DSP and room treatments

Tomy2Tone · « **on:** 7 Sep 2015, 05:24 pm »

I'm still learning about this crazy audio hobby and have had a lot of fun experimenting with different components and dsp's and room treatments over the last few years. I see comments from time to time from people who are encouraging of using dsp software and equipment and also see comments calling it absolute blasphemy to use such things.

When I attended the Show at Newport this past year I noticed every room I went into that had any type of dsp involved usually had a better presentation with articulate vocals and resolution. And then there were some rooms like Odyssey that only had room treatments and sounded even better.

Since my days of home theatre I've always incorporated some type of room correction software from Audyssey to Trinnov and now for the past year have been using a DSPeaker AM 2.0. As my equipment has changed to what I believe are better performing pieces such as a Herron preamp and Odyssey amps I've noticed when I bypass the room correction I'm getting a much better result than what I remember having in the past.

I'm interested in hearing from those of you who are more versed in room correction software and what side of the fence are you on.

-Do you use a type of dsp and if so why and what are its effects?

-Are you against any type of dsp being involved in the signal and if so why?

-Do you use both room treatments and dsp? Or just one or the other?

I hope this is in the right circle, if not please help move to the appropriate place. Thanks!

JohnR · « **Reply #1 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 05:38 pm »

You are conflating DSP and room correction...

DTB300 · « **Reply #2 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 07:10 pm »

I agree with JohnR..... now on to your questions.

First I do not use DSP for anything in my setup. Tried upsampling, etc before. Room Correction is a benefit for low end only - IMO - others here LOVE their full range correction. Room Treatments are some of the best money spent on improving your sound - even with your AM 2.0

1. Tried full range Room Correction - did not like it - always sounded "processed" to me (tried two different products that are always mentioned)

2. Tried Subwoofer Correction (8033-II) - Excellent and recommended

3. Room Treatments + 8033 - Yep, lots of treatments, and 8033-II Correction for Subwoofer, mains run full range.

Tomy2Tone · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 07:30 pm »

Quote from: DTB300 on 7 Sep 2015, 07:10 pm

I agree with JohnR..... now on to your questions.

First I do not use DSP for anything in my setup. Tried upsampling, etc before. Room Correction is a benefit for low end only - IMO - others here LOVE their full range correction. Room Treatments are some of the best money spent on improving your sound - even with your AM 2.0

1. Tried full range Room Correction - did not like it - always sounded "processed" to me (tried two different products that are always mentioned)

2. Tried Subwoofer Correction (8033-II) - Excellent and recommended

3. Room Treatments + 8033 - Yep, lots of treatments, and 8033-II Correction for Subwoofer, mains run full range.

Help me understand DSPeakers webpage describing the 8033...

The Golden Ear awarded Anti-Mode™ technology eliminates the resonances of the speaker and the room by equalizing both amplitude and time domain responses using very accurate digital signal processing filter structures and anti-phasing technology.

Are they incorrect in using this term "digital signal processing"?

roscoeiii · « **Reply #4 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 08:16 pm »

I've been playing at higher price point, but love my DEQX HDP-4. Wow. Digitally corrects for many speaker characteristics in a way that cannot be done in the analog domain. A real game changer for me.

I think that what JohnR may be getting at is that DSP can be used for a lot of things. Room correction being one of them.

Tomy2Tone · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 09:31 pm »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 7 Sep 2015, 08:16 pm

I've been playing at higher price point, but love my DEQX HDP-4. Wow. Digitally corrects for many speaker characteristics in a way that cannot be done in the analog domain. A real game changer for me.

I think that what JohnR may be getting at is that DSP can be used for a lot of things. Room correction being one of them.

How does the Deqx compare to the DSPeaker you used to have? Big jump?

roscoeiii · « **Reply #6 on:** 7 Sep 2015, 09:38 pm »

The speaker correction that the DEQX does is a real differentiating factor. And it is full range correction that goes beyond just frequency response. Corrects timing and phase as well.

Transparency also greater than with the DSPeaker. As you'd expect from a much pricier component.

Tomy2Tone · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:23 pm »

Thanks for the reply roscoe.

I think I found a thread that may be helpful to me. Thanks guys!

JohnR · « **Reply #8 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:35 pm »

DSP is "just" mathematical manipulation of a signal. Most DAC chips use it (upsampling and filtering). If you use a computer-based player and use it to change the volume - that's DSP.

roscoeiii · « **Reply #9 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:38 pm »

Quote from: Tomy2Tone on 8 Sep 2015, 02:23 pm

Thanks for the reply roscoe.

I think I found a thread that may be helpful to me. Thanks guys!

There is a long DEQX thread on Audiogon that some great A'gon commenters (Almarg, for example) are contributing to:

http://learn.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1408492712&openusid&Psag&4&5&st0

Tomy2Tone · « **Reply #10 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:43 pm »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 8 Sep 2015, 02:38 pm

There is a long DEQX thread on Audiogon that some great A'gon commenters (Almarg, for example) are contributing to:

http://learn.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1408492712&openusid&Psag&4&5&st0

I found this as well...

http://audioshark.org/acoustic-treatments-digital-room-correction-25/acoustic-room-treatments-vs-dsp-8228.html

JohnR · « **Reply #11 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:44 pm »

I never really understand why it's "versus." It's like saying "hammer versus spanner". It's like people can't understand both, so they have to pick one.

roscoeiii · « **Reply #12 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 02:53 pm »

Quote from: Tomy2Tone on 8 Sep 2015, 02:43 pm

I found this as well...

http://audioshark.org/acoustic-treatments-digital-room-correction-25/acoustic-room-treatments-vs-dsp-8228.html

Thanks for that link. Will check it out.

Tomy2Tone · « **Reply #13 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:04 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 8 Sep 2015, 02:44 pm

I never really understand why it's "versus." It's like saying "hammer versus spanner". It's like people can't understand both, so they have to pick one.

That's kind of why I started this thread because in my little time of understanding audio it seems these are the two camps that people fall in. I've never been happy with just a true signal coming form the source, I've always had some type of room correction software help me be satisfied with what I'm hearing and have experimented with treatments as well. Then recently I tried a new usb cable and went without any room correction save for some treatments and I actually liked what I heard.

I've often wondered can you get speakers to "disappear" with room correction or speaker correction software being used or do you have to have the signal unadulterated so to speak. Sometime I feel like DTB300 where the correction software sounds "processed" but it's usually better than without it.

I know in the end it's all about enjoying what your'e hearing but I'm just curious about how people view room correction software and its effect on they're home stereo.

JohnR · « **Reply #14 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:37 pm »

Hi, I was referring to the title of the thread you linked. "Diet vs exercise." "Brunette vs blue eyes." "Four cylinder vs motorcycle." etc.

All that aside, there are really three issues in the topic you raised. The first is the specific algorithmic correction being applied, and why. The second is the processing artifacts introduced digitally. The third is the artifacts introduced in A/D or D/A conversion.

DTB300 · « **Reply #15 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:42 pm »

Quote from: roscoeiii on 7 Sep 2015, 08:16 pm

I've been playing at higher price point, but love my DEQX HDP-4. Wow. Digitally corrects for many speaker characteristics in a way that cannot be done in the analog domain. A real game changer for me.

Jealous

LOL

This is a product I have heard demoed but never heard it with my rig in my room. But it was a WOW moment and about the only time I have heard room correction and liked it. Thanks for the memory jog...

JohnR · « **Reply #16 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:43 pm »

DEQX is not room correction....

DTB300 · « **Reply #17 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:47 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 8 Sep 2015, 03:43 pm

DEQX is not room correction....

Yes it is Calibration not correction. (at least that is what DEQX is calling it) "Room and Speaker Calibration"

JohnR · « **Reply #18 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:53 pm »

(Never mind, sorry)

roscoeiii · « **Reply #19 on:** 8 Sep 2015, 03:59 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 8 Sep 2015, 03:43 pm

DEQX is not room correction....

We are in the weeds of terminology, but how is what DEQX does based on measurements taken by a mic at the listening position not room correction? Is there some more specific meaning of the word that I am not catching? The effects of the room are captured by the mic, and manually or via a more automated process, these effects of the room (largely on bass) are corrected in order to get a flatter response or a response more to the listener's preference.

What am I missing here? Not trying to be a jerk, just want to get clear on the terminology and why something is or is not "room correction".