Why aren't we pushing for more 4-8 channel DACS for a quality Stereo setup

[mdsimon2]

I do think it is worth discussing how folks do volume control when using a pro audio interface that does not have a IR receiver. So far I have come up with a few solutions but am very interested in other ones.

1) Volume control in CamillaDSP

I mentioned this previously but if you set up the CamillaDSP web interface you can use you this as a volume control from a phone / remote / computer. When you pull it up on a phone you can adjust the volume without any scrolling, see below for a screenshot. The slider between In and Out is the volume slider.

2) miniDSP 2X4HD or SHD Studio as volume control

If you are using external sources (TOSLINK, analog, etc) these work really well as they have bi-directional USB audio, IR receivers and digital volume control implement in their SHARC DSPs. This means that if you use them as a capture device in CamillaDSP they can provide volume control without any DA conversion. SHD Studio obviously has much more input flexibility (and Dirac) but is rather expensive. 2X4HD has much less input functionality but is cheaper and can be upgraded to a DDRC-24 for $200.

3) As a variation to option 1 you can also add a FLIRC IR receiver and use a remote to control CamillaDPS volume. This definitely requires some tinkering and is less plug and play than the other options.

4) You can also add displays to either option but that is not exactly plug and play. I show some examples in this post (and in posts linked in that post).

What I am most curious about is if anyone knows of a product in the 2X4HD price range that has bi-directional USB, DSP based digital volume control (i.e. NOT using DAC volume control), an IR receiver and most importantly a display?

Michael

 

[audio2design]

Exactly. Hence, I suggested an updated/enhanced version which, clearly, miniDSP can do. Take the processing from the NanoAVR.

Still effectively weak from a processing standpoint. They are fine for basic active multichannel cross-overs but not much overall processing power for advanced techniques or long filter lengths across many channels.

 

[mdsimon2]

Still effectively weak from a processing standpoint. They are fine for basic active multichannel cross-overs but not much overall processing power for advanced techniques or long filter lengths across many channels.

The product you are discussing (and the U-DIO8) has no processing. In an active system the whole point of the U-DAC/DIO8 is to use software DSP which has more than enough processing power to implement pretty much anything you desire. To me that is the biggest advantage of using software DSP on USB DACs compared to conventional hardware DSP.

However if we are saying that miniDSP should implement their own software DSP "plug-in" for use with something like the U-DAC/DIO8 then I whole heartedly agree. Always good to have more options especially more consumer friendly ones.

Michael

 

[audio2design]

We are discussing the minidsp SHD which absolutely has processing.

Everything minidsp does is software based DSP so I don't know what you are referring to wrt hardware DSP.

By software DSP do you mean on a PC? That's just a different processor than minidsp but both are software. Yes your desktop processor has far higher MAC processing rates and if you throw in a graphics card way more.

 

[mdsimon2]

We are discussing the minidsp SHD which absolutely has processing.

Everything minidsp does is software based DSP so I don't know what you are referring to wrt hardware DSP.

By software DSP do you mean on a PC? That's just a different processor than minidsp but both are software.

Where is the SHD mentioned? @Kal Rubinson was discussing the U-DAC8.



By hardware DSP I am referring to dedicated DSP chips like the SHARC DSPs in the 2X4HD, SHD, miniSHARC, OpenDRC and the SigmaDSPs in the 4X10HD, 10X10HD, nanoDIGI.

By software DSP I am referring to running something like CamillaDSP where all processing is handled on a computer (PC, Mac, Linux) that is not built specifically for DSP.

Michael

 

[audio2design]

He said "take the processing from the nanoAVR" which is SHD based.

DSP like Sharc are still general purpose processors that just happen to have MAC hardware which most other small processors did not in the past. Everything is still implemented in software. Modern PC processors have many MAC units now not to mention vector processors. Even many small ARM processors have dedicated MAC hardware which has negated the use of dedicated DSP processors in most cases though DSP processors normally have better memory and instruction architectures for keeping the MAC fed. Small more modern general purpose processors can now do that through brute force (clock speed).

Incorporating processing in an ADC/DAC enables, if desired, low latency processing input to output.

 

[mdsimon2]

He said "take the processing from the nanoAVR" which is SHD based.

DSP like Sharc are still general purpose processors that just happen to have MAC hardware which most other small processors did not in the past. Everything is still implemented in software. Modern PC processors have many MAC units now not to mention vector processors. Even many small ARM processors have dedicated MAC hardware which has negated the use of dedicated DSP processors in most cases though DSP processors normally have better memory and instruction architectures for keeping the MAC fed. Small more modern general purpose processors can now do that through brute force (clock speed).

Incorporating processing in an ADC/DAC enables, if desired, low latency processing input to output.

The nanoAVR predates the SHD, not sure how you can say it is SHD based. They both use SHARC DSPs. The way that I am using the terms “software DSP” and “hardware DSP” is commonly understood on this forum, most people are not so pedantic on the definition (although of course your usage is more correct).

