Why doesn't anyone use loudspeaker management instead of crossovers in high end desig

[DIYrocks]

I've read it improves phase shift, delay, voltage ringing in capacitors, inductor compression, complimentary induction between inductors, compression from heat generation in resistors and capacitors, variances in component values and decoupling of the amp from the driver. Also each amp only amplifies the signal appropriate for the driver it is attached to. A terribly loud bass frequency will have zero effect on the treble amp and bass induced treble clipping is virtually eliminated.

That is a quote I saw somewhere I'm not that technically savvy.

Anyways why don't people use something like the DBX DriveRack Venu 360 in higher end designs? It's $500 for 2 channel 3 way or up to mono 6 way at Amazon and incredibly sophisticated and is a crossover and equalizer and everything in one it actually retails like $1000.

It seems like you'd get the best sound that way especially since it includes a crossover.

Why haven't I read that being used anywhere here?

[Alaric]

Active crossovers have been around for a long time. There are some very nice high end speaker systems here http://www.linkwitzlab.com/ that utilize active crossover technology. And some good reading on speaker design.

[BobEllis]

I've been a fan of active systems for my own designs for a while.

A couple issues are amps and DACs. Now that I built a set of Ardents I can more easily hear the differences in electronics. It's easy to distinguish the sound of the 5 DACs I own. So with three channels of DAC per speaker it gets expensive in a hurry. And you need to keep them all synchronized. I'd wager that I could hear the difference between a driverack and a $1,000 DAC.

Then there's a stack of amps. Both physical space and heat generation. Not to mention the cost of good amps or the sequencer to turn them on nicely. I have a Pass Aleph J clone that pulls 300 VA to generate 200W of heat. Now triple that for a low power system. As is my 19' x 25' room is noticeably warmer after a couple hours. I love the sound of my amps, but I'm seriously considering building a set of N-core amps.

Your priorities may be different.

[JonMarsh]

Only a few comments to make...


A driver rack is a preamp and ADC and DAC and digital filters and claims to do it all well for under 1K for many models. Cough... ummm, I'm not sure at that price point I would trust someone just to make an analog preamp that is just a buffer with gain that is truly transparent at that price point.

I've done active crossover systems for other folks with a variety of technologies over the years, the earliest being in the 70's. Linkwitz's ASP (analog signal processors) used for the Orion and similar speakers are pretty classic approaches using good quality old school engineering. miniDSP is a more "modern" approach which is fully digital. In my opinion, the latter if one if what you're looking for in reproduction is the equivalent of smartphone audio quality.

I have worked in pro audio design decades ago, and have had a pretty high end vinyl system in years past, and it's only since the introduction of the Berkeley Alpha DAC that I've heard what I consider to be "good" digital at a prices less than a dCS stack. These days there are a lot more quality options to chose from, but miniDSP's and DriverRacks are not the units I would plug my AURALiC Vega into, much less my TotalDAC D1 Dual. That would be akin to having a fine steak prepared by an expert chef, and then turning into hamburger to put in a big Mac with their special sauce. (which is thousand island dressing, basically)

Electronics have very different sonic signatures from the faults of passive components. And all of those passive component faults, which you rightly describe, and are often present in cheap crossovers (and by some DIY standards, even B&W speakers are cheap crossovers) but they're readily addressable, through simple design rules and component selection. Whereas, making the output of a miniDSP whole again (relative to the signal fed to it from a mid to high end DAC) is never going to happen, for a host of reasons. (just take a look at the theory of digital filters and standard filters used in most DAC chips versus approaches like closed form filters in Schiit products, for example.

Part of the secret sauce with Berkeley and others is their FPGA based signal processing front ends; part of it is their fanatical approach to reducing the impact of common mode noise in the system, and isolation between source and output, and minimization of the impact of jitter. Many different techniques to address those issues, but inexpensive off the shelf chipsets don't use them.

In fact, one can order TotalDAC's with crossover filter functions and EQ built in, but to do a two way crossover is at minimum about $15K if you don't have balanced output connections; double that and two boxes if you do want balanced. (all I use...)

This sort of technology can be used fairly successfully integrated into high volume low cost products such as Bose or Sonos makes. But that's not the sort of stuff I like listening to. Folks that hanse't heard real high end think that's just audio snobbery.

John Mahoney was sent by Gizmodo to do a hit piece on Michael Fremmer, of Stereophile magazine, only it didn't work out that way, and Mahoney's editor winded up being pissed at him....

http://gizmodo.com/5213042/why-we-need-audiophiles

But then, settled into the lone leather chaise in Fremer's basement audio temple, nestled right in the sweetspot of his $65,000 Wilson MAXX3 speakers, I hear the needle drop on Air's "Run" from Talkie Walkie. It's a song I've never heard (kind of fell off Air after overusing Moon Safari considerably), but one that I'm now listening to all the time. Because, with all honesty, I have never heard anything like that song played on that stereo system at that moment. Ever.

