The official Theta Owners Thread - Page 309 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 136Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #9241 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 06:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sharp1080's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern Calif
Posts: 2,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigmoviefan View Post
Impressive system Sharp!
Thank you Bigmoviefan. I blame Steve B!
Sharp1080 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #9242 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 06:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
Bigmoviefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhale64L7 View Post
I agree. Mine is continuing to sound much better. These class D amps all are prone to break in for some reason.
Listening to music and it definitely sounds better! So I will 'not' say it is all the way burned in at 400 hours! It still is improving and I bet I have more than 700 plus hours on it!
Bigmoviefan is offline  
post #9243 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sharp1080's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern Calif
Posts: 2,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 114
I noticed after my second week the amps have really started to really sound much "smoother" from top to bottom. So much easier to listen to, I am much happier now.
Sharp1080 is offline  
post #9244 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 10:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 18,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp1080 View Post
Thank you Bigmoviefan. I blame Steve B!
Nice to be "blamed" for something good for once!!@@@

Actually, that is a very "Sharp" comment! HA!

You mean you don't remember me? Back 1999 - 2003, I started and moderated the AVS Tweaks forum and also the AVS Special Guests forum.

My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #9245 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 11:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 18,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
I understand the reason for room correction. More often than not it is needed. There is a counter argument as to why it isn't used as well. This says it best. If you have not watched this, it is WELL worth the effort. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l1IkpzeuQI
I fully appreciate what Dirac can do. IMHO, it is superior to Room Perfect and XT-32. I love the fact that you do not have to apply anything to the top end. I have 3 theaters in total. Some rooms factually need room EQ with others don't. So I want the flexibility.
Per the video, I don't want to touch the top end of my speakers. My ears don't prefer it. If you like to enact curves then by definition, you are right because it is your subjective opinion.
With all that side, that wasn't my point to Bulldogger. You cannot add something back once you take it away specifically when it is not FR related. As I stated, the difference in SQ between amps have nothing to do with frequency response. I have no issues what-so-ever to engage room EQ below 500 hz even in a semi-near perfect room. And to reaffirm, I see the value of adjusting the FR (via curves) for some speakers and some rooms and for some ears.
Also, I have played with Dirac. It is the best product out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
OT: Thanks for the nice video. Paul Hales (a familiar name from high end audio in the 90's) was talking about the transition/Shroeder frequency, above which room correction is quite controversial and NOT necessarily always "justified." My understanding is that almost by definition, there is no such thing as *room* correction above Shroeder. Above this frequency, all so called "room correction" algorithms are correcting the speaker's power response, in essence, the very sound of the speaker that the designer is aiming for. Not necessarily a good idea. This has been discussed by various pro's on this forum: Amir in his Wide Screen Review writing, Nyal Melor in his excellent blog http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/201...a-primer-html/, etc.
I would also like to add that to me, justification for room correction at high frequency, and adjusting the sound using equalizer/bass-treble controls to fit taste are 2 different "things." For example in my case although I don't believe in room correction above Shroeder in the scientific sense, I do like to use (gasp) the tone control/equalizer at all frequencies to adjust certain ****ty sounding material to my taste. I use it in my cars all the time and would love to try it in my high end system. Most main stream recording/music is so harsh/strident in the high frequency that I invariably turn up the bass and turn down the treble in my cars.
The points made above are excellent.

I’ve long pre-Dirac “heard” in high end audio circles that digital room correction and EQing is most important in the region of about 300 Hz on down, after room treatments could reasonably take care of first reflections and the rest of the sonic spectrum. But yea, as usual, Amir explains it best, that the lowest end of the sonic spectrum is where the room dominates, then there’s a small transition area, and then for the bulk of the sonic spectrum the speaker dominates, thus as you pick speakers based on how they sound, you want to be careful because you may alter the overall sonics if you correct too much in the area of the sonic spectrum dominated by the speaker.

