@tlcocks wrote:
Again, I was impressed by BACCH and am open to hearing the manner of DSP you implement. Again, don’t conflate tone adjustment (broad) with room correction (narrow).
I’m not conflating anything here. Broad- and narrowband equalization is bandwidth differentiated, yes, but the simple fact is you’re confined to broadband filters with analog, and I’m not with DSP - meaning, I can do both. And no, less than 1/10 octave filters, and thereby narrowband, aren’t confined to room correction use. Remember? I don’t do room correction with my DSP, but placing notches manually with the aid of nearfield measurements, added to other vital parameter settings, is an essential tool in tailoring the sound, and has nothing to do with room correction per se.
Again, I’m using my Xilica DSP as a digital crossover only, actively, and as such it’s a much more elaborative "equalizer" than an analog device on top of the benefit of optimized the amp to driver interfacing sans a passive crossover between the amp and drivers. For "equalization" I don’t need no an extra device; actively the DSP is the sole tool for this very purpose as the "heart" of the speaker with its function as a digital crossover.
My only point here is to get Loki users to try pro analog. You do you. I’ll do me.
If you’re still referring to the Schiit Loki Max, it’s an analog equalizer, not digitally-based. You’re the one who conflates what I do with the "Loki Max guys," but it’s two very different scenarios.
You confuse passionate as arrogance. I have yet to meet a DSP advocate as passionate here as I’ve been. That should tell you something.
Sorry, that doesn’t tell me much. How would you know about how passionate others are in their ventures? You only know what they write.
But I’ll admit I’ve only done some bass and treble shelf boosts and compared them instantaneous A-B to my analog piece and all the digital implementations were sonically inferior. Flat 2-D lifeless. Not unlike how people compare solid state to the holographism of tubes. But listen, hey, I admit I haven’t heard the best DSP has to offer. But I want to.
There’s much more to a DSP than that, not least also acting as a crossover at the same time (we’re talking months of optimizations in my case tailoring the speaker sound from ground up).
My guy locally says even the best DSP for room correction leaves a slight haze and grain to the mids. I want to hear on my own though.
If you’d heard a quality DSP like a Xilica acting as digital crossover actively, you would know the passive speaker iteration with a crossover on the output side of the amp is the less resolved outcome of the two - by a wide margin. There’s nothing "hazy" about the sound here, on the contrary.
Sorry so excessive here. Again just my passion coming out. Let’s just leave it at I need to hear what you’re doing and you need to hear what I’m doing. Fair enough?
That’s the preferable scenario, but it seems you’re based in Florida, US and I reside in Scandinavia, so..
Oh, and Charter Oak PEQ-1 reviews from 2010 call it a “magic box”. Literally. Sounds a bit more serious when a studio engineer says this, huh? And don’t call that arrogant. Am simply responding to you own condescension. I know am asking for you to react. Wanted to say that earlier but forgot. Sorry. Posting these in between sets at the gym. (Couldn’t wait til home😆). Let’s call a truce, hopefully.
An important step communicating is knowing, or trying at least to get bearing on what’s discussed in the first place, and its context. Your use of an analog mastering broadband EQ device is likely as an active component and thus a buffer or impedance matching unit to boot (much like an active preamp), whereas my context is a different one that also involves amp-driver interfacing; it’s hardly an apples to apples comparison, on top of EQ’ing offering different opportunities - depending on the technology involved.