Computer Audio: confusing, complicated, & INCONVENIENT. About MUSIC or inner nerd?

[mep]

You're not usually so obtuse when it comes to understanding the English language. There's a difference between "haven't felt the need to try it" and "refuse to consider the possibility because I don't want to convert my analog signals to digital". Besides that though, would you consider it for only your digital sources (for example, between the music files and the DAC)?

You're right, I'm nowhere near that obtuse. However, hiding behind "haven't felt the need to try it" still means the same thing, they aren't going to use it either and they don't have to worry about converting their analog source material over to digital because they don't have any analog sources in the first place. Audiophiles whose primary source is analog understand that. And for the "haven't felt the need to try it" crowd who haven't been to my house and heard my system and what my room sounds like, what in the world makes you think you have the right to jump down my throat because I don't want to try it?? You can just say you "haven't felt the need to try it" and that makes your position noble and when I tell the truth, I'm narrow minded and prejudiced.

 

[mep]

Have you forgotten everything you've read in the last 38 pages? That's like asking Gandi if he'd be willing to dabble in pre-emptive nuclear strike on Britain.

That's actually pretty funny!

 

[dallasjustice]

. . . . I'm narrow minded and prejudiced.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

What i've learned about DSP and audiophiles is that you'll be called prejudiced if you don't try it and you'll be called prejudiced if you DO try it and you like it.

"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

 

[microstrip]

Wish we could get something straight, having "DSP" (digital signal processing) in your system doesn't always mean that it's doing Digital Room Correction (DRC).

My new DAC uses a DSP chip to implement digital filters and FPGAs (field-programmablegate arrays) to perform other digital signal processing.

The off topic discussion this thread has morphed into is about the use/benefits of DRC.

I feel happy someone else tries to get things clear. Unfortunately the most clear thing in this thread seems to be the offending remarks from both sides. But, with a few exceptions, no one dares to refer what is the exact technical purpose of his use of DSP. Most just say " to make it sound better".

 

[mep]

Mike, I appreciate your comment and consideration but to be clear, I would never consider my system to be "world class" without DSP. Believe me, I have tried everyway I know to make it sound just good (forget "world class") with an analogue crossover but just can't do it. To begin, when using separate subs that are typically located behind the mid/hi towers, one simply cannot overcome the physics of the timing error that is inherent using such an approach. In such a system, if you cannot delay your Towers by several msecs, you have no chance of getting a seamless sound whereby sounds from both driver systems arrive at the ear at about the same time. Secondly, due to the use of discordant drivers in the subs and mains, the use of lower slope analogue crossovers augments this problem with a resultant sonic overhang and smearing around the crossover point that is just not sonically acceptable. It should of course be said that these are problems that may also occur in a multi-driver full range system such as big Wilsons, Magico, Focal, etc, but in those cases, the speaker designer is dealing with drivers that are generally emanating sound from approximately the same physical space. This is a huge advantage for the engineer designing an effective crossover in such systems. When a system has subs that are say, 4 ft behind the Towers, the challenges of designing a good crossover change dramatically. Without DSP, I just can't get there and I'm not sure I have ever heard a system that could under the conditions I have described (i.e. separate sub located behind the mains with the crossover in the 80-100Hz range.) As far as EQing the room for boundary effects, I certainly might be able to solve some issues with a good analogue parametric equalizer, but the refinements offered by a good DSP unit allow for adjustments with far greater precision and refinements, all of which adds to the system's overall attributes if one can really dial-in the system effectively. And therein lies the rub. I wish it was easier said than done, but until I change speakers, DSP will likely remain with me for quite a while. I really do hope someone comes up with an easier way to implement really good DSP. I really don't get it. We put a man on the moon and we cracked the human genome. Can't we just buy a piece of gear that has a big label on the front panel that says "push here, and your system will sound like you are sitting dead center in row M of Symphony Hall in Boston". Oh well, I guess hope springs eternal! But the bottom line is that like all other engineering solutions, there are plusses and minuses (not "right" or wrong"). In exchange for adding an additional circuit that processes my signal, I derive benefits that for me, provide a net sonic gain that is far more rewarding with DSP than without.. I strongly believe that if I owned different speakers, I may feel differently. But for now, in my current system, its the best way I know to render unamplified sound reproduction with a reasonable facsimile to what I hope the original music sounded like in it's recorded space, or in the case of electronic or amplified music, in the producer's head..

Isn't this really an indictment of your speakers and the lack of a proper crossover from the manufacturer to blend the subs with the main towers? You would think that for a pair of speakers that sold for $100k+ you just might expect a proper electronic crossover. But then, I believe I read that you changed out a bad tube and that required extensive tweaking with your DSP in order to 'dial' the new tube in which seems like another road to tweak madness.

