Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[sbo6]

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.

Comprehending "revealing" is not tricky at all, it's a common term used in high end audio. Revealing, of higher fidelity, clarity / purity, pick your descriptor, all very similar, and you and all I'm sure get the point.

Also, WRT your reading of a test years ago of analog xover split and recombine, I don't buy it. Please send the link, as I'd love to read it. Also, IME whenever I used DSP above ~100Hz, while the peak / dip was ameliorated, there was a reduction in clarity / focus. Again, with my lesser revealing system, any reduction in clarity was not discernable and the smoothing of bass outweighed any detriment. YMMV.

 

[Bjorn]

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.

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.

 

[sbo6]

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.

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.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

Dream on !

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

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.

 

[Bjorn]

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.

Considering how low quality amps with low distortion cost now it's not cost prohibitive. But if people believe that quality amps needs to cost a a lot, it's really prohibitive only in their thinking. A benefit with active is also that amps for certain drivers can be smaller which brings down the cost for these. It's generally only a large woofer that benefits from a lot of power with some exceptions of course.

The benefit with active is very obvious and has been shared well already in this thread. It really isn't much to discuss. Anyone with some techical expertise understands it. And anyone who has done comparisons with various speaker designs know the obvious drawback with passive. Passive has nothing to do with high fidelity.

 

[pjwd]

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.

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

 

[Slingblade]

I've been living with a Weiss Helios DAC for the past few weeks and the DSP functions are fantastic. I don't use them all the time but having access to them when I want them is fantastic. Now I fully understand not all DSP is created equal, but considering that almost all recording studios have Weiss equipment in them - and having lived with it - makes me appreciate DSP done correctly.

 

[Young Skywalker]

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.

 

[the sound of Tao]

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.

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.

 

[Young Skywalker]

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.

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.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

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

 

[pjwd]

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

Have a bad dsp experience ?

 

[Young Skywalker]

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

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Rude little man.

 

[the sound of Tao]

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.

So there are (possibly literally) a handful of fully actives (often with passive as default or optional) among all the crazy uber expensive speakers out there and that now means passive crossovers are all dead… sounds just like how digital was released and vinyl is now dead.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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

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.

 

[bonzo75]

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Rude little man.

He might object to little

 

[Holmz]

Who pissed in your cornflakes? Rude little man.

I though Aussies ate wheatbix?

 

[pjwd]

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.

Maybe the pudding is like a trifle ...with a lot of stale leftovers sweetened with custard
I think it's just a leviathan that will take some turning .. but there is no doubting the sq that can be achieved

 

[pjwd]

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.

This is the full Monty .. they now have a fantastic server so I am not sure if they will move to convolution in the pc for xovers etc.