commitments have not been able to do any real testing on it yet. Hopefully by the time I get around to it in the next few weeks the SW update is complete.

 

[Rikpost]

Hello Eboleyn
Thank you for your posting good To hear dat the feeling of quality is at high level .
I hope you get Some time on your hands in the near future .
I would say , share your experience with us .
Greatings Richard

 

[sarieri]

It reminds me of the good old days when people claim that not many engineers know how to build a decent DAC and try to talk you into paying a premium on those “SOTA” DACs.

Just a side note. As far as I know from the rumors, Topping is developing a 8channel PEQ DAC and Minidsp is developing something with ADSP21569 which runs at >800Mhz.

And let me remind you that the price markup is NOT decided by how many years of R&D you put into it. It is decided by how scarce your product is. Years of R&D helps you make products that nobody else is capable of. But there is no causal relationship between R&D and scarcity of the product.

 

[Jorma69]

It reminds me of the good old days when people claim that not many engineers know how to build a decent DAC and try to talk you into paying a premium on those “SOTA” DACs.

Just a side note. As far as I know from the tumors, Topping is developing a 8channel PEQ DAC and Minidsp is developing something with ADSP21569 which runs at >800Mhz.

And let me remind you that the price markup is NOT decided by how many years of R&D you put into it. It is decided by how scarce your product is. Years of R&D helps you make products that nobody else is capable of. But there is no causal relationship between R&D and scarcity of the product.

Thank you for your reminder.

Still waiting my Pre-8 to come. I have head full of ideas how to use it so waiting time feels looooong...

 

[Keith_W]

It reminds me of the good old days when people claim that not many engineers know how to build a decent DAC and try to talk you into paying a premium on those “SOTA” DACs.

Just a side note. As far as I know from the rumors, Topping is developing a 8channel PEQ DAC and Minidsp is developing something with ADSP21569 which runs at >800Mhz.

And let me remind you that the price markup is NOT decided by how many years of R&D you put into it. It is decided by how scarce your product is. Years of R&D helps you make products that nobody else is capable of. But there is no causal relationship between R&D and scarcity of the product.

I consider the DAC to be one of the less important considerations when buying a DSP box like the MiniDSP or DEQX (or when considering an AVR purchase for DSP for that matter). As long as its performance is not terrible, it will do the job and DAC inside is not as important as its other functions. What IS important is:

- does it do FIR or IIR or mixed phase, and if it does FIR, how many taps are available
- the software: how much does it let you do, how much automation does it have (automation is important for beginners), and if it has automation - how good is the algorithm. Are there manual over-rides? Is the interface easy to use, or is it confusing?
- how many DAC channels are available?
- what types of inputs are available, and are the inputs relevant to you? For e.g. I don't care if it does not have a HDMI input, but a HDMI input may be important to you.
- does it recommend 48V Phantom Power mics, or USB mics? Run away from any product that recommends USB mics, it is a sure sign they are not serious about DSP.
- and of course, the price.

I wish there were competitors and alternatives to the DEQX. None of the MiniDSP's are an alternative because they are not in the same performance class. MiniDSP sell well because people don't really understand DSP and only understand the price. Time will tell if their new ADSP21569 based processors will be any improvement. I certainly hope so.

 

[AudioJester]

I consider the DAC to be one of the less important considerations when buying a DSP box like the MiniDSP or DEQX (or when considering an AVR purchase for DSP for that matter). As long as its performance is not terrible, it will do the job and DAC inside is not as important as its other functions. What IS important is:

- does it do FIR or IIR or mixed phase, and if it does FIR, how many taps are available
- the software: how much does it let you do, how much automation does it have (automation is important for beginners), and if it has automation - how good is the algorithm. Are there manual over-rides? Is the interface easy to use, or is it confusing?
- how many DAC channels are available?
- what types of inputs are available, and are the inputs relevant to you? For e.g. I don't care if it does not have a HDMI input, but a HDMI input may be important to you.
- does it recommend 48V Phantom Power mics, or USB mics? Run away from any product that recommends USB mics, it is a sure sign they are not serious about DSP.
- and of course, the price.

I wish there were competitors and alternatives to the DEQX. None of the MiniDSP's are an alternative because they are not in the same performance class. MiniDSP sell well because people don't really understand DSP and only understand the price. Time will tell if their new ADSP21569 based processors will be any improvement. I certainly hope so.

They showed the new unit at the Sydney hifi show, was just running 2 channel pass through and not doing any dsp. Iam guessing the firmware is still not ready? The unit looked very nice though.

Not sure what the issue is with usb mics - they measure very well?