 

[Steve Williams]

Isn't this really an indictment of your speakers and the lack of a proper crossover from the manufacturer to blend the subs with the main towers? You would think that for a pair of speakers that sold for $100k+ you just might expect a proper electronic crossover. But then, I believe I read that you changed out a bad tube and that required extensive tweaking with your DSP in order to 'dial' the new tube in which seems like another road to tweak madness.

Here we go again

Can you read why Marty did what he did Mark as to the new tube as well as why he used a different crossover with his speakers when he went to a pair of Gotham subs. Taken out of context by you is merely a further indictment of your prejudice Mark. I say let it go or start your own thread because this is one of the few times I agree with Micro. Time for you to bow out of this one Mark

 

[Steve Williams]

I politely asked you to bow out of this one Mark or start your own thread

 

[TheMadMilkman]

http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarrasymphony_irc

Thanks. This is going to go high on the upgrade list.

 

[Garth]

...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I appreciate your comment and consideration but to be clear, I would never consider my system to be "world class" without DSP. Believe me, I have tried everyway I know to make it sound just good (forget "world class") with an analogue crossover but just can't do it.

Marty,

the Pipedreams were most definitely word class speakers when they came out; however, their crossover was never fully sorted out so their owners could never get them to work in real rooms. i had a good friend with a good room who could never make them work (1999-2001 as i recall). when i think back now, i'll bet that your approach might have worked for him.

you likely have the best performing Pipedreams anywhere.

To begin, when using separate subs that are typically located behind the mid/hi towers, one simply cannot overcome the physics of the timing error that is inherent using such an approach. In such a system, if you cannot delay your Towers by several msecs, you have no chance of getting a seamless sound whereby sounds from both driver systems arrive at the ear at about the same time. Secondly, due to the use of discordant drivers in the subs and mains, the use of lower slope analogue crossovers augments this problem with a resultant sonic overhang and smearing around the crossover point that is just not sonically acceptable.

when i first had my MM3's (early 2006), i also had a pair of JL Audio F113's for my multi-channel along my back wall behind my MM3's. for the life of me i could not get those subs to integrate at all. so i can relate.

then i got the MM7's, which are a time and phase aligned design, and are designed to be optimal when both towers are set up in the same radius as the main towers. they are also designed as 'one system' with the main towers. even though you have all those drivers and -2- 7 foot towers they totally integrate and disappear, for all the reasons you state.

i completely get why you went down the road you went. if you now had a clean sheet of paper to re-think your speaker set-up i wonder where you would go?

It should of course be said that these are problems that may also occur in a multi-driver full range system such as big Wilsons, Magico, Focal, etc, but in those cases, the speaker designer is dealing with drivers that are generally emanating sound from approximately the same physical space. This is a huge advantage for the engineer designing an effective crossover in such systems. When a system has subs that are say, 4 ft behind the Towers, the challenges of designing a good crossover change dramatically.

agree.

Without DSP, I just can't get there and I'm not sure I have ever heard a system that could under the conditions I have described (i.e. separate sub located behind the mains with the crossover in the 80-100Hz range.) As far as EQing the room for boundary effects, I certainly might be able to solve some issues with a good analogue parametric equalizer, but the refinements offered by a good DSP unit allow for adjustments with far greater precision and refinements, all of which adds to the system's overall attributes if one can really dial-in the system effectively. And therein lies the rub. I wish it was easier said than done, but until I change speakers, DSP will likely remain with me for quite a while. I really do hope someone comes up with an easier way to implement really good DSP. I really don't get it. We put a man on the moon and we cracked the human genome. Can't we just buy a piece of gear that has a big label on the front panel that says "push here, and your system will sound like you are sitting dead center in row M of Symphony Hall in Boston". Oh well, I guess hope springs eternal! But the bottom line is that like all other engineering solutions, there are plusses and minuses (not "right" or wrong"). In exchange for adding an additional circuit that processes my signal, I derive benefits that for me, provide a net sonic gain that is far more rewarding with DSP than without.. I strongly believe that if I owned different speakers, I may feel differently. But for now, in my current system, its the best way I know to render unamplified sound reproduction with a reasonable facsimile to what I hope the original music sounded like in it's recorded space, or in the case of electronic or amplified music, in the producer's head..

i take my hat off to you and your persistence to make the gear work to your vision and not be stuck with the limitations of that earlier crossover.

as far as getting better DRC/DSP created; it's likely a matter of sufficient monetary reward being offered. do enough people care about it, with enough passion to get the R&D to happen?

not that is evidant to me at this time.

i hope that sometime you can visit my room again. i'd love to get your take on how the whole room-speaker thing is working here.

 

[JonFo]

as far as getting better DRC/DSP created; it's likely a matter of sufficient monetary reward being offered. do enough people care about it, with enough passion to get the R&D to happen?

There seems to be enough of a market to support DEQX, which is tailored at solving this problem.

