# DSP Monitors



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 30, 2017)

Has anyone compared monitors with DSP to ones with traditional designs? 

I'm not talking about any sort of room correction or digital inputs, just crossover and amp.

On one hand I think that digital filters offer a big advantage to traditional analog crossovers and it lets you really shape the high pass to get the best bass response from a bass reflex monitor. I'm all for DSP in monitors for that reason. I think it's behind my Dynaudio BM5 mk3 having the extended bass that they have. 

My main concern are the converters. If I got a $3000 monitor with DSP, does that make getting a $3000 converter useless since the monitor's converters obviously are of inferior quality? Doesn't that significantly cap the potential of your system? Or is it that for some reason using high end converters still offer an advantage?


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Apr 30, 2017)

I bought Genelec 8351a for two reasons. 1) Coaxial drivers and 2) great DSP. The clean crossovers and driver correction offered by the DSP swamps any conversion differences by orders of magnitude. You can't buy bad ADDA today in any decent gear. If there was some ultra critically controlled conditions you MIGHT be able to tell the difference on level matched material. The reality is that the sound of this speaker includes the ADDA stuff, the DSP, the drivers, etc. I don't have to think about it. If I like the speaker, then the included ADDA or DA (if fed digitally) is inconsequential. Having DSP was a pre-requisite for last year's monitor upgrade - so I guess I put my money where my opinion is. 

There is now an update for my Grace m905 monitor controller that would let me feed the monitors digitally. This would let me get rid of a round-trip ADDA, but it is about lowest on my studio maintenance list. Right now, all audio in my studio goes DA out my RME UFX, hits the Grace analog, which feeds the headphone system and hits the Genelecs analog, goes back to digital (@96khz), thru the DSP and then out the drivers. I never think about it. These are the best speakers I've ever had, and they do exactly what I bought them for. The room sounds great, measures well, and I can make critical decisions.

Thoughts on conversion quality... Anything mid-priced or better today is not going to put any limitation on what you do (unless you need to record DSD for Sony Classical). Conversion right now is stellar. I use RME as my main converters. This means that all the analog synths, drums, the piano, and anything else I record with mics goes through the RME's (UFX and ADI-8 DS MkIII). That sets the A-to-D "quality" of my recordings (though to be truthful, microphone selection, technique, room sound, and performance swamp any AD quality issues by orders of magnitude). The RME is master clock in my setup, and the Grace slaves off it. 

Personally I would not spend for a super-high end DA. I'm not mastering, and I need signal distributed to much more than just one pair of monitors (I feed headphone cue system and two additional sets of monitors - both analog). The sound quality is baked it at the time of recording, and as it exits the mixer of your DAW. Any of the current "pro converters" in the $3k range (UAD, RME, Lynx, Apogee, etc) will deliver great results that you'll never have to think about or apologize for. Yes, it is possible to obsess over this, like anything else. How much that matters is up to you. I've accepted that current digital professional conversion is fully adequate and is effectively not something I need to care about as a composer (and I am super picky about sound - my whole room is treated, measured with Smaart, and generally as good as I can make it).


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 1, 2017)

Nathanael Iversen said:


> I bought Genelec 8351a for two reasons. 1) Coaxial drivers and 2) great DSP. The clean crossovers and driver correction offered by the DSP swamps any conversion differences by orders of magnitude. You can't buy bad ADDA today in any decent gear. If there was some ultra critically controlled conditions you MIGHT be able to tell the difference on level matched material. The reality is that the sound of this speaker includes the ADDA stuff, the DSP, the drivers, etc. I don't have to think about it. If I like the speaker, then the included ADDA or DA (if fed digitally) is inconsequential. Having DSP was a pre-requisite for last year's monitor upgrade - so I guess I put my money where my opinion is.
> 
> There is now an update for my Grace m905 monitor controller that would let me feed the monitors digitally. This would let me get rid of a round-trip ADDA, but it is about lowest on my studio maintenance list. Right now, all audio in my studio goes DA out my RME UFX, hits the Grace analog, which feeds the headphone system and hits the Genelecs analog, goes back to digital (@96khz), thru the DSP and then out the drivers. I never think about it. These are the best speakers I've ever had, and they do exactly what I bought them for. The room sounds great, measures well, and I can make critical decisions.
> 
> ...



