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

Alrainbow

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2013
1,886
528
370
NYC , USA
Mep I am a little confused at your statement reg dsd. But the vinyl as I would play it , I would also convert to dsd . My reasoning is simple I can take it where ever I go. My reason for looking I to vinyl,is to obtain music I cannot get otherwise aNd have a
True analog system combined with a digital,one. I do,think digital audio,is not confusing but frustrating at times .
As I have just rec and ps audio DS and a B7 lampi as well. The truth is they use jriver in different ways and I must learn what is best for each. But once I do it's a cake walk .
 

marty

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,845
1,087
585
United States
Were you looking at his target curve or in room corrected response?
If he's got his corrected response better than +/- 1db from 20hz to 20Khz, I'd love to see it.

Wow. You keep your nose out of the Forum for few days and you come back to find your system appears to elicit controversy in some quarters. (So, what else is new, This is WBF after all, isn’t it!) If I may, I’d like to clarify some of the comments that have been said recently. Steve is correct in that the original reason I turned to DSP was that I found it frankly impossible to EQ PipeDream Towers with JL Gotham subs with any resemblence of seamlessness with an analogue crossover. My initial thread on DSP is found here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?520-DSP-one-person-s-experience&highlight=tact

And Dan is right, once the signal exits my preamp, the signal goes through the Tact 2.2XP, and this, much to the chagrin of many, includes the phono signal (Goldmund Studio/T3F/Benz Ruby2/ASR phono).

The benefits of the TacT have been increasingly clear to me from the start for more than their simple crossover function (24 dB /octave, 80Hz.). They are instrumental in the overall EQ of the system, which is mostly done below 400Hz due to room boundary effects as in any system. However I can and do employ a gentle top end roll-off so as to simulate the oft referred to B&K curve discussed in previous forum posts.

The TacT's continued advantageous use was also quite beneficial when switching the Spectral 400s for the VTL Siegfrieds, mainly because I was better able to dial in the critical valley of death from 90-120Hz which is rendered with more articulation with the Spectrals in the system than it ever was with the Siggies. The following post goes into more descriptive details of the use of the Tact in my current system.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-DMA-400s-arrive-in-New-Jersey&highlight=tact

As I have said before, I think much of my enjoyment with the TacT stems from the fact that it is highly modified unit by Anthony Padilla and Dan.

I would also like to clarify that the TacT target curve does not necessarily look like the room response curve at the listening position (the room response is always less linear). I have posted both previously, but they are not identical. I would however like to point to a comment that was most likely ignored which I think bears repeating with regard to my choice of target curves for the TacT (post 25):

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?723-Target-Curves&p=264312#post264312

And let me re-emphasize the following point with all due respect to Dan. There is no audio system on earth I would want to be flat +/-1dB from 20-Hz to 20Kz at the listening position. This is a well-trodden subject on the forum. I am very much in the camp that "flat is NOT where its at". I have never, I repeat never, heard a great sounding audio system that measured flat at the listening position to a standard pink noise signal. if it measures flat it is generally thin and somewhat bright sounding. But that's just me.

Finally, I'd like to close by addressing the comment of how much tweaking vs listening I do with my system. Through the years, the answer is frankly, a lot of both. I generally listen between 11 pm and 2 am daily. . With time, and after tweaking is done to account for major changes in ancillary gear (i.e. power cords, conditioners, interconnects etc), the period of tweaking is followed by far more listening than tweaking. I think the key observation which needs to be mentioned regarding Steve’s visit is that 2 days before Steve arrived I noticed that one of my dear ECC802S Telefunken preamp tubes appeared to have bitten the dust (high distortion, poor bass). These tubes are supposed to last 10,000 and I would say that’s about what I have on them. Wouldn’t you know it- you’re good friend and audio maven is arriving and you want to show your system to it’s best advantage and a tube craps out. I had no choice to replace the tube with one of a similar Telefunken vintage, but as everyone knows, even a used tube takes time to optimize. What Steve noticed was my frantic hope to try and EQ the tube in the 2nd day of its use as a replacement tube in order to get it to sound its best. At some point, you just have to throw your hands up in the air and accept that in this case, defeat was stolen from the jaws of victory. Fortunately, by day 3, the bass had come in beautifully, and we did no further tube tweaking, fully satisfied that the sound of the system was about as good as I’ve ever had it.