Michael

 

[manisandher]

AS MY TITLE CAUSED CONFUSION- THIS IS FOR A STEREO SETUP (NOT THEATER OR SURROUND)
It seems that the optimal way forward with sound quality is to get everything refined in the digital world, before sending it to great amps. In my opinion, this means using software to set active crossovers and DSP, then sending it through a great reclocking and DAC setup, and then having separate amps/amp modules for their respective driver(s). Not having the expense of passive crossover components, better signal preservation, more efficiently, and the ability to easily do steep roll offs is a big deal, IMO. However, it seems that there is not really a big push for this, in that there aren't really any great measuring DAC's for 4-8 channels.

MiniDSP has good software, but products don't really measure well. Motu has some workable things but they tend to be more professional use, so they are often huge with way more stuff than you need (because it is recording studio stuff). Allo has the Piano DAC, which is fine for what it is, but nothing stellar.

I looked at just taking something like 2 Topping DAC's, but apparently there are issues with not having a master clock to synch them together.

So, I am just wondering, why more people aren't wanting to do this type of setup, and if people do want this- how can we lobby to get Topping/SMSL/Etc. to make a DAC so we can start ditching our passive crossovers and get everything dialed in better than ever.

Having recently changed both my systems to fully active configs, I couldn't agree more with you. The improvement in sound quality is quite significant... to my ears at least. And no, I haven't performed any ABXs... I've had my fix of those .

Mani.

 

[audio2design]

The nanoAVR predates the SHD, not sure how you can say it is SHD based. They both use SHARC DSPs. The way that I am using the terms “software DSP” and “hardware DSP” is commonly understood on this forum, most people are not so pedantic on the definition (although of course your usage is more correct).

Michael

It is not pedantic. Calling one "software" and one "hardware" is simply wrong. It is not "more correct". It is correct versus incorrect. I don't perceive people here calling miniDSP "hardware" based implementations. There is nothing more "software" about doing it on a PC versus doing it on a mini-DSP product. The differences are literally in software, i.e. miniDSP gives you (typically) a more building block implementation which happens completely at the software level.

It would have been more accurate to say the SHD is from a processing stand point nanoAVR based, as they share the same processor family, the SHD going up one mode 489 versus 479.

 

[jtwrace]

Yeah, I like 8 ch DACs too.

 

[ElNino]

I do think it is worth discussing how folks do volume control when using a pro audio interface that does not have a IR receiver. So far I have come up with a few solutions but am very interested in other ones.

If you're using a pro audio interface, there are usually a few other options beyond the ones you listed:
- sometimes you can configure the knobs on the front of the interface to control volume across multiple channels;
- use a mobile app provided by the interface vendor (e.g., RME has an iPhone/Android app called TotalMix remote; MOTU has an actual web interface to some of their recent interfaces);
- use a generic OSC mobile app like TouchOSC in tandem with the pro audio interface's OSC support (even older pro audio interfaces like MOTU's 828mk3 support this);
- get a USB based IR receiver and use a host-based OSC tool to take the IR signals and send them to the interface;
- get a wired remote that interfaces with your pro audio interface (e.g., RME's ARC USB gadget, which gets you a big physical volume knob and some programmable buttons); or
- get a wired or bluetooth knob (e.g., Griffin Powermate) and figure out how to get it to communicate with your interface.

 

[jtwrace]

If you're using a pro audio interface, there are usually a few other options beyond the ones you listed:
- sometimes you can configure the knobs on the front of the interface to control volume across multiple channels;
- use a mobile app provided by the interface vendor (e.g., RME has an iPhone/Android app called TotalMix remote; MOTU has an actual web interface to some of their recent interfaces);
- use a generic OSC mobile app like TouchOSC in tandem with the pro audio interface's OSC support (even older pro audio interfaces like MOTU's 828mk3 support this);
- get a USB based IR receiver and use a host-based OSC tool to take the IR signals and send them to the interface;
- get a wired remote that interfaces with your pro audio interface (e.g., RME's ARC USB gadget, which gets you a big physical volume knob and some programmable buttons); or
- get a wired or bluetooth knob (e.g., Griffin Powermate) and figure out how to get it to communicate with your interface.

I use the Roon volume control which seems to work fine. Would I prefer an actual handheld remote? Of course.

 

[highender]

I do use a miniDSP C-DSP for this as it is an integrated solution:
12 Channel DSP
Good quality converters
Optional Dirac Live
Quite easy to set up and adjust
Remote control

The downsides are that it has been designed for caraudio applications, therefore the enclosure is very compact (good imho) but does not fit very well in a neat home audio system because of the basic looks and cable i/o routing, I can easy live with that by the way. The other issue is that it needs 12V, but that is a very minor and easy issue to deal with. It could have been a better integrated solution if they also integrated a USB audio input but a USB / SPDIF converter works well also, but adds an extra device.

 

[mdsimon2]

I do use a miniDSP C-DSP for this as it is an integrated solution:
12 Channel DSP
Good quality converters
Optional Dirac Live
Quite easy to set up and adjust
Remote control

The downsides are that it has been designed for caraudio applications, therefore the enclosure is very compact (good imho) but does not fit very well in a neat home audio system because of the basic looks and cable i/o routing, I can easy live with that by the way. The other issue is that it needs 12V, but that is a very minor and easy issue to deal with. It could have been a better integrated solution if they also integrated a USB audio input but a USB / SPDIF converter works well also, but adds an extra device.