So far, I have just played and used the Dirac target curve, adjusting at the low end per the Theta CBIV manual instructions for the high pass crossover and below. Its been on my “schedule” to play with restricting Dirac only to the very low end, but I haven’t got there yet, particularly as I so luv what I am hearing right now.

Amir’s article begs the question of exactly what is the curve for my Aerial 7ts as objectively measured? For that, we turn to the Stereophile review of the Aerial 7ts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...WtWJF8Kdrb9.97

“Fig.4 shows how these individual responses sum in the farfield on the 7T's tweeter axis, without the grille. With the grille in place (not shown) there is less energy in the mid-treble, and a little more above 10kHz. The bump in the upper bass is entirely due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the drive-units are mounted in a baffle infinitely wide and tall. However, it does look as if the 7T's woofer alignment is a little overdamped, trading bass weight against clarity. The Aerial's low frequencies are still extended, however, with the usual 24dB/octave rolloff below the port tuning frequency. Other than the small peak between 2 and 3kHz, the Model 7T's response is superbly flat. This graph was produced with serial no.074541; when I repeated the measurement on no.074542, the results (not shown) were identical, which demonstrates excellent pair matching but also confirms that the small peak in the low treble is characteristic of the design. I note that Kal Rubinson didn't comment on any brightness or coloration that might have resulted from this behavior, but I suspect that it does slightly emphasize recorded detail."

Below is the Stereophile reviewer's frequency response measurement of the Aerial 7t:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Aerial 7t frequency response.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	53.5 KB
ID:	868082  

You mean you don't remember me? Back 1999 - 2003, I started and moderated the AVS Tweaks forum and also the AVS Special Guests forum.

My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431

Last edited by Steve Bruzonsky; 08-03-2015 at 11:14 PM.
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #9246 of 9261 Unread 08-03-2015, 11:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 18,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 58
In my larger than most home theater rooms (18'3" wide, 25' long, and 12' high), consistent with Amir's discussion above, no wonder why my Dirac frequency response graphs show on average a gentle rolloff above 300 Hz. So the Aerial 7ts response in my room, with the Michael Green Pressure Zone Controllers as acoustic treatments, is the the Aerial's "superbly flat" measurement per Stereophile translates into a gentle rolloff in my room, and if you take the peaks and valleys and average them the end result would pretty much look like the Dirac target curve above 300 Hz. No wonder why I've liked using the Dirac target curve adjusted at the low end per the Theta CBIV manual! My most significant issues as measured by Dirac are mostly below 100 Hz and somewhat below 300 Hz, without using the EQ only feature of my two JL Audio f212 subwoofers. To me it makes more sense to ONLY use Dirac for the low frequency correction as Dirac corrects in both the frequency and time/impulse domains.

Nonetheless, at some point I will get around to playing with Dirac some more!

You mean you don't remember me? Back 1999 - 2003, I started and moderated the AVS Tweaks forum and also the AVS Special Guests forum.

My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431

Last edited by Steve Bruzonsky; 08-03-2015 at 11:31 PM.
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #9247 of 9261 Unread Yesterday, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Les Auber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1,268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 17
That makes sense Steve. Running multiple EQ systems in one room could have unpredictable interactions. Somewhat like setting a crossover in both the sub and SSP to the same freq.


Les

Les
Les Auber is offline  
post #9248 of 9261 Unread Yesterday, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cannga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles Lakers :)
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked: 66
(Original question: what is Casablanca's Default Mode when playing multi channel SACD.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post
Set it to "stereo" but with all relevant speakers on. If you happen to play a stereo track you will get true stereo. If the CB receives multi channel LPCM it will switch to this mode automatically (and because you have all relevant speakers on you will get them all firing). Doesn't work the other way around...

Steve, thanks; your input is appreciated as I know you pay great attention to details. I understand perfectly your setting - actually had arrived at the exact same conclusion: stereo as default so it plays stereo, then multi-channel LPCM would also work because as have been mentioned, default mode settings are irrelevant when playing multi-channel high-resolution LPCM (SACD 5.1, DVD-A 5.1, Dolby True HD 5.1, DTS Master Audio 5.1, etc.) are being played.

