Dirac live for 2-channel audio? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 07-16-2014, 07:18 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
mraub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Dirac live for 2-channel audio?

Though chasing audio improvement through speaker wire, power cables, and other pseudo-science remedies seems a waste of money, I wonder about the worth of a pre-amp with high quality digital equalization. Most seem to agree the home theater room correction software solutions are generally beneficial. Now for about $900 you can get Dirac stereo room correction software built into a pre-amp:

http://www.minidsp.com/dirac-series/ddrc-22d

While $900 is not chump change, it's also not some dubious magical wire either. Anyone tried these minidsp pre-amps in a stereo setting?

MIKE

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
--H. L. Mencken
mraub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 01:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked: 493
I haven't, it's new...

What does DIRAC do that the other common ones don't?

*reads http://www.dirac.se/en/consumer-products/dirac-rcs.aspx

Finds:
"The technology is unique in that it corrects not only the frequency response but also the all important impulse response. This is in contrast to the common minimum-phase room correction systems that by definition do not optimize the impulse response. Correcting the impulse response yields improvements in the stereo image, clarity and transient reproduction of the music."

Now I want one.

*reads http://www.dirac.se/en/technologies/...scription.aspx

*reads http://www.minidsp.com/images/docume...r%20Manual.pdf

I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot

Last edited by RayDunzl; 07-17-2014 at 02:13 AM.
RayDunzl is online now  
post #3 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:25 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,245
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked: 805
Who would have thought impulse response, whatever that is, was ever an issue? So far, I don't want one.
FMW is online now  
post #4 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I have the software version of Dirac Live, but I'd expect that it works similarly to the MiniDSP version.

I love it. It's awesome at improving room issues and giving you fine control over EQ, with the ability to instantly switch between target curves to iterate toward your favorite.

In the past, I have always felt like room correction and even EQ was a mixed bag, where you gain something and you lose something.

Make sure you spend some time experimenting with target curves and correction limits, rather than simply using the default curve. That has a huge impact on the results. There are a variety of reasons (psychoacoustic room issues, mic differences, taste, speaker limitations) that a standard target curve doesn't work in different rooms.

I can't really be sure how much of the benefit is due to the EQ control and how much is due to the impulse response tech. I suspect it's the combination of both. Either way, I can't go back.

If you use a PC source, you can use the PC trial for free, if you have a measurement mic.
RUR and 89grand like this.

Last edited by rcohen; 07-17-2014 at 07:35 AM.
rcohen is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Cool, it looks like they just announced a DAC version:
http://www.minidsp.com/dirac-series/ddrc-22da

Here's that free software trial. You'd also need a calibrated mic and mic stand:
http://www.dirac.se/en/consumer-products/dirac-rcs.aspx

Last edited by rcohen; 07-17-2014 at 08:30 AM.
rcohen is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
Who would have thought impulse response, whatever that is, was ever an issue? So far, I don't want one.
Impulse response is real physics, not fairy tales. Many (most?) types of audible distortion are covered under impulse response, but not all of them.

You may not be familiar with the term, because it's most often used to discuss signal processing, but it is everywhere (room, drivers, crossovers).

http://www.dirac.se/en/technologies/...scription.aspx

From this: http://www.dirac.se/media/12044/on_room_correction.pdf
Quote:
"As described above, a proper mixed-phase filter design is similar to removing reflecting surfaces near the loudspeaker. In addition, it minimizes linear imperfections in the loudspeaker design itself. Digital mixed-phase filters therefore make a powerful and cost-effective complement to ordinary electroacoustic considerations in the design of loudspeaker systems and rooms."

Last edited by rcohen; 07-17-2014 at 08:34 AM.
rcohen is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 09:16 AM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
....I can't go back.
Couldn't agree more and I've used this same expression any number of times in the 5+ years since I inserted user-configurable RC into my 2ch system.
RUR is offline  
post #8 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 11:53 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,245
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Impulse response is real physics, not fairy tales. Many (most?) types of audible distortion are covered under impulse response, but not all of them.

You may not be familiar with the term, because it's most often used to discuss signal processing, but it is everywhere (room, drivers, crossovers).

http://www.dirac.se/en/technologies/...scription.aspx

From this: http://www.dirac.se/media/12044/on_room_correction.pdf

If it is audible, then why haven't I heard the term after 1/2 century of involvement with audio?
FMW is online now  
post #9 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked: 493
Half a century ago - 1964 - I suppose we just didn't have much stuff laying around the house that could quantify the impulse response.

I read what it will correct, and think, I already have all that in the uncorrected output.

