I basically want all the capabilities of the 4x10 Hd. I guess if I were really choosing my own features, I'd want 4-channel analog in, 4-channel digital in, and 8-channel analog out, AND corresponding 8-channel digital out.
The point of the 4-channel analog input would be to handle a turntable separately from normal analog input. The point of the 4-channel digital in would just be to keep a CDP connected at the same time as the music server. The 8-channel digital out would be in case I someday decide to buy some direct-digital amps, but I definitely want the 8+ analog out either way.
Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions of things I should be looking at, things that don't costs several times more $, I'd love to hear it! I'm 100% open to solutions requiring a dedicated computer.
The point of the 4-channel analog input would be to handle a turntable separately from normal analog input. The point of the 4-channel digital in would just be to keep a CDP connected at the same time as the music server. The 8-channel digital out would be in case I someday decide to buy some direct-digital amps, but I definitely want the 8+ analog out either way.
Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions of things I should be looking at, things that don't costs several times more $, I'd love to hear it! I'm 100% open to solutions requiring a dedicated computer.
First, I suggest that you study the data sheet a little more carefully - the 4x10 does not have 4 inputs (4 analog OR 4 digital). 8-channel digital out is not supported either, as far as I am aware of. There is only 8ch of analog output and 2 ch of either analog or digital output.
The 4x10 is not a preamp with multiple inputs for different types of gear. How are you going to implement the RIAA phono preamp stage? I do not suggest that you use the MiniDSP for this! The 10x10Hd might work as a preamp, but you essentially only get more analog inputs.
The MiniDSP products have their own weaknesses, especially when used as a preamp. If that is what you are primarily looking for (a preamp with some room correction for instance) you would probably be better served with something else.
The MiniDSPs are great if you are designing your own DSP loudspeaker crossovers and want a little extra functionality like volume control or switching between a few different response curves. The ease with which the crossover filters can be programmed and reprogrammed, as well as some advanced capabilities for implementing certain types of DSP filters, makes these very attractive for DIY loudspeakers, and some other applications and this is IMO the main strength of the product line.
The 4x10 is not a preamp with multiple inputs for different types of gear. How are you going to implement the RIAA phono preamp stage? I do not suggest that you use the MiniDSP for this! The 10x10Hd might work as a preamp, but you essentially only get more analog inputs.
The MiniDSP products have their own weaknesses, especially when used as a preamp. If that is what you are primarily looking for (a preamp with some room correction for instance) you would probably be better served with something else.
The MiniDSPs are great if you are designing your own DSP loudspeaker crossovers and want a little extra functionality like volume control or switching between a few different response curves. The ease with which the crossover filters can be programmed and reprogrammed, as well as some advanced capabilities for implementing certain types of DSP filters, makes these very attractive for DIY loudspeakers, and some other applications and this is IMO the main strength of the product line.
I guess I made that confusing. The features of the 4x10 Hd are the minimum that I want (to implement DSP crossover/EQ). The capabilities that I described are things that would make an alternative more appealing. The RIAA would be handled digitally after an RIAA-less phono preamp, given a setup where that were practical.
Last edited:
Do yourself a favour and prototype with the miniDSP and then build a passive crossover network.I have a miniSHARC and it does not compare to the OEM passive crossover in my system(Very Disappointed).The miniDSP is cheap enough to test with and is very powerful for prototyping when used with a mic, but comes up short in sound quality.
( do ourselves a favour and keep the analog path clean ....)
why mix the two ? Or maybe...cannot find the right EQ for some records
made before RIAA standards ?
The real thing about turntables and vynils is that the signal available after stylus reading is made of alternative and periodic changes of tension and current...yes, that's analog ! You would want to break it into millions bricks
to stream ...and then recompose...ooooh
why mix the two ? Or maybe...cannot find the right EQ for some records
made before RIAA standards ?
The real thing about turntables and vynils is that the signal available after stylus reading is made of alternative and periodic changes of tension and current...yes, that's analog ! You would want to break it into millions bricks
to stream ...and then recompose...ooooh
An analog purist posting in the digital line level forum? Ho hum.
Funny you should say that. The reason I posted with this is that more DSP capability is something I'd like for prototyping, but I'm also interested in trying some completely digital main systems, and I am considering whether I might use the same tools to do both. For prototyping only, when I'm already using a computer interface and multiple amp channels for measurements, there should be no need for additional hardware. Which is why I have this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pc-based/242540-free-cheap-crossover-emulation.html. If also using the computer for a primary system, I'd probably want some higher-end device(s) doing ADC and DAC than the cheap Tascam unit I currently use for designing speakers.
That's perfectly plausible I suppose, but do you actually have data showing the problem was not your implementation?
Last edited:
Haha, everybody wants a measurement. Does Nelson Pass give measurements for all his recommendations? IMHO I have wasted my money buying a miniSHARC. It takes a 44.1 khz signal and then up samples it to 48khz. You cannot use an external clock. The power supply's have issues and there is probably a lot of crosstalk and jitter happening. But by all means please prove me wrong.
I am just trying to save peoples time and money. I have invested at least 40hours into DSP and it is the weakest link in my system. So when you make your purchase, be aware that it is degrading the signal, and that a passive crossover is far superior.
I have yet to test low level active networks but am in the process of building a circuit. This could be the best option for Bi-amping.
I have yet to test low level active networks but am in the process of building a circuit. This could be the best option for Bi-amping.
I have exactly the opposite experience. I chaged my Linn Isobariks from a passive analog crossover to active digital (using the hypex DLCP), and the improvement was pretty impressive.
This won't work well in general. You can not expect to implement an active filter transfer function with a passive crossover after the amps (the typical location). If you mean a passive line level crossover (before the amps), then this could work but you can't implement any "boost" and you would have to keep this in mind when you are designing the filter.
You can design and listen to a crossover using the MiniDSP and then implement it as an active analog crossover (e.g. using circuits with op amps) and get pretty much exactly the same thing. You get the advantage of being able to make adjustments to the crossover on the fly, listen to them immediately, and then know that your design "sounds right" before taking the time to build the circuit up in the analog domain.
It actually works just fine if you do it right. You take the transfer functions of a passive (speaker level) xover that you design using a simulator with measured driver impedances (as well as response, you'd hope, but it's not relevant to the filters), and then apply those functions with DSP.
If you do it the other way around and design your DSP crossover, then try to approximate it passively, that's usually not going to work out so well, as you are saying, but it can still be very helpful in terms of just determining/verifying targets for crossover regions, overall response trend, and that sort of thing.
If you do it the other way around and design your DSP crossover, then try to approximate it passively, that's usually not going to work out so well, as you are saying, but it can still be very helpful in terms of just determining/verifying targets for crossover regions, overall response trend, and that sort of thing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.