Bottom line, I treat DSP with great respect and make changes consistent with the scientific methods that I use to perform laboratory experiments in my professional career. That doesn’t mean I do this any better or any worse than anyone who dabbles with DSP (which, keep on mind is unquestionably used on the vast majority of anything that anyone has ever heard in a digital format). What it means is that as a student of implementing DSP optimally for my system, the learning curve was slow and arduous, particularly for someone with more than touch of an OCD persona. OK, so sue me. In the end, that’s the process that I have used which serves me well. At the same time, as those close to me also know, it drives me nuts that the sound I am extracting takes so much time, energy and patience. As I have hinted in previous threads, there in may in fact be another way to get the same enjoyment as I am getting now without the use of DSP, but that will surely require different speakers than what I currently utilize. I am truly envious of a system’s such as Steve’s that can deliver tremendous musical pleasure without the use of DSP. But for the time being, I find it an irreplaceable tool and one that I do not anticipate shelving anytime soon with the Pipes/Gotham combination.

Oh yeah, one last thing. Not sure why these issues are posted on a "computer audio" thread (sort of) but that's where the comments were made pertaining to my use of DSP so I am posting them here. Uh oh, time to get back to my inner nerd.....
 
Last edited:

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
9,164
3,248
820
I feel like I already said my piece for the DSP question, yet I do need to show my support for the intent of where Mark is coming from, if not the form.

Mark my friend, you are not wrong.

and for myself; I've not only done the room part without limitations (as have a few others too), but also went to great lengths to have a speaker which has ultimate room integration capabilities in the bass.....and then had the speaker designer spend a couple of days dialing it in. so all this "the bass is better with DSP/DRC" just does not have any traction with me. yet i'll acknowledge that until/unless I try it in my system I'm only guessing about what more it might yield. OTOH I'm confident that whatever DSP might deliver beyond my considerable efforts at 'the classical approach' to room/speaker integration it would not be enough to re-think my analog signal path. and speaking of that; since I have my phono stage inside my preamp, and have proprietary cable geometry for my other sources, contemplating insertion of some sort of whole system digital portal/filter/thingy is just not a real option for me. and I have many terabytes of 2xdsd vinyl rips which while sounding exceptionally good do not touch my 'real' vinyl.....so the idea of expecting a PCM/vinyl rip of any resolution to somehow be a substitute for my vinyl is silly.

integrating subs into systems with main speakers intended to be full range is challenging. what DSP might offer those situations is quite different than my situation.

so in total. DSP offers the answer to a question I'm just not asking....and don't ever expect to ask. so my view is for me only and no generalized inference is intended.

I can see where DSP offers solutions, and celebrate what it can offer to advance the musical experience for many.

I'm not 'anti' anything, I'm pro-enjoyment. for me and for you. so go do it. enjoy.
 
Last edited:

rhbblb1

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
52
0
411
Unfortunately the DSP supporters in this thread seem to care little about the technical aspects of digital sound and I feel I have to help them. :eek:

We can not directly compare the action of digitizing an analog signal, processing it and converting the result back to analog in the same unit with the equivalent rate process of recording, storing and playing digital music. In a DSP unit the ADC and the DAC clocks will be probably be the same or coming from the same oscillator, creating a system that cancels any effects of phase noise, resulting in almost jitterless process. When reproducing digital files the resulting analog signal will have the influence of two independent clocks, each with its characteristic phase noise. They will sum according to some non trivial process resulting in added jitter.

Another aspect is that the manufacturer of top DSP units will probably choose ADCs and DACs that have sound signatures that match to create what they feel is a good sounding product - something that does not exist when playing digital recordings. All IMHO - I hope that those with more expertise than me on these matters will correct me if I am mistaken.

