Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

NOTE: This is a "Community" forum. Please be mindful that community members are here to help as part of a community effort. We therefore appreciate your effort in keeping this forum a happy place!

If you have a specific issue (e.g. hardware, failure) and want help from our support team, please use our tech support portal (Support menu - > Contact Us).
Thanks a lot of your help in making a better community.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition...

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21923

  • Richard
  • Richard's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 127
  • Thank you received: 68
  • Karma: 13
john.reekie wrote:
I'm not talking about what you should build, I'm talking about what you think miniDSP should build :)
As in: "MiniDSP should address the crossover market more seriously and make a 2x6 or 2x8 or 4x8 version of the OpenDRC with 6144 taps per channel". I asked if you really need 6k taps per channel, for the simple reason that more taps means more processors (all other things being equal), and more processors means more complexity.

Er, are you disagreeing - that a multi-channel pro friendly machine wouldn’t be a lovely idea?!

You say "more taps means more processors and complexity" but it already runs 6k taps stereo with one processor. I don't need more taps than it already delivers, I just need more channels of them, so I simply purchase three of those boxes. My solution can't be any less complex than a 6 channel solution whatever I buy. In fact I've got four OpenDRC boxes now, because I already had the older silver box model already.

Your question about needing 6k taps, I already answered in massive detail above, but it's a moot point anyway...

6K taps is what MiniDSP chose to bring to market. I didn’t know I wanted 6k taps until I compared everything else on the market and went for the best product available, which happened to offer 6144 taps. If they’d made it with 5k taps or 8k taps instead, I’d still have bought it, so long as it was the best choice on the market. Which it certainly is.
Furthermore, it’s the cheapest price / best value-for-money! To get less taps, I’d have to spend more money(!), so no-brainer really to save money and get the best product.

Based on my calculations, 6144 taps is largely sufficient for woofers, and plenty enough for midranges and tweeters, so I’m happy. I cannot choose to downgrade to something with less taps, because 6144 is already cheapest and best solution, so there’s no benefit in considering less taps, even for tweeters. I can afford to buy it, so I’ll take 6144, thanks.

Yes, I do really need to use 6k taps because that’s what the machine provides per channel so I might as well use them all, and otherwise - obtaining less taps (from another machine) would be more expensive and compromise the results too. So why not?

How many taps would I ideally like in my wildest dreams / in theory?
Well, I’m a pianist. Sound of the piano is very important to me.
The piano’s bottom A= 27.5Hz and next note is Bb = 29.135Hz, because every semitone is twelfth root of two frequency interval apart.
So, perhaps I would like that difference, 1.635 Hz interval resolution, to allow adjustment of single notes on the piano’s lowest range (thus ensuring they are all reproduced correctly) which according to previous formula means it requires 29,356 taps at 48kHz sampling rate or 58,710 taps at 96kHz sampling rate.
It’s not inconceivable. OpenDRC with 6144 taps and future 4x downsampling option could deliver 1.95Hz interval resolution below 6kHz Nyquist limit, or with 8x downsampling could deliver 0.977Hz interval resolution below 3kHz limit, either of which would be great news.
Last Edit: 3 years 11 months ago by Richard.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Thunderstruck

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21925

  • john.reekie
  • john.reekie's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 3481
  • Thank you received: 1499
  • Karma: 137
Richard wrote:
john.reekie wrote:
I'm not talking about what you should build, I'm talking about what you think miniDSP should build :)
As in: "MiniDSP should address the crossover market more seriously and make a 2x6 or 2x8 or 4x8 version of the OpenDRC with 6144 taps per channel". I asked if you really need 6k taps per channel, for the simple reason that more taps means more processors (all other things being equal), and more processors means more complexity.

Er, are you disagreeing - that a multi-channel pro friendly machine wouldn’t be a lovely idea?!

I said no such thing. I'm just trying to point out that it's not as simple as you seem to think. It doesn't matter. Good luck with your new hardware :)

J
I am not miniDSP support.

"You must ask the right questions." - Dr. Alfred Lanning's hologram.
-> Have you read the User Manual??
-> Have you drawn and posted a diagram?
-> Have you posted a screenshot?
-> Have you posted your config file?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21939

  • leoman
  • leoman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 92
  • Thank you received: 30
  • Karma: 9
Hi Richard,
I saw the thread; hope I understood well enough to offer some info. John has good points.

I built a multisharc box a while ago
www.minidsp.com/forum/opendrc-projects/1...project?limitstart=0
the equivalent of which is now available by chaining openDRC-DI to openDRC-DA8. But the second sharc (DA8 equivalent) runs the 4x8 plugin to give me my crossovers, and it outputs as (unbalanced) analog. So there's the input stage with 6144 taps/channel (2 channels) feeding the 4x8 output stage with its necessarily reduced tap/channel allocation. Most of the pain is in mundane things like drilling holes.

I have no use for balanced analog, but other than that it is possible to do what you want in terms of taps in one box with current boards. The downside is that you'd need 3 minisharcs, each running the 2x2 plugin and each programmed via a separate USB line, plus an spdif splitter to feed them with the signal from the outside world. You'd provide the DAC (unless you included Curryman boards, not a bad idea, though they'd need a separate [bipolar] supply).

And then there's always the option of a splitter plus 3 openDRC-DA8 boxes. Still 3 USB lines and a bunch of unused (and unbalanced) analog outputs, but with the 2x2 plugin 2 per box would be functional, I believe, and each channel would have 6144 taps. Or perhaps 3 openDRC-DI boxes with your own multichannel DAC with balanced outputs?

Finally, from my experience I'd see not much use in 6144 taps for activity outside the bass region (I cross over at 330hz, 192db/oct [barely] with 1748 taps, plus have enough left over for a little woofer EQ). Assuming you are happy at slopes like that (or lower, even easier), you could hybridize a bit by using the 2x2 sharc for your bass output and a 4x8 sharc for the rest without much trouble. You'd have around 9600 taps to play with on the 2 mids and 2 highs (though a max of 2048 on a channel, unfortunately). The only stress point would be your high-pass on the mids, and if it's not much lower than mine (or the slope isn't greater) it shouldn't be an issue. So in the current boxed product version, that would be 2 DA8s (or DIs), one 2x2, the other 4x8. Above 2khz on my 4-way system, I have zero trouble using ~600 taps and crossing over at 512db/oct.

You're right about the lack of an "openDRC-AD", or better yet, digital plus analog in (like the 4x10 box) with digital out. That would obviate my separate ADC/rate converter. Even building my own box prior to the DA8 unveiling, I saw no available h/w to do that. But I'm happy with what I have (until I'm not, of course)!

The pro box you envision would be nice, but I have a feeling it would also be quite costly. We customers would have to help amortize a lot of development too.
Last Edit: 3 years 11 months ago by leoman.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21945

  • Richard
  • Richard's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 127
  • Thank you received: 68
  • Karma: 13
Hi Leoman,

Yes, I remember seeing your project a while back, and reading about it.
Regarding that Sharc Stack project, or the equivalent OpenDRC-DI feeding into an OpenDRC-DA8 - it doesn't offer me what I need because firstly, as you say, it has unbalanced RCA outputs, whereas all my audio gear is balanced XLR's analogue or digital. (I'm actually surprised you say you have "no use for balanced analogue" yourself, as I can clearly see a Behringer iNuke amplifier and Ultramatch AD/DA in your photos, which are both balanced XLR analogue connections.) Secondly, I don't favour the concept of the 6144 tap convolution upstream on a stereo fullrange signal then another 1080 tap convolution on the same signal later on after crossover, which is where it really needs the most taps for linear phase slopes and individual driver corrections IMHO, and doing two convolutions with twice the windowing errors and math rounding errors, more latency, etc. Seems to me like cooking your dinner in oven for 10 minutes then taking out and microwaving it...! I'd rather just use the one process once, because 6144 taps per driver would be enough to accomplish everything all in one go. 3x OpenDRC is therefore a simpler, cleaner DSP processing path for the signal to undergo, and also if I want to tweak something, it's only one FIR per driver to generate perhaps. I prefer that convenience, and greater processing power per driver anyway, although as we know MiniDSP don't a ready made product which does that, but if going the DIY route anyway, then would have been my preference.

