Is this topic getting out of hands and everything...
Fun to read still
I'd say it's a bit dangerous too. It might leave the impression DSP can fix anything or everything. Even I don't think that's the case (lol).
I'd take room treatment too, and careful DSP after that to top it off.
Once the tests move to Stereo it will be a whole different ballgame. But great fun though.
A perfect driver frequency response would be flat, transient response ( power to weight ratio) would allow a perfect square wave reproduction at the top end of the bandwidth. Efficiency and power handling would allow ears to bleed.
In the real world this is difficult to achieve and so greater or lesser engineering effort is expended to approach this ideal which drives cost. All that the OP is proposing is that a distribution of funds from hardware engineering methods to digital methods may deliver a cheaper way to get close to the ideal. Given the vast strides made in processing power over the past thirty years this is not controversial. Nor is it controversial to suggest that by applying dsp to one driver to mimic the response of another will result in them sounding the same. I think this was valuable work.
In the real world this is difficult to achieve and so greater or lesser engineering effort is expended to approach this ideal which drives cost. All that the OP is proposing is that a distribution of funds from hardware engineering methods to digital methods may deliver a cheaper way to get close to the ideal. Given the vast strides made in processing power over the past thirty years this is not controversial. Nor is it controversial to suggest that by applying dsp to one driver to mimic the response of another will result in them sounding the same. I think this was valuable work.
Well it would take a bit more than pink noise and (P)EQ to get that square wave back at the listening position, just saying...
Agreed. There is no such thing as a perfect driver today regardless of your engineering preferences, hardware or software. One may be a cheaper route, and therefore more available to more people, than the other though. Personally I KNOW my electrostatics are perfect : )
Do you know what is so scary about this DSP approach?
When we have 2 passive systems where none of them is FR-flat, we can still perceive 2 speakers with huge different in subjective quality. So what determines this subjective quality? Do you really think the flatter FR sounds better???
So how a DSP can possibly mimic an expensive system when no other passive systems can? Many passive systems have issues a DSP can fix. One of them is PHASE.
Apologies I am not up to speed on quoting yet so I'll do it the old fashioned way.
'When we have 2 passive systems where none of them is FR-flat, we can still perceive 2 speakers with huge different in subjective quality. '
But what would these two systems sound like if their responses were identical?
I'll check in latter on this thread if you don't mind as it's midnight in London and I am really ugly. TTFN
'When we have 2 passive systems where none of them is FR-flat, we can still perceive 2 speakers with huge different in subjective quality. '
But what would these two systems sound like if their responses were identical?
I'll check in latter on this thread if you don't mind as it's midnight in London and I am really ugly. TTFN
I totally agree and this has been my experience as well. Different types of drivers and different materials have their inherent sound character regardless of EQ. However, according to internal research at companies like JBL, the high resolution frequency response (zoomed in to 1/1000th of an octave) between 2 flat responses, such as between ribbon and dome, paper and metal coned drivers, are very different. It is affected by the standing waves produced. This could potentially explain the difference in sound. This is still in the frequency response domain yet not possible to EQ.
Last edited:
DSP is highly deficient,
first of all it inflict many op-amp filters to a weak sound signal, what about the degeneration of the signal.
Second it rely on a microphone which is influenced with the room imperfections which your ear and brain can cope with. I think the resulting frequency response after a single point microphone test sweep and phase is worst than a good voiced speaker.
Dsp can't correct intrinsic speakers problem in real time, this is fiction.
Sound flat to a microphone is way different than sounding right with a good stereo image
first of all it inflict many op-amp filters to a weak sound signal, what about the degeneration of the signal.
Second it rely on a microphone which is influenced with the room imperfections which your ear and brain can cope with. I think the resulting frequency response after a single point microphone test sweep and phase is worst than a good voiced speaker.
Dsp can't correct intrinsic speakers problem in real time, this is fiction.
Sound flat to a microphone is way different than sounding right with a good stereo image
Yes. Up to now, there are strengths and weaknesses, such that for anyone it is just about taste or priority. In the future, the weaknesses will be less and less.
Press the QUOTE button on the bottom right of any post you want to reply with quote.
They will still sound different.
When the FR is different, it is easy to know that they are different BUT it is difficult to know which one is better!! 😱 (When the system is expensive, people will be biased thinking that the expensive one is better, but in blind condition they will be confused)
That's why, when the FR is flattened, we cannot hear the difference, as if the quality is similar (while they are not).
Now why do you think that is the case... I'm not disagreeing with you, but without looking into the why, we can't move forward...
hi, 14 years ago we discused this, dsp technology has followed.
search for "the nania audio power theory".
Interesting discussion including the master and some other folks you know!!
search for "the nania audio power theory".
Interesting discussion including the master and some other folks you know!!
I'll see your 2012 and raise you a 1985, the year the Cello Studio Palette was launched . An analogue eq system that replicated the eq found in studios but with bandwidths and slopes designed to suit domestic speaker systems and environments. Mark Levinson the designer made the same claim as the OP, that the listening experience could be improved by careful use of subtle eg. It raised the same degree of controversy with some reviewers reporting a transformation of, for example, a LS3/5a, and others claiming the Palette just added another form of distortion. Here's the rub, as was pointed out 39 years ago everything you listen to whether you eq or not has already been through many chains of eg in the recording process. The only difference today is its in the digital domain and much more capable. I remember the launch of the Palette and the ensuing controversy very well. Unfortunately as the Palette cost the same as a small car I could not afford one.