Frugality by rationality

Raffles

New Member
Aug 12, 2012
64
0
0
UK
I remember in the 1970s that audio progressed by pretty rational, objectivist, advances in design and technology. Later, in the 90s, I was shocked by the idea that cables and exotic materials were supposed to somehow impart magical qualities to the sound. This seemed like some sort of simple 'superstition' that had literally never occurred to me before. But I became slightly infected with it, and came to believe that I had to spend a decent amount of money on equipment, and even cables, to sanctify the sound - or at least to prevent my irrational side from constantly whispering in my ear that there was something unquantifiably wrong with the sound. It took some shaking off, but since experimenting with DSP and active crossovers, I now realise that you can have the best hi fi you've ever heard for a very, very small outlay.

My version of frugal is to attempt to ignore fads and cults, and to make the following fairly rational assumptions:

- digital audio is very good
- DSP is 'perfect' and much preferred to analogue processing
- audio DSP power of a PC is huge
- passive crossovers in the speakers ruin the sound far more than a medium-priced amplifier
- expensive cables, exotic materials etc. contribute virtually nothing to the sound
- secondhand = very cheap

In my ultra-frugal system, the main components are:

  • 2 x integrated amplifier (Denon PMA355UK now available for about 30 GBP each)
  • Speakers modified for active crossover (Mission 702e 2 way floorstanders, capable of high volume, good bass. Available for about 20 GBP per pair, then remove a couple of components, add a couple of components plus wire links.)
  • Desktop PC with quiet cooling (Dell minitower that can be purchased for about 35 GBP secondhand)
  • Sound card (Creative X-Fi for about 30 GBP secondhand)
  • Active crossover software that allows complete control of crossover frequency, filter characteristics (including linear phase), slopes. (0 GBP) (won't go into the technical details here)
  • Literally the cables that come free with pieces of equipment, or cost 1 GBP from eBay.

I've had pretty decent hi fi in the past, but this system is, I think, the best I have ever heard. In terms of real, perceptible factors such as 'imaging', clarity, and the ability to kick you in the chest with very loud dynamics that don't pull their punches or in some way deviate as the volume increases, it is amazing. Listening fatigue is, I believe, much lower because the image is so solid and the linearity so good.

The vital thing, of course is getting rid of the passive crossover, but secondary advantages are:

  • ability to select numerous digital and software-based audio sources without any additional jitter (above the sound card's playback jitter - and it measures excellently) or need to re-sample
  • fine tuning of the crossover filter characteristics, slope, crossover frequency
  • possibility to add speaker and/or room correction if desired
  • sheer convenience of controlling all audio sources from a single versatile interface

To a 'superstitious' person it looks terrible on paper: digital waveforms are all artificial and sharp edges aren't they? the PC doesn't have any sort of exotic materials in it, and it's light; the CD drive is made of plastic and bits of springy metal and the power supply is switched mode; the sound card uses op amps of a type doesn't even have a cult following (we can ignore the measurements because they don't tell you anything about 'musicality'); the amplifiers and speakers are mass market items in audio terms. With this in their mind, they don't really have to listen to it to know it's going to sound terrible. Indeed, I had all this in my mind before I actually tried it, but forced myself to go ahead anyway. But almost the first time I tried it I knew that this really was something amazing.

The components were just thrown together as a cheap and cheerful experiment, but I have very little urge to change them. I honestly don't think better amplifiers would make much difference, nor an expensive sound card - diminishing returns anyway. The speakers are far better than I ever expected they could be (they sounded pretty mediocre with the passive crossovers), so I am taking my time in trying anything different.

I commend the <GBP 150 system to you as an example of frugality that really is something approaching the best, regardless of cost.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Welcome and post more, I love your system sounds like fun ...

Questions

What is the software you use for Active crossover? Freeware I suppose?
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
. . . . passive crossovers in the speakers ruin the sound far more than a medium-priced amplifier
. . . . The vital thing, of course is getting rid of the passive crossover, but secondary advantages are:. . . .fine tuning of the crossover filter characteristics, slope, crossover frequency. . . .

I couldn't agree more!
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
- passive crossovers in the speakers ruin the sound far more than a medium-priced amplifier

Which is why well done active speakers using dsp for crossover, time and phase alignment and a tad of frequency adjustment are an amazing cost value approach.

That said, I hope you own flame retardant clothing! As there are those who post here who will take very strong exception to much of what you believe and are not very tolerant of those who believe differently than they do.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
It doesn't look bad on paper at all. I'm a firm believer in implementation.
 

Raffles

New Member
Aug 12, 2012
64
0
0
UK
Thanks for the comments.

What is the software you use for Active crossover? Freeware I suppose?

