Psychological &/or philosophical rejection of DSP

[klettermann]

Help me understand. I've recently been browsing a bunch of "audiophile" forums in hope of learning something new about DSP, room treatment, noise reduction, etc. To my surprise most of what I found in the 2ch audio world was a widespread aversion to DSP, whether for EQ, room treatment or much of anything else. Lots of concern about preferring "signal purity" and stuff like that. And often (or mostly!) this goes hand in hand with the "digital noise" crowd that's concerned with some kind of distortion that can't be measured but still heard as "less blackness" and similar descriptors. And it seems measurements of anything are nowhere to be found. I had one guy advise me to abandon all DSP and instead undertake a tunable room treatment project that would have cost tens of thousands of $$$. ????

This all strikes me as snake oil adjacent at best. Can anybody comment or clarify this mindset? Or am I getting it all wrong? Thanks and cheers,

 

[Mort]

Or am I getting it all wrong?

You are getting it all right.

DSP has and continues to advance steadily as a technology and be more affordable. The principals are basic audio science. The sonic improvements are preferred with statistical significance.

Avoiding DSP to preserve signal purity is an ignorant, luddite response.

 

[izeek]

iono, but i think what it takes to dsp is complicated for many. me, included.
i have a mini-dsp and it's never been used because ive not found much to describe what and why i would make changes to the flat peq to improve my sound.
got the gear, made the measurements but nothing says i adjust here<because >, or how or why. i think some just come up with stuff rather than admit it's daunting to them.
now, with wiim's room-fit, im good using it. im sure it isnt perfect but pretty good.
and it still doesn't tell me why i make adjustments to the peq. but, since it does the work for me, i use it.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Why do you visit audiophile forums?

 

[DSJR]

My compromise position is to try as much as possible to get the basics right or as near right as possible FIRST and then use dsp to fine tune what's there, primarily in the bass region I believe...

Same goes for active speaker design I gather, where two shit drivers in an unmatched box are going to stay that way no matter how hard you dsp-them to death


P.S. I have to echo the question by @Vincent Kars above. Most of the 'audiophile' forums I know and still glance in occasionally, are still veered too strongly (for me) to 'audiophooldom' and one or two threads I glanced at, actually made me feel nauseous I'm afraid.

 

[klettermann]

You are getting it all right.

DSP has and continues to advance steadily as a technology and be more affordable. The principals are basic audio science. The sonic improvements are preferred with statistical significance.

Avoiding DSP to preserve signal purity is an ignorant, luddite response.

Yeah, but it's willful ignorance. That's what I find baffling. In a supposedly technical hobby, with scientific underpinnings (physics, acoustics, materials science etc etc) one might expect a greater level of curiosity and willingness to learn. Yet the opposite seems to be the case. There's some psychological element going on here of the escapes me.

 

[Mort]

My compromise position is to try as much as possible to get the basics right or as near right as possible FIRST and then use dsp to fine tune what's there, primarily in the bass region I believe...

Same goes for active speaker design I gather, where two shit drivers in an unmatched box are going to stay that way no matter how hard you dsp-them to death

You aren't wrong and I would argue that's not the compromise position. I think you are precisely where the DSP camp is pragmatically. DSP can't solve everything and shouldn't be used as such.

The title of the thread was a philosophical rejection, not a pragmatic one. There's no philosophical compromise to say that it is not a cure-all.

 

[klettermann]

Why do you visit audiophile forums?

Well, as stated above in the OP it was "in hope of learning something new about DSP, room treatment, noise reduction, etc" Epic fail, obviously. I'm an optimist by nature but it was shocking.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, but it's willful ignorance.

My dad was an over educated high IQ man who fervently believed his cables made the noise floor lower. He, nearly ordained a Jesus priest, could not have told you with any certainty whether God existed. But he was positive those cables made his Wilson speakers sound better.

 

[tineared]

Well, as stated above in the OP it was "in hope of learning something new about DSP, room treatment, noise reduction, etc" Epic fail, obviously. I'm an optimist by nature but it was shocking.

