Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[MarkusBarkus]

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.

...do you mean a stand-alone product, because I think this is exactly what MSB and Taiko *are* doing with their latest products:
--enhanced power
--separating power from processing
--in Taiko's case, running on proprietary battery system
--new signal processing tech

I think that is what they are doing with new products just hitting the market: Taiko Olympus and MSB Cascade.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

But not digitized, thank god !

 

[OrigTweaker]

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 !

Seriously? As a hi-fi retailer, I’ve been fortunate to spend time with many different combinations of gear -most of which don’t use any DSP. The new Meridian active speakers deliver more lifelike music reproduction than anything else I’ve heard at their price point or form factor.

You obviously don’t know (yet) what you are talking about.

 

[sigbergaudio]

But not digitized, thank god !

?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

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

i cannot say what can't happen. my personal opinion is that i cannot imagine anyone who invests in the highest level analog sources will also go for an all-dsp crossover in their speaker. i can see dsp involved in the bass below 100hz probably. that's happening now.

and with marketplace how it is, i very much doubt that tip top digital sources will go down the dsp road. that's not where their focus is; which is trying to equal analog sources in terms of performance. customers are not asking for it, and their systems have an analog optimized signal path. so it's just not a fit at all. Goldmund is as close as it gets. and that is very marginalized......there is no attraction to that as an aspirational thing. more interior designers spec'ing it as a minimalist complimentary piece and not any audiophile thing.

for this to happen you would likely need the same company building dacs, amplification and speakers. with top level 2-channel market respect. with a vision and very deep pockets. maybe someone like Steinway Lyngdorf who are somewhat out on the edge anyway? nothing to lose. could happen. right now that brand is below the radar for most people. they have done some good things and could do it.

most audiophiles would be afraid of being 'stuck' with an expensive piece of gear in a digital format left behind. with digital various levels of resolution and bit depth are viewed as a wild card. unpredictable. not saying that's true, but it's a thing people consider.

look at Magico with their big horn with a digital crossover. there was talk, but then it just stopped and Magico never went back there. and the G3 Avant Garde they went to great lengths to do an all analog version for their crossover. i wonder how many opt for the all digital version? my bet is very few and you never read about them.

a big hill to climb and big risk for anyone to change the landscape. lots of headwind.

 

[andromedaaudio]

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.

Indeed .

Well designed speakers dont need DSP.

One could argue you could have a attenuator for the tweeter .

The problem is see with dsp is that it opens a can of worms .
Not all recordings are neutral so you end up adjusting all day long .

The only one doing active speakers / adjusting on a topnotch level is FM acoustics but afaik he adjusts in the analogue domain

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Seriously? As a hi-fi retailer, I’ve been fortunate to spend time with many different combinations of gear -most of which don’t use any DSP. The new Meridian active speakers deliver more lifelike music reproduction than anything else I’ve heard at their price point or form factor.

You obviously don’t know (yet) what you are talking about.

could be.

no one i know has heard the latest Meridian active sound great, or talked about it. my only exposure to Meridian active sucked big time. and i really wanted to like it. and with MLP and MQA they have shot themselves in the foot street cred wise.

but if i get a chance to hear a latest active Meridian system i will do it and come back and comment.

 

[Kingrex]

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!)

I have noted a few times a good friend uses the BACCH with the ORC which is a DSP. He spent a few weeks going back and forth with another user that is very skilled at looking at sweeps and understanding what to do with the info. I need to go listen, but he is absolutely convinced his stereo is significantly better with it than without it. He has done compares pulling it out of the system and reinserting it. This guy spent a year tuning his room. ASC traps, curtains, beams under the floor, equipment stands and footers. Then he tried the least expensive BACCH for Mac Mini. And gets amazing results.

BACCH also has units built with very good power supplies and DAC. I believe parts licensed from MSB. So there is DSP with top flight components on the market now.

In other post in this thread people note that midfi equipment could possibly play much better with DSP than without. And even the best of the best might possibly play better with it. The drawback being market acceptance. But market acceptance and actual performance can be separate topics.

If people can say their WADAX is getting right there with their best vinyl, and many Taiko/Lampizator owners are furious others claim vinyl is better than digital, then how could it be said that a digital crossover with direct coupled drivers or DSP in the processor might not be currently capable of surpassing pure analog systems.

Crossover suck. Right. Most of their purpose is to suck power from the amp to keep it from getting to drivers. There is no way someone can say an analog crossover betters the power from the amp. They are all a detriment. They are just a necessary detriment if you want more than 1 driver in a speaker.

 

[Brucemck2]

i cannot say what can't happen. my personal opinion is that i cannot imagine anyone who invests in the highest level analog sources will also go for an all-dsp crossover in their speaker. i can see dsp involved in the bass below 100hz probably. that's happening now.

and with marketplace how it is, i very much doubt that tip top digital sources will go down the dsp road. that's not where their focus is; which is trying to equal analog sources in terms of performance. customers are not asking for it, and their systems have an analog optimized signal path. so it's just not a fit at all.

a big hill to climb and big risk for anyone to change the landscape. lots of headwind.

Sadly I agree. There are many markets where the best technical solution couldn’t overcome ingrained perceptions, installed bases, and/or larger market forces. That being said, I will continue to experiment, as best I can, with the “edge of the possible” as it’s a great (albeit expensive) personal learning vector.

 

[OrigTweaker]

Then he tried the least expensive BACCH for Mac Mini. And gets amazing results.

I also tried BACCH4Mac last year, but decided against keeping it past the trial period because it was expensive, complicated to set up, and required a USB signal to run through my old laptop if I wouldn’t also buy a Mac Mini. -All too much for me at the time even though the system gave a surprising 3D soundstage improvement within a very narrow listening position. I liked the effect for most recordings very much.

