-
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!
Opinions on Hypex Plate (FusionAMP) Amplifiers?
- Thread starter abdo123
- Start date
In that case, no point in upgrading either. Why have people been asking for FIR support for years then? Then just say "we won't release a new product because there is no market for it" instead of blaming Corona or chip shortages.
I think that hill is occupied mostly by MiniDSP. No, they don't have a complete plate amp solution (with FIR), but that does not matter. The competition consists of alternatives just as much as equivalent products.
That depends on your definition of meaningful. 4k taps of the 2x4 HD is already interesting and useful. If you think otherwise, you should also find Dirac useless.
"equivalent" is key here.. pure marketing.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #167
No, they do not share these things as part of marketing material. They’re trade secrets.
This is how i know: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-standalone-for-pc-and-mac.24077/post-818725
Yes, I know that post. Sure, call it a trade secret, call it marketing. Fact is, they do it with the same resources, so if they can do it, I can as well.
mdsimon2
Major Contributor
Agree that this is 100% marketing.
That being said the miniDSP plug-ins really cripple the potential FIR functionality. A 2x4HD running at 48 kHz with FIR banks on the input (basically the DDRC-24 configuration with user defined FIR filters) would be way more useful than the current configuration.
Michael
mdsimon2
Major Contributor
mdsimon2
Major Contributor
But doesn’t that mean you are prioritizing phase coherence? Are you talking about input vs output FIR filters? Just not sure what you are disagreeing with.
Michael
OP
- Thread Starter
- #174
I think that if you’re a speaker designer who bought the device for digital crossovers (again that’s the main purpose of the 2*4HD as opposed to something like the OpenDRC-DI) you would appreciate more versatility in the outputs processing rather than more room correction potential.
mdsimon2
Major Contributor
Ok, got it on input vs output. I still think input FIRs are way more useful than output FIRs in speaker building applications.
You can do more in terms of crossover linearization with a FIR to linearize phase on top of an IIR crossover than a straight FIR linear phase crossover, I imagine this is where Dirac is claiming "equivalent resolution". You can see this difference in posts 152 and 156 of this thread -> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pen-source-streamer-project.20840/post-692795. And because an input FIR meant to linearize a crossover will linearize both high and low pass sides it is even more efficient.
I guess in an ideal world they would give us both input and output FIRs with high tap limits on all but as you mentioned earlier it doesn't seem like miniDSP is prioritizing user defined FIR filters these days. And just because it sounds easy to implement input / output FIRs to a layman doesn't mean implementing this would actually be easy.
Michael
You can do more in terms of crossover linearization with a FIR to linearize phase on top of an IIR crossover than a straight FIR linear phase crossover, I imagine this is where Dirac is claiming "equivalent resolution". You can see this difference in posts 152 and 156 of this thread -> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pen-source-streamer-project.20840/post-692795. And because an input FIR meant to linearize a crossover will linearize both high and low pass sides it is even more efficient.
I guess in an ideal world they would give us both input and output FIRs with high tap limits on all but as you mentioned earlier it doesn't seem like miniDSP is prioritizing user defined FIR filters these days. And just because it sounds easy to implement input / output FIRs to a layman doesn't mean implementing this would actually be easy.
Michael
And is it just the components in the DSP module or the whole FusionAmp ? Will it be possible to replace only the DSP module in the future or will a complete new fusion be needed ?
Steep crossover slopes will concentrate errors in DI due to directivity mismatching to a smaller bandwidth, but the errors will be more pronounced. So, a small but sharp dip rather than a wide and smooth depression. Which is better? Hard to say, but in a properly designed system, I don't think crossover slope should make a big difference, within reason.
mdsimon2
Major Contributor
Never tried
I have not, steepest I used was LR 96 dB/oct. Brickwall FIR chews up a lot more taps than a FIR linearized LR and at the time I was also trying to linearize my main to sub crossover which consumed ~2000 taps itself. Probably need to revisit some of this stuff with CamillaDSP, when I was using the miniSHARC it always felt like I was fighting between what I wanted to do and tap limitations.
Michael
I have not, steepest I used was LR 96 dB/oct. Brickwall FIR chews up a lot more taps than a FIR linearized LR and at the time I was also trying to linearize my main to sub crossover which consumed ~2000 taps itself. Probably need to revisit some of this stuff with CamillaDSP, when I was using the miniSHARC it always felt like I was fighting between what I wanted to do and tap limitations.
Michael
Similar threads
