Understanding the state of the DSP market

[OCA]

I agree with OCA's opinion.


View attachment 452974
View attachment 452975
View attachment 452976
I've seen some users export WAV files, then import them as raw files into Audacity and change the file extension to .bin to use them.
I haven't been able to test it myself since I no longer have a MiniDSP.
So, I'm not really sure if that actually works.


------------------------------------------------

By the way, A few simple examples.
(I still don’t fully understand the API (always grateful to @JohnPM for REW), but users like @OCA automate it and use it effectively for their purposes. - So, if you have a good knowledge of API, you can either automate it or do it manually.)


View attachment 452978

View attachment 452979
View attachment 452980

.wav to .bin converter:

Limitations of MiniDSP

... or any other DSP with only 1024 taps per channel. Over the weekend, I went to a friend's place to help generate some filters for his system. His system consists of 2 subwoofers and 2 mains, with a MiniDSP SHD, which accepts a 2 channel input, convolves filters, and has 4 analog outputs. It...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Lion♡]

.wav to .bin converter:

Limitations of MiniDSP

... or any other DSP with only 1024 taps per channel. Over the weekend, I went to a friend's place to help generate some filters for his system. His system consists of 2 subwoofers and 2 mains, with a MiniDSP SHD, which accepts a 2 channel input, convolves filters, and has 4 analog outputs. It...

audiosciencereview.com

Wow. You’re a genius. I’ll share your link with the Korean community I follow.

 

[Dichotome]

It's a good point you made, to contrast crossovers with room correction filters. They don't have anything to do with each other ideally, except perhaps for sub integration.
The comments I made about less FIR taps sounding better, don't really apply to linear-phase crossovers. Even high order crossovers have relatively low Q's, which don't require a lot of taps to implement. What does take a lot of taps are higher Q PEQ's for example, used to smooth out frequency response. Here's where less FIR is more.....which is no surprise I think, as nearly everyone knows high Q IIR filters tend to suck and are overcorrections.

The potential overcorrection with DRC room correction that goes beyond too much frequency response filtering, is if phase is being altered too. I know Dirac uses mixed phase, having run transfer functions on the filters it generates. No clue about others...but generally, ANY time phase linearization is done other than with complementary crossovers, the potential for pre-ring exists.

The other problem with DRC in my mind, is that although each room mode/reflection itself is minimum phase, the summation of any two together is not....much less all of them together.
That summed hodge-podge is what gets corrected with a single filter set. a ...waay too much luck of the measurement draw for me.

DRC simply has to be to a spot at worst, or to a relatively small area at best.
Personally, I ditched the goal of sweet spot listening over twenty years ago...and has proven to be one of the best audio moves I've made in my life !

Well the power of using Acourate or Audiolense is that the filters you create are based on measurements taken at the listening position(s) (which from what I’ve read is a wider area than just one seat, hence the plural in brackets). So if you are creating crossover filters they will automatically be taking the room into account. Ditto for EQing.

I’m certainly not suggesting that this removes the problem of overcorrection (indeed Mitch advocates that less is often more in this context) but this listening position led approach does seem to be the ideal approach in principle as far as I can see.

 

[Lars Risbo]

Mixed Phase
This is achieved by cascading an IIR filter with a FIR filter, sometimes the other way around.

great post! my only comment is that mixed phase just means that the filter is in between minimum phase and maximum phase, ie has a minimum phase part and an excess phase part (all pass, delay etc). both IIR and FIR can be mixed phase and minimum phase

 

[3ll3d00d]

Well the power of using Acourate or Audiolense is that the filters you create are based on measurements taken at the listening position(s) (which from what I’ve read is a wider area than just one seat, hence the plural in brackets). So if you are creating crossover filters they will automatically be taking the room into account. Ditto for EQing.

I’m certainly not suggesting that this removes the problem of overcorrection (indeed Mitch advocates that less is often more in this context) but this listening position led approach does seem to be the ideal approach in principle as far as I can see.

Not really, acourate particularly is single position based measurements and crossover/speaker design is not room eq

 

[Keith_W]

Not really, acourate particularly is single position based measurements and crossover/speaker design is not room eq

Acourate can be made to use any curve as the basis of correction, including MMM, multi-point averaged, etc. although the simplest way is to use a single measurement. Uli has explained how to do it before, and the guide I wrote simply replicates Uli's description. The trick is to use one measurement to generate the inversion, then another measurement (single position, which preserves phase and timing information) to generate the correction.

 

[3ll3d00d]

Acourate can do pretty much whatever you want at various stages but the actual filter creation part is single point. Anyway the main point is not to conflate this with speaker design, these are two different activities.