With Dirac there is no outboard DSP unit. We use our own ADC and DACs. In my case, I also have an outboard clock.
 

rhbblb1

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
52
0
411
I have been accused of being both prejudiced and narrow minded. I can understand the prejudice label, but I don't understand the narrow minded label. And I will say that it was a combination of Steve's posts saying that in Marty's system you can't tell the difference between DSD and PCM and then understanding why that is so with the conversions that have to take place that caused my prejudice. Does anyone really think it's a great idea to take signals that were recorded in one format (DSD or PCM), decoded in another format (analog), and then re-encoded in another format (PCM and possibly at a lower sampling rate than the original or completely different in the case of DSD) only to be converted one more time before it hits the power amp? And then you want to claim it's a good thing that DSD now sounds like PCM? So yeah, I will proudly say I'm prejudiced against using DSP in my system. I'm not looking to fix one problem while creating a host of others. Again, if you only listen to PCM and/or you prefer PCM over DSD, "DSP is your friend" as Dallas likes to say.

It is not that DSP'd PCM sounds the same as DSD. It sounds different and can be superior because of the improvement DSP imparts.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
17,069
1,801
720
Portugal
Wow. You keep your nose out of the Forum for few days and you come back to find your system appears to elicit controversy in some quarters. (So, what else is new, This is WBF after all, isn’t it!) If I may, I’d like to clarify some of the comments that have been said recently. Steve is correct in that the original reason I turned to DSP was that I found it frankly impossible to EQ PipeDream Towers with JL Gotham subs with any resemblence of seamlessness with an analogue crossover. My initial thread on DSP is found here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?520-DSP-one-person-s-experience&highlight=tact

And Dan is right, once the signal exits my preamp, the signal goes through the Tact 2.2XP, and this, much to the chagrin of many, includes the phono signal (Goldmund Studio/T3F/Benz Ruby2/ASR phono).

The benefits of the TacT have been increasingly clear to me from the start for more than their simple crossover function (24 dB /octave, 80Hz.). They are instrumental in the overall EQ of the system, which is mostly done below 400Hz due to room boundary effects as in any system. However I can and do employ a gentle top end roll-off so as to simulate the oft referred to B&K curve discussed in previous forum posts.

The TacTs continued advantageous use was also quite beneficial when switching the Spectral 400s for the VTL Siegfrieds, mainly because I was better able to dial in the critical valley of death from 90-120Hz which is rendered with more articulation with the Spectrals in the system than it ever was with the Siggies. The following post goes into more descriptive details of the use of the Tact in my current system.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-DMA-400s-arrive-in-New-Jersey&highlight=tact

As I have said before, I think much of my enjoyment with the TacT stems from the fact that it is highly modified unit by Anthony and Dan.

I would also like to clarify that the TacT target curve does not necessarily look like the room response curve at the listening position (the room response is always less linear). I have posted both previously, but they are not identical. I would however like to point to a comment that was most likely ignored which I think bears repeating with regard to my choice of target curves for the TacT (post 25):

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?723-Target-Curves&p=264312#post264312

And let me re-emphasize the following point with all due respect to Dan. There Is no audio system on earth I would want to be flat +/-1dB from 20-Hz to 20Kz at the listening position. This is a well-trodden subject on the forum. I am very much in the camp that "flat is NOT where its at". I have never, I repeat never, heard a great sounding audio system that measured flat at the listening position to a standard pink noise signal. But that's just me.

