Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile

    Digital Signal Processing - The Ultimate Guide To High End Immersive Audio

     

     

        

        Audio: Listen to this article.

     

     

     

    Welcome to the Digital Signal Processing chapter of the Ultimate Guide To High End Immersive Audio. The main table of contents can be viewed here.

     

     

    Digital signal processing or DSP is a proverbial four letter word in many audiophile circles. DSP means many things to many people, and is often an undefinable scapegoat on which questionable sound quality is pinned. Back in the day there were good reasons for this distaste of DSP. The first implementations were technically interesting, but sounded terrible. Today, DSP is used in every digital playback system, and is even used to create the infamous but great sounding Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc One-Step series of vinyl reissues. This chapter of The Definitive Guide To High End Immersive Audio scratches the surface of the cavernous topic of digital signal processing, focusing on two areas of importance, decoding immersive music and digital room correction.

     

     

    Definitions

     

    Decoding - Nearly all immersive music is encoded in a proprietary format requiring decoding by the listener’s audio system. Discrete Immersive content is the only music that doesn’t require decoding because it’s delivered as ten or twelve channel WAV files at 24 bit / 352.8 kHz. Most other music is encoded in a Dolby format such as Dolby Digital Plus or TrueHD Dolby Atmos. Auro 3D, Sony 360 Real Audio, and IAMF (Immersive Audio Model and Formats) are also available somewhat, but extremely limited in distribution and market acceptance (currently).

     

    The decoding process not only involves unpacking a digital audio stream, but also rendering audio to the correct, and correct number of, channels. An encoded Atmos file can be played on systems from two through sixteen channels. The decoding system is told how many channels and in which configuration it should render the audio for playback.

     

    Proprietary formats are often viewed skeptically by audiophiles who’ve used FLAC for decades. However, formats such those from Dolby don’t really have an open source or free alternative that can match the market penetration and feature set.

     

    Digital Room Correction - Another sensitive topic in the audiophile world, even though by 2024 it really shouldn’t be. Everyone should be at least trying state of the art digital room correction in their own systems because it’s that good. DRC is a massively confusing topic for all but the most nerdy audiophiles. For this chapter the DRC concepts most easily digestible are time and frequency correction. Time correction ensures that the direct sound hits the listening position at the same time while frequency correction smooths out the peaks and dips caused by one’s listening room (too much or too little bass for example).

     

    Within the world of digital room correction there are countless main topics, sub-topics, and differing opinions. This guide attempts to cover some broad areas and provide listeners actionable information they can use to audition the results of different DRC concepts by listening to different products or working with an expert in DRC.

     

     

    Why It’s Required

     

    As an audiophile I like to think I can “will” my musical playback into perfection with the straight wire with gain philosophy, but that’s a fool’s errand. A middle ground approach, involving the manual adjustment of time and frequency parameters, is also one that’s more likely to produce dubious results, but at least provide endless hours of DIY fiddling / entertainment for those so inclined. Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for those who roll up their sleeves and white knuckle DSP and I have no doubt they are satisfied with the results, but the level of accuracy achieved by a human can’t match that of a machine. Enabling a machine to handle the tough parts and using human subjective evaluations for the final touches, results in a state of the art listening experience of which our audiophile forefathers could’ve of only dreamt.

     

    The focus for a long time in this hobby was bit perfection. Playing an album as perfect as possible was a laudable goal in the early days of computer audio, when many apps mangled our music before our DACs even had a chance to convert the bits to audio. Now, with playback apps more under control and state of the art DSP we can focus on audio that’s “bit perfect” at our ears.

     

    Using digital room correction in the time domain is absolutely required unless one’s listening position is equidistant from every loudspeaker. It takes a very special room to accommodate such a setup. This is typically only seen in audio laboratory settings or certified ITU/EBU control rooms. Associated with the timing adjustments is the volume level because a loudspeaker that’s closer to the listening position may be louder than those further away and may have different sensitivity characteristics than the “main” front speakers.

     

    Digitally correcting for frequency issues should be done after one attempts to physically adjust the listening room, using absorption, diffusion, and preferably normal human items such as plants, furniture, etc… No matter how a room is designed, the laws of physics will overpower the will of even the most dedicated anti-DSP listener. Correcting for bass issues, with very long sound waves, can foil all but an anechoic chamber’s worth of absorptive material.

     

    Last, the decoding aspect of DSP is required if one wants to hear all the channels of an immersive album. Without a TrueHD Dolby Atmos decoder, one can’t hear the entire album as it was designed to be heard. Listeners may get a portion of the channels and a portion of the music via some other means, but not the true immersive experience.

     

     

    Decoding and Room Correction Options

     

    The reason both decoding and digital room correction are included in the same DSP chapter is because they are linked in most audio systems. Splitting the decoding from DRC will gain more traction as new devices hit the market that enable decoded audio to be output to a number of other devices as pure PCM audio, but currently these devices are few and far between (Arvus offers two, and another manufacturer will offer one soon). An example of this decoding and DSP link can be seen when using a traditional processor (Trinnov, Marantz, Anthem, etc…). If one decodes an immersive audio signal into twelve channels prior to the processor’s input (HDMI or other), the processor can’t handle a decoded PCM signal with that many channels. Thus, the decoding must take place within the processor, if one wants to use the processor’s room correction.