 

[HookEm]

Minimum Phase vs Linear Phase
…
What this means is that filters are much easier to design.

It seems like you meant to say that a certain type of filters are much easier to design, but you did not say which type.

 

[stigger]

It seems like you meant to say that a certain type of filters are much easier to design, but you did not say which type.

Linear phase.

 

[HookEm]

Well, I’ve taken the plunge with the DspNexus… As daunting as AudioWeaver may seem, at least you can see what you’ll get. I’m an engineer (Electrical), and a bit of a nerd (albeit not an expert on DSP stuff), so I’m willing to use the Nexus as a training/learning platform… I do admit that a more user-friendly abstraction layer is needed to bring products like this to a larger market, but for me the no-cost renewable license to AudioWeaver offered by the Nexus is a pretty good deal for those wanting to explore and learn this stuff, and as a bonus: the DACs on the Nexus sound pretty darn good! (had a chance to audition a setup at Capital Audio Fest, in DC).

Anyway, I ordered a 4-chn version with 8 XLR connectors, so it’s easily upgradable to 8-chn by adding 2 DAC modules.
The Nexus will be driving a pair of full-range Quad ESLs (2905s), and a pair of Subs (I will play with Xover frequency, and room EQ)… Looking forward to it!

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Well, I’ve taken the plunge with the DspNexus… As daunting as AudioWeaver may seem, at least you can see what you’ll get. I’m an engineer (Electrical), and a bit of a nerd (albeit not an expert on DSP stuff), so I’m willing to use the Nexus as a training/learning platform… I do admit that a more user-friendly abstraction layer is needed to bring products like this to a larger market, but for me the no-cost renewable license to AudioWeaver offered by the Nexus is a pretty good deal for those wanting to explore and learn this stuff, and as a bonus: the DACs on the Nexus sound pretty darn good! (had a chance to audition a setup at Capital Audio Fest, in DC).

Anyway, I ordered a 4-chn version with 8 XLR connectors, so it’s easily upgradable to 8-chn by adding 2 DAC modules.
The Nexus will be driving a pair of full-range Quad ESLs (2905s), and a pair of Subs (I will play with Xover frequency, and room EQ)… Looking forward to it!

I can’t even find prices or where to buy on their site. How did you even find out about this company?

 

[HookEm]

I can’t even find prices or where to buy on their site. How did you even find out about this company?

The DspNexus is discussed in various thread here in ASR... Try the searching for "DspNexus" at the top-right of this page.

Here's a link with prices:

The dspNexus 2/8 with ADSP-21569 and AK4499EX is shipping - Danville Signal

Danville Signal Processing is a technology partner for high performance audio solutions. We provide SHARC-based DSP modules for a variety of OEMs, ODMs and oth

www.danvillesignal.com

(I ordered P/N A.03743A-569-4499-4, @ $3500)

=== Copy-Paste from above URL ===
Now that we are ready to ship, these are the three versions currentlly available. All three versions use the new ADSP-21569 DSP from Analog Devices.
1) The dspNexus 2/8 with AK4499EX is $4,000. P/N is A.03743A-569-4499
2) A reduced channel count version of dspNexus 2/8 with the ability to upgrade in the future is available. The AK4499EX 4 Channel version is $3,500. P/N is A.03743A-569-4499-4
3) The dspNexus 2/8 with AK4493S is $3,000. P/N is A.03743A-569-4493

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Not adding anything to this wonderful discussion: A wide-eyed ignoramus sharing its wonderment at the level of knowledge and dedication of some here.. AS well as the useful information being shared

I am very close to reach the conclusion that best sound from most systems shall include the use of DSP.. IOW, it seems that DSP seems to be the requisite to extract the maximum from an audio system. Sadly, the interface to most users remain arcane and require more knowledge than most audiophile passess. Such knoweldge is attainable but the learning curve is steep.
I came to that conclusion after having used @OCA Evo Acoustica, in my modest system, transforming it in ways I had no inkling of. I thought I had tamed the bass by using a mini DSP 2x4HD though MSO and mostly left the rest to Audyssey MultEQ-X.. What @OCA script brought to my system needs to be experienced ...
Yes it is FR but the spatial qualities, now exhibited by my system are from a different realm...
I also admit that I do not understand how is that achieved.. I understand that this is in part, through the use of @JohnPM, REW and other things.. By The way I cannot stop thinking @JohnPM for his gift to the community. THis thing is a masterprice and a powerhouse. So much power and so many tools for free. I will soon upgrade to the pro version.. just .. because ..

And I thank @Keith_W for always bringing DSP to the front of the discussion and to @ernestcarl , @Robbo99999 , @levimax and others who are actively participating in this thread.

I am retreating to my lair. I will calmly and slowly read and digest the entire thread.