We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way.

That's what hamburger sounds like...

[ergo]

I was doing that is past - mainly based on upgraded Behringer DCX2496

https://linearaudio.nl/dcx2496-active-output-mod-6-channel-vol-control

While this does give it's benefits with ease of x-over tuning and ability to save and recall many profiles on fly it is limited by the DAC chip quality in the device + getting good poweramps is a hassle(X2 or X3 channels compared to stereo)
These days though the latter part is not as big a problem as now there is such a wide selection of good class-D amps that fit single case, sound good and are efficient cooling wise.

There are also software based solutions like Ultimate Equalizer

http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au

One can then more easily upgrade the DAC by swapping out the soundacard. Often the price/performance seems better in pro-audio, so getting a decent multi channel DAC solution comes at better prices.

[Jim Holtz]

What Jon says! :T

Jim

[IslandHydro]

Only a few comments to make...

<snip>

MiniDSP is a more "modern" approach which is fully digital. In my opinion, the latter if one if what you're looking for in reproduction is the equivalent of smartphone audio quality.

<snip>

That's what hamburger sounds like...

. . . .

[BobEllis]

Well, that pretty much bursts my bubble that my minidsp based system was sounding pretty good of late...

Remember, Jon is not like most of us. He's designed speakers well beyond what most can afford and has some really high end electronic gear. From his perspective the Scan 6600 is a good budget tweeter and the Ardent design is "pretty good for a small floor stander."

Until I built my Ardents I could barely hear a difference between amps I've built and was happy with the top end when I used a mini-DSP to add bass bins to a Seas Excel based MT.

I suspect that while most people consider part above the knee in the diminishing returns curve to continue essentially in a straight line there really is another high end plateau. Most never see it. Build a set of Ardents that will get you up onto the plateau. There you'll hear a new group of big(ish) bang for the buck opportunities.

[JonMarsh]

Realistically, the key phrase for this thread was in the title, "high end design.

What that means is going to vary from person to person, as well as prior music experience. To Bob's comments I'd also point out that I'm a classically trained musican; I've helped build a couple of recoding studios in the 70's, I designed pro audio gear for a living for a while, (electronics), and I listen to live classical music fairly frequently. None of that makes me any particular kind of expert, but it is an indication of my interest and engagement regarding the reproduction of music.

I have other hobbies and interests, but nothing that compares to that. In fact, my previous manager at work, after a very lengthy discussion about music and music reproduction, speculated that he'd never imagined I had a hobby that I knew as much or more about than my "day job". (Which is as a senior principle engineer at an international semiconductor company.)

Some where around here I've got a miniDSP- when I see it next I'll make a point of grabbing it to bench it on my Audio Precision, and post the results in the "On the Bench" forum. Let's see how good it is compared to, say, an AURALiC Vega, which I'll be posting soon. I'll just run it as a pass through buffer, like a preamp.

[JonMarsh]

Well, that pretty much bursts my bubble that my minidsp based system was sounding pretty good of late...

And it may be sounding pretty good compared with what you were last using- so enjoy it.

But if you live in a metro environment where you can go out and here a Berkely RS DAC through a good system, like some mid size or even smaller Wilsons, or even some Avalon Indras, try doing that to calibrate your expectations about how good things can be before you get into nosebleed territory like a dCS stack and big Magicos. :W

[JonMarsh]

And just to be clear, the concept of what a miniDSP does could be quite useful, if it was done well enough. (Remember the thread title- for the purposes of this discussion, let's call "high end" something like the Ardent project or similar).

There's a three way dipole project I started intending to use an all active digital solution- one that is well suited to this task, by way of it's architecture, the Metric Halo ULN-8.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?39342-Official-Premature-Arvo-P-rt-Picante-thread&highlight=Metric+Halo

http://mhsecure.com/metric_halo/products/hardware/uln-8.html

It's a solid "upper midrange/lower high end" dipole system, with Transducer labs TL26 with Jantzen waveguides, aluminum cone illuminator woofers, and the improved version of the Seas LROY 10" woofer.


This has eight channels; can take inputs in analog or digital, and outputs over 8 very high quality DAC channels with a precision analog master volume, and a lot of available DSP processing power for crossover filters and EQ. It's not cheap, the MSRP is $4K, though they're on sale right now. OTOH, I'm probably going to use it more likely for what it was intended, which connected with the matching Mac Software is an 8 channel recording mixer. A few years back this and the original Berkely Alpha DAC were close contenders for popular computing audio DAC- the difference is, this has 8 channels instead of two, and has eight channels of high performance ADC, too. 24/192, of course.




There's a ton of stuff you can do with this, but I have to warn that the software is all written for OS X - OTOH, once you've setup a configuration, you can download and lock and that's how it powers up from then on until you connect to it via Firewire again. (since I'm a long time Mac user, no worries. Mac are big in music and video production for a reason...)




