• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Best Matrix Processor besides qsc core 110f? Replacement for Ashly Protea 24.24M

radeon

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
29
Likes
5
What would be a good modern DSP? I'm currently using an Ashly Protea 24.24M but it's over 10 years old now and getting a newer processer with modern DA/AD chips seems like the next logical upgrade.

I'm looking at maybe the qsc core 110f, but want to make sure it's the best option, as it is quite a bit of money.

In an ideal world I would like to be able to create matrix's between several units, but it's not strictly required, especially if a single unit already has a ton of I/O.

Others have suggested minidsp, but based on Amir's review here, it does not seem like a good choice for an endgame system....

 
Last edited:
I use Symetrix they can handle big Matrices and support Dante for audio transport. I have 3 Radius AEC and the older 8x8 and DIGIO, you can download the software from Symetrix website to see if it meets your requirements. You may also consider BIAMP Tesira processors (with the latest software you have to enable 'legacy' processors in the settings for some of the older units. They are all very expensive new but are often available cheaply from Ebay and have good reliability.
 
I've installed many Xilica Solaro in stereo or 5.1 (Solaro QR1) up to 32 channels immersiv setups (Solaro FR1) : the DSP is quite as versatile and configurable as QSC Core110f.
Only its FIR capability is a bit less : 4096 taps per channel for Solaro against 8192 taps for Core110. But QR1 is less than half price of QSC.
 
I'm using 2x DDRC-88D for an Atmos setup; It's quite a flexible thing and I'm still loving the simplicity & results of Dirac to measure the room and build filters.

There's not a lot wrong with the digital version, that I can tell. Well, the UI is somewhat clunky compared to Trinnov and so on, but that's not a fair comparison.

I also have a DDRC-88A from when I had second 5.1 setup, and while adding a very slight veil to the sound, it was still a worthwhile trade off for me in terms of being a cheap way to get FR and phase straightened out by Dirac, the 8x8 matrix and x-overs/bass management. While it's not properly hi-fi, it isn't total garbage by any means, IMHO. If you do get an 88A, somewhat strangely channels 3-8 seem to have better converters than ch1&2, so in 5.1 I used ch3-8 for the main IO and then sometimes a second sub on channel 1 out.
 
I am using qsc core 250i and Symetrix Radius 12x8. qsc core 250i has far greater processing power than core 110f, up to 16 channels with 16384 taps.
Radius 12x8 support 64*64 dante/aes67 and slightly better analog lineout performance than qsc.

My setup : JBL SDP-55 or PC DVS 16 channels -> dante -> Symetrix Radius -> AES67 -> qsc core 250i -> lineout.
qsc core 250i ->AES67 -> Symetrix Radius -> lineout
 
For me, it all comes down to do I want FIR, and if so how much.
If I didn't want it, i think there are many very good options in the used marketplace, like some already mentioned.

I do use FIR a lot...so q-sys cores 250i, 500i, and 510i, which can all do 16k taps per channel are my choice.
Biggest dislikes with those cores are louder fans (than a 110f), and the need for a Dante card or AES or USB peripheral to get digital in.

I am beginning to really question the need for more than 8k taps however. Like many folks do, I've been doing all subwoofer work with IIR....other than the crossover to the main speaker. That xover gets complementary linear-phase, and it the requirement that determines the most number of taps needed. So it just comes down to xover order. 96dB/oct LR's at 100Hz are no problem for just the crossover. I think 6k taps works for 72 dB/oct without slippage. (Do remember when looking at oither brands, if they run at 96KHz you will need twice as many taps)
IIR PEQs imbedded into 8k taps don't work so well...simply not enough frequency resolution...so i just use IIR "perconditioning" including hpf, before then using a simple straightforward lin-phase xover.

Only saying that if folks feel the core110f is insufficient tap wise. ( i agree it's good for 8k per ch, but not sure for how many channels. Every new Designer release seem to get a little better in term of processor utilization.

If shopping for a used 110f, a little caution is in order.
Older V1 units are grandfathered with perpetual UCI licenses...BUT after a certain amount of time, their SSD drive fails (like any SSD)...and it means a $600 oh shit, mobo/SSD replacement repair.
If on ebay, all that is shown on the device LCD display is the QSYS system logo, there's a chance the unit has already failed.
Ask that they post some active screens.
If if the display shows details, like Design Status for example, it's still working fine....for now !
The V1 110f's going for parts only and very low price, may be a good deal, knowing you're going to send it to QSC and get back a new unit.
Alternative if a V2 with both UCI and 8x8 Dante can be had for a good price...that would be my first choice. (more for the Dante than anything..I need to inquire on what Dante add on licensces are for 110f's.)

