PDA

View Full Version : By-passing pre and eq



Ken Pachkowsky
07-15-2006, 04:02 PM
Hi All

Just a short note about something I tried today. It's not often that I go through the hastle of reconfiguring my system due to the weight of the cabs yada yada.

Today I connected the Benchmark Dac 1 balanced outputs directly into the HRX crossover.

How often do you read "the less electronics the better". This was the first time I have heard my Westlakes sound good without EQ and an analysis of the room. It's enough to make one think twice thats for sure.

Food for thought.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
07-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Hi Ken,

I think I suggested that as a side alternative in your Dac 1 discussion thread.( I am not suggesting I have a caveat on that idea..I am Not an audiophile..muhhahaha)

Your not the first and you certainly won't be the last to make this observation.

Reminds me of the good old days of passive preamps and transformer attenuator preamps that have re surfaced recently...very expensive silver windings.

What (active gain stage) pre amp are you using at the moment? What is the Eq at the moment?

I have never used an equaliser at home on my shabby 43XX hacks but the minimalise theory seems to work for me despite the jaggered response that so many spend so much time on smoothing with their Clio's and Ultracurves.

I know I would never have thought it was better until the day I tried it. As I recall I had a Luxman Brid CD player (valve buffers) and it had a variable output so I bypassed the preamp (a Phase Linear 3300 Series 11 at the time) direct into my Aleph 3.

Marvellous improvement and you are right you tend forget the mind set of how can I make it better...

If you can configure the digital output of the Dac 1 to go into the DEQX it might also prove interesting at some point.

Ian

Ken Pachkowsky
07-15-2006, 06:05 PM
Hi Ken,

I think I suggested that as a side alternative in your Dac 1 discussion thread.
Ian

You certainly did suggest it. I meant to try it much sooner but as stated, the damned speaker cabs and rack cabs are well over 500 lbs each and a bear to move. Unfortuantely they require moving to get at the inputs and outputs. Something to be said for patchbays.

I am currently have a choice of my Perreaux SM6 or the Tad Signature 150. The EQ is the BSS 960.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
07-15-2006, 06:24 PM
Well if your using cds/dvds as a source only perhaps a preamp (control centre) is reduntant.

The thing to know however is what is the default volume out of the player after trun off/on the dac 1

Ian

Robh3606
07-16-2006, 08:23 AM
This was the first time I have heard my Westlakes sound good without EQ and an analysis of the room. It's enough to make one think twice thats for sure.

Food for thought.



Hello Ken

How much EQ do you use on them???

Rob:)

Tom Loizeaux
07-18-2006, 05:23 AM
Ken,
I've been using a Crown PSL-2 preamp that has a toggle switch to bypass the EQ section. I run my system without any EQ from the preamp and don't use the low end boost or cut either. I run the gain as the only "adjustment" in the signal...and I think I run it not much above unity gain.
I fatten or thin my 4343s by making very slight adjustments in the low or high drive levels of my bi-amp setup.
Seems to work well.

Tom

JBLnsince1959
07-18-2006, 09:16 AM
Don't get me wrong, it sounds great after eq'ing but this little experiment proves the point that every active piece of equipment is in effect another preamp with its own set of characteristics/anomalies.

In short it seems to reinforce the straight wire theory.

Ken

So true..so true...

However, you may have gotten lucky...sometimes it can sound worst..or should I say LESS dynamic....it depends on how well the equipment works together...something about impedance and load ...

Some one was nice enough to write about it and I printed it..I'll look around for it ( however I'm in my busy season so it may take weeks to go thru all my papers if I don't find it quickly...pray the lady didn't throw it out)

Glad it's working for you, anything we can do to make it sound better is fair game....

the variable output on my MAC isn't matching up well with my amps and that's a bummer. Sound is completely "washed out" and "flat", I've thought of replacing it( variable output) with a better one..

take care

Ducatista47
07-18-2006, 07:49 PM
With my 4345's, I have found the straightwire approach to be very rewarding. I have to assume that any loss of exact frquency balance is offset by the added clarity, which I personally seem to find more rewarding. I like the overall "feel" better. I have worked hard finding electronics with a minimal footprint.

