Is it Really Worth It?

[MAB]

Quite a good perspective. You seem to understand my issue.

Why did you choose the Flex balanced vs the SHD? I am leaning toward the SHD only because I think it has the features I need. But I'm not sure.

I have both.
I use the SHD with to integrate subs with a pair of Genelec mains, and provide room correction.
I have a Flex Balanced I use as electronic crossover and PEQ for a pair of JBL M2.
Both have transparent analog inputs. They have slightly different features and I/O.

I use a Flex Eight for my desktop system. It has no analog input and is unbalanced RCA output only.
I have an HTx that I am building a system around.
I also have several older MiniDSP as well, one that I use in the processor loop of a vintage integrated amp to EQ the speakers in our living room. My wife (who cares not at all about audio) prefers the EQ because the bass is no longer boomy. It's dramatic, and I can partially compensate for some of the room and placement issues in that living space.
Again, my only regret is there aren't multiple competitors to MiniDSP.

For you, it seems the SHD or the Flex Balanced are the way to go. Both are utterly transparent.

You mention your system is quieter.

Yes, the SFL-3 is one of the lowest noise tube preamps I have ever heard, that being said with very sensitive speakers (>100dB/watt/m) you can hear hiss, but only at very close range. The MiniDSP are quieter. Since I build speakers as a hobby, I do measure and take note of these things, even if none of my gear is very noisy. It's just that the MiniDSP isn't going to the noise limiter in any reasonable system.

How does it sound?

Great. The JBL M2 (which are now finished, and I am building the next version of that system) is one of the mightiest and best sounding speakers I have ever heard. The MiniDSP outperforms my friends massive JBL home theater on tweeter hiss (not that his are a problem, the MiniDSP is quieter, sorry I don't have comparison measurements so you will have to take my word.) I also don't have to deal with putting Crown amps with fans in a closet. The DSP is a direct copy, i.e. the math is the same. In fact, I use slightly different PEQ since I take my room into account. The Genelec system with the SHD and subs is also amazing sounding.

Many on this and on other fora who switched from all analog to digital complain about sterility of the sound. I will have to say that my CD/SACD player (Oppo BDP-105 and Bryston BDA-3) does different from my other sources. I don't seem to enjoy it as much. I can't put this difference into words, but it is truly real. Blandness comes the closest. Could be my digital components.

I used to sell audio in the '80s when a steady stream of non-audio objects started being sold. Goldmund produced a version of the TipToe for $180 each. They were made with several supposedly exotic metals, fastened together with ground-screw threads. The distributor provided us with a set of marketing 'touch-points', encouraging the use of certain words like 'solid' and 'earthy' and suggesting certain word-salads to properly frame their product in the marketplace. Of course I was able to get almost every customer to hear the magic. Better bass was the most often observation, how those frequencies that seem most unlikely to actually audibly improve over, say, midrange is beyond me. Customers even noticed the better bass when I accidentally switched the wrong CD player. I wonder what response to putting these things under a tuner... I call this carnival-barking. The trick takes advantage of humans' susceptibility to auditory hallucinations. This is from Goldmund who made one of the most purposely engineered turntables ever.

Since then, I went to university, am now a physicist, and have tested out for myself some of these dubious claims. You will find endless anecdotes about digital vs. analog. Sterile is one of them that makes no sense to me, and was part of the bag of tricks rolled out at the same time as those Goldmund TipToes. Is analog septic in contrast? People do write on even here about the benefits of analog, even against the mountain of evidence that they are wrong.

Is it possible that my other sources - tuner, reel to reel, and turntable will suffer the same fate if I go digital?

Only if you wish to believe that.
Mine sound better than ever.

Hope this helps.

 

[terryforsythe]

Clearly you've flattened the FR curve. What's different about the sound? On paper (OK then, on screen) the result is excellent. Do you like it? Prefer it?

I do prefer it. The following are the most significant issues that it solved:

1. Bringing down the peak at 48 Hz and bringing the bass up below 40 Hz makes the bass sound a bit tighter, a bit more extended, and more natural.

2. Because of where my speakers are located, I can barely toe them in. Without adequate toe-in, the high frequencies are a little too recessed for my taste, and some female voices are a little too far back in the sound stage. With DSP I was able to correct those issues.

3. With a couple of singers their location in the sound stage would shift a little horizontally as their pitch went up. It wasn't significant, and I wouldn't say it was a problem, but it is something I noticed. With the DSP I don't notice that happening anymore.

