Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[schlager]

I heard an all meridian DSP digital system a few years ago. The owner described it as state of the art, meridians flagship system all set up expertly by the dealer. I didn’t really know what to expect. He went through a bunch of CDs and then digital files and none of it sounded like music to me. I have a lot of friends with high-end audio systems right now and they don’t seem to be gravitating towards DSP. At least I’m not aware that they are playing with it and they are not talking about it.

Would not conclude, based on one sample.

 

[schlager]

I use Powersoft incl dsp from 550 and down and in my analogue old spoiled ears, I found out after A/B ing for months, I gained more than I lost
absolutely not able to detect transition form Powersoft to 300B at 550-600

Guess you are already an expert

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Guess you are already an expert

no but I know a few real experts.....

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Well, lots of heavy AL users in your backyard, go visit them.

never heard an AL based system to my taste.....gladpacksound

 

[schlager]

never heard an AL based system to my taste.....gladpacksound

Have you been at Tor´s (The shy) ?

 

[PeterA]

Would not conclude, based on one sample.

No, just as I would not conclude that it works great and is for me after hearing one sample sound decent. As others have written, I think it is a technology that should be evaluated on a case by case basis. It seems others with more experience have stronger opinions both for and against.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

Have you been at Tor´s (The shy) ?

no havent been bothered so far after other friends feedback.......was in his area on a boat trip, but then he´d picked down the system for redoing ceiling
he´s been at my place many times though

 

[Kingrex]

I think we have put the disagreement in high relief: I believe that not everything that can be heard can be measured (there are things I can hear that you cannot measure).

You believe that everything that can be heard can be measured.

I believe this is patently, provably untrue. Please tell me how you measure the difference in sound between the recording of a violin that sounds realistic and natural and convincing to PeterA versus a violin that sounds less realistic and less natural and less convincing to him.

If you ear were picking up subtle difference between 2 recordings that made one believe one recording was more Natural or Real than the other, wouldn't that mean the amplitude/frequency response from the output of the speaker has changed? It then comes down to having a microphone and hardware/software precise enough to capture what changed. Something as sensitive as your ear.

I don't know that you couldn't connect a scope/spectrum analyzer to the end of the amp speaker jacks and measure there. Or out the back of the preamp. Or out the back of the DAC, or server. Something obviously changed. If your method of measuring is with a MIc in the room, the question is, are there microphones and hardware/software specifically designed to pick up and measure these subtle changes.

You should only need a short blatt of information. Maybe a few seconds worth to compare the responses. They might be miniscule, but they are there.

 

[Bjorn]

I think the main issue with DSP is that few really know how to use it. It takes knowledge that not many have and auto correction systems mostly introduce artifacts.
What are generally presented doesn't sound very convincing.

The very best systems I have heard used DSP, but the very worse I have heard also used DSP.

 

[pjwd]

I think the main issue with DSP is that few really know how to use it. It takes knowledge that not many have and auto correction systems mostly introduce artifacts.
What are generally presented doesn't sound very convincing.

The very best systems I have heard used DSP, but the very worse I have heard also used DSP.

Precisely!
You can fall of the cliff much quicker using dsp
It takes many years to reach the bottom using a coventional approach
Phil

 

[Ron Resnick]

But I claim that everything that can be proved to be heard can be measured.

I think this is tautological and, therefore, not terribly helpful. The only reason you would consider it "proved to be heard" is because it can be measured.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I have a lot of friends with high-end audio systems right now and they don’t seem to be gravitating towards DSP. At least I’m not aware that they are playing with it and they are not talking about it.

DSP usually is considered a solution to certain types of acoustic or audio problems. Perhaps none of your friends has a problem for which DSP is a potential solution?

 

[Ron Resnick]

If you ear were picking up subtle difference between 2 recordings that made one believe one recording was more Natural or Real than the other, wouldn't that mean the amplitude/frequency response from the output of the speaker has changed? It then comes down to having a microphone and hardware/software precise enough to capture what changed. Something as sensitive as your ear.

All good questions. How can an acoustician measure the difference in transparency I hear from a vocal recording reproduced by electrostatic loudspeakers and the same vocal recording reproduced by dynamic driver loudspeakers?

Transparency is an audible difference that I suspect is not cognizable in the frequency domain.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think the main issue with DSP is that few really know how to use it. It takes knowledge that not many have and auto correction systems mostly introduce artifacts.

I think some of this discussion is unfair to the pro-DSP camp as it is an as yet (I believe) undisclosed fact on this thread that digital anything -- including DSP -- simply is anathema to a subset of the WBF membership.

 

[PeterA]

I think some of this discussion is unfair to the pro-DSP camp as it is an as yet (I believe) undisclosed fact on this thread that digital anything -- including DSP -- simply is anathema to a subset of the WBF membership.

Just as not utilizing DSP optimized by an expert seems anathema to the pro DSP subset of the WBF membership.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The only reason you would consider it "proved to be heard" is because it can be measured.

I am not sure that is a valid point. If one conducted a statistically secure, double-blind ABX test in which a large pool of listeners demonstrated that they could distinguish one sound from another, I would consider it proven that they were different. It would not matter whether or not the difference could be measured. (In practice, I doubt that the difference would not be measurable but that would not affect the validity of the audibility test, either way.)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Transparency is an audible difference that I suspect is not cognizable in the frequency domain.

Transparency is a subjective perception and not necessarily a property of the signal.

 

[pjwd]

All good questions. How can an acoustician measure the difference in transparency I hear from a vocal recording reproduced by electrostatic loudspeakers and the same vocal recording reproduced by dynamic driver loudspeakers?

Transparency is an audible difference that I suspect is not cognizable in the frequency domain.

Ron I suspect the factors are:
Dipoles react more benignly with the room so room effects are less( although room is still very important)
You have no delayed stored energy like box resonance, ports, reflections coming back through diaphragm that serve to blurr the sound.
This enables a purer sound and clearer precise soundstage which I believe contributes to transparency . Of course there is no free lunch and designing crossovers for dipoles is very complex and similarly box speaker designers go to heroic lengths to deal with these issues. So you take your pick
They both would measure differently but I'm not sure if it would tell you anything
I belong to the church of dipole so I might be biased
Phil

 

[Holmz]

All good questions. How can an acoustician measure the difference in transparency I hear from a vocal recording reproduced by electrostatic loudspeakers and the same vocal recording reproduced by dynamic driver loudspeakers?

Transparency is an audible difference that I suspect is not cognizable in the frequency domain.

I suppose it is a tautology that if it is not determinable in the frequency domain, then it must be approached in the time domain?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Transparency is a subjective perception and not necessarily a property of the signal.

I agree. But then why doesn’t the DSP camp acknowledge that perceptions that can be heard may not be able to be measured?