DSP1124p& SACD

[tomacco]

Hello All: I'm sure how to pose this question in an intelligent fashion, and in fact, the question may be just plain stupid, but am I likely to hear an improvement in sound quality (ambience) playing an SACD with a BFD?

In fact, I think the two questions are disjoint (unrelated, uncorrelated).

Best Regards

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

What two questions? I only saw one.

The BFD will have no affect on ambience. As far as sound quality, that depends on what you’re doing with it. If you’re using it for a subwoofer, they answer is “yes” it will make an improvement. If you’re using it on some of the main channels, the answer most likely is “no.”

Regards,
Wayne

[tomacco]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

What two questions? I only saw one.

The BFD will have no affect on ambience. As far as sound quality, that depends on what you’re doing with it. If you’re using it for a subwoofer, they answer is “yes” it will make an improvement. If you’re using it on some of the main channels, the answer most likely is “no.”

Regards,
Wayne

Hi Wayne: I know nothing about the DSP1196p (even though I just bought one), except of what I have read in a downloaded copy of their manual, and frankly, that manual needs some embellishment. The sound produced by speakers reproducing an SACD source will be different than sound produced by speakers reproducing a non-SACD source. In general, does this not allow for the possibility of unruly sound fronts to be created, or am I grasping at weeds.

And why do you distinguish between subs and loudspeakers. I don't have a sub, but I can play a Messiaen CD on my Axiom M60V2's, which sit on four pointed isolation cones, and experience about two seconds of the worst resonance I would ever want to hear.

Thanks
Eric G.

[Otto]

Eric,

Wayne's pointing out that most people use the BFD for sub EQ duties only. Most people do not EQ their mains, though you can certainly try if you like. The distinction between the two uses (sub vs. full range) is made because you will have to make a choice as to where you're going to place it in your signal path. The BFD has two channels only. If you apply it to a sub-only signal, you will use half of the BFD, and you will not be able to use the remaining channel for main L/R duties. If you implement it in your main L/R signal path, you will not be able to EQ your sub path. Since you are not using a sub, I assume you will be using it in the main L/R signal path. To do so, you will require either a separate preamp and amp, or a receiver that has a tape loop. That is because of the insertion point of the BFD -- it's after the preamp stage, and before the amp stage.

Again, most people use the BFD in the sub path, as they feel that the higher-frequency components can be managed by other means (generally, good setup and room treatments). Furthermore, the specs of the BFD aren't necessarily the greatest for a high-resolution system's main signal path, and I understand there is audible grain/noise introduced when using it in the main L/R signal path. Part of this is due to the additional A/D/A stages that aren't really necessary (nor desirable, IMHO) for the main signal path.

In any case, I don't think you will get more "ambience" from implementing the BFD in the sub-only path or the full-range path. You should be able to achieve a flatter frequency response, and if that's what you're looking for, then there may be an improvement. Note that if you are intending to use REW and an SPL meter, measurements of higher frequencies won't be that accurate (higher than a few kHz).

tomacco wrote:

The sound produced by speakers reproducing an SACD source will be different than sound produced by speakers reproducing a non-SACD source.

Yes, because they are handled and mastered differently.

In general, does this not allow for the possibility of unruly sound fronts to be created, or am I grasping at weeds.

I guess I'm not quite sure what that means. I wouldn't expect "unruly sound fronts" to be coming from an SACD source. In general, I would expect that the engineers mastering and processing the SACD source will do a better job than those doing a "normal" CD. SACD is a special case, and those working to create them will probably be more "in tune" with what good sound is. I'm sure that doesn't hold for all cases of SACD mastering engineers, and I don't really have a lot of experience with SACD myself, but that's my gut feel.

Are you intending to EQ your main L/R signal path. If so, do you know what frequencies you intend to affect? What preamp/amp/receiver are you using?

Good luck!

[tomacco]

Otto wrote:

Eric,

Wayne's pointing out that most people use the BFD for sub EQ duties only. Most people do not EQ their mains, though you can certainly try if you like. The distinction between the two uses (sub vs. full range) is made because you will have to make a choice as to where you're going to place it in your signal path. The BFD has two channels only. If you apply it to a sub-only signal, you will use half of the BFD, and you will not be able to use the remaining channel for main L/R duties. If you implement it in your main L/R signal path, you will not be able to EQ your sub path. Since you are not using a sub, I assume you will be using it in the main L/R signal path. To do so, you will require either a separate preamp and amp, or a receiver that has a tape loop. That is because of the insertion point of the BFD -- it's after the preamp stage, and before the amp stage.

Again, most people use the BFD in the sub path, as they feel that the higher-frequency components can be managed by other means (generally, good setup and room treatments). Furthermore, the specs of the BFD aren't necessarily the greatest for a high-resolution system's main signal path, and I understand there is audible grain/noise introduced when using it in the main L/R signal path. Part of this is due to the additional A/D/A stages that aren't really necessary (nor desirable, IMHO) for the main signal path.