Finally, I'd like to close by addressing the comment of how much tweaking vs listening I do with my system. Through the years, the answer is frankly, a lot of both. I generally listen between 1 pm and 2 am daily. . With time, and after tweaking is done to account for major changes in ancillary gear (i.e. power cords, conditioners, interconnects etc), the period of tweaking is followed by far more listening than tweaking. I think the key observation which needs to be mentioned regarding Steve’s visit is that 2 days before Steve arrived I noticed that one of my dear ECC801S Telefunken preamp tubes appeared to have bitten the dust (high distortion, poor bass). These tubes are supposed to last 10,000 and I would say that’s about what I have on them. Wouldn’t you know it- you’re good friend and audio maven is arriving and you want to show your system to it’s best advantage and a tube craps out. I had no choice to replace the tube with one of a similar Telefunken vintage, but as everyone knows, even a used tube, it takes time to optimize. What Steve noticed was my frantic hope to try and EQ the tube in the 2nd day of its use as a replacement tube in order to get it to sound its best. At some point, you just have to throw your hands up in the air and accept that in this case, defeat was stolen from the jaws of victory. Fortunately, by day 3, the bass had come in beautifully, and we did no further tube tweaking, fully satisfied that the sound of the system was about as good as I’ve ever had it.

Bottom line, I treat DSP with great respect and make changes consistent with the scientific methods that I use to perform laboratory experiments in my professional career. That doesn’t mean I do this any better or any worse than anyone who dabbles with DSP (which, keep on mind is unquestionably used on the vast majority of anything that anyone has ever heard in a digital format). What it means is that as a student of implementing DSP optimally for my system, the learning curve was slow and arduous, particularly for someone with more than touch of an OCD persona. OK, so sue me. In the end, that’s the process that I have used which serves me well. At the same time, as those close to me also know, it drives me nuts that the sound I am extracting takes so much time, energy and patience. As I have hinted in previous threads, there in may in fact be another way to get the same enjoyment as I am getting now without the use of DSP, but that will surely require different speakers than what I currently utilize. I am truly envious of a system’s such as Steve’s that can deliver tremendous musical pleasure without the use of DSP. But for the time being, I find it an irreplaceable tool and one that I do not anticipate shelving anytime soon with the Pipes/Gotham combination.

Oh yeah, one last thing. Not sure why these issues are posted on a "computer audio" thread (sort of) but that's where the comments were made pertaining to my use of DSP so I am posting them here. Uh oh, time to get back to my inner nerd.....

Marty,

Great to read from you. It is clear that your system is not a trivial one - extremely high synergy between components, an exotic mix of components that breaks any known rule, a long time of perfecting it, exhaustive fine in a great room. It is surely an exceptional system, but IMHO it does not support the DSP argument as being addressed typically - it is too dependent on you.

Congratulations on assembling and tuning such a system.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
I don't use DSP either, and my experience with Audyssey32 in my AVR has been unconvincing so far. Nevertheless, I can't (and don't) have an opinion as to the merits of better DSP/DRC systems except that I haven't been motivated (so far) to invetigate more. Mark, you are basing your objections to DSP/DRC entirely on prejudice, even despite microstrip providing some theoretical basis for your objections to be less objectionable. Who knows, well done DSP/DRC could be a paradigm changer; neither you nor I know, and it appears you are unwilling to even consider that possibility.

Not if it means digitizing my analog or converting DSD to PCM. Someone please explain to me what conversion process in audio improves the sound quality? There is no such thing as a truly transparent conversion process. Every piece of electronics has a signature because none are perfect. You are not going to convert analog to digital and the convert it back to analog and think that somehow going thorough that two step process your sound will be improved. It might still be a high quality sound, but it won't be the same quality. And since you will be running all of your sources through the DSP blender, there will be a 'sameness' of sound from all of your sources. The D/A converters used in DSP will color every signal that runs through them and those fingerprints will be on every piece of music you play through them. Like I said before, if you only listen to PCM and you are in love with it (Oh Lloyd...), then DSP is perfect for you. Why people don't understand my point is baffling.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
I feel like I already said my piece for the DSP question, yet I do need to show my support for the intent of where Mark is coming from, if not the form.

