Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

Tim Link said:

Revealing is a tricky word. What exactly it means is not clear, but it doesn't exactly correlate with high fidelity. A passive network in a speaker will invariably produce audible and measurable signal degradation. But what does it do to transparency? I read a test years ago where a university was trying to split a signal into high pass and low pass, and then combine the two signals again so that the splitting and recombining process was not audible. Cost no object, they couldn't do it in the analog domain. DSP passed the test. Nobody could tell the difference, and I believe in that test they were actually inserting an extra A/D D/A step into the process. And it was just a Behringer pro audio DSP box. Now maybe if the listeners had been better trained they could have picked up on the digital conversion degradation. But still, they had no problem at all hearing the analog processing, with 100% accurate detection from just about anyone who gave it a try.
And yet, most high-end home audio speakers still have passive networks. And, most of the high end market seems to take them more seriously. My take is that it's an artistic target sound, similar to how there are still those who prefer film to digital photography. My dad used to say in the early days of digital photography "nobody knows how to make it look good yet." It's about more than accuracy. It's about artistic use of inaccuracy to create an effect in the mind of the seer or hearer. Analog creates its own effects, and these come to symbolize realism in our minds over time. I play video games that add a lens flare to the scene when the sun is visible. It's silly, but somehow that aberration adds perceptual realism.
And then there's higher frame rates in movies. Somehow they destroy something. They're too revealing, and yet the effect is that it destroys the feel that was meant to be conveyed. So they are not revealing of the mood as intended, but more revealing of the actual nature of what is on camera - a bunch of people on a set wearing makeup and reciting lines.

Click to expand...

Tim Link said:

Revealing is a tricky word. What exactly it means is not clear, but it doesn't exactly correlate with high fidelity. A passive network in a speaker will invariably produce audible and measurable signal degradation. But what does it do to transparency? I read a test years ago where a university was trying to split a signal into high pass and low pass, and then combine the two signals again so that the splitting and recombining process was not audible. Cost no object, they couldn't do it in the analog domain. DSP passed the test. Nobody could tell the difference, and I believe in that test they were actually inserting an extra A/D D/A step into the process. And it was just a Behringer pro audio DSP box. Now maybe if the listeners had been better trained they could have picked up on the digital conversion degradation. But still, they had no problem at all hearing the analog processing, with 100% accurate detection from just about anyone who gave it a try.
And yet, most high-end home audio speakers still have passive networks. And, most of the high end market seems to take them more seriously. My take is that it's an artistic target sound, similar to how there are still those who prefer film to digital photography. My dad used to say in the early days of digital photography "nobody knows how to make it look good yet." It's about more than accuracy. It's about artistic use of inaccuracy to create an effect in the mind of the seer or hearer. Analog creates its own effects, and these come to symbolize realism in our minds over time. I play video games that add a lens flare to the scene when the sun is visible. It's silly, but somehow that aberration adds perceptual realism.
And then there's higher frame rates in movies. Somehow they destroy something. They're too revealing, and yet the effect is that it destroys the feel that was meant to be conveyed. So they are not revealing of the mood as intended, but more revealing of the actual nature of what is on camera - a bunch of people on a set wearing makeup and reciting lines.

Click to expand...

Bjorn said:

I don't think your analogy describes the reason.

I believe the reason is simply because most speakers in higher price class are offered with passive crossover, and thus audiophiles automatically assume this is done because it's the better approach. And most audiophiles are very conservative in their belief and have a tendency to defend their choices. Quite honestely and which we have seen this thread clearly: Most simply don't understand the benefits of active and confuses DSP/active with poor implemented "room correction".

BTW: It's easy to add flavour with active, actually easier then with a passive network.

So the way I see it it's really more related to bias and misunderstanding. Almost everyone who has done a proper comparison between passive and active chooses active and never turns back.

When the so called high-end brands start with active, and which they slowly will do, the high-end community will also be persuaded this is the better approach.

Click to expand...

Bjorn said:

I don't think your analogy describes the reason.

I believe the reason is simply because most speakers in higher price class are offered with passive crossover, and thus audiophiles automatically assume this is done because it's the better approach. And most audiophiles are very conservative in their belief and have a tendency to defend their choices. Quite honestely and which we have seen this thread clearly: Most simply don't understand the benefits of active and confuses DSP/active with poor implemented "room correction".

BTW: It's easy to add flavour with active, actually easier then with a passive network.

So the way I see it it's really more related to bias and misunderstanding. Almost everyone who has done a proper comparison between passive and active chooses active and never turns back.

When the so called high-end brands start with active, and which they slowly will do, the high-end community will also be persuaded this is the better approach.

Click to expand...

Bjorn said:

I don't think your analogy describes the reason.

I believe the reason is simply because most speakers in higher price class are offered with passive crossover, and thus audiophiles automatically assume this is done because it's the better approach. And most audiophiles are very conservative in their belief and have a tendency to defend their choices. Quite honestely and which we have seen this thread clearly: Most simply don't understand the benefits of active and confuses DSP/active with poor implemented "room correction".

BTW: It's easy to add flavour with active, actually easier then with a passive network.

So the way I see it it's really more related to bias and misunderstanding. Almost everyone who has done a proper comparison between passive and active chooses active and never turns back.

When the so called high-end brands start with active, and which they slowly will do, the high-end community will also be persuaded this is the better approach.