Widget was kind enough to sell me a derelict PS Audio 4.6 Preamp. Being broken, it only functions in straightwire mode. As a source switch and a volume control it is perfect, all I needed. It is not even plugged in. I only use a preamp for my mc phono setup, and I have a little dedicated box for that, which is also minimalist in its own right (Dynavector P-75, which has the best circuits from the big buck PHA-200. It has a unique current amp that doesn't load the cartridge, bypassing yet another obstruction in the signal path. It's the size of a cigarette pack!). The Grommes PHI-26 tube amp is also simple, a perfectly built single-ended Alan Kimmel circuit, very unobtrusive. The giant 6290 adds color, I'm sure, but from 290hz down where it works for me I can't notice it.

If I could afford a better biamp crossover unit than the 5235, clarity would be mine.

Maybe the best thing about these pieces - I think they are analog all the way! Keep those damn chips out of my rig!:biting: Want to degrade an analog signal? Digitize it! Signal processing my ass. I say if you don't like the room acoustics, move the furniture around. Move the couch. Hang a tapestry. Don't introduce yet more electronics to deal with it.

Clark

Ken Pachkowsky
07-18-2006, 08:30 PM
As a couple of you are aware, I just purchased a Deqx 2.6 from a fellow forumite. Widget has been praising its virtues for the last couple of years and I am chomping at the bit to try it out. It has the potencial to replace not only my preamp but eq, dac1 and even the crossover, by adding a second deqx down the road.

It will be here in the next week and I will keep you all posted on my impressions. Of course I will do the testing as time permits.

Ken

Ducatista47
07-20-2006, 10:17 PM
In re-reading my post above (#9), I'm sure I came on too strong. I am just trying to say that I think Ken does have something there, it seems to work out very well for me, and it is nice to see recognition that there is more than one way to audio nirvana. I didn't mean to denigrate any other approaches. Let's just say I am not a fan of ruler flat frequency response being nearly as important as other qualities of musical sound reproduction, for instance naturalness of tone quality. I feel flat response is seldom or never as pleasing as other schemes, at least while listening to music for pleasure. Which is what I do, not being an audio professional.

Am I prejudiced toward analog signal chains and their results? You bet! Do I hold "less is more" in audio electronics as an article of faith? Until converted to another approach by my personal experience, yes. If I had time and money, I would surely experiment with this idea Ian's posts turned me on to:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=42259&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=1 (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=42259&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=1)
Looks great on paper, but what would it sound like driving a big monitor's biamped top?

In the end, when a beautiful, simple audio chain plays, it sounds sweet. Change and/or add elements and the sound is different. But if it is still sweet, if you like the way your rig sounds, you can't lose! Whatever works is good...

Clark in Peoria

Ken Pachkowsky
07-20-2006, 10:28 PM
In re-reading my post above (#9), I'm sure I came on too strong.
Clark in Peoria

I think your opinion is logical and probably valid.

Ken

boputnam
07-21-2006, 09:31 AM
Let's just say I am not a fan of ruler flat frequency response being nearly as important as other qualities of musical sound reproduction, for instance naturalness of tone quality. I feel flat response is seldom or never as pleasing as other schemes, at least while listening to music for pleasure. Which is what I do, not being an audio professional.Cool, and as Ken put, a very valid viewpoint.

I too had a preference for a certain EQ - it was not "flat" and was bumped here, and notched there (not on any EQ, but in the response curve). Over the past 30yrs doing live sound I did best I could, by ear. The recent 10yrs have provided affordable tools to measure the acoustic response of the room. Being quizzical, I decided to embark on trying to understanding this information - and even more, to "go flat" in my home system for a long enough period and see if I can adjust my hearing preference. That is, unlearn my preference for my personal EQ. I succeeded.

I've found that flat is the best opportunity to recover the tonality and "sound" originally intended, be it live or recorded. Exactly what you describe, Clark. Why should the speaker cabinet and room characteristics be allowed to wreak random acoustic havoc over what the artists intend(ed)? As an example, I've found that LF is a band of frequent abuse - "if it thumps you it is good" - and tonality is so often lacking (but can be "recovered" but some focussed and subtle EQ'ing). I strive to get every string on the bass to have it's acapella (and preamp) character. Too many bass players end-up being merely an extension of the kick drum - shame. This is not necessary if you get the response as flat ("honest" I call it) as possible, removing room resonance as-is-possible.

Flat saves greatly in required amp power - amps work hard to sustain EQ humps. Preamps can clip in the humped bands, which leads to subtle distortion - you many not see the outputs clipping, but there is clipping upstream in the signal path.

