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
shadorne's avatar
shadorne
7,491 posts
 
As a corollary to what I said above - part of the reason people change gear so much and like re-mixes/re-masters by clever musically trained sound engineers is that they get a different accent on the musical experience - it changes where emphasis was made. The room does this too. In a sense, the new equipment or the same equipment in a new room creates a new version of what is heard with sometimes hugely wrong (but pleasing to some listeners) differences in emphasis.

Nothing can completely control all this - but measurements and careful attention to gear selection can get you, on average, much closer to what was intended or heard by the persons producing your recorded music. Whether this is worthwhile to you or not is debatable as there can be pleasure in creating new interesting sounds or changing emphasis to make old sound new (even if it isn;t close to what was originally produced)
rodman99999
6,206 posts
 
Here are some opinions from people that have ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the TacT RCS system. I've only included the RCS 2.0, as you've not mentioned any desire to actively bi-amp. Note the dates, and that many improvements have been made by Boz since these were published.(http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/437/index2.html) (http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/tact/others/rcs-room-correction-system/PRD_118079_1590crx.aspx) (http://stereotimes.com/acc110299.shtml)
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
re:
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.
Martykl (Reviews | Threads | Answers)

comment:
This LYNGDORF plan makes no sense to me. So please pardon this rave.
1. Speakers, especially multi driver units, have complex output, phase, etc. patterns. How can these be separated from room effects?
2. Designers assume that their products will be used in rooms (not anechoic) and design accordingly.
3. Where exactly does one measure a multi driver system to get an "accurate" measurement?
4. The LYNGDORF amps appear to be analog input only. Why ad an extra set of AD/DA plus interconnect?
5. Finally, why would anyone want to preserve a speaker's frequency response? No passive analog crossover and driver system can get within shouting distance of digital correction. Look at the specs claimed (if not always achieved) and they are +- 2DB. Anybody should be able to hear a bunch of four DB variations.
More to discover