Psychological &/or philosophical rejection of DSP

[Keith_W]

From my very basic and limited understanding of DSP so far, good DSP requires the, possibly permanent?, use of a computer in your hifi set up, and of course a measurement mic for the initial set up. There's simply no way a computer can fit into my current hifi set up.

Definitely not! A computer in the signal path is one way. But you could also use a hardware processor like MiniDSP, Colinear, Hang Loose Processor, DEQX, and many others. Even an AVR! Those hardware processors have certain very important advantages, the most important being simplicity and robustness. Once you program your hardware processor, it is unlikely to fail. Not like my *&)__)(_&(**&^*%(*&^ Windows PC.

 

[izeek]

I think a lot of the problem is the learning curve to do it right. You have to educate yourself at least a bit about the terminology, reading graphs, what "Q" is in the PEQ, and so much more if you really want to refine things or add some sub(s). You need to at least buy a measurement mic and learn how to use it with REW which is daunting in itself. It's an investment in time and money.

Automated solutions are by far the most accessible and are also very easy to screw up. So lots of people try it, don't like it (never measure it) make a few more guesses then go back to what their speakers have trained their ears as "normal". Sometimes they get lucky. Hopefully it encourages them to learn more.

that learning curve is steep, for sure.

 

[izeek]

That's because vast majority of this hobby have a fundamentally different view to us. For them, it's more akin to wine appreciation or luxury watch appreciation. They think there are countless manufacturers, all offering slightly different takes on a Shiraz, and each must be tasted to assemble the best system possible. Sure, there are $10 wines that get you as drunk as a $1000 wine. Some of them are even good! But no, they have elevated taste, likely can't pick the two wines apart in a blind test, but will swear till the cows come home that their $1000 wine is better. And of course, that $1000 wine needs expensive accoutrements - maybe a crystal decanter and wine glasses blown by a hermit in Moravia who makes one wine glass a year (and he has 10 of them). Those $10 wines are viewed with condescension, it's what the masses drink.

After I wrote my REW eBook, I made an announcement at the Melbourne Audio Club. A few members downloaded the book and started reading. One of them told me that he was blown away by the information in the book, he never realized that a microphone could tell him so much. I pointed out that a microphone is cheaper than his audiophile speaker cable, and if he knows how to use it, it will save him a lot of money. I have been talking to him for a month now, and he's been sharing his measurements with me. He is slowly being converted

id love to read your ebook.

 

[Keith_W]

id love to read your ebook.

It's here.

 

[izeek]

It's here.

thanks a milli!

 

[klettermann]

I tend to agree. I'll be the first to admit that DSP is daunting to me.

From my very basic and limited understanding of DSP so far, good DSP requires the, possibly permanent?, use of a computer in your hifi set up, and of course a measurement mic for the initial set up. There's simply no way a computer can fit into my current hifi set up.

Like you, I have very recently set up the very simple to use Room fit on my Wiim Pro, and it's yielded some interesting results which I'm sticking with for now. So I'm not psychologically/philosophically opposed to DSP in the slightest, just not really in a position to be able to use it to its full potential at this point in time.

I'm also happy with the set up I have, so even if a full DSP set up were possible for me, I'm not sure I'm willing to go through the expense, learning curve and then time/effort of setting it all up.

To be clear, there's no necessity for a permanent computer. It all depends on what you get. I got MiniDSP stuff. You use a computer to set it up but then it's gone.

 

[Mort]

One element I have not seen mentioned is conspicuous consumption and the human ego. Signal purity becomes a 'reason' to spend more money. Then we have to justify our purchase afterward, so in the face of new evidence, we double down.

 

[Subob]

Thanks Keith_W, and also Klettermann for clearing up that having to permanently put a computer in the hifi chain is not a requirement for using DSP. I was a bit uncertain on that. It's really good to know, as that's a stumbling block removed for me at least

I was recommended mini DSP by another helpful poster on another thread as it goes, but for various reasons haven't explored it much further.

 

[Mnyb]

What is DSP it can actually bee your Home Theater receiver or you active speakers ? You might own more DSP than you realize ?

 

[voodooless]

You might own more DSP than you realize ?

