Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[sbo6]

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.

Looks like you have it all figured out then. You should reach out and consult for Wilson, Magico, Vivid, EA, etc. as they must all have it wrong.

 

[schlager]

I expected this answer from you

That is because it is true.

I think you will agree that you never get a perfect score on all criteria?

No, that would be a futile assumption, but we can try to maximize on all accounts that matters and adding distortion and having an uneven FR, is going in the opposite direction.

Why do some people love the sound of a 1920s Western Electric horn speaker? Simply due to distortion?

Skewed preference, acquired taste, but that resort under my-fi not hi-fi.

 

[hopkins]

That is because it is true.

No, that would be a futile assumption, but we can try to maximize on all accounts that matters and adding distortion and having an uneven FR, is going in the opposite direction.

Skewed preference, acquired taste, but that resort under my-fi not hi-fi.

I'm all for a good frequency response and low distortion! Unfortunately, I have not heard a speaker - yet - that provides an extended frequency response (20hz - 20kHz) that can provide the resolution and sense of "presence" that a vintage single driver (like my Altec 755, for example) can provide (especially with a very low distortion amplifier) on a more limited frequency range. I think you just have to listen 5 minutes to understand... As for "electronics", if you only listen to certain types of speakers, you will find that decently speced electronics all sound the same (and that DACs/amps/DSP, etc... indeed don't matter).

Personally, I use several speakers (and headphones) that provide different listening experiences and that I like with different music. So "skewed preference" and "acquired taste"?

That's just my (limited) experience.

 

[schlager]

hopkins, sure an efficient full range crossover-less driver can have great potential, though still struggling with the frequency extremes. Maxing out on that idea and throw in dispersion control and you see where we are heading?

 

[hopkins]

hopkins, sure an efficient full range crossover-less driver can have great potential, though still struggling with the frequency extremes. Maxing out on that idea and throw in dispersion control and you see where we are heading?

Yes I do. Nothing can replace in-person listening, and you can rest assured that I am very curious to listen to some of the systems you use or talk about.

 

[OrigTweaker]

I'm all for a good frequency response and low distortion! Unfortunately, I have not heard a speaker - yet - that provides an extended frequency response (20hz - 20kHz) that can provide the resolution and sense of "presence" that a vintage single driver (like my Altec 755, for example) can provide (especially with a very low distortion amplifier) on a more limited frequency range.

Welcome to the future. DSP has advanced to the point where a modestly-sized active loudspeaker houses what Meridian calls “subsonic bass drivers” (four of them) and an “ultrasonic tweeter” in the new three-way DSP9. I’ve been living with these 150 lb. floorstanders for the past five months, and can vouch for their extended frequency response, excellent resolution and authoritative “presence” thanks to four DACs feeding four amplifiers with over 1,200 total watts of power.

 

[Bjorn]

Is higher IMD a good thing?
Is a greater veil over the sound and less details a benefit?
Is the fact that much of the power is wasted good?
Is less dynamics good?
Is it good that sound arrives at different time from the drivers? So you have less precision and more messy and fatiguing sound.
Is less deep bass good?
Is less control of the woofer and more muddy bass good?
Is a less linear response with greater tonality deviations good?
Is less freedom in the speaker design where you can't do a lot things that would improve a benefit?

These are all drawbacks among others that a passive solution has. Passive is only done in the market because it's been easier for the end customer.

 

[hopkins]

Is higher IMD a good thing?
Is a greater veil over the sound and less details a benefit?
Is the fact that much of the power is wasted good?
Is less dynamics good?
Is it good that sound arrives at different time from the drivers? So you have less precision and more messy and fatiguing sound.
Is less deep bass good?
Is less control of the woofer and more muddy bass good?
Is a less linear response with greater tonality deviations good?
Is less freedom in the speaker design where you can't do a lot things that would improve a benefit?

These are all drawbacks among others that a passive solution has. Passive is only done in the market because it's been easier for the end customer.

No one would argue with you on any of these points, but why not simply tell us about speakers that you personally enjoy (ideally in different price brackets), and maybe some of us will have the curiosity to listen to them ?

 

[Bjorn]

No one would argue with you on any of these points, but why not simply tell us about speakers that you personally enjoy (ideally in different price brackets), and maybe some of us will have the curiosity to listen to them ?