Nearly two weeks ago I had a friend visit. He listens to a lot of music, but is not too much into the equipment nor tweaking his system. I had him do a blind test where I switched between no DSP and with DSP. I did not tell him when DSP was on or off. He listened to a couple of songs, and he liked both better when I had the DSP active.

My tuning curve matches the Harman curve above about 200 or 300 Hz. Below that it has a lot less bass boost than the Harman curve.

 

[KEM]

I have both.
I use the SHD with to integrate subs with a pair of Genelec mains, and provide room correction.
I have a Flex Balanced I use as electronic crossover and PEQ for a pair of JBL M2.
Both have transparent analog inputs. They have slightly different features and I/O.

I use a Flex Eight for my desktop system. It has no analog input and is unbalanced RCA output only.
I have an HTx that I am building a system around.
I also have several older MiniDSP as well, one that I use in the processor loop of a vintage integrated amp to EQ the speakers in our living room. My wife (who cares not at all about audio) prefers the EQ because the bass is no longer boomy. It's dramatic, and I can partially compensate for some of the room and placement issues in that living space.
Again, my only regret is there aren't multiple competitors to MiniDSP.

For you, it seems the SHD or the Flex Balanced are the way to go. Both are utterly transparent.

Yes, the SFL-3 is one of the lowest noise tube preamps I have ever heard, that being said with very sensitive speakers (>100dB/watt/m) you can hear hiss, but only at very close range. The MiniDSP are quieter. Since I build speakers as a hobby, I do measure and take note of these things, even if none of my gear is very noisy. It's just that the MiniDSP isn't going to the noise limiter in any reasonable system.

Great. The JBL M2 (which are now finished, and I am building the next version of that system) is one of the mightiest and best sounding speakers I have ever heard. The MiniDSP outperforms my friends massive JBL home theater on tweeter hiss (not that his are a problem, the MiniDSP is quieter, sorry I don't have comparison measurements so you will have to take my word.) I also don't have to deal with putting Crown amps with fans in a closet. The DSP is a direct copy, i.e. the math is the same. In fact, I use slightly different PEQ since I take my room into account. The Genelec system with the SHD and subs is also amazing sounding.

I used to sell audio in the '80s when a steady stream of non-audio objects started being sold. Goldmund produced a version of the TipToe for $180 each. They were made with several supposedly exotic metals, fastened together with ground-screw threads. The distributor provided us with a set of marketing 'touch-points', encouraging the use of certain words like 'solid' and 'earthy' and suggesting certain word-salads to properly frame their product in the marketplace. Of course I was able to get almost every customer to hear the magic. Better bass was the most often observation, how those frequencies that seem most unlikely to actually audibly improve over, say, midrange is beyond me. Customers even noticed the better bass when I accidentally switched the wrong CD player. I wonder what response to putting these things under a tuner... I call this carnival-barking. The trick takes advantage of humans' susceptibility to auditory hallucinations. This is from Goldmund who made one of the most purposely engineered turntables ever.

Since then, I went to university, am now a physicist, and have tested out for myself some of these dubious claims. You will find endless anecdotes about digital vs. analog. Sterile is one of them that makes no sense to me, and was part of the bag of tricks rolled out at the same time as those Goldmund TipToes. Is analog septic in contrast? People do write on even here about the benefits of analog, even against the mountain of evidence that they are wrong.

Only if you wish to believe that.
Mine sound better than ever.

Hope this helps.

I agree that sound quality perceptions differ from person to person. I am a very technical person. I have an MS in Physics and 30+ years of designing high end research equipment for molecular biologists. I understand the difference between actual measured performance and flowery words. But I haven't been able to back the flowery words with measurements. Quieter I get. After that, I really haven't yet read any description that conveys the differences. Maybe I'm asking for too much for words to accurately describe experiences. Everyone's experiences are different. Seems I should stop the talk and buy an SHD, integrate into my system and decide for myself. But it is $1300. Pretty expensive experiment!

 

[terryforsythe]

Seems I should stop the talk and buy an SHD, integrate into my system and decide for myself. But it is $1300. Pretty expensive experiment!

I went through the same dilemma. In my family room I had an Adcom pre-amp I had used for 28 years (different system than the one for which I posted the graphs above). I really liked the pre-amp, but I never was able to get my subwoofer and speakers properly crossed over using the crossover provided in the subwoofer. I couldn't get proper phase alignment between the speakers and subwoofer. Also, room modes were an issue.

