2. digital
  3. 1232150186

digital eq/room correction trade-offs

I am very confused about digital room correction.

For many years, it seemed the common wisdom was to have as clean a signal path as possible, with as little processing and as few conversions as possible: use a high quality DAC to get the signal to analog and then a pure pre-amp/amp to speakers.

But it now seems that many would argue that the benefits of digital eq are such that even an extra analog-digital-analog step is worth it for the benefits of digital room eq.

So, for example, I enjoy listening to CDs and SACDs using my Bel Canto PL-1A. I go analog out to my pre-amp. Is it worth it to contemplate the extra step of analog to digital for room EQ and then back to analog to the pre? I find it hard to believe that any benefits of the room EQ won't be substantially offset by the additional conversions.

Your thoughts most appreciated. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that my room is imperfect but not horribly so (which I think is accurate).
dgaylin
richards
145 posts
 
Lewinskih01
To answer your question, I have my Tact 2.2x preamp (w/ Maui Mods) connected to two Tact 2150 amps (one with full Maui Mods). The 2150 is actually a DAC that swings enough voltage to power a speaker -- hence, it acts as an amp.

I'm no longer using the internal DAC in the 2.2x. It's pretty good, but the 2150 is better.. One of the 2150s drives my main speakers, and the other drives the corner subs using the digital crossover in the 2.2x. So, no analog IC cables at all.
smeyers
181 posts
 
My living room is far from ideal for good sound reinforcement, as there is lots of glass, stone chimney, wood floors, etc., and I will not 'decorate' the room with lots of audio panels. I decided about a year go to try the Tact 2.2XP; it completely transformed the sound. No longer is there boomy bass, shrill treble and depressed midrange. I should mention that it takes a lot of time and patience to understand the unit, it's software, and much tweaking until it's 'right'; it certainly was not plug-n-play for me! However, it was certainly worth it in the end. I also found that using a good external DAC (I use a Lector Tube DAC) makes a substantial difference over Tact's internal one (for the main speakers; it's fine for subwoofers).
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
TacT versus Lyngdorf. Good question, especially as they were recently partners in the same company (Tact).
My tech says that Tact (Baz) tries to accomplish more correction parameters than Lyngdorf with the result that the Tact system is more difficult to understand and apply. I would love to hear the specifics from someone more knowledgeable than myself.
lewinskih01
911 posts
 
On the Tact, is the volume control analog or digital? Either way I guess it's good as your feedback from it as a preamp is very good.

If it's on the analog side (which is usually recommended) and I wanted to use an external DAC, then it would need to be one with volume control so to drive an amp directly. Correct?

Thank you!
martykl
3,578 posts
 
I'll offer a slightly different take.

Room effects are almost always most pernicious below app 150hz. Room correction in this range - IMHO - will far outweigh any benefits you get from maintaining a purist signal path. As you go upward in frequency, different rooms will make the cost/benefit equation of DRC vary enormously.

My solution is a Velodyne SMS-1 sub controller (room analysis + PEq below 200hz - coupled with a versatile x-over) and a pair of subs. You can keep the SMS out of the signal path above the x-over point, if you so choose. In my book, this as close to a "have your cake and eat it, too" approach as you are likely to find.

Caveat: In some rooms full range DRC may well be worthwhile.

Also, my understanding of the TACT/Lyngdorf approaches is.

TACT: Goal is flat response at the mic position (i.e. corrects for anomalies in the speaker frequency response and room induced frequency effects.

LYNGDORF: Goal is to preserve the speaker's frequency response & remove only room effects. You measure the drivers up close and then at the listening position. The software filters the difference between predicted (anechoic?) response at the listening position and actual measured response.

This explanation came from the folks at Lyngdorf.
More to discover