Also, the implementation of whatever the system is most important, not the complexity or features. I mean I have seen well implemented minidsp systems outperform way more complicated / high performance setups.

 

[Keith_W]

Not sure what the issue is with usb mics - they measure very well?

Read this thread for more information about the shortcomings of USB microphones.

Also, the implementation of whatever the system is most important, not the complexity or features. I mean I have seen well implemented minidsp systems outperform way more complicated / high performance setups.

Totally agree. The biggest factor when it comes to DSP is the user. Next comes the software, and finally the hardware.

It is likely that a skilled user with inferior software and hardware will produce a better correction than an unskilled user with better software and hardware.

However, a skilled user with better software and hardware will produce better results than if he had lesser tools.

In my view, the skill of the user can be upgraded. You learn as you go along, and how much you learn depends on your determination and whether the software limits you or not. "One button" correction is convenient, but it does not give you scope to experiment and learn. You are essentially depending on the algorithm to make decisions for you. What if you don't like those decisions? You would hope there is some way to over-ride it and make the software do what you want. To me this is the biggest unknown of the DEQX.

Very few people seem to understand DSP, and there are very few proper DSP reviews written. Even Amir's review on the MiniDSP focuses on the least important function - the DAC. It would be great if he looked at the actual DSP function and what it does / does not do ... you know, the actual reason why people buy a MiniDSP or DEQX.

 

[sarieri]

I consider the DAC to be one of the less important considerations when buying a DSP box like the MiniDSP or DEQX (or when considering an AVR purchase for DSP for that matter). As long as its performance is not terrible, it will do the job and DAC inside is not as important as its other functions. What IS important is:

- does it do FIR or IIR or mixed phase, and if it does FIR, how many taps are available
- the software: how much does it let you do, how much automation does it have (automation is important for beginners), and if it has automation - how good is the algorithm. Are there manual over-rides? Is the interface easy to use, or is it confusing?
- how many DAC channels are available?
- what types of inputs are available, and are the inputs relevant to you? For e.g. I don't care if it does not have a HDMI input, but a HDMI input may be important to you.
- does it recommend 48V Phantom Power mics, or USB mics? Run away from any product that recommends USB mics, it is a sure sign they are not serious about DSP.
- and of course, the price.

I wish there were competitors and alternatives to the DEQX. None of the MiniDSP's are an alternative because they are not in the same performance class. MiniDSP sell well because people don't really understand DSP and only understand the price. Time will tell if their new ADSP21569 based processors will be any improvement. I certainly hope so.

If we want to be serious. Fine.
Any hardware DSPs we mentioned here is like a piece of toy comparing to a SBC running camilladsp. Anyone think they are among the people who understand DSP, I’m having trouble understanding why they might have trouble following mdison2’s tutorial installing camilladsp. Copy and paste seems pretty straight forward to me.

The use case of the product you mention here is minimal. The main challenge of multichannel playback is about getting the decoded multichannel audio source. If you price something at this price point and aren’t capable of decoding any of those fancy multichannel formats, I’m really having trouble understanding why should someone not getting a Marantz AV10.
If you are just focusing on stereo audio playback, you don’t care about latency. Then why not deviate to camilladsp? You just can’t beat a PC with any of the SHARC/SHARC+.

About the microphone. First, they do not provide drastically different results. Second, is there any industry standard here? Why USB is worse than a BK4958A?

 

[Keith_W]

If we want to be serious. Fine.
Any hardware DSPs we mentioned here is like a piece of toy comparing to a SBC running camilladsp. Anyone think they are among the people who understand DSP, I’m having trouble understanding why they might have trouble following mdison2’s tutorial installing camilladsp. Copy and paste seems pretty straight forward to me.

The use case of the product you mention here is minimal. The main challenge of multichannel playback is about getting the decoded multichannel audio source. If you price something at this price point and aren’t capable of decoding any of those fancy multichannel formats, I’m really having trouble understanding why should someone not getting a Marantz AV10.
If you are just focusing on stereo audio playback, you don’t care about latency. Then why not deviate to camilladsp? You just can’t beat a PC with any of the SHARC/SHARC+.

About the microphone. First, they do not provide drastically different results. Second, is there any industry standard here? Why USB is worse than a BK4958A?

FYI, I don't use a hardware convolver like the DEQX or MiniDSP. I use a PC for convenience. I generate the filters on the same PC I use for my software playback and convolution.

I agree that a Raspberry Pi running Camilla provides more processing power and can provide better correction than a MiniDSP, and probably better correction than a DEQX, whilst costing less money than both. However - it is DIY, has no built-in DAC's, and only USB input. Not to say these problems can't be overcome, but some people aren't in the market for such a solution.