*However* I have noticed a possible problem with the above setup - for multi channel high res, the default setting is supposed to be irrelevant, but it's not quite so! At least not with my CB III HD and Oppo 93, through several rounds of test and retest with center speaker isolated and the only one with amplifier turned on (other 5.1 speakers are set to on, but amplifiers are off).

Specifically, for example when you play 5.1 multi-channel SACD and set default mode setting to:
A. Stereo: center speaker plays around 4 dB lower, with attenuated lower frequency (bass guitar, etc.). Occasionally sound drops off altogether when you switch back and forth between inputs for comparison.
B. Any Multi channel mode, such as PLIIx Movie: center speaker plays around 4 dB louder and more full range. This IMHO is the better/safer settting, for reasons I am not yet clear on.

The difference is subtle but is magnified when you isolate the center channel and look for the difference. I actually have spoken to John about this and am still waiting his finding (plan of scoping the center channel). I probably could test myself too when I find test disc with 5.1 high res test tone, but anyone here would like to test I would appreciate very much. (2 inputs: both 5.1 identical settings; set one with default mode PLIIx Movie, and one with default mode Stereo, now switch back and forth while playing SACD 5.1, listen for volume and frequency range change.)
CINERAMAX likes this.

Regards, Can
My system & CBIII HD Mini Review Theta Casablanca - the processor for music lover: stunning 3D soundstage, sublime details, full bodied midrange, unlimited dynamics and low end response!
High-End Speaker Impressions & 3D Audio Comments
Give vinyl and tube preamp a try - the sound from heaven! :-)

Last edited by cannga; Yesterday at 11:08 PM.
cannga is offline  
post #9249 of 9261 Unread Yesterday, 08:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Steve Bruzonsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 18,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
(Original question: what is Casablanca's Default Mode when playing multi channel SACD.)




Steve, thanks; your input is appreciated as I know you pay great attention to details. I understand perfectly your setting - actually had arrived at the exact same setup: stereo as default so it plays stereo, then multi channel LPCM would also work because as have been mentioned, default mode settings are irrelevant when multi channel high res (SACD 5.1, DVD A 5.1, Dolby True HD 5.1, DTS Master Audio 5.1) are being played.

*However* I have noticed a possible problem with the above setup - for multi channel high res, the default setting is supposed to be irrelevant, but it's not quite so! At least not with my CB III HD and Oppo 93, through several rounds of test and retest with center speaker isolated and the only one with amplifier turned on (other 5.1 speakers are set to on, but amplifiers are off).

Specifically, for example when you play 5.1 multi-channel SACD and set default mode setting to:
A. Stereo: center speaker plays around 4 dB lower, with attenuated lower frequency (bass guitar, etc.). Occasionally sound drops off altogether when you switch back and forth between inputs for comparison.
B. Any Multi channel mode, such as PLIIx Movie: center speaker plays around 4 dB louder and more full range. This IMHO is the better/safer settting, for reasons I am not yet clear on.

The difference is subtle but is magnified when you are looking for it, and isolate center channel. I actually have spoken to John about this and am still waiting his finding (plan of scoping the center channel). I probably could test myself too when I find test disc with 5.1 high res test tone, but anyone here would like to test I would appreciate very much. (2 inputs: both 5.1 identical settings; set one with default mode PLIIx Movie, and one with default mode Stereo, now switch back and forth while playing SACD 5.1, listen for volume and frequency range change.)
And I don't have to worry about this because all of my SACDs, both two and multi-channel, are ripped and I play them from my multi-channel media server of my networked WDMycloudEX4 16 TB (over 7TB music). HA! We gotta getcha in the modern media server world!
CINERAMAX likes this.

You mean you don't remember me? Back 1999 - 2003, I started and moderated the AVS Tweaks forum and also the AVS Special Guests forum.

