Originally Posted by AustinJerry
This has never been a thread for discussions regarding the technical aspects of Dirac Live. And it has not really been a thread that focuses on implementing Dirac solutions with MiniDSP products. There are more discussions regarding implementing Dirac in the MiniDSP 88A thread. Soon after the 88A was released several years ago, there were discussions WRT how Dirac differs from othe room correction products. For example, I published REW measurements that compared Dirac and Audyssey (I used to be a big Audyssey fan), as well as measurements that compared my audio before and after a Dirac calibration. But even in the 88A thread, we never delved into what was happening “under the covers” with the Dirac technology in any detail. My interests, for example, have always been with how to implement technology, and not so much with how the technology actually works.
If you are looking for Dirac white papers to read, I think you would have the same success as any of us would have by doing some searching on the internet. And while meaning no disrespect, I firmly believe that it would be difficult for anyone to achieve the same results as a Dirac Live calibration by trying manual PEQ.
The algorithmic calibrations such as Dirac, Trinnov Optimizer, etc are doing quite a lot of calculating to reach a "Best" or "optimal" fit across multiple domains. They are trying to balance levels, delays, and frequency response while also working on phase as well. They are doing all this while trying to maintain the more reasonable seat-to-seat response as well. Of course, the initial quality, type, and placement of speakers and the room configuration affects sound, but that's already obvious.
I think the only thing these algos don't provide is what andy C's MSO or JBL Arcos provide which is frequency response optimization for subwoofers across many seating positions.
I have gotten good results with MSO (implemented in MiniDSP) with followup integration with mains using Trinnov Altitude, then followed up with precision crossover tweaking using REW measurements of the final results.
Once I got great results using a MSO/Mini-DSP, I pretty much locked those settings down, never to be touched again (permanent seat positions).
To your point, there is NO WAY I could have gotten similar results doing this manually. I don't have the complete technical knowledge of the target goals or methods to make that happen. Even if I did, the recursive methods that software uses to calculate "Best fit" cannot easily be replicated with a paper and pencil or manual trial and error.
I would say that MSO and room optimizers are serious technical achievements that should not be taken lightly or under-appreciated. The "purist" or "2-channel" crowd is definitely missing out in my opinion.