     

    It is possible to decode immersive audio using an Arvus H1-D and output the audio via Ethernet or the Arvus H2-4D and output via AES or Ethernet, unlinking the decoding from room correction, as long as one has a device capable of accepting a high channel count AES or Ethernet signal and running the proper room correction.

     

     

    In Simple Terms

     

    Here are three ways of decoding and running digital room correction for immersive music playback, in simple terms and in no specific order.

     

    Computer - This is how I do everything because it’s the only way to obtain true state of the art playback at the highest of audiophile capabilities. Please understand that the other methods are also great, otherwise I wouldn’t mention them, but just like in sports, only one team / method can be the best with respect to sound quality. However, there are also drawbacks to using a computer. For one, it’s a computer. It’ll have issues. There’s no way around that fact. Fortunately I’m capable of handling any of the issues that come up, but I understand not everyone cares to deal with them, even if they are tech savvy.

     

    Using a computer to decode immersive audio can be done using the macOS operating system when playing from Apple Music, as the Dolby Digital Plus decoder is built-in. Decoding Dolby TrueHD Atmos and Auro 3D are more difficult. Auro offers a VST plugin that I’ve used to decode Auro 3D music through JRiver Media Center, but this plugin hasn’t been updated to work on Macs with Apple Silicon. In other words, the Auro plugin doesn’t work on any Mac sold in stores today. It does work on Windows and Intel based Macs for roughly $20 per month.

     

    Decoding TrueHD Dolby Atmos on a computer, for content that’s sold as MKV files or ripped from Blu-ray, is done either in real time or offline mode using a combination of apps. This approach requires a bit of extra work, but results in decoded WAV files capable of being played with any app that supports the requisite number of channels (JRiver, Audirvana, etc…).

     

    The easiest way to decode TrueHD Dolby Atmos is to do it offline. Using the application named Music Media Helper and the Dolby Reference Player, MKV files downloaded or ripped from Blu-ray can be converted into any supported Atmos channel configuration (5.1.2, 5.1.4, 7.1.4, 9.1.6, etc…) as WAV files. FLAC will never support more than eight channels without embedded / encoded data, and WAV works pretty good anyway. Once the files are decoded, the listener is free to use state of the art digital room correction.

     

    There are countless ways to do this, but I will explain what I believe is the absolute best. At a high level, using a good mic preamp with an Earthworks M30 microphone or better, and Audiolense on a Windows PC (only runs on Windows currently) to measure and create the room correction filters, is the best. Period. I recommend hiring Mitch Barnett to walk you through the measurement process and create filters for you, unless you’re a glutton for punishment.

     

    The current state of the art in room correction begins with the Audiolense application. To my knowledge, and I will happily include corrections if notified, no other application that runs on a computer or in a traditional processor, is as powerful and capable as Audiolense. As a real world example of this superiority, Audiolense features digital crossovers with bass offloading that’s totally configurable for each loudspeaker. This means speakers with limited frequency ranges can have the bass offloaded to a subwoofer, while full range speakers in the same system can reproduce audio to the limits of their capabilities as well. In practice, a listener playing Tsuyoshi Yamamoto’s album A Shade of Blue, with Hiroshi Kagawa’s double bass emanating from the center channel, can have the very bottom end of the frequency range of that bass offloaded to a subwoofer, if the center channel can’t reproduce the aforementioned frequencies. Without this capability, the bass is sent to the center channel and not reproduced in the audio system. Another less than optimal way would have all the bass for all channels sent to the subwoofer, but then the front left and right channels wouldn’t reproduce Hiroshi Kagawa’s bass as they should because they can often reach down to 20 Hz.

     

    Using a computer for room correction also enables one to use incredibly powerful FIR filters created by Audiolense. I use Accurate Sound’s Hang Loose Convolver to host these filters as it works better than any native in-app convolution engine. A real world example of these powerful filters can be seen using simple math.

     

    It starts with 65,536 tap FIR filters. This alone is well beyond the capabilities of traditional processors. As one listens to higher sample rates, the filter can be upsampled to several hundred thousand or over one million taps automatically. This ensures the frequency resolution of the FIR filter stays the same when the sample rate increases and is a distinction with a major difference.

     

    Frequency resolution = fs / N where fs is the sample rate and N is the number of filter taps.

     

    A 65,536 tap FIR filter at 48 kHz (Atmos is currently all released at 48 kHz) has a frequency resolution of 48000/65536 = 0.732 Hz. 

     

    The frequency range spans 0Hz to 24 kHz. Thinking of an FIR filter as a graphic equalizer: 24000/0.732 = 32,768 sliders for an FIR equalizer. This FIR real world example has 1000 times the frequency resolution of a 1/3 octave equalizer. In addition a rough rule of thumb is that the effective low frequency limit of the filter is to multiply the frequency resolution by 3, which is 3 x 0.732 Hz = 2.2 Hz. A 65,536 tap FIR filter running on a computer can control frequencies down to 2.2 Hz.

     

    Notice I’ve been talking about FIR (finite impulse response) filters. These are phase linear and processor/memory intensive. Traditional hardware processors can’t use FIR filters for the lowest frequencies, because they lack hardware DSP processing power, and often use less precise IIR (infinite impulse response) filters in combination with FIR filters to cover the full range. IIR filters are frequently less stable and suffer from unequal delays at different frequencies. More information about the difference between IIR and FIR filters can be seen here (link).

