AVS Forum banner

Audyssey XT/32 + Pro vs. Dirac Live/HTPC + ExaSound e28 vs. Prepro

15K views 108 replies 17 participants last post by  KurianOfBorg 
#1 ·
I am conducting some in-home comparisons to decide whether or not to make a major and somewhat radical change to my system (link below). My listening has evolved to increasingly rely on playback from a PC for music, and it likely will do the same for Blu-ray, TV and video streaming. I am primarily a Mch classical music listener from SACD, hi rez Mch downloads and BD-A. For nearly a year, my PC has been my primary music source using JRiver and many TBs of NAS storage for my music library. I listen to very little in stereo or from CD, and when I do, I do not augment it with fake Mch. Video is secondary, but I do care about both video and audio quality with it, just not to the same degree as Mch music.

So, the question arises, why not just use the PC as my prepro, eliminating my Integra prepro altogether? To do that, I am evaluating Dirac Live as a replacement in the PC for Audyssey XT/32 in the prepro with an ExaSound e28 to do what the prepro DACS do. It is clear that JRiver can do playback and most control functions quite well without a prepro.

The whole motivation for this would be to seek even better sound quality than I now have, which is very good, and it has satisfied me for years. The main give-up from this approach is the lack of input flexibility, since the PC does not handle HDMI/HDCP inputs at all. Analog or other inputs are not a consideration; I have not used those for many years.

So, this is a pick up and new thread from my initial postings in The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit thread and refocusing them starting about here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...kit-thread-faq-post-1-a-188.html#post27027721

For background, here are some other threads that might prove useful, including those linked to by the following:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...w-replace-your-home-theater-pre-pro-htpc.html

Also, here is a definitive review by Kal Rubinson, who is about the most knowledgable and trustworthy reviewer on the planet, about Dirac Live and the ExaSound:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-66

Here is a link to my system description:

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/10014.html

I recently posted an interim sonic assessment here, post 5:

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/122523/122551#122551

I am happy to answer any questions, and I will report any progress or final decisions in this thread.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
I have been eagerly searching the web recently, looking for comparisons between Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live. I have so far found nothing worthwhile. I have always been (slightly) disappointed to hear what XT32 does for my nicely treated room, most of the time preferring the Pure Direct mode, bypassing any Audyssey processing. I will be reading your observations with a lot of interest!
 
#10 · (Edited)
Unlike your experience, I have been enthusiastically happy with Audyssey since I first heard it 7 years ago. In two rooms, before and since moving, it has become essential to me for best sound. I just have not listened without it (except the occasional demo for friends). I have also calibrated a few friends' rooms with similar results. They are hooked, too.

So, I am not really here to knock it. I think it was and is a breakthrough product. I am more interested in seeing if the bar has been raised by newer takes on EQ, particularly now that it can be done in the PC with perhaps fewer constraints. If Audyssey had a Mch product for PC playback, I would likely want to evaluate that too.

I am not sure what your issues are with Audyssey. One interesting feature of Dirac Live that might be of interest to you is that you can edit the target curve channel by channel designating some frequency ranges as unchanged by the EQ if you like them as they are. Superficially, that has no appeal to me, but it might to others. Audyssey Pro lacks that capability.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Thanks for pursuing this project, Fitz! I picked up a Sherwood R-972 with DSP Trinnov last year to compare that version of REQ as an alternative to a Denon 4311 with Audyssey XT32, but while I did some REW testing and found areas were I felt the Trinnov solution was superior to Audyssey (notably some REW Impulse Response charts), between a lack of data on the best practice way to run the IR charts, changing my speaker setup from DefTech to PSB, and real-life distractions with a new baby, I didn't pursue the comparison critically for a peer audience. Plus I decided that the comparison could wait until I get a full Trinnov processor later this year (either the Magnitude with a Denon AVR as a pre/pro for Atmos, or the bleeding edge Altitude). Glad you're doing this!

Having said that, from reading the SA-CD link, I see you've got a UMIK-1 mic for Dirac room measurement. With your JRiver/Dirac setup, is there a way you can use a tool like REW (preferred) or OmniMic to run a sine sweep for a single or a pair of channels, and point the audio out to your JRiver/Dirac audio chain? If that's technically possible, you'd find an audience that would be quite interested in comparing the resulting correction of pre-EQ response for Dirac vs. XT32.

