Hello Charlie,
Thanks for you interest in our miniDSP concept. DCX2496 is indeed a well known product, but to us a complete different concept to what we're trying to do here. Let me try to explain: We're not trying to build a rack mount unit with fixed architecture(fixed firmware) and fixed I/O (fixed input/output configuration), nor even intending to compete with Behringer below cost of manufacturing policy. With miniDSP, we're just building a small&flexible DIY board that can be tweaked and configured with I/O cards to meet your needs. So although, we do have some similarities (in the fact that they both happen to be using DSP IC), initial product concept and design objectives were very different from the ground up. (not sure if it makes a bit more sense).
Why am I trying to clarify this point? Because we do get compared all the time to DCX and while we certainly see it as a reference to get most of the features of the firmware, you will maybe realize by looking at our products/manuals/DIY instructions for tweaking our boards that product philosophies are actually quite different.
This being said, shelving filters are indeed on the pipeline and will be released shortly. We also understand their values, and just need to implement them in the firmware. Right now, the wish list is really long and we've been a bit delayed with Hardware dev (miniDIGI/miniAMP). Our current community users & for our projects, we simply used PEQ with a wide q, a second PEQ for a steeper roll-off and the results were still very much acceptable. But that's only a workaround and we'll be focusing again on software dev in the next few weeks and hope to release a couple of new features which who knows, will maybe out-do what a DCX does..
Hope this clarifies your questions,
Regards
Tony
Thanks for you interest in our miniDSP concept. DCX2496 is indeed a well known product, but to us a complete different concept to what we're trying to do here. Let me try to explain: We're not trying to build a rack mount unit with fixed architecture(fixed firmware) and fixed I/O (fixed input/output configuration), nor even intending to compete with Behringer below cost of manufacturing policy. With miniDSP, we're just building a small&flexible DIY board that can be tweaked and configured with I/O cards to meet your needs. So although, we do have some similarities (in the fact that they both happen to be using DSP IC), initial product concept and design objectives were very different from the ground up. (not sure if it makes a bit more sense).
Why am I trying to clarify this point? Because we do get compared all the time to DCX and while we certainly see it as a reference to get most of the features of the firmware, you will maybe realize by looking at our products/manuals/DIY instructions for tweaking our boards that product philosophies are actually quite different.
This being said, shelving filters are indeed on the pipeline and will be released shortly. We also understand their values, and just need to implement them in the firmware. Right now, the wish list is really long and we've been a bit delayed with Hardware dev (miniDIGI/miniAMP). Our current community users & for our projects, we simply used PEQ with a wide q, a second PEQ for a steeper roll-off and the results were still very much acceptable. But that's only a workaround and we'll be focusing again on software dev in the next few weeks and hope to release a couple of new features which who knows, will maybe out-do what a DCX does..
Hope this clarifies your questions,
Regards
Tony
DSP equalizers (filters/peq/graphic) are typically only a digital representation of an analog filter using biquads. You can maybe have a read about it for more info (searching for biquad info). But basically they have the same phase behavior as analog filters. There are some minimum linear phase filters but these are typically achieved with FIR, not IIR.
Hope this clarifies,
RE: phase issues in graphic equalizers
DSP is (as a post has already mentioned) just implements the same transfer function as is done in analog circuits so you get the same thing, and the same phase changes. This is why using multiple graphic EQ sections to implement wide band boost/cut results in something worse that what could be achieved with a PEQ. I am coming from a loudspeaker development perspective, and no one uses graphic EQs. PEQ on the other hand, can be pretty useful.
-Charlie
DSP is (as a post has already mentioned) just implements the same transfer function as is done in analog circuits so you get the same thing, and the same phase changes. This is why using multiple graphic EQ sections to implement wide band boost/cut results in something worse that what could be achieved with a PEQ. I am coming from a loudspeaker development perspective, and no one uses graphic EQs. PEQ on the other hand, can be pretty useful.
