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

[JackD201]

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.

It only took Nyall 2 hours? Great job.

How long do you think it would have taken you if you didn't have access to that kind of support?

 

[edorr]

It only took Nyall 2 hours? Great job.

How long do you think it would have taken you if you didn't have access to that kind of support?

I used a four channel Trinnov ST2 Pro, and had Trinnov support (Curt) create active cross-over between my subs (JL113) and mains (Avalon Eidolon) and then create a correction filter for the integrated sub/mains, all in less than an hour - in a remote session over the phone! He could then hand off to me for tweaking target curves. Not suggesting Trinnov is easy (it is not), but in the right professional hands, this is a breeze, and (unlike anything running on a PC) it is rock solid stable technology.

 

[edorr]

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.

+1. All problems in computer audio are a result of the fact that running multiple programs and drivers on windows in a complex audio application is pushing windows (sometimes to the breaking point). You need to be a proficient computer troubleshooter (and patient rebooter) to do this kind of stuff.

Having said that, Dirac live has its limitations. I found out that you while you can do a 5.0 calibration, the processor will mess up speaker channel mapping if you do this, so you actually need to do a 5.1 calibration with a dummy sub, and take it out during playback.

 

[dallasjustice]

I am not sure what you mean by "access." I think Nyal charges something like $100/hour. That's not cheap. But in the context of this thread and claims of super scientific heroism needed to bitch slap subs into perfect submission, it's trivial.

It only took Nyall 2 hours? Great job.

How long do you think it would have taken you if you didn't have access to that kind of support?

 

[JackD201]

...and I don't know what you mean by claims of super scientific heroism to bitch slap anything into submission.

Well at least it is clear is that Nyall deserves his 100 bucks an hour.

 

[edorr]

...and I don't know what you mean by claims of super scientific heroism to bitch slap anything into submission.

This may be a reference to Marty's amount of effort (including customization) to get his subs integrated using TacT. I believe this is a result of TacT not being state of the art technology, and that similar or better results can be achieved using current DEXQ or Trinnov technology, with a few hours (at most) work from an expert, without any customization.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

my room has also been modified over these 10 years since it was originally built.

but what is truly significant is how adjustable the speaker system is in the bass as a fundamental design feature, and whether generic subwoofers are being added to otherwise full range speaker systems. this 'adding subs' should not work, as the main speakers are designed to have bass fullness on their own. so solving that problem does require FR (and maybe phase) magical manipulation. it's logical that DSP would help to some degree to optimize that scenario. and as Marty tells us, having subs at a different depth than the main towers brings an even larger level of challenges into the picture.

I guess you could tell us whether this 'mythical' room/system involves subs added to full range speakers. or whether these speakers have considerable adjustability in the bass to facilitate room integration.

so assuming that an analog solution (considering the whole speaker system capability) might not be as ideal as DSP is just a guess, just like assuming it is as ideal.

I know lots of people have subs + full range speakers without DSP and are happy with their result. I'm not questioning that perception. only that DSP might likely improve that already satisfying result.....more likely than improving another full range speaker system which is fully integrated as one design.

as far as running a mega mighty analog system through DSP I'd like more specifics about that. I respect it's ultimately a subjective question and we can all have our preferences in regards to trade-offs.

 

[edorr]

my room has also been modified over these 10 years since it was originally built.

but what is truly significant is how adjustable the speaker system is in the bass as a fundamental design feature, and whether generic subwoofers are being added to otherwise full range speaker systems. this 'adding subs' should not work, as the main speakers are designed to have bass fullness on their own. so solving that problem does require FR (and maybe phase) magical manipulation. it's logical that DSP would help to some degree in that scenario. and as Marty tells us, having subs at a different depth than the main towers brings an even larger level of challenges into the picture.

I guess you could tell us whether this 'mythical' room/system involves subs added to full range speakers. or whether these speakers have considerable adjustability in the bass to facilitate room integration.

so assuming that an analog solution (considering the whole speaker system capability) might not be as ideal as DSP is just a guess, just like assuming it is as ideal.

I know lots of people have subs + full range speakers without DSP and are happy with their result. I'm not questioning that perception. only that DSP might likely improve that already satisfying result.....more likely than improving another full range speaker system which is fully integrated as one design.

Economics play a role here as well. Usually, going up in a speaker product line to add extension of bass through an integrated design is an extremely costly proposition. Adding two gothams and seamlessly integrating them creating active cross-over, all phase / time aligned using sota DSP technology can literally be a six figures cheaper different route to skinning the bass extension cat. The question is of course how will the final results compare sonically?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Economics play a role here as well. Usually, going up in a speaker product line to add extension of bass through an integrated design is an extremely costly proposition. Adding two gothams and seamlessly integrating them creating active cross-over, all phase / time aligned using sota DSP technology can literally be a six figures cheaper different route to skinning the bass extension cat. The question is of course how will the final results compare sonically?

no one claims that an analog solution is necessarily cheap.

