DSP and me.

[1audiohack]

There are several things I just near never bring up in our open forums due to several factors. Among them EQ and DSP because:

1 I like what I like, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

2 I feel absolutely no need whatsoever to defend my likes and dislikes.

3 I feel absolutely no need whatsoever to change anyone else’s view or opinion.

4 I have no time to waste on subject line 2 and or 3 and I don’t like to argue.

That said I am usually delighted to explore the unknown and or help anyone see the value of something I like, if they express an interest.

I started this thread because something has happened on the DSP front that seems quite unusual to me. See the quote below.

"I did a full biamp of the 67000's using the internal biamp switch. Once again, the results were stunning. The little DBX DriveRack 260 works great. My only problem with it is that it doesn't have enough bands or EQ to properly do a speaker and room correction.

I received the box from ALLDSP. (PLP226) It is better than the DBX but unfortunately, this company only does OEM work and doesn't sell their stuff to the public. This box has 10 bands of parametric EQ for each of the two input channels and each of the 6 output channels. I have my home Everest's tri-amped with no passive components other than a resistor pad on the HF to keep noise in check. It took forever to get things they way I like since I have to use a single microphone mover to multiple positions and averaged. Make a change or two and remeasure. It is a very long process but I am very close now. The system sounds amazing. There might be a slight loss of that famous analog sound, but the use of EQ to eliminate any and all resonances and room conditions more than makes up for that."

The above comes from the mighty Greg Timbers.

Nothing in the above quote seems unusual to me actually, what I thought was interesting was the total absence of nay saying.

This for me is similar to once reading Mr. Widget praise the 2206 when so many in the hi-fi world wouldn't use one of them for a dog hailing devise on the ranch.

Where is all this going? Well, I often wonder what it is that I can't or don't hear that so many others can and do, or seem to be able to. Here is a "for instance", I have in my office a pair of JBL 4435's, completely original and pristine, driven by a Crown K-2 headed by a Nakamichi CA-5 straight wire pre. Now I get the fact that none of this is tier one product but I have logged more listening hours on this system than everything else I have combined and know its sound well. Some time ago for fun I decided to insert one of my DBX 260's in one of the tape loops, and to make it as close as possible I inserted identical pairs of cables in the other loop RCA center pin to XLR pin 2 and back, an exact duplicate of the cables used to integrate the 260.

There are many features in the 260 and 4800 that I don't need or use and I carefully go through the menu and disable and or turn off anything I can that I don't need. I also made sure that all gains were set to unity and there was no signal shaping/EQ inserted, this was verified via FFT measurement, functionally for measurement purposes, all that remains is the latency. I inserted the 260 and thought I could hear a difference, but it wasn't glaring. I had one of the kids at the shop swap the XLR's around so I didn't know what was in loop one or two and my level of certainty went way down. Later we swapped in my DBX 4800 with Jensen output transformers and, nope, can't hear it, couldn't even guess where it is. After this little experiment I just stopped worrying about them being a degradation in my systems, or did I?

Again, what's the point? Well, I am relieved! Maybe, just maybe, I don't have cloth ears like my grandma always told me. Maybe, just maybe this stuff really doesn't sound so bad.

I’m not inferring that GT endorses the DBX 260 for top tier audio systems or anything of the sort, but I was glad to hear from someone such as he, that it wasn’t like “someone was sandblasting my ears” or "it was like putting my speakers in a fish bowel". Maybe I really will stop thinking about it.

Thank you Mr. Timbers.

[grumpy]

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts!

[Mr. Widget]

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts!

Ditto!

More to come on this subject no doubt.


Widget

[cooky1257]

Great post. I've ignored the DSP nay sayers for years on the assumption that any sonic signature from(I must say one of the best)XTA, will be less than or no more significant than any of the shed load of other colourations/compromises I put up with.

Greg's endorsement of DSP does carry a lot of weight, such is the status of the man.

BTW I use the 2206 and DSP, do I get a prize? ;-)

[ivica]

...EQ and DSP because:


.....Some time ago for fun I decided to insert one of my DBX 260's in one of the tape loops, and to make it as close as possible I inserted identical pairs of cables in the other loop RCA center pin to XLR pin 2 and back, an exact duplicate of the cables used to integrate the 260.

...... After this little experiment I just stopped worrying about them being a degradation in my systems, or did I?

.........

