Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[cjf]

Dirac Live

With all due respect, I don't consider Dirac to be a SOTA example of DSP/Room Correction. I've tried it and was not impressed by the outcome either to be honest.

Dirac is kind of like the Apple of DSP/Room Correction software IMO. Its got a nice easy to understand GUI interface with just enough detail to cover what the average Joe needs but don't try to look under the hood or change too much because it wont let you. You get what they give you and that's it.

Unfortunately this approach doesn't always work when dealing with experienced listeners using highly accurate audio equipment stuffed into a less than ideal room. The outcome can't be covered up by a fancy GUI using coarse setting controls and a limited number of correction taps.

At the end of the day you need to be willing to roll up your sleeves and dive into the abyss of room acoustics using software that is capable of fixing whatever issues you may find down there, at any Freq, in order to achieve a desirable outcome.

I get that this is not for everyone because it is fairly complicated stuff and takes much more time than just a few hours on a weekend to dial it all in. I've probably spent a few hundred of hours dialing in my own system using Audiolense but the outcome is more than I could have hoped for. The difference using this particular DSP/Room Correction software in my own system has been night and day for the better than without using it.

Sometimes you have to consider the results as a whole vs a potentially less than perfect result in one particular area. Does the system sound better as a whole using DSP/Room Correction or is the listener unhappy about one small area that they feel might be better without DSP/Room Correction in the picture. Personally I don't care if there is a slight loss in my ability to detect the amount of moisture content on a singers lips/mouth as they sing into the mic when everything else about the presentation is audibly better because of the use of DSP/Room Correction. I'm not saying that this is the case but that's just my view on it in general.

 

[schlager]

I personally don’t define “state of the art” by flat frequency response. I define state of the art by “equal to the highest suspension of disbelief, and the greatest emotional engagement, I have experienced from an audio system.”

Maybe change the name to "What´s subjectively best forum"

I

I suspect the more important factor is whether it SOUNDS state of the art. Do we take our measuring gear into concert halls? We take our ears there and hope and expect that they will be thrilled by the performance. That's really all that matters when all is said and done - the sound and its effect on us.

You can´t compare a relatively small listening room to a concert hall. Small rooms have room modes, short time reflections/reverberation time with high amplitude etc. Concert halls don´t have room modes and have long time reflections/reverberation time with low amplitude.

One can claim that the ears does as good a job (or better) as a microphone and measurement, until they actually test this hypothesis. Then they measure, adjust accordingly and then enjoy the music with the ears.

Throwing in a burning torch. Many audiophiles are not really interested in optimal sound, which is why discussions like these run around i circles.

 

[Bjorn]

I personally don’t define “state of the art” by flat frequency response. I define state of the art by “equal to the highest suspension of disbelief, and the greatest emotional engagement, I have experienced from an audio system.”

Flat and even are different. A complete flat frequency response has never been considered to give a correct tonaliy in a playback system. It's too bright and there's not enough lows. A correct response will gradually fall from the bass to the treble.


An even response means you don't have any major deviations, which will color the mixing.

A problem arising is of course that much music wasn't mixed/mastered with eveness but with deviations. So high-fidely isn't straight forward.

 

[Bjorn]

Small rooms have room modes, short time reflections/reverberation time with high amplitude etc. Concert halls don´t have room modes and have long time reflections/reverberation time with low amplitude.

Off-topic, but small rooms don't have reverberation time at all. That requires a diffuse sound field, which doesn't exist in such small room due to the close proximity of surfaces.

Lyd & Akustikk | Små rom og etterklangstid

www.lydogakustikk.no

 

[schlager]

Off-topic, but small rooms don't have reverberation time at all. That requires a diffuse sound field, which doesn't exist in such small room due to the close proximity of surfaces.

Lyd & Akustikk | Små rom og etterklangstid

www.lydogakustikk.no

So RT60 in a small room is decay and not reverberation? Trying to understand....
Nevertheless I find RT60 at 0.3 sec. above 500 hz, to be more pleasant and correct sounding, than RT60 at 0.6 sec. just to put some approx numbers to RT60. So I think that is an important measurement to see, no matter what we call it.

 

[Bjorn]

So RT60 in a small room is decay and not reverberation? Trying to understand....
Nevertheless I find RT60 at 0.3 sec. above 500 hz, to be more pleasant and correct sounding, than RT60 at 0.6 sec. just to put some approx numbers to RT60. So I think that is an important measurement to see, no matter what we call it.

