Sheldon said:
Almost agree, which is progress
I'm talking about repairing the nearfield impulse response to something that actually resembles ideal--this cannot be accomplished with an electronic analog XO's and filtration or in most cases is practically infeasible since the same energy storage issues are at work whether caps, coils are used in connection with an op amp or a moving coil driver. BUT which can almost be achieved in digital domain--again at a cost of delay and pre-ringing artefacts. This is a key difference, but again there are spurriea as Dr G. states that cannot be repaired or compensated due to non-linear nature. Good drivers are still a must, but such things as out of band nasties can be practically eliminated, and cavity resonances notched out more transparently than wth other means
Hi,
The closer you can "fix" problems at the source, the further ahead you are going to be. Trying to repair a resonance with an EQ of any type is asking for trouble. The Q is too high and will cause many other issues.
Using electronics to modify the signal works as long as you keep the Q (for want of a better description) low. Nothing drastic going on. In a car, the required fixes normally end up in rapid phase shifts and narrow bands of activity. This stuff is bound to do some decidedly unmusical things to the sound. If you can keep "defects" to wide band areas, the correction can then be made without wild phase shifts and amplitude changes.
I don't have a problem with DSP, or Parametric EQ's. The problems arise when these things are misused. Much like the guy who uses a hammer or wrecking bar to fix everything. I think the best use for these technologies are to exactly place your correction, not to allow for many sharp anomalies to be fixed. Not unless you gently notch them down in level.
Anyway, back to Earl's horns.
-Chris
The closer you can "fix" problems at the source, the further ahead you are going to be. Trying to repair a resonance with an EQ of any type is asking for trouble. The Q is too high and will cause many other issues.
Using electronics to modify the signal works as long as you keep the Q (for want of a better description) low. Nothing drastic going on. In a car, the required fixes normally end up in rapid phase shifts and narrow bands of activity. This stuff is bound to do some decidedly unmusical things to the sound. If you can keep "defects" to wide band areas, the correction can then be made without wild phase shifts and amplitude changes.
I don't have a problem with DSP, or Parametric EQ's. The problems arise when these things are misused. Much like the guy who uses a hammer or wrecking bar to fix everything. I think the best use for these technologies are to exactly place your correction, not to allow for many sharp anomalies to be fixed. Not unless you gently notch them down in level.
Anyway, back to Earl's horns.
-Chris
NewMexicoNoob,
I have owned two different DEQX boxes. I also thought that they would solve all of the world's issues. Every bit of literature sounds very convincing.
There are some pretty good, knowledgeable minds such as Geddes and Linkwitz who both believe that solutions such as that which DEQX proposes do not solve anything.
If a product such as this were a solution in all actuality then why hasn't this become mainstream? Although the units aren't cheap you could certainly save money down the road because through flexibility.
Now, can we all get off the car audio topics, DSP and anything other than things related to waveguides? 'Discussions' if you will with Geddes regarding topics such as car audio and audio in general would have me placing bets on him 99.9% of the time. It seems that the buzz created from him alone has brought some much needed life to the diy loudspeaker forum after all.
I have owned two different DEQX boxes. I also thought that they would solve all of the world's issues. Every bit of literature sounds very convincing.
There are some pretty good, knowledgeable minds such as Geddes and Linkwitz who both believe that solutions such as that which DEQX proposes do not solve anything.
If a product such as this were a solution in all actuality then why hasn't this become mainstream? Although the units aren't cheap you could certainly save money down the road because through flexibility.
Now, can we all get off the car audio topics, DSP and anything other than things related to waveguides? 'Discussions' if you will with Geddes regarding topics such as car audio and audio in general would have me placing bets on him 99.9% of the time. It seems that the buzz created from him alone has brought some much needed life to the diy loudspeaker forum after all.
Again, many comments reveal a misunderstanding of digital filtration in general where filters can have huge selectivity (Q) and do little if any damage to phase--thats the whole point, not to disturb coherence, and so 300dB/octave XO's are simple to implement.
Why folks cannot see this plain truth when they so readily subscribe to all kinds of mysticism and voodoo is most curious. Not passing judgement: as I have mentioned there are many roads to audio nirvana.
And maybe those guys at Abbey Road Studios, arguably one of the best recording studios in the world are all delusional and tin eared, as they use DEQX.
Some of your recordings may be mastered with such tomfoolery.
It is a nearly perfect DIY tool--that it gets such a cool reception among such a devoted DIY audience is mysterious indeed. But I'll bet that only a small fraction of those commenting have actually heard it, and commercial success has little relation to merit. But one or another product will emerge and my prediction is within 5 years, even here most will be blowing its horn.
Thanks for your forebearance gents, back to entropy and fractals, and whatever else seems more germane to this discussion.
Why folks cannot see this plain truth when they so readily subscribe to all kinds of mysticism and voodoo is most curious. Not passing judgement: as I have mentioned there are many roads to audio nirvana.
