Analogue perfection vs. DEQX perfection (Off Topic)

by GC, Sunday, December 23, 2007, 09:46 (5970 days ago)
edited by GC, Sunday, December 23, 2007, 11:14

Analogue perfection vs. DEQX EQ, DSP'ed room tuning and filtering perfection.

It is most interesting for me to read about the different stances, such as Dons, Peters, sjef, Berts, robmatthew, some others and my own, how a good tuned in analogue filtered speakers system which sources arrives from bit perfect data streaming, and the comparison to what a DEQX could do to the very same system.

What I read among all our posts is that we compare apples and pears to a certain extend and how to come to a conclusion here, seems to be impossible the way we discuss it.

Some had luck with EQ'ing and DSP'ing their system. Some had luck creating a perfect data source to conversion. Some had luck to dial in a speaker that complies 100% to phase linearity, time alignment, and flat amplitude.

We have to see all this in the same context:

1. To really compare which approach would be the best requires several things. It must be the same speaker. It must be the same room. It must be the same amps etc. It must be the same music source and so on. I can't see any chance that anything can be concluded unless such a comparison is done. There is no science, to cry it out loud, that red is a better colour than green. It's nonsense.

2. One stance is: To me the DEQX really improved a lot to what I was used to before, dialling everything in over time.
The Other stance is: My system is faultless and any mess with the bits would kill my sound.

If we look at 1 and 2 not much can be learned from that.

If we look a way from that a DEQX could cure many things on imperfect made speakers, and to an extend also would be able to present a "Better listening room", then my next question would be this:

Scenario one:

1 You poses a decent listening room.
2 You have a bit perfect source
3 You have decent amps
4 You have perfectly time aligned, phase correct and dialled in flat amplitude response using passive components to achieve it.
5 The room it self manipulate with the amplitude of natural courses. A speaker is a smaller box in a bigger box (room).
6 You find your best speaker position and the best listening position, the sweet spot for that set-up.

Then: No doubt that such a system just delivers the music unspoiled. Let it be a bad recording or a good one. Such a system will always sound incredible good if the used drivers allows for it. OK?

Scenario two:

1 You poses a decent listening room.
2 You don't have a bit perfect source due to the DEQX in the game
3 You have decent amps
4 You don't have perfectly time aligned, phase correct and dialled in flat amplitude response using passive components to achieve it.
5 You find your best speaker position and the best listening position, the sweet spot for that set-up.
6 You use the DEQX to create the time alignment, 0 degrees phase turn, EQ, flat response and room correction.

Then: No doubt that this can sound good too. Let it be a bad recording or a good one. Such a system will always sound incredible good if the used drivers allows for it. OK?

Now to my 1000 $ question:

What if we assume you take the analogue perfectly dialled in speaker. Threw out the passive x-over and dialled that in via the DEQX changing slopes, EQ'ing and dragging a piston speaker with a phase turn, into a piston speaker with 0 phase turn. Let the amplitude response be flat in even way as the ordinary filtered speaker. Corrected the room amplitude response.

Will this harassment of data manipulations through everything corrected DEQX to speaker route stand against the bit perfect, speaker perfect, non room perfect set-up?

How can we know? How can we know if we don't try it? And have anyone of us really tried what I describe here?

We can have our religious standpoints, but will that prove anything scientifically?

So?

I would not know it, unless I have 4 physically equal speakers. Let 2 be one set and the other 2 be the other. Diall them in each way. Then compare and conclude for myself.

And this will not happen in my room simply because I don't want to invest in the experiment in time and money.

I have very little chance to evaluate if one is better than the other. And even my few aquatinted handshakes with TACT/room processing sessions, and similar attempts, does not allow for a conclusion as this is not what you can achieve using a DEQX based solution.

The only thing I can derive from say the TACT/room processing is what I heard:

With out room processing: A normal good sounding system. Lalala...

With room processing: Wow...the room "disappeared", the speakers turned to 0 phase (not time aligned drivers of course). Only the summarised amplitude showed 0 phase turn and flatness.
It was as if the walls framing the room just fell down and left me floating in the air together with the sound. Fantastic, I thought.
But 5 minutes after I simply got a headache to listen to this. My brain were so disturbed by anti-processing against it, I think. It did not sound of music at all as you find it in a concert hall.

I could only conclude that DSP'ing a speaker to technical perfection did not rival even the sound of the non-corrected speaker and the untreated room.

But this conclusion doesn't count for my believes that a DEQX'ed system might appear differently to me? I simply don't know.

At that moment I concluded. Don't harass with my brain with DSP'ed sound please.

That lead me to forget devices belonging in that category. I took my stances as you can learn from my posts about all this. And now you all know why.

Merry Christmas

GC :heart:

Tags:
0