• Welcome to ASR. 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!

DSP is bad!

I'm very sympathetic to his way of looking at the problem - to my ears the less electronics (especially digital) in the signal path and the less drivers a speaker has the better!
Zero dB amplifiers to you too.

Simple can be appealing in terms of engineering aesthetics but to my ears it has no value. Value to my ears demands functionality. I could simplify by using 1-way speakers instead of the 3-ways that I actually use. An amp can be simplified by dispensing with feedback. I use Dirac Live because it improves the sound. The system should be as complex as needed but no more.
 
I want to clarify that I didn't know this manufacturer/designer. I listen with JBL and can't sell me anything.
 
I'll leave you with this
Also note that even if you don’t advocate for DSP, you could still be very capable at designing a passive speaker. The one doesn’t exclude the other.

Coincidentally, he also doesn’t understand cables:

 
Last edited:
In any case, regardless "if peasant or Pope", a scientific approach would be to state something and prove it, and not waiting for the rest of the world to disprove it.
Just my 2 cents.
 
Interesting variety of on-topic comments, consensus is that DSP is mostly good when done properly.

From my own experience learning & creating my own room correction FIR filter & FIR crossover & FIR time delay & dither, it resulted in huge improvements to the music quality, compared to without DSP. For me, DSP tech is good.
 
Last edited:
Not that it necessarily matters, but the author is evidently unfamiliar with the well-known MLSSA measurement system: "Gauder uses a Melissa measurement system [...]".

Evidence that Gauder is stuck in the 90's. From MLSSA's webpage:

1758247815190.png


I wonder if he has an ancient 486DX with Win98SE kicking around to run his measurements.
 
He is right we should abolish rooms and only listen in free field. Than we would not need that pesti dsp"s. ;)
 
At 74 your ears are very dull measurement instruments
I'm very upset by that suggestion! :-) Don't forget that hearing is not just the physical performance of the ear (which I'll admit is different to how it was in my 20s) but also the ear/brain interface and decades of critical listening which hones the information retrieval capability of the listener.
 
Every technology has its benefits and downsides. As for me, I much prefer DSP over passive filters, and I use to design passive filters as an occupation. The problem is not so much with capacitors, but with inductors.

If you want low DC resistance, which is important to keep the damping factor high for woofers, typically inductors with ferromagnetic cores are used, which introduce hysterises and accompanying power losses. If laminated steel inductor cores are used, add to that power losses due to eddy currents in the steel laminations. The power losses increase with frequency and are especially audible in the upper midrange. (That probably is why some of the better 3-way speaker designs will use cored inductors on the woofer only, but stick with air core inductors for the midrange and tweeter).

Air core inductors eliminate the core power loss issue, but typically have higher DC resistance, thus reducing amplifier control over the woofer. If you have a tube amplifier with output transformers, you already have high output impedance so it probably is not going to hurt it much more. But, if you have a low output impedance amplifier, adding high DC resistance in series with your woofers negates much of the benefit of having low output impedance.

Both of my primary stereo systems, one in my family room and one in my office, are all active. Indeed, I removed the passive crossovers from my family room speakers and modified them to be all active using DSP, along with additional bracing and damping material. Objectively they measure better. Subjectively they sound better, especially in the bass, though I did not do a side by side comparison since I modified both speakers at the same time.

Finally, all filters indroduce phasing issues. With passive filters, though, the phase response of the filters is affected by the complex impedance of the drivers. With active filters, although the drivers will introduce their own phase characteristics, the phase responses of the filters are textbook. Combine that benefit with the availability of adding time delay to drivers for the purpose of phase alignment, and that provides additional benefit for going all active.
 
I'm very sympathetic to his way of looking at the problem - to my ears the less electronics (especially digital) in the signal path and the less drivers a speaker has the better!
You are correct. Less is always more.

I particularly like the way my car drives when I take three of the wheels off.
 
I particularly like the way my car drives when I take three of the wheels off.
Most def!

 
I'm very upset by that suggestion! :-) Don't forget that hearing is not just the physical performance of the ear (which I'll admit is different to how it was in my 20s) but also the ear/brain interface and decades of critical listening which hones the information retrieval capability of the listener.

It is not a suggestion. It is also OK to admit that at a certain age, your hearing is sh*t. And I don’t think “decades of critical listening” (I assume you mean sighted listening of expensive gear) does any “honing of information retrieval capability.”
 
It is not a suggestion. It is also OK to admit that at a certain age, your hearing is sh*t. And I don’t think “decades of critical listening” (I assume you mean sighted listening of expensive gear) does any “honing of information retrieval capability.”
I haven't done 'sighted listening of expensive gear' since my annual visits to UK hi-fi shows in the last century but my listening abilities get a regular work out with weekly live music attendance in a variety of rooms and outdoors. My high frequency hearing is not what it was in my youth but recent tests show that it is by no means 'sh*t' :-)
 
Hmm that audiophile fallacy that there is some kind of purity in simplicity :) first order filters are better 2 way is better than 3 ways , making an amp with less active components are somehow better ? I’ll blame such hucksters as Jean Hiraga et al for this .

In reality there are many ways to Rome , it’s the result that’s matters not the how .
 
Back
Top Bottom