And maybe those guys at Abbey Road Studios, arguably one of the best recording studios in the world are all delusional and tin eared, as they use DEQX.
Some of your recordings may be mastered with such tomfoolery. It is a nearly perfect DIY tool--that it gets such a cool reception among such a devoted DIY audience is mysterious indeed. But I'll bet that only a small fraction of those commenting have actually heard it, and commercial success has little relation to merit. But one or another product will emerge and my prediction is within 5 years, even here most will be blowing its horn.
Thanks for your forebearance gents, back to entropy and fractals, and whatever else seems more germane to this discussion.
No, never found those molds sorry.
All I can say is that I don't think that I am the one who doesn't understand DSP and EQ. You guys need to study up some more as you don't have it right.
Back in the early 90's the DEQX was called Lake and it was a 4096 point DSP real time convolver just like DEQX. They may not be the exact same company but they are the exact same product. I've used them and I've heard them often. They can improve a poor speaker, but not a good one. So is it better to buy a poor speaker and "improve" it through DSP or just take that same money and buy a good speaker to begine with? My answer to this question shold be obvious. And in the long run I expect these "boxes" to go away completely.
My designs achieve an almost perfect impulse response (at least as good as DSP can do) at a wide range of polar angles (which DSP cannot do) and this is done without any DSP.
DSP is great for rapid prototyping (engineering talk, also know here as DIY) but its a very expensive solution to a problem that can be solved far far less expensively. But then of course there are none of the "cool" toys to play with. Thats what its all about really. I do what a DEQX does in software and then hard wire this into the crossover, although being a human with some intelligence I can do a better job than any DSP box can do.
Have fun with your "toys", but for me, I don't see the point. I'd rather spend my money on better speakers and/or CD's.
All I can say is that I don't think that I am the one who doesn't understand DSP and EQ. You guys need to study up some more as you don't have it right.
Back in the early 90's the DEQX was called Lake and it was a 4096 point DSP real time convolver just like DEQX. They may not be the exact same company but they are the exact same product. I've used them and I've heard them often. They can improve a poor speaker, but not a good one. So is it better to buy a poor speaker and "improve" it through DSP or just take that same money and buy a good speaker to begine with? My answer to this question shold be obvious. And in the long run I expect these "boxes" to go away completely.
My designs achieve an almost perfect impulse response (at least as good as DSP can do) at a wide range of polar angles (which DSP cannot do) and this is done without any DSP.
DSP is great for rapid prototyping (engineering talk, also know here as DIY) but its a very expensive solution to a problem that can be solved far far less expensively. But then of course there are none of the "cool" toys to play with. Thats what its all about really. I do what a DEQX does in software and then hard wire this into the crossover, although being a human with some intelligence I can do a better job than any DSP box can do.
Have fun with your "toys", but for me, I don't see the point. I'd rather spend my money on better speakers and/or CD's.
gedlee said:
Well I suspect our ultimate goals have more in common than not. First, a good entry level system, and I mean good--not some HT in a box crap from Costco or Walmart--should be affordable. Say 1200 bucks or about the price of a very good entry level 50" TV. Second it needs to be close to turnkey. Don't tack on 200 bucks worth of unneeded cable and interconnect surcharge. And instead, of some exorbitantly priced "extended warantee", offer a real service as in a house call to assist with set up and to assure the product will sound reasonably close to what they heard in the demo room. This is where I think DSP may be of great value: I have a pair of JBL's that cost 200/pr--use a wave guide (of sorts) and a rigid and relatively long throw woofer that sound pretty darn good out of the box (for the money). But after DEQX they achieved a level of performance (except fot the bass) that was very close to the 10K/pr Infinity Prelude system--which had A. Cordesman gasping for superlatives, but after all was a decent high end system, and no world beater by any stretch.
But my goal would be like any good good capitalist--to grab an audience with a high value entry level product like the Gallo Orbs that is visually unobtrusive and has a lot of placement flexibility. These are big obstacles to better market penetration--and what the folks at Bose have grabbed on to--allowing them to sell 200 bucks of crap for 10x the price.
Now as to soundfield, I just don't think 2 channels is gonna cut it these days. I love it, but thats what I grew up on. I think a better barometer is from reviewers like Corey Greenberg, who essentially argued in a very heretical departure from the house views, give me 5.1 or give me death! I think people are so overstimulated that 2 channel is incapable of grabbing their attention for more than 10 minutes at a time. Especially with the overlapping use of home theater/audio only/and audio video concerts material. I expect that the folks at Lake/Dolby would have much better notions of how to handle these aspects than over at DEQX.
But individual channel tuning/EQ of a 5.1 or 7.1 mix in anything but a dedicated home theater has gotta be a bitch. I hope at least that DSP can offer some relief here.