Anyway, hope all that helps
 
First you need to outline what all of your DSP requirements are. Once you have figured that out, then you can look for hardware that meets it.
Some things to consider: IO count, digital audio capability / network audio, what processing do you need, control options (what do you need or want), etc.
Some DSP units have rumored better audio quality, some have 96khz sample rates, and others are cheaper. It honestly depends on what you are trying to do with it.

For example, if I needed to spec a new DSP for my one of the conference rooms at the venue I work at, I would need 4 mic inputs, 2 channels for PC input, and 1 output to the room speakers. It would need to be controllable over IP or RS232 by Crestron, and there wouldn't be significant audio quality or processing requirements. With all those requirements, I could use any number of things, but I would probably end up with a Biamp TesiraForte, as we already have a lot of other Biamp hardware, and it would integrate nicely.

So basically, tell us what you're trying to do, and then we can possibly recommend options.
Personally, I use a TesiraForte since I am comfortable with their software, and it has sufficient IO and processing for my use case. In my opinion, the Tesira DSPs have decent sound quality, though the mic preamps leave a lot to be desired at high gain levels. They also have a lot of processing power, can handle fairly large matrices, and have either AVB, Dante, and Cobranet (although Cobranet is end-of-life from Cirrus logic) expandability. The used Tesira DSPs are very cheap on Ebay, and Biamp's hardware is known to be fairly reliable.
 
First you need to outline what all of your DSP requirements are. Once you have figured that out, then you can look for hardware that meets it.
Some things to consider: IO count, digital audio capability / network audio, what processing do you need, control options (what do you need or want), etc.
Some DSP units have rumored better audio quality, some have 96khz sample rates, and others are cheaper. It honestly depends on what you are trying to do with it.

For example, if I needed to spec a new DSP for my one of the conference rooms at the venue I work at, I would need 4 mic inputs, 2 channels for PC input, and 1 output to the room speakers. It would need to be controllable over IP or RS232 by Crestron, and there wouldn't be significant audio quality or processing requirements. With all those requirements, I could use any number of things, but I would probably end up with a Biamp TesiraForte, as we already have a lot of other Biamp hardware, and it would integrate nicely.

So basically, tell us what you're trying to do, and then we can possibly recommend options.
Personally, I use a TesiraForte since I am comfortable with their software, and it has sufficient IO and processing for my use case. In my opinion, the Tesira DSPs have decent sound quality, though the mic preamps leave a lot to be desired at high gain levels. They also have a lot of processing power, can handle fairly large matrices, and have either AVB, Dante, and Cobranet (although Cobranet is end-of-life from Cirrus logic) expandability. The used Tesira DSPs are very cheap on Ebay, and Biamp's hardware is known to be fairly reliable.
Thanks for the deatiled reply, ill try to outline answers to your questions below:

1) This is for room correction use for a multi-channel-multi-way home theater. Requirements are that I need it at least be as good as the Ashly Protea 24.24. So that means I need to be able to do 24 channels out at least, more would be better. I am OK to use multiple boxes if the price is reasonable, and they can be matrixed together. I'm currently using balanced analog out of an atmos receiver, but im not opposed to going to a full digital pipeline using some kind of device that converts my dolby atmos signal into dante or something like that(arvus h1-d, etc). But my understanding is that this type of pipeline will be very expensive, so maybe skip the digital audio and stick with analog

I'm using avantgarde trio speakers so looking for the best possible sound quality, but also looking to do this on a budget. Prob ~$2k for the dsp if possible, but open to other options


2) For processing functions, my needs are very basic, it's just for room correction, so just parametric EQ, delay, and crossover. But one important key point is that I would like to be able to create arbitrary matrixes. So that way I can for example take 10 channels in, and output it to 20 or 30 channels in any configuration or crossover that I want. So I can use any channel to feed any channel.

As I mentioned in the original post, in an ideal world I would like to be able to create matrix's between several units, the ashley protea that I have is not able to do that, but it is able to do 24 channels in a single box, which is alot.

