Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
When I'm building amps, I want a speaker with passive X-over (and also sometimes a full range without X-over) so I can hear and tweak my amp.
But I do find this limiting in cases where passive is too limited so in another project I will bi-amp or multi-amp using a mini-DSP-HD for a horn speaker.
But I do find this limiting in cases where passive is too limited so in another project I will bi-amp or multi-amp using a mini-DSP-HD for a horn speaker.
Is there anything competitive with the minidsp flex 8? In that price category for the number of outputs, quality of output and power of dsp modules?
The only thing I can think of is using a topping dm7 (8 output dac) with a computer and something like camilladsp.
But the Minidsp comes with arguably easier to use interface and many more input options.
I want to make a single case streamer + dsp + amps rack that can be carried (or wheeled) around easily and keeps everything neat and tidy.
Been chewing on this idea for a while. Might be worth even rack mounting it properly though that’s quite large. It could also go into a stripped out pc case? I’d probably use a raspberry pi in there and a 8-10” touchscreen mounted on it as well.
The only thing I can think of is using a topping dm7 (8 output dac) with a computer and something like camilladsp.
But the Minidsp comes with arguably easier to use interface and many more input options.
I want to make a single case streamer + dsp + amps rack that can be carried (or wheeled) around easily and keeps everything neat and tidy.
Been chewing on this idea for a while. Might be worth even rack mounting it properly though that’s quite large. It could also go into a stripped out pc case? I’d probably use a raspberry pi in there and a 8-10” touchscreen mounted on it as well.
I would love to know that as well... I have not found anything that can do what it does...
OLD SCHOOL PASSIVE + ANALOUG GRAPHIC EQUALIZER
For my soon to be built 'primitive/experimental' DML panel + open baffle sub speakers
I am going to use a passive crossover and my old Yamaha GE3 graphic equalizer.
Phase response will be 'out the window' but results might be interesting.
Some re-caping may be in order for the old Yamaha.
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/yamaha/ge-3.shtml
For my soon to be built 'primitive/experimental' DML panel + open baffle sub speakers
I am going to use a passive crossover and my old Yamaha GE3 graphic equalizer.
Phase response will be 'out the window' but results might be interesting.
Some re-caping may be in order for the old Yamaha.
https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/yamaha/ge-3.shtml
Wow! Thank you, everyone, for sharing your knowledge and experience. It’s what makes this an amazing platform for learning.
Andy19191, thanks for your balanced and tempered response. I know sometimes folks can get a little cranky when presented with information that challenges their attachments, so I appreciate your diplomacy. I really do hear you on the SET distortions and I’m not in the “mystical sonics” camp. Nor do I maintain any investment in the idea that SETs are “the best.” I mostly ended up with the Cary because, at the time and in my listening room, it just imaged better than other amps I tried. Sure, I knew about (and could hear) the colorations, but the details were still very much there and, for me, the colorations didn’t outweigh the imaging I enjoyed. Since then, I’ve listened to a few other SETs. I haven’t liked most of them (maybe at least partially because of the tubes chosen?). Also… I think the glowy lights are pretty. 😆 Definitely, the thing I like least (or notice most) is the lack of low-frequency punch and control. But as you pointed out, using a DSP, I could stick with my SET and go with solid state on the low end. So, thank you! Also, thanks for the information on the psycho (or was that more physio?) -acoustics. I read up on psycho-acoustics a decade ago but haven’t circled back for a deeper understanding. I probably should.
Wchang, I’ve played with a few tubes, but not a ton. Of those you mentioned I’ve experimented with Mullard (which people raved about, but I heard them as a bit syrupy), Sovtek, Telefunken, Siemens, and Amperex. If I recall, I ended up with Sovtek, Telefunken, and Amperex in the mix.
At this point, I’m definitely leaning toward DSP/active solutions. But I’ll have to build the passive crossovers first if I wanna be able to actually listen to the speakers any time within the next year or two. The costs are just too high for what I’d like to do with a DSP/active setup. The Hypex plate amps would be a neat solution, but I think I will hold out for something modular that I can use in future projects, as well. So I’ll just build/purchase higher-end components over time, until I’ve got everything together, then swap stuff out.
Andy19191, thanks for your balanced and tempered response. I know sometimes folks can get a little cranky when presented with information that challenges their attachments, so I appreciate your diplomacy. I really do hear you on the SET distortions and I’m not in the “mystical sonics” camp. Nor do I maintain any investment in the idea that SETs are “the best.” I mostly ended up with the Cary because, at the time and in my listening room, it just imaged better than other amps I tried. Sure, I knew about (and could hear) the colorations, but the details were still very much there and, for me, the colorations didn’t outweigh the imaging I enjoyed. Since then, I’ve listened to a few other SETs. I haven’t liked most of them (maybe at least partially because of the tubes chosen?). Also… I think the glowy lights are pretty. 😆 Definitely, the thing I like least (or notice most) is the lack of low-frequency punch and control. But as you pointed out, using a DSP, I could stick with my SET and go with solid state on the low end. So, thank you! Also, thanks for the information on the psycho (or was that more physio?) -acoustics. I read up on psycho-acoustics a decade ago but haven’t circled back for a deeper understanding. I probably should.
