A how to for a PC XO.

[ShinOBIWAN]

Sorry but the BruteFIR thing is Linux based and uses JACK to form connection between hardware and software and additionally requires software compiled for compatibility with JACK.

Its somewhat more restrictive because you can't do the whole Theatertek thing and have excellent video playback quality and excellent audio. Its also even harder to configure and create FIR filters using that system, well that may or may not be true depending on how familiar you are with it all but my point is you don't have the same level of flexibility though I imagine performance is in the same ballpark once carefully setup with good hardware.

All in all, I haven't tried BruteFIR at all, except for the ported version for foobar. Its all too restrictive for me and what I have now is the easiest method of getting the best performance, with excellent flexibility, a nice GUI with WYSIWYG displays and realtime(fast) convienient and intuative changes in parameters. Take a look at the image below:

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

Its easy to see why I prefer this method over working blind and 'generating' filters. For now its the most powerful, best sounding and easy way to do a PC XO.

Like I said before, I don't really want to comment on the other methods because there's others that are better equipped to do that. I don't mean that in a harsh way at all and sorry for my somewhat reticent attitude.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

john ,

the answer is just few posts up . with that freeware linear phase EQ you can have pretty good linear phase xovers up to 100dB/ octave . all you need Console , that EQ , good sound card and computer .

Hi Vil,

Sorry missed your post earlier.

John, I'd take a look at that route if possible, depending on the windowing and frequency functions of the FIR filters it could sound alright. If Vil says its pretty good, I believe him.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

John, I've just read back my post at the top of this page and it sounds like I'm putting the BruteFIR method down and trying to sell you the Console way. Sorry about that, it wasn't my intention.

Please do try the BruteFIR method but goose will be able to better advise you there for sure.

 

[johninCR]

john ,
the answer is just few posts up . with that freeware linear phase EQ you can have pretty good linear phase xovers up to 100dB/ octave . all you need Console , that EQ , good sound card and computer .

I saw that, but if I'm understanding correctly is not as good as FIR filters, or am I missing something?

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

FIR is linear phase and a linear phase EQ, well... 😉

The Waves plugin is described in much the same way as you can see from the above screengrab.

 

[Vil]

>>>I saw that, but if I'm understanding correctly is not as good as FIR filters, or am I missing something?

it is FIR filter , at least author says that . sure you will not have Waves flexibility , easy to use , display informativity , but that software is for free . I tried it with Console and got pretty good results and really linear phase at xover point ( i did measurments ).

 

[XOtothelight]

How about setting this up as a wiki off the main diyaudio.com page instead of having mulitiple posts!

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

How about setting this up as a wiki off the main diyaudio.com page instead of having mulitiple posts!

Even better:

http://www.duffroomcorrection.com/wiki/Main_Page

I keep meaning to add my efforts to that lot but its massively time consuming to do it comprehensively. I really do take my hat off to folks who do the .pdf's and guides.

 

[johninCR]

Thanks Vil and thanks again ShinOBIWAN.

It appears to be time to stop asking and just start trying. I'll just connect cheapie drivers until I'm comfortable with what I'm doing.

 

[loudandclear]

Here's a review (from 2003) of various software based EQs:


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FGL/is_11_19/ai_108258032


Lot's of interesting info . . .

 

[loudandclear]

Are these x-fi soundcards any better for XO/EQ for audio?

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi.html

 

[jgwinner]

For me the big question would be adding two of them - I don't think the Creative cards can really do that.

I have one, actually, and will probably use that in the mean while for my HT.

I have another HTPC that I could put a different sound card in but I would probably not go with a $600 sound card, frankly - I'm not so keen on DRC as much as active cross overs and I could do that 'outboard'.

 

[Sheldon]

That puts it squarely in DEQX and TACT territory. The PC XO offers better quality than either of those and certainly far more expandability and capability

I can understand the expandability and capability points, but why would the DEQX suffer in the sound quality comparison? I didn't see that point referred to earlier but it could have been there and I missed it.

Thanks,
Sheldon

 

[digipl]

My experiences

I use a PC XO with drc several month ago and this is my experiences:

Hardware:
A modern PC (silent) is enough if you want only audio.
If you want audio-video with postprocesing (ej. ffdshow) you need the most powerfull PC you can buy.

I use ESI audio cards because the DIRECWIRE is a must to make a PC XO. Actualy I have a ESP1010 (8 analog input/outputs). It have the same DAC and op-amp than the Juli@ and , for the price, is a bargain.

Software:
Of course, a player (foobar, winamp...)

A VST host: The more easy is console o audiomulch. I prefer audiomulch because is more stable.

VST plugins for convolution: There are two free and very good, ConvoBoy and SIR. I use ConvoBoy. (You need DRC and a mic to make the impulses)

VST plugins for XO: If you want only FIR filters you can use OZONE, Waves LineEQ, voxengo CurveEQ, voxengo Pristine Space o Firium. I prefer OZONE.
For IIR filters you have several good and free (ej. blue filters).

