Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[musicfirst1]

I've ordered a MiniDSP 2x4hd to play with. I'm going to play with only the crossover fuction as well as the timing/delay functions.
It will sit between my DAC/PRE and one pair of RCAs going to my mains and the other pair going to my subs.
I'm hoping/expecting better integration between my subs and mains, along with a audible insertion loss of the unit itself.

Has anyone gone down this road? Are there devices on the market that minimize the negative impact of this pursuit?

I posted this in the general forum because I know there are people who would never read the DSP forum...

 

[Alrainbow]

Short Answer , No ...!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Are there devices on the market that minimize the negative impact of this pursuit?

Possibly but the device you have mentioned inserts an A/D/A conversion in your analog signal path and, imho, is not ideal.

Short Answer , No ...!

Agreed.

Are there devices on the market that minimize the negative impact of this pursuit?

Longer answer because it is not the DSP that is at fault but the conversions.
1. Use only digital sources and remain digital through the DSP and follow with an excellent DAC.
2. Get a professional, high resolution A/D processor and see if you find it acceptable.

 

[wil]

An article on Acourate dsp:

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/what-is-accurate-sound-r923/

I've been interested in trying this for some time. From what I've heard, it may be the best DSP out there, but a steep learning curve for the tech-disabled like me.

Kal, are you familiar with Acourate?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, are you familiar with Acourate?

No. I downloaded it and poked at it but I never really used it.

 

[Bruce B]

No..... I'd say first, fix the room.

Use dsp as a "last resort"

 

[Lagonda]

I've ordered a MiniDSP 2x4hd to play with. I'm going to play with only the crossover fuction as well as the timing/delay functions.
It will sit between my DAC/PRE and one pair of RCAs going to my mains and the other pair going to my subs.
I'm hoping/expecting better integration between my subs and mains, along with a audible insertion loss of the unit itself.

Has anyone gone down this road? Are there devices on the market that minimize the negative impact of this pursuit?

I posted this in the general forum because I know there are people who would never read the DSP forum...

That is funny, i have spent part of the day researching DSP on sub channels after having seen that Jeremy Bryan from MBL used DSpeaker on a MBL X-treme install After having read up on the matter i think i will stick to my analog crossover/processing, as i mainly play analog

 

[marty]

I've ordered a MiniDSP 2x4hd to play with. I'm going to play with only the crossover fuction as well as the timing/delay functions.
It will sit between my DAC/PRE and one pair of RCAs going to my mains and the other pair going to my subs.
I'm hoping/expecting better integration between my subs and mains, along with a audible insertion loss of the unit itself.

Has anyone gone down this road? Are there devices on the market that minimize the negative impact of this pursuit?
I posted this in the general forum because I know there are people who would never read the DSP forum...

Everything old is new again. This is a topic that has been extensively covered in the forum. I’ll give a brief answer to your question about the road traveled in my case, and then direct you to some posts with a more detailed response based on my experience going down the DSP road for many years. I hope you find them useful.

To begin, if anyone thinks that DSP has no role in high quality music reproduction, that would be a very uninformed position since DSP is used in what is probably well over 90% of the music you hear in a home reproduction system. It is widely used in everything from recording to mixing to editing to mastering. If you don’t like the concept of using DSP, you’re pretty much limited then to listening to live unamplified music.

Next, one should appreciate that DSP can be a very useful tool to improve the frequency response of many home listening environments that may not be amenable to correction by any other means. If you believe as many of us do, that one of the key fundamental properties for listening enjoyment is the frequency response of one’s system, then DSP can be a very beneficial indeed. Furthermore, DSP can be highly useful in time aligning sub-woofers to one’s main speakers. These are very valuable parameters to control that may offer significant sonic benefits to the end user.

A more extended perspective can be found here in a post I wrote 10 years ago.:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dsp-one-persons-experience.520/

An updated follow-up written 5 years later is here:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-jl-audio-cr-1-analog-vs-tact-digital-crossover.19361/

Some of this material is obviously dated and there have been numerous gear changes in my system since these were written, but I think the principles are quite solid and still relevant. It is important to note that since moving to Wilson Alexandria speakers, I was able to achieve a far more satisfactory overall frequency response in my room that I could not achieve with the Pipedreams, and thus I no longer require DSP for that purpose. As I have said in the previous posts, there are usually sonic trade-offs for any engineering solution and going sans DSP does allow some of these benefits to be realized. On the other hand, there is simply no way I can accurately time align the Gotham subs to my mains (Wilsons or Pipedreams) in the absence of DSP thus it is a liability I must simply accept with my current set-up. Fortunately, the net results ain't too shabby, although it is not perfect.