My home theater at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1158431
Steve Bruzonsky is offline  
post #9250 of 9261 Unread Yesterday, 08:37 PM
IMMERSION GURU
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA, Trans Atlantic, Trans Pacific.
Posts: 13,775
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 562 Post(s)
Liked: 211
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #9251 of 9261 Unread Yesterday, 09:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, x_machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 12,055
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5072 Post(s)
Liked: 2122
That's a good point Peter; after a certain burnin-time period, the character of the electronics change...and with it the overall sound. ...Then like when changing the furniture positioning we always have to rerun Dirac if we want to remain faithful with the room's acoustics...the sounds...effectively using Dirac as it should be with any good Room EQ system.

Should we also rerun Dirac when burning speaker wires and interconnect cables and AC powered cords? ...Changing only one set?
NorthSky is offline  
post #9253 of 9261 Unread Today, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Specifically, for example when you play 5.1 multi-channel SACD and set default mode setting to:
A. Stereo: center speaker plays around 4 dB lower, with attenuated lower frequency (bass guitar, etc.). Occasionally sound drops off altogether when you switch back and forth between inputs for comparison.
B. Any Multi channel mode, such as PLIIx Movie: center speaker plays around 4 dB louder and more full range. This IMHO is the better/safer settting, for reasons I am not yet clear on.

The difference is subtle but is magnified when you isolate the center channel and look for the difference.
You measured this 4dB difference with an SPL meter? I have not noticed this at all although I don't play that much multichannel music currently. However, having read the first half of Floyd Toole's fascinating book I will definitely be revisiting up-mixing.

I have certainly not experienced "sound drops off altogether" with the CB IV (and I believe you were asking in relation to this version of the CB).

(You will get a test disc when you get the CB IV.)

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!

Last edited by stevekale; Today at 01:03 AM.
stevekale is online now  
post #9254 of 9261 Unread Today, 01:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
The only thing that "burns in" is your brain as it gets used to the new sound.

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!
stevekale is online now  
post #9255 of 9261 Unread Today, 01:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Auber View Post
That makes sense Steve. Running multiple EQ systems in one room could have unpredictable interactions. Somewhat like setting a crossover in both the sub and SSP to the same freq.


Les
The JL Audio "EQ system" is very basic. It will attenuate just one bump. I'd still equalise the subs before running Dirac but each to their own. Once run, the JL Audio sub equalisation is 'static.'

Better yet, get 4 subs.

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!
stevekale is online now  
post #9256 of 9261 Unread Today, 01:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruzonsky View Post
also confirms that the small peak in the low treble is characteristic of the design.
A 'characteristic of the design' doesn't mean the Aerial folk would have preferred it not to be the case. It is most likely a compromise they had to live with. Perhaps a good example where Dirac can aid the frequency range where the speaker dominates.

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!
stevekale is online now  
post #9257 of 9261 Unread Today, 02:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
Wifey isn't going to let me put room treatments over the windows facing the lake nor do I.
If you mean room 'treatments' to absorb first order reflections then I wouldn't stress about this at all. A large part of Part 1 of Toole's book is devoted to summarising the (then 2006) current state of rigorous research into what is desirable from a listener's perspective to generate a sense of spaciousness (a combination of Apparent Source Width and Listener Envelopment). Basically he concludes that more early reflections are better and in fact goes on to say that there aren't enough provided by normally reflective rooms (sans early reflection absorption). Hence, he is a big proponent of the potential for multichannel audio to provide such 'refections' in the form of direct audio from the surround channels. Absorption of early reflections is a spillover from recording control rooms and the difference between what engineers find desirable there versus what they and certainly most others find desirable for leisure listening is discussed in detail in the book.

A must read. As is the discussion regarding base management. While I had read some of the material previously, it is interesting to find that some of the presentations are 'selective' in their discussion, omitting key conclusions. Of real value is the discussion regarding room dimensions, sub placement, number of subs and seating positions etc (chapter 13) as well as the examples presented of dealing with unconventional room shapes. Many 'acoustical rules of thumb' that you see repeated as common guidance (e.g. early reflection point absorption and seating at 1/3) are dismissed or at least the conditionality attached to each is explained.