Mark my friend, you are not wrong.

and for myself; I've not only done the room part without limitations (as have a few others too), but also went to great lengths to have a speaker which has ultimate room integration capabilities in the bass.....and then had the speaker designer spend a couple of days dialing it in. so all this "the bass is better with DSP/DRC" just does not have any traction with me. yet i'll acknowledge that until/unless I try it in my system I'm only guessing about what more it might yield. OTOH I'm confident that whatever DSP might deliver beyond my considerable efforts at 'the classical approach' to room/speaker integration it would not be enough to re-think my analog signal path. and speaking of that; since I have my phono stage inside my preamp, and have proprietary cable geometry for my other sources, contemplating insertion of some sort of whole system digital portal/filter/thingy is just not a real option for me. and I have many terabytes of 2xdsd vinyl rips which while sounding exceptionally good do not touch my 'real' vinyl.....so the idea of expecting a PCM/vinyl rip of any resolution to somehow be a substitute for my vinyl is silly.

integrating subs into systems with main speakers intended to be full range is challenging. what DSP might offer those situations is quite different than my situation.

so in total. DSP offers the answer to a question I'm just not asking....and don't ever expect to ask. so my view is for me only and no generalized inference is intended.

I can see where DSP offers solutions, and celebrate what it can offer to advance the musical experience for many.

I'm not 'anti' anything, I'm pro-enjoyment. for me and for you. so go do it. enjoy.

Mike-I sincerely appreciate your support. We are on the same wavelength. To me, part of the beauty of having separate sources (tape, vinyl, PCM, hi-rez PCM, and DSD) is that they all sound different and they all bring something to the table. As you pointed out, as good as DSD sounds, it doesn't sound like analog and it's not on the same level. And DSD sounds different than PCM. The thought of running all of your different sources through a DSP blender and homogenizing all of your sources to 24/96 and then converting them all back to analog in order to make your room sound better in some limited frequency range you are mucking with makes zero sense to me.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
It is not that DSP'd PCM sounds the same as DSD. It sounds different and can be superior because of the improvement DSP imparts.


Read post #267 and get back to me.
 

Brucemck2

Member Sponsor
May 10, 2010
305
27
433
Houston area
Not if it means digitizing my analog or converting DSD to PCM. Someone please explain to me what conversion process in audio improves the sound quality? There is no such thing as a truly transparent conversion process. Every piece of electronics has a signature because none are perfect. You are not going to convert analog to digital and the convert it back to analog and think that somehow going thorough that two step process your sound will be improved. It might still be a high quality sound, but it won't be the same quality. And since you will be running all of your sources through the DSP blender, there will be a 'sameness' of sound from all of your sources. The D/A converters used in DSP will color every signal that runs through them and those fingerprints will be on every piece of music you play through them. Like I said before, if you only listen to PCM and you are in love with it (Oh Lloyd...), then DSP is perfect for you. Why people don't understand my point is baffling.

IME it depends whether the gains you get from the digital processing outweigh the losses you get from incremental AD/DA or PCM/format conversion. In multiple systems in my homes, the gains have greatly exceeded the very minimal losses, even when fed via and through hard core two channel analog signal chains.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
The storage format and medium is merely a means to an end. My end is music enjoyment.

Dallas-Your storage format only contains digital and you are obviously a perfect customer for DSP. I get it, trust me.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jul 1, 2010
8,677
3
0
Not if it means digitizing my analog or converting DSD to PCM. Someone please explain to me what conversion process in audio improves the sound quality? There is no such thing as a truly transparent conversion process. Every piece of electronics has a signature because none are perfect. You are not going to convert analog to digital and the convert it back to analog and think that somehow going thorough that two step process your sound will be improved. It might still be a high quality sound, but it won't be the same quality. And since you will be running all of your sources through the DSP blender, there will be a 'sameness' of sound from all of your sources. The D/A converters used in DSP will color every signal that runs through them and those fingerprints will be on every piece of music you play through them. Like I said before, if you only listen to PCM and you are in love with it (Oh Lloyd...), then DSP is perfect for you. Why people don't understand my point is baffling.

In the purest sense, I'm sure this is true. But there may be such a thing as an audibly transparent conversion process. But if you are, as you've clearly said above, unwilling to even consider the possibility, you have closed your mind to the possibility, pre-judged the outcome you refuse to test, and made the case for those here who have accused you of being closed-minded and prejudiced.

