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

[Steve Williams]

Micro

Indeed his present system is all TacT but I have heard his vinyl without.

As to a homogenized sound Mark all I can say is that his room had a flat frequency response as I indicated earlier. Does that mean his sound is homogenized. Seriously

As Frantz commented there was a time when I was going to pursue that path and was talked out of it due to the complexity of what I wanted to do. Instead I used an acoustician for my room response.

Long and the short IMO to say that most audiophiles don't believe in DSP is simply just not true. Now does that make other approaches more correct or not..... Of course not. There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Once again you and I will agree to disagree.

I felt exactly like you Mike and I too love the sound of vinyl but having said that I will maintain my position that in his system you, me and any audiophile you bring to listen to his system will have difficulty in picking out high rez, DSD, RB or vinyl in his system with any degree of statistical significance. Anyone up to the challenge

In fact for several hours we played streaming audio through his system and even that would be difficult to tell apart from Redbook in his room

Steve, respectfully.....my comment is about the degree of audiophile acceptance of DSP, you are defending the merits of DSP.

you are taking my perspective on DSP as some sort of personal attack. please re-read my comments and understand i mean no such thing. DSP is a choice which is simply not for me, or for most of those audiophiles i most often interact with.

 

[Steve Williams]

Not at all Mike. I'm just expounding a feeling that most audiophiles don't embrace it I felt like you and I too don't use it however having said that I now carry an open mind towards DSP. Not at all as far as personal attack Mike. I am just now have a more open mind.nothing more

 

[c1ferrari]

He has the large Pipe Dreams with a pair of Gotham subs

His is a totally different sound than mine but doesn't make one better than the other. Merely a different means to an end. I would truly challenge any of you here who are so bold that you can categorically say that it is easy to pick out DSD, hi rez vs Redbook in his system. You should take the challenge if you are so inclined. You might not like the results

A line source...cool
I would love to accept such an opportunity provided: analog stereo mix master/dub (origin) --> DSD128/256, analog stereo mix master/dub (origin) --> 192/24, analog stereo mix master/dub (origin) --> 44.1/16.

Moreover, I would need to hear the analog stereo mix master/dub (origin) and become sufficiently conversant with it to be able to identify it in a system/room.
It would be fascinating to repeat the experience with DSD128/256 as the origin, 192/24 as the origin, and 44.1/16 as the origin.

 

[caesar]

...

FWIW I just returned from a 5 day trip to the East coast where I stayed with my good friend Marty who is IMO one of the most knowledgeable audiophiles I have ever known. Marty has changed from the VTL Siegfried to the new TOL Spectral 400 mono amps. Marty has top of the line gear in a dedicated room in which most people's homes are smaller. Marty has had a fully dedicated TacT system in his room and I have always maintained that it is one of the finest dedicated systems/room I have ever heard in my life. Having said that, Marty has relocated to a new home last year and has rebuilt a new dedicated room around his new Spectral amps. Having listened to his new system for the past 5 days I remain steadfast that IMO his system is probably in the top three systems in the galaxy...

Wow!!!

Steve, do you mind sharing what the other "galactic" systems were?

Also, do you know who designed Marty's room?

 

[mauidan]

I felt exactly like you Mike and I too love the sound of vinyl but having said that I will maintain my position that in his system you, me and any audiophile you bring to listen to his system will have difficulty in picking out high rez, DSD, RB or vinyl in his system with any degree of statistical significance. Anyone up to the challenge.

In fact for several hours we played streaming audio through his system and even that would be difficult to tell apart from Redbook in his room

Unless Marty has changed his system, AFAIK, the analog output of his sources are connected to his VTL preamp. The analog output of the preamp is connected to an A/D card in his TacT 2.2XP and converted to the DSP processor's 96Khz rate. After the processor performs its DSP and crossover functions the signal goes to D/A cards which output separate analog signals for his subs amp(s) and main speaker amps.

If you connect a PCM digital source directly to the TacT (the TacT doesn't do DSD), it goes through a asynchronous sample rate converter where it's converted to the DSP processor's 96Khz rate, so it would be hard to tell the difference between redbook and a 176.2khz or 192khz recording.

That's one of the reasons I sold all my TacT gear.

