there is a mini and an HD mini. This is the HD mini. Used to make 2 - two-way cross overs (4 outputs).
I am all ears for a better model or brand.
THx-RNMarsh
This is the one I was talking about, the original MiniDSP, sorry for the mixup
Many good things can be said about it, but the specs are midfy, and the same is true for pretty much every DSP available for DIY I have seen till now. Hypex does not impress me either.
Fortunately, most if not all these boards also put out I2S.
The best solution at the moment is to use the I2S output and connect these to quality I2S DACs. This leaves the midfy quality problem on the ADC side. Nonsense to take a digital stream, and make it analog just to feed it into an ADC in a DSP. The Sharc based MiniDSP's allow for a digital input. That is imo the best option at the moment: digital in, Sharc based processing, I2S out into quality DAC's.
This is not to dis the sound quality of the MiniDsp. It can sound impressively good and better specs are for sports only.
Opinions about what is good enough remains subject to disagreement. First though, it is very hard to justify multiple data conversions. For digital audio, one pass through a dac should be the limit. For digital phono/RIAA, add one pass through an ADC.
A problem with coming out of a DSP with I2S is that it requires an I2S input dac which is most often a bare board not a finished dac product. One exception for now might be something like Oktodac Okto Research ...it looks to be a pretty standard ESS implementation, so it likely can be expected to have that characteristic sound people find hard to listen to for very long at one sitting (which DAC-3 was largely able to improve upon, although not completely).
AK4499 is better so far (assuming it is well implemented), but not aware of many finished dacs for sale yet, can't think of any so far supporting I2S input either.
My own overall take on the active digital crossover/DSP front is that the best is still probably yet to come.
No way I would go through junk data converters for processing at 48kHz and call it good, but that's just me.
Again probably controversial, but if a SPDIF dac source, or if DSP is not clocked from the dac clock, then ASRC going into a dac would probably be my preference. Yet another filter, but the lesser of evils IMHO. Sabre dacs do internal ASRC in most implementations, however sound quality still varies some with incoming jitter (which ESS doesn't admit, but DPLL bandwidth adjustments tell the tale).
Last edited:
How many test subjects were there and did they represent all 7.5 billion people on earth?
There is the rePhase thread, I've looked at it from time to time, unlike Alice it looks like some people go down there never to reemerge.....
Last edited:
Mark, If I2S is the same as IIS the D70 and the new D90 (4499) have multiple configured IIS
D90 AK4499 Full Balanced DAC,DAC,TOPPING
D90 AK4499 Full Balanced DAC,DAC,TOPPING
Some dacs are starting to support I2S (IIS) over HDMI, which is in LVDS (low-voltage differential signaling) hardware format. It typically has to be converted into LVCMOS or equivalent before going into a dac chip.
A converter, for one example: Digital interface with HDMI / MHL input to I2S / Coaxial / Optique output - Audiophonics
A post (#17) from another thread that may be more informative:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/340540-hdmi-i2s-converter-kit-2.html#post5870409
Some are looking for things 100dB down when their speakers are +/-5dB 100Hz to 10kHz. Go figure. I go for low hanging fruit where a DSP has much going for it. Once I have the response I want from them I might worry about the stuff in the weeds. I personally find it odd that anyone serious about high fidelity would use a passive crossover but each to their own.
Same for turntable and RIAA: how could a mind ever think of bringing the signal to digital...
naaah, I must have misunderstood!
First of all, there are no images of the FR of the main speaker and that of the individual tweeter. How do both cooperate, amplify or eliminate each other around crossover ?
Why wasn't the tweeter active all the time as an constant addition to the main speaker, and why wasn't the signal coming from just one amp in both cases, thereby eliminating almost uncontrollable differences between amps, cables , interference between both etc.
See image below
You can hear or you can't hear ultrasonics.
A full range 192/24 master plus a 20Khz brick wall filtered 192/24 daughter should give the same outcome when true, in a much more controllable way when played over one Amp and one ultra full range speaker system.
Only one variable when comparing both versions, being just the brick wall filter, as against a load of differing variables in Oohashi's experiment, which makes the latter very "unscientific" and unreliable in my eyes.
And suppose that with the 192/24 master you can measure something on the Pet Scan or on the EEG that won't be there with the brick wall filtered daughter, but you can't hear the difference, what would be your conclusion ?
With such ultra delicate equipment you should be very careful to jump to conclusions.
Hans
I'm thinking at a project, right now.
The requisite is no ground loop for AC leakages: Optical digital links.
The source should be a wifi streamer connected to a DSP (stereo 3way filters+EQ) then optical links to the speakers.
Inside the speakers: One DAC (for 2 Ways + SUB) or two (for 3 Ways). Followed by analog remote volume controls +Amplifiers+ PSUs. Star grounded.
My idea is to use my Berhinger DCX 2496
It seems the delicate part is the reclocking, speaker side.
As I am a total newbee in digital design, I hope I will find help on the forum, from valuable experts.
You cannot cheat too much with your brain
Oh you can. It's all about what you believe is important. This year my belief is that one should not compromise digital playback to support analog. Therefore I eschew the concept of an analog preamp and go digital into my mindsp digital crossover. Whilst i continue to believe this is the lowest compromise for my budget it will sound divine. Richard Burwen aside most audio systems involve huge compromises so why not roll with it
.
Precision, adjustability, accounting for different driver characteristics. All a gigantic pain in the passive world. With drivers being what +/-10% , caps being 5% at best unless you pay $$$$ for them in the sizes what hope do you have?
With active you can measure raw acoustic response, decide on your target acoustic slopes and dial them in. Want to compare LR2, LR4 and transient perfect crossovers? I can set them all as presets and run between them from a remote control.
I don't see what's not to like with embracing the 21st century rather than sticking in the past .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.