I think the great thing is that you can use things like Dirac, DEQX, reclockers etc and they do no harm to sound quality provided they operate at high enough rate (by no harm I really mean that the benefits far outweigh the downsides). My DEQX crossover was designed a long time ago and outputs at 96/24 - it’d be nice if they could do a 384 version (and take DSD on the fly). Because most of my music is CD quality I use reclockers and an M-Scaler prior to entering the crossover - I even reclock after the crossover for input to the three Directstreams.
Are you using the Behringer DEQX? I see there is a company called DEQX making rather more expensive equalisers.
DEQX is an Australian company. They calibrate the speaker drivers (they dial in and get me to place the mic approximately a metre away from the tweeter, then the mid, then the bass (they actually want the mic near the throat of the bass driver). The DEQX software generates short chirps from which they generate time alignment and frequency EQ for each driver. They then get the software to crossover the three drivers. It’s possible to run a sweep with the mic at the listening position and get a suggested EQ. However it doesn’t generate anything that’s really usable with all the damping that I have so I use a few parametric equalisers to get the sound that I like (which is taught with very clean bass).
When I started off with active operation about 30 years ago I used analogue crossovers (actually for cars), then I used Behringer DCX2496s (I used to have 4-way speakers so used one DCX2496 per side - they’re dirt cheap) and when I discovered the excellent DEQX alternative I went for that (it’s the heart of the system so I bought a spare as well, just in case - I also have a spare Direcstream). I also changed the speakers a few years ago for massive PMCs so that I can drive my large room (by UK standards) without worrying about driver damage.
1 Like
EQ with headphones is great!
A good approach (just like with speakers) is to seek measurements if you can, like distortion and group delay…
These can show you where you should NOT EQ… then you can EQ everywhere else pretty safely…
The DEQX stuff does look good, and is doubtless much better quality (plus provides digital outs post X-over), but I would definitely miss the display on the Behringers 
That’s awesome dedication to a cause.
No reason not to do both, Serhan. Walks are great. After playing high school and college football the kinds of exercise I can do are limited. However, I live in a gated community with 8 acres of park land. I walk 3-4 times a day about 1-1/2 miles each time; then I hit the listening room or the cans. It’s not my whole life but a good part of it. Get one of those Samsung 3 watches that reminds us to get our lazy asses off the recliners They are annoying but they work.
1 Like
Indeed it is, Baldy. I love to see the passion, even if I’m not well versed in the subject.
1 Like
Not only the cables, but the different interface impedences and characteristics of the components.
The trade off is interference. But the noise that cables pick up are also interference just from an uncontrolled environment rather than the controlled interference in integrated equipment, where the control is with the designers.
Measurements are important to the consumer as they provide a certain indication about how well the equipment is designed. The final step is how well it sounds, but if the measurements are no good, you are in, for potential trouble.
Measurment only review have no meaning to how a piece of equipment sounds.
But, raving reviews from biased reviewers about how well the music of their personal taste sounds to their ears in their rooms say nothing about quality of the electronic circuits. The electronic circuits do make up for 100% of the reliability and safety of the equipment and play the major part in sound quality.