But I think I will download a demo and see what happens. No harm done.

I like clarity and improved imaging.

I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
post #10 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 12:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,806
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1361 Post(s)
Liked: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
Who would have thought impulse response, whatever that is, was ever an issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
If it is audible, then why haven't I heard the term after 1/2 century of involvement with audio?
That's more a commentary on you than the importance of impulse response.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 03:09 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,245
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
That's more a commentary on you than the importance of impulse response.

That is an opinion and an insult. Apparently you don't have answers, just insults.
FMW is online now  
post #12 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 04:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
If it is audible, then why haven't I heard the term after 1/2 century of involvement with audio?

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.


A few examples of audible changes that fall under the category of impulse response. These could be done or mimicked in DSP with an FIR filter.
1) A low-pass filter.
2) Reverb.
3) Placing a speaker near a wall.


Could you explain more specifically what you are saying isn't audible?


People didn't talk in terms of impulse response much 50 years ago, but most DSPs use FIR and/or IIR filters for a variety of common functions.


A YouTube video that demonstrates how the same EQ sounds different when done with minimum phase vs. linear phase filters:


Aside from Dirac, some FIR stuff you could check out: Audiolense: http://www.juicehifi.com/index.html
Acourate: http://www.audiovero.de/en/
JRiver: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=68828.0
ConvolverVST: http://convolver.sourceforge.net/vst.html
rcohen is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 05:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
I like clarity and improved imaging.
Improving the impulse response can help clarity a number of ways:
1) Reducing ringing, particularly pre-ringing.
2) Making a speaker more phase coherent.
3) Cancelling early reflections.
4) Also, EQ adjustments can help with clarity.
5) Also, if your main listening position is off the centerline, Dirac will fix the time alignment, which can be a huge help.

I generally interpret the word "imaging" as how much the sound from two speakers match. If they match, it fools you into thinking that the sound comes from spots between the speakers. If the impulse response is different between the speakers (i.e. one is close to a wall), correcting that will make them match better. Speakers with "good imaging" typically have controlled directivity to help achieve this.


Personally, I found that Dirac improved clarity a lot but didn't really affect imaging (which was already good in my room).

Last edited by rcohen; 07-17-2014 at 05:20 PM.
rcohen is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked: 493
I've got it pretty good here already, but...

Downloaded a trial of Dirac for 2 channel for the PC, set it up, got it working, created a filter, and ran REW...

There's a little difference in the measurements with the filter on and off, not much at all...

Unsmoothed, Dirac in green, without in red.




Similar tiny change in impulse response:

With Dirac filter:



and without (dirac loaded and operating but filter turned off)



---

and an IR some days ago totally no Dirac for sure, slightly different microphone position (a few inches farther back) , and with a little manual EQ applied (80 and 200 cuts).

edit: Probably using optical instead of USB - see next post




Hmm...

Ok, more experimentation is in order here... The old looks mucho better to start with. What's the deal?

I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot

Last edited by RayDunzl; 07-17-2014 at 07:52 PM.
RayDunzl is online now  
post #15 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
Ok, more experimentation is in order here... The old looks mucho better to start with. What's the deal?
That's interesting. I've seen other stuff with people having trouble getting REW measurements with the software version of Dirac. You might Google around a bit to see if you could find something helpful, to make sure that you're actually measuring with and without.


Also, to get an accurate measurement, you may need to average multiple measurements.


And then, once you find the solution, please let me know!
rcohen is offline  
post #16 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:36 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 77
One man's Dirac validation here.
RUR is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 06:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post
One man's Dirac validation here.
It looks like he had trouble with REW and had to use Fuzzmeasure.


My "predicted" response in Dirac looked pretty, but I have struggled with REW since installing Dirac. It's nice to see that his Fuzzmeasure appears to be consistent with the Dirac predicted response.
rcohen is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:09 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
My "predicted" response in Dirac looked pretty, but I have struggled with REW since installing Dirac.
Have you quizzed Flavio, Dirac's forum answer man? Flax on this forum, flak on Computer Audiophile and others.
RUR is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post
Have you quizzed Flavio, Dirac's forum answer man? Flax on this forum, flak on Computer Audiophile and others.
Not about that.
My main gripe is that it doesn't do some of the cool stuff Audiolense does, like crossover design and unlimited channels.
I haven't tried Audiolense to compare the sound, though, and I already own Dirac.
The channel concern will be a bigger deal when Atmos rolls out, if Dirac Live doesn't do something about it.
rcohen is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:41 PM
RUR
Innocent Bystander
 
RUR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California Republic
Posts: 2,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
The channel concern will be a bigger deal when Atmos rolls out, if Dirac Live doesn't do something about it.
I'd speculate that most of their recent and near-term resources are wrapped up in the Theta and Emotiva Dirac launches. Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing Dirac Unison come to market, but my priorities may be atypical.
RUR is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post
I'd speculate that most of their recent and near-term resources are wrapped up in the Theta and Emotiva Dirac launches. Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing Dirac Unison come to market, but my priorities may be atypical.
There's no Atmos content, yet, anyway.