     

    There is no free lunch with 65k tap FIR filters or such powerful DSP in general. Using a computer can either be a pro or a con depending on the user and situation. In addition, high tap count filters increase latency. This is a non-issue for music only listeners, but can be an issue for those watching movies. Sophisticated applications such as JRiver Media Center offer latency compensation that works in conjunction with Hang Loose Convolver’s VST plugin. HLC reports the latency to JRMC, and JRMC compensated for this during video playback, removing lip-sync issues. For my music only system this isn’t an issue at all. Alternatively, one can use minimum phase FIR filters which still have the power to control the bass frequencies at the expense of giving up the time domain correction. But a minimum phase FIR filter has zero latency so will work with Apple TV, or YouTube or Netflix through standalone convolution (example).

     

    Another potential issue with these state of the art filters is called insertion loss. This means the volume level is cut, based on the amount of correction used. An audio system with enough headroom can easily make up for this volume reduction, but it should be understood while designing an audio system.

     

    One last benefit of using a computer for digital room correction is the ability to play discrete immersive albums, and even on rare occasions Atmos ADM files. I’ve purchased ADM files through Bandcamp, but these are certainly not the norm. Playing ten or twelve channel discrete immersive DXD content with 500,000+ tap filters is the height of living, with respect to high fidelity music playback. It takes a computer to make it in the studio, and to play it at home.

     

    Note: One method I've bene experimenting with is using an Aurender music server to play immersvie music, up through tweleve channel DXD, and routing the audio through a computer for DSP, then on to my Merging Technologies hardware for playback. This method will continue to evolve and improve ease of use in the long run for music lovers.

     

     

    Hybrid Approach -There is a hybrid approach between using a computer for everything and nothing. As we move away from using a computer, the solutions usually get easier to use, but performance does decrease. Whether or not that performance decrease matters is up to each listener. This guide is about presenting facts, not making friends.

     

    One example of this hybrid approach to DSP is decoding and measuring on a computer while running the room correction filters on an audio hardware device. In my system I have this setup for testing as well as the previously mentioned computer only approach. I use the Sonarworks SoundID Reference application with a Sonarworks microphone to measure my system in my room. The process takes about an hour, but is fairly idiot proof. The app walks one through each microphone placement and tells the user what to do at each step along the way. This is different from Audiolense which requires either serious knowledge or a professional such as Mitch Barnett working with the user.

     

    After running the measurements, SoundID Reference displays a few options and shows a frequency response curve. It’s possible to make manually adjustments or select from built-in options such as the Dolby curve. I’ve done both, but usually wound up using the Dolby option. After a curve is selected, the filter is exported to work with a number of hardware devices. In my case I uploaded the filter to my Merging Technologies Anubis and enabled it.

     

    One the filter is enabled on the Anubis, thinking about filters is over. It operates on all audio signals routed through the device, no matter the sample rate or channel count, without user intervention. This is convenient. Changing channel counts while using Hang Loose Convolver can involve manually switching filters, to ensure the channels are routed to the correct loudspeaker.

     

    In the real world playback looks fairly similar to the computer only approach, with the exception of not running convolution software on the computer. This means no VST plugin in an app like JRiver or no Hang Loose Convolver accepting audio from Apple Music or Audirvana before outputting to the same Merging Anubis.

     

    The downsides of this Hybrid stem from a limited measurement and filter creation application and hardware horsepower. Using the double bass in the center channel example from above, when I play this track and use SoundID Reference in my system, none of the center channel bass is offloaded to the subwoofer. Because my center channel, like most center channel speakers, is low frequency limited, I just don’t hear the full capabilities of the double bass in the center channel.

     

    Other negatives are the mixed filter mode using FIR and IIR, with phase changes, and lack of filter taps for low frequency control compared to a full computer solution, equaling less resolution.

     

    One really nice feature of this hybrid approach is a zero latency mode. It’s possible to have zero latency, but the amount of correction is limited. I’ve used SoundID Reference for testing video playback, and everything is in sync perfectly. However, use of minimum phase FIR filters, as mentioned above, also offer zero latency and control bass frequencies very well.

     

    This hybrid approach is most commonly used in professional studios rather than audiophile listening rooms. However, it is a nice option to have. I’m glad it is an add-on to the Merging Anubis because I can use it if I need it. But, I wouldn’t go out of my way to get it, if I already had Audiolense and a convolution engine running on a computer. The audio output just doesn’t sound as good to me, most likely because it’s objectively less precise due to hardware and software limitations.

     

     

    Traditional Processor - This approach is the most popular and by far the easiest. Traditional processors such as those from Trinnov, Marantz, and Anthem have built-in immersive audio decoders and digital room correction. Dirac, RoomPerfect, and Audyssey are some of the bigger names embedded into traditional processors.

     

    The typical workflow for decoding and room correction couldn’t be easier. Connecting an Apple TV to a processor and streaming Apple Music or Tidal will get Dolby Atmos music flowing into the system with a couple clicks. Playing TrueHD Dolby Atmos can be done by putting the MKV downloads or Blu-ray rips onto an NVIDIA Shield connected to the processor and tapping play. Fully decoded and processed with the tap of a finger.

     

    The quality of digital room correction in traditional processors is all over the board. It ranges from those that make the sound worse to those that do a really great job. It all comes down to the sophistication of the software and the horsepower of the hardware.

     

    Taking measurements involves zero computers and often a microphone made specifically for the processor or brand of processors. Just add to cart, connect it when it arrives, and run through the setup wizard. Sophisticated products like the Trinnov Altitude 16 or 32 enable one to VNC into the processor to make adjustments and see an approximation of the end results of the DSP. The beauty of this is a good Trinnov dealer will handle all of the configuration, and use the brilliant team at Trinnov for backup in tough situations.

     

    Similar to the hybrid approach, running DSP on A/V hardware hits its limits due to lack of horsepower. Limited number of filter taps, IIR filters or mixed mode IIR and FIR filters, will equate to sound quality that isn’t as good as the computer only approach. However, and this is a big however, because these processors are designed to work with video simultaneously, they are designed to have minimal latency, which lowers the amount of DSP processing they can do. The products are working as designed.

     

    On the other hand, a processor like a Trinnov Altitude 32 uses a computer internally and technically could adjust for latency like JRiver does, but I don’t believe it has enough processing power to run 65,536 tap FIR filters to keep everything in phase and control bass down to 2.2 Hz.

     

    The ease of use of these processors can’t be overstated. In fact, I’ve been working with a very high end dealer for the last several months on an immersive system design, and I recommended a Trinnov Altitude processor for the specific installation. It’s the right horse for many courses. In this case, the listener forwent playback of discrete DXD and state of the art room correction, in favor of great room correction and ease of playing Atmos content from an Apple TV and NVIDIA Shield. The fact that the Trinnov is a Roon Ready endpoint for up through eight channel PCM is also a bonus that factored in the final decision.

     

    Given that the traditional processors are all proprietary, it’s hard to say what’s going on inside. The user manuals give some clues and show users how to use different filter modes, such as IIR, FIR, and mixed FIR+IIR, but that’s a very high level look into what’s going on. I wish some of them would reveal more details because they really have a lot to offer as opposed to some of the mass market processors using the cheapest and weakest chips to get audio decoded and processed.

     

    When I began my immersive audio journey I planned on using a Trinnov Altitude processor as method of playback. I would still like to make this happen, more because I want to experience it first hand in my own room and I want to know how it works as well as I can. This would enable me to educate readers about the product much more.

     

    Last, as a music only audiophile I don’t want a screen in my listening room. Call me old school, but that’s just the way I like it. A traditional processor necessitates the use of a screen of some type. There are possible ways to use some processors without a screen, but as of right now, I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone who likes a fiddle-free listening experience. I’m looking for and testing solutions that enable me to use a device like the Arvus to decode and output Atmos from an Apple TV and Shield, without a display. The Shield can be operated without a display, but the Apple TV is another story. I have some ideas.

     

     

    Digital Signal Processing Wrap Up

     

    DSP, both decoding and digital room correction, not to mention all the other items for which DSP is used, is a cavernous hole with many unknowns to all but the most geeky audiophiles. I don’t consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have used many of the products and talked to several true experts in the field.

     

    Like many technologies, digital signal processing is limited by the sophistication of the software and horsepower of the hardware. In addition, in the hands of a professional, DSP can be magical or in the hands of a novice, it can enable sound quality that reaches new lows. Tread lightly and call in the pros when needed.

     

    Immersive audio playback involves decoding and room correction, which are commonly linked to the same device. They don’t have to be, but they usually are. Understanding oneself is key to making a decision about which route will best work in any given system. A Computer only route will provide the best objective audio performance, while the traditional processor route will provide the most convenient and easiest use. For many the key will be bringing these two ends of the continuum as close together as possible, and as of today this is done with a Trinnov Altitude processor.

     

    I am sold on the state of the art room correction offered by Audiolense and filters created by Mitch Barnett of Accurate Sound. The sound quality is second to none, both subjectively and objectively. This is the only way to create a high end immersive experience on the same level as many two channel audiophile systems.

     

     

     

    Further Reading

     

     

    • All Audiophile Style immersive audio articles can be fund here (link)

     

     

    NOTE: Please post comments, questions, concerns, corrections in the section below or contact us




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I think that DSP is the third most important component in my system, only coming behind the room and the speakers. It is even more important than what type of amplifiers I use, or what DAC. This is because DSP can make a massive difference to your system's performance. 

     

    Unlike you, I have chosen Acourate which IMO offers some advantages over Audiolense but also some drawbacks. Acourate is not for everybody, it lacks the automation of Audiolense, and you are forced to make a lot of decisions where Audiolense does things automatically. Almost anything can be done with Acourate, you just have to figure out the workflow and what tools you are going to use. For example, you can independently adjust bands of phase of each subwoofer so that they do not cancel. You can create a Virtual Bass Array (VBA). And then there is my latest experiment, which is using a time delayed speaker pointed in the opposite direction of my main speakers (i.e into the front wall) so that I get time delayed and attenuated reflections which greatly enhances the perception of spaciousness. There are special crossover types, like the Horbach-Keele crossover which allows you to phase steer the audio beam if you have an MTM speaker. 

    I have seen Audiolense in action and I am very impressed. For 90% of people who need DSP, Audiolense will do everything you need, and do it quickly and easily. An in-depth understanding of DSP is not needed. But if you are a DSP nerd like me, and you like to play, then Acourate is a better choice. It does come at a massive cost though - the learning curve is substantial, the workflows are unnecessarily inconvenient (e.g. there is a limit of 6 curves that can be loaded at a time), and the options you are presented with are a bit opaque. There is very little automation in Acourate, and for something like time alignment (which is done automatically in Audiolense), Acourate makes you go through a manual process of measuring each driver independently and looking for peaks in the graph to determine the time delay. I have used Acourate for 8 years now, and I am reasonably proficient at it. 

     

    There is a lot to be said about the benefits of automation offered by software like Audiolense. It reduces the potential for human error, which is the number 1 reason why people get unsatisfactory correction with DSP. If you choose the manual method, then you have a lot of learning to do. I have had to learn about signal processing theory (e.g. what is the difference between minimum phase, linear phase, excess phase, FIR vs IIR filters, etc), room acoustics, psychoacoustics, speaker crossover design, and much more. I consider this time well spent. After all, if you are an audio nerd you should learn about these things. Over the years, I have learnt new ways to measure, developed new philosophies on room correction and target curves, come up with interesting experiments (most of my experiments are hare brained and they do not work!). It has been a really fun journey, and I am still on that journey. 

     

    The other part of my journey is having fun with VST's. You briefly touched upon VST's in your article. I have played extensively with VST's. Nearly all of them offer a free trial period, or are outright free. Most VST's are professional tools intended for use in a DAW, but will work in JRiver. I regularly use uBACCH, a Pultec equalizer (gives you the famous "Pultec punch") and a VST to add harmonic distortion that allows me to mimic the warmth of a tube amp if I wanted to. 

     

    I can say without hesitation that DSP has completely transformed my system. The clarity of this system is unequalled. The dynamics are amazing, all the wavefronts from all the drivers arrive simultaneously with millimetre precision and it is extraordinarily lifelike. uBACCH throws the soundstage really deep, way deeper than the front wall and it can extend to slightly behind you ... from only two front speakers. The effect has to be heard to be believed, and it is simply not possible in any system without DSP. At the same time, the system is chameleon-like, I can totally transform the sound of the system at the push of a few buttons. About the only aspect of the system I have no control over are the physical limitations baked into the design of the speaker, e.g. the directivity pattern. 

     

    My advice to anybody who wants to use DSP or take up DSP as a hobby is this: get help, but learn to swim. Yes, you can hire Mitch and you will quickly get a set of filters that I am sure will sound great and make you very happy. Your next step is to try to beat him ;) I make new filters for every slight change in my system, e.g. if I change the furniture or move the sofa. I recently decided to check the directivity of my horns and compare it to the conventional woofers, then decided to redo the crossover to a shallower slope, allowing a more gradual blend between woofer and horn so that the directivity does not change so suddenly. Hiring a service like Mitch should be seen as a starting point and not the end point. Knowing how to do this myself has saved me a lot of money. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, Keith_W said:

    Yes Mitch I know that Acourate is not for everybody. I know someone who is putting together a 5.2 system and asked me to help him correct his system with DSP. He wanted to use Acourate. I strongly advised against it, my recommendation was Audiolense + send you an email.

     

    I go through that time alignment procedure for my 8 channel system (2x active 3 way speakers + 2 subwoofers) and it takes me hours to do it. So I was pretty impressed when a friend who used Audiolense came over with his laptop. 30 minutes was spent explaining my system architecture to him, downloading drivers, performing channel checks, and all the usual futzing around before a single sweep can be done. But when he actually got to it, the whole thing was done within 15 minutes, from crossover generation to usable filters and verification measurement (had to be done in REW, because Audiolense can't do verification measurements?). I was amazed when I saw the step response, it was textbook perfect. Not that I can't get the same result, but despite my proficiency, it takes me a long time. 

     

    Many years ago, DSP correction via Acourate/Audiolense was much less well known and it was difficult to get help. This was even before your book came out. I posted a question asking about it in another forum, and a very kind member rang me from the USA to talk me through it. I have never forgotten his help and I am grateful for as long as I remain in this hobby, which will stay with me as long as I have intact hearing! I hope to do everything I can to help people see the benefits of DSP, in the same way that he helped me.

     

    I am not partial to one software solution over another, I think there are different advantages and disadvantages to different software packages that might suit some folk more than others. Acourate has a very "Teutonic" approach which is both good and bad depending if you are the kind of person who enjoys doing your own car maintenance.

     

    When I first bought your book I thought that I am way out of my depth here, but after 8 years and multiple re-readings, I have gone on to look up all the references you cited and come to my own conclusions. For example, you recommend measuring without the sofa. I asked myself why I should do that, when the listening sofa is always at that position? So I performed the experiment - measure with and without sofa, correction with/without sofa, and verification measurement with/without sofa. There is a noticeable difference measurably and audibly. Conclusion: measuring and correcting without sofa and then performing the verification measurement with the sofa in situ messes up the correction, but it actually sounds better. 

     

    Another example: Toole says that the Harman target is not a target, it is the result of putting a speaker that measures flat under anechoic conditions in a room, this will naturally roll off the higher frequencies. In your book you suggested choosing a target to preference. So I tried Toole's suggestion, I knew that limitations of measurement means that any freqs < 425Hz (transition zone in my room calculated from 4x Schroder) would be meaningless, but that is OK because I was planning to use a different bass correction strategy anyway. I corrected the nearfield response to flat, then applied correction < Schroder. To my surprise, verification measurements showed a rising treble response at MLP instead of a falling one! Anyway, after a lot of investigation it turns out that the directivity of the horns was causing them to behave differently to the more omni woofer. So what does that say about Toole? I think it may not apply to horns, although I am not brave enough to say that to him ;) My system, I do what I want, and I use my own target curve, as per your recommendation in your book. 

     

    Anyway, to other readers of AS: DSP is a really worthwhile pursuit. I think that in 2024, every system should have DSP. I would go further than Chris and say that anybody who refuses to consider it is stuck in outdated thinking and misplaced priorities. 


    What an enjoyable read @Keith_W. Its about the journey and destination. 
     

    When I started going down the DSP road I assumed there was a single objective destination that math and physics would lead me to. I quickly learned, with tons of information from Mitch, that the objective hands off to the subjective once the fundamentals are taken care of. Target curves and final adjustments are all about preferences. Once I grasped that, I had much more fun working with Mitch to get the best sound possible. 
     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thank you for a very informative article. It is very interesting to see immersive playback unfold and you are spearheading that front to a large extent. However, don't forget about the antiquated 2-channel setup entirely :) and we can use some network DSP there as well. Had to smile that you did draw the immersive audio line by subtracting the use of a screen.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 minutes ago, SQFIRST said:

    Thank you for a very informative article. It is very interesting to see immersive playback unfold and you are spearheading that front to a large extent. However, don't forget about the antiquated 2-channel setup entirely :) and we can use some network DSP there as well. Had to smile that you did draw the immersive audio line by subtracting the use of a screen.

    Thanks for the kind words. 

     

    I will never forget about two channel. I listened to a great two channel album this morning on my main system and I listen to two channel at my desk all the time. Immersive is just another option for people. 

     

    Network DSP for all, would be great. We need to get HiFi manufacturers to embrace Ravenna. It puts everything on the network and opens up a world of possibilities. If it's good enough to capture a live orchestra, where there are no second chances, it's good enough for HiFi. 

     

    No screens allowed in my room :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Network DSP for all, would be great. We need to get HiFi manufacturers to embrace Ravenna. It puts everything on the network and opens up a world of possibilities. If it's good enough to capture a live orchestra, where there are no second chances, it's good enough for HiFi. 

     

    I use Ravenna. I am sold on its benefits. For me, the main benefit is that I do not need to look for a 16 channel DAC. There are very few of those around! Instead, I can buy two 8 channel Ravenna DAC's and a microphone interface. Ravenna ties all the equipment together and tells the PC "I am a device with 16 DAC channels, 4 microphone inputs, and 8 digital inputs" (or something like that). You can put together as many channels as you want. 

     

    The problem with Ravenna (and also Dante and AVB) is that they are pro audio standards. Not easy for us amateur hobbyists to set up. I already find my RME intimidatingly difficult, let alone Ravenna which adds the complexity of network audio and multiple modes into the mix. I keep telling myself that I am a home audio enthusiast. I am not running a broadcast studio, or routing audio in a stadium, or an airport, or any situation where network audio would be a massive advantage. But now that I am starting to run out of DAC channels, I appreciate the flexibility of Ravenna. Someone who is into immersive audio with more speakers than me would see more of a benefit. 

    BTW, aren't you the guy who blew up his speakers when trying out the Merging Anubis? ;) Not easy to set up, are they. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, Keith_W said:

    BTW, aren't you the guy who blew up his speakers when trying out the Merging Anubis? ;) Not easy to set up, are they.

    Ha! yes, I blew a pair of Wilson Audio TuneTots up with an Anubis. I've come a long way. Now I can configure it with my eyes closed and I know the Anubis and HAPI Mk2 inside and out. Right now I have the Anubis setup to receive 7.1.4 from my MacBook Pro, and 4.0, 5.1, and 7.1.4 from an Aurender ACS10. I just switch "inputs" on the Anubis screen at my listening position. It's so flexible. I love it. 

     

    This complexity is only there for people like us who want to know everything about the components and how to configure them. Normal people (we aren't normal), could have it configured by an expert, then never touch it. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Target curves and final adjustments are all about preferences. 

     

    Welllllllllllllllllll that is a bit of a can of worms. If you read what Toole says in his book, he says that good speakers should have two properties: (1) they measure flat under anechoic conditions, (2) they have constant directivity. If you place such a speaker in a room and listen farfield, you will obtain a Harman-like curve (there is a good video by Erin on Youtube that explains why). Toole has said himself on another forum that equalizing a speaker to reproduce the Harman curve at MLP is wrong, because an on-axis correction also affects the off-axis response, which will produce reflections which are spectrally incorrect. There is no "choose your target curve based on your preference". 

     

    Toole's motivation is to narrow the "circle of confusion" - have the studios produce music mastered through standardized sound systems, played back in our homes using speakers designed to achieve certain standards of performance. The recordings have to be mastered on systems so that they are faithful to the original sound, and have to be played back on systems that reproduce the sound of the master faithfully and accurately. Only then can we have "accurate sound". 

     

    However, in the real world, even studios can not get something as basic as the frequency response correct. Genelec did a study using their GLM tool, which is a calibration tool for their speakers. They observed a wide variety of frequency responses in studios. And this is only for studios with Genelec speakers, who bothered to pay extra for the GLM tool. In reality the variance is probably much worse than that Genelec study. 

     

    I would argue that this gives me license to adjust the frequency tilt as I please. For each recording, if necessary. So, like you, I have gone for a preference target. I am not an authority figure, I am merely an amateur hobbyist in an ocean of amateur hobbyists. I have no business arguing with Toole. Or Mitch, for that matter. BUT ... sometimes authority figures disagree, leaving us minnows confused. So I read what they say, try to understand their points of view, and make up my own mind. After all, the sign of an educated person is the ability to entertain contradictory points of view and weigh them up fairly. 

     

    BTW I recently came across a new method for generating a target curve that removes the "room transfer function", restoring your speaker to a flat anechoic response. You perform a nearfield MMM of your speakers, then perform a MLP MMM. The idea is that the MLP MMM captures the "speaker + room" response, and the nearfield is speaker only. If you subtract the nearfield MMM from the MLP MMM, you will obtain the "room transfer function". If you set this as your target curve, it will correct the nearfield response to flat. I have tried this, and it works for frequencies above transition (i.e. 4x Schroder, about 440Hz in my room). If you want to learn more, google "Magic Beans room correction joe n tell". You will find some videos. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have a Denon AVR, although this is more used as a processor as I have external amps for all but the height speakers.

     

    This comes with Audyssey as the default "built in" software. Optional software is also available, Dirac Live (limited Bandwidth), Dirac Live (Full Bandwidth) and Dirac Live Bass Control.

     

    I am assuming that Dirac Live Bass Control is of no use to me, I do not use a subwoofer.

     

    So I am thinking of getting the licence for for the Full bandwidth Dirac Live Room Correction. The licence is $349.

     

    I presume that the Full Bandwidth Dirac option is superior to Audyssey?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Confused said:

    I have a Denon AVR, although this is more used as a processor as I have external amps for all but the height speakers.

     

    This comes with Audyssey as the default "built in" software. Optional software is also available, Dirac Live (limited Bandwidth), Dirac Live (Full Bandwidth) and Dirac Live Bass Control.

     

    I am assuming that Dirac Live Bass Control is of no use to me, I do not use a subwoofer.

     

    So I am thinking of getting the licence for for the Full bandwidth Dirac Live Room Correction. The licence is $349.

     

    I presume that the Full Bandwidth Dirac option is superior to Audyssey?


    I have no direct experience with Audyssey, but I know many people who believe your assumption is correct. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Audyssey is ok, particularly if your Denon will allow use of the professional measurement kit, as my Marantz AV-8802A can do. But, I agree with @The Computer Audiophile: Dirac is said to do substantially better, certainly than the standard Multeq XT32 Audyssey that your Denon likely has built in. And I’ve moved to Audiolense XO, which in my personal experience is way better than Audyssey. You might consider that as an investment over the Dirac license. JCR 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    One of hybrid approaches could be use of Genelec SAM speakers with GLM software.

    It allows for speaker-level bass management with optional 9301B interface (~$1k).
    Linear phase from 100Hz up or low latency (~3ms); your choice.

    Not as good spec as computer based DSP, but pretty good (and expensive).

    You only need Merging Horus or Hapi (depending on number channels) without and DAC cards. DACs are built in to speakers.

    If that is not enough, you can optionally use computer based DSP before sending stream to Merging.

     

    Cheers,

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    19 hours ago, maxijazz said:

    One of hybrid approaches could be use of Genelec SAM speakers with GLM software.

    It allows for speaker-level bass management with optional 9301B interface (~$1k).
    Linear phase from 100Hz up or low latency (~3ms); your choice.

    Not as good spec as computer based DSP, but pretty good (and expensive).

    You only need Merging Horus or Hapi (depending on number channels) without and DAC cards. DACs are built in to speakers.

    If that is not enough, you can optionally use computer based DSP before sending stream to Merging.

     

    Cheers,

     

    Hi @maxijazz Thanks for bringing up this option. It raises some questions I've been thinking about over the weekend. 

     

    If using Genelec speakers with built-in DACs and DSP, where does the volume control take place and how does the user control it? For example, if I'm streaming from JRiver to a HAPI to Genelec speakers. Without an Anubis, the user would have to be physically turning the knob of the HAPI for volume control. 

     

    Also, if volume control is done prior to DSP inside the speakers, is this a big no-no? In my head this is an issue, but I honesty don't know if it plays out this way. 

     

    I've been thinking of putting a DSP box between my Anubis and HAPI, but my hesitation is that the Anubis does volume control and this will reduce resolution for the DSP filters. 

     

    @DigiPete do you have experience with Genelec DSP?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    35 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

     

    Hi @maxijazz Thanks for bringing up this option. It raises some questions I've been thinking about over the weekend. 

     

    If using Genelec speakers with built-in DACs and DSP, where does the volume control take place and how does the user control it? For example, if I'm streaming from JRiver to a HAPI to Genelec speakers. Without an Anubis, the user would have to be physically turning the knob of the HAPI for volume control. 

     

    Also, if volume control is done prior to DSP inside the speakers, is this a big no-no? In my head this is an issue, but I honesty don't know if it plays out this way. 

     

    I've been thinking of putting a DSP box between my Anubis and HAPI, but my hesitation is that the Anubis does volume control and this will reduce resolution for the DSP filters. 

     

     

    In example, in 8351B_operating_manual_rev_b.pdf, on page 7, there is Figure 12.
    It is best option to use Genelec SAM speakers with GLM4 software through GLM kit.
    You can get optional volume controller 9301b, that you connect to the GLM kit. It will apply your volume level at "Level  and optional gain" place on Figure 12. 
    I have the GLM kit powered by USB2 in my music server (=> whenever i start music server, the GLM kit gets powered at same time).

    There is also optional 9101B remote, but it requires GLM4 software be up and running on a computer (if i remember well).
    You can control volume directly from GLM4 software using mouse (on-screen slider), but it requires computer and software up and running (which i have headless).

     

    Without the GLM4 software or 9301b volume controller (or newly released 9320A, which is expensive stuff), you must use an analog or digital volume controller somewhere before signal reaches speaker (your Anubis would do).

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I ran new sweeps last week using a cross-spectrum calibrated EMM-6 and a Teac UH-7000 directly driving my amplifier.  Forgot to turn system sounds off and thankfully the Revels are robust. 😬 I couldn't get the mic align to work in LSR3 on my laptop so I eyballed it and used LSR2 and after a few iterations apparently hit the gold spot.  Although I bought Mitch's book almost 7 years ago, I just finished it in September.  So, this was my first go at it post-book reading.  I built double-length 130k tap filters and wound up with almost perfect IACC numbers for the first time ever; the step response was an almost perfect triangle and the channels tracked remarkably well with no changes to the default windowing or pre-ring compensation.  There's no question that acourate is an amazing DSP toolkit.  I will probably try Audiolense next just because.  I am waiting for the next edition of your book that includes a full treatment of Audiolense and anything new for acourate users too. I couldn't imagine my system without DSP and have been using acourate for more than 10 years now and also Dirac as well for multichannel.  I wish to compare my theater/multichannel set up with Audiolense filters vs. Dirac +DLBC and DART as I can drive my HT preamp from HQPlayer through HDMI from Roon.  What a time to be an audiophile!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 1/28/2024 at 7:26 PM, jrobbins50 said:

    Audyssey is ok, particularly if your Denon will allow use of the professional measurement kit, as my Marantz AV-8802A can do. But, I agree with @The Computer Audiophile: Dirac is said to do substantially better, certainly than the standard Multeq XT32 Audyssey that your Denon likely has built in. And I’ve moved to Audiolense XO, which in my personal experience is way better than Audyssey. You might consider that as an investment over the Dirac license. JCR 

     

    It looks like you are correct. From the Denon specifications:

     

    image.png.a29ae7e8f71ca7e67044309cda51ad17.png

     

    One point to clarify, I am already using convolution filters created using Focus Fidelity Filter Designer for my 2 channel system. This is streaming via PC / HQPlayer / NAA. I am very happy with both the functionality and the ultimate sound quality results from FFFD.

     

    So I am only thinking of Dirac for the 7.4 ATMOS side of things. Am I right that Audiolense is for PC only? For my surround system the source will be Blu-ray discs, Apple TV and similar, nothing streamed from a PC. So this takes me back to Dirac being my best option I think, for multi-channel at least.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Audiolense is indeed a PC based software product. JCR 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Confused said:

    So I am only thinking of Dirac for the 7.4 ATMOS side of things. Am I right that Audiolense is for PC only? For my surround system the source will be Blu-ray discs, Apple TV and similar, nothing streamed from a PC. So this takes me back to Dirac being my best option I think, for multi-channel at least.

     

    One of the really cool benefits of using a protocol like Ravenna / AES67 is that you can route audio from non-computer devices to a computer for DSP. For example, I could use a Blu-ray player or Apple TV connected to an Arvus H-1D (HDMI in / AES67 out) and send that audio stream to Hang Loose Convolver for room correction, then out to my audio system. One can also just rip the Blu-ray and stream from Apple Music to get the same content if desired. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, Confused said:

    So I am only thinking of Dirac for the 7.4 ATMOS side of things. Am I right that Audiolense is for PC only? For my surround system the source will be Blu-ray discs, Apple TV and similar, nothing streamed from a PC. So this takes me back to Dirac being my best option I think, for multi-channel at least.

    I think for your case, Dirac is the way to go. Plus, Dirac allows for correcting multiple subwoofers with a Dirac Live Bass Control license and soon will also support Active Room Treatment too.  These are good features that distinguish Dirac from other embedded RC solutions and may actually e a better way to go than building filters in Audiolense, particularly for Apple Music streaming. While I will have the ability to compare Dirac to Audiolense, I suspect that I may actually prefer Dirac because of the bass control and eventually active room treatment even if Dirac is not as accurate as Audilense in phase correction and time alignment.  Different rooms and speakers benefit from different corrections, so I think which of them is best is going to vary quite a bit.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...