I am looking to go beyond the RME converters which I'm using on my Fireface UC right now. I'm looking into the Pure 2 which is $2300 for 2 channel AD/DA.

Putting that on some cheap monitors would be fairly pointless. I'm wondering if that's the same case here with the converters in the monitors being a weak link.

Right now I'm looking in the $5000/pair for the monitors so of course it won't be the speakers to end all speakers but I'd like something that'll stand up to better converters later on.

I'm considering having custom speakers built where I'll have the option of choosing to use DSP or not. It'll essentially be the same overall sound so it's not like I'm choosing speaker A over B where they're completely different and B just happens to have DSP. I'm more inclined to go with the DSP but I'm just not sure how much I can trust cheap converters if I want to have the best in the future. I'm very wary about putting anything between my interface and my speakers. All of my room correction and when I want to crossover into my sub I do in the computer to avoid putting anything in the signal path.

I once took part in some 48k vs 96k tests at a studio using some of the best speakers on the planet. We were disappointment to find out that the dbx Drive Rack being used for DSP (crossover for the 3 way speakers and some room correction) runs at 48k so we couldn't get 96k out of the speakers. I don't want to end up in similar situations. I almost bought that dbx for my studio. Makes me wonder if those speakers can sound better if the EQing was done in the computer and then just have the single converters on the interface.

It's interesting to note that while Dynaudio is using DSP in pretty much all their monitors now, their flagship Evidence isn't and that's what Bob Katz is using. Doesn't look like you can bi-amp them either.

If I have the option of having a digital input like on the Neumann monitors, is it better to go straight in, or use a high end converter? One thing I've heard is that if you have an AD/DA in the same unit where it can be perfectly clocked internally etc. then it can be transparent so using DA + AD/DA can sound better than just an inferior DA directly on the monitors.

While I don't do any recording, I do listen to DSD.


----------



## wst3 (May 1, 2017)

couple thoughts...

DSP is not magic, it can do some things that analog filters can't, but it isn't magic. Some of the best (think five figures) studio monitors use DSP, but there are all analog monitors in the same price range, and they sound amazing too. The real issue is the designer, and how well they select and match the components.

The dBX Drive Tack is not a very good DSP, I wouldn't use it. I can't imagine putting that thing in front of really good loudspeakers - and this has nothing to do with max sample rate, the algorithms are just not that good.

If you want a very pleasant surprise give a listen to the Presonus Sceptres. Dave Gunness knows a thing or two about DSP and loudspeakers, and I think he has done a remarkable job, especially at this price point. This is, I think, an excellent example of the right tool for the job, he is using DSP to correct for physical anomalies... pretty clever!

Unless you are driving independent amplifiers (and that is quite often the case) there is no advantage to building the filters in the computer, or even in an outboard processor. The presence of a digital input does not mean that all processing is bypassed.

It would be difficult (but certainly not impossible) to build a D/A converter so bad that it is worse that cascading converters.

Monitors, like microphones, seem to be that "final frontier", we know how they work, but we don't necessarily know how to integrate them into our current systems - that whole physical to electrical AND analog to digital conversion thing creates quite a mess.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 1, 2017)

wst3 said:


> Unless you are driving independent amplifiers (and that is quite often the case) there is no advantage to building the filters in the computer, or even in an outboard processor.



If I was doing the processing on the computer then the monitors wouldn't have any DSP and they would be separately amped. Like the system with the Drive Rack but with that being done in the computer and then connecting straight into the multiple line ins on the monitors. One big problem with this is that I wouldn't be able to use them without a computer (or I'd have to get a hardware EQ unit).

If I get custom monitors built (and that's the direction I'm leaning if I can afford them) then I'm 99% sure they wouldn't have any DSP. This guy builds some of the best monitors and knows all there is to know about getting the best parts for drivers and crossovers. I was once there while he was comparing different capacitors with the same exact ratings for a crossover and it was amazing how much of a difference it made.

My concern is mainly if I go with a commercially available speaker.

There are a number of miniDSP units for around $200 which seem to be similar to what would be found in most monitors nowadays. Wouldn't a studio owner be hesitant to put that between something like their Antelope converters and ATC monitors? It seems to me like the black box-ness of digital monitors gives us a false sense of comfort that the digital components are great.


