Eric,
You may not realize it but what you're asking for requires a lot of processing (2inx8out + 8th order filters + levels + delays..) & firmware (no matter how many engineers we have). We did a quick analysis a while ago to see what would be the worst case scenario and we could maybe achieve a similar with 3PEQ on inputs & 3PEQ on each outputs.
This being said the complexity of firmware + UI to make such firmware is not just a piece of cake, and would certainly not happen overnight. Maybe we'll one day consider such plug-in, but we'll see how things go and how much support we receive with our ideas to try helping DIYers with DSP products that can be tweaked for their applications... For now, we're quite busy taking care of a lot of other features (and hardware dev) that our current community members (people supporting our project) requested.
DevTeam
Hello Marchel,
We're currently working on sourcing a box for it, following the suggestions we received from our community members. (see our forum for more info). Unfortunately, things all went to a grind in the past few weeks with Chinese New Year. We'll get back at it next week when suppliers get back to work. So the short answer is stay tuned, it's coming up.
Each miniDSP kit is a 2xIN, 4 xOUT board so with the plug-ins is 210USD indeed.
As for your two last questions, I'm not sure it's easy for us to answer either of these questions.
1) For one, designing an analog crossover is certainly not a piece of cake when it comes to building larger order crossovers, worrying about how much the impedance of your XO will affect the driver response and other design related issues. Also realize that with an analog crossover, graphic or parametric equalization + time alignment isn't going to happen with the same flexibility as a miniDSP kit. In our experience building active loudspeakers, it is just a piece of cake to a) tune b) modify c) save and maybe try a complete different configuration in few mouse clicks. Try the same with analog crossover, you'll see that you just won't get the same design/test/try/redesign flexibility.
You may want to have a bit more reading about passive vs active crossovers to understand why an active crossover will give much better results in a lot of situations. (Ever noticed that most studio monitors are active? )
2) As for your last question, it all depends on what you intend to do with it and how you'd intend to connect it to your sound system. Say you stay in digital domain (e.g. SPDIF in, I2S out), maybe using other high end input/output cards, i'd say that you'll get very good results. Whether it'll fit your high end, critical project, I'm not a position to answer that question since audio is so subjective. The only thing I can tell you is that some of our community members are using this kit on some expensive speaker setups ( with or without SPDIF in/customI2S high spec cards) and are very happy with the results. Audio is in general so subjective, that best for you to maybe get a kit and try it out.
Hope this answers your questions,
DevTeam
Hi minidsp,
What I meant was active analog xo, Cause I've heard a few active analog xo in my system to separate the subs from satellites, and non of them sounds as transparent as not using active analog xo at all, in the signal path. But by not using an xo, my sats would suffer in power handing. So this becomes a dilemma for me. What I'd like to know was, Could you say that this is more transparent sounding than analog active xo like Rane, DBX , Marchand Or even DIYed xo with premium parts?
Sorry if I annoy you, But thanks for replying.
What I meant was active analog xo, Cause I've heard a few active analog xo in my system to separate the subs from satellites, and non of them sounds as transparent as not using active analog xo at all, in the signal path. But by not using an xo, my sats would suffer in power handing. So this becomes a dilemma for me. What I'd like to know was, Could you say that this is more transparent sounding than analog active xo like Rane, DBX , Marchand Or even DIYed xo with premium parts?
Sorry if I annoy you, But thanks for replying.
Marchel,
You would indeed have a problem with your satellites as I'm guessing they need to be crossed over like any satellites.
Down to your question, I don't think that I can answer it since once again, all this is very subjective. What does "transparency" means to you? Most of audio devices (from source to speaker via acoustics to your ears) will "color" the sound in a way.. Whether you like it or not is subjective to your taste. What may sound transparent to you may actually not be if you were to look at a end to end freq spectrum, but it will sound good to your ears and you'll feel that it's the sound you expect (transparent) through your system. (at least that's our concept of how subjective audio is... )
As engineers (and Audio DIYers in our hearts), we typically don't talk with terms like "transparency" or other adjectives to describe our products:
- We talk with technical terms (with respect to how our products performs). The fact that our frequency response is flat +0.5dB, and our noise floor low.
- We may also talk in terms of flexibility (maybe something that typical analog active crossovers may not have (PEQ for example). The greater the software flexibility, the finer the modification you can make on your setup to fit your needs. That's the beauty of DSP devices: allowing configuration to a much finer level than other analog devices would.
