Latest news on Lexicon MP-20 Processor

[Roger Dressler]

6. A tap is much more elaborate/accurate (digital domain), and depending of the number of taps, the overall EQ is much more sophisticated.

The number of taps expresses a maximum degree of filter resolution or detail. However, that has nothing to do with the "accuracy" of the filter, the efficacy of the filter, or the sound quality of the end result. All of that is determined by the algorithm used to create the filter parameters. How the multiple mic readings are measured, weighted, merged, inverted, and smoothed, it's all very tricky business because there are no definitive objective criteria to prove perfection.

IOW, the choice of filterbank technology does not appear to be the limiting factor in designing good room correction. Don't let that cloud the decision.

 

[NorthStar]

Wow Roger; at the same time I feel quite uninformed, inexperienced, and overwhelmed by the complexities and intricacies of some of these digital Room Equalization systems.
It seems that there is so much more than just filters, taps, etc. to good sound quality, at the end.
Implementation with the other quality parts (DACs, DSP chips, ...), algorithms created by the programmers, based on measurements and experimentations, in certain rooms, treated more or less, of different dimensions, and by the users themselves, with their own measurements, and everything else that is related to it ...

Also, what sounds good to one is not necessarily good looking (graph measurements) to another one? No wonder Audio is such a complicated system. And it invites to so many debates.

We rely on the experts, on the people who are ahead of the curves, who saw almost it all ...
And between pros and non-pros, the lines can often blur, I believe.
In the sense that from a pro studio to a personal home it ain't exactly the same.

We also rely on google, and we're afraid to make mistakes.
And other times we simply discuss between us, openly, freely, unafraid, and learn.

* Roger, not only you have some great knowledge, but with your generous human touch you know how to communicate it to others ...

 

[Roger Dressler]

It seems that there is so much more than just filters, taps, etc. to good sound quality, at the end.

We rely on the experts, on the people who are ahead of the curves, who saw almost it all ...
And between pros and non-pros, the lines can often blur, I believe. In the sense that from a pro studio to a personal home it ain't exactly the same.

Luckily for us, there are experts who are drilling down into these matters year in and year out, such as at Audyssey, Dirac, Trinnov, and Harman, just to name the ones attached to commercial products. There are many more in academia whose output appears in numerous AES papers.

Also, what sounds good to one is not necessarily good looking (graph measurements) to another one? No wonder Audio is such a complicated system. And it invites to so many debates.

To amplify on my earlier comments, I need to say that objective measurements are indeed very valuable, but they require interpretation. Sean Olive has made a good case that once one knows what measurements correlate with good perceived sound quality, one can more easily see which room correction algorithms are likely to be preferred by consumers. See not only his blog, but also the referenced AES paper. In short, it shows that a certain tilt in the in-room measured response of speakers with good off-axis (power) response make for happy listening. Trouble is, when the speakers do not have an ideal power response (and just try to get manufacturers to show you that plot!), then the target response curve needs to be altered. Harman is the first to openly state that they do this in ARCOS. If anyone else is doing it, it's a well guarded secret.

* Roger, not only you have some great knowledge, but with your generous human touch you know how to communicate it to others ...

You're very kind, sir.

 

[fas42]

No wonder Audio is such a complicated system. And it invites to so many debates.

Part of the reason I would suggest, Bob, is that the audio engineering types keep thinking they're cleverer than the human ear. A bit like the scientists back in the early 20th century thinking they were cleverer than Mother Nature in terms of growing food. And look at the disasters endowed on great swathes of agricultural land around the world because of that.

Modern recording seems to have fallen very deeply down just such a hole -- they believe they can outsmart the ear/brain. Well, they can if you don't pay much attention to the result, but the more you do, and the better the intrinsic quality of the playback mechanism the more the "tricks" become too apparent, easily ending up just irritating and disappointing the listener. I suspect history will not be very kind to this era of audio ...

Frank