NaO Note II RS

[gainphile]

Originally Posted by john k...

There was also a pair of Orion 4's present. My impression was that the shelving down of the tweeter in the Orion 4 takes a lot of the air and space out of the speaker sound. It would say that to shelf or not to shelf is really dependent on the source material. On large orchestral works it may sound OK but on my CD of Chopin piano concertos it sounded like some one threw a blanket over the sound board. The impact of the hammers hitting the strings was lost. In any event, with the miniDSP in the loop such a shelf can be inserted or removed in the Note with a mouse click and you have your choice.

I have had love-hate relationship with the 'DSS' filter.

After a long time of going back and forth I my preference is for Flat. The shelving filter 'colours' all recording as dull. Somewhat like looking at those instagram photos. Maybe nice at first but after a while you'd see the pattern everywhere.

[john k...]

Originally Posted by gainphile

I have had love-hate relationship with the 'DSS' filter.

... The shelving filter 'colours' all recording as dull.

Exactly what I heard, dull, lifeless. No attack on anything. The Orion was/is much better w/o it. I can't imaging what the LX521 must sound like. Better control of directivity above 1.4k than the Orion and still whacking down the upper octaves. I know that the Note is much "softer" than the NaO II and being that they both measure with in fractions of a db of each other, and are both flat, the difference has to be with the higher directivity of the Note.

Now, there are HOT recording that need the highs shelved down, but that is an entirely different issue.

Anyway, my designs will always be flat on axis, if for no other reason than just to provide a consistent reference, with the ability to make user adjustments for specific taste, recordings, and rooms conditions.

[dlr]

Originally Posted by john k...

I know that the Note is much "softer" than the NaO II and being that they both measure with in fractions of a db of each other, and are both flat, the difference has to be with the higher directivity of the Note.

For the record, I think I prefer the new Note over the Nao II. It's specifically because of the somewhat "softer" response. That has to do with my preference in system response. I usually soften the top octave if need be. I did so with the OW1, but not with larger dome tweeters.

dlr

[Telstar]

Great job.
Unfortunately I'm in the category that doesnt fancy a digital XO until happens a serious multichannel multibit DAC with linear phase XO is implemented at driver level.
It'll take a few more years for that to happen, and it would cost several times the NoteII speakers.
Probably sooner will happen a DIY Pass B4/B5, and that i'm gonna build for sure.
I definitely agree with you that an active electronic XO built with fixed points and filters is not a particularly good investment.

Anyway, I repeat, great job, i always learn from you John.

[Barleywater]

Originally Posted by Telstar

Great job.
Unfortunately I'm in the category that doesnt fancy a digital XO until happens a serious multichannel multibit DAC with linear phase XO is implemented at driver level.
It'll take a few more years for that to happen, and it would cost several times the NoteII speakers.
Probably sooner will happen a DIY Pass B4/B5, and that i'm gonna build for sure.
I definitely agree with you that an active electronic XO built with fixed points and filters is not a particularly good investment.

Anyway, I repeat, great job, i always learn from you John.

PC based with multichannel cards starting at <$100 already do this. For more bucks, I use Roland Octa-Capture very effectively. MiniDSP's open DRC is promising, even with only about 6k taps.

Results:

Regards,

Andrew

[john k...]

Originally Posted by Telstar

Great job.
Unfortunately I'm in the category that doesnt fancy a digital XO until happens a serious multichannel multibit DAC with linear phase XO is implemented at driver level.

The Bodzio Ultimate Equalizer (UE) and your PC can do the complete design and phase linearization. I was involved in the development of the UE but am no longer affiliated. I do plan to develope a linear phase version of the Note II RS which would use the UE based crossover.

[Telstar]

The main reason because the DEQX sounded better than all other cheaper solutions was due to their D/A section.

From Bodzio UE manual:
"Audio input and output is routed through suitable multi-channel sound cards installed in the PC"

For me a suitable multichannel soundcard doesn't exist.
Even assuming that the filtering/xo done at wasapi level is transparent, at least as much as an ASIO rerouting (like i was using), it is still limited in most cases to 96khz.

The result is very good, probably excellent for multiway systems with several XO points in the voice range. Is it better than a passive network? You bet.
Is it better than an analogue discrete XO? Not necessarily.
But with non digital filtering I can play DXD from a state of the art DAC. With the former not yet, it will require a usb3-i2s native transceiver for a 4way speakers XO.

This goes in the right direction:
TOTALDAC DAC and digital crossover
but the xmos chip is limited to 192khz and usb2 bandwith is insufficient, and i think no linear phase filters.

The more people gets used to digital XO, the better, so the demand for serious hardware and software increases.

[zzzmonster]

Originally Posted by Telstar

The main reason because the DEQX sounded better than all other cheaper solutions was due to their D/A section.

From Bodzio UE manual:
"Audio input and output is routed through suitable multi-channel sound cards installed in the PC"

For me a suitable multichannel soundcard doesn't exist.
Even assuming that the filtering/xo done at wasapi level is transparent, at least as much as an ASIO rerouting (like i was using), it is still limited in most cases to 96khz.

The result is very good, probably excellent for multiway systems with several XO points in the voice range. Is it better than a passive network? You bet.
Is it better than an analogue discrete XO? Not necessarily.
But with non digital filtering I can play DXD from a state of the art DAC. With the former not yet, it will require a usb3-i2s native transceiver for a 4way speakers XO.

This goes in the right direction:
TOTALDAC DAC and digital crossover
but the xmos chip is limited to 192khz and usb2 bandwith is insufficient, and i think no linear phase filters.

The more people gets used to digital XO, the better, so the demand for serious hardware and software increases.

I agree, that is why I am using analog xo for Nao Note

[john k...]

Is it better than an analogue discrete XO? Not necessarily.

Who's building analog discrete crossovers? Seems they are pretty much opamp based. Certainly anything I would design would be.

We are not talking about simple HP and LP filters here. A quick count indicates 22 opamps would have to be dealt with in the Note II RS to go fully active analog. I don't want 22 opamps in the circuit. And that doesn't include input and output buffers. So maybe add another 5 opamps for the buffers.

The idea behind the Note II RS it performance at a level of the NaO II and original Note at a much lower price point. Mission accomplished.

[Barleywater]

Originally Posted by Telstar

The main reason because the DEQX sounded better than all other cheaper solutions was due to their D/A section.

From Bodzio UE manual:
"Audio input and output is routed through suitable multi-channel sound cards installed in the PC"

For me a suitable multichannel soundcard doesn't exist.
Even assuming that the filtering/xo done at wasapi level is transparent, at least as much as an ASIO rerouting (like i was using), it is still limited in most cases to 96khz.

The result is very good, probably excellent for multiway systems with several XO points in the voice range. Is it better than a passive network? You bet.
Is it better than an analogue discrete XO? Not necessarily.
But with non digital filtering I can play DXD from a state of the art DAC. With the former not yet, it will require a usb3-i2s native transceiver for a 4way speakers XO.

This goes in the right direction:
TOTALDAC DAC and digital crossover
but the xmos chip is limited to 192khz and usb2 bandwith is insufficient, and i think no linear phase filters.

The more people gets used to digital XO, the better, so the demand for serious hardware and software increases.

Sample rates of 96kHz, and 192kHz are completely unnecessary, consume time, and space. You are inflicting constraints that may suite your needs, but these are not based on audibly measurable performance. Don't blame bad results on poor design choices, if those choices truly suite your needs.

Regards,

Andrew