This was being worked on before the Wavecor Ardents, mainly as a design study exercise to extend the "Arvo Part" concept with newer drivers; but when the opportunity and interest came up to collaborate with Ben and Darrel on the updated Ardent design, these got put in storage, where they still sit.

I don't regret that decision because from the start of the first Ardent iteration, I've always thought the potential existing to make a very nice small reasonably high end speaker with acceptable complexity (both design and construction) and cost for moderate size rooms, and that did pan out fairly well in this 2.0 version (there were 1.0 and 1.5 designs based on dual 7" woofers). The popularity and number of them built has even surprised me, though, but I guess it's just at the right threshold of cost and complexity- the Isiris, with it's diamond tweeters and fairly i massive all LBL construction has only been partially duplicated by one other forum member, MEB, and he forgoes the diamond tweeter and built with MDF.

[JonMarsh]

Post above update.

[xandresen]

Some where around here I've got a miniDSP- when I see it next I'll make a point of grabbing it to bench it on my Audio Precision, and post the results in the "On the Bench" forum.

John,

If you have a MiniDSP model like the 2x8 which has a digital input (and 96KHz processing), try using the digital input to remove the AD compromises.

I can't say if my system's sound improved when I went from using the 2x8's analog to its digital input because I changed other things as well. But my background noise problems vanished (the RF input has an isolation transformer).

I run digital out of a Sony blu-ray player (for SACD) with a standard usb hard drive attached to the player for FLAC files.

[IslandHydro]

. . . .

[ergo]

These 6ch DAC + nCore amp combos might be something in between of the MiniDSP and the more 'high end'...

http://www.magiclx521.com/news.html

http://www.magiclx521.com/mediapool/135/1359962/data/PB_6_pro_NCore_Flyer_2.pdf

For 2500EUR seems like it might be a good price/performance. I need to look at the user manual of the Hypex DSP again... it should equal the MiniDSP capabilities likely.

[BobEllis]

Island Hydro, remember Jon is coming at this from the perspective of a musician intimately familiar with both what music should sound like and the capabilities of true high end equipment. True, most people are happy with far less, and while Jon may not care for a piece of gear, he frequently advises we go with what makes us happy. With the title of the thread, discussion here focuses on "high end" which means different things to everyone. I have friends who think their Bose Wave radio is pretty high end.

I agree with you that for the overwhelming majority miniDSP is great sounding. I thought so, too. Until I headed up towards Jon's level of equipment sophistication. There's always room to improve, whether the improvement makes financial sense or not. In the end, what matters is that you enjoy your system regardless of what anyone may say about it

[JonMarsh]

A few questions for you...

To quote Jon: "Smartphone audio quality, that's what hamburger sounds like...".

<rant>I have to say, that comment really bothers me. There's a lot of people (the wildly massive majority) that don't spend 10's of thousands of dollars on their sound system, but that do put a lot of time, energy and thought into their systems (because we enjoy the challenge/process/music etc). I could, but don't choose to spend that kind of cash on my system, but I don't fault those that do. I don't expect my system to sound like a $50K system, but I wish someone who has such a system doesn't feel the need to say mine is "smart phone quality = hamburger.".</rant>

I don't have any argument that it is a good midrange solution. I'm sorry that you are upset- but let me ask a couple of questions and point out one thing-

The title of this thread is

Why doesn't anyone use loudspeaker management instead of crossovers in high end design

Please not the last three words. "high end design". Not midrange, not best bang for the buck, but "high end design".

Now, when I find and measure that miniDSP in the near future, I will also compare its results to an AURALiC Vega DAC, (which I have on hand), and to the Cambridge 851D. Those are units I consider representative of what is available with very solid midrange performance- the Cambridge 851D clearly being a bang for the buck champ, especially with it's multiplying DAC volume control built in and full balanced input and output capability at a very reasonable price point. That, and it's ready availability at or below $1K. Test results for the 851D have been up on the forum for a while.

The AURALiC Vega is probably one of the best (technically) implementations of the widely used SABER DAC, and the only one I know of that has really gone to the necessary lengths to optimize the power feed for the Saber chip, and use it quite successfully at it's maximum sample rate direct (1.5MHz) using a proprietary upsampling system with very good digital filter options for the overall transient response and image rejection. At $3495 MSRP it's a bargain, and I'm seeing it discounted right now at some vendors, to as little as $2495, probably because there is an update waiting in the wings. These are both very solid midrange components.