Tips and tricks:
.-Latency of the audio card is very important. More latency less posibility of pops and clicks.
.-Switch on the amplifiers after the computer, and switch off before the computer to avoid clicks and bumps in the loudspeakers.
.-Is better to use a RTA software to see the real output of the filters and make fine ajust. Sometimes the real output have minor deviations. (with the directwire you can make the connection in seconds)

happy sounds

 

[Vil]

there is another solid player @ linear phase EQ game .
http://www.algorithmix.com/en/peq1.htm
just tried that , very good .

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

I can understand the expandability and capability points, but why would the DEQX suffer in the sound quality comparison? I didn't see that point referred to earlier but it could have been there and I missed it.

Thanks,
Sheldon

You'll have to excuse me, what I should have said is the potential to have greater quality than the DEQX or TACT. Its easy to see why when you consider the upgradability aspect and the length and bredth of the hardware and software products available.

I've got a fairly modest setup with the RME soundcard, Apogee DAC's and Waves Masters Bundle for XO. Still this wipes the floor with anything I've ever heard and I have no doubts about putting it up again DEQX. But with even more commitement and money the sky is the limit of course and so the DEQX and TACT devices do look strictly limited in terms of quality and features. However on ease of use they beat the PC setup by a fair margin, again not a problem for me, I consider it a more than fair trade for greater quality and scope. Others will see greater strengths in the DEQX though and as long as everyone is happy it doesn't really matter.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

there is another solid player @ linear phase EQ game .
http://www.algorithmix.com/en/peq1.htm
just tried that , very good .

Thanks Vil, I'll check that one out.

The Orange version looks very impressive since it works in the time domain negating some of the problems with traditional FIR filters.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Sweet jesus Vil.

That Algorithmix EQ is $2350! That makes it more expensive than the Waves Masters Bundle which is $800.

I hope its bloody amazing for that price.

 

[Sheldon]

You'll have to excuse me, what I should have said is the potential to have greater quality than the DEQX or TACT. Its easy to see why when you consider the upgradability aspect and the length and bredth of the hardware and software products available.

I've got a fairly modest setup with the RME soundcard, Apogee DAC's and Waves Masters Bundle for XO. Still this wipes the floor with anything I've ever heard and I have no doubts about putting it up again DEQX. But with even more commitement and money the sky is the limit of course and so the DEQX and TACT devices do look strictly limited in terms of quality and features. However on ease of use they beat the PC setup by a fair margin, again not a problem for me, I consider it a more than fair trade for greater quality and scope. Others will see greater strengths in the DEQX though and as long as everyone is happy it doesn't really matter.

Thanks for the response Shin. As I said, I readily (I think) understand the fixed nature of the DEQX relative to PC type programs, and if you are including capability for other speeds or filter types in the future as a quality measure, your quality statement seems a reasonable conclusion. I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I'm considering which way to go and my tolerance for the hours it would take me to set up the PC system and the lack of coordinated support are a real consideration (more so than for you, I strongly suspect). So, is there a sound quality issue rooted in the hardware even with analog inputs (I have a fair number of records? Or would the issue be running the other non CD inputs through an additional conversion wherein the DEQX would suffer in the comparison? On the other hand, the universial transport function is tempting just because it's only one required. Ah, decisions. Sorry if I'm being a a pest.

Sheldon

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

Thanks for the response Shin. As I said, I readily (I think) understand the fixed nature of the DEQX relative to PC type programs, and if you are including capability for other speeds or filter types in the future as a quality measure, your quality statement seems a reasonable conclusion. I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I'm considering which way to go and my tolerance for the hours it would take me to set up the PC system and the lack of coordinated support are a real consideration (more so than for you, I strongly suspect). So, is there a sound quality issue rooted in the hardware even with analog inputs (I have a fair number of records? Or would the issue be running the other non CD inputs through an additional conversion wherein the DEQX would suffer in the comparison? On the other hand, the universial transport function is tempting just because it's only one required. Ah, decisions. Sorry if I'm being a a pest.

Sheldon

The problem for me with the DEQX is the baseline hardware and software. The clocking is so-so as are the DACs. These are upgradable though and you could use something like the Apogee bigben and DA16X convertors but why should you do that when you've already spent $3k+ on the DEQX hardware? Afterall the Apogee DA16X is around the same price.

Then factor in the limited 6 outputs. Like I've already mentioned, the setup I use has 14 channels at the moment, so you'd be looking at 3 x DEQX's to achieve that or $9k. Then you've got a wide choice of FIR filter functions to choose from and step up ability to new software and hardware.

So in terms of sound quality, upgradability and overall functionality the PC can be superior with the right hardware and software choices whilst maintaining much lower costs. Ease of use is a relative term and dependant on the end user, so its either a big hassle or not a problem.