DSP or not to DSP

[Smaple]

Hi folks, new here. I have been recently bitten by the upgrade / modernization bug. I have been running a Sony CDX-C90 since 99 and would like to take the plunge into active. The first question I have is, would it be worth trying to track down the old XDP-4000 that Sony made for it, or go with a Helix DSP unit. What would the benefits be either way? Or should I just toss that deck and go with the Pioneer DEX-P99RS and skip the external DSP?

The system as it sits right now: Sony CDX-C90, Sony MDX-62 (yeah, I still rock the MiniDisc), Helix A4 for Infinity mids and highs (which will be replaced with Morels at some point soon, and an MTX Thunder 2300x going to a pair of Boston Acoustics 12.5LF2's. 1/0 ga. power, big three and 220 amp alternator.

In addition to the new components up front and possible DSP integration, I wanted to free up some trunk space by switching to just one sub. My initial thoughts are to run with Morel and keep the speakers all the same brand, but I am concerned with the fact I have not had the ability to audition the 12" Morel Ultimo sub. Can I expect similar SQ or better? The Bostons are very nice to listen to and am nervous to change what isn't broken.

TL;DR version - New deck with built in DSP, new Helix DSP or old Sony? One 12" Morel Ultimo Sub to replace two Boston Pro 12.5LF2's?

Ultimately, I would like to keep it very simple and reliable.

Tips and advice greatly appreciated.

Click to read more...

 

[trumpet 5,000+ posts]

P99RS is still a viable option, but it's an aging unit that will only get harder to keep up if it should require repairs. This is the way it goes with all head units. Helix makes fine DSPs and the manufacturer has shown good support with software updates. The DSP market has exploded, and demand will be strong for many years.

Depending on your location in TX I may be able to recommend a professional to tune your system. Otherwise with greater complexity comes a very steep learning curve, so don't expect a DSP to be a magic SQ pill upgrade.

There is little need to keep your drivers of the same brand. Morel is good, but the Ultimo is not really known as a powerhouse that could replace a pair of same-size subwoofers. If your 12.5LF2s are in a sealed enclosure then one 12" in a ported enclosure may do what you want. There are some great subwoofers that will work in a very small volume, but the port may need to be external due to the length required to tune low for sound quality. Especially with a DSP to shape the response, you should experience little to no loss of sound quality with a proper ported subwoofer setup.

 

[dbjunior 10+ year member]

The 80prs is a good start for running active. Once you have that mastered and want more than 3way active there are some real nice dsp's 360.3, audison bit one. These can also be overwhelming for someone new to active.

 

[Jeffdachef 5,000+ posts]

The 80prs is a good start for running active. Once you have that mastered and want more than 3way active there are some real nice dsp's 360.3, audison bit one. These can also be overwhelming for someone new to active.

I second this. Gotta learn to walk before you sprint.

 

[Smaple]

Thank you for the advice. The DSP seems a little intimidating and I think the 80PRS is a discontinued model. I think I just might stick to upgrading the front stage for now, keeping the overall bulletproof simplicity intact. I really like the set it and forget it type of install, and I'm not too sure that will be the case if DSP is involved.

After poking around, there seems to be some interesting component speakers out there. Anyone with experience with ScanSpeak mids and highs? Any recommendations for sound quality that would be on par (or better) with Mackie HR824MKII studio monitors?

 

[JohnKuthe]

The 80prs is a good start for running active. Once you have that mastered and want more than 3way active there are some real nice dsp's 360.3, audison bit one. These can also be overwhelming for someone new to active.

I'm curious about this "active" vs. "passive" debate. You talking about "active" frequency equalization and stuff like that that a DSP can do? Because I'm getting deeply into "active" if so!! With my Alpine PXA-H800 DSP! (PS: I know what passive equalization is.)

John Kuthe...

 

[dbjunior 10+ year member]

I'm curious about this "active" vs. "passive" debate. You talking about "active" frequency equalization and stuff like that that a DSP can do? Because I'm getting deeply into "active" if so!! With my Alpine PXA-H800 DSP! (PS: I know what passive equalization is.)
John Kuthe...