If you have the means to make quality measurement and adjustment, give flat a trial for a month. It takes the ears a while to re-groove. You might find the results more overall pleasing, discover subtle tonality you might have been masking and the overall sound less tiring. Just my 2¢

But, this is an unending point of discussion...

Robh3606
07-21-2006, 09:55 AM
Flat response??

Now there's a topic for discussion if ever there was one. I have always been in the "Flat Response" camp. Not to the +/_ 1 extremes just reasonably flat so if you are using EQ you don't go to far with it. I don't get too upset if the curve has a wobble here of there, I think matching the stereo pair is really just as important and goes a long way to stabilize the imaging at the listeners seat as well. It also ensures they each are the same tonally so pans don't sound odd or certain notes don't pull to one side from irregularities between the pair. Even if it's not smooth as long as the response contours match between the stereo pair your on the right road. I like it flat from say 100Hz up to say 10K. I like a bit of boost below 40Hz and some roll off above 10K.

Rob:)

boputnam
07-21-2006, 10:03 AM
Ha! This thread will now never die...

I thought of another point: in-addition to all the other attributes of flat EQ, the most important is that it is non-personal. This is particularly important in live applications - it will please almost everybody all of the time, and will be least tiring. Pay attention to the A-weighted SPL curve and beware of humping that part of the curve...

Speaker manufacturers go to great lengths to produce a flat response. It only makes sense that we users work on the acoustic response to try and achieve that.

alskinner
07-21-2006, 11:44 AM
When tailoring the sound for live audiences, I agree that most people will be pleased with the sound of a flat response. On the other hand when designing a system for a paticular person, other factors such as hearing losses come in to play. Most of us (especially us older folks) don't have ruler flat hearing. Also, most recorinding companies don't record to a ruler flat standard. As far as I know the only way to insure speaker response is truly flat is to sweep the entire audio frequency spectrum using a standardized tone generator insuring a flat response in all drivers of the speaker system. Even doing this may not be the best sounding system depending on the anamolies of the drivers.


AL:blink:

boputnam
07-21-2006, 02:21 PM
As far as I know the only way to insure speaker response is truly flat is to sweep the entire audio frequency spectrum using a standardized tone generator insuring a flat response in all drivers of the speaker system. Good points, and yes, Sir.

I've done that for my mains (and monitors/wedges) and fitted parametric settings to their characteristics (essentially done same-same for the home system). I also run Pink Noise at every event, and run an FFT function during live shows with real-time data (provides the same sort of acoustic feedback loop as measuring Pink Noise). It is critical for me to do so, to ensure that I am not "biasing" the response to personal preference especially as my hearing fatigues during a show, or due to age. Being careful with SPL and paying attention to the realities of the A-weighted SPL curve are paying me large bonuses.

Graphic from: Henderson, PD, Spectrum-mode Measurements with SmaartLive: Concepts and Applications (cf http://www.siasoft.com/pdf/SmaartLive_Spectrum_Mode_Measurements.pdf)

Ken Pachkowsky
07-21-2006, 02:30 PM
Flat response??

Now there's a topic for discussion if ever there was one. I have always been in the "Flat Response" camp.

Rob:)

Yes Rob, you and I both. I try to get as close to flat as possible with the limitation's of my hardware combined with room anomolies. It just sounds better. An interesting thing to do would be to run some pink noise measurements with the dac plugged directly into the crossover.

Ken

boputnam
07-21-2006, 02:34 PM
An interesting thing to do would be to run some pink noise measurements with the dac plugged directly into the crossover.
Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...

:hmm:

:bouncy:

Ken Pachkowsky
07-21-2006, 02:50 PM
Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...

:hmm:

:bouncy:


If I had a good bottle of Merlot, or better yet a 78 "Chateau Neuf De Pape" and and some help moving these damned cabs I could getter done....;)

Ken

boputnam
07-21-2006, 03:02 PM
If I had a good bottle of Merlot, or better yet a 78 "Chateau Neuf De Pape" Ha! '89 and '90 are even better. :rotfl:

It's too hot for Merlot. Maybe a Riesling from Alsace (demi-sec)...

pentictonklaus
07-21-2006, 03:50 PM
If I had a good bottle of Merlot, or better yet a 78 "Chateau Neuf De Pape" and and some help moving these damned cabs I could getter done....;)

Ken
Hi Ken !
It is a little to warm for Merlot, 38 celsius today. Our Merlot is still growing well, so does the pinot gris.
Westlake is good with a 2005 Wild Goose Pinot Gris. JBL 4435 goes well with
a dry Gewuerztraminer. 250 ti 's do request a bottle of Sumac ridge Meritage.
B##e needs J. Walker. I thought this was common knowledge.

