Is this a strawman? We're talking about complexity, not how many cables there are. Don't think I've seen anyone in this thread complain about DSP being "another device in the chain to hook up", just that the OP clearly has little background in this stuff other than having built a working pair of speakers before, and here you are telling them to piecemeal together every PCB in the system.
They're not TI amps any more than a Neurochrome Modulus-286 is a TI amp (as opposed to, say, a TPA3255EVM). Also, a number of people here have mentioned to just buy standalone amps to reduce the overall scope of the project. At least Juhazi and I have, perhaps you have missed it.
You still haven't explained this adequately, and it's not in line with your original statement either. For convenience: "Your computers are MUCH better than any expensive DAC"
Last edited:
I quoted Toole on this subject in the following posts.
Post #3
newbie help - how many watts per driver when 50 w per channel
And post #11
newbie help - how many watts per driver when 50 w per channel
Floyd Toole: DSP + individual amplification is superior because manufactured drivers are not perfect replications. They vary in efficiency and frequency response. DSP + individual amplification allows correction of each driver. DSP can individually equalize the tweeter and the woofer.
Is buying a pre-made kit easier than DSP? Yes. Just as buying a finished speaker at Best Buy is easier still. Nevertheless, DIYing a speaker with DSP + individual amplification is easy. In addition, DSP is a lot easier than trying to design a successful passive crossover.
If someone buys a pre-made kit then removes the passive crossover in favor of DSP + individual amplification will it be better than the original passive design? Yes, for the reasons Floyd Toole explained, the manufactured drivers will not be perfectly manufactured.
Sometimes, old habits die hard. Technology improved. If someone is DIYing a speakers for their personal use they're far better off with DSP+individual amplification.
Also, no one should be arguing in favor of DACs -- or pre amps -- anymore when the signal source is a PC. Motherboards obsoleted external DACs. In fact, contemporary motherboards have moved on to HDMI 2.0 and 4K video.
Do people hear a difference when they add a DAC to their computer? Yes. Because the DAC boosts elements of the frequency response so consumers hear a difference. The DAC screws up the flat frequency response and people think that's better because it sounds different. "Oh, I hear things I never heard before." Yeah, of course you do. But it isn't an accurate reproduction.
Do people hear a difference when they add a DAC to their computer? Yes. Because the DAC boosts elements of the frequency response so consumers hear a difference. The DAC screws up the flat frequency response and people think that's better because it sounds different. "Oh, I hear things I never heard before." Yeah, of course you do. But it isn't an accurate reproduction.
What are you talking about?
Isn't HDMI just a data bus?
Still takes a digital to analog conversion to make sound, doesn't it?
And "DACs screw up flat freq response" ???????? wtf
You haven't quoted Dr. Toole at all. You've paraphrased him in you own words. But I want to see what he actually said. So if you want to continue to make this argument then please provide the page numbers in his book so that I can look it up. Otherwise I would recommend to anyone reading this to totally disregard your references to Toole. They are not direct quotes.
With regard to DSP + Individual Amps there certainly is a case that can be made for correcting deficiencies in the drivers, and probably even more important room corrections.
But all of that comes at a cost of degrading sound quality through the use of low quality ADC and DAC components as well as the very cheap and crappy amplifiers that you recommend. So no thank you for that approach. It is not going to produce better sound quality than a passive crossover built with quality components and using a quality stereo amplifier.
Last edited:
I linked to the post containing the Floyd Toole quote then I paraphrased him right after that.
Look, if people want to hang on to their old technology I'm not going to begrudge them. Use vacuum tube amps and vinyl if you want. I'll explain why that sucks in the context of accurate reproduction but I'm not going to tell you not to enjoy your hobby.
Look, if people want to hang on to their old technology I'm not going to begrudge them. Use vacuum tube amps and vinyl if you want. I'll explain why that sucks in the context of accurate reproduction but I'm not going to tell you not to enjoy your hobby.
Here's a $6,000 monoblock amplifier. They added a vacuum tube to a digital amp. But it's $6,000 and made in America so it must be wonderful. Not at all like those tinker toy $5 Chinese amps I recommended. I mean, you can actually "hear" the difference the vacuum tube makes.
Stellar M1200 Power Amplifier | PS Audio
Stellar M1200 Power Amplifier | PS Audio
I recently designed and built an active 3 way system with DSP crossovers. I went the easy route by using Hypex fusion amps, which combine the ADC, DSP, and 3 channel ams all in one package.
I also recently designed a passive 2 way system. Although I designed and built multiple speakers in the long ago past (1987 - 2002), it has been 18 years since I did this, so in some ways it felt like I was starting from scratch.
It is not accurate to say
There was nothing easy about either of my projects. Whether one goes active or passive, one must still grasp and master the concepts that make a filter work with individual drivers. I was successful in the active project because I understood the concepts and I had designed and built passive crossovers in the past. It is disingenuous to tell a novice that this is easy. It is not. That does not mean that a person should not attempt it... these projects can be very rewarding. But people should be given a realistic expectation of what will be involved.
I also recently designed a passive 2 way system. Although I designed and built multiple speakers in the long ago past (1987 - 2002), it has been 18 years since I did this, so in some ways it felt like I was starting from scratch.
It is not accurate to say
There was nothing easy about either of my projects. Whether one goes active or passive, one must still grasp and master the concepts that make a filter work with individual drivers. I was successful in the active project because I understood the concepts and I had designed and built passive crossovers in the past. It is disingenuous to tell a novice that this is easy. It is not. That does not mean that a person should not attempt it... these projects can be very rewarding. But people should be given a realistic expectation of what will be involved.
Last edited:
Well, sh*t, motherboards have onboard Wi-Fi that makes waves fly better, guess we definitely don't need DACs now.
On a more serious note, I find it interesting that someone who (I assume) lives in the PNW is ascribing to the Goebbels philosophy of repeating something enough times to make it the truth. Still waiting on the explanation...
I found the section, 18.4, that you reference in Toole. And you are correct that he discusses the benefits of a speaker design that includes built in amplifiers with active crossovers and equalization.
He does this, however, after first pointing out that there are many very good passive speakers today. And he doesn't discuss at all what it would cost to implement a quality sounding active speaker. Toole is all about sound quality and I seriously doubt that he would be in favor of such an approach if it included cheap, crappy amps and DACs.