[krismusic]

i had a friend who was a sound engineer. He was firmly of the opinion that heavy processing of sound by end users could only bugger up
( technical term!) the signal.
I was looking at this device.
http://www.digizoid.com/
An anathema to a purist but would it do as claimed and make music more enjoyable??

 

[ralphp@optonline]

i had a friend who was a sound engineer. He was firmly of the opinion that heavy processing of sound by end users could only bugger up
( technical term!) the signal.
I was looking at this device.
http://www.digizoid.com/
An anathema to a purist but would it do as claimed and make music more enjoyable??

I may be mistaken but isn't the sound engineers who add the dynamic range compression (aka "The Loudness Wars") to almost every new and remastered popular music release thereby totally and irreversibly buggering up the sound for everyone.
 
In other words, people who live in giant glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Mr Rick]

i had a friend who was a sound engineer. He was firmly of the opinion that heavy processing of sound by end users could only bugger up
( technical term!) the signal.
I was looking at this device.
http://www.digizoid.com/
An anathema to a purist but would it do as claimed and make music more enjoyable??

Only you can decide what sounds good to you.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Some digital equalizers can seriously damage the signal. (A good example would be iPod EQ presets.) A hardware EQ device will not do this. Some of the better digital EQ programs also won't produce much audible distortion.

 

[bigshot]

The whole point of processing is to *improve* the sound. What is the point otherwise?
 
Equalization is used, particularly with speaker rigs, to correct for frequency response imbalances in speakers and the effect of room acoustics. No speaker has a balanced response out of the box. The second you put it in a living room, it will sound different. Room treatment and EQ are the two tools for correcting that. You do as much room treatment as you can and still have a livable room, and make up the difference with an equalizer.
 
With 5.1 speaker rigs, DSPs are very important to achieving optimal sound. The point of a 5.1 system is to be able to create a coherent sound field, which is essentially a three dimensional, engulfing sound stage. DSPs allow you to adjust the phase of the sound field to emulate larger rooms with better acoustics. A good DSP can take a stereo, or even mono recording and re-channel the sound to create the impression of a real dimensional concert hall.
 
I have a box set of Toscanini recordings from studio 4H in New York City. The studio was notoriously cramped and dry, and the recordings sound dead, especially since they are in mono. But if you take those recordings and run them through a DSP that emulates a classical concert hall, they sound as good as many stereo recordings recorded in much better venues.
 
At this point, the fidelity of home audio has reached the point where perfect sound has been achieved. Amps and players have specs far beyond our ability to hear, and back in the 50s, hifi nuts couldn't even dream of having sound as clean as we have. The future of home audio lies in creating vivid sound fields. That means 5.1 and DSPs. Multichannel sound processing is as much of a leap forward in sound quality over stereo as stereo was over mono. Even more perhaps.
 
The only way to fully implement 5.1 sound is through digital signal processing.

 

[bigshot]

By the way, that digizoid thing you linked to is pretty useless. It's basically just bass and treble controls, not an equalizer. There are lots and lots of equalizers out there to choose from that would be a million times more useful than that. Parametric equalizers are the more flexible. A ten band parametric would probably be more useful than a 31 band graphic equalizer. An equalizer isn't as necessary if you have headphones that match the response you want, but for speakers, an equalizer is essential.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

i had a friend who was a sound engineer. He was firmly of the opinion that heavy processing of sound by end users could only bugger up
( technical term!) the signal.
 

 

It depends on what kind of processing. If you want the best sound quality in a car for example, you either take your car apart and then install the driver's seat in the center like an ///////ALPINE show car (or a Mclaren F1, but then again, that comes with a really good BMW "sound system" surrounded by solid gold, so what's the point?), or you use a processor (like what ALPINE makes, so honestly that show car is just that) to input custom delays on when the sound comes out of each speaker to syncronize each tweeter, midrange, midwoofer, and the subwoofer to the driver's side tweeter (this assumes you've installed them with the proper toe-in angles to begin with). However in order to do this you need to apply digital crossovers (because if you had analog crossovers like with conventional speaker set-ups, you'd have to have a separate active processor working on the analog signal), and as with any crossover and multiple-drivers, if you get the settings wrong, you'll have overlaps or gaps.