Now, about those questions for you-

• Have you ever listened to a solid midrange or high end turntable rig? And then compared it with an MP3 on the same high end system? (this is what happened in that article)
• What are your program sources to feed to your miniDSP based system? (digital or analog)
• Have you compared those sources at any time to a "high end" setup in a local store- something like Definitive Audio in Seattle (been there, bought stuff from them) or Music Lovers in Berkeley/SF (ditto)?
• Have you tried taking your miniDSP and configured it for flat response pass through and taken it in and out of the signal chain with a high midrange quality source through a good pair of cans (Say, $500 AT's or better) and evaluated the signal impact with a variety of music?
• What kind of preamp and amps do you use in your system? Speakers?
• Do you have your system setup with Cardas speaker positioning and basic room treatments?
• Have you ever listened to a good pair of Audio Technica headphones on a current iPhone? Really, it's not bad... unless you're used to a TotalDAC-D1 Dual with rubidium reclocked inputs feeding even something as middle of the road as an NAD M22, much less, say, a Halcro DM10 preamp and pair of DM68 monoblocks.
• Do you have a favorite local dealer you drop by and calibrate your expectations of what commercial midrange gear and high end stuff sound like? (IMO, Definitive Audio has some nice speakers and amps, but they're light on really good digital source gear).
• Last, have you benched your own gear and have some objective data about it? How much skin do you have in the game? Now, granted I'm a nut case, but it's not a case of putting my money where my mouth is, it's a case of having put a lot of effort into figuring out what works and how well, and then the mouth follows that.

BTW, it was only until I got the original Berkeley Alpha DAC that I started to hear digital at home that rivaled the vinyl system I had in the 70's- not beat it, but at least being in the ball park on imaging, acoustic space reproduction, etc. I was a true believer in digital when it came out (probably an unfortunate side effect of my AES membership) but it's been a long, long slog to where it was affordable (assuming $5K is affordable) at home- dCS and the like not included in that judgement.


I'm really not trying to pick on you, but there is a tendency for a lot of DIY guys to live in a kind of insular world- of their favorite DIY stuff. Nothing wrong with that as long as you enjoy your system. High end doesn't have to be a $50K system by any means- and on the other hand, some would argue that a $50K system isn't high end, for the obvious reasons. But get out and smell the coffee in the rest of the world occasionally.

With care one can do very well at or under $10K- for example, the BOM cost for building a pair of Ardent's is about $5K (for what would commercially cost $30-40K), then let's say you go with that Cambridge 851D for another grand, a Sonic Transporter and microRendu for your digital music server for about a grand, leaving you 3K for power amps and cables. Pick up that stuff used on Audiogon, and you're in business with a very, very decent midrange system, and one that would respond well to further upgrades in electronics.

And yes, I understand that for many, $10K is out of reach. and $50K certainly would be. But that's where the high end resides.

(BTW, a funny story- a colleague at work (engineer) who though himself an objectivist and believed that that Alpha DAC couldn't possibly be worth the money and subjectively better than his original Benchmark DAC (which I also owned at one point) and I won a bet with him, because I could tell the difference blindfolded on a cheap pair of logitech computer speakers (passive) setup properly with good front end electronics 100% of the time. Level adjusted and all that. A friend of his along for the ride could, too.)

And the A/D in that Metric Halo ULN-8 is very good- some guys I know running studios these days swear by them, as long as you're running 24/192 data rates. But I'll test the miniDSP on digital as well as analog- doing a good digital receiver is not trivial, though. doing good clocks is not trivial, either. And another "hamburger" creator is the common use of off the shelf ASRC (Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion) chips, to take in everything at any sample rate and convert it to one rate (not a closed form conversion obviously), such as the 110kHz internal rate of the original Benchmark DAC.

[Steve Manning]

Completely agree with Bob ...... if you're happy with it you could be done and don't worry about what other think. I find that with audio, as with tools, or many other things, determine your budget and go for the best that works in that budget. If you've won the lotto, enjoy those $13K power cords that I just read about in Absolute Sound and all that could go with it.8O

[augerpro]

Jon what miniDSP do you have?

[JonMarsh]

Jon what miniDSP do you have?

I ordered the miniDSP 2x8 with miniDIGI option for S/PDIF input, and pot for master volume control, plus the 4x10 plug in. It all came to about $350. This was in 2011- no idea if that's a current model or not. In fact, I'd better be sure I have the software for running that- I know I once did...

BTW, I also have an Accuton DSP board; the main hassle with that is I'll have to come up with a custom power supply board and interface to play with it, as it's designed to plug into a Pascal Class D module, but being the antsy pantsy kind of guy I am, I'm not really charmed with their performance capabilities- they do lots of raw power, but that's at 2-5% distortion; but they only do specs at -3dB; which is half power, and the specs there are not anything to write home about, at least, not compared with Hypex. I can pick apart the reasons why I think they have "issues"; have done that for MEB already, but I've already hurt enough feelings around here!

It's something I've figured I should look into more.

