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

[Steve Williams]

This sounds like a real hoot to me:



I would rather listen to music than spend hours tweaking software every damn day. I mean really...

really Mark

narrow minded as usual.

It's OK Mark. Keep your prejudged opinions and continue to use lame excuses rather than forming a real opinion other than your big boy ones locked in your mancave. No problem Mark. You rock on

 

[rhbblb1]

interesting.

I notice that you have your DSD thru the Scarlatti, as well as your vinyl, as sources. so how do you prefer to listen to those sources? thru the Dirac?

and you have Q5's with REL subs. does the Dirac help to integrate those?

is integration 'less ideal' when not using the Dirac? are there trade-offs?

I'm simply trying to understand how the Dirac integrates with your speaker set-up and different sources?

If I listen to DSD, I cannot use Dirac. I can listen to vinyl either with a pure analog signal or digitized and then room corrected with Dirac. Despite having a room that measures well, DRC improves the sound with or without the subs. In addition, Dirac definitely improves sub integration. I have never been able to get really good sub integration without DRC.
I have not experienced any trade offs. Again, none of us has a system that really approaches live music most of the time.
Therefore, the best we can do is get the most out of reproduced music. If any of you has had a live performance in your home you would likely agree with me. It is very humbling considering what we spend trying to make our systems sound like the real thing. The room/speaker interaction, IMHO, trumps all else. DRC is one step in enhancing that goal.

 

[edorr]

If I listen to DSD, I cannot use Dirac. I can listen to vinyl either with a pure analog signal or digitized and then room corrected with Dirac. Despite having a room that measures well, DRC improves the sound with or without the subs. In addition, Dirac definitely improves sub integration. I have never been able to get really good sub integration without DRC.
I have not experienced any trade offs. Again, none of us has a system that really approaches live music most of the time.
Therefore, the best we can do is get the most out of reproduced music. If any of you has had a live performance in your home you would likely agree with me. It is very humbling considering what we spend trying to make our systems sound like the real thing. The room/speaker interaction, IMHO, trumps all else. DRC is one step in enhancing that goal.

Why not try the four channel trinnov processor? It will do sub integration, including active cross-over if desired and drc. It has more function features than Dirac.

 

[mep]

really Mark

narrow minded as usual.

It's OK Mark. Keep your prejudged opinions and continue to use lame excuses rather than forming a real opinion other than your big boy ones locked in your mancave. No problem Mark. You rock on

Really Steve. How is it being narrow minded not to want to futz with software every day for hours on end as you described Marty doing? How is it being narrow minded for not wanting to dumb down all of your resolution to 24/96 and homogenizing the sound so you can't tell DSD from PCM? You are coming off as the high priest for DSP and you don't own it nor use it which is ironic. So yeah, if choosing to listen to music rather than staring at a computer and futzing with software tweaks to DSP for hours on end day after day makes me narrow minded, I'm guilty as charged.

 

[edorr]

Really Steve. How is it being narrow minded not to want to futz with software every day for hours on end as you described Marty doing? How is it being narrow minded for not wanting to dumb down all of your resolution to 24/96 and homogenizing the sound so you can't tell DSD from PCM? You are coming off as the high priest for DSP and you don't own it nor use it which is ironic. So yeah, if choosing to listen to music rather than staring at a computer and futzing with software tweaks to DSP for hours on end day after day makes me narrow minded, I'm guilty as charged.

I take the middle ground. No tweaking of curves. Just a calibration, standard Dirac curve and one custom curve just for kicks, pick my preference, kick back and never touch it again. The homogenization argument is a red herring. When you play dsd you cannot have drc, so it is either one or the other. If you elect to convert dsd to PCM and run through drc you will always be able to tell the difference in my experience.

 

[dallasjustice]

I had the top playback designs DAC and played very good DSD and 2xDSD over USB-x. AND I've experienced high quality modern DSP. The advantages of DSP make any DSD advantage seem irrelevant. I recently setup local Dallas audiophile's system up using DIRAC with my mic and ADC. He was blown away. He now uses it with everything. His dealer listened to it blind and picked DIRAC over no DSP. The dealer said the DIRAC was MUCH better. This audiophile has top MSB DAC and Wilson Alexia speakers; a super high end system.

DSP may have been bad in the past. Now, it represents a genuine advance in music reproduction.

 

[Steve Williams]

You're right Mark

Guilty as charged.

As to your comment about me being the DSP guru that's just a crock of you know what. I don't know the first thing about it except to have an open mind. I heard a truly world class system but heck what do I know.