I finally bit the bullet and bought a miniDSP SHD. I finally was able to get the speakers and subwoofer properly crossed over. That made a significant difference. Then I started experimenting with Dirac Live and PEQ. As time went on I was able to make further improvements to the sound, and I was hooked.

Toward the end of last year I sold the miniDSP SHD, bought a miniDSP HTx and more amplification, pulled out the passive crossovers from my speakers, and went all active. I also did some modifications to the speaker enclosures to reduce vibrations and plug the ports. With all of the modifications and tweaking, the system sounds extremely good, even better than I had hoped when I had started.

EDIT: Here are the frequency responses for that system:

 

[MAB]

I agree that sound quality perceptions differ from person to person. I am a very technical person. I have an MS in Physics and 30+ years of designing high end research equipment for molecular biologists. I understand the difference between actual measured performance and flowery words. But I haven't been able to back the flowery words with measurements. Quieter I get. After that, I really haven't yet read any description that conveys the differences. Maybe I'm asking for too much for words to accurately describe experiences. Everyone's experiences are different. Seems I should stop the talk and buy an SHD, integrate into my system and decide for myself. But it is $1300. Pretty expensive experiment!

Yes, $1300 is large money, which is why you should consider the Flex Balanced.
Unless you have superhuman hearing and auditory perception, won't be able to tell the difference between the Flex and the SHD in a proper unsighted and level-matched test.
And neither with these digital devices when compared to the same signal fed thorough a level-matched analog equivalent.

I'm a physicist too. But I tend to defer to AES and the other accepted science publications and studies. There is a body of studies and publications on the audio reproduction equipment we love. Also tested our responses to it. For instance:

E-library page - AES

AES E-Library ← Back to search

aes2.org

Maybe I now have biased view of audio after reading these so-called science articles, that causes me to hear equivalency where there are actual differences. But it sure has saved me some money, and allowed me to freely apply digital PEQ and filters.

 

[Mikig]

You hear your room+speakers more than you hear your room, especially at lower frequencies. Here's what an uncorrected room can look like:
View attachment 375255

So, you pay thousands for a DAC and amp which are +-0.01dB between 20Hz and 20kHz and then you are actually listening to the above room curve, not the amp, not the DAC, but the room. There can be 30dB differences across an octave. Even the weirdest DACs and strangest valve amplifiers (and amplifiers from the 1950s) measure MUCH better than this.

I understand everything you say, the curves you inserted in the comments, and the theory behind them.
Clearly the listening room does the most compared to everything else (I'm lucky enough to have a room just for music, with 50cm solid brick load-bearing walls, 2 of which are underground, so I've already eliminated the problem of furniture , TV, and mandatory system positions).

I have EQ in Roon, I apply it, I downloaded REW, I have 3 subwoofers, I tried them with every configuration possible. The result? I removed everything, because if I'm not convinced by the result, is better to turn everything off and go watch TV.

I mean high fidelity as a correct and faithful reproduction of the original.

nice dilemma!!! anyone who knows what the original sound is like live is a lucky man...

My question starts from this assumption; does it measure everything perfectly, on paper, but then, when I listen, do I hear an audible difference that brings me to the closest possible fidelity to the original? to the true live experience?

I would like to understand this and above all I would like to hear.
Otherwise it remains a beautiful theoretical commitment, interesting for scientific purposes, but which remains an end in itself.

 

[Mikig]

Below are measurements for my KEF LS60 speakers at my listening position with and without DSP. The traces are 1/12 octave smoothed.

No DSP at listening my position:

View attachment 375395


Below is with DSP at my listening position - green line is my target curve to which I tuned:

View attachment 375396

Thanks for the reply to my comment, everything is clear, it measures very well, what strikes you now about the sound of your system?
What have you found now, by ear, that makes you exclaim: "Now I'm satisfied!!"

Better bass? better balance, better sound stage? better sharpness?

I'm trying to understand this from you! translated from the graph to ear, what do you hear that is different that you are sure is better than before and that brings you closer to the mythical experience "like being there"?

 

[terryforsythe]

I mean high fidelity as a correct and faithful reproduction of the original.