The Accuton boards are stereo input implementing a two way crossover- they take what you feed into it and filter it for one crossover frequency. They have a rotary encoder built in for manual modification, but the way to go setting them up is with a PC over LAN connection (ethernet). US MSRP for a single board is $590. I got mine through a back channel to evaluate. They claim to have low jitter oscillators, run at 176.4 or 192 kHz, can be slaved to a master oscillator, and have some fairly sophisticated facilities for time alignment via delays, in 5uS increments.

A stereo three way would need two boards, plus power supply and interface for output. That's about what I would expect for an attempt at doing moderately high end DSP's, which is about 25% of the BOM cost of a pair of Ardents. Then you need six channels of amplification. I don't know that these are subjectively transparent, but they may be close, especially if you put a re-clocking unit like a Mutec in front of the signal source.

Given the ease of use of a Metric Halo ULN-8 with a Mac, that seems an easier way to go to me!

[JonMarsh]

Completely agree with Bob ...... if you're happy with it you could be done and don't worry about what other think. I find that with audio, as with tools, or many other things, determine your budget and go for the best that works in that budget. If you've won the lotto, enjoy those $13K power cords that I just read about in Absolute Sound and all that could go with it.8O

Geez, Steve, you don't buy the $13K power cords at least until you've gotten the $19,500 Berekely RS 2 DAC! (recently reviewed by the Absolute sound, as well as Computer Audiophile). And that I'm serious about... :W

[Rick Craig]

The advantages of DSP in my opinion far outweigh any *perceived* audible problems from the DAC's used; in fact, I think the DAC in my MiniDSP is very transparent. For high end designs it's really a no-brainer, especially considering the cost of a good passive crossover. With DIY it will save you money if you tend to switch designs on a frequent basis.

[augerpro]

Jon I have a 4x10 HD I can send you if you are interested.

[Steve Manning]

Geez, Steve, you don't buy the $13K power cords at least until you've gotten the $19,500 Berekely RS 2 DAC! (recently reviewed by the Absolute sound, as well as Computer Audiophile). And that I'm serious about... :W

Here I was thinking they came after the DCS system for the oh so reasonable $100K + :B

[Juhazi]

For home hifi applications please prefer minidsp HD versions. Totally transparent sound (when just run-through) and you must be an expert with high-end measurement gear to get any artefacts from them. I use both 4x10HD and 2x4HD now for two systems. Excellent value and by all means I will leave the hardcore high-end stuff for analog fanatics and millionaires.

Is BeoLab 90 high-end? Stacked with dsp and D-class amps http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/colle...kers/beolab-90
For studios there are JBL M2 And Genelec 1238 etc. dsp-controlled models and many many more

[JonMarsh]

For home hifi applications please prefer minidsp HD versions. Totally transparent sound (when just run-through) and you must be an expert with high-end measurement gear to get any artefacts from them. I use both 4x10HD and 2x4HD now for two systems. Excellent value and by all means I will leave the hardcore high-end stuff for analog fanatics and millionaires.

Is BeoLab 90 high-end? Stacked with dsp and D-class amps http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/colle...kers/beolab-90
For studios there are JBL M2 And Genelec 1238 etc. dsp-controlled models and many many more

actually, I don't think the BeoLab 90 is high end, mostly because of ICEpower amplifiers, which I have evaluated.

The thing is, especially in DIY, this is about what makes you happy- if they're making you happy at a price and system complexity you're good with, then just sit back and enjoy.


BTW, how about a survey- what are you miniDSP guys using for power amplifiers for your multi-way systems?

[JonMarsh]

Jon I have a 4x10 HD I can send you if you are interested.

That's a generous offer, but I know I have SEEN the box/bin with the miniDSP in the last month or two, and have a pretty good idea of where to look within a small area, so I don't think finding it will turn out to be a problem. IF that proves not to be the case, I'll get back to you- I mean, you have one sitting around not actually used in your current system?

I've got a meet and measure and listen session coming up at Renron's next Sunday, to check out and verify his modified Wavecor Ardent design and make sure the remote design work I did for using the ScanSpeak midranges turned out as expected, and if not, fix it! So I won't be able to get to something new for a couple of weeks anyway, maybe not until the Christmas break. I'm hoping to take an extra week off, as I usually do, so I have two weeks off. Oddly, yesterday I got some technical evaluation and design stuff working, to be used for a training I'm preparing with another colleague in Toronto, that I'm so excited I almost WANT to work instead of taking the time off. But I do need the time off to catch up with a lot of audio stuff that's been on the back burner.

[JonMarsh]

The advantages of DSP in my opinion far outweigh any *perceived* audible problems from the DAC's used; in fact, I think the DAC in my MiniDSP is very transparent. For high end designs it's really a no-brainer, especially considering the cost of a good passive crossover. With DIY it will save you money if you tend to switch designs on a frequent basis.

Rick, thanks for the feedback.

what do you use as your main program source (vinyl or digital) and what components? Do you drive the miniDSP on analog inputs or digital? How do you manage output volume control and dynamic range issues? (which are a problem for DAC's with volume controls built in, also- most sound better using a high grade external preamp)

And what do you use for power amps?