Wchang, I’ve played with a few tubes, but not a ton. Of those you mentioned I’ve experimented with Mullard (which people raved about, but I heard them as a bit syrupy), Sovtek, Telefunken, Siemens, and Amperex. If I recall, I ended up with Sovtek, Telefunken, and Amperex in the mix.
At this point, I’m definitely leaning toward DSP/active solutions. But I’ll have to build the passive crossovers first if I wanna be able to actually listen to the speakers any time within the next year or two. The costs are just too high for what I’d like to do with a DSP/active setup. The Hypex plate amps would be a neat solution, but I think I will hold out for something modular that I can use in future projects, as well. So I’ll just build/purchase higher-end components over time, until I’ve got everything together, then swap stuff out.
Just a note - you can get this: https://www.thomannmusic.com/the_t.racks_dsp_4x4_mini.htm (I am using two and the third is on the way) and any second hand amplifier more or less for the price of good quality passive crossover parts.
This DSP cannot do FIR, crossovers are limited to 24 db/oct max and the delays can be set only as multiplies of the sample rate (48 kHz), but is very versatile if you can live with the old school looking control software. Great learning platform.
This DSP cannot do FIR, crossovers are limited to 24 db/oct max and the delays can be set only as multiplies of the sample rate (48 kHz), but is very versatile if you can live with the old school looking control software. Great learning platform.
Both my claims and pre ringing claims should be verifiable 🙂
Just need some time to generate filtered wav files which can then be compared on headphones using some A/B software. I will put it in a new thread.
Do you think such test would be valid?
Just need some time to generate filtered wav files which can then be compared on headphones using some A/B software. I will put it in a new thread.
Do you think such test would be valid?
Yes, good idea. And interesting to get this listening experience.
I remember CD players with different digital filters you could choose.
I liked most the spline filter of Pioneer PDS series (platter CD Player)
I remember CD players with different digital filters you could choose.
I liked most the spline filter of Pioneer PDS series (platter CD Player)
Compare appropriate DAC, Amp and crossover parts vs. a pair of Hypex Fusion modules, to serve the same boundary to sources and drivers.
I'ts not that price difference. When you do it right, also both results can work same well.
But, the active solution brings you some advantages:
- You can realize concept cobinations you would not be able to integrate passively, e.g. you can take much louder woofer section and then just lower its gain, or adjust driver offsets by delay. Extensioning and shaping the woofer rolloff is another typical use case, Linkwitz filter and so on. In general you become more flexible with the overall speaker concept, driver selection, integration and filtering between them.
- You can equalize more often, targeted and steep and get everything precisely smoother. All more bending on the main signal flows to the drivers needs efford, in case of the passive XO that will be crossover parts which cost money, construction space and integration work. With an active system, it is some mouse klicks for an additional free configurable parametric biquad or selection of steeper filter rate.
- You are much more flexible in voicing. Comparing e.g. different overall tweeter levels in 0,3 dB steps just by klicking the remote is magnitudes more comfortable than soldering parts in and out, and short switching time gives much better feedback. That saves voicing time, and saves also money for the additional crossover part stock you need to try different tunings passively.
- After "free field" voicing to taste, you can add room adaption filters forcing zeros and nulls in the modal range. You can also adapt to different rooms repeatedly without HW changes. You can store tunesets and make them available by remote click, for different rooms, for different sound taste, for different music. Very flexible.
- The flexibility for voicing gives good learning. You can try different xover frequencies and slopes, response balancing, intended misballancing and can percept how that sounds, or where then not so much. Also you can keep good traceability to measurements and simulation, how favoured hearing experience correlates target curves and slopes by just trying out.
I'ts not that price difference. When you do it right, also both results can work same well.
But, the active solution brings you some advantages:
- You can realize concept cobinations you would not be able to integrate passively, e.g. you can take much louder woofer section and then just lower its gain, or adjust driver offsets by delay. Extensioning and shaping the woofer rolloff is another typical use case, Linkwitz filter and so on. In general you become more flexible with the overall speaker concept, driver selection, integration and filtering between them.
- You can equalize more often, targeted and steep and get everything precisely smoother. All more bending on the main signal flows to the drivers needs efford, in case of the passive XO that will be crossover parts which cost money, construction space and integration work. With an active system, it is some mouse klicks for an additional free configurable parametric biquad or selection of steeper filter rate.
- You are much more flexible in voicing. Comparing e.g. different overall tweeter levels in 0,3 dB steps just by klicking the remote is magnitudes more comfortable than soldering parts in and out, and short switching time gives much better feedback. That saves voicing time, and saves also money for the additional crossover part stock you need to try different tunings passively.
