Julf
Facts are our friends
No, but a $300 DSP box probably can.
No, but a $300 DSP box probably can.
GJO
pfm Member
+1 works great for me.
DNM
pfm Member
If your speakers are active and you can time align drivers, then possibly $300 can do it to a point with lots of measurements and manual configuration. You'll only get a four channel solution from MiniDSP for that money however.
G
Guest432
Guest
Haven't had the invoice from customs yet, used my company to clear it so didn't have to pay up front.
It was £650 so I'm expecting 20% VAT to go on top as there's no duty on electronic recording devices which this is classed as.
It was £650 so I'm expecting 20% VAT to go on top as there's no duty on electronic recording devices which this is classed as.
Rodney gold
Im just me...
GJO
pfm Member
Been running mine with one of these https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B015R1ERXC/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21 it doesn't come with a suitable connecting lead or charger,you will need a 2amp USB rated charger,when fully charged it will run for 30-40 hrs and does improve detail and clarity for little outlay.
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
DNM
pfm Member
The 22D is a digital only device which has switching regulators in the power supply path. Without any analogue circuitry to worry about, its highly remote a battery or linear PSU will make any difference, unless the stock SMPS is affecting other kit in your system.
I just use the supplied wall wart on mine but in the interests of open mindedness and curiosity, I've just tried it with a Teddy Pardo linear PSU and can't detect any difference. Then again, it was sighted and my expectation bias works the other way round these days
igor_xxxx
pfm Member
It looks like I need to give Dirac a try one more time.Two times I tried it with the recommended curve and somehow it sounded strange and different to me, so I simply turned it off without too much messing with it.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
I've tried full range EQ and bass EQ and I use neither now.
If the processing proved to be numerically blameless (not a given) I might be persuaded to try bass DRC again, but for what I think are good reasons I think DRC is not a good idea above the Schroeder frequency (https://www.soundandvision.com/content/schroeder-frequency-show-and-tell-part-1).
If the processing proved to be numerically blameless (not a given) I might be persuaded to try bass DRC again, but for what I think are good reasons I think DRC is not a good idea above the Schroeder frequency (https://www.soundandvision.com/content/schroeder-frequency-show-and-tell-part-1).
G
Guest432
Guest
Have no idea what "numerically blameless" is but you are over analysing this.
I tried it with the filter active and then switched off, for me it sounded better with the filter on.
Job done.
I tried it with the filter active and then switched off, for me it sounded better with the filter on.
Job done.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Wouldn't be the first time!
I used to be a raging subjectivist for years. Then years of being a raging objectivist. Since I started my latest phase of over-analyzing and being OTT with matters hi-fi a few years ago (semi-objectivist, semi-subjectivist, or schizophrenic) I've achieved much better sound - maybe it's not so bad.
SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
Absolutely. Care is needed with getting the measurements right but I've yet to hear 'no filter' perform better than a filter in any of about seven or eight rooms I've tried it in. Being a bit OCD, I made three sets of measurements for my own room and went for the one I preferred although they were very close and all were much better than 'no filter'.
Interestingly I have not been able to improve on the default curve although some report fine tuning to be beneficial. I lost interest in fiddling because I was enjoying it and no longer distracted by obvious room effects.