I think Unison will require more channels, too, since each sub would need its own channel.
This looks similar, but not automated:
Double Bass Array (DBA) - The modern bass concept!
rcohen is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked: 493
I'm finding a different REW impulse response at the preamp output between USB ->DAC -> PRE and Optical -> DAC -> PRE, with no EQ or filters attached.

Optical to DAC: as expected




USB to DAC: what's going on here?




I'll have to ask Benchmark about this...


And here is the FR curve of the filter Dirac created, also taken at the preamp. green = flat/normal red = Dirac filter.
Obviously, it can be quite enthusiastic about modifying frequency response. I'll give credits for that.


I'll be back later...


1.5RQ > digits > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
post #23 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 07:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
I'm finding a different REW impulse response at the preamp output between USB ->DAC -> PRE and Optical -> DAC -> PRE, with no EQ or filters attached.

Optical to DAC: as expected


USB to DAC: what's going on here?


I'll have to ask Benchmark about this...


And here is the FR curve of the filter Dirac created, also taken at the preamp. green = flat/normal red = Dirac filter.
Obviously, it can be quite enthusiastic about modifying frequency response. I'll give credits for that.

Make sure you have all your speakers set to "full-range" under Windows Playback Devices:
Right-click on the speaker at the lower-right.
Select Playback Devices.
Configure all playback devices (including Dirac) so that all your speakers are full-range.
If this wasn't set right before, you may need to take new measurements in Dirac.
rcohen is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
And here is the FR curve of the filter Dirac created, also taken at the preamp. green = flat/normal red = Dirac filter.
Obviously, it can be quite enthusiastic about modifying frequency response. I'll give credits for that.

You might try scaling back the frequency correction window on the high end to a bit lower frequency to see if you like the sound better. I found that applying a lot of boost to push my tweeters beyond their limits did more harm than good.


That massive boost at 50hz is also worrisome. Perhaps try following the uncorrected response curve a little closer there, so you don't burn all your headroom?

Last edited by rcohen; 07-17-2014 at 08:07 PM.
rcohen is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 07-17-2014, 08:39 PM
Senior Member
 
89grand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
If it is audible, then why haven't I heard the term after 1/2 century of involvement with audio?
That's the problem with this audio stuff. Sometimes the more you don't know, the better off you are. Your system probably suffers because of it, but again, if you don't know about it, it can be better for yourself.

I'm still learning about impulse response and interpreting waterfall graphs vs just looking at frequency response. I will say though, that dialing in my subs frequency response only improved things a great deal, and doing so made for much better waterfall graphs so the two are related to some degree, but when I learn more, I'll probably eq my subs on much more than frequency response.
89grand is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 07-18-2014, 04:27 PM
Newbie
 
DallasJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
It looks like he had trouble with REW and had to use Fuzzmeasure.


My "predicted" response in Dirac looked pretty, but I have struggled with REW since installing Dirac. It's nice to see that his Fuzzmeasure appears to be consistent with the Dirac predicted response.
That's my system. I don't know how others get REW to work with DIRAC. I couldn't get it working with windows. I didn't try REW on a Mac so maybe that would work. I used fuzzmeasure without issue. I love fuzzmeasure for it's simplicity. I think I could export the .wav file into REW to get some even more detailed graphs. For example, fuzzmeasure can't do averaged waterfall or waterfall overlays. However, I think the FR graphs I posted tell the story pretty well. DIRAC does exactly what it claims to do.
DallasJustice is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 07-19-2014, 08:18 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
mraub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Did those of you who tried the computer version of Dirac notice any significant improvement in sound quality? Dirac apparently does make a measurable change in the signal, but does that mean I'm likely to hear that change and, more importantly, perceive it as an improvement. I use full range speakers, so subwoofer integration isn't important to me. However, the physical surroundings of my speakers aren't completely symmetric.


From the PR department description of Dirac Unison, it sounds like it's trying to mimic Trinnov. I have a very primitive version of Trinnov in an old Sherwood AV receiver and it is pretty impressive for home theater; it really makes the speakers disappear as distinct sources of sound. Newer versions of Trinnov are only available in +$10K gear and maybe the new Dirac product can make it into gear at a more reasonable price point.