Some folks are set in their ways and just aren't open to new ideas. It's very similar to a religion
Here we balance our religion with science and I think we are the better for it
All you can do is hear all sides and decide for yourself

 

[klettermann]

iono, but i think what it takes to dsp is complicated for many. me, included.
i have a mini-dsp and it's never been used because ive not found much to describe what and why i would make changes to the flat peq to improve my sound.
got the gear, made the measurements but nothing says i adjust here<because >, or how or why. i think some just come up with stuff rather than admit it's daunting to them.
now, with wiim's room-fit, im good using it. im sure it isnt perfect but pretty good.
and it still doesn't tell me why i make adjustments to the peq. but, since it does the work for me, i use it.

I do think there's a lot to that. Me too, and I like such stuff. It IS complicated and the learning curve is pretty steep. It took me the better part of the year to make any reasonable sense of it and I can understand that many people don't want to do that. And that's a reasonable, rational response. But an enormous number of those folks do NOT say that. They come up with unsupportable ideological reasons or rationales like @Mort 's dad.

 

[Torin Krell]

I believe this philosophical rejection of DSP is an overreaction to its overuse, instead of intelligently applying room treatment before DSP is considered and possibly used. I was originally planning on using DSP in my music room, however after careful gear selection, speaker / listening position placement and appropriate room treatment I simply found DSP unnecessary. Acoustic optimization by DSP produces some compromises that are much better addressed by the informed application of acoustic room treatment. Some people will spend huge sums of money on gear, simply throw it in a room and use DSP exclusively to "fix" any acoustic issues. Room optimization does not work best by relying only on DSP. For best results time needs to be spent on at least trying to take some steps to optimize acoustic room treatment first. Then for many DSP can be the final step for fine tuning a room, after the room treatment that is possible is already applied. I understand however for aesthetics and multi-use rooms where room treatment is impossible or significantly limited DSP may be the main or only option.

 

[krabapple]

Help me understand. I've recently been browsing a bunch of "audiophile" forums

Mistake. Don't bother, except for entertainment.

 

[krabapple]

My compromise position is to try as much as possible to get the basics right or as near right as possible FIRST and then use dsp to fine tune what's there, primarily in the bass region I believe...

That's actually the expert recommended position.

The compromise position is, skip the physical room treatment, go right to DSP.

 

[DSJR]

That's actually the expert recommended position.

The compromise position is, skip the physical room treatment, go right to DSP.

You know what I meant there - ignore modern technolgy altogether and use one's ears, wallet and opinion or straight to dsp in the hope it'll sort it all out regardless

 

[klettermann]

I'm kind of thinking this clip sums it up with a couple word substitution:
Commie = objectivist
fluoridation = DSP

 

[G|force]

I believe there is some conventional notion among *some* audiophiles that passive crossovers and everything analog is inherently pure and musical, while DSP and everything digital is not, and further, specialized capacitors and resistors, copper foil air core chokes and the like bring still more purity to the experience of listening to music. DSP is seen as crude, cheating, or as a brute force method with none of that lush purity.

Even tone controls built around analog circuits are perceived as cheating with less purity, thus bringing one further from the performance.

All of this of course is nonsense without any merit, but bias is bias, and the indoctrinated are a stubborn lot.

 

[levimax]

DSP dogma can cut both ways. While it is foolish and close minded to dismiss all DSP it is also foolish and close minded to believe that pressing a button on an automatic full range DSP solution assures you of the best possible results.

 

[Oddball]

Lol, this has nothing to do with philosophy. That is a separate term.

DSP is smart, and there are many of them, getting smarter every year. The ones that are refusing to use them are not as they don't embrace the change. It has to do with their bias and inability to change. They are welcome to enjoy their outdated systems while we are ripping the DSP benefits. Lazy and uninformed but still members of the community that apparently aims for the better.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Can anybody comment or clarify this mindset?

People fear what they do not understand.