Has DSP turned us into audio neurotics? [rant]

[CapMan]

DSP does not create neurotics, it reveals them.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation Sir

 

[FrantzM]

DSP is a tool.. in the (virtual) hands of a person...
Same with any tool. e.g. You can heal with a scalpel or .. maim ..and kill , with it..
The outcome is in the person who wields the tool.

DSP is a (perhaps the greatest) gift to audiophile, along with superior application/software such as REW.
20 years ago, we had to guess, and often wrongly. That may have served a good segment of the audio industry.
Today we measure and apply and ..
It comes down to our psychological make-up to use the tool or to abuse it.


Peace.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Bit of a sweeping generalisation Sir

Neuroticism typically develops in childhood. It can get worse as people age, but I think the causal factors are way earlier in life than people tend to start using DSP.

 

[Sokel]

What creates neurotics is the DSP trade-offs,where when one thing is fixed something else breaks.

If one wants to go all in and fix amplitude,phase,speaker response,room,crossover,stereo response,head-wide double mic response (like what pros use by Bruel and Kjaer HATS which costs about $40k if I'm not mistaken) ,etc it's not difficult to go to an abysmal rabbit hole and that's if is already full educated.

Different kind of hobby I guess?

 

[mhardy6647]

That’s not an idea that appeals to me as I like the variations I hear among loudspeakers.

Me, too.
Case in point. I've been listening to these for the past couple of weeks. They don't do everything well, but what they do do well is spine-tingling*.



In fact, it's probably a good thing that I'll never be able to justify the purchase of a pair of WE 755 drivers.

Silbatone Box Adventures

jelabs.blogspot.com

EDIT:
PS Shout-out to my son who built the cabinets for me. It is not pretty when I butcher wood. He's pretty good at carpentry/woodworking, though, with a perfectionist streak that befits his day job (mathematician).
_______________
* I believe this can be quantified. I remember a movie starring Vincent Price that covered the subject. I presume it was a documentary.

 

[A Surfer]

Reducing room gain with EQ is arguably the single largest improvement you will ever make.
I really don’t understand why a listener would not want a completely full-range sound.
Keith

Absolutely, but for many people I suspect the learning curve is just too steep in addition to the time and effort required. No doubt that if one is able to achieve these optimal effects they would almost always prefer them, but the cost of getting there, that can be a significant barrier.

 

[Purité Audio]

The cost is negligible, EQ is available everywhere, software/playback software/dacs/speakers and the learning curve is short,
REW out of the box is pre-configured and if you get stuck there will be fifty members here jostling to help including me.
EQ allows you to enjoy full-range reproduction without boom, many older listeners have never really heard their records which is a terrible shame.
Keith

 

[Waxx]

DSP does not create neurotics, it reveals them.

My car, my office, my vintage speakers, all play with no dsp. I play my main system with no DSP at times (at lower levels).

I only have one system that I do everything I can with in terms of DSP, but that's it's purpose. To be "that". Everything else, I just enjoy the variation and focus on the tunes.

Sometimes a high end dsp is also cheaper. I just did a crossover for a higher sensitive 2 way i designed for someone. It's just a prestudy (the box is not build yet) of the passive crossover. The customer insist on having a passive crossover, whatever the cost and i come, without snake oil parts (just decent air coils of the right gauge, dayton 1% film caps and cement resistors) at about 250€ on crossover parts each side. That speaker is a 100 watt 2 way speaker with a 12" woofer and a 1" compression driver. I could make the filter cheaper, but it won't be precise. A MiniDSP Flex would be cheaper and way more flexible and advanced for the customer, and is what i would do if it was for myself. But he still insist (he wants to use a 200w tube amp with it). That crossover is probally alone about 1500€ in parts and working hours (designing, measuring and building) alone, and does not come with room correction or so...

Off course i will redo that crossover design on measurement on the box itself when it's build. Real woodworkers (i'm a amateur on that) are building the cabinet now so i just made an estimation on published specs of the woofer and own measurements of the tweeter in the horn (but without the cabinet) so the customer knows what he is stepping into...

And yes, i have speakers with passive crossovers that i love. I'm also busy restoring a pair of old Kef Chorale speakers, and the restore is basicly rebuilding the crossover as the elco's have dried out and the coils are so oxidised that they are also going off spec. I'll replace everything on those. The drivers itself (Kef B200A and Seas/KEF T27) are still in good shape, just like the cabinet. I'll probally sell them after that as they are wanted and sell for decent money. I got them for free as broken and ready for the trash bin (where they would have ended if i did not take them).

 

[ldarieut]

Full active DSP is not cheap, if you compare it with passive speaker (three ways) :
- one dsp unit instead of nothing.
- 6 amplification units instead of two.
- no passive components versus passive crossover.
- measurement device instead of nothing needed in passive.

it gives you the ultimate tweaking for your DIY speaker, box design remains the same though wether passive or active.

 

[tmuikku]

Full active DSP is not cheap, if you compare it with passive speaker (three ways) :
- one dsp unit instead of nothing.
- 6 amplification units instead of two.
- no passive components versus passive crossover.
- measurement device instead of nothing needed in passive.

it gives you the ultimate tweaking for your DIY speaker, box design remains the same though wether passive or active.