Sounds like your suggestion is to take three miniSharcs and put them in one box, with three USB connectors, and a multichannel DAC , so equivalent to putting three naked OpenDRC-DI machines in one big 2U rack. (Hopefully with adequate shielding to avoid inter-channel crosstalk, and interference noise audible through the D/A that some have mentioned in posts on the Dirac series forums.) This would be nice if MiniDSP manufactured all the metalwork neatly for us to a commercial quality finish, but a homemade metal box always looks a bit homemade to me, and it doesn't offer any strategic operational advantage of having their three seperate half-rack boxes if all the I/O connectors and setup are still the same. Do you know a way to include both analogue in & out and digital in and out on that design? I think that's where we need MiniDSP to upgrade the firmware to support it, then it becomes feasible.

OpenDRC-AD isn't something I want because my sources are pretty much AES/EBU anyway by the time I get to the crossover. I've got outboard Apogee PSX100 converter for A/D anyway. (Which also happens to work great as 1>3 AES/EBU splitter.) I'd rather avoid the built in 2 volt consumer level DACs altogether if possible, but it's very convenient for simple routing while testing and configuring my setups between several systems. I'd love to buy something like a Mytek 8192 or Forssell MDAC8 or equivalent for serious DAC duty, but they're quite expensive and I'd rather avoid D-sub connectors if I could. I'm still looking for the perfect 8 channel DAC that does everything I want at a price I can afford. Lynx Hilo is nice but only 2 channels. When they make an 8 channel version of that I'll be happy.

I understand your point about taps when crossing over at 330Hz with 192dB slopes. Looks like the side skirts of that impulse are about 33 milliseconds either side by the time they've gone below 24 bit resolution limit -144.5dBFS, so a 66ms FIR window would probably be enough, or about 3200 taps , for 24 bit resolution.
However my crossover freqs are lower. eg. from 8 inch midrange to 15 inch woofer is currently set around 238Hz, and if I crossed from the 15 inch to my 21 inch subwoofers (don't really need to as I'v e got the 15 flat to below 20Hz now anyway) I'd probably cross somewhere between 40Hz to 55Hz. In this case, I'd use IIR crossover, with FIR allpass phase correction, which I think is always the best method because you can guarantee the IIR is working and protecting the driver, whilst the FIR is doing a good job linearizing the phase but if it approximates due to tap limitations or windowing approximation issues, then it's only gonna mess up the phase response a little rather than risk blowing your expensive drivers especially tweeters if some low bass does get through.

Last point you wrote about "we customers would have to help amortize a lot of development cost too." Maybe fair point, but the cost would be recouped in the final product, and a professional box would attract more professional customers with professional budgets. Larger sales volumes would eventually push prices down for all of us. Anyway MiniDSP products are so ridiculously cheap already I'm not worried about that. Look at the competition like DEQX and Trinnov and Coneq and their crazy prices for what they do, which can be mostly duplicated by a careful, methodical person running free software like rePhase, HOLM, REW and a few of MiniDSP's excellent bargain products!

Best regards,
Richard
Last Edit: 3 years 11 months ago by Richard.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21949

  • leoman
  • leoman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 92
  • Thank you received: 30
  • Karma: 9
Hi Richard,

Our venues are clearly different; You have pro equipment compatibility to consider, I have something in my garage to stream the BSO. It calms me when something, especially automotive, doesn't go quite as planned, causing emotional or (usually) physical pain!