I don't think that's relevant to the general discussion about DSP or active vs passive.

Besides, I'm involved in several speaker designs, thus it's not right of me to speak of that here. Horn speakers, CBT (constant beamwidth transducer) and 2-way with planar magnetic driver.

 

[hopkins]

I don't think that's relevant to the general discussion about DSP or active vs passive.

Listening impressions are not relevant?

 

[Bjorn]

Listening impressions are not relevant?

Of course they are. All comes down to how it sounds. However, I don't see a reason to name a specific speaker. And when I'm involved with designing speakers, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about these in this thread.

On of the main designers behind the JBL Everest built it into active for himself and that's not coincidence. The benefits are obvious as described earlier in this thread and they are certainly quite audible. Even a low cost active Behringer crossover as someone pointed out earlier is an improvement over the passive.

 

[Lagonda]

Of course they are. All comes down to how it sounds. However, I don't see a reason to name a specific speaker. And when I'm involved with designing speakers, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about these in this thread.

On of the main designers behind the JBL Everest built it into active for himself and that's not coincidence. The benefits are obvious as described earlier in this thread and they are certainly quite audible. Even a low cost active Behringer crossover as someone pointed out earlier is an improvement over the passive.

Being involved with speaker design is not an excuse for anything, seems like you cannot trow a rock in Scandinavia without hitting someone thinking they have cracked the code of designing the perfect speaker. Cheap amps with built in dsp everywhere seems to make these delusions of grandeur even more prevalent, diy people calling themselves manufacturers included. Meridian are still trying 30 years later, but most audiophiles are not buying that "perfect" speaker either. Good enough for the home theater, but not for a serious audiophile !

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Being involved with speaker design is not an excuse for anything, seems like you cannot trow a rock in Scandinavia without hitting someone thinking they have cracked the code of designing the perfect speaker. Cheap amps with built in dsp everywhere seems to make these delusions of grandeur even more prevalent, diy people calling themselves manufacturers included. Meridian are still trying 30 years later, both most audiophiles are not buying that "perfect" speaker either. Good enough for the home theater, but not for a serious audiophile !

agree. for the top rank of 2 channel speakers with the best sources dsp will never be an ultimate choice, but maybe interesting. we see $500k Goldmund active systems that have a place in the world. however; it's an answer to a question very few are asking.

I do think at the moderate level of speaker designs the net gain for dsp has the potential to be a game changer. especially for challenging rooms. it can push things up a notch for larger scale music where the room's drawbacks might be too much otherwise. and multi-channel object based sources of course.

for small room solutions, as what is typical for Scandinavia, it makes sense. which drives design.

 

[sigbergaudio]

agree. for the top rank of 2 channel speakers with the best sources dsp will never be an ultimate choice, but maybe interesting. we see $500k Goldmund active systems that have a place in the world. however; it's an answer to a question very few are asking.

I do think at the moderate level of speaker designs the net gain for dsp has the potential to be a game changer. especially for challenging rooms. it can push things up a notch for larger scale music where the room's drawbacks might be too much otherwise. and multi-channel object based sources of course.

for small room solutions, as what is typical for Scandinavia, it makes sense. which drives design.

It feels like we're mixing / confusing room correction with digital crossovers again.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It feels like we're mixing / confusing room correction with digital crossovers again.

when i say dsp it potentially includes crossover and room correction.

my personal dsp tool is my Trinnov, which certainly does both effectively. up to 64 channels. personally i do not use the crossover capabilities. only the room correction, Optimizer and speaker location re-mapping. the Trinnov would do the crossover internally, convert it to analog, and output direct to the driver.

as far as a digital crossover for 2 channel, it would seem to me to be ideally in a one design dac/crossover/speaker such as the Goldmund. so you avoid the additional conversion step. this where the Trinnov excels with highest end Home Theater speakers with bi-amp and tri-amp choices. it can take a digital source, do the dsp work and then convert that to analog direct to the speaker driver. so keeping it digital until it's given to the driver. i suppose most of those might still have a passive crossover circuit of some sort involved. but really have not looked close enough to know.