Not to kill the fun, since your ears are ultimately the test of satisfaction rather than comparing graphs, but if you do wind up preferring Dirac over Audyssey, it might be fascinating to determine if there's specific corrections to your frequency response, bass decay, etc. that are manifesting themselves with a more pleasing sound relative to what you've heard in your years with Audyssey.
 
#11 · (Edited)
...

Having said that, from reading the SA-CD link, I see you've got a UMIK-1 mic for Dirac room measurement. With your JRiver/Dirac setup, is there a way you can use a tool like REW (preferred) or OmniMic to run a sine sweep for a single or a pair of channels, and point the audio out to your JRiver/Dirac audio chain? If that's technically possible, you'd find an audience that would be quite interested in comparing the resulting correction of pre-EQ response for Dirac vs. XT32.

Not to kill the fun, since your ears are ultimately the test of satisfaction rather than comparing graphs, but if you do wind up preferring Dirac over Audyssey, it might be fascinating to determine if there's specific corrections to your frequency response, bass decay, etc. that are manifesting themselves with a more pleasing sound relative to what you've heard in your years with Audyssey.
Ideally, if I had the time, I would make and publish the measurements. But, I will probably not have the time during my 30-day evaluation period with Dirac/ExaSound. I do plan to experiment with REW later, now that I have a suitable mike. I have not used REW or similar to date. So, my decision for now will have to come from my ears and my evaluation of features. Sorry to disappoint, but those already familiar with REW who are really interested in making measurements with Dirac can download it to try for 30-day trial with full money back if not satisfied. There is currently through 9/15 a 20% off promo as advertised in Stereophile. You can PM me if you need the promo code.
 
#8 ·
So, the question arises, why not just use the PC as my prepro, eliminating my Integra prepro altogether? To do that, I am evaluating Dirac Live as a replacement in the PC for Audyssey XT/32 in the prepro with an ExaSound e28 to do what the prepro DACS do. It is clear that JRiver can do playback and most control functions quite well without a prepro.
do you plan to compare dirac vs audyssey by routing through the integra as well or just comparing the 2 different systems as a whole? If you do, it would be even more interesting to draw the audyssey target curve in dirac and then compare dirac's rendition of the audyssey target curve against audyssey.

Since you're planning on going PC only then you do also have the option of acourate or audiolense XO, both of which will deal with bass management/delays as well (as they are used to create filters which run in jriver's convolution engine). There are some threads on the issues some people encounter using dirac in such a setup, for example http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...rossovers-jriver-dirac-possible-or-not-20809/ and the linked thread on interact http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=89581.0

I have been eagerly searching the web recently, looking for comparisons between Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live. I have so far found nothing worthwhile. I have always been (slightly) disappointed to hear what XT32 does for my nicely treated room, most of the time preferring the Pure Direct mode, bypassing any Audyssey processing. I will be reading your observations with a lot of interest!
there was a conversation on computeraudiophile recently which included some comments from someone who switched from audyssey xt32 pro to dirac - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...and-x-overs-poll-21404/index2.html#post347903

Having said that, from reading the SA-CD link, I see you've got a UMIK-1 mic for Dirac room measurement. With your JRiver/Dirac setup, is there a way you can use a tool like REW (preferred) or OmniMic to run a sine sweep for a single or a pair of channels, and point the audio out to your JRiver/Dirac audio chain? If that's technically possible, you'd find an audience that would be quite interested in comparing the resulting correction of pre-EQ response for Dirac vs. XT32.

Not to kill the fun, since your ears are ultimately the test of satisfaction rather than comparing graphs, but if you do wind up preferring Dirac over Audyssey, it might be fascinating to determine if there's specific corrections to your frequency response, bass decay, etc. that are manifesting themselves with a more pleasing sound relative to what you've heard in your years with Audyssey.
I think you'll need to get wasapi loopback working to do this with a USB mic, i.e. something like

configure the mobo audio as the default audio output device
set REW in java mode to output to that default device and record from the UMIK-1
configure jriver to output to the dirac output device & apply bass management etc
open wasapi loopback in jriver
play sweep

I suspect asio line in will only work in REW in this setup via an asio multiclient wrapper as REW is limited, in ASIO mode, to using a single ASIO interface. All seems doable (probably) though.
 