I use multiple tunings that I can quickly switch (using my Flex HTx on one system and CamillaDSP on another). Sometimes the recordings are not that good, e.g., lacking bass, lacking highs, too bright, etc. If I like a song but the recording sounds bad, I don't want to faithfully reproduce it. I change to a tuning that that makes it sound better to me.

 

[terryforsythe]

Thanks for the reply to my comment, everything is clear, it measures very well, what strikes you now about the sound of your system?
What have you found now, by ear, that makes you exclaim: "Now I'm satisfied!!"

Better bass? better balance, better sound stage? better sharpness?

I'm trying to understand this from you! translated from the graph to ear, what do you hear that is different that you are sure is better than before and that brings you closer to the mythical experience "like being there"?

Everything.

In my family room, for example, the imaging and sound staging are the best of any system that I have owned, and the bass is really good - tight, natural sounding. Also, the tonal balance is good - voices and instruments sound more real. To me it is an incredible experience. If I have the house to myself, sometimes I sit and listen to music for hours and hours. For example, I work from home, but my wife goes into the office a couple of days a week. When I can, I juggle my schedule to keep an entire day open for listening to music while she is away.

In my office I usually play the speakers for background music while I am working. Sometimes, if a really good song comes on and it is time for a break, I turn my chair around, turn up the music and just lean back and listen. It are those times when I appreciate accurate bass, good tonal balance, good imaging, etc.

 

[Mikig]

Everything.

In my family room, for example, the imaging and sound staging are the best of any system that I have owned, and the bass is really good - tight, natural sounding. Also, the tonal balance is good - voices and instruments sound more real. To me it is an incredible experience. If I have the house to myself, sometimes I sit and listen to music for hours and hours. For example, I work from home, but my wife goes into the office a couple of days a week. When I can, I juggle my schedule to keep an entire day open for listening to music while she is away.

In my office I usually play the speakers for background music while I am working. Sometimes, if a really good song comes on and it is time for a break, I turn my chair around, turn up the music and just lean back and listen. It are those times when I appreciate accurate bass, good tonal balance, good imaging, etc.

finally an answer that makes me happy!

All!

it means more than anything else: this makes me curious to move forward, where I had stopped with EQ, REW, sub, and more...
too often we only talk about measurements and graphs but not about what is the fundamental part: a happy listening!
Thank you for being able to make me curious about this type of listening setup!

 

[KEM]

Thanks for the reply to my comment, everything is clear, it measures very well, what strikes you now about the sound of your system?
What have you found now, by ear, that makes you exclaim: "Now I'm satisfied!!"

Better bass? better balance, better sound stage? better sharpness?

I'm trying to understand this from you! translated from the graph to ear, what do you hear that is different that you are sure is better than before and that brings you closer to the mythical experience "like being there"?

"Like being there" will never happen in your living room. The physical layout of recording studios, musicians preferences, and mastering tech skill and taste will guarantee a lot of variation. I think that most of us are aware of this.
The way I see it, the best one can do is to remove room artifacts as much as possible (within constraints) and then apply small changes, if needed, by hand to obtain the preferred sound. Without creating that baseline, I find it is difficult to tweak to obtain the desired sound.

 

[Mikig]

"Like being there" will never happen in your living room. The physical layout of recording studios, musicians preferences, and mastering tech skill and taste will guarantee a lot of variation. I think that most of us are aware of this.
The way I see it, the best one can do is to remove room artifacts as much as possible (within constraints) and then apply small changes, if needed, by hand to obtain the preferred sound. Without creating that baseline, I find it is difficult to tweak to obtain the desired sound.

unfortunately yes, we are aware of it.

You should be able to witness everything live that you then listen to at home, in order to fully understand the system and the room and the difference in listening.
assuming that you may then be able to modify the system's response. Also because, as you say, each song has its own story!
But this is clearly impossible.

They should make everything easier!

a nice little box with integrated microphone and AI that already calculates all the parameters in no time, and sends the signal already adapted to the needs of the room/system/listener!

 

[terryforsythe]

a nice little box with integrated microphone and AI that already calculates all the parameters in no time, and sends the signal already adapted to the needs of the room/system/listener!

The miniDSP SHD will do that, but not with AI. It comes with Dirac Live and a microphone, and does a good job. You can start with that and see how it sounds to you. You can add some additional PEQ for additional tuning if you feel so inclined.

The only additional thing you might need is an active USB extension cable for the microphone (a normal passive one did not work for me), which is $10 on Amazon here in the U.S.: https://a.co/d/0NFJCJ7

 

[MaxwellsEq]

My comment addressed both

Got it, thanks!

