Hypex DSP module(s) - Page 30 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st December 2012, 03:08 PM   #291
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
hmm well ****, I hadnt anticipated that type pf DNR/analogue performance.... but the point is, if you cant trust it to do volume, how can it be trusted to do DSP, since attenuation is a basic ability expected of a crossover.

that would be enough range for me still and i'd like to see how much easier it would be to better it with 3-4 channel balanced analogue control (12-16deck). in the real world....

Last edited by qusp; 21st December 2012 at 03:12 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 03:19 PM   #292
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
honestly though, no in depth technical arguments based on this specific device aimed at me, you are wasting your time, I wont counter it, because i'm not interested in purchasing it
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 04:01 PM   #293
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPa View Post
Other topologies are other topologies
I dougbt bruno to have one idea/one life =1.
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 04:19 PM   #294
ChrisPa is offline ChrisPa  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Saddleworth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esperado View Post
I dougbt bruno to have one idea/one life =1.
So you've read the paper then?
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 04:30 PM   #295
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
if you can't trust it to do volume, how can it be trusted to do DSP, since attenuation is a basic ability expected of a crossover
Because there's a difference between attenuating in and out of band signals. The stopband of any crossover evenually hits some sort of analog or digital noise floor (more often than not it's analog---113dB DNR with 0dBFS being 2.9V is 6.5uV RMS of audio band noise or roughly a 3nV/sqrt(Hz) noise density, which means one has to pay attention to intrinsic noise and noise gain in op amps, power amps, and so on in the downstream analog chain not to screw it up) but it's by design that the noise floor be reached as it's intentional to reject the information in that part of the signal. Conversely, dropping the in band signal towards the floor is undesirable as the intent is to retain as much in band information as is feasible.

It may be more useful to compare digital volume to level adjustments in XO+EQ to match driver efficiencies. If one's being good about managing bit depth within the DSP, it's often feasible apply the XO filters first (which drops the peak signal level since some of the signal is rejected) and then boost the levels of the least efficient drivers. This is equivalent to turning the volume up so it actually increases bit depth. In speakers with enclosures levels are usually differ only by a few dB so the improvement from level matching is typically only a fraction of a bit. But, hey, it helps a little. Dipoles can end up with 15 or 20dB of boost at the low end of a passband, depending on the baffle configuration, so it's possible to pull out several "extra" bits at certain frequencies if the DSP's internal resolution allows it. The 48 bit paths in the DLCP's TAS are more than sufficient for this---32 bits is sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
i'm not interested in purchasing it
I don't expect to be a customer either, but from what I can tell Hypex is the most capable engineering organization in this space (and, while only having an advisory role on the DLCP, Bruno is one heck of a smart guy whom I've considerable respect for). So, for those of us who are building our own equivalents, I think it's pretting interesting to look at Hypex's implementation. And, well, this is the thread about Hypex's implementation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 04:33 PM   #296
diyAudio Member
 
lduarte1973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lisbon
anyone knows if it´s better or worst than minidsp ?
__________________
Hey ! just because i´m getting bald doesnt mean i cant like hair metal
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 04:48 PM   #297
diyAudio Member
 
Esperado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: France
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPa View Post
So you've read the paper then?
Long time ago, yes.
The year Mr Nyquist committed suicide.
__________________
Ultimate Protection and more.The Only Source of Knowledge is experience, everything else is just information” ©A. Einstein

Last edited by Esperado; 21st December 2012 at 04:51 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 05:22 PM   #298
ds23man is offline ds23man  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by lduarte1973 View Post
anyone knows if it´s better or worst than minidsp ?
Should we answer this question seriously?



  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 05:23 PM   #299
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
It may be more useful to compare digital volume to level adjustments in XO+EQ to match driver efficiencies.
how is this part of a different process? thats all part of the crossover, it would be part of the analogue XO, why is it separated here? youve just drawn a line to divide a process so you can disagree.... there will also be points along a slope that are not fully deleted but are attenuated, digital is steep, but its not THAT steep, corrections for driver response dips/peaks will also use the same process....

Quote:
I don't expect to be a customer either, but from what I can tell Hypex is the most capable engineering organization in this space (and, while only having an advisory role on the DLCP, Bruno is one heck of a smart guy whom I've considerable respect for). So, for those of us who are building our own equivalents, I think it's pretting interesting to look at Hypex's implementation. And, well, this is the thread about Hypex's implementation.
agreed, Bruno will go down as a legend in the field, whether I buy his products or not my system likely would not be as it is, if it werent for him, his papers are superbly written as well, quite the package. i'm just saying I have no interest in reading the tech notes with a view to defending, or dissecting the pitfalls of this specific design, I have enough work and reading to do to make sure my own build works out as planned.

if it wasnt an interesting design (the digital side is of more interest to me) I wouldnt be here reading about it, though there really isnt much info yet, just bickering...

of course you have to make sure the analogue stages are up to the job, even moreso with digital attenuation, but thats a given, I dont need to go to special efforts because of that, I would do that anyway.

using analogue attenuation in my system would be an idiot thing to do and to match the quality of it for 16decks....$$$$ forget it... makes remote control much more difficult too

Last edited by qusp; 21st December 2012 at 05:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2012, 05:30 PM   #300
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds23man View Post
Should we answer this question seriously?
I think it's an interesting and entirely valid one---it's more than a 2x cost riser from USD 300 to euro 550 at the moment, and that's not including Hypex's add on boards. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any hardware breakdown for the 2x4 or 2x8 similar to what you've posted for the DLCP (though it has been a few months since I last searched DIYA for this info). The ADAU1701 in the 2x4 is not as capable as the DLCP and there are some good quality measurements of the 2x4 over in the miniDSP forum that show miniDSP did a good job of getting what they could out of the ADAU1701. So I'm inclined to see this as mainly a DLCP versus 2x8 kind of thing. Unfortunately I don't own a 2x8 or have any plans to buy one so I'm afraid I can't be much help in sorting this one out. But if anyone who has a 2x8 is inclined to share measurements or take a look at the board that would be cool.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low-cost active crossover module for Hypex UcD amps Al Garay Class D 1 12th December 2010 02:26 AM
Low cost dsp based crossover module Crossoverman Multi-Way 38 20th February 2010 11:25 AM
Wanted Hypex Power Module rhcclark Swap Meet 2 18th July 2008 02:32 AM
DSP module with AD-DA Snickers-is Parts 4 20th August 2007 05:00 PM
Hypex UcD 400 AD amplifier module for sale mp006ltk Swap Meet 9 15th November 2006 02:56 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2