#12 ·
do you plan to compare dirac vs audyssey by routing through the integra as well or just comparing the 2 different systems as a whole? If you do, it would be even more interesting to draw the audyssey target curve in dirac and then compare dirac's rendition of the audyssey target curve against audyssey.

Since you're planning on going PC only then you do also have the option of acourate or audiolense XO, both of which will deal with bass management/delays as well (as they are used to create filters which run in jriver's convolution engine). There are some threads on the issues some people encounter using dirac in such a setup, for example http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...rossovers-jriver-dirac-possible-or-not-20809/ and the linked thread on interact http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=89581.0

...
Yes, I have done comparisons of 3 setups all with the same hi rez Mch music played by JRiver at 88k from DSD files:

Integra/Audyssey via HDMI - 48k frequency limit - my base system
Integra w. Dirac on the PC via HDMI
ExaSound w. Dirac on the PC via USB

Preliminarily, their sonic ranking so far is 3, 2, 1, respectively. That ranking is unanimously agreed with two other listeners so far. But, more listening is required. I expect some more friends to do some listening.

Again, preliminarily, I said I thought Dirac alone into the prepro was something like the improvement I recall in upgrading from an Integra 80.1 to an 80.2, involving an Audyssey XT to XT/32 upgrade. The differences were not earth-shatteringly huge, but they were noticeable, particularly in terms of better imaging. But, other factors may have been at work in all these comparisons, starting with the differences in the calibrations, the mike positions or the mikes themselves, etc.

When I say imaging, remember I am a classical music listener guy with a lot of live concert experience in good halls here in Philly. So, I am not talking about helicopters flying around the room or cannon fire. I am talking about better resolution of hall ambience and sense of space in music, where the instruments or vocalists are better and more realistically separated from the hall reflections. That is a subtler distinction perhaps than movie viewers might make. But, it is important to me in seeking a sound truer to my sense of live performance.

Also, so far, the ExaSound with Dirac makes a bigger positive impression that is even several steps more natural in terms of placement of the performers in the sound stage, among other things like more a smoother, more relaxed, less "granular" HF range. That is not unreasonable given that the ExaSound/Dirac combo costs about twice the Integra's price, not that higher price guarantees anything.

The only essential difference in standard target curves, as I use them, is in the deep bass. Dirac allows for a slight amount of room gain in its target with decreasing frequency, whereas Audyssey is flat in the bass. I hear some slight differences in the deep bass, but I have not yet evaluated that fully or fiddled with the Dirac target in that region.

The HF roll offs are quite similar. I do not use the MRC dip with Audyssey. My electrostats have no xover anywhere near that region (except my ML Stage center channel). It sounds noticeably better to me with no MRC, even with movie dialog. There is no fixed-frequency MRC feature in Dirac, and I have never felt the need to modify the stock Audyssey curve. But, Dirac seems to have much better ability for target curve modification.

Thanks for the links. I am aware of those two alternative tools. Acourate looks like a really difficult challenge in terms of learning curve and ease of use, but it may be the ultimate in features/capabilities, perhaps. I am less familiar with Audiolense. But, both are not as well established or as widely used and talked about as Dirac. Both are also FIR only, as is Audyssey. Dirac is mixed IIR/FIR, which intrigues me. I felt I could try only one of the three, so Dirac got the nod.
 
#9 ·
Fitz, thanks for putting this thread up.

That exaSound DAC looks really nice. It supports an amazing number of formats. For those on a beer budget who want to experiment, there are pro audio alternatives that look promising too. JRiver developers Matt and Hendrik both use the Focusrite Scarlett 18i20, which has 10 balanced analog output channels and 8 mic preamps, allowing it to be used for REW measurements with its native ASIO interface. Maximum sample rate is 96 kHz.
 
#18 ·
Thanks, and sorry to disappoint on the measurement front. But, I have still got a lot on my plate for my evaluation. My own listening is well underway, including with some trusted friends. And, listening is still número uno to me. And, it is extremely positive so far, especially with the ExaSound.

