Posted by Jim Griffin [ 12.180.247.139 ] on July 06, 2006 at 08:37:20:

In Reply to: What About DEQX posted by FredT on July 05, 2006 at 17:15:52:

Fred,

I'm with you on George's comments on the DEQX.

In one case he is reporting what a customer stated to him so it is not as a first hand user.

Dennis Murphy--he is the talented classical music trained crossover designer who posts on the Madisound board and who is a full-time economist--has worked with Jim Salk on many of his designs and states that the benefit of DEQX is that a competent user can equal the best passive crossover in a matter of minutes vs. a passive crossover which would consume much more time (think weeks, months, etc.) to design, build, and tweak. The user does need to understand some core values for loudspeaker design and to be able to make decent measurements. My point is that one can not just use any random combination of drivers and shoddy measurements and expect the DEQX machine to derive a quality speaker.

Bottom line I can say that digital processing will continue to make high dollar component passive crossovers obsolete. Passive crossovers vs. digital ones are analogous to film cameras in a digital photography world.

Jim

Replies: