Analog crossovers, only using DSP to treat issues the analog system cannot fix

[voodooless]

it's all about balance

There is nothing to balance. There is zero advantage to analog active filters, especially not if you already plan to use DSP anyway.

 

[john61ct]

Aha. Yes, other than my LS50s, I do not plan to use anything but passive single-driver enclosures, using active bass management and crossovers and/or bandpass.

My DAC is only back in the 2-ch stereo section

I will likely use DACs in the per-speaker multichannel arena downstream of my analog Schiit SYN, and some

as with Topping E50 II allow for DSP filtering internally, but likely quite limited taps bandwidth.

I mean running the subs (with LPF only) and speakers directly from the output of the DAC instead of going to the subs and then to the speakers (through the crossover of the sub.) You have to apply a lot of subtractive EQ to the bass but I think it sounds better.

 

[john61ct]

There is nothing to balance. There is zero advantage to analog active filters, especially not if you already plan to use DSP anyway.

I am not opposed in principle to DSP, here are three "currently settled" examples

I plan to route all my input sources through Wiim Ultra, and will find ways to take advantage of its (limited) DSP features as my testing / learning proceed. And

I will test at least three preamp devices for their implementation of volume-variable Loudness compensation, and the one I suspect will "win" is the DSP-based Schiit Eitr 2. However its analog competitors may have other superior aspects.

I very much prefer a modular approach over monolithic. I need Room compensation to be separate from bass management, and those "set & forget" layers separate from user-level ad-hoc system controls @ LP.

I do not need or want a PC running as convolver in my music system - yes OK for watching the occasional film, and of course for the system configuration tasks like REW measurements and filter creation, but prefer not full-time.

I really like the architecture of OCA's Gsonic, sophisticated overall Room compensation EQ, but first get your bass management crossovers, phase tuning in order separately - as a distinct "Modularised DSP" layer

But if necessary, I'm also happy to climb the learning curve to create filters with tools like Acourate @Keith_W

One advantage analog offers is cost. I loathe the closed-algorithm hardware boxen on principle, and also simply cannot afford them if managing crossovers for 12 or more enclosures.

Same with anything requiring paying ongoing subscriptions - I may choose Roon as a player, but would never rely on it to for example manage my crossovers.

I did pick up a cheap miniDSP 2x4 HD for testing, incrementally choosing precise xover points with iterative REW testing

and maybe "in production" for delaying the LS50 main front pair if it turns out that is necessary.

Using tiny & cheap MCUs as with DSPi may be the way I choose to go if more DSP is needed, or maybe linux on rPi SBC host modules.

But if analog turns out to do the job (at top notch SQ from an audible POV)

for a given (set of) channel(s), there is another pair of advantages - ease of use and simplicity

the right tool to take care of a specific task at that specific location.

That's all I mean by balance.

 

[john61ct]

I may choose to use passive to, e.g. FMOD on the main pair LS50s if no delay needed.

Then bandpass filtering on the "basstand" MBM couplers, the LPF below precisely tuned to blend with the tested-in-use effect of FMOD on the LS50 full-range.

I plan to climb my own learning curve, scientifically via iterative testing. If I were to decide that analog is not the way for me to go, there was never any "mistake" made going through that process.

 

[john61ct]

Then bandpass filtering on the "basstand" MBM couplers, the LPF below precisely tuned to blend with its tested-in-use effect.

Of course, with precision tuning of the HPF part of the MBM bandpass, can maybe just let the next trueSub below that have its natural acoustic upper rolloff e.g. 60Hz - not even do a full crossover there at all.

Then if another deeper sub below that, just do an xover between them, not a full bandpass.

Although I suppose a 10-15Hz rumble filter HPF is useful on the bottom-most enclosure.

 

[john61ct]

@welwynnick

context from https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nel-atmos-dts-x-high-sinad.68883/post-2571778

>> Other than speakers, a few hundred per component is my limit - no way could I spend many thousands, even on the whole system after years of hunting.

> multi-channel audio interface like a MOTU 16A or Antelope Orion Studio, but there are lots of good options, like a used Lynx Aurora or this Apogee DA16X which would work fine.

All completely beyond reach for me financially. I'm looking at maybe $15-20 per port if I will get off the ground by end of the year.

...

>> To me it would be silly to limit any one component to a single function.

> I didn't understand that bit, it sounds like a contradiction.

I already stated:

>> Loudness contouring is integrated with volume control, and IMO ad-hoc tone controls / PEQ, monitor loops, to me there's a reason "a preamp" bundles those. But source selection in my case may need to be a separate box.

>> Crossovers/bass management/ speaker EQ must be kept separate from room compensation.

Please clarify what you don't understand, and why you think they contradict each other?

> I think a PC could do both just fine.

Yes but as you noted, I will do my best to avoid having to keep a PC on fulltime as part of my audio system, ideally just use for measurements and filter creation, and watching an occasional film.





If it turns out a RPI5 **simply cannot** do the necessary convolving I'll likely just scale back but maybe, if I find a cheap / silent / efficient enough on power miniPC.

 

[john61ct]

from context https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-for-pc-unit-to-run-fir-eq.68538/post-2573045


>> But I am building an overkill large & powerful PC for testing purposes, measurements creating filters etc

You don't need that. DSP software like Acourate and others will run on fairly low powered PC's. High powered PC's come at a cost - not only are they expensive, they are also hot and require cooling, which means fans. And fans means you need to deal with noise.

I recommend you spend that money on a passively cooled case like Streacom and find yourself a CPU no more than 75W TDP. Honestly, even that is likely more than what you need. I have a Streacom FC10 and it looks really nice, like a piece of hifi equipment.

sorry I wasn't more clear, remember please I am poor, not able to spend more than $100 on stuff I may never need.

For my massive 4-5U NAS I really NEED very powerful guts anyway, as stated that will get put out in the garage.

So while I already have that, only occasionally needed in that rôle, I can load it up with super clean 24ch in and 24ch out interfacii on the cheap for my audio DSP learning curve, no limits to fuss about.

While I am meantime getting the preliminary
bass management & dozen crossovers of my "production" setup done in analog

and thereby determining whether I will ever really NEED any more horsepower than what Wiim Ultra + RPI5/CM5 + DSPi can offer.

I already have a temporary open (thus fanless 100% silent) "pseudo rack" case for playing with cheap low-profile low TDP mobos I aleady have

My thread on cases

Audiophile PC - focus on cases - truly silent, low profile, rack mountable?

I am starting to collect the parts to assemble a new-to-me "open DSP" PC, also to sometimes maybe be used as a source - streamer transport / network player, and likely more often as HTPC to delay video if needed for lipsync issues. Primary focus is applying DSP - per-speaker compensation EQ...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Only after I KNOW I need a dedicated audio PC, and know how many PCIe slots I need, how many rack U-height units I need, or if I can use OCuLink / TB3 ports instead...

only then will I start saving up for (fancy crazy pricey) cases like that.