I am not against measurements. They are crucial as part of any successful EQ process. But, correctly making and, more importantly, interpreting independent measurements for their sonic impact and significance is not yet part of my skill set.

But, I still have a fair bit to do on other fronts to verify a few other important things. Remember, the game plan here is really complete prepro, player and cable box replacement with an HTPC. So, I also still need get PC video playback working successfully from BD and cable tuner.

Things like lip synch might be a concern, especially as Exasound's ASIO driver introduces considerable latency delay. (That might also make independent measurements difficult.) However, I have seen postings indicating success with JRiver/Dirac/ExaSound on video, except 3D, which is not a concern. I will try some BDs, then I will also try to get my HD Homerun Prime box working with a Comcast cable card. Everything should work from what I read, I just need to do it and see myself if there are any issues. I hope to get through most of that in the coming days.
 
#20 ·
Sonic Report Card

My sonic evaluations are pretty much done. I think Dirac Live is a worthwhile sonic upgrade over Audyssey XT/32, but the substitution of the Exasound e28 DAC for my Integra prepro makes an even bigger improvement. If I were to grade them on a curve, it would go something like this:

Dirac Live/E28/USB - A
Dirac Live/Integra/HDMI - B
Audyssey XT32/Integra/HDMI - B minus

My trusted listening friends, except one, all agree and are as deeply impressed with my sound. The one exception liked Dirac very much and is now doing a trial with his Marantz 8801. He felt the sound via the E28 " lacked a certain amount of warmth", though he conceded it was more detailed with better imaging. But, I think that was likely a rationale under subliminal pressure because his 8801 was just a year old, the E28 pricey and the prepro more convenient and flexible. (Or, perhaps, I am the one doing the rationalizing.) Also, he is not a bass freak like some, but he is known to be a "warmth freak", frequently using graphic EQ, etc. to "sweeten" his own sound at home in the mid/upper bass warmth region. Blind or double blind testing likely would have yielded a different result for him, but that was near impossible to do.

Another friend with extraordinary listening credentials and a system with about a $100k MSRP thought my system now sounded better than his Anthem D2V/Baetis/Wilson/Pass Labs-based setup. He was very enthusiastic, raving to others in fact, about the improvement.

In summary, the consensus character of the Grade A setup was first and foremost about better imaging. Greater soundstage depth, more of a sense of hall ambience and air, a more precise sense of on stage placement, a proper sense of size and 3D solidity of the singers or instruments were all apparent by comparison. At times, the imaging is almost holographic in terms of how soloists stand out from the mass of reflections on the stage and in the hall.

There was also a smoothness with even less occasional "glare" and a more relaxed sense to the flow of the music revealed by comparison. Massed strings were more beautifully convincing and the size of the first vs. second violin sections much better defined.
No one felt there were any issues with bass integration. I noticed especially on some large scale orchestral music how well the tuba, basses and tympani were reproduced with realistic tonality and that exceptional spatial placement and solidity again.

That tuba in particular caught my attention on the RCO Live SACD from PC hard drive of the Mahler Symphony No. 3 with the Concertgebouw Orchestra under Jansons. As we go from the B minus to the A rated alternatives, it sounds increasingly like a flesh and blood big column of air vibrating at a focused point in space rather than bass tones more vaguely coming from stage right. Other instruments in all tonal registers exhibit similar focus with good recordings.

So far, spoken dialog on video material, also sounds more pleasingly natural by comparison. Yes, it is a bit lighter in tone with a bit less "chestiness", some might call that a lack of warmth, but I think it more realistic and more articulate.

Dirac's predicted frequency response graphs are, of course, near perfect relative to the target curve. The impulse response graphs for my 3 front channels are absolutely beautiful. Those for my surround channels are much more discombulated. But, for ambience on classical recordings, that might be OK. My dipole electrostat hybrids are 5 ft. or so from the front wall, whereas the similar surrounds are only about 1 ft. from the wall behind. So, the graphs make sense. I might want to do some experimenting - treatments behind the surrounds, perhaps - to see if I can achieve a better measured, but more importantly, a better perceived sonic result.

