[Levi]

Levi,

I get it.  Focus on audio quality; that's what Bryston does best.  Then why doesn't it explore its own implementation of EQ.  That's audio, not video.

EQ is similar to Video which can have negative effects on the purity of sound.  Sorry there are no tone controls or loudness boost either.  Perhaps, James can elaborate more on this.

[nicolasb]

Does anybody know why Bryston isn't interested in EQ technology? Could the likes of Meridian and Lexicon and Halcro and TCS and mass-produced manufacturers like Denon have it all wrong?

According to James Tanner, yes: Meridian, Denon, Lexicon, Tag McLaren, TacT and all the others have all got it wrong. Some links to previous discussions may be found here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=19653&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=room&start=18

See also: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=20424&start=9

His principal objection seems to be that room correction works well only in one "sweet spot" and can have an adverse effect on listening at other points in the room. There is some truth to this, but:

a) there are now a number of room correction systems available that are specifically designed to work over a large area;
b) some SP1.7 owners are the only people who listen to their unit, so they're going to be sitting in the sweet spot and don't care about the rest of the room;
c) any form of correction or EQ can be switched off if you don't like the effect of it, thus resulting in sound that is identical to non-EQ'ed sound;
d) room correction is only one small part of what a proper EQ system is capable of, and this objection doesn't apply to most of the rest.

It also does not have video switching capabilities like others. It does sounds more open much better in analog bypass mode compaired to Lexicon.

The SP1.7 does indeed sound better than even the Lexicon MC12B in analogue bypass mode. It also sounds a lot worse than the MC12B when doing absolutely anything else. In addition, it suffers badly when you compare features. An MC12B is blessed with the likes of Logic 7, the ability to do bass management on DVD-Audio sound, video switching, a very good room EQ system, proprietary bass management algorithms using multiple subwoofers, mutiple zones, etc., etc.

However, given the price differential, this isn't entirely surprising. I don't think comparisons with Lexicon are really relevant.

I get it. Focus on audio quality; that's what Bryston does best. Then why doesn't it explore its own implementation of EQ. That's audio, not video.

To my mind focusing on audio quality requires an EQ system.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for this, though. Bryston just doesn't "do" proprietary digital features.

EQ is similar to Video which can have negative effects on the purity of sound. Sorry there are no tone controls or loudness boost either

Poppycock.

I actually agree with Bryston's decision not to include video switching in the SP1.7. Video switching requires a lot of extra hardware, which would put the price of the unit up dramatically. It's something that is also difficult and/or expensive to keep up-to-date - any new video-switching processor now really needs to support high-definition HDMI switching, but most current models can only handle analogue video. Worse still, the hardware necessary to perform video switching generates a lot of electrical noise and interference; it could very easily degrade the SP1.7's audio performance. The problem of processors doing video switching has been solved, but it's an expensive trade-off.

So, all in all, the decision to make a cheaper processor with the best possible sound and no video (rather than a cheaper one with video and poorer sound, or a more expensive one with video and the same sound quality) was, IMO, the correct one.

However, none of the above objections applies to an EQ system. EQ is something that is achieved entirely in software - there is no extra hardware which will lie unused if EQ is switched off. Granted, one has to budget for software development time, but there are off-the-shelf EQ software systems available, including at least one specifically designed for Texas Instruments DSPs (such as the one the upgraded SP1.7 will feature).

Even more importantly, software EQ can be switched off. This is not like switching off a piece of dedicated hardware: if EQ capability is added to the system but the user chooses not to activate it then, by definition, the sound he gets will be absolutely identical to the sound he gets without an EQ option available. Adding an EQ system therefore requires ABSOLUTELY NO COMPROMISE AT ALL to people who don't wish to use it. It is preposterous to suggest that the processor is somehow a better product because it lacks EQ.

[gazza982]

Since you posted this, there have been hints that there might eventually be an HDMI inoput added, but in a separate upgrade some time beyond this one.

