Digital correction: Why is there resistance?

[Jim Smith]

I agree with you but most audiophiles I meet completely dismiss EQ under any conditions.

Again, I agree with your first statement but the second is a red herring since I cannot imagine that any DSP would be of any use in "finding" anything. OTOH, if you or your speakers are not quite in their optimal positions, Trinnov can assist. :b

If you were correct, then you couldn't hear any further improvement with a fully implemented Trinnov rig when making a further slight adjustment in location, which is easily heard as a further improvement. I am not against DSP, it's just that, all too often, it's resorted to before the real sonic foundation has been built.

IMO, of course.

 

[dallasjustice]

If you were correct, then you couldn't hear any further improvement with a fully implemented Trinnov rig when making a further slight adjustment in location, which is easily heard as a further improvement. I am not against DSP, it's just that, all too often, it's resorted to before the real sonic foundation has been built.

IMO, of course.

Jim,
You've said the same thing in this thread twice now. You are saying that one shouldn't use DSP at all because, in your experience, too many other people use it inappropriately or as a replacement for basic room, speaker, and seating setup. Can you identify anyone on this forum that has ever said they do what you've suggested? I've never read anyone to say that they use DSP INSTEAD OF room treatment, proper speaker/seat placement. I understand you've established a business model designed to help folks find a good seating position and speaker position. That seems like a good starting point. The people that I know that use DSP already know how to use a mic and REW and have the basic knowledge to know where the speakers go and where the seat goes in their rooms. The people I know that use DSP are using it to take already excellent systems to a whole new level than cannot be achieved only using basic speaker/seat placement setup.

 

[ack]

ACK,
Forty to 100 Hz is not a narrow band.
Of course the bass is more potent on than off. What I am saying is that "on" in phase, but room corrected, will likely be even better. Remember that the upper frequency will be effect less by room correction.
I forgot to mention in my last post that the biggest improvement in your system would be making the left and right channels equivalent. Your room is not symmetrical. Therefore, the frequency responses of each speaker will not be identical. This will effect imaging and will also cause tonal aberrations. Digital room correction will have major improvements with these problems. These are areas of improvement that is often left out of room correction discussions.

You are very observant, but I have indeed compensated for channel balance with the preamp. Excellent eyes you've got!

 

[ack]

So exactly what are the ill effects in the rest of the range you refer to?

Going from analog to digital and back to analog and the inevitable loss of information - those panels and electronics expose everything and forgive nothing. I belong in the analog camp, for what it's worth, though love the Alpha DAC but not as much as my analog. Basically, what I am saying is, there are about 3-4 engineers and companies I would trust with digital signal processing and primarily analog conversion, and none of them do DSP as discussed here.

 

[Bruce B]

If I recall your profession correctly, you make digital files better for a living.

Sorry, I can never make them better, only different.

 

[Jim Smith]

Jim,
You've said the same thing in this thread twice now. You are saying that one shouldn't use DSP at all because, in your experience, too many other people use it inappropriately or as a replacement for basic room, speaker, and seating setup. Can you identify anyone on this forum that has ever said they do what you've suggested? I've never read anyone to say that they use DSP INSTEAD OF room treatment, proper speaker/seat placement. I understand you've established a business model designed to help folks find a good seating position and speaker position. That seems like a good starting point. The people that I know that use DSP already know how to use a mic and REW and have the basic knowledge to know where the speakers go and where the seat goes in their rooms. The people I know that use DSP are using it to take already excellent systems to a whole new level than cannot be achieved only using basic speaker/seat placement setup.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I never said NOT to use DSP, but that it is often used as a panacea, or quite simply, it is used too early in the set-up process. I actually contacted DEQX & Trinnov some time ago about employing their products, FWIW.

I was responding to Kal's statement that my statement was a red herring. The title of the thread is Digital correction: Why is there resistance? I was simply expressing my concerns based on hearing systems that have been DSP'd to death. And that's how they sounded - dead.

IME, knowledge of programs such as REW and knowing how to to use a great mic are often unrelated to achieving a musical result.