This is where it is slightly less simple to reproduce my system: the software is something I've written myself and, as my Windows programming is non-existent, it runs as a 'Console Application' i.e. starts off with a text box, then displays graphics with key presses to adjust filter characteristics etc. It's not particuarly user-friendly (yet), but I would be happy to give it to anyone who wanted to try it. At the moment it defaults to quite a high latency (about 1s) but for my purposes this is only a slight inconvenience.

Once it's running, however, it is 'transparent' i.e. it acts as a bridge between your media player applications (including, for example Spotify) and the sound card outputs. The single sound card simultaneously performs these functions:

1. Acts as destination for software media players (or as an input for SPDIF, line level analogue)
2. Is the source for the active crossover software
3. Is the destination for the multiple active crossover outputs (up to eight outputs, but I'm only using four in this case)

All three functions are locked to the same sample rate.

Not all sound cards can run in this mode, with some insisting on providing internal routing from input to output so that you can't interpose your software in between. But I think that most 'professional' cards can do it. The Creative X-Fi may be the most frugal of these.

I have done much experimenting with different filter types (Butterworth, the famous Linkwitz Riley, Chebyshev, 'hand-drawn' etc.) with the common link being that the high pass is the exact complement of the low pass (and I have only really tried linear phase implementations). I have to report that, although it is very nice to play with, and clearly audible when listening to woofer or tweeter in isolation, the effect of different filter characteristics and slopes on the combined output is marginal. By default I am now listening to something like an 8th order Butterworth-style filter. Very steep slopes are possible (e.g. 1000th order) which clearly results in pronounced pre- and post- ringing on the individual outputs but if you've never tried it, you would be amazed at out how inaudible this is when the outputs are combined (the ringing cancels acoustically because the low and high pass are complements of each other).
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Quet in here. I guess the new DCS dac got all the attentionn when everybody realized it was only $110k, not $135K. Hard to keep an Audiophile away from a bargain, you know. :)

Tim
 

Raffles

New Member
Aug 12, 2012
64
0
0
UK
Quet in here. I guess the new DCS dac got all the attentionn when everybody realized it was only $110k, not $135K. Hard to keep an Audiophile away from a bargain, you know. :)

Yes, I may be out of my depth here! I see that what passes for 'frugal' is speakers costing $5000...
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Yes, I may be out of my depth here! I see that what passes for 'frugal' is speakers costing $5000...

I'm with you. I use relatively inexpensive active monitors, and my dream system would go in the budget department here.

Tim
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Quet in here. I guess the new DCS dac got all the attentionn when everybody realized it was only $110k, not $135K. Hard to keep an Audiophile away from a bargain, you know. :)

Tim

You know Tim, no one pisses on people when they want to talk about affordable equipment (and in fact, this forum was created for that purpose) and the same courtesy should be extended to other members of the forum for whom cost is no object.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
You know Tim, no one pisses on people when they want to talk about affordable equipment (and in fact, this forum was created for that purpose) and the same courtesy should be extended to other members of the forum for whom cost is no object.

I tried to discuss "What's Best" in that DCS thread by asking how the new Vivaldi pushed the envelope, what breakthroughs it had made for that breakthrough price. I got nothing. If I wanted to **** on DCS, that was my opportunity, not a little joke over here in the sale section.

Find your sense of humor, Myles, I know it's in there, you like cats. From $135k down to $110k? Bargain? Here. Have another: :)

Tim
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
REALLY?? REALLY?? That coming from you?? REALLY??

Your witty remark reminds me of my ex-Marine gym teacher in HS. We were in sex ed class and we had one smart aleck student. The teacher stopped in the middle of class one day and said, Graham, "how come every time I call for toilet paper, you come rolling in?"

BTW, show me where I dissed entry level gear. Talking about its strength and weakness isn't dissing. If you take the time to search, I've recommended cables that cost $20 here and written about lots of inexpensive gear in print such as inexpensive cartridges, $200 phono stages, etc. So there.
 

Raffles

New Member
Aug 12, 2012
64
0
0
UK
If a person spends more on a luxury car, or a house, or a piece of jewellery, it is usually fairly obvious what they are getting for the extra money. To me, it is not necessarily so obvious in the case of 'high end' audio equipment. There are a few tens or hundreds of real, functional components costing of the order of $0.01 each, and a printed circuit board which costs the same to make whether it is in a new super-DAC or an automatic dog-feeder. The real core of the product is often semiconductors that are designed by huge corporations and then produced in their millions for use in TVs and DVD players - electronic miracles, but immensely cheap. It can be dressed up with exotic materials and huge size and weight, but the majority of its merit lies in the cleverness or elegance of the design, and I simply don't believe that it can be worth the price of a house if it is just another version of the standard DAC/amplifier/passive speaker. For me, the interesting 'frontiers' are in the realms of unusual configurations with slightly experimental software, and even better if they can be made to work with mass-produced hardware. I would love to find the time to experiment with 'artificially-evolved' crossover filters, or nonlinear speaker correction, for example.

