Well considering that the part you spend the most time optimising (and is the hardest to do properly) is the phase integration when designing loudspeakers, yeah, having it all go to pot would be a problem. The fact you're not aware of what this means is worrying.
Should i stop listening music right now, doc, or i can wait 'til morning ?
nothing gonna explode in the living room, right ? don't wanna wake up the wife, she'd be so angry, and then try to explain her about the out of phase explosion thing.. oh no no i won't take any chance, i'll stop that right now, where are my headphones
nothing gonna explode in the living room, right ? don't wanna wake up the wife, she'd be so angry, and then try to explain her about the out of phase explosion thing.. oh no no i won't take any chance, i'll stop that right now, where are my headphones
damn audio, you'd think it would be a safer hobby then collecting stamps and you end up having space shifting phase delay continuum breaking sh!t popping out of nowhere, in your own living room...
well, i'm not aware of much, it seems. Pretty much like having Stevie Wonder on the wheel of a F1 car in downtown NY; someone better stop me before i accidentally kill someone with an out-of-phase titanium tweeter.
The good news is: the thing is well contained in Montreal, so unless the phase issue becomes radioactive, i'd say you're safe in UK. For now.
You have some really unlinear elements in the audio chain. The room, the ears, the speaker elements and the speakerbox. The DAC, propperly made, is not the problem in my experience. Even the 16bit dac in my Phillips 650 Philips CD650 cdplayer - DutchAudioClassics.nl sounds good enough.
But it is not difficult to hear timedelay that is big enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect
And phase differences between channels is summed so you can get a amplitude difference that can be heard.
And again: Differences in filters are often easily heard by non gold ears.
And I believe in Nyquist: A bandlimited signal is preserved through AD-DA🙂
But it is not difficult to hear timedelay that is big enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect
And phase differences between channels is summed so you can get a amplitude difference that can be heard.
And again: Differences in filters are often easily heard by non gold ears.
And I believe in Nyquist: A bandlimited signal is preserved through AD-DA🙂
Last edited:
never properly compared DACs in blind test, so, yes, differences might be difficult to spot. But i think that would be the most obvious among (non-defective/compatible) electronic components (amplifiers, preamp, transport, etc..)
And there is some bad designed DAC and voltage driver solutions out there, that do not sound good. I even see some use tiny caps on the output where you can measure the distortion of the cap. (Class 2 capacitors)
I think MiniDSP has good design of the DACs so maybe a double blindtest with flat filters should be done before criticising the MiniDSP DACs. I think there could be a lot of other different reasons why you hear a difference.
But, it is your equipment, you decide what you hear🙂
I think MiniDSP has good design of the DACs so maybe a double blindtest with flat filters should be done before criticising the MiniDSP DACs. I think there could be a lot of other different reasons why you hear a difference.
But, it is your equipment, you decide what you hear🙂
I would be very interested in reading about the result!
If you find a difference I would had the MiniDSP measured for frequency response, THD and IM to check that you don't have a faulty device.
Then I would check the program material to se if it is digitally overloaded. I don't know how MiniDSP handles such issues and is one reason I use analog input on digital crossovers in many cases.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1013907/lund_2006_stop_counting_samples_aes121.pdf
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1018207/nielsen_lund_2000_0dbfs_le.pdf
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1018176/nielsen_lund_2003_overload.pdf
And offtopic just for fun reading from one of the masters:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1017484/katz_1999_secret_mastering.pdf
Good luck.
Regards Torgeir
If you find a difference I would had the MiniDSP measured for frequency response, THD and IM to check that you don't have a faulty device.
Then I would check the program material to se if it is digitally overloaded. I don't know how MiniDSP handles such issues and is one reason I use analog input on digital crossovers in many cases.
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1013907/lund_2006_stop_counting_samples_aes121.pdf
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1018207/nielsen_lund_2000_0dbfs_le.pdf
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1018176/nielsen_lund_2003_overload.pdf
And offtopic just for fun reading from one of the masters:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/1017484/katz_1999_secret_mastering.pdf
Good luck.
Regards Torgeir
Last edited:
Ok but i used the same source (mac mini) and dig input type to compare both the DEQX and miniDSP
Hi guys,
I have been monitoring your chat without interrupting, but I think the most important question hasn't been answered...
Are there results of an A/B comparison between the minidsp 4x10HD vs DEQX when both are configured FLAT while using the digital SPDIF input.
Can you post some Frequency Response / THD / IM figures?
Thanx
I have been monitoring your chat without interrupting, but I think the most important question hasn't been answered...
Are there results of an A/B comparison between the minidsp 4x10HD vs DEQX when both are configured FLAT while using the digital SPDIF input.
Can you post some Frequency Response / THD / IM figures?
Thanx
Better to use the three channels of the DEQX for hi/mid/midbass. Run the mid bass with a hi pass filter only - linear phase is fine here. Do a room measure to see how the midbass rolls off. Use a splitter on the midbass channels to the MiniDSP, and integrate using room measurements and appropriate low pass filters from the Mini. The Mini has very low latency, so there shouldn't be a problem at the low frequencies (I would think the mini dig would also have low latency with analog filters). You can also use the DEQX parametric equalization to fine tune the sub response and sub/midbass transition.
