Psychological &/or philosophical rejection of DSP

[pablolie]

You can use measurements to just optimize positioning of speakers and sub - which in itself can make a huge difference. No need to do full DSP correction to get big benefits from measurements.

That said, I don't understand the "anti computer in the audio chain" stance... digital processing is *everywhere* in audio these days. And streamers *are* computers, so there's also zillions of them deployed in audio chains around the world, already.

But hourses for courses etc...

 

[krabapple]

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.

Probably Computer Audiophile -- now Audiophile Style

IIRC owner/host of original CA , Chris Connaker, had audio objectivist leanings -- or at least, hated MQA.
The new site treats objective evaluation as niche, otherwise it is largely given over to subjective slop.
I don't know if it changed owners. (It seems not)

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.

Dirac uses in-room measurements, no? Or are you referring to something else?

 

[krabapple]

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

Proof? How early are you talking about?

 

[john61ct]

I want to see tube gear at line level with a powerful open-standards DSP engine included and lots of multichannel I/O at least 12 ports each way.

Maybe Schiit will do that one day ;-)

 

[john61ct]

Dirac uses in-room measurements, no? Or are you referring to something else?

Automated tools, as opposed to hand tweaking filters.

I'm biased in the other direction

 

[Keith_W]

For years there was a site called "Computer Audio" or something like that and I was a lurker.

That's Computer Audiophile, now known as Audiophile Style. Very slowly the idea of DSP is taking hold on that site, although there is still a large cohort of people exactly as you describe. It's not just crazy oversampling or DSD, they also believe in things like audiophile USB cables, network reclockers, Linear PSU's for computers, audiophile SATA cables, that kind of thing.

 

[pablolie]

I'd venture to say 95% of the "early digital harshness" reputation is simply because back then, when you heard a CD you were kind of in shock at the difference, since vinyl has high frequency roll-off... so in direct comparison it might well have been perceived as "harsh".

 

[krabapple]

Automated tools, as opposed to hand tweaking filters.

I'm biased in the other direction

Audyssey is probably the most used room EQ DSP. Also an 'automated tool'. If Audiophile Style posters are using Audsyssey, they aren't against DSP (or if they think they are, they're being stupid).

 

[krabapple]

I'd venture to say 95% of the "early digital harshness" reputation is simply because back then, when you heard a CD you were kind of in shock at the difference, since vinyl has high frequency roll-off... so in direct comparison it might well have been perceived as "harsh".

There is an awful lot of lore surrounding 'early digital', precious little objective data by comparison.

In the lore, early CD sourcing/mastering practices have also been blamed for 'harshness'. This would not be a fault of digital.

 

[pablolie]

There is an awful lot of lore surrounding 'early digital', precious little objective data by comparison.

In the lore, early CD sourcing/mastering practices have also been blamed for 'harshness'. This would not be a fault of digital.

I wish I'd captured if the CDs were DDD, ADD or AAD back when I ripped them, They stopped those categores in the mid 90s I seem to recall, and I also remember thinking some of the early DDD stuff (I always use Kenny G's "Silhouette" as an example) sounded... I wouldn't call it harsh, rather just somewhat congested, but on the other hand it was the height of the digital sythesizer and digital piano (ugh those early ones) and digtal drum machine era... which even then could be a bit nerve grating

 

[john61ct]

Audyssey is probably the most used room EQ DSP. Also an 'automated tool'. If Audiophile Style posters are using Audsyssey, they aren't against DSP (or if they think they are, they're being stupid).

Exactly what I'm saying. For them, DSP is fine so long as it's been dumbed down

 

[krabapple]

I wish I'd captured if the CDs were DDD, ADD or AAD back when I ripped them, They stopped those categores in the mid 90s I seem to recall, and I also remember thinking some of the early DDD stuff (I always use Kenny G's "Silhouette" as an example) sounded... I wouldn't call it harsh, rather just somewhat congested, but on the other hand it was the height of the digital sythesizer and digital piano (ugh those early ones) and digtal drum machine era... which even then could be a bit nerve grating

Yes, another part of the unquestioned lore that early digital sounded 'bad' (besides bad source/bad mastering EQ) was 'bad ADC', involved in the first two letters of the XXX code (recording & mixing).

Easy enough to buy a used copy on those first issue CDs on Discogs, usually cheaply, if you are interested in analyzing them.

Some of the most drooled-over 'audiophile' digital recordings were made with early generation ADCs -- Steely Dan's Gaucho, Dire Straits Brothers In Arms...

 

[Mahir]

I am excluding room treatment and other acoustics based p (the last letter of Dsp acronym) but it feels like an EQ enhancement to me. Which I despise.

 

[john61ct]

You are allowed to feel strongly about whatever you like, but on this website respect is only given to rational arguments based on measurable evidence.

EQ is not just a DSP domain, plenty of analog tools for that. Do you "hate" even well implemented bass/treble knobs and variable loudness contouring? A little bass boost to get deeper extension out of a compact sub?

Even speaker crossovers whether passive or electronic are "doing EQ"

 

[jeffaegrim]

This has been reiterated many times in many different places - in this thread among others - but I will add my voice to the chorus saying: without some form of DSP in your system, domestic SOTA audio performance is pretty much unthinkable. We know from Toole and others that knocking down the peaks in the modal region as the minimum will lead to a more neutral sound profile. And modern computer based DSP is able to achieve so much more still. It's ironic and slightly depressing seeing all those expensive systems online that forego it due to some ill conceived belief about the purity of signal or what not

 

[Keith_W]

Everybody believes in EQ, it's just that some people don't admit to it. Those subjectivists who talk about "system synergy" are really talking about trying to balance the flaws of their choice of equipment with another piece of equipment which is also flawed, except that they are doing it in a really haphazard and expensive way, relying on the sheer force of the wallet and a lot of wishful thinking. There is a much faster and more accurate way to get from A to B.

 

[ahofer]

I'd venture to say 95% of the "early digital harshness" reputation is simply because back then, when you heard a CD you were kind of in shock at the difference, since vinyl has high frequency roll-off... so in direct comparison it might well have been perceived as "harsh".

Yes. Plus, in my case, a coincident era of just hideous DG recordings.

 

[klettermann]

Has anyone here studied the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer? My own "knowledge" is superficial, having come from this video which is largely AI-generated. But it certainly seems to neatly address the matter of why people believe as they do, and how not to go bonkers about it.

Bravo!

 

[Neuro]

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,

If there is an influence on audible sound by a DSP or digital sound, a proper double-blind study can with acceptable probability reject or demonstrate the influence. Toole and Olive used double-blind studies to validate the subjective parts of the spinorama evaluations.
Other assessments of audible impact are scientifically meaningless.

Neuro

 

[klettermann]

If there is an influence on audible sound by a DSP or digital sound, a proper double-blind study can with acceptable probability reject or demonstrate the influence. Toole and Olive used double-blind studies to validate the subjective parts of the spinorama evaluations.
Other assessments of audible impact are scientifically meaningless.

Neuro

Yes, yes, to be sure. But the question concerns psychology more than the reality of using rigorous methods to prove/disprove audible differences. The crowd I refer to actively rejects such methods, or the specific evaluations, as being flawed when no audible differences are found. Either the test was done wrong, listeners were untrained, etc etc. The idea, I think, is that music has some unmeasurable qualities that can only be heard by golden-eared listeners.