R60 is a reverberation measurement. All RTx meausements are. They are invalid in small rooms as described in the link I gave you. This was proven many decades by Theodore Schultz but the myth and wrong information still prevails. But it's another topic that doesn't belong here.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Many audiophiles are not really interested in optimal sound,

I think the notion of “optimal sound” as an audiophile’s objective for this hobby is vague and packed with ambiguity. We have made a lot of progress on this particular topic.

When you are thinking of “optimal sound” which of the following four objectives is closest to what you have in mind:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

 

[bonzo75]

I think the notion of “optimal sound” as an audiophile’s objective for this hobby is vague and packed with ambiguity. We have made a lot of progress on this particular topic.

When you are thinking of “optimal sound” which of the following four objectives is closest to what you have in mind:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

I think schlager's point is they might not be interested in optimising sound, your post talks about their type of optimal sound, so different things

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think schlager's point is they might not be interested in optimising sound, your post talks about their type of optimal sound, so different things

Possibly. Let’s see what he replies. But I think I do not agree.

If an audiophile is not interested in optimizing sound (whatever that means) and is not explicitly or subconsciously pursuing one of the four objectives I outlined, then what is he/she doing?

Doesn’t there have to be some conscious or subconscious animating or guiding goal? Is the person picking components randomly?

 

[bonzo75]

Possibly. Let’s see what he replies. But I think I do not agree.

If an audiophile is not interested in optimizing sound (whatever that means) and is not explicitly or subconsciously pursuing one of the four objectives I outlined, then what is he/she doing?

Doesn’t there have to be some conscious or subconscious animating or guiding goal? Is the person picking components randomly?

Often products are picked up for no relation to sound. Though may be justified as. Convenience, WAF, just itch to try, good deal comes up while surfing so hit click, desire to conform to standards as per social group, all play roles. Sometimes just the fact that you feel locked in to upgrading or trading in with your dealer.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Often products are picked up for no relation to sound. Though may be justified as. Convenience, WAF, just itch to try, good deal comes up while surfing so hit click, desire to conform to standards as per social group, all play roles. Sometimes just the fact that you feel locked in to upgrading or trading in with your dealer.

Yes, I agree. I did not realize you were thinking in terms of selecting an individual component. I have been thinking in terms of what is somebody’s thought process when putting a system together in one go.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I agree. I did not realize you were thinking in terms of selecting an individual component. I have been thinking in terms of what is somebody’s thought process when putting a system together in one go.

That logic will still apply

 

[schlager]

I think the notion of “optimal sound” as an audiophile’s objective for this hobby is vague and packed with ambiguity. We have made a lot of progress on this particular topic.

When you are thinking of “optimal sound” which of the following four objectives is closest to what you have in mind:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Ron, bonzo75 is right in his assessment. And nr 2 would be my answer.

If an audiophile is not interested in optimizing sound (whatever that means) and is not explicitly or subconsciously pursuing one of the four objectives I outlined, then what is he/she doing? A question I often ask myself, hence my statement about optimal sound.

Doesn’t there have to be some conscious or subconscious animating or guiding goal? Is the person picking components randomly? Yes, also called component lottery.

If you have a FR like this and it ain´t even so bad, then why on earth would one worry about DSP in the system or about which amps and cables to be used. I think we can all agree that sound, as in music, is made up of frequencies, so that should probably be the main focus point. DSP as in EQ/DRC can at least, to some degree, make up for an uneven FR. And believe me, almost 100% of audiophiles has these FR problems, to begin with. Some has an exceptional room, but then the speaker is not even enough and as Bjorn pointed out a couple of times, you need a tilt on FR to get the right tonality, timbre or what ever hifi phrase you want to use. For that EQ works wonderful.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I agree. I did not realize you were thinking in terms of selecting an individual component. I have been thinking in terms of what is somebody’s thought process when putting a system together in one go.

Ron, your own criteria includes that things you bought be reparable at a drivable distance.

you are not going to buy the amp that made you choose your speakers, you might audition with your speakers the amp you are going to choose, or you might not, but it will be a valve one. You haven’t heard the TT you have bought, or the cartridge you bought with the phono that you own. So you cannot be convinced you bought to optimise sound either…you hope you did based on theory. Buying behaviour is seldom logical whether with toothpaste or with audio

 

[Ron Resnick]

nr 2 would be my answer.

Thank you. I think number two is a much clearer and more understandable objective than is “optimal sound.”

 

[PeterA]

I personally don’t define “state of the art” by flat frequency response. I define state of the art by “equal to the highest suspension of disbelief, and the greatest emotional engagement, I have experienced from an audio system.”

State of the Art to me means what is happening at the current moment at the highest level of the high-end audio industry. Conventionally, people assume this is the best sound experience available today, but I do not equate the two because for me the most engaging and musical experience I have had has been from a vintage system that has nothing to do with the current high-end audio industry.