- As for how much the DSP will affect your audio? All algorithms are running in double precision (56bit coefficients) to make sure they perform well @ low frequency. So we do take our precautions to make sure filters performs as they are supposed to.
Finally, also realize that the brand you listed in your threads are very well respected brands, but with a very wide portfolio being many years old. If anything, we won't be the one saying that our product is better than others. We'll let the DIY community make up their point of view. We help providing a solution for DIY audio projects, that's all we do.
Hope this answers makes sense (though may not be answering your question fully)
Tony
You would indeed have a problem with your satellites as I'm guessing they need to be crossed over like any satellites.
Down to your question, I don't think that I can answer it since once again, all this is very subjective. What does "transparency" means to you? Most of audio devices (from source to speaker via acoustics to your ears) will "color" the sound in a way.. Whether you like it or not is subjective to your taste. What may sound transparent to you may actually not be if you were to look at a end to end freq spectrum, but it will sound good to your ears and you'll feel that it's the sound you expect (transparent) through your system. (at least that's our concept of how subjective audio is... )
As engineers (and Audio DIYers in our hearts), we typically don't talk with terms like "transparency" or other adjectives to describe our products:
- We talk with technical terms (with respect to how our products performs). The fact that our frequency response is flat +0.5dB, and our noise floor low.
- We may also talk in terms of flexibility (maybe something that typical analog active crossovers may not have (PEQ for example). The greater the software flexibility, the finer the modification you can make on your setup to fit your needs. That's the beauty of DSP devices: allowing configuration to a much finer level than other analog devices would.
- As for how much the DSP will affect your audio? All algorithms are running in double precision (56bit coefficients) to make sure they perform well @ low frequency. So we do take our precautions to make sure filters performs as they are supposed to.
Finally, also realize that the brand you listed in your threads are very well respected brands, but with a very wide portfolio being many years old. If anything, we won't be the one saying that our product is better than others. We'll let the DIY community make up their point of view. We help providing a solution for DIY audio projects, that's all we do.
Hope this answers makes sense (though may not be answering your question fully)
Tony
Hi!
This really DO look very promising. Perfect for building high quality, original designs (like not copying something - design, build, measure and experiment with your own ideas). Then DSP-based active crossovers really saves a lot of time and resources (buying a lot of crossover-components, A/B-testing different configurations etc).
But I too got it wrong the first time I read about the MiniDSP. With the mindset of someone who wanted to improve on an all out, complex, really expensive system, one loose sight of what the designers really want to achieve. I did exactly that - read about MiniDSP and decided that it didnt advance the state of the art...
Then a friend of mine as well as my son tells me that they want to build speakers.
We discussed design compromises and I found myself explaining over and over again that the drivers (loads of nice surplus stuff out there for a project with realistic goals) dont match all to well and that the cabinets the wanted was to small/big. One would need to shape the freqency response, ultra-steep slopes and...... (finally I caught on) one could really make good use of the power of a MiniDSP!
Its obviously (but not for me) a brilliant product for having fun designing a high quality loudspeaker! Presumably. Obviously the SQ needs to be good. I`ll find out, no time to waste, will place an order right now. If you are using a PC-based soundsystemthe and the SQ of the MiniDSP equals the DAC of a mid-level soundcard in the PC, you actually have gotten the MiniDSP for free. .
One question: Wich filter is included with the MiniDSP? Any?
This really DO look very promising. Perfect for building high quality, original designs (like not copying something - design, build, measure and experiment with your own ideas). Then DSP-based active crossovers really saves a lot of time and resources (buying a lot of crossover-components, A/B-testing different configurations etc).
But I too got it wrong the first time I read about the MiniDSP. With the mindset of someone who wanted to improve on an all out, complex, really expensive system, one loose sight of what the designers really want to achieve. I did exactly that - read about MiniDSP and decided that it didnt advance the state of the art...
Then a friend of mine as well as my son tells me that they want to build speakers.
We discussed design compromises and I found myself explaining over and over again that the drivers (loads of nice surplus stuff out there for a project with realistic goals) dont match all to well and that the cabinets the wanted was to small/big. One would need to shape the freqency response, ultra-steep slopes and...... (finally I caught on) one could really make good use of the power of a MiniDSP!
