anyone using an EQ with surround?

[Buckle-meister]

Ideally the trick would be to find a dolby decoder that sends the surround channels in digital mode...

Well, what would make it so difficult to build an EQ that simply accepted a coaxial or optical digital cable and decoded the multichannel stream? It's no more than any receiver currently does. In addition, some/many receivers already do EQ in the digital domain (as far as I am aware), so this is hardly pushing the boat out either.

I must be missing something here.

Regards

 

[bloosquare]

Sorry, but those reviews are total B.S.; the equivalent credibility of wire reviews. Are these reviewers using level matched double blind test protocol? Or the standard (and highly flawed) sighted listening protocol? I have measured the DCX and it does not produce any noise or distortion that would be anywhere near audible to a human, assuming one knows how to properly use/set up the device. Do you realize that the DCX, in fact, uses the same standardized AD/DA and op amp buffer stages as modern mega-dollar studio recording/mastering equipment? To observe someone saying that this level of performance "leaves something to be desired" makes me(for one) laugh. I suspect these same people also talk about how different (well designed and properly functioning) amplifiers have such clearly unique sound signatures.

-Chris

I dont discount that what you are saying is true and that sampling at 96khz is good enough that it does not add anything to the noise. (that conclusion seems to me to imply that DVD-A 192khz sampling is all hype as well).

But it still seems to me to be a bit pointless to take an inherently digital signal convert it to analogue, then convert it back to digital equalize it and then convert it back to analogue as at the very least we would agree that the *best* sound you will have is the one coming from the worst *dac/adc* in the chain and its not as if multichannel digital doesn't exist i.e. adat/tdif etc.

 

[bloosquare]

Well, what would make it so difficult to build an EQ that simply accepted a coaxial or optical digital cable and decoded the multichannel stream? It's no more than any receiver currently does. In addition, some/many receivers already do EQ in the digital domain (as far as I am aware), so this is hardly pushing the boat out either.

I must be missing something here.

Regards

That would work as well, but you would need an multichannel digital equalizer. One of the Alesis digital equalizers is 8 channel and I believe takes adat in. To be honest I think what annoys me about this is that it is obvious how it should have been implemented, if the kids who make pro gear had come up w/ dolby/dts that is how everything would have been implemented but the analogue only out was a design decision from the get-go, because you are right its "hardly pushing the boat out either". Its also why DVD-A also has the same handicaps.

I use the DEQ currently for room equalization for 2 channel sound and have been thinking of extending the idea for a full fledged 5(7).1 system. Equalization in receivers must be done internally (along the digital path) as you say.

Perhaps it doesn't matter in the end, 24/96 is a pretty high rate of sampling.

Honestly I think the way to go is replace the dvd-player w/ a computer, let that do the decoding (and perhaps equalize/delay it) and then send it out.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

But it still seems to me to be a bit pointless to take an inherently digital signal convert it to analogue, then convert it back to digital equalize it and then convert it back to analogue as at the very least we would agree that the *best* sound you will have is the one coming from the worst *dac/adc* in the chain and its not as if multichannel doesn't exist i.e. adat/tdif etc.

Did anyone find that funny? I about spit my Pepsi all over the keyboard. -Sorry, eq humor.

All that converting reminds me of some old neighbors that would convert religions with the changing of seasons.

Any of you who have SACD 6.1 channel out on your dvd's, do us a favor and eq a DTS or DD dvd with a pair/three eq's and let us know if there's some improvement in sq, and no loss in surround. IMO, the beauty of digital is ONE interconnect for audio - toslink or coax - not to mention HDMI which may soon become the norm in HD/Blu Ray players.

 

[WmAx]

I dont discount that what you are saying is true and that sampling at 96khz is good enough that it does not add anything to the noise. (that conclusion seems to me to imply that DVD-A 192khz sampling is all hype as well).

44.1 kHz is [1]sufficient for sampling transparently according to credible perceptual research. But the 24 bit depth does help with level imperfections(noise is at a lower point, thus allows more latitude for mismatch error of gains).

But it still seems to me to be a bit pointless to take an inherently digital signal convert it to analogue, then convert it back to digital equalize it and then convert it back to analogue as at the very least we would agree that the *best* sound you will have is the one coming from the worst *dac/adc* in the chain and its not as if multichannel digital doesn't exist i.e. adat/tdif etc.

It's true that the ideal circumstance, theoretically, is to have as few conversions as possible. I agree 100%. However, in practical application, it does not matter if a limited number of extra conversions occur when dealing with ADC/DAC of the caliber used in the DEQ/DCX devices. One can not discern any audible difference based on the miniscule level of degradation these products will present to the signal.

-Chris

[1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=123558#post123558