So, sonically, my opinion is now firm. Kal was dead right, again as always, about the sound quality. I do not see how I could part with Dirac or ExaSound now that I have heard what they can do. My sound before was very good, to be sure. Many, like my wife - bless her, she is out of the evaluation loop - would not perceive the differences or value them as worthwhile. But, I very much like the differences I have been hearing and they elevate my enjoyment of the music considerably.

Unfortunately, the video side of the prepro, player, cable box replacement with HTPC strategy is not going as well, though it is in the earliest stages. Lip synch is not a problem, but my Oppo player does a better job of video rendering at this point. Unfortunately, there is no easy digital way into the PC for audio from the Oppo, cable box, etc. Blu-ray video playback is just not as smooth, especially on scene/camera changes. Motion artifacts are annoying even with Netflix streaming via the PC, with or without JRiver. Plus my otherwise stable system is crashing after a few minutes of Red October HQ playback of Blu-rays, a very uncommon complaint. I have begun what will likely be a lengthy investigation of why - drivers, a bad video card (Radeon R9 270) thermal overload, power supply, HDMI cable, etc. But, I doubt it has much, probably nothing, to do with JRiver/MadVR software.

I will also try an upgrade to JRMC 20. I am trying plain, non HQ Red October at the moment, and that does not crash, but video is still not as smooth. This is where the HTPC idea turns ugly and time consuming, although it has gone surprisingly well on the audio side. Worst case, I would insert a Whirlwind 8 channel XLR switch box to be able to toggle via remote activation between the E28 and prepro audio outputs to the amps. Video can continue to use the prepro, player, etc. directly using Audyssey on the sound, while music from the PC employs the ExaSound with Dirac Live. I could live with that. I do not think I could live without the ExaSound and Dirac knowing what I know now.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I always use the standard Audyssey target curve (w/o the MRC dip), including for music. The Dirac target is very similar, and they provide no flat option. And, it sounds best to me that way, music or movies.

I think Audyssey and the mfrs. have misled people, especially by naming the other curve "music". The HF rolloff in the standard curve is consistent with all the independent acoustic theory for rooms that I have read, although it is a psychoacoustic guesstimate to achieve perceptually flat response.

The only time flat would be more correct is for near field listening, where room reflections play an insignificant role.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I have been searching for years for some decent "listening credentials" but I have yet to find any, lol. That said, I would be wildly interested to partake in an ABX of these REQ's in a decent room, with some solid equipment.

The vast majority of "after-graphs" I've seen- coupled with others experiences- have really led me to believe the differences between them would be all-but indecipherable- or at the very least would yield extremely volatile results, depending upon the media being played back. Hopefully this is something that can happen sometime sooner than later so we can start putting some meat with these potatoes. After awhile reading what people "think" sounds better really starts to align with "what wine tastes the best".

YMMV.

James
 
#32 ·
FWIW the UK Lyngdorf distributor says it doesn't target a particular curve but honours the native curve of your speakers, the docs I've seen do say this but aren't specific about what it really means (e.g. does it mean it has a basic target curve that it then adjusts based on measurements or something else). There's also PC based software (audiolense, acourate & handcrafted filters) that could be thrown into the mix.
 
#33 ·
Gotcha. So Room Perfect is doing what DEQX does with it's RC i.e. uses an algorithm based upon the measured response to generate an improved (likely more linear) version of that response. Yup, Audiolense and Acourate (now AudioVera, IIRC) would fit the bill, though both are PC-based vs. AVR/Pre-pro/RC box.
 
#35 ·
^^^^^

I thought it was pretty meaty. Light on the condiments maybe, and it certainly could have benefited from a side dish and a beverage. Favs beans and a nice chianti, perhaps.

You provided context in advance, context throughout and then context at the end. Clearly, some thoughtful naval gazing went into the context. Those who got the most from your posts were those who understood what you were doing and why. To me, that was a piece of cake.

Jeff
 
#38 ·
^ Real differentiation should be identifiable. My sole contention. What people "believe" to be true but cannot validate is of little interest to me. And I'm not saying he- or anyone else- cannot validate it...I would just be interested in learning of it.


