Second pc as alternative to minidsp

[Topaz_83]

Hi!

I recently purchased the miniDSP Flex HTX with the Dirac Live license, hoping to use it for room correction and EQing my ATC speakers and subwoofers. However, I'm finding it quite complex to set up and use, especially given my background as a music producer rather than an audio engineer. While I've been using Dirac Live in its software form and love its capabilities, I would prefer to have it running on an external DSP for a more streamlined setup.

I'm considering returning the miniDSP and instead using a cheap PC with digital audio input and output. This would involve sending the digital signal from my UAD Apollo interface to the PC, processing it with Dirac Live software, and then sending the processed signal back to the Apollo for conversion to analog before outputting to the speakers.

I'm wondering if this approach makes sense and, if so, what advantages a miniDSP would offer over this PC-based setup, particularly for a two-speaker plus two-subwoofer system. My primary goal is to achieve accurate EQ for my ATCs and subwoofers without getting bogged down in the complexities of DSP programming.

I appreciate any insights or advice from those with experience in this area.

Thank you for reading!

 

[kemmler3D]

Hi!

I recently purchased the miniDSP Flex HTX with the Dirac Live license, hoping to use it for room correction and EQing my ATC speakers and subwoofers. However, I'm finding it quite complex to set up and use, especially given my background as a music producer rather than an audio engineer. While I've been using Dirac Live in its software form and love its capabilities, I would prefer to have it running on an external DSP for a more streamlined setup.

I'm considering returning the miniDSP and instead using a cheap PC with digital audio input and output. This would involve sending the digital signal from my UAD Apollo interface to the PC, processing it with Dirac Live software, and then sending the processed signal back to the Apollo for conversion to analog before outputting to the speakers.

I'm wondering if this approach makes sense and, if so, what advantages a miniDSP would offer over this PC-based setup, particularly for a two-speaker plus two-subwoofer system. My primary goal is to achieve accurate EQ for my ATCs and subwoofers without getting bogged down in the complexities of DSP programming.

I appreciate any insights or advice from those with experience in this area.

Thank you for reading!

I haven't used Dirac but I have used a PC as a DSP for a 2.1 setup.

Since you already have the audio interface, all you need is a PC and the software you intend to use for processing audio.

I got one like this: ttps://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-ThinkCentre-Dual-Core-Processor-Refurbished/dp/B07G4LVZQZ/

It comes with Windows installed so all you really need to do is connect the audio interface and go.

This is more complicated if your interface doesn't have the inputs / outputs you need. For example if you want to connect multiple inputs, etc. But for a basic stereo setup, it works well.

 

[DLS79]

I'm considering returning the miniDSP and instead using a cheap PC with digital audio input and output. This would involve sending the digital signal from my UAD Apollo interface to the PC, processing it with Dirac Live software, and then sending the processed signal back to the Apollo for conversion to analog before outputting to the speakers.

Depends what you mean by "PC with digital audio input and output".

Generally speaking cheap mini pcs are going to limit you to usb for input and output. You might be able to do something with with a mid sized pc with usb in and optical out (but even that not super common).

The benefit of a miniDSP product is that it's designed for that specific purpose, so you generally don't need to worry about hardware or operating system limitations.

 

[Keith_W]

Advantage of using a PC vs. a MiniDSP:

- More processing power, and ultimately better correction. You can use linear phase FIR filters with up to 262,000 taps instead of mixed phase filters with 1024 taps per channel.
- Greater flexibility. You can use any filter design software and any convolver you like and you are not stuck with Dirac Live. You are also not limited by hardware choices of the MiniDSP, e.g. if you want to have 12 DAC channels or even 100 DAC channels, it can be done.
- You may already have a PC in your signal chain already anyway. My PC does it all - plays music from locally stored files, plays music from streaming services, does the convolution, and sends it to the multichannel DAC.

Disadvantages of using a PC vs. MiniDSP:

- Greater complexity, especially with audio routing. You have to figure out how to get signal into the PC, route it through software, and out again. It's not impossible, but it is inconvenient and unintuitive. It is even more complex if you choose to use advanced software, i.e. not Dirac. Then you actually have to learn DSP and what all those terms mean. If you already find Dirac complex, I would suggest that attempting to use Audiolense, or other packages like Acourate or REW+RePhase+DRC-FIR, is not for you.
- Less robust. A Windows update or software glitch might break your solution. You might get random BSOD's. Hardware and software goes obsolete, may have random failures, and a PC needs to be maintained. A MiniDSP is almost bulletproof by comparison - you set it and forget it.

The difference between different DSP solutions is a bit like the difference between a phone camera and Lightroom. MiniDSP is like a phone camera. It is an integrated solution, with hardware and software designed together to provide the simplest user interface whilst still producing great results. But it takes away control from the user, is less flexible, and has limits on how much it can do. For most people, this is good enough.

The alternative is getting a separate camera and using Lightroom. There is a definite learning curve, it is less convenient and more expensive. But it lets you control every aspect of the image and you have to make every decision yourself. It is also far more flexible.