For an electronic genius you don't know a whole he'll of a lot. When refering to active vs passive it's nothing to do with equalization. Passive is referee to as a comp sets (passive crossover) that comes with them it has a factory set xover that cannot be changed. Active uses separate channels of an amplifier to power each tweeter and mid individually. With it set like this you can either use an active capable hu, dsp or active capable amp to control each speakers crossover. This means the tweeter high pass can be set wherever needed the mid will have band pass crossovers a high and low xover and the midbass or sub has low pass a 4way band pass on the midbass and a low pass for a sub

 

[JohnKuthe]

For an electronic genius you don't know a whole he'll of a lot. When refering(SIC) to active vs passive it's nothing to do with equalization. Passive is referee to as a comp sets (passive crossover) that comes with them it has a factory set xover that cannot be changed. Active uses separate channels of an amplifier to power each tweeter and mid individually. With it set like this you can either use an active capable hu, dsp or active capable amp to control each speakers crossover. This means the tweeter high pass can be set wherever needed the mid will have band pass crossovers a high and low xover and the midbass or sub has low pass a 4way band pass on the midbass and a low pass for a sub

Exactly! Active "frequency shaping"! That's the cool thing about digitization! Once we get electronic waveforms digitized we can play with them very effectively!! Apply a lot of the math that is Electrical Engineering math equations to them!

I understand a LOT more than you think! Did you know that to a true old school audiophile digitization is a YUGE no-no? No signal processing is a true audiophile's goal. All analog, no digitization, it loses information!

But I was in the Cheep Effects, and even spoke of "...as opposed to expensive effects!" Like DSPs! Remember, I played a old MOOG synthesizer! Modular ones with patch cords.



John Kuthe...

 

[trumpet 5,000+ posts]

All analog, no digitization, it loses information!

No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

 

[JohnKuthe]

No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Wanna bet? You know how digitization works? I do! I wrote a paper on it too. No matter how fast the sample rate there is always analog information lost. Sick sad and true! Digital music can sound amazing but there's a small mostly undetectable amount of sound information lost upon digitization, except for digitally sourced music. Keyboards, no trumpets!

John Kuthe...

 

[trumpet 5,000+ posts]

Wanna bet? You know how digitization works? I do! I wrote a paper on it too. No matter how fast the sample rate there is always analog information lost. Sick sad and true! Digital music can sound amazing but there's a small mostly undetectable amount of sound information lost upon digitization, except for digitally sourced music. Keyboards, no trumpets!
John Kuthe...

Don't take my word for it, this topic has been hammered out a long time ago. The principles of changing sound pressure to 1s and 0s has not changed in decades. The 44.1 kHz/16 bit sampling rate that came into being with CDs is enough to accurately reproduce the entire range of human hearing.

Are you implying we need "High Res" audio formats to get "closer" to the source when playing back natural instruments and voices?

 

[JohnKuthe]

Don't take my word for it, this topic has been hammered out a long time ago. The principles of changing sound pressure to 1s and 0s has not changed in decades. The 44.1 kHz/16 bit sampling rate that came into being with CDs is enough to accurately reproduce the entire range of human hearing.
Are you implying we need "High Res" audio formats to get "closer" to the source when playing back natural instruments and voices?

No, the 44.1 KHz sampling rate is good enough for human ears, but it's not a precise reproduction of an analog wave. Some information is lost. You can't hear it but it's real!

John Kuthe...

 

[trumpet 5,000+ posts]

No, the 44.1 KHz sampling rate is good enough for human ears, but it's not a precise reproduction of an analog wave. Some information is lost. You can't hear it but it's real!
John Kuthe...

Please let me know if this URL does not open correctly for you. I will figure out how to host it a different way.

http://www.facebook.com/andy.wehmeyer.7/posts/1315956278435707

 

[JohnKuthe]

Please let me know if this URL does not open correctly for you. I will figure out how to host it a different way.
http://www.facebook.com/andy.wehmeyer.7/posts/1315956278435707

Yes digitization IS a very good approximation of the original analog signal, but it's not identical!

John Kuthe...

 

[dbjunior 10+ year member]

Yes digitization IS a very good approximation of the original analog signal, but it's not identical!
John Kuthe...

I would have to agree with you on this. It will always miss something but the loss being leaps and bounds beyond detectable to the human ear and equipment it becomes useless to say it is a lesser form of the original.