Its obviously (but not for me) a brilliant product for having fun designing a high quality loudspeaker! Presumably. Obviously the SQ needs to be good. I`ll find out, no time to waste, will place an order right now. If you are using a PC-based soundsystemthe and the SQ of the MiniDSP equals the DAC of a mid-level soundcard in the PC, you actually have gotten the MiniDSP for free. .
One question: Wich filter is included with the MiniDSP? Any?
Hi Naturlyd,
Glad to read your positive comments about our miniDSP.
These DSP boards are indeed a perfect fit in a wide range of applications. Whether intended to an experienced designer looking to perfect the filters, equalization and time alignment of his design, or whether intended to novice would not be able to correctly evaluate/analyze the implications of a passive filter on his loudspeaker response, miniDSP kits are quick and easy to learn. Changes can be heard real time and don't require re soldering/getting the correct caps/resistor/inductor values. A couple of mouse clicks and off you go.
As for your question about included filters. Have a look at our product concept page for more information, but basically, you'll figure out that miniDSP kits on their own don't do anything. They need a loaded plug-in (to be purchased separately) to work.
Hope this makes sense,
Glad to read your positive comments about our miniDSP.
These DSP boards are indeed a perfect fit in a wide range of applications. Whether intended to an experienced designer looking to perfect the filters, equalization and time alignment of his design, or whether intended to novice would not be able to correctly evaluate/analyze the implications of a passive filter on his loudspeaker response, miniDSP kits are quick and easy to learn. Changes can be heard real time and don't require re soldering/getting the correct caps/resistor/inductor values. A couple of mouse clicks and off you go.
As for your question about included filters. Have a look at our product concept page for more information, but basically, you'll figure out that miniDSP kits on their own don't do anything. They need a loaded plug-in (to be purchased separately) to work.
Hope this makes sense,
Hello Gary,
Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, no miniDSP showroom in HK nor distributor since we're selling direct. You can always contact us directly to send your address and we could use SFexpress for local delivery.
Hope this helps,
Hello miniDSP:
What IC do you use for the DSPengine in your miniDSP board. (I didn't see a particular IC specified in the miniDSP datasheet). The audio and I/O specs for the miniDSP seem to me to be strikingly similar to what might be available from an ADAU1701 from Analog Devices.
Have you guys thought about a product centered around the ADAU1445 (or ADAU1442)? I ask because I noticed people asking for more functionality and multiple digital I/O's in previous threads. The ADAU144x has several digital I/O channels and multiple independent ASARCs. It seems like an IC such as an ADAU144x could be coupled with a multi-channel A/D and a multichannle D/A at a reasonable price along with additional S/PDIF I/O.
I've been usuing ADAU1701 and ADAU1445 samples for my DIY audio projects (mounted on schmartboards) and, along with the sigmastudio software, they've worked very well for me. It seems like such IC's might benefit you guys at miniDSP too if you haven't already considered them. Sigmastudio could generate "machine language" for the ADAU quickly and you guys could write your own code to generate specific filter parameters for your software moduals, then download it all via USB.
What IC do you use for the DSPengine in your miniDSP board. (I didn't see a particular IC specified in the miniDSP datasheet). The audio and I/O specs for the miniDSP seem to me to be strikingly similar to what might be available from an ADAU1701 from Analog Devices.
Have you guys thought about a product centered around the ADAU1445 (or ADAU1442)? I ask because I noticed people asking for more functionality and multiple digital I/O's in previous threads. The ADAU144x has several digital I/O channels and multiple independent ASARCs. It seems like an IC such as an ADAU144x could be coupled with a multi-channel A/D and a multichannle D/A at a reasonable price along with additional S/PDIF I/O.
I've been usuing ADAU1701 and ADAU1445 samples for my DIY audio projects (mounted on schmartboards) and, along with the sigmastudio software, they've worked very well for me. It seems like such IC's might benefit you guys at miniDSP too if you haven't already considered them. Sigmastudio could generate "machine language" for the ADAU quickly and you guys could write your own code to generate specific filter parameters for your software moduals, then download it all via USB.
Hello,
We're indeed using SigmaDSP IC ADAU1701. While bigger can always be thought to be better, there a couple of reasons why we didn't go for ADAU1445:
- cost: about double the price
- core speed: ADAU1445 clocking at 172Mhz
- lack of ADC/DAC really requiring add-on boards while most of our users are perfectly content with a single miniDSP board doing ADC/DAC
This doesn't mean that in the future we wouldn't reconsider the idea of using a different, more powerful IC.
