Pictures! (moved...) (Off Topic)

by Telstar, Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 01:05 (3095 days ago)

Moved from topic Pictures

200Hz... so far without electronical correction :grin:

Bert

You hate it, don't you? :)
There's a BIG difference between electronic equalization and digital EQ, Bert. The only drawback is that you are limited to THE only source (the computer). I'm totally against a double (which is truly triple DA/AD/DA= conversion.

Avatar

Digital EQ?

by Bert @, Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 10:58 (3094 days ago) @ Telstar

You hate it, don't you? :)

Yes, I do and not for no reason...

There's a BIG difference between electronic equalization and digital EQ, Bert. The only drawback is that you are limited to THE only source (the computer). I'm totally against a double (which is truly triple DA/AD/DA= conversion.

Digital EQ is even worse than electronical EQ and for the reason you give (DA/AD/DA) but also for other things. One major problem always present is the PC's clock which is not stable at all, welcome jitter in its worst "sounding" situation...

Most people wonder where the term "Digital Sound" comes from...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Digital EQ?

by Telstar, Sunday, August 02, 2009, 18:45 (3089 days ago) @ Bert

There's a BIG difference between electronic equalization and digital EQ, Bert. The only drawback is that you are limited to THE only source (the computer). I'm totally against a double (which is truly triple DA/AD/DA= conversion.

Digital EQ is even worse than electronical EQ and for the reason you give (DA/AD/DA) but also for other things.

I dont do double conversion. I run the equalization in the computer before going to the DAC. Some analog filters caNot be simulated, but it is possible to do things that caNot be done in analog (i.e. very high orders without any sound degradation or phase shift). I use a 96dB highpass for the Hemps, which relieves them completely of handing low freqs, where they distort a LOT. That and a 4db notch at 3k really did wonders.

One major problem always present is the PC's clock which is not stable at all,
welcome jitter in its worst "sounding" situation...

Most people wonder where the term "Digital Sound" comes from...

This is an interesting explanation. CDP can sound as "digital" as a computer, but generally they sound better. Why? I think it's because of the interface. That's the real bottleneck of computers used a source.
A pci/pci-e internal card has theoretically the lowest jitter, but having the DACs in all that polluted environment is far from ideal.
I think that the "digital sound" comes from the delta-sigma conversion of most of the current DACs. Most people just cant hear high frequencies and they dont feel it at all. ;)

Avatar

Digital EQ?

by Bert @, Sunday, August 02, 2009, 22:34 (3089 days ago) @ Telstar

Hello Guido,

I dont do double conversion.

I did not say you do, I just agreed with your remarks here.

I run the equalization in the computer before going to the DAC. Some analog filters caNot be simulated, but it is possible to do things that caNot be done in analog (i.e. very high orders without any sound degradation or phase shift). I use a 96dB highpass for the Hemps, which relieves them completely of handing low freqs, where they distort a LOT. That and a 4db notch at 3k really did wonders.

If you need to go digital then this would be the best way to do but it can be done adequate analog too though, if you know how. Perhaps not as steep but with a properly designed 12dB analog passive crossover and the suggested notch at 3kHz will have the same effect (sufficiently limiting cone movement and taming the peak).

Digital EQ is easy and there are many options possible but do not forget that processing takes "energy" away from the PC....and since there are differences in sound (usually worse when the PC is doing harder work).

The more you "stress" the capacity of your PC, the worse the sound. I am not sure if it is the work done by the PC doing this or the unstable clock or introducing jitter anyhow by altering the bits for more or less amplitude at a certain frequency range... :dntknw:

This is an interesting explanation. CDP can sound as "digital" as a computer, but generally they sound better. Why? I think it's because of the interface. That's the real bottleneck of computers used a source.

Yes, A CDP but that is not what I was referring too... :wink:

A pci/pci-e internal card has theoretically the lowest jitter, but having the DACs in all that polluted environment is far from ideal.

Yep, I agree here but I have to say that I am not bothered having any real knowledge about the subject to discuss though but I do have my ears to agree with it or not...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Digital EQ?

by samoore @, Monday, August 03, 2009, 06:08 (3088 days ago) @ Bert

Interesting discussion. I have recently gone all digital by ripping my CDs onto my hard drive. The wav files are then sent over WiFi to a Logitech Squeezebox, which feeds the digital signal to a Behringer Ultracurve for EQ in the digital domain. That way I can tame the base peaks in my room with the EQ and attend to any frequency anomalies in the mids and highs. From there the EQed digital signal goes to my Benchmard DAC1 for D/A conversion, then on to my horn amp/filter and bass amp. So far the results have been great! I can't hear any drawbacks to doing the correction in the digital domain using the ultracurve and the convenience of the Squeezbox acting as a music server is great.

Steve

Avatar

Digital EQ?

by Bert @, Wednesday, August 05, 2009, 15:05 (3086 days ago) @ samoore

Finally, I have an internet connection! Lousy provider... :angry:

That way I can tame the base peaks in my room with the EQ and attend to any frequency anomalies in the mids and highs.

It seems a good way but it is only doing half of what it should do... working like this only reduces the amplitude of the bass peak but does not change the other problems related to that resonance...

Still, it could be a better thing to do than nothing at all.

From there the EQed digital signal goes to my Benchmard DAC1 for D/A conversion, then on to my horn amp/filter and bass amp. So far the results have been great! I can't hear any drawbacks to doing the correction in the digital domain using the ultracurve and the convenience of the Squeezbox acting as a music server is great.

I am sure that your setup beats it compared to doing nothing at all but to my experience, it is better if you can do without because it is not only doing good things but as long as the compromise works out positively for you then you should be happy. Convenience and a good sound, what else does one need eh?

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Digital EQ?

by samoore @, Wednesday, August 05, 2009, 19:45 (3086 days ago) @ Bert

Hi Bert,

It sounds like you are suggesting that I should concentrate on room treatment to correct resonance? I agree, but with small kids and a wife who is particular about living room decoration it is difficult to do it well. I guess life is all about compromise. :wink:

Steve

Avatar

Digital EQ?

by Bert @, Wednesday, August 05, 2009, 21:00 (3086 days ago) @ samoore

Hi Steve,

I guess life is all about compromise.

Yep, life is full with that! It is an art to reduce those as much as possible though... almost a sport even but sometimes you simply have to accept...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

RSS Feed of thread