----------



## wst3 (May 1, 2017)

I'm a bit confused... the Antelope converters are darned good, but I'm not sure I'd worry about mucking up the audio with a well done loudspeaker processor.

The DriveRack is not a well done loudspeaker processor, the Lake is. That would be a pretty good option. An older MediaMatrix box would be another really good option, but programming them is a bit of a drag. The new QSC processors appear to be pretty competent, but I'm not sure they are well suited to this sort of task.

It has been my experience that separating things always works better... so let the loudspeaker cabinets hold the drivers, let the drivers transduce, let the amplifiers amplify, and let a competent DSP do the processing. But it is a LOT of work, you have to model the behavior of the drivers in the space to get it right.

As far as the miniDSP boxes go, a number of my friends are playing with them. So far the consensus seems to be that they are fantastic learning tools, and well suited for conference rooms, small even spaces, and the like. They are not well suited to high end critical listening systems. I will have to ask where the problems lie.

There was talk, I think, of releasing the Temporal Equalization processor that Fulcrum Acoustics uses, but I haven't seen it on the market yet. That would be a pretty cool solution.

And be careful with those capacitor tests... it is true that certain well known criteria can make a difference in the audible performance, especially in a cross-over, but this is not news. And there is a lot of snake oil on the market. Often, not always, the fact that the capacitor makes an audible difference points to other problems in the system.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 1, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I'm a bit confused... the Antelope converters are darned good, but I'm not sure I'd worry about mucking up the audio with a well done loudspeaker processor.
> 
> The DriveRack is not a well done loudspeaker processor, the Lake is. That would be a pretty good option. An older MediaMatrix box would be another really good option, but programming them is a bit of a drag. The new QSC processors appear to be pretty competent, but I'm not sure they are well suited to this sort of task.
> 
> ...



Of course there are competent DSP options but I question what's in these speakers and it seems like the miniDSP can't be that far off. If I could afford it I'd go with one of the DEQX processors.

My Dynaudios cost about $700 each. What does that say about the converters in them? It can't be that great. Certainly not Antelope quality (and if it is, Antelope sure is ripping us off!). I'm not sure that high end monitors really have that much of an improvement in that area.

Like I said, if I do get the custom monitors then they'll likely not have any DSP and be a simple 2-way. Any processing like Reference 3 I'll just do on the computer. I just want to be informed about this in case I do get a commercial monitor with DSP (which is what I'll probably do if I go in that direction).


----------



## wst3 (May 2, 2017)

I think we all overlook a couple of things when we try to use price as a benchmark - 

Few companies use Cost+ for pricing, it has a lot more to do with what the market will pay, and that becomes more of an issue as you go up the ladder, and Dynaudio is certainly a couple rungs up the ladder.

If you haven't been involved in manufacturing you won't believe what the individual components cost the manufacturer. It's pretty remarkable really. And while the processor may be cheap the software isn't, but it is a cost that is spread across so many units sold, which keeps it affordable.

For comparison sake, the Sceptre S8 has a list price of $800 for one, but regularly sells for around $600 for one. $1200 for a pair of coaxial monitors is silly cheap! So where do they cut costs? Probably not the DSP code, and in this case maybe not the DSP processor. I'd wager the Class D amplifiers turned out to be very inexpensive to implement<G>! From experience I'm in awe of anyone that can design a good Class D amplifier, or even a good switching power supply.

That said, I still prefer a Class A or A/B amplifier, and yes, I think I can tell the difference, to a point. There are Class A/B amplifiers that suffer from cross-over distortion that are easily surpassed by one-chip Class D solutions.

I wouldn't suggest that design topology doesn't matter, but I would suggest implementation is a bigger factor.

Which is one of the reasons I like to keep things separate when I can. DSPs process, amplifiers make LOUD!


----------



## babylonwaves (May 2, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> My Dynaudios cost about $700 each. What does that say about the converters in them? It can't be that great. Certainly not Antelope quality (and if it is, Antelope sure is ripping us off!). I'm not sure that high end monitors really have that much of an improvement in that area.


for speakers of that price point the converters should be you last worry. or to put it another way: if you'd be able to connect a set high end converters to those speakers, it's likely that you would hear no difference (or any difference that would really improve the overall result).


----------