 

[microstrip]

(...) DSP may have been bad in the past. Now, it represents a genuine advance in music reproduction.

No one will say it does not represent such thing. However DSP has such a broad and undefined meaning (for me it reminds me of the time I worked with the TMS30210 for a brief time in the early 80's) that most of the time people will have a negative opinion on it.

We have thousands of great reviews on systems using the classical approach, explaining with fine details concepts and methodology, and the subjective properties of such systems. Unfortunately, except for a few cases of ultra expensive systems, where we can not easily associate intrinsic properties of the DSP mode, I have not read any subjective reports on stereo DSP systems that I could say - good work, it is really great system.

BTW, I am happy DSP is our friend since long. Since long planes use a lot of them, replacing the hydraulic systems with wires, servos, sensors and DSPs, always with a high redundancy.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If I listen to DSD, I cannot use Dirac. I can listen to vinyl either with a pure analog signal or digitized and then room corrected with Dirac. Despite having a room that measures well, DRC improves the sound with or without the subs. In addition, Dirac definitely improves sub integration. I have never been able to get really good sub integration without DRC.
I have not experienced any trade offs. Again, none of us has a system that really approaches live music most of the time.
Therefore, the best we can do is get the most out of reproduced music. If any of you has had a live performance in your home you would likely agree with me. It is very humbling considering what we spend trying to make our systems sound like the real thing. The room/speaker interaction, IMHO, trumps all else. DRC is one step in enhancing that goal.

thank you for the information.

 

[dallasjustice]

No one will say it does not represent such thing. However DSP has such a broad and undefined meaning

I prefer to call it DSP and not DRC. I think room correction is a misnomer. In the case of DIRAC, DSP is not attempting to correct the room. The best DSP for room acoustics is the one that does the best job of not trying to correct true non-minimum phase acoustics. Not everything can and should be fixed. Do no harm, as they say.

 

[FrantzM]

I have to wonder what s "Ultra-Expensive"about a software that cost at most 650 Euros

Marty's system is not what I would called "Ultra-Expensive" either in the context of >$200K speaker. In fact many of the DSP proponents systems are "regular" audiophile systems, nothing that those most vociferous against haven't spend much more on cables or just one single component sometimes

The thing is that our prejudices as audiophiles are deeper than we are willing to acknowledge. Changing our views and positions on certain things is close to impossible even when hit with a bat with the evidence. DSP (We all understand what it is after all, regardless of claims of the contrary) is in that category for many, it also commits the cardinals sin of being a digital solution a PCM only to boot not the less sinful DSD.

 

[mep]

You're right Mark

Guilty as charged.

As to your comment about me being the DSP guru that's just a crock of you know what. I don't know the first thing about it except to have an open mind. I heard a truly world class system but heck what do I know.

I don't know how someone who regularly listens to digital and analog and who has owned both SS and tubes and sees the virtues in each is narrow minded. I didn't call you a DSP guru because I know you don't know much about it, I said you were coming off as the high priest of DSP meaning you keep touting its virtues and chiding those of us (especially me) who don't want it in their system. If you are such a big fan boy of DSP, quick, go and get it in your system now. Maybe after you do you can tell all of us how your Studer now sounds just like RBCD. Wouldn't that be the bomb?

IMO, DSP is tailored made for the following people:

1. Those that absolutely love the sound of PCM
2. Those that don't care for DSD
3. Those that can't hear any difference between DSD and PCM
4. Those that can hear a difference between DSD and PCM and prefer PCM
5. Those who do have analog and PCM but prefer the sound of PCM

And I agree with what Mike told you several times that you don't want to believe and that is people who think analog sounds better than digital are not going to let a DSP homogenizer anywhere near their stereo system. People who still own analog but no longer think it competes with their digital don't count in the poll.

 

[Steve Williams]

I don't know how someone who regularly listens to digital and analog and who has owned both SS and tubes and sees the virtues in each is narrow minded. I didn't call you a DSP guru because I know you don't know much about it, I said you were coming off as the high priest of DSP meaning you keep touting its virtues and chiding those of us (especially me) who don't want it in their system. If you are such a big fan boy of DSP, quick, go and get it in your system now. Maybe after you do you can tell all of us how your Studer now sounds just like RBCD. Wouldn't that be the bomb?