- After "free field" voicing to taste, you can add room adaption filters forcing zeros and nulls in the modal range. You can also adapt to different rooms repeatedly without HW changes. You can store tunesets and make them available by remote click, for different rooms, for different sound taste, for different music. Very flexible.
- The flexibility for voicing gives good learning. You can try different xover frequencies and slopes, response balancing, intended misballancing and can percept how that sounds, or where then not so much. Also you can keep good traceability to measurements and simulation, how favoured hearing experience correlates target curves and slopes by just trying out.
Thanks, pelanj! I just finished a computer speaker build using a KABD-430 (rebranded Wondom J4) for super cheap (~$70): AUDA1701 with 4x30w TPA3118 amplification. The output section of the board is lackluster but it's a reasonably compact and cheap way to play around. And it will do LR8s!
I think anything that adds to the body of information is worthwhile. And even if there's a flaw in the methodology or results, the endeavor generates dialogue and further inquiry! 🙂
Here at "Hifi selbstbau" they made a software for testing audibility of distortion - a self blind listening test with headphones.
Distortion - how much is too much?
https://www.hifi-selbstbau.de/index...aktor-wie-viel-ist-zu-viel&catid=58&Itemid=70
Here writes someone who did measurements for a Hifi magazine on the audibility of the digital filters for CD players
http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-158-7119.html#4
Distortion - how much is too much?
https://www.hifi-selbstbau.de/index...aktor-wie-viel-ist-zu-viel&catid=58&Itemid=70
Here writes someone who did measurements for a Hifi magazine on the audibility of the digital filters for CD players
http://www.hifi-forum.de/viewthread-158-7119.html#4
Last edited:
Is this your last 3 way? If not, then DSP means you can "Recycle" your crossover again and again. That's where I am at, since passive crossover parts shipping costs are prohibitive where I live. I decided to "pay once" with a good quality 8 channel DAC and PC based DSP.
One upside to passive, is plug and play and pure analogue upstream - especially if you have a number of sources (LP, TV or CD - assuming no digital out). By that I mean a full DSP solution needs either a multi-channel pre-amplifier with ADC..
I would ignore sound quality arguments If sound quality was compromised either way, then you would see high end speakers in only one form or another (and they exist in both). If you can get an equivalent electrical transfer function, then unless your amplifier cannot handle impedance swings, the two would sound identical IMHO.
One upside to passive, is plug and play and pure analogue upstream - especially if you have a number of sources (LP, TV or CD - assuming no digital out). By that I mean a full DSP solution needs either a multi-channel pre-amplifier with ADC..
I would ignore sound quality arguments If sound quality was compromised either way, then you would see high end speakers in only one form or another (and they exist in both). If you can get an equivalent electrical transfer function, then unless your amplifier cannot handle impedance swings, the two would sound identical IMHO.
I would vote for Hypex Fusion as well. I use the 253. It has a very good price performance ratio and can give good results. Alternatively you could also look into MiniDSP Flex 8 HT (with separate amps). My understanding is that version also allows PC DSP processing as it can do 8 in. Nice to keep options open. In case you anyhow want to do PC processing, you could look into OktoDAC 8 PRO.
Over time, I would want to move to an even more high end platform, but it appears to be hard to find something much better than Fusion system without spending crazy amounts of money...
Over time, I would want to move to an even more high end platform, but it appears to be hard to find something much better than Fusion system without spending crazy amounts of money...
I doubt this will be my last 3 way. In the past, I've fed my speaker building fund by selling some of my projects that measured well. That was a couple decades ago (hence my comfort level with passive crossovers) but I'd like to pick the hobby back up and build my knowledge base around active/DSP configurations. Over the next year or two, I plan to invest in some really nice DSP and amplification for my permanent (yeah, right!) system. But for now, I'll build the cabinet up for tri-wire and do a passive external crossover. Then once I get some satisfactory power/DSP kit, swap that out. That will be fun way to A/B the passive and DSP configurations. I think those Hypex Fusions are brilliant for a self-contained active build. I suspect I will do something with them in a future build and sell them. There's a reasonable market for that stuff here (Okinawa), especially with the military population. And I can't wait to start beating my head against the FIR/MATLAB learning curve as an act of masochism! 🤣
Exactly correct >
but there are many tightly contoured manipulations achievable with DSP that simple passive components can't mimic
the 'electrical transfer function' of - in the 'real world'.
I really do like posts that acknowledge the interaction of AMP. vs IMPEDANCE 🙂
DSP allows quicker guessing.. but when you don't guess, the result is assured either way. Passive components can produce complex filters.. it's up to the designer.
Of course passive components can produce "complex filters",
but not to the extent to that of DSP.
We beg to differ.
but not to the extent to that of DSP.
We beg to differ.