I respect how DSP can help modest systems be much better, just listen to most home theatres. even how class D amps push lower cost performance. and I'm not trying to diss how DSP can help any level system. only that software can be very very efficient at solving signal path issues. but it also does things to an analog signal path that some want to avoid.

 

[dallasjustice]

I would think you'd get better results with the less costly DSP method if the subs were positioned to counter room problems in most rooms.

I had this very conversation with Kevin Malmgren and Jonathan Tinn concerning the MM7 speaker a year ago. Kevin didn't seem to agree with me that the woofer tower would be better off on a different plane than R/L. Of course, that wouldn't be possible without DSP. To be fair, I once had dinner with Yoav Geva, Mista YG , and he said the same thing when I told him the second woofer on the YG wouldn't be a very valuable proposition compared to using DSP to position subs in other parts of the room to counter room effects. For me, the moral of these stories is:
Don't rely on your favorite speaker designer to design your entire system. It takes a team approach.

Michael.

Economics play a role here as well. Usually, going up in a speaker product line to add extension of bass through an integrated design is an extremely costly proposition. Adding two gothams and seamlessly integrating them creating active cross-over, all phase / time aligned using sota DSP technology can literally be a six figures cheaper different route to skinning the bass extension cat. The question is of course how will the final results compare sonically?

 

[edorr]

I would think you'd get better results with the less costly DSP method if the subs were positioned to counter room problems in most rooms.

I had this very conversation with Kevin Malmgren and Jonathan Tinn concerning the MM7 speaker a year ago. Kevin didn't seem to agree with me that the woofer tower would be better off on a different plane than R/L. Of course, that wouldn't be possible without DSP. To be fair, I once had dinner with Yoav Geva, Mista YG , and he said the same thing when I told him the second woofer on the YG wouldn't be a very valuable proposition compared to using DSP to position subs in other parts of the room to counter room effects. For me, the moral of these stories is:
Don't rely on your favorite speaker designer to design your entire system. It takes a team approach.

Michael.

If the DSP processing is sonically transparent, no question using subs and digital integration is more flexible and can theoretically get better results than having a bass tower, or massive woofers in the same cabinet as the mids/highs.

But this is all theory. If you sell $200K "full range systems", you are not going to compare the integrated approach with digitally integrating an array of subs with the non-full range speaker in your product line up.

 

[Nyal Mellor]

The sad reality is most audio dealers and end consumers have no idea how to do multi-sub integration properly. And unfortunately the automated sub integration routines aren't that good. So there aren't really many people using it unfortunately, which is a sad thing because with a little subwooferage and DSP magic you can save yourself a bunch of money and get better results than upgrading to the next in line uber speaker where the only real difference is another woofer. Yes I'm looking at you YG.

Many shy away from DSP due to worries about 'transparency'. The reality is that for 99% of people DSP can significantly improve sound quality. Most people's rooms suck, particularly in the bass. Do you have bass within a 5-10dB window? If not you don't have a sonically neutral listening environment. As one of my clients said "you are missing much more than you could ever imagine".

Sure, maybe you might lose a little with a lower end DSP processor but the gains are going to far outweigh the negatives. I do not think the top of the range DSP apps that run on music servers or outboard DSP processors have any real downside. In fact at least the DEQX when run simply as a DAC is sonically competitive with many straight two channel DACS in the same price range. And if you want to use uber DCS, TotalDACs or MSB stuff then the option is there, using a digital in, digital out processor, which you can do with both the DEQX and Trinnov.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I would think you'd get better results with the less costly DSP method if the subs were positioned to counter room problems in most rooms.

I had this very conversation with Kevin Malmgren and Jonathan Tinn concerning the MM7 speaker a year ago. Kevin didn't seem to agree with me that the woofer tower would be better off on a different plane than R/L. Of course, that wouldn't be possible without DSP. To be fair, I once had dinner with Yoav Geva, Mista YG , and he said the same thing when I told him the second woofer on the YG wouldn't be a very valuable proposition compared to using DSP to position subs in other parts of the room to counter room effects. For me, the moral of these stories is:
Don't rely on your favorite speaker designer to design your entire system. It takes a team approach.

Michael.

it seems you feel that you simply know better than the rest of us....including people who design speakers.

so how many 2 tower speaker systems have you designed? or even set up? have you heard MM7's?

maybe it will take a team to solve issues resulting from a lack of cohesive speaker design....mixing and matching to suit.