Guess through how much DSP almost any music track went before it even entered your house? Unless you only listen to < 80s pressed CD and LPs, all of it would have gone through a massive amount of all the things audiophiles despise: regular cables, massive amounts of DSP processing, proper DACs, ADCs, and over their dead body: opamps... huge amounts of them!

 

[klettermann]

Guess through how much DSP almost any music track went before it even entered your house? Unless you only listen to < 80s pressed CD and LPs, all of it would have gone through a massive amount of all the things audiophiles despise: regular cables, massive amounts of DSP processing, proper DACs, ADCs, and over their dead body: opamps... huge amounts of them!

This occurred to me when I wrote the OP. I deliberately ignored it, because so many of the DSP haters don't seem to think about that or specify what DSP even means - which is kind of the point I guess. Cause whatever it is, it's bad for music. Among The Faithful there seems to very little systems thinking going on.

 

[voodooless]

Among The Faithful there seems to very little systems thinking going on.

TIFIFY

 

[JayGilb]

Guess through how much DSP almost any music track went before it even entered your house? Unless you only listen to < 80s pressed CD and LPs, all of it would have gone through a massive amount of all the things audiophiles despise: regular cables, massive amounts of DSP processing, proper DACs, ADCs, and over their dead body: opamps... huge amounts of them!

I have repaired a lot of audio gear over the decades and even the expensive equipment had the usual JRC4*, TL* and NE55* opamps.
No need to reduce profits putting in expensive opamps that make no audible difference.

 

[voodooless]

I repaired a lot of audio gear over the decades and even the expensive equipment had the usual JRC4*, TL* and NE55* opamps.
No need to reduce profits putting in expensive opamps that make no audible difference.

Then it might have been the sensibly designed, expensive stuff. Many of the boutique products will either yield a specialized high-end opamp (whatever that means), or will claim that a discrete circuit is vastly superior because of... reasons...

 

[Eric Natural]

People fear what they do not understand.

quoted for truth

& education as a whole is being neglected !

 

[izeek]

quoted for truth

& education as a whole is being neglected !

intentionally.

 

[john61ct]

My take on finding a balance

Analog crossovers, only using DSP to treat issues the analog system cannot fix

If I have Main L/R comprised of a mix 2- 3-way speakers + midbass couplers + stereo trueSubs all co-located Those subs easily switched to mono if that turns out to test better, there are also other trueSubs already in mono thus freely placed, can be treated as a single sub-group in the DSP...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Philbo King]

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,

It seems to me to be a cork-sniffing conniseur mentality, while also absolving its adherents from doing anything that could make their sound better.

 

[klettermann]

Actually the whole subject is far more bizarre than I suggested at the beginning. There seems to be a large cohort using computer-based systems. For years there was a site called "Computer Audio" or something like that and I was a lurker. Their successors, who worship at the alter of signal purity, still use computers, wild oversampling and speak the language of DSD256/512 and god knows what else. AND Roon, HQP, etc etc. AND seem very happy to do all kinds of convolution, extroversion, involution and any other signal gymnastics in the name of purity and blacker blacks. They seem to just fine with push-button solutions (Dirac etc) and cable swapping. AND somehow all of that doesn't count as DSP. The DSP they avoid is principally room treatment associated with actual measurements. Maybe they subconsciously fear discovering something they're rather not know? Anyway. there's a major, unspoken mental divide - good DSP and bad DSP. But it's never described except in kind of private language and the improvements are rarely if ever described in a way that anybody else could replicate them.

I'm sure many are now seeking out tachyon treatment chambers. So, to me, it ends up being an oddball cult of sorts. I thought I might learn something, and I did - just not what I hoped for.

 

[Waxx]

That world is very conservative, and analog (like they want to use) has a sound. Early digital, and most mainstream consumer digital until very recent was not neutral in sound like modern digital is and did change that colouring (or if you want changed the distortion by adding disharmonic digital distortion). With modern dsp's, even some cheaper ones, you don't have that anymore. I did also avoid dsp for that for years in my hifi setup (not in pro audio where i used it all the time). But the MiniDSP Flex lives now in my main system (where i also play vinyl), and other setups will follow... Even with tube amps, dsp is great now and that is something they don't want to understand. And many snakeoil traders capitalise on that.