Thanks People!

 

[dualazmak]

Does anyone know of Windows software for crossovers and DSP that allows "on the fly" adjustments like shown in the video?

Sorry for my belated response.

As you may be already well aware of, I have been using DSP "EKIO" which allows adjusting almost everything "on the fly".
Please refer to my post #931 on my project thread for the details of my latest system setup including EKIO configurations.

One important precaution for you is "do not to change gain value by numeric keyboard input" but "use mouse wheel rotation up/down of 0.1 dB granularity" on-the-fly.
Since if you mistype as "45 dB gain up" by keyboard input instead of your intended "4.5 dB", you have high possibility of damaging/destroying your SP driver...

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

The DspNexus is discussed in various thread here in ASR... Try the searching for "DspNexus" at the top-right of this page.

Here's a link with prices:

The dspNexus 2/8 with ADSP-21569 and AK4499EX is shipping - Danville Signal

Danville Signal Processing is a technology partner for high performance audio solutions. We provide SHARC-based DSP modules for a variety of OEMs, ODMs and oth

www.danvillesignal.com

(I ordered P/N A.03743A-569-4499-4, @ $3500)

=== Copy-Paste from above URL ===
Now that we are ready to ship, these are the three versions currentlly available. All three versions use the new ADSP-21569 DSP from Analog Devices.
1) The dspNexus 2/8 with AK4499EX is $4,000. P/N is A.03743A-569-4499
2) A reduced channel count version of dspNexus 2/8 with the ability to upgrade in the future is available. The AK4499EX 4 Channel version is $3,500. P/N is A.03743A-569-4499-4
3) The dspNexus 2/8 with AK4493S is $3,000. P/N is A.03743A-569-4493

Thank you; I see what happened now. The cost of the single DSP is almost more than my entire system. Most people would agree, the best place to apply one's budget, dollar for dollar, is on the speakers first and everything else second. Given that DSP costs more than the retail on my speakers (and I actually paid significantly less than full retail on my open-box set) combined with my subwoofer, it comes as no wonder that this DSP was never on my radar.

 

[DWPress]

The cost of the single DSP is almost more than my entire system.

The Danville system is probably one of the more expensive options out there. If you have a computer in your system already everything that is done with the Danville can be done for cheap or free depending on how many channels you need (L + R + sub(s)). The benefits of the Danville and MiniDSP products is that after it is set up with the computer they are stand alone units just integrated with the rest of the audio gear.

 

[levimax]

Thank you; I see what happened now. The cost of the single DSP is almost more than my entire system. Most people would agree, the best place to apply one's budget, dollar for dollar, is on the speakers first and everything else second. Given that DSP costs more than the retail on my speakers (and I actually paid significantly less than full retail on my open-box set) combined with my subwoofer, it comes as no wonder that this DSP was never on my radar.

There are plenty of free or very inexpensive DSP solutions that can work very well especially if you have a PC in the chain.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

The Danville system is probably one of the more expensive options out there. If you have a computer in your system already everything that is done with the Danville can be done for cheap or free depending on how many channels you need (L + R + sub(s)). The benefits of the Danville and MiniDSP products is that after it is set up with the computer they are stand alone units just integrated with the rest of the audio gear.

There are plenty of free or very inexpensive DSP solutions that can work very well especially if you have a PC in the chain.

I actually already have DIRAC Live integrated in my power amplifier. With this I was able to eliminate the miniDSP Flex I had in my chain, as well as separate DAC (I had the digital output version of the Flex, with DIRAC Live license). I just follow this thread to see what I can learn.

 

[HookEm]

The Danville system is probably one of the more expensive options out there. If you have a computer in your system already everything that is done with the Danville can be done for cheap or free depending on how many channels you need (L + R + sub(s)). The benefits of the Danville and MiniDSP products is that after it is set up with the computer they are stand alone units just integrated with the rest of the audio gear.

Ummh... A PC solution would certainly cover the DSP aspect (filters & such), but you'd still need add muti-channel DACs.

To me, considering that the DspNexus offers:
1) Full pre-amp functionality: USB, SPDIF, and Analog (ADC) inputs... Built-in high-quality phono stage (Dynavector) that supports MM and MC cartridges.... Volume control... And SPDIF output, should you choose to use an extenal DAC.
2) High-quality (AKM) DACs (4 or 8 channels)
3) No-cost renewable license to AudioWeaver (which provides full visibility and control of what's under the hood... Albeit, with a not-so-user-friendly interface.
Then, I'd argue that it is a very good value at its price-point... And a superior (more functional) product compared to MiniDSP.

Of course, that's just my opinion (which is the reason I ordered one!)

 

[DWPress]

Your opinion is noted.