So if each dsp box does 12 or 16 channels, i can simply use multiple boxes and create matrixes between them. Or do it all in one box.

3) control doesnt really matter, the Ashley Protea control is already very clunky, it uses IP and requires a windows PC to operate the gui, so if im willing to accept that, then i can accept pretty much any control method.


----


this thread seems to also be asking the same thing: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...on-consumer-pro-live-approaches-to-dsp.54802/
 
If you want to going digital all the way through, then the JBL SDP-58 has Dante output capabilities, supposedly. You could then feed that in to a DSP of your choice (Qsys, Tesira, Dante+DSP amps...), over Dante and out to whatever your system uses (Dante amps, analog amps, active speakers, etc.)

I know that Biamp's Tesira Server IO's input cards have 4 channels of input each, and the output cards have 4 channels of output each. Each Server IO chassis can support 13 cards in any configuration. For your use case, you could configure it with a Dante or AVB card (if you want it), 8 4-channel output cards (32 total outputs), and 4 input cards for 16 inputs. You could theoretically remove the network audio card and add another input card for 20 inputs, but I don't recommend that because then you can't expand digitally in the future. One other configuration option is to use two Server IO chassis. In that case, you would use 2 Server IO chassis with AVB cards, and configure them with inputs and outputs to your heart's content. -- The Tesira programming software will auto-setup the AVB routes and distribute the processing as needed between devices -- The only issue then would be latency, as the native latency is around 1.5-2ms, and an AVB hop would add an extra 1ms. (I know that other DSP platforms can be faster, but I know Tesira so I'm sticking to it.)

The Server IO will definitely have enough processing power for what you need, but new it will definitely be over your budget, and according to random people on the internet, the analog audio quality on Tesira isn't as good as other DSPs. -- Though in my experience Tesira sounds and measures fine, and prices on the used market are really cheap.
The only other issue is with control. You can create presets and other things, but controlling Tesira without a windows computer or fancy Pro-AV control system is not trivial. However, if you take the time to build a GUI through Biamp Canvas, you can set up a PC to auto-connect when you launch the Canvas program, which can make controlling it much easier, depending on your needs. (In my case, I have quick access to mute buttons, level controls, and phantom power switches for my mic. If I want to make an EQ change, I have to go through the Tesira programming software.)

Just as a note, the Tesira programming software is freely-available:
They have a lot of resources to learn how to use it as well, also freely available. One thing of note is that the compiler will auto-add equipment and try to optimize for the lowest cost it can, if you just give it the program file to start with.

With the above in mind, I created a basic file with 32 inputs, 24 outputs, EQ and delay on all of them, and a matrix mixer between them all. The Tesira software claims that (depending on how you set up the system) you would be looking at 2-4ms of latency, and could theoretically fit what I created on one DSP-2 card inside the Server IO, with one external IO expander. You could also add more processing, you would just need to add more DSP-2 cards to the Server-IO, or use a Forte instead of the IO expander. -- The only thing to consider is that Tesira cannot make processing blocks across multiple devices. So in my system, since I have all I/O running through a single matrix mixer block, if I had more outputs, then the system would have to use an input device -> AVB -> DSP -> AVB -> output device. This would add more latency to all channels since the software automatically handles delay equalization, and you could end up needing an AVB switch if you have more than 2 AVB devices in the system.

So in conclusion, you might want to look at the Tesira line. I know some people use it for their home theater setups, and in my opinion, with balanced line level signals in and out they are audibly transparent, when configured properly. Biamp has a ton of resources available, so you should be able to learn what you need and make an educated decision.
If you have any other things, let me know.
 
For me, it all comes down to do I want FIR, and if so how much.
If I didn't want it, i think there are many very good options in the used marketplace, like some already mentioned.

I do use FIR a lot...so q-sys cores 250i, 500i, and 510i, which can all do 16k taps per channel are my choice.
Biggest dislikes with those cores are louder fans (than a 110f), and the need for a Dante card or AES or USB peripheral to get digital in.

I am beginning to really question the need for more than 8k taps however. Like many folks do, I've been doing all subwoofer work with IIR....other than the crossover to the main speaker. That xover gets complementary linear-phase, and it the requirement that determines the most number of taps needed. So it just comes down to xover order. 96dB/oct LR's at 100Hz are no problem for just the crossover. I think 6k taps works for 72 dB/oct without slippage. (Do remember when looking at oither brands, if they run at 96KHz you will need twice as many taps)
IIR PEQs imbedded into 8k taps don't work so well...simply not enough frequency resolution...so i just use IIR "perconditioning" including hpf, before then using a simple straightforward lin-phase xover.

