Need Rec's - Flattest, accurate, NO dsp, speaker for mixing/mastering.

[tw 2022]

I missed the rear port .........
Liked the freq plot!

sorry , i missed that requirement....

 

[kemmler3D]

we end up eq'ing (trinnov) - something that already has a lot of dsp eq on it.

Why is this bad, though?

 

[AwesomeSauce2015]

Not sure how some of these measure without DSP but you can always use Trinnov
JBL 705i or 708i
Kali SM-5-C
Focal Aria Evo X no 1
Triad in room monitor

The 705 / 708 powered versions have been measured and performed pretty well. Not Genelec good, but unlike Genelec's coaxial monitors they can actually get loud.
However, the 70Xi models don't seem to measure as well, even with the required JBL processing.
The 70Xi models (The ones without built in amps), are designed to be used with JBL processing in either a BSS processor or Crown amplifier, and the measurements without this processing in place show it (The raw response is horrendous, though directivity is good courtesy of the passive "crossover")
Links:
708i passive review (Without JBL processing)
708i review with JBL processing
708P review

The Kali also requires proprietary DSP processing, at least from what I understand. Could you replicate that with a Trinnov DSP, maybe (And you could probably replicate the JBL processing too). But you'd be better off getting something else so you have a known good speaker starting point rather than trying to correct for your room and speaker.

Ultimately, I wouldn't recommend using the 70Xi line, when the 70XP (powered versions) line isn't much more cost and performs way better. Ultimately, the real answer is that OP needs to just use a monitor with built in DSP, or go for a more typical home audio / home theater speaker which focuses on getting a flat passive response, at the expense of the inefficient crossover, lack of protection, and other issues with those types of speakers for studio work.

 

[AwesomeSauce2015]

Why is this bad, though?

(The quoted post responded to OP's "we end up eq'ing (trinnov) - something that already has a lot of dsp eq on it."

OP seems to be of the opinion that the speaker's built-in DSP will impact or negatively effect their ability to do EQ with their Trinnov. I understand how someone could have this concern, and I know many people who I have explained this to before, but as an engineer I understand that this isn't that big of an issue, because I understand how systems like this work. I will include a small write up below about why this isn't an issue, and can actually be a benefit.

Basically, the only real negative downside to doing two separate DSP processors would be if they were connected by an analog link. Then you would have a needless Digital -> Analog -> Digital conversion. This could be eliminated with digital outputs from DSP 1 into the speakers' DSP amplifiers, but the reality of it is that modern A/D and D/A converters are good enough that you won't be able to hear any resulting distortion from these conversions.

When I have two processors each applying a set of filters, the resulting filter will be the sum* (I know it's more complicated than this, continuous signals and such, but this is a simple explanation) of the two sets of filters. In other words, if I have two DSP units that are each set to apply a 3db boost at 100hz, the result of running a signal through both of them (in series, so in one, out from one into the second one), will be a 6db boost at 100hz. The basic idea is that changing the processing on one of the two DSP units will not cause the processing on the second one to magically change and behave unpredictably.

What DSP speaker systems give us is this: A speaker has a naturally imperfect frequency response. We can use a DSP unit, built into the speaker, to correct for the speaker's frequency, directivity, and phase response. If we use a DSP with multiple outputs, and multiple channels of amplification, we can then replace the passive crossover components with DSP filters that don't suffer from heat, saturation, or component tolerance issues. We can then use as many filters as we need to optimize the directivity, and frequency and phase responses. This means that out of the box, the speaker then has been optimized and corrected for its natural response imperfections.
Since we can treat the speaker as "perfect", we can then use a second DSP, before the speaker's DSP, to correct for the speaker deployment and room. We can make whatever changes we want to in this DSP, without impacting the "perfect" speaker's performance. The end result is that we have a speaker with known performance, and we then can correct the effect of just the room, without worrying about damaging said speaker.

Ultimately, the use of DSP in a powered speaker will give more benefits than drawbacks to the subjective and objective sound performance.

 

[Keith_W]

OP seems to be of the opinion that the speaker's built-in DSP will impact or negatively effect their ability to do EQ with their Trinnov.

Well said. People should realise that their "non DSP" speakers actually has signal processing. It's "ASP" - Analog Signal Processing. That's what the crossover network does, and also the speaker driver and the enclosure. Albeit in a really crude, imprecise way, all whilst wasting amplifier power as heat and introducing nonlinearities of its own. The moment any component imposes a transfer function, there is "signal processing" going on.

IMO, for any serious application, some kind of DSP is mandatory. By far the best way to implement DSP is to have each speaker driver controlled by its own DAC channel and amplifier.