I didn't mean to cause angst among those who think they are beyond the foundational knowledge required. I will say that whenever I've heard systems owned by such individuals that they sometimes sounded technically brilliant. Sadly, more often than not, they also sounded musically boring.

And who is to say that a musically engaging outcome is even necessary? In another era, I knew lots of folks who had multiple high-performance camera bodies & lenses, but they never had images on display. For them, it was the equipment that made their hobby. Why should we place value judgements on their interests?

 

[Don Hills]

Sorry, I can never make them better, only different.

Then I don't need your services. I can do that myself.

 

[Don Hills]

... And who is to say that a musically engaging outcome is even necessary? In another era, I knew lots of folks who had multiple high-performance camera bodies & lenses, but they never had images on display. For them, it was the equipment that made their hobby. Why should we place value judgements on their interests?

That was me to a T. I had good equipment, I took technically excellent photos. But my wife achieved better results with a point'n'shoot.
"Better", in this case, meant better composed shots of interesting subjects. This has relevance to my current exchange of posts with Bruce. He says he doesn't make the audio sound better, just different. I say he does make it better, even as he makes it worse. I'd rather listen after he's added his expertise than before, in spite of the degradation caused by processing.

 

[Bruce B]

That was me to a T. I had good equipment, I took technically excellent photos. But my wife achieved better results with a point'n'shoot.
"Better", in this case, meant better composed shots of interesting subjects. This has relevance to my current exchange of posts with Bruce. He says he doesn't make the audio sound better, just different. I say he does make it better, even as he makes it worse. I'd rather listen after he's added his expertise than before, in spite of the degradation caused by processing.

Don... I guess it's semantics here. I never said I couldn't make it subjectively sound better. A lot of the times, unfortunately it sounds worse to me, but the client is happy. I wanted to make it clear that I can never make it objectively measure better.

 

[esldude]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I never said NOT to use DSP, but that it is often used as a panacea, or quite simply, it is used too early in the set-up process. I actually contacted DEQX & Trinnov some time ago about employing their products, FWIW.

I was responding to Kal's statement that my statement was a red herring. The title of the thread is Digital correction: Why is there resistance? I was simply expressing my concerns based on hearing systems that have been DSP'd to death. And that's how they sounded - dead.

IME, knowledge of programs such as REW and knowing how to to use a great mic are often unrelated to achieving a musical result.

I didn't mean to cause angst among those who think they are beyond the foundational knowledge required. I will say that whenever I've heard systems owned by such individuals that they sometimes sounded technically brilliant. Sadly, more often than not, they also sounded musically boring.

And who is to say that a musically engaging outcome is even necessary? In another era, I knew lots of folks who had multiple high-performance camera bodies & lenses, but they never had images on display. For them, it was the equipment that made their hobby. Why should we place value judgements on their interests?

Okay, so let us say some fellow does a half ass job of setting his system up. Does he have to get it as perfect as possible to do room correction and benefit? I would say no. Would he benefit doing both well.....certainly he would. But I see this over and over. The idea that oh no, don't do room correction until you have done all you can for passive room treatment. Seems all kind of crazy to me. For one thing you probably wouldn't get two consultants to agree exactly on which passive setup is optimum in more than a general way.

As to DSP'd systems sounding dead, that is another case of how you use a tool. They need not sound that way. They give you more control and discretion in the final sound than you have without it. It is up to how someone uses it. Which does bring us to probably one of the real reasons there is resistance. Good, tastefully done DSP isn't a straightforward proposition. You don't buy the hardware/software, do the measurements once, get the perfect answer output and your done perfect sound. So far with the little I have experience with it is much more involved than that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If you were correct, then you couldn't hear any further improvement with a fully implemented Trinnov rig when making a further slight adjustment in location, which is easily heard as a further improvement. I am not against DSP, it's just that, all too often, it's resorted to before the real sonic foundation has been built.

IMO, of course.