Instead, I implemented crosstalk cancellation (XTC) using filters from Homeaudiofidelity.com (HAF) in Roon's convolution engine. HAF xtalk DSP, which consists of 180 degree (inverse) channel information taking into account your ears' distances to each speaker, is a less dramatic, more general “reduction”, with a broad sweet spot where you can sit any way you want, rather than total “cancellation” within a rigid, narrow space -unless you also pay Theoretica $$ for their head-tracking system.

 

[sbo6]

Crossover suck. Right. Most of their purpose is to suck power from the amp to keep it from getting to drivers. There is no way someone can say an analog crossover betters the power from the amp. They are all a detriment. They are just a necessary detriment if you want more than 1 driver in a speaker.

IME any manipulation, (digital or analog) to a full range signal risks and ultimately compromises quality. Pick your poison based on priorities and target market(s).

 

[andromedaaudio]

A analogue passive X over is also signal manipulation where coils / caps are involved to divide the signal more or less over 2 3 4 or 5 / whatever number of units .
Be it a 2 way 3 way 4 way whatever system..

Active done right like the big FM acoustics system is probably the best signal preservation outthere
In my opinion

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ps running the complete signal through one Ls unit also sounds crap.

3 way at a minimum

 

[sigbergaudio]

i cannot say what can't happen. my personal opinion is that i cannot imagine anyone who invests in the highest level analog sources will also go for an all-dsp crossover in their speaker. i can see dsp involved in the bass below 100hz probably. that's happening now.

and with marketplace how it is, i very much doubt that tip top digital sources will go down the dsp road. that's not where their focus is; which is trying to equal analog sources in terms of performance. customers are not asking for it, and their systems have an analog optimized signal path. so it's just not a fit at all. Goldmund is as close as it gets. and that is very marginalized......there is no attraction to that as an aspirational thing. more interior designers spec'ing it as a minimalist complimentary piece and not any audiophile thing.

I agree that for people who swear by all analog components, an active speaker probably isn't a likely route.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I try to look at things with an open mind .
I m certainly an analogue guy .
But as soon as i hear something better i switch easlly.

Like fm acoustics active systems and wadax atlantis dac regarding digital.

Fm acoustics is not a digital active system afaik.
The signal manupilation is done in the analogue domain.

Not all active systems use DSP

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I agree that for people who swear by all analog components, an active speaker probably isn't a likely route.

it's more than the actual all analog components.

most very aspirational systems that get attention, are analog based. what pushes people to invest in a very high performance and high investment system?

seeing, or hearing, or reading about 2 channel music reproduction that excites them. right now that is analog based at the tip top. and gear most complimentary to it.

 

[sigbergaudio]

it's more than the actual all analog components.

most very aspirational systems that get attention, are analog based. what pushes people to invest in a very high performance and high investment system?

seeing, or hearing, or reading about 2 channel music reproduction that excites them. right now that is analog based at the tip top. and gear most complimentary to it.

I see that is certainly the case on this forum, and that is of course fine. Each must find his or her own journey (and potential end goal) in this hobby.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I see that is certainly the case on this forum, and that is of course fine.

is there an English speaking forum where serious hifi efforts are discussed, listening opinions are respected, where it's different? where digital is considered the ultimate?

Each must find his or her own journey (and potential end goal) in this hobby.

agree. no wrong answers. it's a hobby. find enjoyment wherever you choose.

 

[sigbergaudio]

is there an English speaking forum where serious hifi efforts are discussed, listening opinions are respected, where it's different? where digital is considered the ultimate?

I am a manufacturer of active speakers, so I have clearly reached a different conclusion on this matter than most on this forum.

That being said, in my opinion one can achieve great results with both passive and active speakers.

 

[Kingrex]

I also tried BACCH4Mac last year, but decided against keeping it past the trial period because it was expensive, complicated to set up, and required a USB signal to run through my old laptop if I wouldn’t also buy a Mac Mini. -All too much for me at the time even though the system gave a surprising 3D soundstage improvement within a very narrow listening position. I liked the effect for most recordings very much.

Instead, I implemented crosstalk cancellation (XTC) using filters from Homeaudiofidelity.com (HAF) in Roon's convolution engine. HAF xtalk DSP, which consists of 180 degree (inverse) channel information taking into account your ears' distances to each speaker, is a less dramatic, more general “reduction”, with a broad sweet spot where you can sit any way you want, rather than total “cancellation” within a rigid, narrow space -unless you also pay Theoretica $$ for their head-tracking system.

I actually find holding a record sleeve between you eyes, up to your nose gives a very subtle affect. Gets more clean and articulate. Wil got a little carried away trying this and didn't hear anything. But using a record sleeve if free and easy.

I fully accept using any DSP is going to have a learning curve. My friend had a hard time. Eventually a master user took pitty on him and invested hours of phone and screen time helping him understand what was going on and what to do. It took a couple months for him to really figure it out. So its very true. Its not set it and forget it. It takes work.

And, my friends system is all digital. He has never gotten vinyl to sound like much. And I will also say, before he had the BACCH, his Krell KSA250 and Focal speakers, (forget the model) threw and amazing presence in the room. Right up there with systems far more expensive. And being that his system was well set up in the room helped the DSP to operate at a much higher level.

FWIW, before he had it dialed in, he said to me it sounded pretty digital. He could tell. Now he says it's glorious. He says I'm going to cry when I hear it and realize how much better it is than my setup. A bit of gentleman rivalry.