-Charlie
Well, it depends on the CPU the DSP is implemented on. I know SigmaDSP doesn't support time reversed IIR but I didn't think to check the details of how the FFT blocks behave when I had it installed.
Regardless of filter implementation, the core feature I'd like to see is the ability to import measurement data, synthesize an equalization filter and crossover, and tweak it based on subjective impressions and known measurement limitations. The FIR based DSPreLab is an good example of this.
Approach is different, that's quite clear. On the other hand, features, from high level view, are quite similar (after all it's matter of 2 to 4 ways filtering) and if you target "almost" similar configuration, you end-up with similar cost.
I mean once you spend money for 2 MiniDSP + box + power supply and connectors, you are in the range of DCX "out of the box".
For sure one is kind of DIY while the other is not (until you decide to tweak it but then it's much more expensive).
I also do understand that this view is only from a cost perspective. I'm not able to compare figures and tell that one will sound better than the other and perhaps the key is here
I'm myself really trying to measure pros and cons as I need such filtering feature in my current project. You approach is very appealing but I cannot refrain myself to compare MiniDSP and DCX having cost in mind. It's not really rational, I know but what you get for the money does matter.
This said, I really like your approach and appreciate the huge amount of support you provide through this forum and the one on your web site. This has to be taken in account too.
Christian
Bonjour Christian,
Let me try to answer something that has been brewing in my mind about comments related to comparing us to Behringer, a multinational manufacturing literally thousands of products per day...
Here is my gist:
- There will come a day where I'll run out of energy of trying to explain why comparing us to Behringer, what they do, how cheap they get their parts for all the thousands of products they manufacture per day. I'm not sure how else I could explain the simple concept of "economy of scale" in electronic manufacturing, but whoever manufacture thousands of products per day, can afford to sell cheap. Period. No need to talk about hours, it's 101 manufacturing.
- I'm also not sure you fully 100% realize the potential of the flexible I/O concept. When mentioning a crossover is a crossover, well not so much our case being just another DSP. Besides providing flexible I/O (and giving complete freedom to DIYers to build their own I/O using the I2S signals), we're also giving freedom on the plug-in (firmware). Flexibility is not something that comes cheap in terms of engineering time (testing, building & maintaining multiple versions of code). If you have some electronic product design experience, you'd agree that a fixed product (e.g. DCX) is always a loads easier to build than a flexible one (miniDSP).
Finally, what you mention as "the huge amount of support you provide through this forum and the one on your web site" is something to be aware off. Maybe will come a day where if we feel that there is too much abuse of this forum trying to compare us to Behringer and literally draining our energy trying to write back and explain why. When that day comes, we'll be less inclined to answer threads like yours.
So here is a general comment to think about for future threads: If your thread is trying to compare us to Berhinger, we'll just get back to product dev instead. Much more valuable for us, for our community members who are happy with features we keep releasing, for our company. If you have general questions about buying a Behringer product, or telling us how great it is, how happy you're with it, you're in the wrong thread! There are literally hundreds of these threads on the DIY audio forum, so please guys, can you take that discussion out there? We'd REALLY appreciate your understanding!
Allez Bonne Journee, c'est le week end!
Antoine
Let me try to answer something that has been brewing in my mind about comments related to comparing us to Behringer, a multinational manufacturing literally thousands of products per day...
Here is my gist:
- There will come a day where I'll run out of energy of trying to explain why comparing us to Behringer, what they do, how cheap they get their parts for all the thousands of products they manufacture per day. I'm not sure how else I could explain the simple concept of "economy of scale" in electronic manufacturing, but whoever manufacture thousands of products per day, can afford to sell cheap. Period. No need to talk about hours, it's 101 manufacturing.
- I'm also not sure you fully 100% realize the potential of the flexible I/O concept. When mentioning a crossover is a crossover, well not so much our case being just another DSP. Besides providing flexible I/O (and giving complete freedom to DIYers to build their own I/O using the I2S signals), we're also giving freedom on the plug-in (firmware). Flexibility is not something that comes cheap in terms of engineering time (testing, building & maintaining multiple versions of code). If you have some electronic product design experience, you'd agree that a fixed product (e.g. DCX) is always a loads easier to build than a flexible one (miniDSP).