Click to expand...

sbo6 said:

I think you're making audiophiles seem polarized specific to crossover type where almost none exists. People don't care active or passive, what they care about is the sound and cost (aesthetics also). For non-cost - no - object designs which is the majority of the market, multiple amplifiers per speaker is cost prohibitive. For cost - no object speakers, what I read is - passive vs. active makes no discernable audible difference. For example, my speakers can run active crossovers but the designer himself said he could hear no difference vs. passive.

Click to expand...

Mike Lavigne said:

i'm open to hearing a fully dsp active system with serious sources and a serious room that sounds better than what i hear in my passive all analog acoustically designed and tweaked room. am i skeptical? hell double yeah! but i am open to it.

Click to expand...

Young Skywalker said:

I think a better question is, do lossy passive crossovers belong in a state of the art audio system? Perhaps a topic for a new thread?

To remain on point, of course DSP has a role in a modern, ultra high fidelity audio system. It certainly isn't a prerequisite for ultimate performance but in some cases it may make significantly more improvement compared with other more expensive or difficult to implement approaches or solutions.

Click to expand...

the sound of Tao said:

Given passive crossover systems absolutely dominate the high end I’m thinking the proof on that is a well established in that already well tried pudding.

Click to expand...

Young Skywalker said:

I would suggest that the market dominance of passive crossover loudspeakers has nothing to do with maximising fidelity to the source and everything to do with marketing to an ageing and inherently conservative customer base that for decades has blindly followed the musings of advertising-driven print media. I would also suggest that building a passive crossover is easier and less expensive, therefore making it appealing to high volume manufacturing and retail as well as the DIY community. The fact that there are (now many) loudspeakers costing as much as a 2 bedroom Sydney apartment, is as laughable as it is perverse. The fact that most go into listening environments that are terribly flawed is even more laughable.

An optimised active crossover will always deliver higher fidelity than an optimised passive crossover, assuming bottlenecks do not exist in terms of cabinet, drivers, etc.

There are now emerging as well as established examples: Avantgarde, Clarisys, ATC, Tidal, YG Acoustics, Lyravox, Adam, Rockport Arrakis and Magico M9 (both partially active), Kyron and SGR Audio. Even the Bowers and Wilkins Nautilus remains the best speaker made by that company (or Vivid Audio for that matter). Note that many of these active crossovers are exclusively analog.

If one wants to play with different equipment combinations in pursuit of endless subjective outputs (which passive crossover speakers accomodate very well) that is perfectly legitimate. But it isn’t the highest fidelity to the source material. The “as you like it” approach is a valid one, but it interests me more as a hobbyist and less as a music lover.

Click to expand...

Lagonda said:

And shitty dsp somehow got lost in your little diatribe, the actual subject of this thread !

Click to expand...

Lagonda said:

And shitty dsp somehow got lost in your little diatribe, the actual subject of this thread !

Click to expand...

Young Skywalker said:

I would suggest that the market dominance of passive crossover loudspeakers has nothing to do with maximising fidelity to the source and everything to do with marketing to an ageing and inherently conservative customer base that for decades has blindly followed the musings of advertising-driven print media. I would also suggest that building a passive crossover is easier and less expensive, therefore making it appealing to high volume manufacturing and retail as well as the DIY community. The fact that there are (now many) loudspeakers costing as much as a 2 bedroom Sydney apartment, is as laughable as it is perverse. The fact that most go into listening environments that are terribly flawed is even more laughable.

An optimised active crossover will always deliver higher fidelity than an optimised passive crossover, assuming bottlenecks do not exist in terms of cabinet, drivers, etc.

There are now emerging as well as established examples: Avantgarde, Clarisys, ATC, Tidal, YG Acoustics, Lyravox, Adam, Rockport Arrakis and Magico M9 (both partially active), Kyron and SGR Audio. Even the Bowers and Wilkins Nautilus remains the best speaker made by that company (or Vivid Audio for that matter). Note that many of these active crossovers are exclusively analog.

If one wants to play with different equipment combinations in pursuit of endless subjective outputs (which passive crossover speakers accomodate very well) that is perfectly legitimate. But it isn’t the highest fidelity to the source material. The “as you like it” approach is a valid one, but it interests me more as a hobbyist and less as a music lover.

Click to expand...

pjwd said:

Mike
The thought of 4 wadax dacs 8 dartzeel amps cables and racks would be very sobering
The question is at what level of 8 channel dac and amp does the benifit of linear phase , perfect time alignment, perfect channel matching, precise and adjustable frequency target etc. overcome the sq generated by your carefully curated system. There would be a level no doubt.
The steinway lyngdorf and kyron gaia are two high end attempts. I have heard the gaia and it is super impressive and I know they are currently upgrading amps. DSP makes sense for dipoles for the shelving ability which may explain the above uses but it would be fascinating to hear their front ends on a system like yours. Of course the question of analogue input is another thing alltogether
Like Bjorn I have no doubt this is the future
Plus I agree that a properly designed room will always be far superior to room correction
Phil

Click to expand...

Young Skywalker said:

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Rude little man.

Click to expand...

Young Skywalker said:

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Rude little man.

Click to expand...

the sound of Tao said:

Given passive crossover systems absolutely dominate the high end I’m thinking the proof on that is a well established in that already well tried pudding.

Click to expand...

Mike Lavigne said:

something like this might be a starting point. but don't see that it has any integral dsp.

not exactly a real world answer. but it does show someone is thinking about it.

Click to expand...