MIKE

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
--H. L. Mencken
mraub is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 07-19-2014, 10:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,806
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1361 Post(s)
Liked: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraub View Post
From the PR department description of Dirac Unison, it sounds like it's trying to mimic Trinnov.
It's not like Trinnov, instead Unison is more akin to the way a double-bass array works to reduce modal activity.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 07-20-2014, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mraub View Post
Did those of you who tried the computer version of Dirac notice any significant improvement in sound quality? Dirac apparently does make a measurable change in the signal, but does that mean I'm likely to hear that change and, more importantly, perceive it as an improvement. I use full range speakers, so subwoofer integration isn't important to me. However, the physical surroundings of my speakers aren't completely symmetric.


From the PR department description of Dirac Unison, it sounds like it's trying to mimic Trinnov. I have a very primitive version of Trinnov in an old Sherwood AV receiver and it is pretty impressive for home theater; it really makes the speakers disappear as distinct sources of sound. Newer versions of Trinnov are only available in +$10K gear and maybe the new Dirac product can make it into gear at a more reasonable price point.
As of yesterday, I'm now using the PC version of Dirac in 2 rooms (which is permitted under the full license) - my bedroom and my home theater. In each room it improved the sound substantially, but in somewhat different ways. It's easy to hear the difference between before & after, because Dirac lets you switch it on and off.

My bedroom has an asymmetric layout, due to the location of windows and doors. I use a Gigabyte Brix PC running JRiver as my source, with powered active speakers. In that room, the most substantial changes with Dirac were:
1) The imaging was restored, so that it sounds like I'm sitting in the sweet spot in a symmetric room. Really!
2) I was able to EQ the speakers for a transparent, natural sound.
3) Clarity was improved a bit, similar to turning off a gimmicky surround effect.

1&2 helped the speakers disappear. 3 anchored the sound more, narrowing the soundstage. It comes from the direction of the speakers, not the individual speakers, though. IMO, this is an improvement.

My home theater has a symmetrical setup, with great imaging prior to Dirac. That room would benefit from more sound treatment, though. Here are the differences:
1) Clarity was improved a ton, similar to turning off a gimmicky surround effect or using headphones instead of speakers. This was a bigger improvement in this room. It made the sound less fatiguing, voices more intelligible, and details more clear.
2) I was able to EQ the speakers for a transparent, natural sound. I have a second preset that starts with this, but boosts the bass for more impact.

I have never heard Trinnov, but based on what I read, Dirac Live has similarities to Trinnov, minus the speaker remapping. Since I'm not crazy about matrix surround effects, I doubt I would like speaker remapping compared to putting speakers in the right spots to start with.

My understanding with Dirac Unison is that it will do active cancellation of low frequency reflections, by sending different signals to different subs. Dirac Live has a a single sub signal. It will still cancel low frequency reflections in the sweet spot, but by sending different signals to each sub, Unity should be able to do it with a larger sweet spot. This requires a lot more measurements (nearly 1000?), so it's more practical for industrial applications, like cars. It does seem like Trinnov could use that fancy 3D mic to help with the measurement problem, but I haven't read anything that says that the 3D mic is used for anything aside from speaker remapping.

The Double Bass Array concept is interesting, and I would think that it could provide similar result to Dirac Unity. Maybe I'll try a 2D version of that someday with my 4 subs. I can't imagine hanging big subs from the walls.

Last edited by rcohen; 07-20-2014 at 08:51 AM.
rcohen is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 07-21-2014, 10:31 AM
Newbie
 
Cconger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post
I've got it pretty good here already, but...

Downloaded a trial of Dirac for 2 channel for the PC, set it up, got it working, created a filter, and ran REW...

There's a little difference in the measurements with the filter on and off, not much at all...

Unsmoothed, Dirac in green, without in red.




Similar tiny change in impulse response:

With Dirac filter:



and without (dirac loaded and operating but filter turned off)



---

and an IR some days ago totally no Dirac for sure, slightly different microphone position (a few inches farther back) , and with a little manual EQ applied (80 and 200 cuts).

edit: Probably using optical instead of USB - see next post




Hmm...

Ok, more experimentation is in order here... The old looks mucho better to start with. What's the deal?
Those are not small changes, they are huge. Your response scale is 10 dB per division. Differences of . 5dB are audible if they are over large regions of spectrum. How does the system sound?
Cconger is offline  
Reply 2-Channel Audio

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off