 

[dallasjustice]

I understand how room boundaries affect bass. I also understand how speaker position can counter or eliminate those room effects because I've actually done it.

it seems you feel that you simply know better than the rest of us....including people who design speakers.

so how many 2 tower speaker systems have you designed? or even set up? have you heard MM7's?

maybe it will take a team to solve issues resulting from a lack of cohesive speaker design....mixing and matching to suit.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I understand how room boundaries affect bass. I also understand how speaker position can counter or eliminate those room effects because I've actually done it.

maybe you just might consider actually listening to MM7's set up by the designer before you assume you can improve their performance by moving the subwoofer towers?

you've heard of this listening thing? right? you do it with your ears.

 

[treitz3]

Hello and good evening, gentlemen. Let's keep the conversation friendly for all please. It is after all just a hobby.

Tom

 

[Al M.]

Very enjoyable and educative thread, gentlemen!
(So far I have read until page 33.)

A few things I've learned:

1. The thread only confirms that servers are not for me. As Gary said, "give me the disks, please".

2. The thread only confirms that the differences between CD and hi-rez (and digital vs. analog for that matter) are by orders of magnitude less important than, among others, the room/speaker interaction and getting the room right (which fortunately I was able to achieve with the custom-designed ASC room treatment). No need to hop off my 16/44 train, also given that Steve has said that in one of the best systems he has heard, Marty's system, it would be a challenge to identify CD vs. hi-rez blind. And Microstrip, who doesn't even think that CD is the best medium, reported that the best system he has heard was CD-playback based.

Even though I personally neither have the greatest system nor SOTA CD playback, the limitations indeed presumably are not in CD vs. hi-rez, but elsewhere. For example, I would strongly assume that the insertion of a Shunyata Triton/Typhon combo (the next planned upgrade) in my system will have a far greater effect than hypothetical listening to all my recordings on 24/192 vs. 16/44 without the Shunyata. So why fret about hi-rez in the first place.

3. I have learned a lot about DSP. I am open to the DSP concept, and would consider it if I thought it was necessary in my room, but I don't think it is. A few feet further back from my actual listening position my room response with audible drop-off towards lower frequencies is probably similar to that of Marty's (in my case even the lower mids drop off). I fully understand that if Marty wants to fill his large room with speakers and sit at a good distance from them (and apparently the sound is absolutely worth it, if I may believe Steve which I do), he has to use DSP in his room. I sit close to my speakers and at least the subjective frequency response in this configuration is great. Were I planning to sit further back in my room (would demand other amps/speakers), DSP would seem mandated. I also don't have problems with bass integration of the sub in my room which would ask for DSP; strangely enough the bass has even been so unproblematic that it has been the item that has been the least affected by the ASC room treatment -- practically all the tremendous improvements by the tube traps (which are famous as bass traps) and panels have been in mid and high frequencies. Room treatment may indeed have been my single most important system upgrade, as it appears to have been for others too.

 

[mauidan]

Very enjoyable and educative thread, gentlemen!
(So far I have read until page 33.)

A few things I've learned:

1. The thread only confirms that servers are not for me. As Gary said, "give me the disks, please".

2. The thread only confirms that the differences between CD and hi-rez (and digital vs. analog for that matter) are by orders of magnitude less important than, among others, the room/speaker interaction and getting the room right (which fortunately I was able to achieve with the custom-designed ASC room treatment). No need to hop off my 16/44 train, also given that Steve has said that in one of the best systems he has heard, Marty's system, it would be a challenge to identify CD vs. hi-rez blind. And Microstrip, who doesn't even think that CD is the best medium, reported that the best system he has heard was CD-playback based.

Even though I personally neither have the greatest system nor SOTA CD playback, the limitations indeed presumably are not in CD vs. hi-rez, but elsewhere. For example, I would strongly assume that the insertion of a Shunyata Triton/Typhon combo (the next planned upgrade) in my system will have a far greater effect than hypothetical listening to all my recordings on 24/192 vs. 16/44 without the Shunyata. So why fret about hi-rez in the first place.

3. I have learned a lot about DSP. I am open to the DSP concept, and would consider it if I thought it was necessary in my room, but I don't think it is. A few feet further back from my actual listening position my room response with audible drop-off towards lower frequencies is probably similar to that of Marty's (in my case even the lower mids drop off). I fully understand that if Marty wants to fill his large room with speakers and sit at a good distance from them (and apparently the sound is absolutely worth it, if I may believe Steve which I do), he has to use DSP in his room. I sit close to my speakers and at least the subjective frequency response in this configuration is great. Were I planning to sit further back in my room (would demand other amps/speakers), DSP would seem mandated. I also don't have problems with bass integration of the sub in my room which would ask for DSP; strangely enough the bass has even been so unproblematic that it has been the item that has been the least affected by the ASC room treatment -- practically all the tremendous improvements by the tube traps (which are famous as bass traps) and panels have been in mid and high frequencies. Room treatment may indeed have been my single most important system upgrade, as it appears to have been for others too.