 

[sigbergaudio]

So if we focus on digital crossover, why could that not be the ultimate choice for top rank 2 channel speakers?

 

[Hear Here]

when i say dsp it potentially includes crossover and room correction.

my personal dsp tool is my Trinnov, which certainly does both effectively. up to 64 channels. personally i do not use the crossover capabilities. only the room correction, Optimizer and speaker location re-mapping. the Trinnov would do the crossover internally, convert it to analog, and output direct to the driver.

as far as a digital crossover for 2 channel, it would seem to me to be ideally in a one design dac/crossover/speaker such as the Goldmund. so you avoid the additional conversion step. this where the Trinnov excels with highest end Home Theater speakers with bi-amp and tri-amp choices. it can take a digital source, do the dsp work and then convert that to analog direct to the speaker driver. so keeping it digital until it's given to the driver. i suppose most of those might still have a passive crossover circuit of some sort involved. but really have not looked close enough to know.

The trouble with DSP is what it says on the tin - Digital SIGNAL PROCESSOR.

The signal should be kept as clean as possible from source to ear so all unnecessary processing should be avoided. This certainly should mean we avoid messing with the (hopefully) flat response signal by deliberately upsetting the curve to "correct" deficiencies with the speaker design or the room's acoustic that should be fixed in other, less invasive ways.

OK for AV / HT but not with high end 2-channel music

 

[Young Skywalker]

The trouble with DSP is what it says on the tin - Digital SIGNAL PROCESSOR.

The signal should be kept as clean as possible from source to ear so all unnecessary processing should be avoided. This certainly should mean we avoid messing with the (hopefully) flat response signal by deliberately upsetting the curve to "correct" deficiencies with the speaker design or the room's acoustic that should be fixed in other, less invasive ways.

OK for AV / HT but not with high end 2-channel music

So you are a fellow advocate of minimalist attenuators on the output of digital to analog converters? Presumably, the equalisation involved at the cutting and playback phases of an LP are also out on purist grounds? What about lossy passive crossovers in most loudspeakers? No place for notch filters or baffle step compensation either? These things are necessary in the analog domain but evil in the digital domain?

 

[Brucemck2]

I do think at the moderate level of speaker designs the net gain for dsp has the potential to be a game changer. especially for challenging rooms. it can push things up a notch for larger scale music where the room's drawbacks might be too much otherwise. and multi-channel object based sources of course.

I’d love to see Taiko or MSB or similar take on building hard-core audiophile DSP systems. My experience is that part of what we attribute to “DSP” is less about digital processing than it is about less than state of the art internal power supplies, clocks, jitter reduction, etc. etc. in the products we are using to hear and evaluate DSP processing.

One experience brought this home to me. I was using a DEQX to provide digital crossover functionality for a custom built two way line array. This was only crossover functionality and not room correction. The DEQX did some “magical” things for the sonics, but it was also “taking away” some of the magic of the (simple, purist) analog crossover. In the end I still preferred the analog crossover most of the time. I then heavily modified the DEQX with better internal power supplies, better internal grounding schemes, high-end input and output transformers, better clocks, better shielding, etc. etc. etc. Following those mods the DEQX was better in all ways than the analog setup. What I had been attributing to “DSP” was more a result of the types of things audiophiles obsess over and not “the math manipulation”. My recent experiences with the SwitchX and AppleTV-X products were similar - the sonics coming from “digital” products improved materially with upgrades to their “non-math” components.

I suspect that if Taiko or MSB or Wadax or the like took this on we’d be having a different discussion about the drawbacks of DSP in high end two channel systems. (And if anyone reading this wants to take on a Trinnov upgrade project DM me!)

 

[sigbergaudio]

The trouble with DSP is what it says on the tin - Digital SIGNAL PROCESSOR.

The signal should be kept as clean as possible from source to ear so all unnecessary processing should be avoided. This certainly should mean we avoid messing with the (hopefully) flat response signal by deliberately upsetting the curve to "correct" deficiencies with the speaker design or the room's acoustic that should be fixed in other, less invasive ways.

OK for AV / HT but not with high end 2-channel music

Again, if we talk about digital crossovers, it would be perfectly viable to only do "necessary processing" in the same way a passive, analog crossover does the same. The signal is (deliberately) altered through that as well.