Finally, what you mention as "the huge amount of support you provide through this forum and the one on your web site" is something to be aware off. Maybe will come a day where if we feel that there is too much abuse of this forum trying to compare us to Behringer and literally draining our energy trying to write back and explain why. When that day comes, we'll be less inclined to answer threads like yours.
So here is a general comment to think about for future threads: If your thread is trying to compare us to Berhinger, we'll just get back to product dev instead. Much more valuable for us, for our community members who are happy with features we keep releasing, for our company. If you have general questions about buying a Behringer product, or telling us how great it is, how happy you're with it, you're in the wrong thread! There are literally hundreds of these threads on the DIY audio forum, so please guys, can you take that discussion out there? We'd REALLY appreciate your understanding!
Allez Bonne Journee, c'est le week end!
Antoine
Tony
I love the concept and its implementation - a welcome tool for the DIY community. My order will be placed soon...
All the best to you!
Cheers,
Thanks & Welcome to the miniDSP community!
They certainly do look very nice, and the flexibility is a huge plus.... keep us posted on when you get everything ready for a Mac version as well. I would love to get one once they are Mac compatible.
On a separate note, I notice the usb input is only for modifying the setting on the Minidsp. Will there ever be a version where music can be streamed through the usb plug? I don't really know anything about digital audio processors, and maybe this is more difficult or costly than it is worth.... just curious
thanks
Joe
On a separate note, I notice the usb input is only for modifying the setting on the Minidsp. Will there ever be a version where music can be streamed through the usb plug? I don't really know anything about digital audio processors, and maybe this is more difficult or costly than it is worth.... just curious
thanks
Joe
Hello Joe,
Thanks for your comments, with regards to the USB plug, it's indeed only for configuration (not for streaming audio) and no software update is ever going to change that (hardware limitation).
"If" we ever consider one day to build a USB card, it will not be an off the shelf 16bit USB streamer. We'll have to engineer it properly and it will most likely take quite some time&resources. At this point of time, it's not in the schedule as we'd rather focus on building high quality I/O cards in the near future.
Hope this answers your question
Wow! I ordered one pair of MiniDSP beginning of this week (goal being to build 3-way active stereo system) and have received it today, 4 days later from Hong Kong to France. Very impressive!
Software installation and config (before any measurement ;-) ) is straight forward. Then I've to play with it now.
The ones I received are slightly different from pictures on web site (and documentation, looking at "external power supply" doc): no female header but male instead. Not an issue however.
I believe one can plug, at same time, USB for config AND external power supply, correct?
Software installation and config (before any measurement ;-) ) is straight forward. Then I've to play with it now.
The ones I received are slightly different from pictures on web site (and documentation, looking at "external power supply" doc): no female header but male instead. Not an issue however.
I believe one can plug, at same time, USB for config AND external power supply, correct?
Hello Chris,
Glad to hear that your board arrived in time.
Yes, that's correct that the picture from the website is slightly different (expansion connectors now in place). We ought to update that picture, just didn't have the time yet.
You can indeed plug both USB and external supply together. They are both protected for that matter.
Hope this helps and have fun,
miniDSP Dev Team
Well I'll second the feedback of Chris - I ordered one board on Thursday, and it was waiting for me in the office on Monday morning. Great service. The guys also helped me out choosing the right plugin, and clarified some of the capabilities.
I was able to set up a 2 way XO setup in half an hour. I'm using the PEQ 2 way plugin. I've tested it against a 'high end' passive XO, and an opamp based active XO. Both have very similar XO points and slopes. At this stage I prefer the miniDSP, followed by the opamp based system, and finally the passive system. I suspect the ability to do a digital delay and align the drivers may be critical to my listening tastes. I'm driving DIY Zaph Audio ZRTs (now with the XO's disconnected). I expect a small additional improvement if the minidsp is fed a digital source.
A PEQ version of the 4-way plugin would be good, given my experience with the 2 way plug in it seems like the way to go. From the plugin info page it looks like the 4 way plug in uses the 31 band graphical EQ.
Tom
I was able to set up a 2 way XO setup in half an hour. I'm using the PEQ 2 way plugin. I've tested it against a 'high end' passive XO, and an opamp based active XO. Both have very similar XO points and slopes. At this stage I prefer the miniDSP, followed by the opamp based system, and finally the passive system. I suspect the ability to do a digital delay and align the drivers may be critical to my listening tastes. I'm driving DIY Zaph Audio ZRTs (now with the XO's disconnected). I expect a small additional improvement if the minidsp is fed a digital source.
A PEQ version of the 4-way plugin would be good, given my experience with the 2 way plug in it seems like the way to go. From the plugin info page it looks like the 4 way plug in uses the 31 band graphical EQ.
Tom
Tom,
We're certainly glad to hear that you're enjoying your miniDSP kit and had your crossover setup in a record time!
Commenting your 4way PEQ point, this plug-in is closer to release that it ever been. We hope to release it very soon once it's been through all the typical QC we perform. It will provide:
6 x PEQ on input channel (Pre Xover)
6 x PEQ on each output channel (Post Xover)
4 x Band pass filters
4 x Delay lines per output (up to 7.5ms)
and the typical processing you would see on our plug-ins (polarity/levels/mute..)
Hope this information helps,
Well our poor old G3 mac looks to be on it's last leg. The good news being that we have a new computer in our future (the bad news being of course that we have to buy a new computer). I know the new intel based Macs are able to run windows apps through "boot camp", are you then able to connect to the minidsp using a intel based mac? or are there hardware issues? Any guess on when a native mac version might be ready? We're just looking at options for new computers, and one of my big things is to get a machine that I can process music through (I've even been on the dell web page a couple of times )
thanks
Joe
)thanks
Joe
Apple really don't want you to think about this too much, but there's nothing special about Mac hardware any more - it's practically off the shelf hardware, aside from the custom motherboards, and even those tend to bear a lot of resemblance to the Intel reference boards.
Upshot is, Windows works just as well as it does on any other machine, once Boot Camp has given it a hand to get started up.
Downside is that you need a spare copy of windows to install, which obviously can be expensive.
(conversely, Mac OS X runs just fine on a great many computers which aren't Macs, once apple's protections against you doing so are disabled. Apple -really- don't want people to know that, and I guess at least a few people are turned off by it being illegal in most jurisdictions)
Upshot is, Windows works just as well as it does on any other machine, once Boot Camp has given it a hand to get started up.
Downside is that you need a spare copy of windows to install, which obviously can be expensive.
(conversely, Mac OS X runs just fine on a great many computers which aren't Macs, once apple's protections against you doing so are disabled. Apple -really- don't want people to know that, and I guess at least a few people are turned off by it being illegal in most jurisdictions)
MiniDSP looks promising on paper.
For becoming a top seller, MiniDSP needs to provide at the hardware level :
- 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz and 96 kHz sampling frequencies
- free access to the four IIS ports and SPI or I2C for hooking a SPDIF receiver, an ADC converter, and up to 8 DACs to be controlled using SPI or I2C
- middleware : you need to develop an API for each SPDIF, ADC or DAC silicon to be used
- RC5 receiver for remote controlling the output volumes
- USB audio enabling MiniDSP to act as a Windows Sound Card (Windows + ASIO)
For becoming a top seller, MiniDSP needs to provide at the software level :
- a table of up to 48 2nd order IIR coefficients. They are listed in sequence in 2's complement format ready to be used by the CPU.