Hi 1audiohack,

May I have not understood your experiment correctly,
I have understood that you have shown that the DSP would not introduce any audible differences if it is correctly used , as you have done using tape-monitor in/out not pre-amp output (as someone can do), so ADC is done with the 'full-wave' signal.

Regards
Ivica

[fpitas]

Since we're confessing our DSP afflictions here, I'll admit to using the much-reviled Behringer DCX2496 for EQ. Admittedly, I did modify it a bit by changing out the coupling caps for decent ones, but it does an excellent job for me. Like the OP, I try not to mention it, since DSP isn't spoken of in polite audio company. Perhaps that is changing now.

There, I feel better already

[4313B]

I'm actually surprised that ya'll didn't boot me off the forum when I mentioned the one hundred dollar miniDSP hooked up to a seven thousand dollar pair of 476Be's...

Yeah, it sounds exactly like a one hundred dollar DSP, but it has no problem hammering home the potential of DSP. I prefer it to the non-functional DEQX.

I thought it was great that G.T. found the thousand dollar dbx unit reasonable and that there is a more robust version in the works. The SDEC gets the thumbs down as does the BSS. The Crown HD is merely "different", and arguably questionable for use with an S3900 or S4700. And rumor is that Levinson couldn't care less and has no plans for a DSP solution.


Great post 1audiohack!

[Carl_Huff]

Being a guy that crafts audio DSP gear I can honestly tell you that tech has evolved dramatically over the last decade. Most modern DACs sound quite similar when properly applied. The magic (if there really is any) is in the analog circuit that immediately follows the DAC. That has the most affect on what shows up at the loudspeaker.

http://www.datasatdigital.com/consum...ucts/rs20i.php

Just my 2 cents worth. Discount at will.

_____________
Best Regards,
Carl Huff

[fpitas]

Another approach to DSP is to have a PC perform the math, split the signals into woofer, tweeter channels etc. if you are multi-amping, and have an outboard multi-channel DAC perform the conversion to analog. A friend uses Jriver for tri-amping and EQ, with a USB connection from his computer to a Steinberg UR824 eight-output DAC. He also uses pos's rePhase software to flatten the phase. It's not the cheapest approach, since the Steinberg is about $700, but one can achieve very good fidelity and a very low noise floor, and it's very flexible.

[spkrman57]

I'm just starting out with the digital gear, so it will be a learning curve for me.

Ron sends...

[Mr. Widget]

...I can honestly tell you that tech has evolved dramatically over the last decade. Most modern DACs sound quite similar when properly applied. The magic (if there really is any) is in the analog circuit that immediately follows the DAC. That has the most affect on what shows up at the loudspeaker.

That's been my point for some time now.

The fact that the DBX 4800 has AES/EBU in and out with external clock capability means you can use a very high end analog to digital on the front side and the DAC(s) of choice on the back end and very likely have a SOTA system... just has me thinking.


Widget

[4313B]

Another approach to DSP is to have a PC perform the math, split the signals into woofer, tweeter channels etc. if you are multi-amping, and have an outboard multi-channel DAC perform the conversion to analog. A friend uses Jriver for tri-amping and EQ, with a USB connection from his computer to a Steinberg UR824 eight-output DAC. He also uses pos's rePhase software to flatten the phase. It's not the cheapest approach, since the Steinberg is about $700, but one can achieve very good fidelity and a very low noise floor, and it's very flexible.

Sounds interesting!

That's been my point for some time now.The fact that the DBX 4800 has AES/EBU in and out with external clock capability means you can use a very high end analog to digital on the front side and the DAC(s) of choice on the back end and very likely have a SOTA system... just has me thinking.Widget

[fpitas]

Sounds interesting!

Yeah, and my friend is a lawyer, but he figured it all out. He did get a bit of stray advice from an engineer along the way

[baldrick]

Another approach to DSP is to have a PC perform the math, split the signals into woofer, tweeter channels etc. if you are multi-amping, and have an outboard multi-channel DAC perform the conversion to analog. A friend uses Jriver for tri-amping and EQ, with a USB connection from his computer to a Steinberg UR824 eight-output DAC. He also uses pos's rePhase software to flatten the phase. It's not the cheapest approach, since the Steinberg is about $700, but one can achieve very good fidelity and a very low noise floor, and it's very flexible.

This product might interest you then: Audiolense

[fpitas]

This product might interest you then: Audiolense

Thanks; I passed that along to my friend.