Is the Dirac Research AP20 a SOTA SSP? - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 786 Old 10-10-2011, 01:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

If your looking for exactly how the Dirac Live tech works,then I don't think they are going to be anymore forth coming than Audyssey I'm afraid.

I'm not so much interested in how they achieve their room optimization goal but what the goal really is.
Like Audyssey they release information on what technologies/techniques they are using and why these are better than other technologies (used by a competing company) but they don't release any information what for they use all those tools.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 786 Old 10-10-2011, 06:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
schlitzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Wales, PA
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Markus -- Why don't you just ask them directly?

http://www.dirac.se/en/contact/headquarter.aspx
schlitzie is offline  
post #633 of 786 Old 10-10-2011, 06:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by schlitzie View Post

Markus -- Why don't you just ask them directly?

http://www.dirac.se/en/contact/headquarter.aspx

I asked Carl directly

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #634 of 786 Old 10-10-2011, 07:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
schlitzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Wales, PA
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Carl's very knowledgeable but is not Dirac : )
schlitzie is offline  
post #635 of 786 Old 10-11-2011, 03:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
StevenLansing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

I'm not so much interested in how they achieve their room optimization goal but what the goal really is.
Like Audyssey they release information on what technologies/techniques they are using and why these are better than other technologies (used by a competing company) but they don't release any information what for they use all those tools.

I think it's the same as many other RC products,to try to correct the magnitude and impulse response over a large listening area using various measurement,pyschoacoustic and filter techniques.When it all comes down to it,most of it is just plain market speak to try to differentiate each others products,but I think they all have the same basic goal in mind.
StevenLansing is offline  
post #636 of 786 Old 10-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Carl_Huff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 31
"I think it's the same as many other RC products,to try to correct the magnitude and impulse response over a large listening area using various measurement, pyschoacoustic and filter techniques ..."

Your comments are in line with my experience and well said. The details of how they arrive at that goal is what each vendor considers their proprietary IP and they are very slow to share the details.
____________
Best Regards,
Carl Huff
Carl_Huff is offline  
post #637 of 786 Old 10-11-2011, 04:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
StevenLansing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl_Huff View Post

"I think it's the same as many other RC products,to try to correct the magnitude and impulse response over a large listening area using various measurement, pyschoacoustic and filter techniques ..."
The details of how they arrive at that goal is what each vendor considers their proprietary IP and they are very slow to share the details.
____________
Best Regards,
Carl Huff

....And understandably so.Thanks Carl.
StevenLansing is offline  
post #638 of 786 Old 10-11-2011, 05:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

but I think they all have the same basic goal in mind.

But not necessarily the same outcome. In fact the outcomes can differ to a significant degree (see study on RC approaches (did not include Dirac, but did include Audyssey) done by Harman).

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #639 of 786 Old 10-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
StevenLansing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

But not necessarily the same outcome. In fact the outcomes can differ to a significant degree (see study on RC approaches (did not include Dirac, but did include Audyssey) done by Harman).

Yes,that would be due to what psychoacoustic principles were being used and how the measurement data is interpreted, as well as listener preference.

The basic goal is still to try and correct the frequency and time domain over a wide listening area.
StevenLansing is offline  
post #640 of 786 Old 10-12-2011, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

The basic goal is still to try and correct the frequency and time domain over a wide listening area.

The question is "what needs to be corrected and can it be corrected at all"?

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #641 of 786 Old 10-12-2011, 10:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
StevenLansing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The question is "what needs to be corrected and can it be corrected at all"?

Ok,I see what you are saying now.I think that's an ongoing study that many such as Harman are still researching.I don't know if many of them are going to get specific on that either.
StevenLansing is offline  
post #642 of 786 Old 10-14-2011, 03:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

Ok,I see what you are saying now.I think that's an ongoing study that many such as Harman are still researching.I don't know if many of them are going to get specific on that either.

Nevertheless those companies sell room correction products basically without saying what the device is actually doing. I got a paper from Dirac which explains the math behind their approach but like Audyssey's papers they don't explain the psychoacoustic necessity of their approach.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #643 of 786 Old 10-14-2011, 05:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I think "manufacturers" may have some IP concerns

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #644 of 786 Old 10-14-2011, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 795 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS View Post

I think "manufacturers" may have some IP concerns

The hidden IP should be in the implementation not in what acoustic problems the device actually solves. Or maybe it's just another incarnation of "we do it because we can - let the customer find out if it's useful". Just my 2 cents.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #645 of 786 Old 10-14-2011, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 645 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Nevertheless those companies sell room correction products basically without saying what the device is actually doing. I got a paper from Dirac which explains the math behind their approach but like Audyssey's papers they don't explain the psychoacoustic necessity of their approach.

There may be two reasons for that:

1) They do not know. It is no small task to correlate EQ correction subtleties to audibly perceived benefits. It is apparently easier to look at the matter objectively, with instrumentation, and show certain measurements look nicer. Response smoothness, impulse response, etc.

There is no question that these EQs improve the sound, but do they do so optimally is the question in my mind. Do they do more than is absolutely necessary, and thereby possibly impart undesirable side effects, subtle as they may be? It is analogous to the usual conundrum: to get access to DSP's benefits I have to expose my analog signals to the potential perils of an A-D and D-A cycle. Here we have: to get access to automatic room EQ I have to expose my audio to potential perils of full band FFT processing and narrow-band spectral fiddling. At least that's the case for Dirac and Audyssey. Not SDEC.