The latest and the greatest is the current state of the industry. Think the 10 box CH precision gear mono boxes and the latest Wilson speaker or something along those lines. Perhaps the Wadax digital gear.

In this context, I think DSP is appropriate because it is one direction the industry is moving.

“Suspension of disbelief” and maximum emotional engagement might well be from the current latest and greatest for some listeners, but other listeners find those qualities by following a very different approach.

 

[Ron Resnick]

State of the Art to me means what is happening at the current moment at the highest level of the high-end audio industry. Conventionally, people assume this is best sound experience today, but I do not equate the two personally because the most engaging and musical experience I have from my system has been a vintage system that has nothing to do with the current high-end audio industry.

The latest and the greatest is the current state of the industry. Think the 10 box CH precision gear mono boxes and the latest Wilson speaker or something along those lines. Perhaps the Wadax digital gear.

In this context, I think DSP is appropriate because it is a direction the industry is moving.

Suspension of disbelief and maximum emotional engagement specifically do you know may be the current latest and greatest for some listeners, but other listeners find that following a different approach.

Please know that if you are assuming that I am equating necessarily “state of the art” with currently available components, you are mistaken. My concept of “state of the art“ applies only to resulting sound, not to the technologies built into the components.

Contemporary production or vintage is not a parameter that factors into my personal concept of, and personal definition regarding, sonic state of the art. According to my personal conception a system composed entirely of vintage components could achieve state of the art sound.

(In my definitional construct pursuing different audiophile objectives will drive purchasers to build very different sounding systems. One person’s “state of the art” could be another person’s “slow and syrupy and rolled off.” One person’s “state of the art” could be another person’s “sterile, hyper-detailed and amusical.”)

 

[schlager]

Thank you. I think number two is a much clearer and more understandable objective than is “optimal sound.”

It is very well understood by science and study cases what optimal sound encompasses, regarding sound quality. Call it objective sound criteria and it has of cause nothing to do with specific brands. I would like to think that the audio community and the industry is moving forward, taking the known knowledge to heart. For example a lot more speaker manufactures, these days, are aware and take into account in the design, of importing things like the speakers power response. Likewise DSP definitely will have an even brighter future in high end audio, that´s a given.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, your own criteria includes that things you bought be reparable at a drivable distance.

you are not going to buy the amp that made you choose your speakers, you might audition with your speakers the amp you are going to choose, or you might not, but it will be a valve one. You haven’t heard the TT you have bought, or the cartridge you bought with the phono that you own. So you cannot be convinced you bought to optimise sound either…you hope you did based on theory. Buying behaviour is seldom logical whether with toothpaste or with audio

I’m sorry, but this is unfortunately confusing a lot of things. I will try to untangle these comments. Respectfully, I don’t think my purchase decisions for the new system are as theoretical as you are considering them to be.

1) Yes, I have a criteria of being able to drive high power tube amps back to the factory. But that criteria did not apply in my particular situation, as VTL was my first choice in the first place. Please recall that I had the prior VTL model of the amps for 18 years.

2) There’s no sense in which the Gryphon audition amp “made [me] choose” the Pendragons. My thinking at the time was that if I like the Pendragons on solid-state, then I would like them even more on high-power tubes.

3) True, I have not heard the AS-2000, but I have heard the AS-1000 in direct comparison to two other turntables. By all accounts the AS-2000 is very similar sounding to the AS-1000, but takes the latter’s attributes in even more highly-resolving and more nuanced directions.

4) I have heard the ZYX UNIverse Premium numerous times in numerous systems. Very generally I put it in the same sonic category as my Benz Ruby 2, but more resolving. The sound of the ZYX is not going to be any surprise to me.

5) I had the Io for over 18 years. I have heard it in multiple systems over the years. I am confident I know what it sounds like and how it behaves in systems. I have also heard it in comparison to the top of the line ARC phono in a local very familiar system.

6) I continue to find the concept of “optimizing sound” very confusing and definitionally unhelpful. My personal objectives are a combination of:

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

7) I disagree that I made my purchasing decisions based on theory. I think I based my purchasing decisions on a combination of direct ownership experience, direct audition experience, extrapolation and triangulation.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It is very well understood by science and study cases what optimal sound encompasses, regarding sound quality. Call it objective sound criteria and it has of cause nothing to do with specific brands.

I think we are talking about two different and often incompatible audio worlds — the objective measurements world, and the subjective sound quality world.

I am afraid you will never get me to agree that optimal sound (whatever that means) quality is a fixed and objective “North Star” that can be defined by measurements.