I do have that ultramatch working; as with the Behringer amps I just used rca/xlr adapters. The level mismatches have never been noticeable, and anyway I've replaced the amps with homemade units that work as well (subjectively at least), take up way less space and have no fan noise. I think there's a shot of the newer setup at the end of that stack post's comments.

I was however able to connect the ultramatch to the stack with toslink, setting my output to aes/ebu, which the stack input graciously accepted (one reason I'm glad I included a DIGI-FP). The sharc-to-sharc connection is limited to spdif though.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see a 'pro' unit even if it were high priced. I wonder though whether that might be considered too much of a deviation from some diy mission statement. Whatever, now with your help I'm giving myself more ideas to spend money :)

Regards,
John
Last Edit: 3 years 11 months ago by leoman.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 11 months ago #21956

  • Richard
  • Richard's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 127
  • Thank you received: 68
  • Karma: 13
Hi Leoman,
I don't know if there's necessarily a DIY mission statement at MiniDSP. They sell pre-built circuit boards rather than a bag of IC chips resistors and some solder! And seriously, many / most of their sale products are ready boxed machines with AC plug, familiar audio sockets, front panel controls and instruction guide, just like you'd buy from a hi-fi shop. It's nice they offer to sell the component building blocks too, giving you much more economical DIY freedoms, but you could always take apart any product you buy with a screwdriver and cannibalize it if you wished.

It all comes down to what items they sell - can they ultimately do what you want or not? In a work-around kind of way, yes they can.
We've both gone DIY route it seems with things when good commercial examples don't exist, myself with custom building loudspeakers in my garage. You have fun listening to the BSO in yours, and I have fun choking to death inhaling tons of MDF dust from my router!!!
It's all worth it in the end if the wiggley line on the FFT screen goes perfectly flat....
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22750

  • Raimonds
  • Raimonds's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 1
Hello friends,
And what about latency?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22758

  • Richard
  • Richard's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 127
  • Thank you received: 68
  • Karma: 13
Hi Raimonds,

Nice to hear from you.
I agree with you that latency is very important for professional recording or live sound applications, BUT in the case here of using a hardware convolution processor which is running a full 6144 tap FIR filter (OpenDRC), or in your case 4096 tap FIR filter (APL-1s) typically for linear phase filtering with a symmetrical impulse funtion, that FIR filter itself introduces a DSP latency of 64 milliseconds or 42.667 milliseconds respectively, which is so much bigger that it dwarfs any AD/DA or digital-through latency by comparison. Even if the ALP-1s can run at 0.8ms latency analogue in - analogue out, that's great, but it would be about 43.5ms overall once you include the delay due to a typical linear phase FIR filter transfer function.

I believe once you KNOW the latency and can successfully measure it and calculate it into your design and signal path, to allow for it and get repeatable matched results every time, that's the main thing. Having latency nice and low is an ideal goal, but keeping it all under exact control and workable is more important for professional operation.

For the record, I remember measuring digital IN-OUT through round-trip latency of OpenDRC-DI as being around 269 samples at 48kHz rate, which works out to 5.6 milliseconds, but I could do some more thorough tests to verify things for different setups. The OpenDRC only works in asynchronous mode. But again, with FIR filter delay of 64ms included too, it wouldn't make much benefit even having 0.1ms bypass latency, given the application here.

Is it possible to have any more taps than 4096 for the APL-1s system?
Can you upgrade it to 6144 taps or even 8192 taps for instance?
If you just want to import the FIR impulse files as WAV files, do you need to purchase special software as well, or is that basic facility included?
Have you considered building a 3 way stereo machine for crossover applications which shares a common stereo input (digital and analogue ) going to three pairs of outputs (high / mid / low ) in analogue and digital formats? That would be great!