I'm still working through part 2 of the book. I would encourage everyone to take the time to read it and for all not to skip through the perhaps more arduous section one which lays the foundation for the rest.

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!
stevekale is online now  
post #9258 of 9261 Unread Today, 03:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN and AZ USA
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post
If you mean room 'treatments' to absorb first order reflections then I wouldn't stress about this at all. A large part of Part 1 of Toole's book is devoted to summarising the (then 2006) current state of rigorous research into what is desirable from a listener's perspective to generate a sense of spaciousness (a combination of Apparent Source Width and Listener Envelopment). ..
It's about this specific room as a whole. More importantly you don't want a speaker 7" away from a side wall that is 70% glass. The freq response plots on that front right speaker aren't pretty. XT-32 makes a world of difference for that specific speaker as I can see the before and after. More importantly it sounds a lot better.

I completely agree that a dead over treated room sounds terrible. People pay big $'s to go backwards and design (IMHO) awful sounding rooms. I've been in way to many. I want to run for the door because they sound so dead. So Toole's research (of course) is spot on. I despise an overly treated room and it's common sense without the need for research. People inaccurately assume more room treatment ==better results. They spend more money to go backwards.
SteveH is online now  
post #9259 of 9261 Unread Today, 04:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN and AZ USA
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevekale View Post
The only thing that "burns in" is your brain as it gets used to the new sound.
I beg to differ. Specifically with the Dreadnaught D, I hear a shift out of the gate. I thought the SQ was meh at best totaling 20 minutes of listening which happened inside of the 1st hour. The ATI Signature sounded sooooooo much better. This isn't my room, it is a customers. I'm not use to anything. The DD downright lacked listening dynamics and the top end was restrained. I heard it for the 2nd time, 15 hours later. Much better (I was sweating bullets for that 1st 15 hours). But it still fell short of what people have been talking about. Another person heard the amp with me both times and later took a listen at 130 hours. He said it sounded a good deal better. So yes, there IS something to this break in and the NCore topology. I won't hear it again till 400+ hours. So I will not get use to anything in my situation. So the jury is out. But in order for the amp to be world class, IMHO, it cannot be done shifting at hour 15 and every owner is saying the same thing. Putting it another way, it better break in some more. I'm suspect the current owners are on to something and it is much more than simply getting use to it. Getting use to it happens by the way that also happens and many times part of the reason why people start enjoying it more.

Last edited by SteveH; Today at 04:49 AM.
SteveH is online now  
post #9260 of 9261 Unread Today, 04:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: MN and AZ USA
Posts: 1,654
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 494 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSky View Post
That's a good point Peter; after a certain burnin-time period, the character of the electronics change...and with it the overall sound. ...Then like when changing the furniture positioning we always have to rerun Dirac if we want to remain faithful with the room's acoustics...the sounds...effectively using Dirac as it should be with any good Room EQ system.

Should we also rerun Dirac when burning speaker wires and interconnect cables and AC powered cords? ...Changing only one set?
Let me start by saying that is is extremely rare for electronics to burn in. I have heard the DD shift. When it happens, I will re-open a new piece just to see if I am crazy. More often than not I am not crazy.

I will bet the farm that the frequency response isn't changing during any electronic burn in. Hence, I would never bother to re-run room EQ. If we are to assume Dirac done properly sounds better because of a flat response (post room correction) then any shift in FR should sound worse. But it sounds better. That means you would have to prefer a non linear FR and it would defy logic.
SteveH is online now  
post #9261 of 9261 Unread Today, 04:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
stevekale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I wonder who here has any real idea just how Dirac Live works. Understanding changes to SPL response in the frequency domain is somewhat easy. But is it doing anything in the time domain and, if so, just exactly what? I've no idea, but I would like to understand it better. If anyone can point to credible sources of information it would be appreciated.

Demand greater honesty and transparency in high-end audio

With Theta, Egglestonworks and Krell since 1998!
stevekale is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)



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