Al,

DSP/DRC aside,have you ever heard a 176.4/24 or 192/24 recording via your BADA?

Don't assume,unless you live in a third world country, that a PLC or PC will make a bigger improvement.

 

[Al M.]

Al,

DSP/DRC aside,have you ever heard a 176.4/24 or 192/24 recording via your BADA?

Don't assume,unless you live in a third world country, that a PLC or PC will make a bigger improvement.

Dan, I am afraid you may be severely underestimating the effects of power conditioning and removal of electronic noise. Without being fed by my Tice Power Block II, the soundstage of the Berkeley DAC collapses from a rectangular shape to a trapezoid one (gets more narrow in the back). Yet more importantly, the fine details of timbral resolution on CD are only half of those with power conditioner. I would expect the Shunyata combo to vastly improve on even the Tice when it comes to squeezing out additional resolution from my DAC.

Also, I'd like you to read my review of the BorderPatrol external power supplies for my tube amps, linked in my signature, and then tell me if you would expect that the effect in resolution of switching from CD to hi-rez in my system without those power supplies would have been as large as that of inserting the power supplies for the all-important removal of electronic noise, while comparing just CD replay before and after, which I did.

Yes, hi-rez may be somewhat more resolving, but there are bigger fish to fry. For example, if I am not mistaken there is a practically unanimous consensus among owners of the Trinity DAC that even Redbook CD sounds better on it than hi-rez on other converters. While I can't afford a Trinity, I do plan to eventually upgrade to a Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC for CD replay.

This will be much more valuable than putting my resources into a music medium that doesn't even carry most of the music I am interested in. I am a music lover foremost, an audiophile second. I refuse to have a format narrowly dictate my music choices. What I want is all there on CD. Making the music on it sound the best I can, and can afford, is my goal.

Yes, most pop CDs may sound crappy (not a fault of the medium, but of production), but I am not much afflicted by that since most of my listening is classical and classical avantgarde, and those CDs are usually well or even excellently produced. But there are gems in unexpected places. For example, the 2002 CD of Elvis's # 1 hits is exceptionally well produced too (who'd have thunk it?), clearly a labor of love.

 

[mauidan]

Dan, I am afraid you may be severely underestimating the effects of power conditioning and removal of electronic noise. Without being fed by my Tice Power Block II, the soundstage of the Berkeley DAC collapses from a rectangular shape to a trapezoid one (gets more narrow in the back). Yet more importantly, the fine details of timbral resolution on CD are only half of those with power conditioner. I would expect the Shunyata combo to vastly improve on even the Tice when it comes to squeezing out additional resolution from my DAC.

Also, I'd like you to read my review of the BorderPatrol external power supplies for my tube amps, linked in my signature, and then tell me if you would expect that the effect in resolution of switching from CD to hi-rez in my system without those power supplies would have been as large as that of inserting the power supplies for the all-important removal of electronic noise, while comparing just CD replay before and after, which I did.

Yes, hi-rez may be somewhat more resolving, but there are bigger fish to fry. For example, if I am not mistaken there is a practically unanimous consensus among owners of the Trinity DAC that even Redbook CD sounds better on it than hi-rez on other converters. While I can't afford a Trinity, I do plan to eventually upgrade to a Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC for CD replay.

This will be much more valuable than putting my resources into a music medium that doesn't even carry most of the music I am interested in. I am a music lover foremost, an audiophile second. I refuse to have a format narrowly dictate my music choices. What I want is all there on CD. Making the music on it sound the best I can, and can afford, is my goal.

Yes, most pop CDs may sound crappy (not a fault of the medium, but of production), but I am not much afflicted by that since most of my listening is classical and classical avantgarde, and those CDs are usually well or even excellently produced. But there are gems in unexpected places. For example, the 2002 CD of Elvis's # 1 hits is exceptionally well produced too (who'd have thunk it?), clearly a labor of love.

Al,

Obviously, you haven't heard a 176.4/24 or 192/24 recording via your BADA.

I have a BADA and feeding it from a PS Audio PWT playing a Reference Recording HRx 176.4 kHz / 24-bit DVD-R data disc is a much bigger improve than any PLC I've tried in my room.

HI-REZ on my NAS also sounds great on the BADA via the Alpha USB.

Yes, I read your BorderPatrol external power supplies review, not suprising that better high voltage supplies improved your amps.

After speaking to the dealer who got the first Berkeley Alpha Reference DAC, I'd spend your money there before dropping $11K(not counting PCs) on the Triton/Typhon combo.

If you're happy listening to just Redbook without ever having tried HI-REZ great, it's just like Mike being happy with his system without ever having tried DSP/DRC.

Dan