How many DSP’s in your audio chain?

[TomJ]

How important are the SQ benefits of a DSP crossover in your monitors when you're also using DRC? Is one DSP in your audio chain enough? For example, if the next monitor you want is available in passive and active versions, eg LS50 Meta and LS50W II, or @March Audio Sointuva (passive now, active later), would your choice be different if you're using DRC?

 

[Weeb Labs]

As with many things, it depends upon the configuration in question. Given a well designed passive crossover without significant cancellation at the crossover point (very difficult to correct), DRC should be perfectly adequate.

With that being said, I always prefer to make use of both DRC and a DSP-based crossover. There are actually three (all-digital) DSPs in my signal chain. It is nice to have total control.

 

[q3cpma]

I agree with those who think a DSP XO can be an optimal solution to the anechoic SQ (FR and phase) of an active speaker (eg Genelec, Kii Three, D&D 8c..). Now I also agree with those who think that DRC can an optimal solution to in-room SQ, after recent positive experience with Dirac v3 which I tried skeptically (post 212 ff, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-805s-bookshelf-speaker-review.16523/page-11).

So now I’m puzzled. If you have a listening room where DRC works well, how important is a DSP XO? For example, if one were deciding between an LS50 Meta or LS50W II, or perhaps between a @March Audio Sointuva passive or active (eventually), are the benefits of a DSP XO as compelling with DRC as they would be without DRC? Or is one DSP in the audio chain sufficient?

Thank you.

The best advantage of an active (analogue or digital) crossover will be headroom gains in the BOM as very good/optimal passive crossovers are a lot more expensive to manufacture (and create) especially for 3-way speakers. There are also some funky digital crossovers features to control directivity, drive delay and general phase compensation; see https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...speakers-still-exist.17729/page-2#post-575553 for some general improvements.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Neither DSP XO nor DRC is a substitute for the other.

DRC you should use in all circumstances (where possible).

DSP XOs have technical advantages over passive XOs, but since this is in the domain of loudspeaker design, which (unless you DIY) will be out of your hands, there will be a performance advantage in using a speaker with DSP XOs only if it happens to be a better speaker than a given passive alternative.

There may be practical advantages to one or the other, depending on your particular uses, needs, and existing equipment.

 

[TomJ]

After the LS50W was released, there were reviews and posts online where people tried driving the LS50 with their favorite components but never could achieve the SQ of the LS50W. That may be due to the DSP XO advantages in the LS50W (or at least in part if it had other improvements we don't know about). It would be interesting to do the same comparison with DRC on both systems, and likewise for the LS50 Meta vs LS50W II.

@Otaku+, how is the 3rd DSP used in your system?

 

[Weeb Labs]

The third is a modified OpenDRC-DI which takes a SPDIF input from each of my PCs (four channels), mixes them and then routes them to four SPDIF outputs (eight channels). One of those runs to my DDRC-24, one to my RS185 base station (with EQ), one to my Topping 30 stack for the Sundaras (with EQ) and one to the DAC which drives the active monitors at my desktop (with EQ). The DDRC-24 is also modified to output SPDIF, which minimizes the number of AD/DA stages in the chain.

Never needing to switch between inputs or change output settings is very convenient.