Can you elaborate on that in simple terms?When I look at the step response of SVS subs, I think they are less suitable for ART: Link
This is nonsense.ART expects a system that plays as precisely as possible. The swing-out behaviour of the SVSs is counterproductive, regardless of whether the sub outputs a correction signal or the regular channel signal.
This is nonsense.
The timescale of bass signals is in the hundreds of milliseconds and multiple seconds as you get to the lowest frequencies. It takes a long time for the ear to acquire and register a bass pitch (tens of milliseconds).
There will certainly be an improvement, but an optimum will sound different. Then it's better to do without new additional subs and replace the existing subs with ones that play precisely. But even a booming, imprecise reproduction can be pleasing.We'll see until the update for my receiver actually appears.
Sure. My fault for assuming that it was clear that I was talking about real room measurement and correction within the context of ART.Umm. I have a lot of respect for you, such that I think that I probably misunderstood you. A 20Hz signal = 20 cycles per second = each cycle 1/20 second = 50ms. Not in the hundreds of milliseconds range. Could I ask you to clarify please?
Define "precisely" and "counterproductive swing-out behaviour" at subwoofer frequencies (<80Hz).ART expects a system that plays as precisely as possible. The swing-out behaviour of the SVSs is counterproductive, regardless of whether the sub outputs a correction signal or the regular channel signal.
So what is the difference between ART and a VBA?
Define "precisely" and "counterproductive swing-out behaviour" at subwoofer frequencies (<80Hz).
Any verification that this is not just a measurement artefact or misconfiguration/defective?View attachment 365644
View attachment 365648
It should be clear which one sounds better/precise and is more suitable for co-optimisation in a room.
In any practical sense, not really. From a technical perspective, yes. Dirac's claim is time and phase correction, so it corrects step response anyway. How well it can do so has limits that are to do with the accuracy of measurements.So no need to worry about step response?
That doesn't matter as everything is already contained in the measurements.Even Dirac does not turn an SVS sub into an 'precise' Arendal, Neumann, B&W, ...sub.
That would be nice
Even Dirac does not turn an SVS sub into an 'precise' Arendal, Neumann, B&W, ...sub.
That would be nice
There will be limits for low frequencies otherwise delay and processor useage would be to extensive.From a technical perspective, yes. Dirac's claim is time and phase correction, so it corrects step response anyway. How well it can do so has limits that are to do with the accuracy of measurements.