They are closer than you think. Well, actually, they are already here, but I’m thinking of one specifically, Bohdan Raczynski’s Soundeasy software. Most of you know this as one of the more common programs available to the DIY’r to measure, design and build loudspeakers. Now, BR is working towards making a digital xover.
Why is this such a great idea? Well, think about the typical workflow associated with building a speaker.
Conceptualization–>Build cabinet–>Measure drivers–>Import result into modeling program–>Order passive parts–>build physical crossover–>Remeasure–>Adjust components.
Then, keep iterating the last two steps until measurements and sound agree and meet the goal.
Now, with a decent PC providing the computing power the workflow is simplified, and made more powerful as well.
Conceptualization–>Build cabinet–>Measure drivers–>Import result into modeling program–>Use standalone equalizer.
You’re done.
No passive parts. No repeated iteration with additional passive parts since you can just modify your system on the fly. And, you get the benefit of dsp equalization of almost any irregularity, phase as well as FR.
For example, think of the Usher 8945P. It has an awe-inspiring motor, but a quirky edge resonance that causes a pretty significant dip, marring what would otherwise be a giant killer. Passively, this is hard to correct. With something like Soundeasy’s Ultimate equalizer, this is trivial to fix.
It does require a compatible soundcard and an available PC, as well as a multichannel amp. However, you’d never have to build another passive xover again.
Anyway, I paypal’d BR and am looking forward to this. I’m now motivated to put a few speakers on the baffle.
Even if you don’t want to design speakers, hopefully the setup will let me save a file and post it on the net. You just have to buy and build the unit, and buy a SE along with a standalone equalizer module.
Now if BR is in a moneymaking mood, maybe…he could have an SE upgrade that wound generate a specific UE file to only function with a particular design. Anyone requesting that design would have to email BR for a key in order for it to work.
That is, let’s say you want to copy my RS28F/MCM waveguide/SS15m/xls 3 way. I generate a specific UE standalone file that will only work for this setup. When I generate this, it would require a key. You email BR, send him $25, and voila! You have a specific UE that works with your setup only. Even if somehow you hacked this, BR’s loss would be small, since the UE only would work for than design.
Nifty, huh! Instead of getting just $25 from SE users, every builder out there who uses a crossover based on SE’s UE gives BR $25 per design. It’s not that steep really, if you’re spending $500 on drivers and nothing on passive components, what’s a $25 fee to BR. If you want to build lot’s of xovers, then just spring for your own copy of SE.
Not a bad way for BR to add to his bottom line…
Mark,
Thanks for blogging about Soundeasy and how it streamline electronic/digital crossover development. For a couple of years now I have been meaning to pick up a copy of Soundeasy to try this out myself, since I have the rest of the signal chain already in hand. The one down side I see, is that you must remain tied to the computer running Soundeasy.
I wonder how you feel about the new products from MiniDSP (http://www.minidsp.com/)? These are 24 bit 48k Hz A/D-D/A boards containing an on-board DSP engine. For about $100 you get 2-input and 4-output channels with a number of pre-determined crossover and equalization functions or (for a more low-level approach) a large number of biquad stages that can be programmed to do whatever you would like in terms of signal shaping/filtering. There is a USB interface to program the functions using software on your computer. If the developed crossover functions could be exported from Soundeasy and imported into the MiniDSP product (or manually programmed in to them), this would allow you to remove the speaker from the development platform while retaining the transfer function. What are your thoughts on this approach?
Hi Charlie,
See my comments to Rick. Yes, a hardware solution would be cool and I’d buy one, maybe. But that ties you to a particular DAC, etc. Plus someone has to build the hardware. The nice thing about an all software solution is that everyone has a PC, so everyone already has a hardware dsp…
I agree that this is the future of cross-overs. However, I’d like to see the elimination of the soundcard and PC once the design is complete. Perhaps the output of the design is a file which is then loaded into a set of standalone DSP modules. MiniDSP boards are an example, but I’m not sure are currently powerful enough to do everything necessary.
Hi Rick,
I believe he or johnk looked into the miniDSP boards, but they would not work. I think ultimately it is Bohdan’s plan to have a UE kernel in a dedicated dsp board. That way, he could make money on every active monitor sold, so to speak. But the other, just as powerful option, is to have an entirely software based active xover that would interface between whatever media player you choose and whatever sound card you choose. No reason UE couldn’t be ported into hardware dsp’s and exist as a standalone software solution.
Hi Mark
I sent you a private email a couple of weeks ago.
Did you get it?
If you did, please just confirm.
If not, could you provide an email address.
Regards
Ray