Cheers Klaus

boputnam
07-21-2006, 04:06 PM
:rotfl:

Now THAT's really funny!! :thmbsup:

Ken Pachkowsky
07-21-2006, 04:21 PM
Hi Ken !

Westlake is good with a 2005 Wild Goose Pinot Gris.

Cheers Klaus


:D I will remember that comment when you get over for that visit and you melt into the sofa listening to these.

PS: I'll make sure to offer that 2005 Wild Goose as a refreshment you old bugger. Have a great weekend.:)

Ken

Ducatista47
07-21-2006, 10:40 PM
Well, I can't disagree with anything mentioned here. If I can ever afford the required equipment, I will give "meter-man flat" a try. A neutral baseline is a very useful place to start from. Still, let me tell 'ya where I'm coming from.

Here is another place to start. Be raised by a DIY Dad, hanging around a basement full of amps, speakers, European turntables, boxes of tubes, caps, resistors, a Shop Smith, soldering irons, homemade enclosures, a VTVM and tons of vinyl. Read the RCA Receiving Tube Manual and the Allied Industrial Catalog often and for fun. Then listen to music, intently, constantly, at venues and through everyone's rig you can get near, for fifty years. You are now ready, if you are me, to:

Tame your listening room by moving the mountains of books, furniture, crap and detritus of a life lived long - until the place sounds right. When you are a pack rat and a pig like I am, and have moved recently, it's easy.:) Try different audio equipment until you have the sound you have always heard in your head, but never in anyone else's rig. If possible, aquire at least one element that sounds absolutely phenominal, better than anything you've ever heard or heard of. (I'm lucky, I have two - the 4345's and the Grommes PHI-26.) Try for a synergetic rig. It's a whole, not a bunch of parts. Get a volume control, so when you change amp settings (two amps, biamped) you can leave them until the evaluation of the settings sinks in. Tweak the L-pads if need be. Move the speakers and the couch around until it sounds perfect. Don't be afraid to place things the "wrong" way.

When it sounds worse every time you change anything, I mean anything, leave it alone. When it sounds like the wail of 1000 souls coming from the metal, glass, plastic and fiberglass you have assembled, every time, with any and all of your program material, leave it. When the tears of joy start fifteen seconds into your listening sessions, leave it. And don't forget to not give a rat's ass about what anyone else thinks is good sound, because they won't be doing the listening and interpreting for you.

This method deals with non-textbook problems like my geriatric hearing anomalies, my very wierd taste in music, and my personality. The solutions are built into the approach.

As I said, whatever works. Like Marcel Duchamp's later years, I have found that the best art one can produce is one's life. That is the most important ingredient in a great audio rig, and should contribute mightily to its design.

One thing. Give me my Nicolet spring water. "I'm not drinking any f***ing Merlot!":D Besides, I'm too high on the music to get wasted on anything else. After going to so much trouble to render everything else clear, why cloud my perception by altering my senses with chemicals? Unless I did the entire setup in that state, it will change everything. I'm talking a religious experience here, not a tavern, so me, I'll take it easy on the communion wine. I'll just relax and listen carefully to the "sermon!"

Love you all, Clark

Zilch
07-21-2006, 11:25 PM
Slope ~1 dB/octave like K2 (below). Full range is 10 octaves, so ~10 dB "tilt," total. Flat HF's too "hot" for me; like Rob, I let the UHF roll off a bit, too (bottom).

frank23
07-22-2006, 01:31 AM
Just reading this thread for the first time.

My amp does not have any tone controls. I have always followed my own rule that said that phase and "bad" distortion [I know it when I hear it] was more important than frequency response for enjoying music from my system.

When someone speaks to you from around a corner or shouts to you from far away, you can still hear its him [or her], so changes in frequency response [within limits] do not hinder recognition of sounds.

Furthermore I think that hearing, just like seeing, compensates for continuous differences from "flat", also within limits of course. Just like the red square on green tricks [or whatever] where you keep seeing a square after the actual shape has been removed. Your eyes compensate and so do your ears.