I'm doing something similar. But I want to use three subs and play with positioning and levels to even out room response. One limitation with the multisub approach, is that you need to be able to take a room measurement of the whole system at once. DEQX measures left and right channels separately, so cannot see the combined room interactions. I ordered a USB mic, and plan to use REW on my laptop to take room measurements of the entire system active at the same time, then tweak from there.
One other issue is that the line level output to the subs will be limited by the level the DEQX sets for the midbass. If your sub amps don't have enough gain with that signal, you may need a simple adjustable-gain pre-amp between the MiniDSP output and the sub amp. Also need to make sure you don't clip the input of the MiniDSP.
Sheldon
Last edited:
I have tried DEQX HDP-4, GroundSound DCN-28, miniDSP 4x10Hd and Hypex DLCP. I havent' necessarily compared them all to each other but all have been compared as preamps/DACs vs Lync Two-B.
I would sum it up like this where nr. 1 is best
Sound quality :
1. DLCP - not quite as transparent as the Lynx but close
2. DEQX - Added a veil of warmth and some harshness in the top octave. Uncertain about the harshness since I haven't heard this in complete setups with the DEQX
3. miniDSP 4x10Hd - Doesn't have the veil of warm signature DEQX adds but lacks some especially in the highs. Modding this unit would be interesting.
4. GrounSound - Clearly added some in the midbass region and a bit dark in the heighs. Not particurlary transparent. Perhaps wrong buffer that came with the unit I tried?
Software:
1. miniDSP
2. DLCP
I didn't play enough with the other two.
The issue with the DLCP is mainly stability. Mine was quite stable for a while, but I suddenly got issues lately. If the software becomes stable and they add FIR it will be agreat unit and where one can add boards for sufficient channels. Though I still think it lacks a few percentages in SQ compared to the very best and it could have lower noise as well.
miniDSP 4x10Hd is very noisy by the way and will be a problem especially with high sensitive horn speakers. And I hate the phoenix connectors! I've never been able to get the a remote control to work without issues either. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm using mine without and only for multiple subwoofers in a home theater. Works fine for that.
Besides DEQX lacking in SQ and options for the user, it has too few channels. No one should put out a product like this with only six channels. Eight should be the minium and it should be reasonable to add more. DEQX is way to expensive IMO for what you get.
I have considered lately buying DAAD DX32 which is probably as good it gets and combine it with PC software, but I would certaintly prefer a high quality stand alone unit wihout messing with the PC. Unfortunately the perfect unit isn't out there today.
I would sum it up like this where nr. 1 is best
Sound quality :
1. DLCP - not quite as transparent as the Lynx but close
2. DEQX - Added a veil of warmth and some harshness in the top octave. Uncertain about the harshness since I haven't heard this in complete setups with the DEQX
3. miniDSP 4x10Hd - Doesn't have the veil of warm signature DEQX adds but lacks some especially in the highs. Modding this unit would be interesting.
4. GrounSound - Clearly added some in the midbass region and a bit dark in the heighs. Not particurlary transparent. Perhaps wrong buffer that came with the unit I tried?
Software:
1. miniDSP
2. DLCP
I didn't play enough with the other two.
The issue with the DLCP is mainly stability. Mine was quite stable for a while, but I suddenly got issues lately. If the software becomes stable and they add FIR it will be agreat unit and where one can add boards for sufficient channels. Though I still think it lacks a few percentages in SQ compared to the very best and it could have lower noise as well.
miniDSP 4x10Hd is very noisy by the way and will be a problem especially with high sensitive horn speakers. And I hate the phoenix connectors! I've never been able to get the a remote control to work without issues either. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm using mine without and only for multiple subwoofers in a home theater. Works fine for that.
Besides DEQX lacking in SQ and options for the user, it has too few channels. No one should put out a product like this with only six channels. Eight should be the minium and it should be reasonable to add more. DEQX is way to expensive IMO for what you get.
I have considered lately buying DAAD DX32 which is probably as good it gets and combine it with PC software, but I would certaintly prefer a high quality stand alone unit wihout messing with the PC. Unfortunately the perfect unit isn't out there today.
I have a miniSHARC and don't use it because the Marchand XM-44 Module (active crossover) sounds a lot better. Personally I wouldn't by any DSP other than a miniDSP and use it only for Prototyping-testing.
Its a trade-off, sound quality (analog) to function and features (digital).
Its a trade-off, sound quality (analog) to function and features (digital).
Last edited:
Thank you guys,
Since I do not want to get into a hefty time consuming project of building a DLCP, I will try to get my hands on a miniDSP 4x10 Hd and check it's Sound Quality, Frequency Response and THD...
Does any of you have some hands on experience with Najda?
Again, thank you very much for your replies !!!
Since I do not want to get into a hefty time consuming project of building a DLCP, I will try to get my hands on a miniDSP 4x10 Hd and check it's Sound Quality, Frequency Response and THD...
Does any of you have some hands on experience with Najda?
Again, thank you very much for your replies !!!
There are some measurements here:
DEQX PreMate D/A processor/digital equalizer Measurements | Stereophile.com
- Status
- Not open for further replies.