I think Arcam are including a HDMI connection in the new AV9 processor which should be released shortly.  It looks like Bryston are at least a year away with that upgrade. If others are including it why can't Bryston?

The latest upgrade really doesn't appear to have enough new features for existing owners to cost $2000.

EQ is similar to Video which can have negative effects on the purity of sound.

I agree to some extent with you Levi but if you didn't use the EQ option it wouldn't have any negative effects unlike video switching circuits in the same case.  JTs argument seems to be it would only work for a certain position in the room and ruin it for other listeners.  Not everyone wants to treat their room so I still think it's an option I want.

[gazza982]

I didn't see your last post NicolasB and have repeated a few of your points.

[ScottMayo]

However, none of the above objections applies to an EQ system. EQ is something that is achieved entirely in software - there is no extra hardware which will lie unused if EQ is switched off. Granted, one has to budget for software development time, but there are off-the-shelf EQ software systems available, including at least one specifically designed for Texas Instruments DSPs (such as the one the upgraded SP1.7 will feature).

It occurs to me that the upgrade will allow software to be loaded in through the RS-232. It also occurs to me that there's an off the shelf DSP in there.

I'm not sure there's a problem here. Bryston might not be willing to write the code - but the DSP is known, and someone will, sooner or later. Especially if Bryston released the source code, making it easier to integrate. And I bet if we pooled resources, there are enough folk on AC with just enough background to pull it off.

If they've got something in the source that really is competition sensitive, they could partition the code to allow partial loads (a lot harder to set up, but still possible) - they stay protected, we can add our favorite hooks.

This is the model of the future, after all. Look at how many devices have end user loadable software and 3rd party packages these days...

[nicolasb]

Now that would be cool.  

I've never done any DSP programming, so I don't how similar it is to programming for (say) Windows. I get the impression that programming for DSPs tends to be trickier. It's certainly taken Bryston a long time to get the software ready for the DSP upgrade, but I don't think that's a reflection on Bryston - I've heard of other products that were held up for ages by a lack of software. The Theta Casa Nova 2, for example, and the Arcam DV27A player.

I also can't see Bryston being too happy about honouring the 20-year-warranty on processors that have stopped working because someone has attempted to upload buggy third-party software.  

[ScottMayo]

I've never done any DSP programming, so I don't how similar it is to programming for (say) Windows.

It's not the same. Real time processing is a whole 'nother planet, and the "system API"s are not as nice. And yes, in comparison I'm implying that Windows has a nice API. In comparison.

I also can't see Bryston being too happy about honouring the 20-year-warranty on processors that have stopped working because someone has attempted to upload buggy third-party software

Oh, that's easy. You upload anything of your own and pop goes the warranty. And they will trivially be able to tell.

[Adz523]

I think Arcam are including a HDMI connection in the new AV9 processor which should be released shortly. It looks like Bryston are at least a year away with that upgrade. If others are including it why can't Bryston?

That's an easy one to answer. Bryston's has been pretty consistent in taking a wait and see attitude when its comes to technology changes.   Ultimately, they adapt, but they will not be rushed or chided into being an early-on adapter; they react to permanent market changes, they dont anticipate them.  

With respect to HD content, I suspect Bryston is waiting to see what interface the manufacturers will build into next-gen DVD players... which interface will ultimately dominant?  Will it be HDMI or IEEE or something else?   From the looks of things now, Hi-Def DVD players and Hi-Def DVDs (Blu Ray or HD DVD) will not start to come out until mid-2006 (originally it was Christmas 2005).

[Adz523]

Historically the discussion of EQ on the SP1.7 has tended to focus exclusively on the notion of "room EQ" i.e. attempting to compensate electronically for acoustic issues in the listening room. James T has, in the past, always come down as very strongly opposed to room EQ, with his most important reason (IIRC) being that a system based on (say) parametric EQ can only improve listening conditions at one particular point in the room, and is just as likely to make the sound worse at other places in the  ...