 

[KEM]

In the hope of reviving this thread, I must ask another question in order to help me understand phase a bit better and how excess phase affects the sound. The plot I posted has over 1000 degrees of phase change when the wrap is removed.

On the excess phase plot shown below from the same data as presented above, using VAR filtering, I have one large negative spike of 60 msec and 380 Hz and a slow rise to 50 msec at 50 Hz and subsequent fall. Note this is after removing time offset.
I have used the filter optimizing feature in REW to create a very flat frequency response, but the phase, group delay, and excess phase data barely changed.
I really do enjoy my system as it now is, but I am interested in how I can improve the sound further.

Should I obsess over the excess phase or not? It seems that if there is excess phase change, sound from different frequencies will arrive at the listening position at a time different from what was recorded. And so, the sound will be altered.

If it does matter, how can I go about changing it?

 

[KEM]

Short answer: Yes. You've got quite a few 5+dB swings in the bass, some approaching 10dB. This is definitely audible.

I think cleaning up the room mode region is more impactful than you would guess intuitively. If you want some subjective mumbo-jumbo about it: The timbre of instruments seems more vivid and realistic when the fundamentals and lower harmonics are all in good alignment. This gives you the impression of the whole sound improving, not just bass. This is not really possible without PEQ, so I definitely recommend you give it a try.

I've done a lot of work with traps and my graphic EQ. I'm fairly sure I've optimized the locations of the traps and the sub given the space constraints laid down by the law. I have two mono RANE PE 17 units on hand. I plan to measure how they affect my system using a mic and RTA so I can adjust in real time. There are 5 filters in each channel. It looks like I will need all 5 filters on the low end, from 20 to 300 Hz.

I've used the EQ optimization feature in REW. With 10 peak filters it does really flatten the FR. But the Time domain is untouched. Do I need different filters types?

 

[EJ3]

Replacing a bunch of noisy ASPs with a single, transparent and mathematically perfect DSP is something that audio enthusiasts in the past could only have dreamt of.

The scary part is that it's up to you to put the capabilities to good use (or up to your wallet, with Dirac).

It's totally possible that after your first go at digital room correction, you'll end up preferring your old setup. Practice makes perfect.

Though in my mind, there's no question which setup has greater potential for sound quality.

For starters, I think https://www.loudspeakers.audio/en/ offers an extremely compelling solution that's easy to use, powerful, and completely free of charge.

At the other end of the UX spectrum, there's OCA's YouTube tutorials for fully manual correction: https://youtube.com/@ocaudiophile

WOW, thanks a lot. I am recovering from some cervical surgery but, come Sept, I will finally be setting up my system in this home (after removing it from my previous home last year)
I am sure that this information will be a great help.

 

[kemmler3D]

it does really flatten the FR. But the Time domain is untouched. Do I need different filters types?

If you want to flatten phase then you either need to do allpass filters (which I am not sure if REW does manually and aren't common in analog boxes AFAIK) or you need to use an FIR filter using some kind of DSP solution.

This can be automated using a tool called Rephase combined with measurements from REW, but I don't know how or if it can be done analog.

 

[KEM]

Oh, makes sense. Yeah, if you have an analog PEQ then it's worth a shot! I would love to see the before/after from REW, you don't see analog PEQs everyday. I think 5 bands is enough to make a good dent in things.

I tried using the Rane PEQ. I found it very confusing and non-intuitive. I was monitoring in real time. I could not tell when was at the frequency I wanted. I couldn't see the effects of changing the Q. I could make changes across many octaves, but could not pinpoint a center frequency.
This just doesn't work for me.

I put the dBx GEQ back in.

 

[kemmler3D]

I tried using the Rane PEQ. I found it very confusing and non-intuitive. I was monitoring in real time. I could not tell when was at the frequency I wanted. I couldn't see the effects of changing the Q. I could make changes across many octaves, but could not pinpoint a center frequency.
This just doesn't work for me.

I put the dBx GEQ back in.

Not surprising to hear, unless it has a frequency read-out down to 1hz you're going to have a tough time.

If it were me, I'd run white noise through the PEQ, into an ADC, and then just view that on an RTA in REW or other software so I could actually SEE the curve coming out of the PEQ. Otherwise I imagine it's really hard to know if you've got the curve dialed in or what.