Only saying that if folks feel the core110f is insufficient tap wise. ( i agree it's good for 8k per ch, but not sure for how many channels. Every new Designer release seem to get a little better in term of processor utilization.

If shopping for a used 110f, a little caution is in order.
Older V1 units are grandfathered with perpetual UCI licenses...BUT after a certain amount of time, their SSD drive fails (like any SSD)...and it means a $600 oh shit, mobo/SSD replacement repair.
If on ebay, all that is shown on the device LCD display is the QSYS system logo, there's a chance the unit has already failed.
Ask that they post some active screens.
If if the display shows details, like Design Status for example, it's still working fine....for now !
The V1 110f's going for parts only and very low price, may be a good deal, knowing you're going to send it to QSC and get back a new unit.
Alternative if a V2 with both UCI and 8x8 Dante can be had for a good price...that would be my first choice. (more for the Dante than anything..I need to inquire on what Dante add on licensces are for 110f's.)

Anyway, hope all that helps
I plan on buying a 110f for 1 sub channel in from Altitude 32 and out to 12 powered subwoofers. Can you tell me a bit more about sending an older unit in to QSC for a new SSD drive, and whatever else they sometimes do? And what it costs. For my application do I need to be concerned with those grandfathered licenses?

Is there any advantage to a newly refurbished V1 over a V2, or vice versa for my application?

Also, for 12 subwoofers, is it possible to run out of filter capacity? Is there a reason to consider a 250i or 510i? I see some on eBay that have the cards I would need. Or I may need to add a card or two. And if there is a reason to consider these higher level units for this application, should I plan on replacing an SSD on those, as well?
 
Last edited:
I plan on buying a 110f for 1 sub channel in from Altitude 32 and out to 12 powered subwoofers. Can you tell me a bit more about sending an older unit in to QSC for a new SSD drive, and whatever else they sometimes do? And what it costs. For my application do I need to be concerned with those grandfathered licenses?

Is there any advantage to a newly refurbished V1 over a V2, or vice versa for my application?

Also, for 12 subwoofers, is it possible to run out of filter capacity? Is there a reason to consider a 250i or 510i? I see some on eBay that have the cards I would need. Or I may need to add a card or two. And if there is a reason to consider these higher level units for this application, should I plan on replacing an SSD on those, as well?

Sorry for slow reply...

QSC charged about $600 a year or two ago, to replace the mobo and SSD in a 110f a had that failed. Dunno if that charge is still current.
A UCI license is important imo. It allows custom remotes. Scripting license is for custom programming using Lua...I don't know how to use it, not I have ever had the need.
Licenses stay with the Core. The only problem i see with buying a failed 110f on ebay (one showing parts only, or only showing QSC system logo on display, is not knowing what licenses it has. I would need to trust seller for that info, one who had the unit prior to failure.

Have you seen refurb V2's? They are recent enough I wouldn't expect refurbs to show up yet...
I do think V2's come with 8x8 software Dante which is valuable (check that). But a Dante license can also be purchased for V1's.
All license purchases are unlock keys, via internet.

A 110f for 12 subs? Yep i think, as you have up to 16 analog outs.
The only FIR use I find valid for subs, is for a lin-phase crossover to mains. All EQs and hpf (if used) are best IIR minimum phase....which the 110f has a boatload capacity for even across 16 output channels. I dunno, but I guess a 110f is good for at least 4k taps across 12 channels each, maybe 6k taps. That will easily provide at least a LR24 linear-phase xover between subs and mains. Probably 48 db/oct.

250i and 500i have greatly expanded FIR capability over the 110f. Up to 16k taps per ch...I've used a 500i for 12 channels of 16 ch taps.
Do know though, they are limited to QSys Designer 9.5 or earlier. No longer supported in latest releases.

That's no big deal though, because for instance i use 510i with 9.4.8, not wanting/bothering to mov e to latest 9.10 release.
510i is supported and I think likely will be for quite a while. QSC discontinued it for a while, and received enough outcry to reinstate it back into the current line up.

Hope that helps
 
Back
Top Bottom