Options for Tuning Via PC (cheating)

**turbocad6** · 01-25-2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by z_lust

I already have a BSS Audio Soundweb 9088iis that will be my 8x8 DSP. It is open architecture, PC configured and PC controlled through custom created GUI's.

hey Z, know of anything similar with the driverack 480? I've played around with the control software a bit, but haven't tried embedding it in a front end or anything yet... I'm not any kind of software guru so reverse engineering my own interface isn't much of an option, customizing software control would be sweet

if your ultimate goal was to have all audio tuning on the PC to begin with, then I guess this can be considered cheating, but to me, I see too many advantages to processing being handled by a dedicated pro level computerized processor, leaving the PC itself for everything else. I like low power carpc's & to have to use a monster PC just to handle the heavy load of all processing doesn't seem like too much of an advantage to me personally...

if I was determined to do all processing on a PC then I would probably want to consider 2 carpc's, one as a processing server, kinda defeats the purpose I think. I mean realistically, I can see why some would want to do all processing on the PC itself, but really if you think about it, a carpc can do so many other things too, but there still better off being handled by dedicated computers, for example a car PC could theoretically control all engine & fuel management, a carpc could handle all abs & stability control, a carpc could handle many functional & convenience options, a carpc could handle many other things that are normally handled by dedicated systems, but in the end I think all of the things that a carpc could do, for the most part is handled much more reliably by dedicated control systems for each, & then have all systems communicate with & be interfaced & controlled by the carpc, to me this includes audio processing, which is no trivial task really.

to me personally, I think a dedicated pro level processor that is controlled by the carpc is a better & more reliable system overall than doing all processing also on the carpc. it's a more modular approach & I don't see what real advantage doing all processing on the PC has over this, short of the obvious $$$ & space issues of course

now in a few years, when core 4 quads are the norm, AND the technology is there to run a core 4 quad system at not much more than 100 watts, then maybe all processing on the pc may be much more practical & actually an advantage, but right now I think it's too much of a burden on the carpc itself, & I would rather have a low power pc & dedicated processor handle the task, with both communicating & the pc controlling the processor.... in the end I don't think that's cheating, I think it's the better way to go really, I'm all for developing all processing on the carpc, but I don't think most carpc's are up to the task just yet...

**thekl0wn** · 01-25-2008, 09:45 AM

I've thrown around the 2nd PC idea for a while, but that would be further down the road! It just seems that this would introduce even more latency. I'm not actually sure what the best method would be to go about this... Optical>>Optical>>DAC; DAC>>ADC>>DAC; Networked stream; etc...

As far as the budget is concerned, I'm going to be stuck looking at gear in the price range of the 3sixty.2. I don't have the $2-3K to drop on these processors at the moment, though I do plan on winning the lottery soon or finding a wife with an incredibly rich family in the near future. The sad part is, I have all the space I could ever need in the Tahoe, and actually have multiple places where I could put it, and make it look scha-weet. Now, if anyone wants to adopt a 25-year-old programmer, or wants to lend me theirs to work with, I'd be more than happy to accept!

The 3sixty.2 is not exactly pro-grade equipment, but should suffice at doing anything, and everything I currently need. Integrating control into my GUI would also make this a killer item for the price. I've also seen this item in MANY SQ competition vehicles, which makes me come to one of two conclusions... It's either a great product, or RF's marketing department is doing a good job!

I'm still trying to get at RF to get me in contact with a programmer, or at least some programming reference manuals (on the product) to get things started. I guess they might be a bit more willing if I owned something of theirs first...

**durwood** · 01-25-2008, 10:38 AM

Hey Z, you have anything to do with the JBL MS8?

here was I comment I made on another forum.

If a company were smart, they should build a generic DSP unit that you could load a set amount of plugins into or at least make it expandable. Then charge for extra add-on packs as they are developed. They would make a killing.

I'd like to see a processor similar to how VST plugins work. Make a nice GUI controlled via PC. That way you could implement almost anything you wanted. I'm starting to get into more advanced stuff like converting 2 channel stereo to ambiophonics, ambiosonics and VBAP. I'd love to see a processor be able to implement features like this. There is not really anything out there like that.

I don't know if you saw this yet: http://www.mp3car.com/wiki/index.php...g_via_Software

**thekl0wn** · 01-25-2008, 01:32 PM

I've also turned up the PPI DCX-730 in the searching...

**durwood** · 01-25-2008, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by thekl0wn

I've also turned up the PPI DCX-730 in the searching...

Good luck finding one of those. They are disco. They have a tendency for the buttons to stop working. Other than that, a fairly good option.

