DSP Question

i like how minidsp has a big volume knob and remote control but 8 channels is no good.  unless they can be daisy chained somehow so that one remote controls the volume on all of them ?

it seems controlling the volume upstream of the DSP would reduce resolution unless the signal between the volume control and DSP had extra bits of resolution ... certainly 32 would be good, but would 24 be enough ?

a guy called "Mark100" on another forum swears by his Q-Sys processor and obviously those are good, but they are expensive ! ! !

is there anything closer to the price point of MiniDSP but that can scale to 24 channels ?

i don't need super advanced functionality that Q-Sys has like remote features etc.  it is just for home use.

i can cut the number of channels down to as little as 11, namely 5-way stereo + subs.

but the current iteration of design really wants 24 channels.

because for example i want to use separate DSP for different subs because they will be in different parts of the room and thus excite different room modes etc.  plus you want to have different delay on those subs depending on which one are closer / further from you.  plus the subs will be slightly different horns ( the same horn will not fit in every part of the room ) so that may require different DSP as well.

same with higher frequency bands - not 100% necessary, but i can see a benefit to it.  my plan is to do a sort of a shaded array but the shading will be realized by using cheaper ( less efficient ) drivers at the edges of array, and high end drivers in the center.  then they will again need separate DSP.

for subs and woofers perhaps if i use JBL DSI 2.0 cinema amps they have built in DSP, which removes the need for 8 channels of DSP leaving 16.

as for only needing 8 bits of depth that is odd.  one bit is 6db so that's just about 50db of dynamic range ... that's the dynamic range of FM radio.

on other hand if we think of CD as having 16 bit and most DSP gear having 24 bits then that 8 bits of difference allows for 50 db of EQ and volume control ( and 144 db total range ).  

is this enough ?  i could probably live with it.  a few extra bits wouldn't hurt though.

phone call = 8 bit / 1 byte

CD = 16 bit / 2 bytes

DSP = 24 bit / 3 bytes

fancy stuff = 32 bit / 4 bytes

32 bits = 192 db which matches the capacity of air to support sound waves, but i think it's actually FLOAT in which case it would be even more ...

does stuff like SPIF or AES/EBU even support 32 bit ?

the FLOAT part is basically the volume control part ...

like i said most of this isn't really necessary but it would be foolish to not at least try to do things properly before settling on "works good enough"

FlipC wrote: Dcx2496

maybe they got better but my experience with behringer was that you get what you pay for

my behringer headphone amp was noisy and the dcx popped as i said

i also had DEQ that was actually perfectly fine but overall as a brand i don't trust behringer

i would use them on subs again, but not on anything where pops or hiss can be an issue

i never thought of used DSP but it makes perfect sense.

because DSP advances quickly it makes sense that in top applications like where that Lake processor was used they would be looking to upgrade to the latest and thus be offloading gear that is still good, but maybe doesn't have some latest feature ...

What are these new features?

High end DSP hasn't changed much in 10+ years. Im a massive Lake fan boy. Granted now I would spec LMxxx but the front end control hasn't changed much in years.