Hope this answers your question,
We're indeed using SigmaDSP IC ADAU1701. While bigger can always be thought to be better, there a couple of reasons why we didn't go for ADAU1445:
- cost: about double the price
- core speed: ADAU1445 clocking at 172Mhz
- lack of ADC/DAC really requiring add-on boards while most of our users are perfectly content with a single miniDSP board doing ADC/DAC
This doesn't mean that in the future we wouldn't reconsider the idea of using a different, more powerful IC.
Hope this answers your question,
Hello minidsp,
Thank you for your quick reply and patience -- I noticed that most of what I asked had already been addressed above. (I skimmed these posts but missed the answers to my questions the first time through).
If I may, I'd like to ask one follow-up question about something that puzzles me: Being a DIY'er, I don't understand why the 172 MHz clock of the ADAU144x is a problem for a two-layer board. A 3 MHz external clock could be used to drive the IC's PLL, and couldn't a sort of limited "ground plane" be set under the IC? I don't understand the issue.
Thank you for your quick reply and patience -- I noticed that most of what I asked had already been addressed above. (I skimmed these posts but missed the answers to my questions the first time through).
If I may, I'd like to ask one follow-up question about something that puzzles me: Being a DIY'er, I don't understand why the 172 MHz clock of the ADAU144x is a problem for a two-layer board. A 3 MHz external clock could be used to drive the IC's PLL, and couldn't a sort of limited "ground plane" be set under the IC? I don't understand the issue.
Indeed one could layout any IC (though you have package size will be an issue with the number of pins at one point) on a 2 layer. Difference between a DIY project and us is that we eventually have to pass EMC tests and non uniform ground planes for an IC that clocks at 172Mhz is just not a good idea (or something we want to waste time with multiple layout optimizations) as per our experience.
What about offering a miniDSP that does crosstalk cancellation for ambiophonics?. Right now there is only the expensive Tact processor as a standalone solution requiring no PC or laptop. I feel that interest in ambiophonics is growing and has only just begun!
I believe quite a few people would be interested. I,for one, would love it!
I believe quite a few people would be interested. I,for one, would love it!
Ambiophonics is indeed a neat idea which has been suggested already. Too early at this stage to say when/if it will ever happen though. Will follow up when things become more advanced.
Tony,
As this thread shows, the DIY crowd can be a demanding one! Many of us got into diy out of a desire to create something more for less. So that makes many of us difficult customers!
When I saw the minidsp option mentioned on the AE speakers forum, I got a bit excited. I think you guys have picked a good balance between cost and features. Two boards = 8 channels so that caters to stereo active 4 way. Once you get beyond that you end up with a room full of amplifiers!
Some will be happy with stereo 2 way and that only needs one board - that's an ultra cheap way to get into active speakers, to the point that you end up building an active speaker for around the cost of a passive version and can bypass all the hassle of passive xo design. That's VERY attractive and brings new options within reach for many. To me this makes a lot more sense than bigger more expensive boards. In fact, these boards could also be good for things like subwoofer EQ instead of using a Behringer unit and in so doing you bypass the hassles with turn on thumps.
I've put a link on my blog to help get the word out, this is a great option. I'd like to see this venture be a success as it's a great help to the diy community.
As this thread shows, the DIY crowd can be a demanding one! Many of us got into diy out of a desire to create something more for less. So that makes many of us difficult customers!
When I saw the minidsp option mentioned on the AE speakers forum, I got a bit excited. I think you guys have picked a good balance between cost and features. Two boards = 8 channels so that caters to stereo active 4 way. Once you get beyond that you end up with a room full of amplifiers!
Some will be happy with stereo 2 way and that only needs one board - that's an ultra cheap way to get into active speakers, to the point that you end up building an active speaker for around the cost of a passive version and can bypass all the hassle of passive xo design. That's VERY attractive and brings new options within reach for many. To me this makes a lot more sense than bigger more expensive boards. In fact, these boards could also be good for things like subwoofer EQ instead of using a Behringer unit and in so doing you bypass the hassles with turn on thumps.
I've put a link on my blog to help get the word out, this is a great option. I'd like to see this venture be a success as it's a great help to the diy community.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.