IMO, DSP is tailored made for the following people:

1. Those that absolutely love the sound of PCM
2. Those that don't care for DSD
3. Those that can't hear any difference between DSD and PCM
4. Those that can hear a difference between DSD and PCM and prefer PCM
5. Those who do have analog and PCM but prefer the sound of PCM

And I agree with what Mike told you several times that you don't want to believe and that is people who think analog sounds better than digital are not going to let a DSP homogenizer anywhere near their stereo system. People who still own analog but no longer think it competes with their digital don't count in the poll.

Mark
never once did I even say you should have it in your system. All I suggested is that you have an open ind and listen to a SOTA DSP system. That's all I did. It made me a believer but never once did I say That I was going to integrate it in my system

Oh and BTW not one of you analog folks here even commented about a member here who is all analog several years ago commented to Marty "now that's the way analog should sound" unbeknownst to him that he was hearing a TacT system

 

[FrantzM]

Mark
never once did I even say you should have it in your system. All I suggested is that you have an open ind and listen to a SOTA DSP system. That's all I did. It made me a believer but never once did I say That I was going to integrate it in my system

Oh and BTW not one of you analog folks here even commented about a member here who is all analog several years ago commented to Marty "now that's the way analog should sound" unbeknownst to him that he was hearing a TacT system

Removal of knowledge is one of those strange equalizers ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have to wonder what s "Ultra-Expensive"about a software that cost at most 650 Euros

Marty's system is not what I would called "Ultra-Expensive" either in the context of >$200K speaker. In fact many of the DSP proponents systems are "regular" audiophile systems, nothing that those most vociferous against haven't spend much more on cables or just one single component sometimes

The thing is that our prejudices as audiophiles are deeper than we are willing to acknowledge. Changing our views and positions on certain things is close to impossible even when hit with a bat with the evidence. DSP (We all understand what it is after all, regardless of claims of the contrary) is in that category for many, it also commits the cardinals sin of being a digital solution a PCM only to boot not the less sinful DSD.

i see no bat of evidence.

a few interesting data points for DSP, each with specific contexts.....which may lead somewhere for some.

i'm still strongly in #1.

 

[FrantzM]

i see no bat of evidence.

a few interesting data points for DSP, each with specific contexts.....which may lead somewhere for some.

i'm still in #1.

Mike

A very honest answer. There is nothing wrong with your preference.

As for the OP Computer Audio is not confusing, complicated or inconvenient: it is all about the music and can bring many systems to a higher degree of fidelity.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I have to wonder what s "Ultra-Expensive"about a software that cost at most 650 Euros

Marty's system is not what I would called "Ultra-Expensive" either in the context of >$200K speaker. In fact many of the DSP proponents systems are "regular" audiophile systems, nothing that those most vociferous against haven't spend much more on cables or just one single component sometimes

The thing is that our prejudices as audiophiles are deeper than we are willing to acknowledge. Changing our views and positions on certain things is close to impossible even when hit with a bat with the evidence. DSP (We all understand what it is after all, regardless of claims of the contrary) is in that category for many, it also commits the cardinals sin of being a digital solution a PCM only to boot not the less sinful DSD.

Just to set the record straight. Actually depending on the vintage (and before or Fter Craig bought the company), the Pipedreams were around 100K a decade ago. That's not chump change. And at their time, yes they were among the most expensive speakers available.

 

[edorr]

1. Those that absolutely love the sound of PCM
2. Those that don't care for DSD
3. Those that can't hear any difference between DSD and PCM
4. Those that can hear a difference between DSD and PCM and prefer PCM
5. Those who do have analog and PCM but prefer the sound of PCM

Don't forget those:

that don't care about DSD or PCM per se, but buy music strictly on the basis of musical merits and consistently find it is all PCM.

That prefer native dsd converted to PCM with drc applied over native dsd to analog conversion.

 

[rbbert]

...Forums are enjoyable if we have debates on the different opinions. We all know it is all IMHO and we can rely on our moderators to control animosity if it shows excessive anytime. IMHO this is WBF, not audio children-garden.

Debates are great, but meaningless when they degenerate to "I'm right and you're stupid" with increasing levels of (apparent) anger. I'm certainly not saying we should all agree, but it only makes sense to accept another member's POV as valid for him(her) even if it isn't true for you. I think I've learned a lot from debates here at WBF, but not from people who insist their preferences should be everyone's.

 

[rbbert]

Mark, I think unless or until you hear an outstanding system like (I assume, because I haven't heard it either) Marty's that uses DSP/DRC, your opinions on the matter are at least prejudiced and also perhaps narrow minded, and that's not just an opinion