Hope you can take the time to reply- it would be helpful to others here, I'm sure.

[Juhazi]

^^I use Bang&Olufsen ICEPower 50/125ASX2 modules with built-in AC-transformers. No, not really optimal, but so so convenient and two 2-ch units can share a small box and power chord. I have been thinking of using A-class amps for tweeters, but that is still just a dream. I have used also AV-receivers with AB-class amps for prototyping/measurements but fail to hear any difference to ICEpower.

My best credits came from my neighbour Marian, who stopped by to listen to AINOgradients (4-way dipole with minidspHD and ICEPOwer), he said that *#&% this is just like at the recording studio! I was a bit afraid of the spl... http://www.resonancerecords.org/rele...p?cat=RCD-1008

[JonMarsh]

The thing is, as long as you're happy and feel like you've made progress, that's fine. Just remember there is always room for more improvement- shouldn't be an obsession, but awareness doesn't hurt. Maybe you don't need class A on those tweeters, just an amp with some good feedforward error correction, for example! :B

And maybe some Paul Hynes shunt regulators on your low level electronics, even the miniDSP!

[augerpro]

you have one sitting around not actually used in your current system?

Yeah I have a second unit I don't use

[Juhazi]

D-class modules and amps can have power on for many months, that makes them very user-friendly as active amp modules. They are also easy to hide or even install in the speaker cabinet.
Happens that there is a used Audiolab 8200A for sale around here. A generally nice amp that can also be driven as plain amplifier. Perhaps worth a try...
http://www.audiolab.co.uk/upload/fil...14173441_1.pdf http://programming4.us/multimedia/19126.aspx

A Marantz PM-80 would cost me only 1/4 of that but it is huge...
And no Sir, no high-end amplifiers for me!

[JonMarsh]

Yeah I have a second unit I don't use

I'll keep it in mind and let you know... I may be out to the storage unit on Saturday, and if so, I'll check for the minDSP then.

[IslandHydro]

. . . .

[Juhazi]

Some food for thoughts, a nice example of using minidsp 4x10HD for three-way speakers. Hardly high-end but who cares?

http://users.skynet.be/sky60825/projects.html

"After the successful redesign by us of an Usher BE20 speaker with a digital Xover using the miniDSP 4x10HD with very good listening results, we got the idea to design also a miniDSP digital Xover for the VCL Eidolon. A digital version of the Linkwitz-Riley 4th order crossover is designed. The VCL Eidolon design is published earlier on our website."

[ergo]

Interesting link/reading - thanks!

They have a pdf on that design too

http://www.vcllabs.com/articles/Usher%20BE20%20commercial%20speaker%20active%20amplified%20and%20digital%20filtered%20by%20MiniDSP.pdf

[BobEllis]

It's not terribly surprising that a designer was happy with his own work. Especially when he is offering design services. Not sayin that it sounds bad, or even not very good. Just consider motivation.

It's worth noting is that he seems to start with IEC baffle measurements and just simulate response in the enclosure for development. This has nothing to do with whatever limitations the miniDSP may have, but speaks to the thoroughness of the design and perhaps the author's expectations.

Enjoy your system as long as it meets your desires. If/when you want to upgrade and try to come closer to what your friends' systems offer, consider that you may be able to get that last bit of performance with a higher quality DAC and other electronics and a well designed passive crossover speaker like the Wavecor Ardent. I've been amazed how well they respond to improvements in electronics even though I'll stick with DIY amps and preamps and am not likely to go beyond the "solid midrange" Cambridge 851D DAC any time soon. I have gone a lot further on this journey than I ever expected to or thought I could hear a difference worth paying for. My girlfriend who started out rather impressed by the clarity of my old system hears the difference without prompting most of the time I make changes.

[Juhazi]

So high-end is the key-word here. Where does it begin, how do you define that? Who says when sound is good? Are measurements worth mentioning at all? What about tomorrow's dacs and amplifiers? Is redbook Cd high-end material?

I personally am not at all interested in high-end hifi. I don't believe that it is equivalent to good sound reproduction, many times just the contrary (papyrys fullranges etc.). I have heard many really high quality systems at my friends and at shows. I attend live music events often.

We diy-freaks do this mainly for ourselves /own ears, don't we? Only secondarily to boost our egos at forums...

[BobEllis]

Yep. Make our ears happy.

Wonder what the OP thinks of the discussion.

[Rick Craig]

Rick, thanks for the feedback.

what do you use as your main program source (vinyl or digital) and what components? Do you drive the miniDSP on analog inputs or digital? How do you manage output volume control and dynamic range issues? (which are a problem for DAC's with volume controls built in, also- most sound better using a high grade external preamp)

And what do you use for power amps?

Hope you can take the time to reply- it would be helpful to others here, I'm sure.