I did say "assist" and added the smiley, so I was not arguing with the basic premise that physical solutions should precede electronic ones, as much as possible, since they can correct without incurring other, albeit, lesser problems. If you cannot put the center channel behind the middle of an AT screen, Trinnov can assist.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The people that I know that use DSP already know how to use a mic and REW and have the basic knowledge to know where the speakers go and where the seat goes in their rooms. (...)

My experience goes in another sense - REW is a fantastic tool to diagnose rooms but,at less used by amateurs as me, it is not a good tool to place speakers or the listening seat. If you optimize your speakers position to have the best low frequency balance according to REW most probably IMHO you are not getting the best sound of them. I have to say that my priority is not flat response or ultra low coloration's - I praise soundtage layering, density of information, decays, macro and micro dynamics perception, voices that seem to be in the room with you - all these audiophile trifles.

 

[JackD201]

I think you are saying that one can only benefit from DSP if their room is acoustical defective in some serious way. If that's not what you are saying, I apologize. However, I think some of the more timid rhetoricians in this thread imply that's the case. Yet, most all of the anti-dps'ers have never actually tried DSP.

My experience already having an excellent room tells me otherwise. I know that no matter how awesome one thinks their room is, there's gonna be a coloration imparted that DSP can help to ameliorate, if it's done right.

Definitely not what I'm saying but no need for apologies regardless. I just illustrated an extreme example. The good "barber" I referred to is the local ASC distributor as well as the Accuphase and Lyngdorf distributor. Photos of his room has even been used by ASC. It is a REALLY good room, not dead at all and doesn't ring. I witnessed his demo using the Accuphase DRC when I flew over to deliver his amplifiers. While DRC saved Keith (nephilim here on WBF, my business partner) from serious practical constraints, DRC icing'd Ferdinand's cake.

That said, I've been in a lot of HTs including my own where the auto fire and forget missed the bogey.

If anything, what I am saying is it is a more involved process than many people think. Magic won't happen with a wave of the mic.

 

[zydeco]

I think you are saying that one can only benefit from DSP if their room is acoustical defective in some serious way. If that's not what you are saying, I apologize. However, I think some of the more timid rhetoricians in this thread imply that's the case. Yet, most all of the anti-dps'ers have never actually tried DSP.

My experience already having an excellent room tells me otherwise. I know that no matter how awesome one thinks their room is, there's gonna be a coloration imparted that DSP can help to ameliorate, if it's done right.

I find hard to believe that a state of the art digital playback system / room won't in the future have some form of digital room correction (along with room treatment and speaker / room location optimization.)

I did say "assist" and added the smiley, so I was not arguing with the basic premise that physical solutions should precede electronic ones, as much as possible, since they can correct without incurring other, albeit, lesser problems. If you cannot put the center channel behind the middle of an AT screen, Trinnov can assist.

You seem to imply that digital correction incurs other problems. What's the thinking behind this thought? Is it related to A/D DSP D/A conversion - which obviously isn't an issue for a digital only system - or something else?

My experience goes in another sense - REW is a fantastic tool to diagnose rooms but,at less used by amateurs as me, it is not a good tool to place speakers or the listening seat. If you optimize your speakers position to have the best low frequency balance according to REW most probably IMHO you are not getting the best sound of them. I have to say that my priority is not flat response or ultra low coloration's - I praise soundtage layering, density of information, decays, macro and micro dynamics perception, voices that seem to be in the room with you - all these audiophile trifles.

I'd agree that tools like REW don't tell us where to locate speakers / listening seats.That said, good bass measurements are a useful input - beside trial-and-error / listening - to these decisions.

Cheers
Zydeco

P.S. This discussion got me thinking about the notion of mastering engineers providing a room impulse for their playback reference room for a given digital music file. One could, then, use this response along with one from one's own room / system, to get close to hearing the music as the mastering engineer wished it to be played back.

 

[Rodney Gold]

This is my first post here , but I am active on other forums

The issue is that "a straight wire with gain" has been drilled into audiophile heads.Thus ANYTHING to do with modification of the signal is shot down. It seems that spending vast sums box swapping to cure what cannot be cured via a new box is the approach.