In any case, I don't think you will get more "ambience" from implementing the BFD in the sub-only path or the full-range path. You should be able to achieve a flatter frequency response, and if that's what you're looking for, then there may be an improvement. Note that if you are intending to use REW and an SPL meter, measurements of higher frequencies won't be that accurate (higher than a few kHz).



Yes, because they are handled and mastered differently.



I guess I'm not quite sure what that means. I wouldn't expect "unruly sound fronts" to be coming from an SACD source. In general, I would expect that the engineers mastering and processing the SACD source will do a better job than those doing a "normal" CD. SACD is a special case, and those working to create them will probably be more "in tune" with what good sound is. I'm sure that doesn't hold for all cases of SACD mastering engineers, and I don't really have a lot of experience with SACD myself, but that's my gut feel.

Are you intending to EQ your main L/R signal path. If so, do you know what frequencies you intend to affect? What preamp/amp/receiver are you using?

Good luck!

Hi Otto: From my previous month of reading of posts on this Forum I quickly came to the realization that the BFD is a solution for subs, but as you suggest, I can try it on the L/R, and I'm dying to do that. I'd like to do a little experimentation, but my real intent is to use it only for the sub, and I realize that to deal with L/R, I would require a second BFD. The L/R question/remark just sprung up because of that resonance I have with one CD. I haven't even tried to handle it the traditional ways (I'm leaving the speaker in its current position just to see what the BFD will do with it), so it may not be a non-issue.
I have a hybrid integrated tube amp (MOSFET O/P), with two pre-amp O/Ps, as well as the normal L/R, tuner, etc. I intend on using either my RS SPL, or Extech 407730. Besides requiring a pre-amp, do you foresee any setup problems.
I'm only dealing with the sub, which I have yet to pick. I have read so many reviews on subs, I am dumb-founded. A few weeks ago I picked one that was on sale, spent six hours on Saturday and six hours on Sunday experimenting, and then returned it. I talked to a lot of people at work with HT setups, and most of them said they had problems initially, but their AVR helped them tremendously. Most of them also had the advantage of being able to set up their HT in a dedicated room, that did not confine their placement of components.

Thanks for refreshing the BFD's operation.
Best Regards
Eric G.

[Otto]

Hi Eric,

If you use an RS SPL meter, you won't need a preamp; that device should be able to plug directly into the "line in" of your iMac. I'm not sure what the Extech is, but if it's a mic, it will most likely need a preamp.

As for which sub to buy, SVS, Velodyne and HSU are very popular and all should deliver the goods. SVS has a forum here, and they are well-respected and have great customer service. I would see what they have in your price range, and get one of those. I do not have a dedicated theater (and I don't have an SVS sub, either), but the thing that made the most difference in my bass was the BFD.

[tomacco]

Otto wrote:

Hi Eric,

If you use an RS SPL meter, you won't need a preamp; that device should be able to plug directly into the "line in" of your iMac. I'm not sure what the Extech is, but if it's a mic, it will most likely need a preamp.

As for which sub to buy, SVS, Velodyne and HSU are very popular and all should deliver the goods. SVS has a forum here, and they are well-respected and have great customer service. I would see what they have in your price range, and get one of those. I do not have a dedicated theater (and I don't have an SVS sub, either), but the thing that made the most difference in my bass was the BFD.

Hi Otto: I looked at all the above-mentioned, and they are kinda' out of my league. Either I save for a while, or I get something 'cheaper', but not 'lesser', learn how to work with it, and who knows, may end up keeping it for the rest of my life, or move on. Because I currently don't play my music loud, I started looking at some 8"' and 10" subs. Or maybe an older very discounted 3-way with only the bass enabled. Any suggestions

Thanks
Eric G.

[tomacco]

tomacco wrote:

Hi Otto: I looked at all the above-mentioned, and they are kinda' out of my league. Either I save for a while, or I get something 'cheaper', but not 'lesser', learn how to work with it, and who knows, may end up keeping it for the rest of my life, or move on. Because I currently don't play my music loud, I started looking at some 8"' and 10" subs. Or maybe an older very discounted 3-way with only the bass enabled. Any suggestions

Thanks
Eric G.

Hi Again Otto: How did you determine that the RS SPL does require a mic pre-amp. Is it supposed go something like LO-Z mic O/P and HI-Z I/P receiving device?

Thanks
Eric G.

[Otto]

Hi Eric,

The RS SPL meter doesn't need a preamp because it outputs a line-level signal. It will connect directly to the "line in" of your computer. I'm not sure what the impedances are, but I've not heard of any issues to due impedance mismatches.

[tomacco]

Hi Otto: Thanks - very cool place - nice pics.

Thanks Eric