Is DEQX a game changer?

@ drewan77 Sorry for the late response, I forgot to check this thread. Your response was very useful. When I get my small room sounding good you are welcome to hear it.

@steveo888 Yes I continue to use both analogue inputs to the HDP-5 via: turntable->RCA & external DAC*->XLR (*including analogue pass through for a second turntable & SACD player)

The inbuilt DAC is extremely good but I have a preference to something that sounds very close to vinyl without a slight sense of brightness or glare (which I’m afraid I hear when directly inputting a digital transport, streamer or server).

These processors work at 24/96 so an upsampled input would be handled in the same way as any pure analogue signal (or indeed any digital input up to 24/192). Personally I’m sceptical about how audible these ultra high bit rates really are & to me ’upsampling’ is artificially adding something in that isn’t really there in the source. Not meaning to criticise those who do hear a difference or wanting to get into a debate!

The real benefits derived from a DEQX processor come from the work it does AFTER it receives an incoming signal, hence in my case the best possible analogue source.

@Almarg:
Al:  I should be receiving my Premate Plus, within the next week or so.  I think I remember you said you built a small 'booth", around your calibration mic, when doing your calibration.  Do you think this was a benefit and would it be worth my time?

Steve

Hi Steve,

For the speaker calibration measurements what I initially tried was placing large sound-absorbent panels behind and to the sides of the measurement mic, with each speaker having been moved to the center of the room for purposes of that measurement.  The panels were placed something like one or two feet from the mic.  That did NOT provide good results, because reflections from the panels themselves, while small in amplitude, were so close in arrival time time to the direct sound that the "booth" did more harm than good.

I then placed the panels against the nearest reflective surfaces.  One being a stone fireplace on the wall on one side, and the other being a large piece of furniture on the other side.  That was definitely worthwhile in my case, as the room is only 13 feet wide and the piece of furniture (actually an antique radio/phono console) extends out about 2.5 feet from the wall on that side.

In your case whether doing something similar would be worthwhile presumably depends on the distance to the nearest walls or other large surfaces, and their reflectivity.  Perhaps consider trying it initially without any such measures, and see on the resulting impulse response/time-domain plots how many milliseconds from the direct sound arrivals you can "window" the measurements, before reflections become prominent. 

In my case, if I recall correctly the duration of the "window" I applied to the measurements was limited by reflections from the ceiling, occurring about 8 ms after the direct sound arrival.  (Reflections from the floor were not significant because in addition to it being covered with a thick rug, when making the measurements I had placed a pillow on it, directly in front of the speakers). 


The panels I used were these:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/401266-REG/ClearSonic_S5_2_S5_2_Dark_Grey_SORBER.html

Good luck!  Regards,
-- Al

@almarg 

Thanks Al.  I have several panels like that mounted to my walls and under my TT platform.  I also have some home made ASC tubes I considered using, placing two on each side, forming a triangular effect.  I will have to raise them about a foot, to get them around my high frequency drivers.  I'm excited and looking forward to hearing how the DEQX sounds.  Will let you know how it goes.
Thanks for getting back to me.

Steve