after all it is the flat curve that we shall be aiming for
+1Your in-room response should not be flat. It is well established that our ears prefer slight bass elevation and treble droop. Commonly referred to as the Harman or JBL Synthesis target curve. Speakers which measure flat anechoic will naturally have that downward tilt when placed in a room.
That green one is undoubtedly the result of massive over-correction, likely a single-point correction or very small measurement grid.By 'flat' I meant not that zigzaggy as the red curve but rather 'flat' like the green
Then it is up to one's taste to modify the tilt accordingly
That green one is undoubtedly the result of massive over-correction, likely a single-point correction or very small measurement grid.
Unless it's a reflection-free room we don't want that kind of response in the listening position because we can only achieve a response like that by ignoring the direct sound in favor of steady-state.
Psychoacoustically that's a bad idea and in a reflective space the curve is only valid for a single point in space. Re-measure 50 cm in all directions and compare.
The red curve upwards tilt looks like something I would expect if the measurements in Dirac is done without a microphone calibration file loaded.
Well, I think Dirac (and other companies) knows that most users can't use any after correction measurement for anything meaningful. Those algorithms are created based on psychoacoustics and not for the purpose of generating pretty graphs after correction, but many people believe that nice graphs equals nice sound.
Since that's not true, it makes sense to skip a feature that'll certainly confuse users who are under that illusion.
Used correctly Dirac will/should correct the modal area in a way that makes psychoacoustically sense and limit itself to correcting the speaker only above around 1 kHz. How many users out there can we assume would even know the difference between a single-point measurement and spatially averaged multi-point measurement? And how many can we assume would go through the pain of measuring the anechoic response of the speaker before and after Dirac to make an educated evaluation of how well Dirac does?
I think Dirac made the logical choice by making a software that's easy to use and gives you the results you want without providing confusing information most people can't use.
So how would Dirac (or others) do any better? Their measurements and corrections are based on multiple mic positions and, unless you have 9+ microphones in fixed positions, there's no way to replicate the original.Regardless of the target curve, am I the only one who wishes that these products would allow users to actually measure the post correction result? I mean, you have to use other tools like REW, and there is no good way to use the same microphone positions.
I'm not sure I understand, but I'm still new to this. Using the same logic, why bother showing the initial measurements to begin with, and give customers the ability to make changes, if it is all magic?
So how would Dirac (or others) do any better? Their measurements and corrections are based on multiple mic positions and, unless you have 9+ microphones in fixed positions, there's no way to replicate the original.
You could pick a target curve without knowing anything about the initial measurements.to pick their desired target curve?
You could pick a target curve without knowing anything about the initial measurements.
REW. It will not be exact but if you compare the REW pre and REW post, you should be able to appreciate some of what has been accomplished.How do you know that the peak or dip has been adequately corrected in the room unless you do some type of post-correction measurement?
Thanks. So assuming top of line system components but not using separate systems for stereo and multichannel, about the best one can do then is then is use REW to try to optimize speaker locations, room treatments, and listening positions for smoothest response below Schroder frequency and optimal listening window for high frequencies. Run Dirac and cycle through all listening positions, finishing at prime listening location, save several filter options, then without changing mike position, REW with and without Dirac, match speaker levels, for each of the chosen filter configurations. Do this for stereo, stereo with subs, and multichannel presets. Or am I over thinking it?REW. It will not be exact but if you compare the REW pre and REW post, you should be able to appreciate some of what has been accomplished.
I have found ARC's predicted responses to be surprisingly accurate, despite the absence of a post-correction measurement function.
Here are the uncorrected (green) and predicted (orange) responses of my desktop setup, consisting of a pair of T5Vs.
View attachment 137405
And here are the uncorrected (green) and post-correction (orange) measurements, taken via REW
View attachment 137406
ARC's predicted response is rather close to the actual post-correction response.