Originally Posted by StevenLansing
By less 'invasive' do you mean Audyssey sounds more processed or is it a tonal character that results from the Audyssey calibration process that sounds less appealing?Just trying to get a better idea of what the difference is.
Originally Posted by Bulldogger
I am not the least bit surprised that it is less invasive from my communication with Dirac.
StevenLansing, I'm not sure how to put it in words... "processed"... If you mean it's like: lifelike reverberations being suppressed, than yes. Also, audyssey's softening of the top end could be one culprit for the speakers character's being changed. Unfortunately also their Flat mode to me seems wishful at most.
Look, audyssey is being great to me and i have been fortunate to have adopted it since 2007. But, Dirac seems not showing (to me) any side effects that audyssey does, plus it improves the clarity.
Now, with my digital speakers audyssey goes through an extra d/a a/d conversion and it coud make my statement seem not fare, but my previous speakers were non-digital, conventional type.
With Dirac the timbre of the speakers is almost identical to the unprocessed sound... you can instantly a/b by selecting on off switch on dirac processor. the sound is glorious with a, (finally!), sparkling top end.
This has been a great "experiment" for me. While I'll keep audyssey for surround sound, all digital stereo will go through Dirac.
The ideal for me would be: Datasat/Dirac, as I guess it is the only processor with digital in and digital out capability; an all digital active speakers and be done with it! I wish thou, they create a more utilitarian model with only 4/5 channels for a "normal" living room' audio system...