 

In any case that will that will put the vocals dead center on the dash like you're listening at home but with two chairs on it, however since the timing settings are for the driver's seat, it will screw up the sound for the passenger seat. Still, if you use the processor with the right interface, then you can easily switch it - mine can be toggled on/off, or flipped to instantly reverse the settings and favor the passenger seat in case you have a passenger to whom you want to demonstrate the imaging (I have never really used that feature though - anyone who's been in my car who can detect imaging cues just sits in my seat and we listen while parked).

 

[krismusic]

By the way, that digizoid thing you linked to is pretty useless. It's basically just bass and treble controls, not an equalizer. There are lots and lots of equalizers out there to choose from that would be a million times more useful than that. Parametric equalizers are the more flexible. A ten band parametric would probably be more useful than a 31 band graphic equalizer. An equalizer isn't as necessary if you have headphones that match the response you want, but for speakers, an equalizer is essential.

I was hoping you would see this and comment Bigshot. Another $275 you have saved me!
I completely agree regarding speaker systems. I gave up in my living room. The room dimensions are hopeless for a start. (See my comment below.)
Out of interest, do you know of a portable hardware EQ?
I figured the Digizoid is more of a sophisticated bass and treble boost.

It depends on what kind of processing. If you want the best sound quality in a car for example,

As it happens I was very into car audio. I had a lovely system. The best sound I have ever achieved in any setting.
Yes, Active crossovers, Time Alignment and EQ were crucial. As was the positioning of speakers and sound treatment of the vehicle (a van!) In the end I wished that I had that amount of control over my system indoors. That didn't seem viable. At least headphones remove a lot of the variables. Can't get that rumble in the chest though.
It was trying to replicate the enjoyment that I got from thesystem in my van that drives my interest in headphones. Particularly on the move.
So yes, I am very much up for digital sound processing although very aware of my limitations in setting it up!

 

[krismusic]

At this point, the fidelity of home audio has reached the point where perfect sound has been achieved. Amps and players have specs far beyond our ability to hear, and back in the 50s, hifi nuts couldn't even dream of having sound as clean as we have.

BTW. Agree 100%. Well worth bearing in mind.

 

[bigshot]

Out of interest, do you know of a portable hardware EQ?

 
I don't know of any. All the ones I've seen are just two and three band toys. Software EQ in a smartphone or iPod touch is the only way I know how to do it.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

   
I don't know of any. All the ones I've seen are just two and three band toys. Software EQ in a smartphone or iPod touch is the only way I know how to do it.

 
Also, software level short of a dedicated DSP chip allows for more settings to really zero in on what peaks or plateaus you need to trim, instead of "OK this band's setting is close enough" or "nuts if I move this it might make it worse."

 

[bigshot]

I read that three times and I still don't know what you're saying there!

 

[Music Alchemist]

The only hardware EQ devices I've looked into are complicated-looking ones meant to be used in studio racks. Not portable at all.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  I read that three times and I still don't know what you're saying there!

 
Look at the slider on an analog hardware graphic EQ. Let's say it says 60hz, 125hz, 500hz, 1.2khz, 2.5khz, 5khz, 8khz. Your headphone has a peak at 6khz and 90hz. Can you change the center frequencies? Maybe, but you'd have to get into the guts. 

Now look at the interface on a digital parametric EQ (whether purely software or DSP-hardware EQ) - what does it say on each of the four or five bands? Some DSP chips can have five possible frequencies on each band, with variable Q factor; NeutronMP's EQ has basically anything from 20hz to 20khz possible on each of the four bands, and also with variable Q factor. 

 

[bigshot]

ten band parametric is about as useful as 31 band graphic