Of course the DSP under discussion is not audibly transparent. It would be useless if it were. Its objective is to be audibly better, and to allow you to create the "better" that suits you and your room. Your prejudice will prevent you from ever knowing if that is possible, as well, but it doesn't matter if you're perfectly happy with your system and wouldn't think of changing the sound. And after four sets of amps, 3 sets of speakers, 3 preamps (forgive me if I've gotten anything wrong, I'm not sure I've kept up), your back thrown out shipping Krells back and forth to the factory in boxes nearly as expensive than PLs that started it all...I'm sure that you are completely satisfied, finally, and that all of that was no trouble compared to tweaking software. It's probably time for you to sit back and consider the enjoyment of listening the only possibility for a few years.

Tim
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
IME it depends whether the gains you get from the digital processing outweigh the losses you get from incremental AD/DA or PCM/format conversion. In multiple systems in my homes, the gains have greatly exceeded the very minimal losses, even when fed via and through hard core two channel analog signal chains.

Bruce-I have read your profile and the only system you have listed is an 11.1 digital system. What other systems do you have and what analog gear do you have?
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
5
0
Dallas, Texas
Yes but not DSD. You previously said that I love the PCM format. That's not accurate. I think DSD can sound wonderful. I use PCM only because it opens up a big world of advantages that far outweigh any potential disadvantages.

Dallas-Your storage format only contains digital and you are obviously a perfect customer for DSP. I get it, trust me.
 

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
In the purest sense, I'm sure this is true. But there may be such a thing as an audibly transparent conversion process. But if you are, as you've clearly said above, unwilling to even consider the possibility, you have closed your mind to the possibility, pre-judged the outcome you refuse to test, and made the case for those here who have accused you of being closed-minded and prejudiced.

Of course the DSP under discussion is not audibly transparent. It would be useless if it were. Its objective is to be audibly better, and to allow you to create the "better" that suits you and your room. Your prejudice will prevent you from ever knowing if that is possible, as well, but it doesn't matter if you're perfectly happy with your system and wouldn't think of changing the sound. And after four sets of amps, 3 sets of speakers, 3 preamps (forgive me if I've gotten anything wrong, I'm not sure I've kept up), your back thrown out shipping Krells back and forth to the factory in boxes nearly as expensive than PLs that started it all...I'm sure that you are completely satisfied, finally, and that all of that was no trouble compared to tweaking software. It's probably time for you to sit back and consider the enjoyment of listening the only possibility for a few years.

Tim

Different strokes for different folks here Tim

What I find difficult to understand about the hard core rank and file such as Mark is, as you say Tim nothing short of preconceived notions and prejudice. It is but a means to an end. I shared all of the same notions and even had the same expectation bias when I heard such a system that IMO is nothing short of world class. I keep getting asked by Mark why I don't have a DSP system and that has been answered in volumes here and in other threads

Mark

look at yourself in the mirror when you say these things and ask your self if you aren't prejudiced. At the very least you should hear such a system before you continue to inflict your expectation bias on us. Everyone who has heard such systems just don't feel as strongly as you. Would you think the same if it made your system sound better? I am not even remotely suggesting that you, I or anyone run out and convert their rooms to DSP. I am just asking you to get off your high horse and at least listen before you are drawn to erroneous conclusions. If you feel the same after such a demo I and I bet everyone here would have more respect for your position than to sit in your man cave proclaiming the things you do without even knowing what you're talking about.

DSP works and in the system I heard it was truly a mind blowing experience as it was for the analog guru who also heard it and proclaimed the things he did as to the sound being the way vinyl should sound
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,464
7
255
This has become a (welcome) debate about DSP ...