Now in a perfect world with ideal rooms and flawless transducers, who needs it? I know the specs are often horrible both ways, but give me the sweetness and delicacy of a fine ribbon with the jump factor of a horn, whats not to love? Give me a clean and well recorded 2 channel recording in all its nuance, and then envelop me with subtle ambience (just as I have heard demos at RMAF do of large venues with the subtlty of reverb and decay nearly perfectly maintained), while allow for helicopter races around my living room, whats not to love.
Enuf already, we all maintain these as goals. Instead we get second mortgage speaker prices, snake oil vendors at every corner, and by and large, overpriced software that in most instances leaves one looking for the next CD before the one playing is 1/2 over. The movie fare is somewhat better thanks to some "standards" like THX.
In closing, I offer the very personal and melancholy observation: I no longer am captivated by hi-rez stereo like I once was when I looked forward to nothing more than the opportunity to spin my favorite vinyl and where sessions might extend into the wee hours og the morn. The systems were all probably abhorent by most modern specs, but so much more involving--or at least I was more involved. Was it the ritual? The lack of competing media? The youth and passion for great blues, rock, and jazz?
I've since owned many much, much better systems since--but the thrill is gone. I am hoping old age is the answer (I'm 52), and not for other reasons. Nowadays a couple of CD's and I'm done
Frankly I think digital has a lot to do with it.
In response to your last two parragraphs (I'll stay off the DSP EQ thing), I think that age is the biggest factor. When I look at the passion my 10 year old son has for music and yet he is still so nieve about it really (although he is already a better piano player than I am) I can see how passionate youth can be about music.
But, I do also think that as we age we are more inclined to be disturbed by things in the sound system that we ignored before. That said however, just last night - after an active Holloween party - I came home and stayed up until 1 am listening to music - I am 57. What I listen to now is mostly different from what I listened to when I was young. What I have clearly found is that I don't like to listen to "a CD". I don't like a continuos chain of songs by the same artist. I like to mix it up and this is where the audio jukeboxes are so nice.
But, I do also think that as we age we are more inclined to be disturbed by things in the sound system that we ignored before. That said however, just last night - after an active Holloween party - I came home and stayed up until 1 am listening to music - I am 57. What I listen to now is mostly different from what I listened to when I was young. What I have clearly found is that I don't like to listen to "a CD". I don't like a continuos chain of songs by the same artist. I like to mix it up and this is where the audio jukeboxes are so nice.
mikela said:
I'm saying that I achieve a nearly ideal impulse response - which means that the end result of the crossover response and the driver response does have to have low group delay and linear phase. I use the unavoidable group delay in the crossovers to "time-align" the woofer and the tweeter. There are other ways to achieve good results than with complex digital EQ.
Actually my crossovers are quite complex - they are not simple at all.
'I am hoping old age is the answer (I'm 52), and not for other reasons. Nowadays a couple of CD's and I'm done
Frankly I think digital has a lot to do with it.'
Interesting observations in your post. I am the same age and have to say that I don't think it's age so to speak but more the responsibility that comes with it. I find it really hard to sit still for any extended periods. I just have to many things to do and just hanging in front of the stereo has taken a backseat to things I need to get done. For me at least it's not the media.
Earls comments about mixing things up hits home as well. I finally got an Ipod when my son's broken one, got dropped into a stream, suddenly sprang back to life. I used to carry a bag of Cd's to work every day. Now I carry an Ipod with a lot more music I can Shuffle or play anyway I want. That Ipod has me thinking about a music server.
Rob
Frankly I think digital has a lot to do with it.'
Interesting observations in your post. I am the same age and have to say that I don't think it's age so to speak but more the responsibility that comes with it. I find it really hard to sit still for any extended periods. I just have to many things to do and just hanging in front of the stereo has taken a backseat to things I need to get done. For me at least it's not the media.
Earls comments about mixing things up hits home as well. I finally got an Ipod when my son's broken one, got dropped into a stream, suddenly sprang back to life. I used to carry a bag of Cd's to work every day. Now I carry an Ipod with a lot more music I can Shuffle or play anyway I want. That Ipod has me thinking about a music server.
Rob
Music servers are a blessing and with Windows Media player you get lossless coding (even .wav if you want it) and instant access. Huge cheap hard drivers provide all the storage that you need. Be fore warned to back up the files because hard drivers DO fail and it takes a lot of time to rip your whole collection. I just copied the entire media directory to another hard drive and stored it away. You can even run the audio anywhere you want it through a home network and with Remote Desktop I can control the audio in one room from another room. Its very convenient. I'll never go back to listening directly to CDs again (although I do buy them first!). One of these fixed base media servers make no sense to me because computers are so cheap.
And with a Slingbox, I can now do the same thing with any TV channel, DVD, in HD or anything else. With VPN this is available to me anywhere in the world.
And with a Slingbox, I can now do the same thing with any TV channel, DVD, in HD or anything else. With VPN this is available to me anywhere in the world.