I have had many occasions where I was tampering with components and I thought the mid and treble were too loud. After a while I found out that I shouldn't try to lower the mid or treble levels, as the irritation was caused by other things. After I had cured these by changing components or crossover architecture, the frequency response itself wasn't the problem. My ears could compensate after I removed the true source of irritation.

Of course, levels have to be within reason. That is why the level controls in JBL monitors are right for the job. They allow you to change levels to your liking, but they will never be able to really mess up the sound, but also will never be able to make bad sound good. That quality [or lack of it] is in the system components and architecture.

Everyone has heard of the quality of tube amps. I have two transistor amps, a Musical Fidelity A1 and an A2, both full class-A. The A2 was the follow up to the A1 and on paper does everything better: twice the power [and into difficult loads], less distortion, no roll-off frequency response, better useability. And yet the A1 makes better music, every time, with every speaker. Why? It is said to have a unique architecture, designed by tube guru Tim de Paravicini, and that results in a unique opennes and freedom of distortion to the ears.

I once had two systems set up together:
1 JBL 4333B driven by the Musical Fidelity A2
2 my own design using a kevlar 8" bas/mid, 2420/2344A mid/high, with 1st order crossover and passive EQ for the 2344 with paper-oil capacitors, driven by the Musical Fidelity A1

System 2 blew away system 1. And it was a BIG BLOW! System 1 could go much much louder, probably had a better frequency response and much less distortion the way we measure it, but system 2 made incredible music.

So I sold the 4333B and only posted in the DIY section since...

So, long story, but I'm only typing this waiting for my 8 month old daugther to wake up...

My point is that a level frequency response is not needed for a musical system. Wanting to filter peaks and fill notches often results in large phase changes and kills the music. Only gradual EQ leaves the music intact, but even gradual EQ can never restore the music that other components [have] take[n] away.

Frank

Mr. Widget
07-22-2006, 01:48 AM
My point is that a level frequency response is not needed for a musical system. Wanting to filter peaks and fill notches often results in large phase changes and kills the music. Only gradual EQ leaves the music intact, but even gradual EQ can never restore the music that other components [have] take[n] away.I agree completely... aggressive use of even the finest equalizers will damage the sonic integrity of the music and beyond that as you introduce more electronics, equalizers, active crossovers etc. you do insert veils and walls between you and the music. This is especially true if you are not using very good electronics.

I also agree that we "auto equalize" with our brains... that said, starting with a system that has fewer dips and peaks in it's response is very helpful in creating the illusion of actual instruments creating the sounds we hear.


I go on in more detail in this companion thread.:blah:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11533


Widget

Ian Mackenzie
07-22-2006, 02:28 AM
Just reading this thread for the first time.

My amp does not have any tone controls. I have always followed my own rule that said that phase and "bad" distortion [I know it when I hear it] was more important than frequency response for enjoying music from my system.

When someone speaks to you from around a corner or shouts to you from far away, you can still hear its him [or her], so changes in frequency response [within limits] do not hinder recognition of sounds.

Furthermore I think that hearing, just like seeing, compensates for continuous differences from "flat", also within limits of course. Just like the red square on green tricks [or whatever] where you keep seeing a square after the actual shape has been removed. Your eyes compensate and so do your ears.

I have had many occasions where I was tampering with components and I thought the mid and treble were too loud. After a while I found out that I shouldn't try to lower the mid or treble levels, as the irritation was caused by other things. After I had cured these by changing components or crossover architecture, the frequency response itself wasn't the problem. My ears could compensate after I removed the true source of irritation.

Of course, levels have to be within reason. That is why the level controls in JBL monitors are right for the job. They allow you to change levels to your liking, but they will never be able to really mess up the sound, but also will never be able to make bad sound good. That quality [or lack of it] is in the system components and architecture.

Everyone has heard of the quality of tube amps. I have two transistor amps, a Musical Fidelity A1 and an A2, both full class-A. The A2 was the follow up to the A1 and on paper does everything better: twice the power [and into difficult loads], less distortion, no roll-off frequency response, better useability. And yet the A1 makes better music, every time, with every speaker. Why? It is said to have a unique architecture, designed by tube guru Tim de Paravicini, and that results in a unique opennes and freedom of distortion to the ears.