- left_in IIR vector table - you name the sequence of IIRs to be applied - this is your input Eq, left
- right_in IIR vector table - you name the sequence of IIRs to be applied - this is your input Eq, right
- left_in delay register up to 256 samples = 180 cm at 48 kHz
- right_in delay register up to 255 samples = 180 cm at 48 kHz
- sub_out IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- bass_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- medium_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- high_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- sub_out compensation delay register. Up to 128 samples = 90 cm at 48 kHz, this delay is applied to the bass, medium and high outputs. It is compensating the huge group delay of some physical subwoofers like Bandpass 4th order (two chambers) or Bose 8th order (three chambers)
- bass_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
- medium_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
- high_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
This is BASIC. DIYers DON'T need more. The rest is futile. A good practice is to deliver the barebones before attempting delivering a deluxe limited application, that will always lack the versatility of what's described above.
DIYers will acclaim MiniDSP if you can deliver something as flexible as described above, without the DIYers needing to exercise DSP56K programming.
So in essence, your software needs to be :
1) a MiniDSP audio operating system, permanently monitoring the IIR table, the vectors and the delay registers, and executing them. This MiniDSP audio operating system will get incremental revisions for supporting more functions in the future like input source selection (ADC or SPDIF), and like RC5 remote control of the volumes.
2) a MiniDSP set of drivers, to be used by the DSP CPU for inputting and outputting digital audio data on the four I2C ports, plus the management of those peripherals using I2C or SPI.
3) anybody can come with a .txt file containing the IIR table, the vectors and the delay registers, and load it into MiniDSP using the Windows Terminal, for getting it executed by MiniDSP.
3) a MiniDSP Lab on PC, providing a graphical front-end, relieving the user from calculating himself the IIR coefficients. You should avoid wasting too much money in this : only provide a sample application using 1st to 8th order butterworth filter design and assignment, plus delay assigment.
4) Very important is to make MiniDSP Lab on PC accepting third-party plugins. If you do this properly and transparently, the communauty will develop other filtering scenarios involving more elaborate filters like Complementary State Variable, Linkwitz, Linkwitz-Riley, Subwoofer complementary, loudspeaker idealization post-pro, pure phase shift compensation IIRs, enter the weird domain of FIRs, etc...
5) At the end of the day, the user will load your framework, load a few third-party plugins, enter parameters in the filtering / crossover scheme, and load it into MiniDSP for execution.
Huge success is guaranteed if you follow the rules.
The money you will be charging for each board is :
- the MiniDSP bill of material, plus a premium
- the associated MiniDSP audio operating system, and you need to ask money for revisions and extensions like managing FIRs and other filter structures
- the associated MiniDSP set of drivers that are associated to external silicon using I2S, I2C and SPI, and you need to ask money for revisions and extensions
You better charge no money for the MiniDSP Lab on PC.
However, if you deliver very elaborate plugins, you may ask money for them. Like third-party suppliers will.
You also can charge money by designing audiophile interfaces like :
- 192 kHz ADCs and DACS
- low-jitter clocking
- capacitorless input, capacitorless outputs
- MiniDSP coresponding drivers
- MiniDSP OS extensions
All to be hooked on the 4 I2S + SPI + I2C MiniDSP bus
Anyway, if you don't do this, rest assured others will !
What kind of media coverage have you got until now ?
Want some media coverage ?
With MiniDSP, using the right approach, you can drive a whole ecosystem.
There are thousands of people having waited for that, for so long.
Once you will carry the right messages, they will order. Massively.
If, on top of that, a MiniDSP replacement of a Behringer DCX2496 is about the same price as the Behringer DCX2496, guess what will happen to the Behringer DCX2496 installed base ? Nothing ? Consider now that the MiniDSP has a built-in volume control for each output, using a 2 line x 16 character display + 4 buttons, plus a RC5 remote ...
Such MiniDSP replacement of a Behringer DCX2496 should be housed in the exact same case as the Behringer DCX2496. Unscrew the Behringer, sell it on the 2nd market, and install the MiniDSP. With the rack front plate of MiniDSP providing a door, used to store the RC5 remote control.