**z_lust** · 01-27-2008, 02:12 PM

Sorry for the Lag in response.

www.bssaudio.com

This is a single rack space device with no knobs and is entirely configured and controlled through a PC. I do not recall if the 480 has control software. Comparing a 480 w/ a 9088 is like comparing you grandfathers pocket knife with a Leatherman tool.
You can download Soundweb (9000 series) designer or London Architect (BLU series) and start designing your processing before you ever buy the hardware. If you can drag and drop, you can program in Soundweb. If you have basic understanding of audio, you have all the tools you will ever need. Changing you system does not require hours of soldering and rewiring, simply drag and drop your wires and processing objects in software and reload the 9088.

This will run on most PC's, I don't think it will be a problem to run on the car PC as an app called by RR for example. Designer was written to work under Win95, so it is not a resource hog. Most of the time you will not need to run the software anyway, only during tuning of your system, the device remembers all the settings every time you make a change and these settings are loaded when the device boots.

In this forum I have created Application guides showing typical uses of the product:
http://www.bssaudio.com/phpBB2/viewf...c3f5c39f81b792
No CarPC in there, but the 8 ch processor will give you an Idea of the horsepower and GUI capabilities of the system.

You can pick up a Soundweb 9088 on ebay for around $400-700 USD, they also show up in the UK on ebay too. A 3088 would be perfect for a car application (no networked audio = cheaper). They can be Line, mic/line or AES inputs. If you had digital source (audigy?) and digital amps(?) you could stay digital all the way through your signal chain.

This product is very popular in all types of commercial pro audio, from your favorite band on tour right now to some of the worlds largest sporting arenas(Bush Stadium in the US & O2 Arena in the UK just to name a few).

The power of the product is the open architecture and networking capabilities (scalable ) allowing the programmer to tailor the system to his exact needs.

In my application my signal flow will look something like this:

This is a screen cap from Soundweb Designer. I use single band crossovers because it gives me band pass filters, gain, delay and limiting all in one processing object.

**thekl0wn** · 01-28-2008, 07:51 AM

Slick interface. Personally, from the first glance, I like it better than console.

Another option I've turned up: Peavey VSX-48

**turbocad6** · 01-28-2008, 11:23 AM

hey Z lust, I'm not looking to debate this with you at all, but since you don't even know if the 480 has PC control software or not, I'm going to assume that you have not done much research on this unit. i would suggest you do before dismissing it as an ancient useless inferior product. there is more to an audio interface than drag & drop ease, the quality of the components as a whole has a huge effect on the end result. the 4 Jensen transformers in the output stage of the driverack 480 cost more than half as much as that whole unit your showing. now I'll admit that I haven't even looked at it yet, so I am very uniformed about it just yet, & in being so, I wouldn't be able to make much useful comment on the unit your talking about, but by the same token you seem to be in this same situation with the driverack 480, but have no reservations in making up your mind that it is inferior & dismissed as such.

again, no debate from me, just look into what it is your dismissing before you do so. the driverack 480 was close to 4 grand when it was new, components play a big part in the cost of a piece of equipment like this, & the driverack 480 has some very impressive functionality, I can't say that it does everything yours does & more, but that just may very well be the case too, it's not a toy by any stretch of the imagination...

**z_lust** · 01-28-2008, 07:19 PM

No worries Turbocad.
The dbx Driverack 480 can be controlled via an RS232 connection with this software:
ftp://ftp.dbxpro.com/pub/software/Dr....2%20Setup.exe
The big brother of this is the new dbx DriveRack 4800 that can be controlled with System Architect:
http://www.dbxpro.com/4800/4800.htm

I think you miss understood my comments about the 480. It is a great piece of pro gear and I have used them live before when mixing FOH. The BSS Audio equivalent would be the FDS-334/336 Minidrive or the FDS-366 Omnidrive and both of these can be controlled from London Architect. These are loudspeaker management devices primarily designed for the live market. By this I mean the have knobs on the front so an engineer can tweek his heart out.
Did I mention that both dbx and BSS Audio are part of Harman Music Group and are both manufactured in Salt Lake on the same Line?

Soundweb is a product for the fixed install market (no knobs), although it is used quite often on tour as well. Diana Krall has been using the London series for mixing In Ear Monitors for the last two years. The Original Soundweb (9088's) are use in many of the mixing suites at Skywalker Ranch and many other post production houses.

So my comment was not that the 480 is in anyway inferior, I was implying that Soundweb was just that much better.

Originally Posted by thekl0wn

Slick interface. Personally, from the first glance, I like it better than console.

It is funny for me to hear you say that. To me it is the yucky 10 year old Windows 95 interface.
Here is a few screen caps of custom control panels built in London Architect:

**thekl0wn** · 01-29-2008, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by z_lust

It is funny for me to hear you say that. To me it is the yucky 10 year old Windows 95 interface.

And the even funnier part is that in the last post, with the exception of the first screenshot in that post, I think they all look cheap and very unprofessional, whereas the original has a nice simplistic utilitarian feel... But yes, it could be improved upon by quite a bit.

Mentioning that Skywalker Ranch uses it, settles it for me! I'm in! If George Lucas approves, so do I!