James
 
#53 ·
I was excited when this thread first popped up. Now it is just another group of guys giving an opinion - very subjective - on what sounded good to them. Not much new or science here - sorry. Glad you're enjoying what you have though, in the end that's all that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gdr95 and Djoel
#54 ·
Can you point me to any threads on this forum that are not guys giving opinions? And the followup to that is, can you point me to any threads on this forum where guys are giving concrete, science-based facts .... that contradicts the already-held opinions of someone on the thread ... and then changes their opinion? ;)
 
#60 ·
Thanks for the reply Jeff. I agree with you 100% about the world of a/v not being all about the measurements. Those threads where people get ripped to shreds for saying A sounded better than B drive me nuts or God forbid - the infamous all amps sound the same. By the way my Outlaw monos sound great :)
Hopefully my post didn't come off as being that way. I value Fritz's and his friends opinions of what they heard, but as I mentioned not as comprehensive as I had hoped - maybe just one measurement for that one step forward. Kudos to him for taking the plunge and the time to do so.

I will continue to tweak as long as my hearing is good, but in the end have piece of mind that I can always hit the restore button on my a/v if I go too far one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pepar
#61 · (Edited)
I do think the kinds of measurements we can conveniently take might be useful to a hobbyist like you or me in tweaking an otherwise good sounding system. I will likely get to that in the months ahead with REW. But, I was not tweaking here. I was comparing and selecting from among some stock choices. The Integra/Audyssey setup has been tweaked about as much as I feel like tweaking it.

It seems some insist on others providing measurements with any opinion as a sort of veneer of objectivity, a merit badge indicating I accept measurements and am therefore above reproach. But, if you measure, then tweak, then remeasure and see, say, a flatter frequency response, are you done? Don't know about you, but I still have to listen and decide subjectively whether I think it sounds any different or sounds preferably "better". And, by the way, is frequency response the only useful or significant measurement?

Even if I were to entertain that notion of making measurements, what exactly should I have measured? I am quite sure that my Audyssey calibration, affected by its similar but different in some ways, target curve vs. Dirac would have had a differing frequency response. Of course, perfect adherence to the target curve is not achievable in any case. Is one system better than the other in this way? Good question, but I leave that for someone else to attempt. And, when you look at target curves, which have experimentally derived, psycho-acoustic-preference-based departures from pure flat response, which is "right" anyway? This is not a thread for those who question the validity of the whole concept of target-curve based EQ. I believe in it and I insist on it.

On that subject, if you read my descriptions of what we heard, there is very little to suggest that frequency response issues played any significant role here. And, note carefully that there was only one calibration of Dirac, that done via the Integra. If you read Kal's review, there is an issue of latency delay with Dirac and the ExaSound, meaning ExaSound cannot be used for calibration. (That is to be fixed in future software.) So, both the Dirac-Integra and the Dirac-ExaSound listening were done with exactly the same calibration and Dirac filters plus identical bass management in JRiver at the same sampling rate. I doubt very seriously that those two setups had any difference in frequency response. Even if it were a simple question of frequency response differences, the ExaSound sounds obviously better, so why do I care?

It is primarily imaging-related differences that I cited in my summary comments. That points most likely to jitter and time-domain issues rather than frequency response. Good luck trying to measure those. They are very complex and way beyond my capabilities for either proper measurement or interpretation. But, I feel reasonably sure that there would be significant measured differences there demonstrating the ExaSound's superiority via asynchronous USB. I leave that to competent, expert reviewers with proper equipment to measure.
 
#62 ·
I have been pecking away at my PC and JRiver plus associated technologies. I thought you might like to know what is happening. I am sure many have been dying to hear this update. Yeah, right. But, this pretty much puts a cap on my efforts to provide an improved home listening and viewing experience, except for some further fine tuning.

I think I have mostly solved my video problems from the PC. It turns out I needed to do several things. One was to run my TV and PC Monitor separately instead of cloned. The PC still recognizes both, but if the TV is turned on, the monitor goes dark automatically. And, when the TV is turned off, the monitor automatically comes on. Simple, but effective for me. It was just changing the Display settings in Windows Control Panel to turn the cloning off. This was necessary to cure a really annoying motion artifact on the TV when both displays were cloned. Now the picture is beautiful. I have not done a direct comparison to my Oppo 93, but it seems it might even be a better picture that more than satisfies my needs.