The fact the APL-1s does on paper outperform the OpenDRC in some areas like latency, and having both synchronous AND asynchronous SRC modes, and full digital and analogue I/O, more front panel presets, bypass switches and level meters is all terrific, although it does cost almost three times the price to be fair, yet only runs two thirds as many taps which limits low frequency extension of its filters. I don't doubt that MiniDSP could also design and build a similar product technically spec-wise to APL-1s if they were working towards the same price point, but they have opted for the biggest market appeal perhaps with the lowest priced product range.
Both machines are excellent products in their own right. I only wish there were dozens more companies out there making powerful FIR hardware DSP stuff as good as this.

Kind regards,
Richard
Last Edit: 3 years 9 months ago by Richard.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22761

  • Raimonds
  • Raimonds's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 1
Hi Richard,

Thanks for questions!

It is very big question – should we use all available taps for FIR crossover.
The filter ringing large than 15...20 ms become audible. You can test this with notch filter by increasing its Q more then 20. The notched frequency will become audible because of very long ringing of such filter.
And you can not make real the idea of the ideal crossover offered by linear phase FIR filter when the ringings of two filters are completely out of phase and mathematically should be compensated by each other. But is not so if summing is acoustical.
You never run two loudspeakers out of phase such way that you will get zero.

And about necessary number of taps for EQ.
Please find attached collection of images that is showing FIR filter synthesis results for 4096, 2048, 1024 and 512 taps for some test loudspeaker.
The white curve is showing how far is the synthesized yellow curve (drawn inverted) from the requested red curve. Even for 512 taps we have +-3dB error.
It means that the number of taps is not so important for the final correction accuracy but we should turn to the measurement itself.
Please take a look on discussion with Dr. Floyd Toole:
secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=524
You will find the full version of discussion here:
aplaudio.com/downloads/Reading_Dr_Toole.pdf
This paper should have value also:
aplaudio.com/downloads/Equalizing_loudspeakers.pdf

You should use software plagin on PC (APL EP1 VST for example) to test FIR performance on any sample rate and any number of taps.







This message has attachments images.
Please log in or register to see it.

Last Edit: 3 years 9 months ago by Raimonds. Reason: change image resolution
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22762

  • Raimonds
  • Raimonds's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 1
You need serious number of FIR taps if the time correction is required.
Like in this example with Quested monitors:
forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=1...sg1368687#msg1368687
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22795

  • devteam
  • devteam's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8533
  • Thank you received: 1052
  • Karma: 157
@ Raimonds & Richard,

While this discussion is interesting, we do feel a bit bothered that miniDSP support forum is being used as an advertising platform for another competitive product (i..e hyperlink/pitch). Call me old school I guess.. Just a mater of respect :-)

May I suggest a quick read of the forum rules on blatant advertising? Thanks much for your understanding.

DevTeam
MiniDSP, building a DIY DSP community one board at a time.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22802

  • Raimonds
  • Raimonds's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 1
devteam wrote:
@ Raimonds & Richard,

While this discussion is interesting, we do feel a bit bothered that miniDSP support forum is being used as an advertising platform for another competitive product (i..e hyperlink/pitch). Call me old school I guess.. Just a mater of respect :-)

May I suggest a quick read of the forum rules on blatant advertising? Thanks much for your understanding.

DevTeam
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your opinion. Sorry if something is wrong.
But, if you look into details, we are discussing measurement and FIR filter design tools that can be used with OpenDRC.
More, APL has already customers that are using APL measurement and filter design software with OpenDRC.
We can discuss such option with you in more details to make OpenDRC more attractive for professional customers.
BR,
Raimonds Skuruls
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22851

  • Richard
  • Richard's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 127
  • Thank you received: 68
  • Karma: 13
devteam wrote:
@ Raimonds & Richard,

While this discussion is interesting, we do feel a bit bothered that miniDSP support forum is being used as an advertising platform for another competitive product (i..e hyperlink/pitch). Call me old school I guess.. Just a mater of respect :-)

May I suggest a quick read of the forum rules on blatant advertising? Thanks much for your understanding.