Your arguments to Bryston's un-official position on Room EQ  are extremely well-thought out, articulate and very convincing. It would be great if Bryston would respond to them.

[ScottMayo]

Your arguments to Bryston's un-official position on Room EQ  are extremely well-thought out, articulate and very convincing. It would be great if Bryston would respond to them.

The argument about software EQ making only one spot in the room good is specious. That's what usually happens, but then that's what's usually wanted. If you hack the response curve you can get more or less any result you like. And anyway, if making things sound bad was a reason not to include things, the Speaker Delay option would be the first to go. You can make a head-hurting mess with that option. It's meant to support the sweet spot, period.

For all the money I've spent making my system sound absolutely lovely in the sweet spot (which is maybe 2' sphere at this point, in a 25x28' room), it never even occurs to me to fret about what it sounds like in the corners. I don't even know. It doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in who feels that way. I mean, how many folk here buy Bryston to set up background music for parties and elevators?

My guess is, the reason not to do EQ before, was that the code wasn't quite up to it, and the reason not to do it now is that they've found out that DSP programming is expensive, fussy and yields to results that are open to interpretation. It's not much like an amp, which (at least in Bryston's market) is defined as good in proportion to how perfectly pure the measurable output is - EQ and how it is done is something that people have a range of opinions on. It just takes one idiot to write a review along the lines of "I turned on the EQ and the sound got bad" to sink a product. I imagine the prospect of something that's expensive to develop, not wanted by absolutely everyone, and might trigger a bad review is unappealing.

At the moment, I'm playing Supertramp: Crime of the Century. It's a CD, and pretty well recorded, but it sounded a little sterile in stereo, so I punched in "Surround/Natural". Wow! I get mixed results with this setting, but in this case the sound stage wrapped *well* past the main speakers, things got fuller and lusher, the bass came up a little, and there was some nifty resonance added to the voices and piano - but not too much. The DSP is clearly doing a lot of rewriting, and it all works here.

EQ is a *minor tweak* compared to the modifications Bryston already puts on the table. I can't believe the reason not to do it has anything to do with how narrow it makes the sweet spot - I think it's pure economics. Who wants, it and is there enough money in them to justify yet another revision of some fussy software?

Looks like the answer is no for now. And that's a pity.

[nicolasb]

Your arguments to Bryston's un-official position on Room EQ are extremely well-thought out, articulate and very convincing. It would be great if Bryston would respond to them.

You're making me blush.

(laugh)

But, in all seriousness, and regardless of whatever else may be said on the subject, there seem to me to be two very simple and clinching arguments in EQ's favour:

1) Clearly quite lot of people like it and want it.
2) It can be switched off.

That some customers (including several on this very forum) do regard an EQ system as a highly desirable feature seems to me to be self-evident. Those who do not can simply deactivate it and there is no loss of quality. So there really doesn't seem to be any downside, unless it is felt that there simply aren't enough DSP-programmer-hours available to make the system work.

It just takes one idiot to write a review along the lines of "I turned on the EQ and the sound got bad" to sink a product. I imagine the prospect of something that's expensive to develop, not wanted by absolutely everyone, and might trigger a bad review is unappealing.

Maybe. The thing is, there's an awful lot one can do to an SP1.7 to make it sound bad if you don't know what you're doing - you mentioned speaker delay, but the same is true of a lot of the existing DSP modes, THX,  bass management.... I mean, I can't understand why anybody would want to use the "church/party/stadium" modes, for example, but you don't see me arguing that the product is made worse by including them. People can use them or not, as they see fit. It's also probably a minority of SP1.7 customers that actually use the 5.1-channel bypass - but Bryston nonetheless went to a great deal of trouble to get it right for the benefit of those who do use it.

In fact, to take that idea to its logical extreme, one shouldn't provide any actual sound outputs on the grounds that someone who doesn't know what he is doing might wire them up wrongly and then complain that the centre channel sound is coming out of the wrong speaker.  

I think it's pure economics. Who wants, it and is there enough money in them to justify yet another revision of some fussy software?

Looks like the answer is no for now. And that's a pity.

You're probably right.

But, IMO, Bryston has misjudged the economics - I think a lot more people want an EQ system than they realise. And I think that, as about the only major audio company whose new processor doesn't offer a high quality room EQ system, they are likely to lose a lot more SP2 sales than they realise.

[JohnR]

Well... I don't know anything about Bryston products, but I'm really starting to wonder what this thread is supposed to achieve. Here Bryston owners have a great resource, someone high-up in the company willing to answer their questions. This seems quite unique to me, most of the other "highups" on AC are one of only one or three. Perhaps owners should accept this resource for what it is, rather than trying to second-guess Bryston's marketing and development teams or (in particular) resorting to threats (your last purchase of the product, they will lose market share, and the like).

[ScottMayo]

Well... I don't know anything about Bryston products, but I'm really starting to wonder what this thread is supposed to achieve. Here Bryston owners have a great resource, someone high-up in the company willing to answer their questions. This seems quite unique to me, most of the other "highups" on AC are one of only one or three. Perhaps owners should accept this resource for what it is, rather than trying to second-guess Bryston's marketing and development teams or (in particular) resorting to threats (your last purchase of the product, they will lose market share, and the like).

Speculating about the company intentions, is a not so subtle way to keep JT keeny aware of the fact that, while we feel Bryston's pain, we want this feature anyway and we don't propose to shut up until it arrives. Less confrontational, but probably just as effective, as emailing Bryston every day and asking when EQ is going to be released.

Suggesting the possibility of buying from a competitor is not a "threat". A threat is when you offer to do someone harm, and refusing to buy from someone cannot be construed as harm. This is just a market reality, and absolutely nothing more.

Anyway, I've given Bryston a fair amount of business (for an individual audiophile) over the years, and recommended them in writing and by spoken word for well over a decade. So I figure I've earned the right to tease the inmates as I see fit.

[James Tanner]

OK OK - you win.

The new digital board in the SP2 can do a basic global EQ for bass and treble.
 
You can have up to 32 bands of Parametric EQ active.
 
We will include these features in the "Expert Menu" as a downloadable software upgrade, in the near future.

james

[ScottMayo]

You can have up to 32 bands of Parametric EQ active.
 
We will include these features in the "Expert Menu" as a downloadable software upgrade, in the near future.

james

I love it when market forces conspire to improve products. Alternatively, we've just seen an awesome demonstration of the power of being a persistant pain in the @$$.      

[KJ]

You guys are brutal!  I hate to ask what you'll do when the price is announced.  

-KJ

[ScottMayo]

You guys are brutal!  I hate to ask what you'll do when the price is announced.  

-KJ

What I do when any audiophile component has the price announced:

 

[thomaspf]

You can have up to 32 bands of Parametric EQ active.

Ups, you just sold me on the upgrade. I can get rid of that external digital equalizer that I am using now.

James, I love to hear more about this. Here is just a short list of questions.

Is that 32 filters per connected channel?
What will be the bit lenght and format of the internal samples for the parametric filters?
What filtering algorithm will you use?
How do you program those filters?
Will  there be a PC program that lets you do the measurements and spit out the correction coefficients? Do you want someone to build that?
Can these filters be controlled via the serial port?
Since you are investing in multiband digital eq will you offer a loudness corrected volume control?

This is a great step! However finding the right parameters seems the real challenge....

Cheers

      Thomas

[James Tanner]

Hi Thomas,

Your way over my head on that one - that's a Shane question. He is up to his ears in software development right now so it will be a while before he can get to it.

james

[thomaspf]

No worries,

it will take a while to explain the need for this upgrade to my wife ...

I'd be happy to chat with Shane. This should improve the sound quality for most people in a very dramatic way if there is an automated and correct way to get the parameters for the filters. I spend some weeks with a garden variety of acoustical measurement programs to derive some decent settings for my external unit.

Cheers

   Thomas