I have finally installed my HDHomerun Prime TV tuner with a Comcast cable card yesterday. That was much easier than expected. So, now I can watch and record cable TV without the cable box with 3 channel tuners from within JRiver. A little bit of watching last night was beautiful.

Netflix Streaming, by the way, is way, way better in picture quality via JRiver Theater Mode than it was via the Oppo 93.

I also now have Slysoft AnyDVD HD up and running, so I can play BD/DVDs from the hard drive or from the tray in the Pioneer BD drive I installed in the PC.

So, video-wise, I can now pretty much check off the following on my PC/JRiver setup: any video quality issues, BD/DVD playback from PC hard drive or silver disc, Cable TV and Netflix Streaming. That is about all I need on video for now. It adds up to another nail in the coffin for my prepro, player and cable box, all about to be replaced by the PC and JRiver.

I had put this off when I ran into a little snag months ago, but last night I also got JRemote working with JRiver from my iPad. Wow!! With my PC music library, it was outstanding. I cannot get over it. The iPad display has essentially everything I want for searching, volume control, etc. So, for music, I will henceforth be using that to control music playback with the TV off and my fussy Logitech wireless keyboard put aside. I think JRemote differs from Gizmo for an Android tablet, and I do not know which is better.

It all needs a bit more fine tuning and experience. I also want to get my Harmony remote set up and fine tuned for ease of system turn on and off. The Harmony I have has a small clicker with buttons and also a display on my iPad and Android cell phone. I should be able to turn the system on/off or control volume with any of the three possibilities. I still need to figure out a way to send 12v triggers to my center and rear amps for turn on/off, but I have some ideas. The prepro had been supplying those triggers.

And, did I mention that all this is with truly glorious sound provided by Dirac Live and the ExaSound e28. I am really loving that.
 
#63 ·
P.S. - I forgot to mention that the new release of Dirac Live is now out. It now supports the additional sampling rates of 176 and 192k, and it should now allow calibration via the ExaSound e28. I had been using my prepro for the calibrations.

I tend to believe that higher sampling rates may have some positives, but they are not all that some audiophiles make them out to be. I will be able to start to experiment with DSD converted at 176 vs. 88k PCM. But, I doubt it will yield much difference or improvement. It might even be worse because of added ultrasonic noise. Still, it will be nice for peace of mind to hear the high rez BD-As I have in their native, on the disc 192k resolution without downrezzing to 96.

I also note a comment from a Dirac representative in another forum that more channels and Atmos support is pretty well assured at some future point. Apparently, Dirac on the Datasat prepro is already handling Auro. Neither of these 3D schemes holds much interest for me unless we start to see a steady flow of music recordings in one or the other. That might take a long time. Personally, I am rooting for Auro over Atmos, as Auro is a discrete recording format better suited to music. Atmos is not a recording format. It is a post-recording mixing/mastering format, and object orientation is totally unsuitable for the classical music I listen to.
 
#65 ·
I just switched to Dirac Live from MultEQ XT on my SR5008. It's instantly obvious that Dirac is superior. Dialog in movies is easier to understand now. It was muffled with Audyssey, and was even more muffled without EQ. The bass has audibly reduced with Dirac, but low frequency vibration and effects have drastically increased and my SPC-12 has reached its limits due to the amount of boosting below 80 Hz. It sounds like I need a second subwoofer.

@fitzcaraldo215 How are you doing crossover for Dirac? I am currently using my Sound Blaster Zx's crossover feature and the MCH analog outputs so my SR5008 only acts as a power amplifier. I need a universal crossover that works globally across Windows even in games and any media player.
 
#66 ·
Hi, I am completely switched now to using JRiver on my PC for all sources: audio, BD, DVD, TV and Netflix streaming. That is all I need for now. I cannot play SACD silver discs now due to copy protection, and there is no way to input SACD from a player into the PC. But, I have a large library of those on hard drive, and I can rip any new ones via PS3.