As a person who went down the "roll-your-own" path, I dealt with the challenges of integrating the huge ESL panel in my MartinLogan Monoliths with a new mid-bass driver and my Infinite Baffle sub using various electronic crossovers, finally settling on the DBX DriveRack 4800 back in 2008. Combining a room sized and designed for my speakers, treated extensively with passive treatments, using advanced DSP speaker processors (DriverRack) + DRC in the form of Audyssey Pro in my Denon AVP-A1 pre-amp has all resulted in an amazingly cohesive soundstage with very smooth response.

But the effort to get there has been huge, very few people will put in the effort to measure, design and engineer solutions of this class. But for the growing number of technically astute audio-aficionados, this is not beyond reach.

 

[marty]

if you now had a clean sheet of paper to re-think your speaker set-up i wonder where you would go?

Mike,
Agree with everything you said. If I had to start all over, knowing what I know now, I would probably chose an insane asylum over the arduous path of trying to tame Pipedreams with the TacT. It is only due to the fanatic zealots of the TacT community, that keeping these things alive is possible at all. (It's pretty much like admiring the existence of pre-1959 autos in Cuba that have been kept alive by ingenuity and necessity.) My approach now (budget permitting) would surely be to see if I could be happy with one of the big boys out there who manage to get it right as a full range design, as my room might just be able to squeak by without major DSP alterations. And yes, I'd love to come by to revisit as your room is always inspirational. I'll get there eventually!!
Marty

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,
Agree with everything you said. If I had to start all over, knowing what I know now, I would probably chose an insane asylum over the arduous path of trying to tame Pipedreams with the TacT. It is only due to the fanatic zealots of the TacT community, that keeping these things alive is possible at all. (It's pretty much like admiring the existence of pre-1959 autos in Cuba that have been kept alive by ingenuity and necessity.)

no doubt those Cuban rides still strut their stately elegance, made more glamerous by the passage of time. great thought.

que 'Salsa music' on the system.....

My approach now (budget permitting) would surely be to see if I could be happy with one of the big boys out there who manage to get it right as a full range design, as my room might just be able to squeak by without major DSP alterations. And yes, I'd love to come by to revisit as your room is always inspirational. I'll get there eventually!!
Marty

i will look forward to it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

as far as getting better DRC/DSP created; it's likely a matter of sufficient monetary reward being offered. do enough people care about it, with enough passion to get the R&D to happen?

I'd guess that the market for, and money in developing DSP for professional applications dwarfs the entire turntable business. The investment Harman alone has made at JBL might do the job. Of course that's not high end...

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

The investment Harman alone has made at JBL might do the job. Of course that's not high end...

Tim

Don't let Amir hear you say that!

 

[marty]

i'd be really curious to hear Amir's update of those DSP'd JBLs (can't recall the model). And surely, there has to be a formidable pair of DSP'd Legacy Aeris speaker set up somewhere that somebody has heard to good effect. Bill Dudleston seems to be a smart guy who has been around a long time. I'd love to hear what he has come up with.

 

[dallasjustice]

It's not that difficult.

I use a DEQX and integrate subs on opposing walls that are 24 feet apart. On this thread, somehow DSP sounds much more difficult than it really is. Yes, it takes some skill. Place a phone call to the subwoofer sorcerer after buying a DSP unit like the DEQX. A couple of hours later, you'd be done.

Michael.

 

[rbbert]

i'd be really curious to hear Amir's update of those DSP'd JBLs (can't recall the model). And surely, there has to be a formidable pair of DSP'd Legacy Aeris speaker set up somewhere that somebody has heard to good effect. Bill Dudleston seems to be a smart guy who has been around a long time. I'd love to hear what he has come up with.

I think the Whispers and the Helix also have optional DSP

 

[treitz3]

On this thread, somehow DSP sounds much more difficult than it really is.

I could not agree more. It's like some folks here think that they need a doctorate sprinkled with Type A yak urine that has been specially mixed by Tibetan monks on the highest slopes of the Himalayas climbed naked with bare feet to figure it out. My word, it can be as easy as driving a car once you get the hang of it and the end result? It might just be pleasing to your ears if you are open to giving it a shot.

Tom

 

[audioguy]

The only difficulty of using Dirac on my server has nothing to do with Dirac and everything to do with Windows. Windows still feels like an operating system running on top of DOS.

That said, you can take the 9 measurements required for Dirac in about 10 or 15 minutes max, try their standard target curve and be listening in no time at all. Don't like that target curve? Create a new one, rerun the optimize portion (no more measuring required) and bingo, start listening again. Could not be easier (unless I was using a Mac!!).

I have been in a room designed by the same folks and to done to the same level of detail as Mike Lavigne's room. It has subsequently been modified with some one of a kind products from Art Noxon. As spectacular as it sounds with no room correction, it is MUCH better with it (running Dirac on his server) and yes he runs his mega mighty analog system through it as well.