Its very clear, but it would appear he would like us to think otherwise
Perhaps. Seems like hes paying someone else to do that from his plans though, so the only learning may be cost.
Side note. I would not want to be that carpenter. if it turns out an expensive flop; good chance there will be tension.
Last edited:
Not sure if you have understood or taken on why people are pushing you towards a 2 way(which with your subs is a 3 way). It is not because they are the ultimate (although some would absolutely stand behind that statement) itis because that is really the only way this might have a chance at succeeding if you are going to try and design yourself within say 5+ revisions. Not cheaper at that point. DIY rarely is cheaper if you are the one doing the R&D.
*5 is a very low/conservative/kind number ...
*5 is a very low/conservative/kind number ...
Cool. Lets see where I end up.
And seriously will I needing to rebuild the enclosure 5 and swap out dsp and amp to something else for 5 times at minimum before succeeding. Hmmmm...... Enclosure is fine not very expensive. But swapping out DSP + Amp modules gonna cost. But seriously I wold rather start with a decent DSP + Amp combo to begin with so that the possibility of me swapping them out is at minimum. Will definitely look into sorting out good DSP+Amp combo.
Nobody has mentioned that with 2 x 3 way mains, a 3 way centre and 2 subs, you need 11 DSP channels. not a whole lot of processors out there for that many channels. Also, if you are using this primarily for home theatre, you are limited to IIR processing, at least without a complicated setup to delay the video to match the processing delay on the audio from FIR.
Last edited:
Would rather have dedicated DSPs for each speaker controlling the drivers and the AVR controlling the speakers and SUBs and AMPs for SUBs which have enough control to tweak subs accordingly. Crownamps have some really good amps for SUBs. I will have the ability to control the audio at different levels. Yes more complex but also very cost effective.
then the clocks will all need to be synced. using different tech for each will make that a nightmare.
I'm not sure you understand what i'm saying will be complicated with FIR. Do you know what IIR and FIR are?
I'm not sure you understand what i'm saying will be complicated with FIR. Do you know what IIR and FIR are?
Yes very long process to sync in everything. But it is kinda tradeoff to cut the cost and put in the effort. Which is fine.
What you would rather do and what is actually possible, you may find are rather different, going by what you have posted so far.
The joys of distributed time. What about using optics with a single clock. The optical delay would be so small that a shared clock output could be used. The corresponding song data could simply be bulk loaded to the speakers memory and then optically clocked out from the speakers memory.
For the purpose of audio reproduction and scale of houses, I don't see mismatched length optical fibres being a problem.
as far as i understood this is going to be a home cinema...
by the way, vineet reddy: you will have to include a video delay, otherwise the dsp delayed sound will not be in sync with the video.
What DSP do you plan to use? It was explained here many times, that it is really difficult to impossible to use multiple DSP/DACs, e.g. by respectful phofman https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...m-correction-etc.349818/page-160#post-7032541
If you really want HT, do not go full active, it would be too complicated and expensive.
If you really want HT, do not go full active, it would be too complicated and expensive.
Would like to ask. Will it be really that hard to control the clocks with Active speakers vs Passive speakers that it cannot be handled by Dirac or Audyssey and other software.
I'm not talking about the optics. I'm mostly talking about the delay inherent in processing FIR filters and syncing that to video (particularly a problem with streamed video ...) your solution doesnt tackle that at all. I was mostly meaning that say he wanted FIR on the bass and could delay for that, but the AVR, or sub amp pack will almost definitely be processing using IIR and if it isnt, then it will probably be a different filter length than the others .... a nightmare
you do realise phofman is one of the more skilled and knowledgeable programmers on this forum? He generally does have a solution or could have a solution for many things in linux, with enough time and resources.
Respectfully, you are not phofman.
Agree that it's not a current off-the-shelf system nor is it likely at a bargin basement level.
My BSc specialised in distributed and parallel systems including realtime.
realtime FIR correction is not possible; regardless of processing power. it is inherent in the way the processing takes place. At least that is my understanding. I did not study parallel and distributed systems 😉
Last edited:
I have been making active speakers since 1984, do not have to cost a fortune, a cheap example is using a yamaha AV receiver with multi channel (8x) input as a 6 channel pre and poweramp, you can use a Behringer DCx2496 or an analog diy kit for the active crossover, You can experiment without fidling about with (expensive) passive crossover components, I did a lot of that, the ultimate sound for me is open baffle, 3 way active, will not go back to "normal"passive speakers...