I once had two systems set up together:
1 JBL 4333B driven by the Musical Fidelity A2
2 my own design using a kevlar 8" bas/mid, 2420/2344A mid/high, with 1st order crossover and passive EQ for the 2344 with paper-oil capacitors, driven by the Musical Fidelity A1

System 2 blew away system 1. And it was a BIG BLOW! System 1 could go much much louder, probably had a better frequency response and much less distortion the way we measure it, but system 2 made incredible music.

So I sold the 4333B and only posted in the DIY section since...

So, long story, but I'm only typing this waiting for my 8 month old daugther to wake up...

My point is that a level frequency response is not needed for a musical system. Wanting to filter peaks and fill notches often results in large phase changes and kills the music. Only gradual EQ leaves the music intact, but even gradual EQ can never restore the music that other components [have] take[n] away.

Frank

Frank..spoken like a true scholar.

You speak a lot of truth and while I do not discount the application of Eq used with "care" it is and should "always" be the last resort when you have done everything else.

I kind of like reading a JBL owners manual sometimes while I am warming up my class a amps and letting a nice red breathe. It makes me task myself have I done/got everthing right..give it a fighting chance.

The onerous task of getting those L pads right, and locating the speakers and setting up a naturally diffuse and reverbant home listening room really pays dividends in the long term.

I also agree with your comment about irritations. Its a bit like having a sixth sense, the mind and ears are very good and filling in the gaps and compensating for what I would refer to as common mode detection. Naturally random variations are well compensated for by the human mind.

However its when something sounds off, the ear and brain send a fix it message and this what I call differential mode detection ..that is when something is wrong around here and its usually human error.

I also find that imho, the closer you move to best practise in terms of speakers/enquipment and room setup its the broad brush level setting that becomes more critical.

We are not talking about a pesky narrow dip or nar some small peak like some of those in the earlier noted 4345 graph. I really don't loose a moments sleep of that when I know that abosolute symmetry of the balance of left and right speakers positioning and output is vastly more significant.

I am talking about broad band levelling. The brain and ear are far more accutely perceptive to broad band variations and I find differences of +- 1/3 db can noticably throw of the entire system off balance.

This can be used as a taste adjustment.

I personally prefer flat and I find that is when the quality of what is up stream becomes important. Playing hometheatre...anything goes.

Ian

Image: in room reponse of 4345 at 2 metres on axis with the horn. The slight levelling off below 1000 hertz is the mic location, the mic is +2 db above 10,000 My listening position depending domestic arrangements is 3-3.5 metres so I figure it aint too far off.

johnaec
07-22-2006, 07:59 AM
Ian - what is the lower white line at -24 in your graph?

John

Ken Pachkowsky
07-22-2006, 09:49 AM
Frank..spoken like a true scholar.

You speak a lot of truth and while I do not discount the application of Eq used with "care" it is and should "always" be the last resort when you have done everything else.

I personally prefer flat and I find that is when the quality of what is up stream becomes important.

Ian



Yes

If my Polish brain can get around using the Deqx "properly" I will have the means to measure and post some graphs. Maybe I will discover that my head is up my butt.

BO! Confirmation not required:D

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
07-22-2006, 02:14 PM
Ian - what is the lower white line at -24 in your graph?

John

Hi John,

The white line is the calibration curve that is subtracted from the response curve. The system is called Winair and run off a PC using a soundcard. The mic is a Panasonic capsule mounted in the end of a hollow aluminium rod 0.5 metre in length 5mm in diameter.

This particular curve was run in my listening room not long after I built my 4345. The Lpads were calibrated using my net adjustment method. All the response curve tells me is the system is working properly. Pm me if you would like details..

Thankyou for your interest.

Ian

Ian Mackenzie
07-22-2006, 02:17 PM
Yes

If my Polish brain can get around using the Deqx "properly" I will have the means to measure and post some graphs. Maybe I will discover that my head is up my butt.

BO! Confirmation not required:D

Ken

Ken,

I thought DEQX was automated?

Ian

Ken Pachkowsky
07-22-2006, 02:22 PM
Ken,

I thought DEQX was automated?

Ian

I rest my case....

Ken Pachkowsky
07-22-2006, 02:28 PM
Ian

You are correct, although Widget tells me the learning curve is long for foreign capitalists of Polish decent.

Ok, I tried to be serious. There is a great deal of tweaking involved. He has warned me its not as automated as they would have you believe.

Ken

Ian Mackenzie
07-22-2006, 03:13 PM
A polish Canadian? I thought there were only French Canadians.


Ian