2) They do know, so it might not be smart to inform your competitors on how to improve their technologies.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #646 of 786 Old 10-14-2011, 03:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Raul GS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The hidden IP should be in the implementation not in what acoustic problems the device actually solves.

Part of finding the right answer is knowing the right question...perhaps that level of disclosure puts their IP at risk...just a guess.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence, than it does knowledge. Charles Darwin
Raul GS is offline  
post #647 of 786 Old 10-17-2011, 04:01 AM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I was very excited about the RS20i but it is clearly out of my price range. The AP20 is in my ballpark but I am not sure how I will be limited by its lack of bass management.

What will be the implications for my 7.2 system (I currently have an MC-12) by not having bass management but using DiracLive?

Further, do you need to set delays for each speaker using the AP20 or is that also determined by DiracLive?
stephenbr is online now  
post #648 of 786 Old 10-17-2011, 04:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
schlitzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Wales, PA
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Stephenbr -- I replaced an Anthem D2V with an AP20... in my system, the AP20 sounds fabulous, far more alive than the Anthem. Bass management has not been installed yet, and I really don't think it is an issue! I am also running a 7.2 system (actually 7.3, as I also have shakers installed on my chairs) and the bass is very tight and integrates perfectly with the rest of the speakers.
I am not running Dirac yet as my mic pre-amp was being goofy and had to be repaired -- I just have not had the time to mess with it.
Finally, the AP20 does not calculate delays automatically like most other units. You need to input the delay you want for each channel at 1ms/ft distance from the sweet spot. Not a big deal, really.
The AP20 is a great piece, but is a far ways from plug-and-play. The set-up process can be laborious primarily because of a manual that is written for audio professionals and assumes that the installer knows what to do. Hopefully the new RS20i manual will fill in the blanks that the AP20 manual has.
schlitzie is offline  
post #649 of 786 Old 10-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Thx Schlitzie - that's positive news - I have now had a chance to look at the AP20 manual and better understand its functions - this unit appears very capable.
stephenbr is online now  
post #650 of 786 Old 10-19-2011, 03:36 AM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 22
In process of purchasing one of these units - thanks to Carl for his flexibility and providing me confidence that the AP20 will get the additional functions I was after. Also thanks to schlitzie for his insights as an owner. The AP20 pushed out the Denon AVP and ADA Suite 7.1HD as my shortlisted prepros and also means a significant delay in getting my second JL Audio F113. This has been a purchase sight and sound unheard but am happy with my decision!
stephenbr is online now  
post #651 of 786 Old 10-19-2011, 03:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
schlitzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Wales, PA
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Our audio system is very parallel -- I also have two f113's! Absolutely add the second sub - it will really round out the bottom levels
schlitzie is offline  
post #652 of 786 Old 10-19-2011, 03:49 AM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 22
schiltzie - let's see who gets a new addition first - you with a Lumagen or me with another F113!
stephenbr is online now  
post #653 of 786 Old 10-19-2011, 03:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
schlitzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Wales, PA
Posts: 539
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry to say I already beat you there... I put in a Radiance XE3D in July. If you tell me you have a Paradigm speaker set-up I have to start thinking I have relatives in Australia
schlitzie is offline  
post #654 of 786 Old 10-19-2011, 04:29 AM
Senior Member
 
stephenbr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I had no chance then! Paradigms would be fabulous but happy with my Gallo 3.1s and Reference Av centre/surrounds.
stephenbr is online now  
post #655 of 786 Old 11-01-2011, 04:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Me too, but seems Theta still has an eager following and it has no 7.1 surround processing from 5.1 sources, right? IIRC it can copy channels to other outputs, but I do not consider that surround processing.

This appears to indeed be incorrect. I believe it was the DD EX flag that resulted in 6.1.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is offline  
post #656 of 786 Old 11-01-2011, 06:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,685
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1276 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

I believe it was the DD EX flag that resulted in 6.1.

That soundtrack isn't flagged AND selecting PLIIx will override the automatically selected mode.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #657 of 786 Old 11-08-2011, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That soundtrack isn't flagged AND selecting PLIIx will override the automatically selected mode.

Should override. Does not matter to me as I strongly prefer the DTS Neo. 7.1 for prologic 2x at any rate.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is offline  
post #658 of 786 Old 11-08-2011, 05:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,685
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1276 Post(s)
Liked: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

I strongly prefer the DTS Neo. 7.1

Neo is 6.1 (mono surround-back channel).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #659 of 786 Old 11-08-2011, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Clinton,MS
Posts: 6,679
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Neo is 6.1 (mono surround-back channel).

I know. . Can't explain it. A search revealed that others like DTS Neo as well.

Never become so involved with something that it blinds you.
Bulldogger is offline  
post #660 of 786 Old 11-08-2011, 09:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 645 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

Should override. Does not matter to me as I strongly prefer the DTS Neo. 7.1 for prologic 2x at any rate.

As compared on the Theta or something else? IIRC the PLIIx is not yet fully operational with 5.1 sources. Or maybe it has been fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger View Post

I know. . Can't explain it. A search revealed that others like DTS Neo as well.

Not everyone listens critically. Theta owners, OTOH, appear to have acute hearing and strong appreciation for signal purity.

Deadwood Atmos theater
AV7702 Atmos 7.4.4, SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4
Aerial Acoustics 7B/CC3B fronts, B&W CWM8180 surrounds, Tannoy Di6 DC heights, Hsu ULS-15 subs
Roger Dressler is online now  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

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