As has been stated already, DSP is an abbreviation of Digital Signal Processing, and it can be implemented in different ways for different purposes. Most here refer to it as a means for digital room correction in listening environments with troubled acoustics, in the context of "consumer or budget audio equipment" (often multi-channel setups), and as an additional process/measure on top of an existing system - typically with passively configured speakers. There’s the gist that DSP is a sub standard approach to fixing problems in a cheap and convenient fashion, and while it can do that it can also - depending on the specific DSP units' design, construction, function and implementation - be a lot more in true state of the art systems.
@mikelavigne wrote:
DSP is a tool. it’s neither good nor bad. and can make perfect sense when it is the best approach to solve the problem.
A DSP can serve the sole purpose as a digital, active crossover as well, so it’s not only a "tool" but can as well act as an integral, necessary part of a speaker system - prior to amplification.
but DSP is not free. it costs musical essence.
Compared to what, a passive crossover? With a quality, outboard actively configured DSP in place of a passive crossover (with no other function than that), no. A passive crossover in itself isn’t transparent either, far from it, and it meddles with the amp to driver interface to boot; that’s the double detriment of passive crossovers.
i do not know anyone who uses DSP in a 2 channel system. and have not heard a DSP system for 2 channel that i like.
In what function were the DSP’s used in these 2-channel systems?
There aren’t a whole bunch of quality DSP’s around, admittedly, and most of them are from the pro sector (that scare off many audiophiles) like XTA, ACX (formerly known as Xilica), DBX and LabGruppen. DEQX makes some cool stuff as well, and is expensive. It’s also worth mentioning, again, that outboard, quality DSP’s can be implemented in most any setup context replacing passive crossovers, albeit with the need for more amp channels to feed each driver section.
Being the über-connoisseur in 2-channel audio reproduction that you are, Mr. Lavigne, and with a passively configured system that no doubt bowls over most of what any of us around here will likely ever get to experience, I’d be interested to learn of your findings with an actively configured and DSP-based setup where the DSP acts as nothing else than a digital, active crossover (i.e.: sans digital room correction) in place of the passive crossovers. Maybe you’d be let down by the outcome, but if so then only because your approach with a passively configured speaker system is so all-out that there’s no digital crossover equivalent readily available. Most however don’t come from the same place (and even so the sonic ceiling can be very high), and that being the case a quality digital XO/DSP for active config. - from my chair - will be the lesser evil compared to a passive context.