Dare I say, it is the user of the $100,000 DAC, half ton amplifier and passive speakers made of gold who probably has the 'entry level equipment'..!
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
There's nothing wrong with having strong convictions about one's own way. Heck, I think it is commendable.

There is however something not quite right about dissing someone else's way if you haven't heard or tried it.

As always, gross generalizations based on limited experience becomes a flash point. Yes, I've heard mega buck systems suck but it has never been because of the gear but rather the owner's lack of knowledge and effort. Same goes for the other end of the spectrum. I've heard some darned impressive sound from modestly priced gear and I've heard this gear suck in the wrong hands.
 

GaryProtein

VIP/Donor
Jul 25, 2012
2,542
31
385
NY
I tried to discuss "What's Best" in that DCS thread by asking how the new Vivaldi pushed the envelope, what breakthroughs it had made for that breakthrough price. I got nothing. If I wanted to **** on DCS, that was my opportunity, not a little joke over here in the sale section.

Find your sense of humor, Myles, I know it's in there, you like cats. From $135k down to $110k? Bargain? Here. Have another: :)

Tim

Tim, it would be a bargain at HALF the price! :D :D :D :D
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
If a person spends more on a luxury car, or a house, or a piece of jewellery, it is usually fairly obvious what they are getting for the extra money. To me, it is not necessarily so obvious in the case of 'high end' audio equipment. There are a few tens or hundreds of real, functional components costing of the order of $0.01 each, and a printed circuit board which costs the same to make whether it is in a new super-DAC or an automatic dog-feeder. The real core of the product is often semiconductors that are designed by huge corporations and then produced in their millions for use in TVs and DVD players - electronic miracles, but immensely cheap. It can be dressed up with exotic materials and huge size and weight, but the majority of its merit lies in the cleverness or elegance of the design, and I simply don't believe that it can be worth the price of a house if it is just another version of the standard DAC/amplifier/passive speaker. For me, the interesting 'frontiers' are in the realms of unusual configurations with slightly experimental software, and even better if they can be made to work with mass-produced hardware. I would love to find the time to experiment with 'artificially-evolved' crossover filters, or nonlinear speaker correction, for example.

I don't have the expertise to know if all of that is true or not, but it constitutes a pretty good list of reasons why, when a "high-end" piece is introduced at a stunning price, the first questions out of all Audiophile mouths, and particularly their press, should be; What differentiates this piece from those that preceded it? What is the breakthrough technology in this design that sets it above everything else, that justifies this breakthrough price? What is new, what is innovative, what is revolutionary here? And does it work? Does this thing just sound really good, or does it set a new standard?

I'm not picking on the DCS. There may be great answers to all of those questions and just no one here who knows them.

But it seems like Audiophiles and the Audiophile press almost never ask those questions. And it also seems like if they were asking, the answers would rarely be there. It seems like, at the very pinnacle of the "high end," the investment, more often than not, is in heavy jewel box cases, lovely, symmetrical circuit board designs that look more like CAD renderings than real boards, massive power supplies (often for things that could run perfectly well off of bus power), beautiful product photography.....and a minor evolution of an existing product is introduced to universal lust and awe, with a vigorously justified five-figure price increase.

It is a great mystery. I think most of us would apply higher demands and greater due diligence to the purchase of a food processor. Of course most of us aren't actually purchasing a DCS Vivaldi. So why do so many want so desperately to believe in it?

Tim
 
Last edited:

JonFo

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2010
322
1
925
Big Canoe, GA
www.jonathanfoulkes.com
...
The vital thing, of course is getting rid of the passive crossover, but secondary advantages are:

  • ability to select numerous digital and software-based audio sources without any additional jitter (above the sound card's playback jitter - and it measures excellently) or need to re-sample
  • fine tuning of the crossover filter characteristics, slope, crossover frequency
  • possibility to add speaker and/or room correction if desired
  • sheer convenience of controlling all audio sources from a single versatile interface
...

+1 Totally agree that getting rid of passives is critical in providing the best.

Layering in DSP corrections makes for incredibly clean impulse response across all drivers and between speakers. this totally helps imaging and 'focus'.

Like you point out, even cheap speakers can be dramatically improved this way.
 

Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2012
100
38
268

In my ultra-frugal system, the main components are:

*Speakers modified for active crossover (Mission 702e 2 way floorstanders)…

The vital thing, of course is getting rid of the passive crossover, but secondary advantages are:
+1 Totally agree that getting rid of passives is critical in providing the best.

Like you point out, even cheap speakers can be dramatically improved this way.
I’ve often been tempted to try active with my speakers, but lots of DIY speaker builders howl in indignation at such a prospect, as if the stock passive crossover is some kind of magical gizmo with all kinds of special built-in whoop-tee-do that can’t be easily duplicated with active electronics. See this old thread, especially posts #10 and #22.

Is it really as easy as matching or tweaking the stock crossover slopes?


*Literally the cables that come free with pieces of equipment, or cost 1 GBP from eBay.
I’m the consummate cheap-skate, but I do draw the line at using stock cables. The ones I’ve dissected have decent construction (translation: adequate shielding), but the connectors are just too cheap for my comfort. So, most of my cabling I made myself using Neutrik or Dayton RCAs with Mogami or Canare cable stock.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt




 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
I remember in the 1970s that audio progressed by pretty rational, objectivist, advances in design and technology. Later, in the 90s, I was shocked by the idea that cables and exotic materials were supposed to somehow impart magical qualities to the sound. This seemed like some sort of simple 'superstition' that had literally never occurred to me before. But I became slightly infected with it, and came to believe that I had to spend a decent amount of money on equipment, and even cables, to sanctify the sound - or at least to prevent my irrational side from constantly whispering in my ear that there was something unquantifiably wrong with the sound. It took some shaking off, but since experimenting with DSP and active crossovers, I now realise that you can have the best hi fi you've ever heard for a very, very small outlay.

My version of frugal is to attempt to ignore fads and cults, and to make the following fairly rational assumptions:

- digital audio is very good
- DSP is 'perfect' and much preferred to analogue processing
- audio DSP power of a PC is huge
- passive crossovers in the speakers ruin the sound far more than a medium-priced amplifier
- expensive cables, exotic materials etc. contribute virtually nothing to the sound
- secondhand = very cheap

In my ultra-frugal system, the main components are:

  • 2 x integrated amplifier (Denon PMA355UK now available for about 30 GBP each)
  • Speakers modified for active crossover (Mission 702e 2 way floorstanders, capable of high volume, good bass. Available for about 20 GBP per pair, then remove a couple of components, add a couple of components plus wire links.)
  • Desktop PC with quiet cooling (Dell minitower that can be purchased for about 35 GBP secondhand)
  • Sound card (Creative X-Fi for about 30 GBP secondhand)
  • Active crossover software that allows complete control of crossover frequency, filter characteristics (including linear phase), slopes. (0 GBP) (won't go into the technical details here)
  • Literally the cables that come free with pieces of equipment, or cost 1 GBP from eBay.

I've had pretty decent hi fi in the past, but this system is, I think, the best I have ever heard. In terms of real, perceptible factors such as 'imaging', clarity, and the ability to kick you in the chest with very loud dynamics that don't pull their punches or in some way deviate as the volume increases, it is amazing. Listening fatigue is, I believe, much lower because the image is so solid and the linearity so good.

The vital thing, of course is getting rid of the passive crossover, but secondary advantages are:

  • ability to select numerous digital and software-based audio sources without any additional jitter (above the sound card's playback jitter - and it measures excellently) or need to re-sample
  • fine tuning of the crossover filter characteristics, slope, crossover frequency
  • possibility to add speaker and/or room correction if desired
  • sheer convenience of controlling all audio sources from a single versatile interface

To a 'superstitious' person it looks terrible on paper: digital waveforms are all artificial and sharp edges aren't they? the PC doesn't have any sort of exotic materials in it, and it's light; the CD drive is made of plastic and bits of springy metal and the power supply is switched mode; the sound card uses op amps of a type doesn't even have a cult following (we can ignore the measurements because they don't tell you anything about 'musicality'); the amplifiers and speakers are mass market items in audio terms. With this in their mind, they don't really have to listen to it to know it's going to sound terrible. Indeed, I had all this in my mind before I actually tried it, but forced myself to go ahead anyway. But almost the first time I tried it I knew that this really was something amazing.

The components were just thrown together as a cheap and cheerful experiment, but I have very little urge to change them. I honestly don't think better amplifiers would make much difference, nor an expensive sound card - diminishing returns anyway. The speakers are far better than I ever expected they could be (they sounded pretty mediocre with the passive crossovers), so I am taking my time in trying anything different.

I commend the <GBP 150 system to you as an example of frugality that really is something approaching the best, regardless of cost.



You have touched on practically every hot button issue im audio(except ABX/DBT). It is not surprising that you receive strong rebuttal.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing