Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new MiniDSP 2x4HD has made all my skills obsolete. How about yours?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • craigk
    replied
    Originally posted by fjhuerta View Post
    You can build a flatter response curve, and with zero phase issues, with the MiniDSP - plus, without parasitic losses, or BSC losses. Simply put, you can't do that with passives. I have no doubts in my mind the MiniDSP would not sound like a passive design. It would sound quite a lot better. You could argue your simpler passive design "sounds better" - but that would be subjectively speaking Objectively speaking, you can't build a crossover as perfect as with the MiniDSP, no matter what you did. That's the whole point I was trying to make. If making accurate, excellent sounding speakers was my original goal, the way to do it is with a MiniDSP, or better. Anything else now seems too compromised (and far more expensive, a passive crossover can be a heck of a lot more costly than a 2x4HD).
    Mini dsp does not fix all types of phase issues. BS is still a problem with DSP, and you still have to compensate for it. Mini DSP is not a fix all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sydney
    replied
    Originally posted by fjhuerta View Post
    ...You could argue your simpler passive design "sounds better" - but that would be subjectively speaking..
    You asked what I was reluctant to ask ( didn't want to seem contentious ).
    I also would expect differences as noted:
    ... parasitic losses,...
    including passive devices non-linearity as power and temperature increase. While not often a problem at lower levels, at high levels inductors can have audible hysteresis and saturation distortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • fjhuerta
    replied
    Originally posted by TN Allen View Post

    Were you able to exactly duplicate the passive response curve with the MiniDSP, would the two have sounded the same? Put another way, was the MiniDSP FR possibly too flat?
    You can build a flatter response curve, and with zero phase issues, with the MiniDSP - plus, without parasitic losses, or BSC losses.

    Simply put, you can't do that with passives. I have no doubts in my mind the MiniDSP would not sound like a passive design. It would sound quite a lot better. You could argue your simpler passive design "sounds better" - but that would be subjectively speaking Objectively speaking, you can't build a crossover as perfect as with the MiniDSP, no matter what you did.

    That's the whole point I was trying to make. If making accurate, excellent sounding speakers was my original goal, the way to do it is with a MiniDSP, or better. Anything else now seems too compromised (and far more expensive, a passive crossover can be a heck of a lot more costly than a 2x4HD).

    Leave a comment:


  • TN Allen
    replied
    Originally posted by PWR RYD View Post
    I played around with my MiniDSP 2x4 quite a bit with a 2 way with some very good drivers. I never felt like it sounded as good as with the same drivers with a fairly simple passive crossover even though the active had a flatter/smoother FR...
    Were you able to exactly duplicate the passive response curve with the MiniDSP, would the two have sounded the same? Put another way, was the MiniDSP FR possibly too flat?

    Leave a comment:


  • ani_101
    replied
    Yes you are right, the regular minidsp 2x4 you can add a volume pot. The 2x4HD is digital.

    Leave a comment:


  • fjhuerta
    replied
    Originally posted by ani_101 View Post
    You CAN wire in a pot in the mini DSP 2x4 for analog volume control, though I have not tried it. I just use the source to control it.

    From the minidsp form:

    You can think of it more like an attenuator for the inputs. The miniDSP is (essentially) a unity gain device and voltage gain is not possible unless programmed via EQ functions.

    The volume control provides attenuation from 0db to approximately -49db.

    Check out this thread for some further info:
    https://www.minidsp.com/forum/hardwa...trol-questions

    Scroll down to post# 9071/9072
    The new MiniDSP actually has a volume control built in, accesible via infrared remote control.

    Leave a comment:


  • ani_101
    replied
    You CAN wire in a pot in the mini DSP 2x4 for analog volume control, though I have not tried it. I just use the source to control it.

    From the minidsp form:

    You can think of it more like an attenuator for the inputs. The miniDSP is (essentially) a unity gain device and voltage gain is not possible unless programmed via EQ functions.

    The volume control provides attenuation from 0db to approximately -49db.

    Check out this thread for some further info:
    https://www.minidsp.com/forum/hardwa...trol-questions

    Scroll down to post# 9071/9072

    Leave a comment:


  • PWR RYD
    replied
    I played around with my MiniDSP 2x4 quite a bit with a 2 way with some very good drivers. I never felt like it sounded as good as with the same drivers with a fairly simple passive crossover even though the active had a flatter/smoother FR.
    Later I started to play with a 3 way, using the MiniDSP 2x4 to cross between the woofers and a passive XO MT. This is where I feel digital shines... the high cost of passive components at lower frequencies and their interaction with the woofer/mid impedance curves makes the digital xo a better solution.

    That said I will never ditch passive crossovers... and I will never rule out active/DSP crossovers.

    Leave a comment:


  • TN Allen
    replied
    Sorry, should have put that more clearly. There would be a rudimentary crossover, but forget that idea. I have an answer to my question, and probably won't bother trying it. It really was specualtive rather than practical.

    I have an attenuator for each of the Dynaco amps, and did order the remote with the 2X4HD, though as you say, it may not work well.

    I found it fairly easy to use the 2X4 and Sure 4X100 to adjust for a suitable sound with a 2 way system, which is to say, I used the MiniDSP for tone control. The cabinets I build have waveguides milled into the front baffles, sometimes a single for the tweeter, sometimes a combination tweeter and midrange. The MiniDSP has been a convenient way to adjust for a pleasant sound. I suspect the wgs would complicate passive crossover design. Given my hearing is compromised, I adjust for what is pleasant for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • emilime75
    replied
    Originally posted by TN Allen View Post

    You have rephrased my question accurately. However my interest is simply curiosity, rather than saving money. Some of what was written in posts previous to my questions, suggested to me the possibility of controlling 2 carefully chosen drivers, a tweeter and woofer, using one MiniDSP channel.

    I ordered a 2X4HD this morning, and have a few extra amps to connect 4 independant channels. This is most likely what I'll do. My primary interest in the 2X4HD is the digital input. I had tried a Minidigi with the 2X4 without success. The 2X4HD digital input seems a better choice. I'm also interested in eliminating preamps. But doing without bass and treble controls may prove unworkable. However, perhaps the 2X4HD can provide a suitable substitue?
    Maybe I'm not understanding, but why would you connect both a woofer, and a tweeter, to the same DSP channel? Both drivers would end up playing the exact same frequency range, determined by the chosen DSP settings.

    The MiniDSP isn't really a preamp. Analog volume control isn't possible on it, as it was on the older boards. There's digital, via IR remote, but last I heard it was buggy...but the Dev team was looking into a fix for that, so maybe that's been fixed. The other drawback is that you don't have any visual feedback of where your volume is set with the remote. You'll likely still want to use a preamp before the DSP.

    Leave a comment:


  • TN Allen
    replied
    Originally posted by vapor602 View Post

    I don't think people are interpreting his question the same way I am. Either that or not reading my response as it relates to his question. I don't see how anything in that link is relevant to the quesiton. This has nothing to do with the general discussion relating to the overall phase, linear phase, or the FIR filters. I shouldn't have said anything because I think the 'phase' part of my comment is getting confused with other discussion related to the added features in the newer revision of the MiniDSP.




    To me it sounds as though he is asking about connecting multiple drivers to the same amplifier channel. As opposed to the 'norm' of having a separate DSP/amplifier channel for each individual driver, as he has already stated he himself uses. I assume the purpose of the question would be to find out if we could save money by not requiring a separate DSP and amplifier channel, for each driver. So let me try to rephrase his question.

    If you connect a woofer and tweeter together on the same amplifier channel, with only one DSP channel to control both of those drivers within the same channel, and no passive XO network, could you still use the DSP to create a linear output across the speaker pair?

    I was merely suggesting that they will not naturally be in phase, with each other. As they are connected to the same channel, there is no way to adjust their phase independently. So, would you agree that it would generally be a bad idea to attempt to use the DSP to match two drivers connected to the same DSP channel? There are other reasons not to, but I'm just pointing out the phase issue specifically.
    You have rephrased my question accurately. However my interest is simply curiosity, rather than saving money. Some of what was written in posts previous to my questions, suggested to me the possibility of controlling 2 carefully chosen drivers, a tweeter and woofer, using one MiniDSP channel.

    I ordered a 2X4HD this morning, and have a few extra amps to connect 4 independant channels. This is most likely what I'll do. My primary interest in the 2X4HD is the digital input. I had tried a Minidigi with the 2X4 without success. The 2X4HD digital input seems a better choice. I'm also interested in eliminating preamps. But doing without bass and treble controls may prove unworkable. However, perhaps the 2X4HD can provide a suitable substitue?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sydney
    replied
    Originally posted by vapor602 View Post
    I don't think people are interpreting his question the same way I am....
    Perhaps not

    Leave a comment:


  • vapor602
    replied
    Originally posted by Sydney View Post
    I don't think people are interpreting his question the same way I am. Either that or not reading my response as it relates to his question. I don't see how anything in that link is relevant to the quesiton. This has nothing to do with the general discussion relating to the overall phase, linear phase, or the FIR filters. I shouldn't have said anything because I think the 'phase' part of my comment is getting confused with other discussion related to the added features in the newer revision of the MiniDSP.


    Originally posted by TN Allen View Post
    ...with each driving a 2 way tweeter/woofer combination...
    To me it sounds as though he is asking about connecting multiple drivers to the same amplifier channel. As opposed to the 'norm' of having a separate DSP/amplifier channel for each individual driver, as he has already stated he himself uses. I assume the purpose of the question would be to find out if we could save money by not requiring a separate DSP and amplifier channel, for each driver. So let me try to rephrase his question.

    If you connect a woofer and tweeter together on the same amplifier channel, with only one DSP channel to control both of those drivers within the same channel, and no passive XO network, could you still use the DSP to create a linear output across the speaker pair?

    I was merely suggesting that they will not naturally be in phase, with each other. As they are connected to the same channel, there is no way to adjust their phase independently. So, would you agree that it would generally be a bad idea to attempt to use the DSP to match two drivers connected to the same DSP channel? There are other reasons not to, but I'm just pointing out the phase issue specifically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike220
    replied
    Im curious about the placement of the minidsp is the signal chain. I placed it after my preamp but i had some odd sounding anomalies at a few frequencies and stopped using it. It seems fine for running a passive 2way and a pair of subs with just 2 rca inputs.

    It could have been that my signal chain was different on the measurements.

    Cdplayer - minidsp - apa150 - L/R channels plugged into a tweeter and woofer. Ill have to mess around with it again. I used an apa 150 when i took my measurements with omnimic but after thinking about it i probably should have went to the preamp then to minidsp then amp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sydney
    replied
    Phase Delay Enhances 3D Audio

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X