JRiver can do xovers in its DSP Studio under Room Correction. So, for now, I have simply applied the same xover frequencies determined by my prior Audyssey Pro calibration there. It could also do speaker distance correction and level trims, but there is no need since Dirac does that automatically itself. That all works perfectly.

Before I got my ExaSound DAC, I was using JRiver via HDMI into my prepro using Audyssey EQ, etc. That also worked pretty well except for the occasional HDMI handshake issues, which I eventually learned how to correct. It also worked with Dirac on the PC and I reached some of the same sonic conclusions as you, although I never had a dialog articulation problem with Audyssey. But, I agree, dialog is somewhat better, clearer and preferable via Dirac

There is a difference in the Dirac target curve vs. Audyssey in the deepest bass. Dirac rises gradually a few dB at lower frequencies (allowing for room gain?) whereas Audyssey is flat in that region. I do not know the source of the slightly fuller mid/upper bass in Audyssey over a slightly leaner Dirac in that region. But, I agree it seems to be there probably at or above the xover frequency. I commented on that earlier as a reduced chestiness in dialog by comparison, but it is also there on music. Which one is right? I actually prefer the Dirac presentation, which is somewhat clearer and more tonally accurate to me on music. And, Dirac is my preferred choice overall in all frequency ranges.

A friend has a Marantz 8801 and he has also now purchased Dirac after hearing it with my Integra 80.2. He is very happy with the improvement. He does everything from JRiver via HDMI, like I used to do before the ExaSound, which uses USB.

JRiver in their latest release now supports input to JRiver as a virtual Windows sound card. So, that can be the designated default sound output, which would then route all sound from any Windows application through JRiver for bass management or other processing then, hopefully, to Dirac and on out of the PC via HDMI, USB, etc. I have not tried this because I do not need it yet. I am 100% JRiver for all sources. Not sure if there is a conflict with Dirac in that arrangement, since its virtual sound card, too, might need to be the default in Windows. But, going to Dirac directly would bypass the bass management.

In your case, I am not sure if I would be happy with the Soundblaster as a DAC vs. using the Marantz for that purpose in Direct Mode via HDMI to bypass Audyssey, bass management, etc. in the prepro. DACS can make a big difference and it is generally thought that DACS and analog audio inside a PC are not a good thing sonically.

If you decide to go the HDMI route, there is one caution. NVidia GeForce graphics cards do not support 88 or 176k sampling rates via their HDMI outputs. AMD Radeon and Intel integrated graphics do. The only main issue here is with DSD material. We do not think that sounds as good converted to 96 or 192k, as the NVidia cards would require. But, with other media at 44,48,96 and 192k, they are fine.
 
#67 · (Edited)
The reason I even tried Dirac was I was sick and tired of all the HDMI issues caused by plugging an AVR into a PC. Under no circumstances will I ever again have a secondary display showing up in Windows and messing up my desktop and game performance. I must connect my monitor directly for G-Sync and 3D Vision.


I am currently facing EMI noise with my Sound Blaster Zx and need to change to another 7.1 DAC. Most of them don't have crossover which is a problem for me. I am reluctant to use JRiver for global bass management because latency is of utmost importance to me. I have to have instant audio feedback the moment I click the mouse.


I always used Audyssey with Dynamic EQ enabled as it simply did not produce enough LFE without it. Compared to that, the bass in Dirac is certainly less, but still I don't find it lacking.


I have also come to the conclusion that bass management must always come after Dirac during both measurement and playback. I realised this when someone asked what was so special about bass management compared to the crossovers in a multi-way speaker. The crossover itself damages the response and must also be corrected.
 
#80 ·
I am getting confused here, guys : when referring to Audyssey as comparison do you mean Audyssey MultEQ XT-32 only ? KurianOfBorg mentions Audyssey MultEQ while fitzcaraldo215 mentions Audyssey DEQ as comparison but apparently he also owns an Integra 80.2 A/V processor that uses Audyssey MultEQ XT-32 which he dropped in favor of Dirac, correct ?
In my opinion it is important to use the latest/best iteration of Audyssey MultEQ XT-32 for comparison to other room-correction EQ implementations, especially considering how widespread it has become in the high-end market for receivers and A/V processors from companies such as Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, etc, as well as raving reviews received from users and reports from magazines and online forums...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top