Good luck with your quest.

 

[cjfrbw]

Mixed media it can work well. I use DSP for bass management and for surrounds with room correction, but have an all analog front two channel without DSP for analog source. I can use DSP with digital sources for the signal, and often do, or not, it can be bypassed.

 

[audiobomber]

I will be interested to hear your findings, but I am skeptical of using a miniDSP for filtering the main speakers. The extra ADC and DAC in the miniDSP kind of defeats the point of a using higher quality DAC.

I've experimented with crossovers for almost twenty years. I own a Marchand XM44 three-way active analog crossover, a two-way Marchand XM46 passive line level crossover, a miniDSP 2x4 digital crossover and several pairs of FMOD inline crossovers. I've even tried a single high quality cap between amp and preamp to filter the mains. All involve compromise, which may be worthwhile or not, depending on system and preferences.

I currently use only the miniDSP 2X4 for its DSP functions, but just in the subwoofer circuit. The sealed mains run full range, subs are rolled in at 80Hz, BW2. This allows the subs to fill in where the monitors are deficient, but no compromise to the sound of the mains. I use REW for sub integration, room corrections below 100 Hz, and to add a house curve (3dB/octave lift from 100 Hz and down). Polarity is flipped 180 degrees on the subs because it is a 2nd-order cross.

If my speakers were ported, I would use a 4th-order cross to the subs. I would also try the setup above, i.e. block the ports and try a 2nd-order cross on the subs. Ports can be messy due to phasing.

 

[heihei]

I've just put a miniDSP 2x4HD into my system of Wilson Benesch Resolutions and Torus subs, using Ghent 500W Class-D monos as amps. Importantly though the DSP only sits between the pre and the sub amplification - the main speakers get the full output without the DSP in the chain. I'm able to get a much flatter response curve for the bass this way - much better than I was able to achieve using the cutoff and filtering in WB's own sub control / amp.

Not sure why you can't apply the same in your situation OP?

 

[Robh3606]

It depends on where and why. If you go biamp similar to the JBL M2 then it makes sense for fullrange frequency correction. For in room below 300hz Ok fullrange should not be needed. Whatever you use should be minimal and last resort

Rob

 

[Mark Seaton]

That is funny, i have spent part of the day researching DSP on sub channels after having seen that Jeremy Bryan from MBL used DSpeaker on a MBL X-treme install After having read up on the matter i think i will stick to my analog crossover/processing, as i mainly play analog

That is a very important point of consideration in the predominant source material used in the system. If a system is used with almost entirely digital source material, there are some very interesting options if done before the DAC stage. Analog to Digital conversion into a DSP in a system that's used at all various volume levels is never ideal and is often the biggest point of compromise. We can certainly argue how audible it will or won't be at various frequency ranges and in various systems, but it is a balance of compromises vs what tools that conversion affords you. It can be done well, but the best approach is at the source level IMO. For woofer/subwoofer use I do think it can make sense in many systems that can benefit from more specific adjustments to blend with main speakers, especially when we don't have any specific adjustments on the main speakers vs the subwoofers beyond placement.

Like any tool, DSP can be overused, and just as "auto" mode won't get the best from a great camera much beyond seeing more lens clarity and light capabilities, with some knowledge and appropriate use it can produce some excellent results. The worst examples are generally misguided efforts to perfect rather than greatly improve a system.

Personally I'd love to see some top designers give us options to link up 4 or more high quality DAC channels with common volume control and the ability to use the DSP tools in the digital domain prior to the DAC. In the digital domain the hardware needs to be powerful enough and not cause downstream problems, but with digital input & output, most of the sound differences come from the software execution of filter types and any response correction, and much less from the hardware. I've had some great results first hand with the Trinnov processors where sources were all digital, and these can even output multiple channels of AES/EBU output which could make for a rather interesting experiment in the right system.