Only digital inputs, SPDIF from a Sony Blu-Ray and Toslink from my HDTV. My amp is an older Marantz 5-channel rated at 150 watts into an 8-ohm load. I mainly use bi-amped CBT arrays but also use it to demo and test other speakers. The matrix is nice to have as I can easily switch between four different voicings or speaker configurations.

I'm using it as a preamp and with unbalanced outputs. There's plenty of gain and dynamic range though I'm not really a fan of digital volume controls. One thing the unit lacks is a readout on the front panel for volume. I've not switched the inside to the higher gain setting though I can see where someone using a lower sensitivity speaker and / or less power might benefit from that. Very low noise and sonically comparable (IIR filters) to the DEQX (FIR filters) I owned as well as the other DEQX units I've borrowed for shows.

With the Omni-Mic's software you can export correction filters which makes things easier but sometimes I manually make adjustments. I think REW users can do the same thing as well. The ability to notch out bass problems in the room is a nice feature. This unit doesn't have Dirac room correction but they have a more costly model with the same features as the 4x10HD. The new 2x4HD (for 2-way systems) has FIR capability but doesn't have a volume control so a preamp is needed. If someone plays vinyl then a preamp is probably best or you'll need a phono preamp to use the analog inputs on the Mini-DSP.

Here's a link for an evaluation of the design of the 4x10HD http://www.neurochrome.com/minidsp-4x10-hd/

[TEK]

To quote Jon: "Smartphone audio quality, that's what hamburger sounds like...".

<rant>I have to say, that comment really bothers me. There's a lot of people (the wildly massive majority) that don't spend 10's of thousands of dollars on their sound system, but that do put a lot of time, energy and thought into their systems (because we enjoy the challenge/process/music etc). I could, but don't choose to spend that kind of cash on my system, but I don't fault those that do. I don't expect my system to sound like a $50K system, but I wish someone who has such a system doesn't feel the need to say mine is "smart phone quality = hamburger.".</rant>

I'm a bit curious about this. You did a quote and then wrote "that comment really bothers me".
Are you actually referring directly to the quote, or more to "my understanding is that you ment that and it is bothering me"?
I'm asking because that was never said. As far as I can tell this originals in post #4 (and was written quite differentlig), then someone - you actually - snipped it quite close to what you quoted in post #7 and then it ended up as the direct quote above...
When I read the original post I feel that it is much more open to interpetation than the resulting "quote".

[JonMarsh]

So high-end is the key-word here. Where does it begin, how do you define that? Who says when sound is good? Are measurements worth mentioning at all? What about tomorrow's dacs and amplifiers? Is redbook Cd high-end material?

I personally am not at all interested in high-end hifi. I don't believe that it is equivalent to good sound reproduction, many times just the contrary (papyrys fullranges etc.). I have heard many really high quality systems at my friends and at shows. I attend live music events often.

We diy-freaks do this mainly for ourselves /own ears, don't we? Only secondarily to boost our egos at forums...

A point I've made over the years is that I've come to the conclusions I currently hold because of actual experimentation and experience with a wide range of gear, collaboration with other similarly interested friends, and sometimes have been reluctantly dragged into the "Hi End" scene, in spite of my part ownership of a high end audio shop in the 70's that carried Luxman, Mark Levinson, Yamaha, Quad, B&W, and other reputable brands of that day and age.

This started with things as innocently as making some of my own speaker cables using Kimber cable... building DIY interconnects ... but then it can lead to the hard core stuff, like experimenting with digital re-clocking using Rubidium frequency standards (and comparing different ones- the best one in audible results was not the most expensive one, but a particular unit sourced from Telecom gear that was being upgraded to new configurations and and standards). This has been going on with increasing focus over the last 15 years with my long time friend that is currently still in Munich, and moving back to Southeast Asia some time next year.

Now, his wife is a research doctor, but also a music lover and skeptic with a very good ear- she picks up on changes even when she hasn't been told there were changes. She's part of the sanity check process.


But that process has still resulted in a system that looks like this:



Usually it has a Mathew James/Cello Chorale preamplifier, instead of the DM10 Halcro, which I've also heard in this system (and which is better to our ears than the DM10, but then it's been heavily modified by Schnerzinger, the German company that makes cables mainly) (and his system mainly uses Schnerzinger cables) .

That shelf on the left-



is full of Paul Hynes shunt regulators, supplying power from a battery stack that is only charged when the system is off to all the low level gear (DACs, re-clocker, etc). No change or update to the system is made without extensive listening comparisons and approval from the Missus. You simply hear more low level detail clearly in a natural way- nothing edgy or analytical, just deeper into the acoustic space of the recording, (If there is one!)

