How about a 6 channel (or 2 channel, I guess I could buy 3) DSP based programmable time delay and parametric equalizer? If we want to get fancy you could even add a calibrated microphone and some 'get in the ballpark' auto config stuff.

I'm thinking something like the ICBM, where you're solving an old problem a slightly new way, possibly creating a new niche.

It would also fit in with the 950, enhancing and also addressing some perceived flaws in that device. For instance if the 'box' was used to set a baseline delay and level the 950 settings would become 'trims', a feature some would like to see.

Just shooting from the hip - whaddya think?

Charlie

DSP based? Would you really want to add an extra A-D-A conversion into your audio loop?

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

Want to? Nope.

But the other options are worse, unless I'm missing something. An analog device would almost certainly be less capable and have more issues, and there is no suitable means I'm aware of to stay in the digital domain.

I would, after thinking it over, go with 8 in and 8 out.

Someone already makes it:
Behringer DSP8024 Ultra Curve 24

I'm buying 3!

Charlie

http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=DSP8024&lang=eng

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited August 16, 2002).]

Just looked at the UltraCurve... Here's what I'd change:

20 - 20 kHz -> 10 - 22 kHz freq response
24 bit/48 kHz -> 24/192

I'd ditch the graphic eq, and add 2 more filters for the parametric eq (5 per channel).

I'd also add a subsonic filter.

Put 4 of them in a box (8 channels), and sell it for less than say $1g. I like the RTA with the included microphone!

There's no time delay in there, but I'd rather have my pre/pro doing that...

Actually I downloaded the manual and app notes. There is a time delay for each channel adjustable in 0.1 (!) ms increments.

Also, the 'graphic equalizer' is not implemented as a 31 band digital EQ, but rather the 'sliders' are used to define the 'connect the dots' response graph and a transform function is computed for the required shape. Pretty cool, plus it sells for less than $200.

It has lots of other stuff besides the EQ and delay too, but I'm not sure how useful most of the rest is for HT. Download the manual - very cool device.


I'll be buying 4 of them as soon as I have time to fool with them. The stuff you mentioned would be nice, but are not deal breakers to me.

Afterthought:

It also has a memory that allows quite a few 'themes' to be memorized and recalled by name, so if you had a 'small theater', 'big theater', 'music', etc preferences it will remember them, and it features a genuine hard relay bypass - always useful.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited October 04, 2002).]

Yup, I saw the time delay when I fully read the info sheet.

24/48 is only CD quality though. Hopefully you don't plan on running a DVD-A/SACD signal through that.

Less than $200? Are you getting a deal somewhere? I got this from their site:




[This message has been edited by Kevin C Brown (edited October 04, 2002).]

http://www.americanmusical.com/item.asp?UID=2002081614132149&menu=&keyword=&item=BEH+DSP8024

The AD/DA is 24bit x 48kHz, quite a bit above CD level, which is 16x44. I can't hear above about 18.5 or so, and frankly I doubt you can hear above 20kHz!

For all intents and purposes I doubt any audible degradation would be worse than what is being fixed.

I would say that 192/24 is



I don't think 24/48 is that much of an improvement. Let me put it this way, my (old) Sony pre/pro, the TA-E9000ES converted all analog sources to 24/48 internally for processing. (No analog passthrough.) Even though it's a great pre/pro, its knock all along has been its "digital" sound...

I guess for the price, the Behringer is worth a try.

Well at least you can engage the bypass for DVD-Audio and evaluate whether the cure is worse than the disease. I'd rather see 96/24 but I'm not worried about it. The room effects typical in an environment will be much worse than the unwanted distortion introduced by a well done 48kHz conversion. This box has been very well reviewed and also measures very well.

24 vs. 16 bits is a pretty huge difference in range, several orders of magnitude. Sample rate is less so, 10% higher, but my experience has been that well done sampling implementations prove Nyquist correct. Obviously higher sample rates make things easier in some ways, but I'm not building a system to entertain bats. The 20Hz rolloff is more a concern, but I can live with it. It may not be a rolloff - the 0.5 down may be reflecting the rolloff at 20kHz more than 20Hz.

I think it deserves a try.

I strongly suspect the payoff is going to be much better than the added (unwanted) distortion. And, as you say, at $100 per channel I can't ignore it.