DevTeam

After I read up all the available details about the APL product, I decided to purchase THREE new OpenDRC units instead! In addition to one I already own, so I now own four OpenDRC and no APL. Surely, if anything, that's a good advert / endorsement for you.

I'm just an end customer, not a retailer, so I'm not "advertising" anything for sale, or making any profit from people. Whatever I say has no business agenda behind it. I'm discussing the pure technical merits of the machines in question. Weblinks allow people to go back to the source I've quoted and read things first hand for themselves instead of blindly accepting my word for it. If maybe I've written something wrong then I'm open to public rebuke, question and criticism. My comparison table pretty much proves OpenDRC is the best FIR box with the most taps for the least cost, and I pointed out right from the start that APL is three times the price! So it isn't a directly comparible product - any more than DEQX or Trinnov or Coneq competitive systems which also do a similar job and cost a lot more. I've seen those products also mentioned a few times on these forums here too.
Mentioning a rival product which costs a lot more, isn't promoting it or "advertising" it as a better deal, but rather undermining it, due to the superior value for money of OpenDRC. At least to any intelligent forum reader here who can easily discern this logic for himself.

If this was a forum for drummers or guitarists hosted by a famous brand manufacturer, or a free-for-all like gearslutz, with lots of trolls and misinformed lay opinions from anyone and everyone, we could understand the potential power of unqualified heresay, bias, or out-of-context positive or negative comments to sway people's thinking and influence their next gear purchasing decisions, but this forum covers such a highly esoteric technical topic area - that of FIR convolution processing for audio phase correction - that anybody who doesn't possess an IQ over 130 would probably become totally lost and bored after a couple of paragraphs, and so only the keenest highly intelligent engineers or audiophiles are ever going to be interested enough to read carefully though all these long winded posts, and take any serious notice of them. Forum community readers here aren't going to be won over by subjective bias anyway, and will only accept scientifically proven facts. The actual intelligence threshold required to understand or desire to purchase equipment of such highly specialist application is what safeguards this forum from blatant advertising rubbish anyway, because no-one here is stupid enough to fall for any sales pitch hype or a snake oil type product, without reading up all the scientific facts and full tech specs about it first, and everybody is also intelligent enough to do their own Google searches about FIR processing for background reading and will have already come across many rival products out there, and probably first found out about MiniDSP products in this way too.

Keeping the forum 100% open and honest, where the truth is spoken freely and nothing is hidden or blocked, makes it a fantastic forum for the whole community where even a newbie casual reader can read this stuff and know that this forum is a fountain of knowledge where they will find honest answers, good or bad, to their audio puzzles, and they'll see that MiniDSP themselves are a trustworthy company to buy from, who are not trying to put a "spin" or overhype their products or trick people into buying things with marketing blurb, like so many other manufacturers in the audio / hi-fi industry who don't want to publish their true specs or ever admit a product's limitations or shortcomings, but rather MiniDSP not only have some amazingly powerful products but will allow their forum to expose any flaws as well as sing their praise, in the greater interest of correct science, ongoing product improvement and the long term pursuit of excellence.
Last Edit: 3 years 9 months ago by Richard.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Looks like OpenDRC has some new competition... 3 years 9 months ago #22857

  • ilihack
  • ilihack's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
Hello Hifi friends,

A long time before the miniDRC was for my the best and I buy the DI Version and add an ES9023 and I was happy...

but now I see another big cheap Competition:
Raspberry pi 2 with BruteFIR, or an Already finish os Image Aroio with Integrated FIR Filtering.
and the www.element14.com/community/community/ra...rus_logic_audio_card

The Price Are Together 90$ with Case and Power Supply

With 65000 Taps the CPU run Only at 10% Load.
and when you Made Smaller Portions in BruteFIR it have small Latenz too?!
I think to Buy one and Replace my OpenDRC what you Think?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: devteam