Still, even so, a visiting young cousin (teenage girl) who heard Lorde on this system was basically gobsmacked by how different and more real it sounded than anything she had heard before (likely not a big challenge, but let's keep in mind even so we were cheating, as we have a 24 bit version of "Pure Heroine" from HDtracks- but let's not talk about all the self appointed internet experts that proclaim 24 bit and high resolution sample rates can make no audible difference on a home system)

And as good as the Ardents are, tracks from this pop album will reveal why the Isiris at twice the BOM cost ($10K versus $5K) with the same electronics gives value for the money. So, "high end" is not just for sitting around listening to boring audiophile albums that someone you've never heard of says are superbly recorded, but have an artist and musical style you aren't personally much interested in....

You can't describe "high end audio" as any kind of monolithic viewpoint and endeavor any more than you can the world "politics". And no, I'm not a fan of papyrus cone full range drivers, or some of the unusual multi-way home horn systems, and I've heard most of them via attendance at shows like RMAF and CES. That they are musically satisfying to some people can't be contested; that they are objectively accurate in their signal transmission characteristic can be easily debated.


What I share and talk about here is generally only the tip of the iceberg, as I'm not personally interested in boosting my ego on this forum (I get more than I need at work) but I am interested in seeing guys like Ben and Darrel, and TEK and Bob Ellis and Ron get the most out of their efforts, since they have gone to the trouble to build one of my creations. As Bob and others note, there's a surprising amount of headroom for additional improvements once you get your speakers to a certain level of frequency response, freedom from internal resonance (driver and cabinet) and low distortion.

In that vein, I'll mention that a short test review of the AURALiC Vega is now posted in the "On the Bench" forum section; performance like this used to cost well over $10K a few years back, yet it's apparent that AURALiC is bringing out something new soon, as most of their sale outlets are offering these now at about 30% off the normal MSRP. I'm not without my quibbles about this unit, but it does reflect some strong engineering chops in specific areas, and very good value at the current sale price of $2495 (typically). no, I have no financial connection or interest in AURALiC, though I am interested in watching what they do in the future....

[5th element]

I use a DSP for my main system and for that matter in a number of other systems that I've designed.

The trouble with going that route is that you really need systemic integration to ensure that all technical parameters are met, otherwise you can end up degrading the overall performance, especially with regards to SnR and running into quantization issues.

Systemic integration isn't exactly the in thing when it comes to audiophile systems. B&O have it right with their Beolab speakers, where all you should be adding is a digital source. Audiophiles tend not to like this, they want to mix and match their own amplification, DACs, etc you name it, they want to choose it. The market caters to this, offering gullible buyers all sorts of ridiculous things for ridiculous prices.

I couldn't believe it when stereophile posted this...

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audiostreamcoms-wireworld-starlight-cat8-ethernet-cable-sweepstakes#67AQx4f7rET5bwXX.97

An audiophile network cable? What a joke, it's simply rip-off merchants playing into the mindset of the generic audiophile.

I guess half of the reason why correctly integrated DSP based systems aren't more common is because of the mindset that the market wants to keep perpetuating.

Beolab speakers only accept a digital input and on a basic level obviously doesn't let you choose what speaker cables to use, what internal power wiring to use. This, in and of itself, is a good thing, at least technically, but the audiophiles have been lead to believe that this is actually a problem and the automatic mindset would be 'oh gosh if I buy them I cannot 'upgrade' the cables so I'll never be able to get the most out of those loudspeakers'. This is an utterly ridiculous mindset to adopt but it's the way that the business works. First of all by offering cables that cost a fortune and then by indoctrinating the audiophile crowd into believing it's something they need to concern themselves with.

My DSP based systems sound sublime and I would never go back to passive, but there is a time and place for passive systems. Even I admit this and I would much rather use a passive xover based system in the face of incorrectly implemented DSPs.

I have done a couple of hybrid systems that use a standard passive xover for basic driver integration and then use a DSP for fine tuning. This works wonders in the face of only having 2 channels of amplification. Of course the DSP is still systemic here, in that it's built into the DAC, (and only accepts a digital input) but this is certainly a route that's worth taking if you can.

[Alaric]

I have heard cheap speaker cables and I have heard good speaker cables. There is a difference. I've heard cheap DACs and I've heard good DACs. There is a difference. I can do this with amplifiers, phono amps, cartridges, cassette decks, turntables, etc. all day long. Being limited to certain cabling, DAC, etc. by a speaker manufacturer doesn't sound like the way I would go. There is a difference. The differences between a $5000 system and a $50,000 system are astounding. The differences between a $50,000 system and a $100,000 system much less so, but there are differences. I think a disservice is being done to the high end to insinuate it's all hocus pocus and snake oil. IMHO.

[bvbellomo]

There is a difference between cables on an analog system. Digital cables either work or they don't work, all working digital cables deliver the exact same signal.

There are real differences with $50,000+ set ups, but that doesn't mean there is no hocus-pocus and snake oil. People buy what they can be sold on, sometimes that's real and sometimes it isn't.