 

[Hear Here]

Surely any DSP should be introduced into the digital section of your system to avaid analogue to digital conversion. Doing this job between preamp and power amp or amp and speakers is likely to be most unsatisfactory.

I've used 4 DSP systems so far and not been particularly impressed with any. If good quality speakers are used and room acoustics are not too bad, I believe DSP should not be necessary.

 

[morricab]

Surely any DSP should be introduced into the digital section of your system to avaid analogue to digital conversion. Doing this job between preamp and power amp or amp and speakers is likely to be most unsatisfactory.

I've used 4 DSP systems so far and not been particularly impressed with any. If good quality speakers are used and room acoustics are not too bad, I believe DSP should not be necessary.

Definitely. I have played a lot with DSP over the years and even a cheap Behringer DEQ 2496 can be very transparent if one uses it only in the digital domain and account for the jitter both into the device and out of the device. I had two Monarchy Audio DIPs, one before and one after, the EQ and found that both helped the sound to the point that taking the Behringer out made now impact in sound quality.

Now, I use a mini-dsp digital xo/eq and find that it can sound very very good with external DACs (the one I bought doesn't even have DACs).

 

[Mike Lavigne]

here is the proper context for DSP in SOTA audio from my perspective.

https://www.trinnov.com/altitude-16/

this processor can 're-map' your surround sound speakers (for location and frequency response) to optimize their performance and synergy.

our member Kal Rubinson (who posted above) did a review on a Trinnov.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-98-trinnov-altitude-32-essence-evolve-ii-4k

here is the ideal speaker set-up for it.

https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/9.1.6-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/

object based immersive surround sound......done right. either go big, or go home. otherwise........for 2 channel SOTA stick with an analog signal path and fix the room.

currently i have 7.1.4 with a modest Anthem Atmos capable processor in my separate Home Theater; but planning on the 9.1.6 or 9.4.6 and upgrading my processor. not sure i can swing the Trinnov but i'd like to.

 

[bonzo75]

Trinnov and Datasat both, and yes immersive like auro 3D or Atmos

 

[wil]

........for 2 channel SOTA stick with an analog signal path and fix the room.

But.... for a 2 channel "sota" digital signal path, perhaps SOTA dsp like Acourate or Audiolense might provide the opportunity to further improve that digital signal path (after the room and speaker set up are optimized)?

I have zero experience with dsp (beyond the Avantgarde speaker dsp), so I'm thinking it might be worth looking into.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Personally I'd love to see some top designers give us options to link up 4 or more high quality DAC channels with common volume control and the ability to use the DSP tools in the digital domain prior to the DAC. In the digital domain the hardware needs to be powerful enough and not cause downstream problems, but with digital input & output, most of the sound differences come from the software execution of filter types and any response correction, and much less from the hardware. I've had some great results first hand with the Trinnov processors where sources were all digital, and these can even output multiple channels of AES/EBU output which could make for a rather interesting experiment in the right system.

Yes but such hardware boxes have been introduced in the past and the various Trinnov devices are good examples. However, they remain rare and, generally, without much competition because, imho, the audiophile market has not accepted them and they impose their own processing constraints (formats, resolutions, signal configuration/mapping). The result is that they are expensive for what they do.

IMHO, a better approach today, for file playback or streaming, is the use of a high power desktop computer endowed with DSP tools (already many to choose from) and a multichannel DAC or DACs. This way, there are no fixed constraints on what one wants to do.

But.... for a 2 channel "sota" digital signal path, perhaps SOTA dsp like Acourate or Audiolense might provide the opportunity to further improve that digital signal path (after the room and speaker set up are optimized)?

Yup.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

But.... for a 2 channel "sota" digital signal path, perhaps SOTA dsp like Acourate or Audiolense might provide the opportunity to further improve that digital signal path (after the room and speaker set up are optimized)?

I have zero experience with dsp (beyond the Avantgarde speaker dsp), so I'm thinking it might be worth looking into.

my 2 cents is that generally this means you are re-digitizing what started out as a digital file......which while it might solve one issue can't improve the signal path and likely compromises it.

it comes down to expectations. if your reference is analog recordings, you are looking for as close to that from your digital as you can get, then making something 'more' digital is likely not a good direction. but if digital is your reference then it's more maybe palatable.

state of the art?

it's a subjective question with the answer depending on your expectations.