Search results

Try reading the thread - OP has CamillaDSP as well, it's part of the discussion. DSP Hardware does make a difference as different calculation methods are available on different hardware, and they therefore have different SINAD That's not to say that SHARC isn't as good, it may just be the...

The following paper regarding biquad calculation noise is relevant, even if a rather different application (ligo!) https%3A%2F%2Fdcc.ligo.org%2Fpublic%2F0006%2FG0900928%2F001%2FG0900928-v1.pdf Of note is also that sample rate affects the calculations

The other point of note is that ADAU is fixed point, whereas SHARC can also be floating point - and may well usually be. (My hands on experience is only with ADAU)

Interesting. I wonder what underlying filters are being used for the Sigma based systems (SHARC /ADAU). In Sigma studio there is a choice between 'single precision' 32 bit, and 'double precision' 64 bit filters. Use of the former can cause biquad issues due to rounding, so could be the issue...

Agree that you need to EQ flat prior to room correction, but my whole point is that if given the settings it's a simple task and shouldn't rule out a speaker. Not disagreeing that there's better options to spend 20k on though!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to produce a speaker that needs EQ and then not provide the settings, however if a speaker I was considering only needed EQ to be the best option, and the settings were readily available, e.g. on ASR, then I'd buy it. (NB this doesn't apply with this...

Agree completely, and I guess that's partly the point I'm trying to make. When you buy Genelecs you expect to use EQ to get the FR right, and that's all good,because it comes with it. When you buy a passive speaker you need to use an amplifier, cables etc., so why do people consider it...

Yeah, so did I Don't get me wrong, the engineering should be done, I'm saying that providing the required EQ /active crossover details is engineering. (which TAD haven't done here, so no defense)

You've made exactly the point I was referring to, the idea that EQ being required is in some way a fault. The best final results will surely be attained by focusing speaker design on the mechanics - IMD, directivity etc., rather than worrying about FR which is best done in the electronics...

It was this topic that stimulated my post, but other speakers, too. The attitude 'you shouldn't have to EQ a speaker at this price' seems common.

I don't quite understand the general resistance to EQ often expressed here. EQ is cheap and repeatable. To me it would make total sense to create speakers where the design emphasis is on all the other parameters which make a difference to SQ, and for the manufacturer to then provide recommended...

Does that actually matter in this case? At no point are you going to re-combine the signals in the digital domain, so it's only any effect on the timing/phase of the analogue signal that matters, and with identical async usb devices I would expect it to be irrelevant? E.g. even several cycles...

This probably a stupid suggestion, but can your software address multiple stereo usb sound cards, mapped in whatever way you choose? If so each speaker could contain a USB hub and the required number of interfaces for the number of drivers.

Has anyone studied the potential benefit of post-amplifier passive filtering on an active crossover design in order to reduce reproduced distortion? I know it's common to add a HPF to protect the tweeter, but I'm thinking about e.g. a passive low pass filter on mid/sub to reduce amplifier...

I printed certain parts for my Linkwitz LXmini, the bits that relate to the tweeter - tube, standoff, part that holds the tweeter in the tube. Cabinets etc. would likely have vibration issues I suspect? Using for complex molds makes sense though. Jonathan

Hi Long time lurker, finally registered just to say thank you for this thread, which has entertained me while on holiday! Particular thanks to @amirm for kicking the whole thing off. (and creating the forum in the first place!) Jonathan