The 2nd issue is that the % of audiophiles that actually mess with speaker/listening chair positioning , take the time to treat and measure their room is very small.
Added to that , most listening rooms are not dedicated and are twin purpose.

Bearing all that in mind , DSP in the low bass is often the only or a pretty good option for some.

I have a dedicated 11m x 7.5 m room , treated for mids and highs , and to a certain extent for bass. however to really treat the room properly for bass would require some serious traps , not something I am prepared to do. I also don't have that much leeway for the sitting position.

I have been a long time believer in DSP room correction or EQ ,, from sigtech , tact , lyngdorf, Z-sys , Behringer and so forth.
Currently I'm using a Dspeaker antimode 2.0 to "correct" the bass of 2 x SVS ultra 13 subs in conjunction with Meridian DSP6000 speakers.
I did try all the conventional ways of getting a good bass response at seated position , but found the easiest and best sounding way was to set correction below 120hz and let the Dspeaker handle it.
The results are astonishing , both measured and audibilty wise.

I am of the opinion that it's only my ears I have to please , and that I don't know or dont have any reference to what the mastering engineer heard thru his monitors in his room , so I might as well adjust the sound to what I like.
I couldn't care if others don't like it or denigrate me for using RC/DSP...
Here is a pic of my room without the Mid/HF panelling (which is between the square windows and at 1st reflection point (unseen) i8 listen from the office chair at the desk.
and the 2nd pic is how the Dspeaker "fixed" the bass
I have just ordered a minidsp OpenDRC-Di and will use Acourate to generate the FIR filters and give that a whirl and compare it to the antimode
I do not believe that DSP is a panacea , it is just a tool to be used for fine tuning..

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You seem to imply that digital correction incurs other problems. What's the thinking behind this thought? Is it related to A/D DSP D/A conversion - which obviously isn't an issue for a digital only system - or something else?

That is one consideration but, since it is increasingly easier to bypass, was not what I was thinking. What I was thinking of was that the corrections are limited, at the moment, by the acoustic tools we have. Measurements can be made in many ways (MLP only, MLP neighborhood, randomly-scattered around the room) but, at the moment, all are focused on optimizing the MLP and its immediate vicinity. This is very likely to incur a penalty elsewhere in the room but I, for one, am not very bothered by that.

 

[esldude]

This is my first post here , but I am active on other forums

The issue is that "a straight wire with gain" has been drilled into audiophile heads.Thus ANYTHING to do with modification of the signal is shot down. It seems that spending vast sums box swapping to cure what cannot be cured via a new box is the approach.

Firstly, a nicely done room and system you have there.

Yes, I think your point is a large part of it too. Audiophilia has been filled with the idea of never messing with the signal. Which I agree. But not when that means you don't fix a signal once it gets altered. In this case the room/speaker interface make horrible alterations to the signal. If you can correct, even partially what damage that does, you actually are closer to the source than if you do nothing. But people have in their heads that isn't so.

The box swapping cure you describe can become comical if not for the vast sums spent for little benefit.

The cost/benefit ratio of DSP done well is pretty favorable both in money and sound quality.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I have also never been bothered about the part of the room I don't listen in, I have a pretty narrowly defined sweet spot and I'm not really a social listener , my room is MY refuge from the wife and kids
What I hve found very helpful after trying around 10 different listening chairs is my "office" chair as its tilt , swivel , height , laft and right and fore an aft adjustable , so I can place it where it's just right - comfortable too.
Thanks for the compliment ESL .. if you had to see the room now you would be aghast - I'm in fiddling mode and there are wires , cables , boxes , mics etc strewn all over it...
I do see , even on our local audiophile forums in South Africa , that room treatment/DSP is gaining a lot of support - especially with younger members who were brought up with music in the digital age.. less accepted by guys my age and older (55)

 

[Eichenbaum]

What really matters? The signal that reaches the speaker or the sound that reaches your ears?

 

[JackD201]

The latter but you'd be surprised at how many consider the former more important.