opaqueice Wrote: > It seems that we SB users have a far more attractive option available - > to run a room correction system on the computer, *asynchronously*, and > then stream the corrected file to the SB. In other words, calibrate by > measuring the room response with a test signal and microphone, and use > that and the desired frequency response curve to generate a filter. > Then have a SB plugin which convolves the source file with the filter > (in faster than real time) and streams it to the SB.
I think you nailed it. There are lots of reasons I like SqueezeBox. Of course the hardware, which has a really excellent engineering & attention to detail, while still being built to an affordable price-point. But the system architecture overall is so nice, and this separation of a medium-power network-connected audio device from the server has a huge amount of flexibility. Then there's been some really smart business thinking from SlimDevices about extending this (the SqueezeNetwork, the Pandora hook-up, etc -- with all their rough edges -- are really great beginnings). Eventually, high-power DSP (powerful enough to process long filters) will be everywhere. I totally expect to see mid-market "home stereo" amorphous-line-array systems with dozens of loudspeakers per system, each containing wicked powerful processors, coordinating with each other to recreate the sound experience (and doing a better job of it than two channels usually does today). But for now, in a two-channel SB system, the PC is [a] basically free, and [b] easily fast enough to run lots of fancy DSP algorithms. (Powerful enough to run room correction on several squeezeboxes simultaneously). Talking of price-points, I've always been a cheapskate audiophile, and SB lets me play that game. My main system for a long time was a Linn/Basik/K9, to a homebrew triode pre with dumpster-salvaged Naim phono boards, to a salvaged-and-rebuilt Quad 405, to some quite nice hand-me-down Monitor Audio speakers. That all set me back a few hundred quid, back in the day. Now, a SB-based system can give better price/performance below $1000 than anything else on the market. (OK, $1500 or $2000 if you include the computer). And, whatever quality your analog stages, there's a whole lot of value-add in the digital domain too. opaqueice Wrote: > Apparently this is already being worked on here: > > http://www.duffroomcorrection.com/wiki/User:Hpyle > > Can hpyle or anyone else comment on the progress of it? is it already > available for download somewhere? Progress: slow but promising. Not yet downloadable. Of course I'll announce here when there's a generally usable version. dwc Wrote: > Looks really cool, but it's a bit crude at 9-channels. > [for comparison the DEQ is 31-channels, independent L+R control] The 9-band plugin only stops there because the UI is the "INPUT.Bar" control (same as the SB volume control, but with a center-zero) for each band. It would be possible to build a vertical-slider-control thingy, but that's beyond my leet perl skillz right now. But the aim of this EQ is just to tailor for personal taste *after* correction filtering has run the early-reflection compensation, the room booms & peaks, and so on. Like the old Quad "tilt" tone control, a gentle touch goes a long way. For most situations (e.g. adjusting for a particular album's balance) I think bass/mid/treb is enough. And although I don't have a shippable "quietness" control yet, early experiments in that area look likely to solve 90% of my tone-control wants. - Hugh yclept inguz -- inguz ------------------------------------------------------------------------ inguz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