 

[dallasjustice]

Since I have a similar experience with DSP, I will say the following. The experience could be called whatever you want. You could call it homogenized, if you wish. But if it's MUCH BETTER, then what anyone calls it no longer matters, IMO.

Bass is the final frontier. Great bass can and does have a tremendous impact on the total system in ways that one would never anticipate, without the personal experience. Better bass makes everything else better. It's that simple.

DSD and PCM sound different. If you can't tell the difference after DSP, that tells me that DSP has homonogized the sound.

 

[FrantzM]

Since I have a similar experience with DSP, I will say the following. The experience could be called whatever you want. You could call it homogenized, if you wish. But if it's MUCH BETTER, then what anyone calls it no longer matters, IMO.

Bass is the final frontier. Great bass can and does have a tremendous impact on the total system in ways that one would never anticipate, without the personal experience. Better bass makes everything else better. It's that simple.

+1

 

[microstrip]

Micro

Indeed his present system is all TacT but I have heard his vinyl without.

As to a homogenized sound Mark all I can say is that his room had a flat frequency response as I indicated earlier. Does that mean his sound is homogenized. Seriously

As Frantz commented there was a time when I was going to pursue that path and was talked out of it due to the complexity of what I wanted to do. Instead I used an acoustician for my room response.

Long and the short IMO to say that most audiophiles don't believe in DSP is simply just not true. Now does that make other approaches more correct or not..... Of course not. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Steve,

IMHO you are addressing a system that we currently do not know about. Frequency response has nothing to do with the "homogenization". And many acousticians will not target their creations directed towards consumer listening to a completely flat response.

Again IMHO, as Mike I feel that most audiophiles do not believe in full range DSP. And there are good reasons for it - it is too complex for amateurs, we do not have had good demos of it in shops or shows.

BTW1, looking at the pictures of Marty great space I believe that most of what people say about his system is in great part due to the great room and synergy of the system with it.

BTW2, the best sound experience of my life was using CD with a state of the art CD transport and DAC in a great system. But is does not mean that CD is the best existing source format.

BTW3 - the great event in the DSP field is quite recent - the Devialet SAM. I hope to try it soon.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Better bass makes everything else better. It's that simple.

Surely for the first sentence. But the difficult question is what makes bass better - I think it is not simple.

 

[Steve Williams]

Marty designed his room. It is virtually identical in dimensions as his previous room.

 

[Steve Williams]

Dan
as I said before Marty's present system ALL goes through his TacT.

As far as debating systems I am of the feeling that we are way off topic here. My only point is that as an audiophile I think one would be somewhat superficial not to explore DSP rather than categorically dismissing it. Just my $



This debate never seems to end. Am I to infer from previous posts that if one uses DSP he is not a true audiophile.

And again I want to reiterate that I don't use it in my system other than for my Fathom subs.

 

[microstrip]

(...) as I said before Marty's present system ALL goes through his TacT.

The Spectral is being driven by the TacT? Just curious to know.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This debate never seems to end. Am I to infer from previous posts that if one uses DSP he is not a true audiophile.

i did not say or infer any thing like that, neither did anyone else that i noticed.

no doubt (1) a large subset of associated audiophiles stay exclusively analog in their signal paths and that is important to them and they strongly hold that view, and that is nothing new or surprising in any way. some (1a) even who strongly resist DSP (or a class d amp) even for deep bass.

then there are (2) many audiophiles who are analog in their signal paths but have no agenda one way or another about DSP. then (3) some who have analog signal paths that wish they had DSP or are very open to it, then (4) a few more who use DSP, then (5) some more who are Apostles of DSP.

then (6) there also may be a group who either uses DSP, or wants to use DSP, but they would rather do a dedicated room designed in a way that could avoid DSP.

although the vast majority of audiophiles are the first 2 catagories, there is room for everyone on all sides in our little world.

 

[microstrip]

(...) As far as debating systems I am of the feeling that we are way off topic here. My only point is that as an audiophile I think one would be somewhat superficial not to explore DSP rather than categorically dismissing it. Just my $



This debate never seems to end. Am I to infer from previous posts that if one uses DSP he is not a true audiophile.

And again I want to reiterate that I don't use it in my system other than for my Fathom subs.

