@tlcocks wrote:
Oh I’m not closed minded to hearing it all. I’ve said that many times I want @mijostyn or you or someone to put me in touch with a good demo.
Did a demo ever materialize at poster @mijostyn?
Always exploring. The journey never ends. I was impressed by BACCH preamp. I’d love to be impressed by DSP to. Happy to hear and compare!
An open mind is always a good outset.
And no, I’m not guardian of the thread. Just very passionate about what I am hearing with the gear I’ve acquired. A great studio analog EQ in a hifi rig is a sound to behold.
Are you using your studio analog EQ in conjunction with passively configured speakers (your system doesn’t show in the ’Systems’ section)? When you say it’s a "sound to behold" with such a device in your chain, I’m thinking of it as something that must excel in its relative absence of sonic imprinting, and that what you’re really describing is the sound of your setup as a whole with the frequency corrections provided via EQ. Your analog studio EQ doesn’t "create" sound; it merely acts a frequency band equalizer - added to the chain, that is - that as such will have to leave as little coloration and distortion while doing so. If not your EQ device becomes a sonic factor in itself as something that contributes to the sound, and not in a good way.
And no, they’re not all great. Like anything else to achieve greatness takes time and patience. When you get to the point that you are not only adding tone but also stage size and resolution as opposed to LOSING those things with cheaper or inferior implementations then it becomes really exciting to listen.
You’re talking overall implementation here, and that involves every aspect along the way. Price (and frequency corrections) is only a partial factor, until is isn’t.
I WANT to get that jacked over someone demoing a properly implemented DSP and crossover. Still waiting to find that demo.
What setups have you heard with the implementation of DSP (not necessarily meant as a total lineup, but just some examples), and in which capacity were the DSP sections used - merely as a digital crossover, only digital room correction, or both? It’s important to get an overall bearing of the setup contexts here to get fuller picture and what was the deciding factor to account for your less than enthusiastic response to these setups. I would say the DSP’s themselves used in the setups you heard, depending on their specific implementation, are likely the lesser sonic influence compared to a variety of many other factors. It’s about how they’re used, component specifics, and overall implementation.
My own context of DSP usage is a Xilica unit acting a as digital crossover only, so no digital room correction or any passive crossovers between the amps (3 of them, one for each driver section) and speakers. The Xilica XO’s are very transparent, even with A/D to D/A conversion steps, and that becomes apparent not least when comparing their inclusion sans passive XO’s fully actively to the same speakers with passive XO’s instead. With the Xilica’s actively there’s a substantial uptick in resolution and transparency, cleaner transient "edges," improved dynamics and tonality. That’s however also much more revealing for what’s fed to it upchain, with all that implies and the care one must invest with the choices made here.
But right now I LOVE what I’m hearing and have for 10 years now. Have other friends here doing it this way and they’ll tell you the same thing.
Cherishing the sound of one’s setup is the primary goal. However we get there is up to each of us.