Hi,

it's possible to use passive parts with active DSP system, to increase series impedance with a driver to reduce driver motor distortion emitting acoustic and combine best of both worlds. Also box, or better call it the construct, design can be different if there is DSP option, also driver selection is broader as there is no need to optimize for sensitivity as much as with passive only. In general, DSP is a loudspeaker design freedom, basically enables ideal crossover for what ever the construct is. Meaning, the drivers, their relative position and the boxes if any can be designed without limitations that passive filter only could impose. Some simple examples are: worrying about baffle step and it's relation to crossover, or relative sensitivity of drivers, delays, cascading filters for better phase tracking, bass box size, separate bass system to address room effects and so on.

One could make it a burden as well but if one has tinkered with the stuff it's just so much more design freedom (for loudspeakers) with DSP there is no need to be afraid of it I think. One could design a system assuming any filters are available so one can concentrate mainly on the acoustic problems that are not correctable by DSP. Who knows, after design process perhaps the system ends up being something the DSP could be substituted with passive xo in the end, to save on cost and complexity.

Is all this necessary? Well, perhaps not, but it's knowledge and technology development that enables "better" systems, further optimized ones, than before. It's another question what to optimize for, but also this has developed during the years. Anyone have their freedom to do what ever they wish, some one likes it the oldschool while someone else might try something else have fun everyone, with or without DSP!

 

[AdrianusG]

I think what we'll end up with is not perfection but rather soulless homogeneity. It will be very, very good in quality -- but more or less bereft of character.

PS There's a pair of AR2ax in the basement even as I type this.

Aren't you referring to the current state of popular music now instead of the equipment used?, oh no sorry , missed the "very very good in quality" sentence.

Anyways, luckily there's still a whole universe of great old music available, be it Jazz; classical and 60ies / tm 90ies pop/rock.

 

[DLS79]

What creates neurotics is the DSP trade-offs,where when one thing is fixed something else breaks.

If one wants to go all in and fix amplitude,phase,speaker response,room,crossover,stereo response,head-wide double mic response (like what pros use by Bruel and Kjaer HATS which costs about $40k if I'm not mistaken) ,etc it's not difficult to go to an abysmal rabbit hole and that's if is already full educated.

Different kind of hobby I guess?

In my opinion, the fundamental problem is far to many people think DSP can fix everything, like its some kind of magic.

If you have crap gear in a crap room DSP isn't going to magically make it sound perfect.

On the other hand if you have good gear with only minor deficiencies and/or a treated room with only only minor deficiencies DSP can help.

 

[MattHooper]

Compared to upgrading the main speakers the subs have been disappointing on balance.... but can be fun at times

Same.

In my set up the addition of subs and room EQ was a minimal benefit. In a majority of music there just wasn’t a lot of difference with the sub in or out (with the exception of nudging the sound in a direction I didn’t care for).

Changing speakers made much more rewarding differences, for me.

EQ allows you to enjoy full-range reproduction without boom, many older listeners have never really heard their records which is a terrible shame.

Just a tad hyperbolic there I think.

 

[terryforsythe]

Fast forward to now. DSP now allows us to tweak to a degree previously unimaginable. Pefection seems theoreticaly attainable, though perhaps always just out of reach. Is this creating a new cohort of audio neurotics? Are we tweaking things that we never heard before, or didn't care, just cause we can? I'm finding myself increasingly drawn into the DSP rabbit hole (I refer to 2ch, HT/video is another matter). This distrubs me, cause I think my system already sounds damn good. The perfect has become the enemy of the good. God save us all.
[/rant]

An analogous argument could have been made when stereo was introduced, when CDs were introduced, etc.

For me, DSP is a game changer, especially for those of us who have our speakers in rooms that are not symmetrical and don't have acoustic treatment. Also, it can be inexpensive to implement, e.g., in my office I use a Raspberry Pi.

 

[terryforsythe]

And room treatments, DSP can't fix a horrible room!

It can't fix it, but it certainly can improve the sound.

 

[Purité Audio]

Same.

In my set up the addition of subs and room EQ was a minimal benefit. In a majority of music there just wasn’t a lot of difference with the sub in or out (with the exception of nudging the sound in a direction I didn’t care for).

Changing speakers made much more rewarding differences, for me.



Just a tad hyperbolic there I think.

No not at all, rooms over here tend to be smaller, standing waves higher in frequency, many use small bookcase speakers because anything larger sets off the room and ‘traditional’ systems have no provision for EQ.
Keith

 

[krabapple]

Personally, I enjoy the sound of calibration chirps, and need to hear them every few months

 

[sigbergaudio]

Subs: They're difficult to integrate, but totally worth it when you're able to properly do it. A kitten dies everytime someone has a competent sub, but turns it off for 2 channel music. That's one of the main reasons I decided to create speaker systems where the work of the crossover was already done for you, and the subwoofer was actually part of the manufacturer design. So you didn't have to "redesign" it, ref @MattHooper 's point.

DSP: I'm usually quite happy with 2-3 EQ points below 150hz. Given what peaks most rooms have in this area, it's pretty much crucial for proper bass reproduction, whether you have a sub or not. With a good speakers properly positioned, the rest usually works well without intervention.

 

[Anton S]

Plodding through all four pages of this thread to date, I've discovered, unsurprisingly, that responses run the full gamut, from unceremonious rejection of DSP to full embrace. Nothing like a solid consensus.

The high point of this misadventure, for me, was seeing the old A-77 in the background of the photo above from @mhardy6647, which elicited a flood of ancient memories. My sincere thanks for that.

 

[pablolie]

It takes a computer to really crash.

Tell that to Amelia Earhart... computers are awesome for many things, but even with AI can't function perfectly in corner cases without human assistance.

The real problem is when humans just trust computer tools to do everything well without supervision.

Personally I just use room correction tools to help me find best possible positioning, but I pass on EQing.