Net cost in the order of 159 dollars. Which means the MiniDSP needs to be sold at 259 dollars, the user getting 100 dollars back from reselling his Behringer DCX2496.
Once you've done this, you'll get a name, a fame, and you will be okay for the next-gen of audio gear : active speakers fed using digital or using wireless, embedding digital crossovers, volume controls and Class-D amps. I don't say you'll sell loudspeakers. I say you'll sell boards for the DIY market, embedding digital crossovers and Eqs, volume controls, and Class-D amps.
And the same kind of MiniDSP rack will be used as master controller, with the same RC5 remote for the global volume, able to process any audio source, being analog, SPDIF or USB. The only difference being that this next-gen audio gear will send data using digital (wire, internet or wireless), and will be able to gather info from the speakers like instantaneous power, temperature, warnings, error reports, and so on. Those toys will be able to sample the audio that's delivered using a mike, and correlate it with the input. This is going to trigger a revolution in Public Adress systems. All what we currently see, will be dumped, and replaced.
Cheers,
Steph
For becoming a top seller, MiniDSP needs to provide at the hardware level :
- 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz and 96 kHz sampling frequencies
- free access to the four IIS ports and SPI or I2C for hooking a SPDIF receiver, an ADC converter, and up to 8 DACs to be controlled using SPI or I2C
- middleware : you need to develop an API for each SPDIF, ADC or DAC silicon to be used
- RC5 receiver for remote controlling the output volumes
- USB audio enabling MiniDSP to act as a Windows Sound Card (Windows + ASIO)
For becoming a top seller, MiniDSP needs to provide at the software level :
- a table of up to 48 2nd order IIR coefficients. They are listed in sequence in 2's complement format ready to be used by the CPU.
- left_in IIR vector table - you name the sequence of IIRs to be applied - this is your input Eq, left
- right_in IIR vector table - you name the sequence of IIRs to be applied - this is your input Eq, right
- left_in delay register up to 256 samples = 180 cm at 48 kHz
- right_in delay register up to 255 samples = 180 cm at 48 kHz
- sub_out IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- bass_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- medium_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- high_out_1 IIR vector table - you name the sequence of the IIRs to be applied
- sub_out compensation delay register. Up to 128 samples = 90 cm at 48 kHz, this delay is applied to the bass, medium and high outputs. It is compensating the huge group delay of some physical subwoofers like Bandpass 4th order (two chambers) or Bose 8th order (three chambers)
- bass_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
- medium_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
- high_out delay register up to 64 samples = 44 cm at 48 kHz
This is BASIC. DIYers DON'T need more. The rest is futile. A good practice is to deliver the barebones before attempting delivering a deluxe limited application, that will always lack the versatility of what's described above.
DIYers will acclaim MiniDSP if you can deliver something as flexible as described above, without the DIYers needing to exercise DSP56K programming.
So in essence, your software needs to be :
1) a MiniDSP audio operating system, permanently monitoring the IIR table, the vectors and the delay registers, and executing them. This MiniDSP audio operating system will get incremental revisions for supporting more functions in the future like input source selection (ADC or SPDIF), and like RC5 remote control of the volumes.
2) a MiniDSP set of drivers, to be used by the DSP CPU for inputting and outputting digital audio data on the four I2C ports, plus the management of those peripherals using I2C or SPI.
3) anybody can come with a .txt file containing the IIR table, the vectors and the delay registers, and load it into MiniDSP using the Windows Terminal, for getting it executed by MiniDSP.
3) a MiniDSP Lab on PC, providing a graphical front-end, relieving the user from calculating himself the IIR coefficients. You should avoid wasting too much money in this : only provide a sample application using 1st to 8th order butterworth filter design and assignment, plus delay assigment.
