TOPIC:

Besides the streamer on the SHD, what else can the SHD do that cannot be done with the FLEX ?

According to the product pages the SHD runs with a 96 kHz internal sample rate vs 48 kHz on a Flex using Dirac Live, and the SHD also supports use of a Microsoft Surface Dial as a volume control (on the later Neo3 model) which the Flex does not. There are also differences in the input/output connectivity.

So if I do not plan on using Dirac, am I gaining any better sound quality over the FLEX by using the SHD? Thanks for the replies.

The Flex runs with a 96 kHz sample rate if you are running it without Dirac support.

Rod_75 wrote:

So if I do not plan on using Dirac, am I gaining any better sound quality over the FLEX by using the SHD? Thanks for the replies.

This I honestly don't know. For context I own an SHD but have not heard a Flex.

It might be the DSP chip is a little more capable on the SHD series models to tally with the sample rate difference I mentioned above but I'm not sure. Just checking now I see the SHD product page actually has conflicting info. re. the DSP chip between the Description and Specifications tab. How significant this or other differences may be I don't know though.

If measurements are your thing then there is data for both models on Audioscicencereview.

If you did get a model with Dirac Live I'm pretty confident you'd end up using it by the way. I came from using a 2x4 HD and filters generated by REW but do now use Dirac Live. Principally as it makes generating filters based on multiple measurements over a volume easier, although it can be done using REW.

Rod_75 wrote:

So if I do not plan on using Dirac, am I gaining any better sound quality over the FLEX by using the SHD? Thanks for the replies.
 

I recently was asking myself the same question (Flex versus SHD).   I decided on the Flex.

Based on SNR and other specs, I didn't think there would be an audible difference.  Similarly, I'm not planning to use Dirac but if I did, I'm not so sure I'd hear a difference between the 48 khz and 96 khz processing.  I don't see a need for Dirac as I only plan to eq bass frequencies (e.g. up to around 300 hz).

I didn't need streaming as provided by SHD as have a separate streamer.

The one thing on the SHD that interested me was the multiple i/o connection options (e.g. RCA and XLR).  That said, not required in my current system.  XLR would be nice to have if I made a future pre-amp upgrade.  However, I decided if I did sometime in the future, I could always then move to the SHD and re-deploy (or sell without losing too much $) the Flex. 

SHD actually measures slightly better than the new FLEX.
I want to see distortion measurements when the units is running DIRAC with both time and EQ corrections.
So a full correction of a quite bad speaker in square room with no acoustical treatments...
That will make a difference that really is interesting.
Just a pass through measurement is not valid IMHO

esl wrote:

I want to see distortion measurements when the units is running DIRAC with both time and EQ corrections.

How would you envisage such a measurement being performed? Generally distortion is a measure of the difference between an input signal and the output signal but with DSP applied there is an intentional difference and so conventional measures would give HUGE distortion numbers.

A discrete sinewave on the input should give a discrete sinewave out, even though it may be attenuated or shifted in phase.
Harminics should not be generated by the DSP right?

esl wrote:

A discrete sinewave on the input should give a discrete sinewave out, even though it may be attenuated or shifted in phase.
Harminics should not be generated by the DSP right?

So you mean specifically harmonic distortion? Then my question would be what if any impact does EQ applied at the harmonic frequencies have on the answer. A question to which I don't personally know the answer. 

esl wrote:

SHD actually measures slightly better than the new FLEX.
I want to see distortion measurements when the units is running DIRAC with both time and EQ corrections.
So a full correction of a quite bad speaker in square room with no acoustical treatments...
That will make a difference that really is interesting.
Just a pass through measurement is not valid IMHO

Actually, it's perfectly valid, for characterizing the inherent distortion performance of the system.  (This unit does not have a pass-through mode.)
I think you should ponder on this further. 

Dave.

Agree in the respect that it is easier to compare apples and apples. Bu in reality we use the DSP in a more active way right? Nobody uses a DSP without using filters and EQ etc... There is indications that as soon as you let the DSP work it starts to generate distortion. And in reality most people uses the DSP for some sort of signal tweaking. Maybe it´s just me who wants to know the difference between SHD and Flex DSP engine distortion performance.
Since it seems that the processor power is bigger in SHD maybe it´s distortion is less in active mode?

Well, I prefer apples to apples comparisons myself.
But, to each his own, I guess.
You do you.

Dave.