I have heard complaints about really bad channel separation on the CDSP 8x12 on the miniDSP forum -> https://www.minidsp.com/forum/cdsp-series/16240-sound-on-muted-outputs?start=15, have you experienced this issue?

Outside of that it looks like an intriguing device if you do not need FIR filters and want unbalanced outputs.

Michael

 

[highender]

I have heard complaints about really bad channel separation on the CDSP 8x12 on the miniDSP forum -> https://www.minidsp.com/forum/cdsp-series/16240-sound-on-muted-outputs?start=15, have you experienced this issue?

Outside of that it looks like an intriguing device if you do not need FIR filters and want unbalanced outputs.

Michael

Never experienced any such issues but I just read that topic and noticed that I only use channel 1 to 6 (bas / mid / high) which could explain why I do not have this problem.

And indeed, I have no need for balanced outputs or FIR filters. I am using Dirac Live (stereo for PC version) and loving it in this combination.

 

[cyruz]

I do think it is worth discussing how folks do volume control when using a pro audio interface that does not have a IR receiver. So far I have come up with a few solutions but am very interested in other ones.

1) Volume control in CamillaDSP

I mentioned this previously but if you set up the CamillaDSP web interface you can use you this as a volume control from a phone / remote / computer. When you pull it up on a phone you can adjust the volume without any scrolling, see below for a screenshot. The slider between In and Out is the volume slider.

View attachment 154918

2) miniDSP 2X4HD or SHD Studio as volume control

If you are using external sources (TOSLINK, analog, etc) these work really well as they have bi-directional USB audio, IR receivers and digital volume control implement in their SHARC DSPs. This means that if you use them as a capture device in CamillaDSP they can provide volume control without any DA conversion. SHD Studio obviously has much more input flexibility (and Dirac) but is rather expensive. 2X4HD has much less input functionality but is cheaper and can be upgraded to a DDRC-24 for $200.

3) As a variation to option 1 you can also add a FLIRC IR receiver and use a remote to control CamillaDPS volume. This definitely requires some tinkering and is less plug and play than the other options.

4) You can also add displays to either option but that is not exactly plug and play. I show some examples in this post (and in posts linked in that post).

What I am most curious about is if anyone knows of a product in the 2X4HD price range that has bi-directional USB, DSP based digital volume control (i.e. NOT using DAC volume control), an IR receiver and most importantly a display?

Michael

A possible solution, I'm proposing it because I know you like to thinker, it's a bluetooth remote and some Autohotkey code to run the macros that will change the volume. It should be quite easy if you have some programming skills (the HID library is already available). As a remote I'm not sure if the Amazon Fire TV lite qualifies. If yes, it should be available for not much.

Maybe this deserves a separate thread.

 

[temps]

I wonder if RME might be interested in producing a limited-run "hobbyist edition" of the RME Digiface USB, with the TotalMix functionality removed and presumably the cost reduced as a result.

Trust me, you want Totalmix. It is so ultra flexible, the possibilities are endless.

If anything, I'd want an RME interface with increased DSP capability so I can just do my room correction in Totalmix FX and don't need any external devices. As is, it does not have quite enough EQ capability.

 

[mdsimon2]

I was kind of shocked to see that the U-DIO8 had increased in price by over 35% since release so I started looking at the Digiface USB because it isn't that much more than the U-DIO8. Unfortunately I learned that the Digiface USB is not USB class compliant and does not work with Linux, definitely a bummer.

Michael

 

[ElNino]

I was kind of shocked to see that the U-DIO8 had increased in price by over 35% since release so I started looking at the Digiface USB because it isn't that much more than the U-DIO8. Unfortunately I learned that the Digiface USB is not USB class compliant and does not work with Linux, definitely a bummer.

Michael

I agree that there's a weird gap in MiniDSP's lineup between the MCHStreamer and the U-DIO8. The MCHStreamer supports 8 channel output and is only $125 USD, but you have to bring a chassis and wire up the output channels yourself. (Still, if you're DIY-inclined, it's a good option.) If you want to do audio input, you also have to add an ASRC because unlike the older USBStreamer, the MCHStreamer can't use an input clock. (Or at least it couldn't last time I checked. I need that feature, so it ruled out the MCHStreamer and the U-DIO8 for me.)

 

[617]

DSP has made prototyping speaker crossovers a great deal easier, but there are two reasons why I don't use it, despite having the ability.

First, it doesn't change the fact that you need to accurately measure a speaker in space, which is very hard for a DIYer to do. Here is an article I wrote about the practical problems that come with this endeavor.

Second....so many damn wires. I used to have 4 way speakers with a multichannel amp and it just sucked. Two minidsp units using RCAs to connect to two different amplifiers and then a speakon cable as thick as my arm going to each speaker. Just a nightmare.

You can get great sound with passive speakers and active monitors are incredible value these days.