4) Very important is to make MiniDSP Lab on PC accepting third-party plugins. If you do this properly and transparently, the communauty will develop other filtering scenarios involving more elaborate filters like Complementary State Variable, Linkwitz, Linkwitz-Riley, Subwoofer complementary, loudspeaker idealization post-pro, pure phase shift compensation IIRs, enter the weird domain of FIRs, etc...
5) At the end of the day, the user will load your framework, load a few third-party plugins, enter parameters in the filtering / crossover scheme, and load it into MiniDSP for execution.
Huge success is guaranteed if you follow the rules.
The money you will be charging for each board is :
- the MiniDSP bill of material, plus a premium
- the associated MiniDSP audio operating system, and you need to ask money for revisions and extensions like managing FIRs and other filter structures
- the associated MiniDSP set of drivers that are associated to external silicon using I2S, I2C and SPI, and you need to ask money for revisions and extensions
You better charge no money for the MiniDSP Lab on PC.
However, if you deliver very elaborate plugins, you may ask money for them. Like third-party suppliers will.
You also can charge money by designing audiophile interfaces like :
- 192 kHz ADCs and DACS
- low-jitter clocking
- capacitorless input, capacitorless outputs
- MiniDSP coresponding drivers
- MiniDSP OS extensions
All to be hooked on the 4 I2S + SPI + I2C MiniDSP bus
Anyway, if you don't do this, rest assured others will !
What kind of media coverage have you got until now ?
Want some media coverage ?
With MiniDSP, using the right approach, you can drive a whole ecosystem.
There are thousands of people having waited for that, for so long.
Once you will carry the right messages, they will order. Massively.
If, on top of that, a MiniDSP replacement of a Behringer DCX2496 is about the same price as the Behringer DCX2496, guess what will happen to the Behringer DCX2496 installed base ? Nothing ? Consider now that the MiniDSP has a built-in volume control for each output, using a 2 line x 16 character display + 4 buttons, plus a RC5 remote ...
Such MiniDSP replacement of a Behringer DCX2496 should be housed in the exact same case as the Behringer DCX2496. Unscrew the Behringer, sell it on the 2nd market, and install the MiniDSP. With the rack front plate of MiniDSP providing a door, used to store the RC5 remote control.
Net cost in the order of 159 dollars. Which means the MiniDSP needs to be sold at 259 dollars, the user getting 100 dollars back from reselling his Behringer DCX2496.
Once you've done this, you'll get a name, a fame, and you will be okay for the next-gen of audio gear : active speakers fed using digital or using wireless, embedding digital crossovers, volume controls and Class-D amps. I don't say you'll sell loudspeakers. I say you'll sell boards for the DIY market, embedding digital crossovers and Eqs, volume controls, and Class-D amps.
And the same kind of MiniDSP rack will be used as master controller, with the same RC5 remote for the global volume, able to process any audio source, being analog, SPDIF or USB. The only difference being that this next-gen audio gear will send data using digital (wire, internet or wireless), and will be able to gather info from the speakers like instantaneous power, temperature, warnings, error reports, and so on. Those toys will be able to sample the audio that's delivered using a mike, and correlate it with the input. This is going to trigger a revolution in Public Adress systems. All what we currently see, will be dumped, and replaced.
Cheers,
Steph
PCB spacer & ground
Maybe a stupid question but is there any clever way to stack miniDSP?
Is it OK to use metal spacers and stand-off or shall I rather use plastic stand-off and connect ground to power supply at one point only?
I'm asking this to understand whenever using metal stand-off on metail case may generate noise due to ground loop.
Maybe a stupid question but is there any clever way to stack miniDSP?
Is it OK to use metal spacers and stand-off or shall I rather use plastic stand-off and connect ground to power supply at one point only?
I'm asking this to understand whenever using metal stand-off on metail case may generate noise due to ground loop.
Hello Christian,
Yes, it's ok to use metal standoffs (e.g. 17mm or more). We've been doing this configuration before and it worked fine.
Also note that with one USB supply. If you need to know how, send us an email at info@dsp4you.com and we'll send you more info.
miniDSP Dev Team
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.