-
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!
Super tweeter
- Thread starter David12
- Start date
And is one of the things that DSP might make a lot easier (not for dummies but for very newbies) is to help you design a passive crossover, for say a two-way speaker? That is, when you use DSP to dial in the crossover frequency and slope (e.g. attenuation rate??), might miniDSP, or other such tools, have a utility to then help you design the passive crossover and pinpoint RCL values?
Keith_W
Major Contributor
If all you want to do is simulate the result, then you don't need a MiniDSP. You can do all that in REW.
If you really want to design a passive crossover and not use DSP, there are simulation tools like VituixCAD where you can place capacitors, resistors, etc. and preview your frequency response. Go to DIYAudio.com and chat to them. I have no experience in designing a passive XO.
The only reason to buy a MiniDSP is if you plan to use it long term. It is better than a passive XO and much easier to iterate. But it's up to you.
Great info. Thanks! My problem with DSP is if it will end up at least doubling the A/D. D/A conversions in the system. Why not use active analog crossovers? That is what I may do with my second speaker build if the learning curve of software like that VituixCAD is not very steep.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Because AD/DA conversions are effectively transparent. It is true that each time you convert AD/DA a bit more noise is added, but the noise is still well below audibility. On the other hand, the benefits of DSP are profound. Not so much MiniDSP since it's effectively a digital version of an analog crossover (since it is minimum phase IIR), but if you went with a linear phase XO you could have corrections that passive XO's can only dream about.
Waxx
Major Contributor
That was an issue untill maybe a decade ago. But today AD and DA conversion is so high quality (even cheap ones) that it became a non issue.
And minidsp allows digital inputs, the flex and shd series can be used as preamp actually so the dac is only after the DSP for all digital sources. No extra ad/da needed. Other dsp's will (or already can) do the same probally.
I think the jury's still out on this, as there seems to be ample evidence that such a judgement call is a matter of degree. Even brands known for good sounding gear at very affordable prices offer multiple DAC models. but where the cost and profit levels of even the lower priced models would likely be much higher than those realized in miniDSP and other such hardware typically marketed to DIYers building active speaker systems-and even in the case of this made in US brand. https://www.schiit.com/products/lok...BnxZVb7XcOWblzAXDMtexfYqN99dHeyhoCzkoQAvD_BwE
So, I don't think it takes an MBA grad to conclude that unless one source material are generally mp3s it would be a losing business model to build the sound quality of a $3.5K standalone DAC into a $350. mulitchannel DSP processor, even though the AKM chips in my Pioneer LX500 BD player sound pretty good.
Audio D/A Converters | Audio Components | Products | Asahi Kasei Microdevices (AKM)
AKM’s audio D/A converters (DACs) provide solutions for high quality audio system with the original digital-analog mixing technology.
Waxx
Major Contributor
Well, there are subjectivists that claim that there are still issues to be solved, but each time i or someone else asks for objective proof of that, or even what parameter is not god yet, the answer is silence or audiophile b******t. So I ask again, where is the issue (on objective parameters) that is not transparent now with the latest generations dac systems (AKM, ESS or others) that are still hearable? Brands like Topping, SMSL and many others make very cheap dac's that are transparent. Build quality (in the sense of durability) is still sometimes an issue, but not audio quality on objective base.