Steve,

I think we are missing one point. We know that some of the best existing systems in the world use DSP solutions - I have found several in the net. Although I have no experience with them, these systems merge careful though solutions, fine tuned by people with great expertise to get the best of their analog and digital parts. They are very complex, expensive and not at the reach of most audiophiles.

However the DSP mirage, as usually presented in audio forums does not address these systems. It addresses most of the existing average systems, that as some people have said homogenize sound and are not able to deserve a place in audiophile audio. And the people that firmly believe that once they get a measurement of flatness from their DSP system everything is fantastic do not help the DSP cause. All IMHO.

 

[Bruce B]

The trial is only for two weeks after you install it; I think. Which ADC and mic are you planning on using to measure?

The ADC is a RME Fireface using an Earthworks M50

 

[dallasjustice]

The ADC is a RME Fireface using an Earthworks M50

Let me know if you need help with the correction file. It's not intuitive, IMO. You may have to reverse the signs. I don't remember what earthworks gave me with the m23 but I remember they only calibrate down to around 500hz or so. You will have to add values too. Flavio can help too.

 

[Bruce B]

Let me know if you need help with the correction file. It's not intuitive, IMO. You may have to reverse the signs. I don't remember what earthworks gave me with the m23 but I remember they only calibrate down to around 500hz or so. You will have to add values too. Flavio can help too.

Much appreciated. As soon as the dust settles, I'll install it and shoot you a PM.

 

[mep]

I really don't care what other people do with their systems. If people want to tie a bow around their DSP machine and hug it and kiss it, it doesn't bother me. This tiny hobby of ours is so fractured the whole tent is filled with screwballs and assorted characters. We tend to align ourselves with like-minded screwballs and characters. As Mike said, there is room for everyone in this hobby regardless of the alter you worship at.

My point before which you want to dismiss is that you can't have two different sources which sound different one from another and then run them through a digital fix-it-all machine and the output from the two different sources now sounds the same and tell me with a straight face that you haven't homogenized the sound. And telling me the frequency response is flat means nothing in the context of homogenizing the sound. That's no different than if I took off the high performance tires from your car and substituted them with some cheap non-speed rated tires and tried to convince you it's OK because the tires are round. I think the reason for the homogenization of the sound is pretty clear: The analog output of Marty's digital sources goes to his preamp. The preamp then feeds the DSP box which converts the analog signal (which has already converted from digital to analog before it hits the preamp) back to digital, but now it's no longer in it's native format or sample rate. It only stands to reason that all former digital material that has been washed through the DSP machine no longer retains the properties it had prior to being re-digitized again.

Now you can love the sound of sameness because it may be a high quality level of sameness, but homogenized it is. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I really don't care what other people do with their systems. If people want to tie a bow around their DSP machine and hug it and kiss it, it doesn't bother me. This tiny hobby of ours is so fractured the whole tent is filled with screwballs and assorted characters. We tend to align ourselves with like-minded screwballs and characters. As Mike said, there is room for everyone in this hobby regardless of the alter you worship at.

My point before which you want to dismiss is that you can't have two different sources which sound different one from another and then run them through a digital fix-it-all machine and the output from the two different sources now sounds the same and tell me with a straight face that you haven't homogenized the sound. And telling me the frequency response is flat means nothing in the context of homogenizing the sound. That's no different than if I took off the high performance tires from your car and substituted them with some cheap non-speed rated tires and tried to convince you it's OK because the tires are round. I think the reason for the homogenization of the sound is pretty clear: The analog output of Marty's digital sources goes to his preamp. The preamp then feeds the DSP box which converts the analog signal (which has already converted from digital to analog before it hits the preamp) back to digital, but now it's no longer in it's native format or sample rate. It only stands to reason that all former digital material that has been washed through the DSP machine no longer retains the properties it had prior to being re-digitized again.

Now you can love the sound of sameness because it may be a high quality level of sameness, but homogenized it is. That's all I'm saying.

i think Marty went down the DSP road initially to assist his efforts to integrate his Pipedreams into his room. he was not satisfied with the performance of the Pipedreams crossover that he originally used. this is from my memory from our discussions during his vsist to my room 8-9 years ago. my memory could be wrong on this, and in any case i'm sure his views have evolved since then in terms of what he sees as the significance of DSP.

i wonder did he use DSP prior to the Pipedreams. maybe Steve knows.