We need to keep things in perspective. I can understand aperson not wanting to mess with DSP in the whole spectrum. In the bass however, say from 300Hz and lower there is almost no substitutet. The improvement brought by great are dramatic and for those with correct bass know it.. Once you tame the wild beast ...err... bass :) you have better sound overall. Not an opinion, an easily verifiable fact. The mids open up, the treble limitations are only those of your speakers ... The often referenced "Soundstage" becomes more palpable, wider, deeper, more 3-D .. The music becomes more "organic" :D

So why the resistance, so why the demonization and the (lame) rationalizations about its complexity ? What's keeping people from, even trying DSP, in the context of people that would take the whole day to adjust their speakers a quarter of an inch or take many years to master the art of tuning correctly a TT? I guess only the power of the mind ... only prejudices.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,146
7
36
Smyrna, GA
Mike-I sincerely appreciate your support. We are on the same wavelength. To me, part of the beauty of having separate sources (tape, vinyl, PCM, hi-rez PCM, and DSD) is that they all sound different and they all bring something to the table. As you pointed out, as good as DSD sounds, it doesn't sound like analog and it's not on the same level. And DSD sounds different than PCM. The thought of running all of your different sources through a DSP blender and homogenizing all of your sources to 24/96 and then converting them all back to analog in order to make your room sound better in some limited frequency range you are mucking with makes zero sense to me.

Philosophically, this argument makes zero sense. The objective of sound reproduction in a high end system is to create a replica as close as possible to the original musical event. So lets say we record a piano and capture the information on 44/16 PCM, High Rez PCM, DSD, Mastertape and Vinyl. All will sound "different", and the mastertape will sound closest to the original musical event.

Now we run all signals through a DSP engine and the magically the sources now sound "less different" (never 100% the same of course), but all sound closer to the mastertape / original musical event. The only way you can see that as a negative attribute of applying DSP is if you have some nostalgic attachment to your analog sources and the idea that messing with musical information in the digital domain offends your purist sensibilities. This is completely irrational / emotional objection to DSP. What matters is musical truth; you either get closer to it or you move away from it.

Conversely, some analog aficionados may have actually run their analog sources through A/D conversion, DSP and D/A conversion and simply did not like what they heard. Fair enough - rational objection, different argument. I have not met many in the rational objectors camp, but I'm sure they are out there.

For me (and Dallas and many others) the trade off between A/D conversion cost and DSP benefits is a moot point because we use only digital sources.

From personal experience I can say that when I did use A/D conversion on an "analog" source (Marantz UD9004 SACD player in DSD direct mode into Trinnov processor), the DSP benefits trumped A/D conversion cost hands down, BUT doing DSD to PCM conversion in a modded Oppo digital out directly into the Trinnov sounded better still.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
9,483
6
0
In the purest sense, I'm sure this is true. But there may be such a thing as an audibly transparent conversion process. But if you are, as you've clearly said above, unwilling to even consider the possibility, you have closed your mind to the possibility, pre-judged the outcome you refuse to test, and made the case for those here who have accused you of being closed-minded and prejudiced.

And isn't it ironic that those who are accusing me of being prejudiced against DSP are people who don't have it in their system and have no plans to do so? How come you don't have DSP in your system Tim? You are another perfect customer for DSP. You love PCM digital, you are not a believer in hi-rez digital and you certainly don't care for analog. DSP is a perfect fit for you. What are you waiting for? Why am I being preached to by people who don't own DSP??

As for the rest of your cheap shots, they can stand on their own merits.
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 11, 2010
3,146
7
36
Smyrna, GA
And isn't it ironic that those who are accusing me of being prejudiced against DSP are people who don't have it in their system and have no plans to do so? How come you don't have DSP in your system Tim? You are another perfect customer for DSP. You love PCM digital, you are not a believer in hi-rez digital and you certainly don't care for analog. DSP is a perfect fit for you. What are you waiting for? Why am I being preached to by people who don't own DSP??

You reject DSP strictly on the basis of emotional / philosophical / theoretical grounds. How is this not "being prejudiced"? Nothing wrong with that, but let's just call a spade a spade.

I think part of the enjoyment of this hobby is cherishing our prejudices and experimenting with our system to confirm them. Anyone believing this hobby is about the pursuit of objective "best sound" on strictly rational basis is kidding himself.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. A place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss existing and new audio products, music servers, music streamers and computer audio, digital to audio convertors (DACS), turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel to reel, speakers, headphones, tube amplifiers and solid state amplification. Founded in 2010 What's Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing