Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

[kawauso]

I apologise for the inherent assumptions in WAF... it should indeed be "Partner Acceptance Factor" ... but common usage makes that eve more awkward!

No worries at all — I think WAF is perfectly fine to use.
After all, probably 99% of audio enthusiasts are men anyway.

My living room has been completely taken over by my audio setup,
but since I’m the queen of the house, no one gets to complain

That said, I had to give up placing a JTR in this hallway… it’s just too hard to walk through.

 

[smygolf]

No worries at all — I think WAF is perfectly fine to use.
After all, probably 99% of audio enthusiasts are men anyway.

My living room has been completely taken over by my audio setup,
but since I’m the queen of the house, no one gets to complain

That said, I had to give up placing a JTR in this hallway… it’s just too hard to walk through.
View attachment 486532

4425, had a pair of those back in the late 80:s
Same 12" woofer as in XPL200 witch i also owned, with active filter it played Really well.

 

[kawauso]

Before ART i always used L/R as fullrange when listen to music.
Even with just a slight raise the lower region 2 x 4645C was to much - not so much with ART.

But for the sake of it i will try again and see how the support looks etc

That makes sense — so you’re planning to test something like this?

1. Before ART, you used the L/R (2216ND in 140 L sealed boxes) full-range, and even a small boost on the 2 × 4645C subs made the bass too strong.
2. With ART, the same setup now feels much more balanced — the subs aren’t overwhelming.
3. So now you want to experiment again, to see how ART is actually distributing support between L/R and the subs, either by listening or checking the measurements.

Sounds really interesting! It’d be nice to see what the support pattern actually looks like in your room.

This 4425 was a recent purchase — I liked it so much that I even ordered custom stands for it.
It now handles the surround and surround-back channels, and I also use another pair in the bedroom.

 

[fzst]

I actually prefer having mutual support between the Left and Right channels.
Any speaker that has a paired partner (like L/R or SL/SR) is set up with mutual support in my system.

On the other hand, single-position speakers like the Center channel are supported only by the subwoofers.

Many of my full-range speakers also help support the LFE group.

If you don’t mind sharing, I’d be curious to hear what kind of difference this configuration would make in your setup — and whether it would sound like something you’d prefer.

I have it setup pretty similar right now. I let L+R support each other but only at -6dB and only at >90hz since I have small LCRs (XTZ M6), the center doesn't support anything and the SL/SR cannot do much since they are tiny Monitor Audio Silver FX Dipoles (currently I still have them support each other and the LCRs but only at -5dB and >110Hz).
And of course all speakers get support from my subs (4 subs in one group, support level -18dB) but no speakers support the LFE since I don't have full range speakers with adequate amplification.

While I definitely do like the sound better than BC, I'm not where I want to be with ART yet. Biggest problems are less deep bass pressure in movies and too much bass in the upper region. So I'm mostly experimenting with target curves right now. Problem is, I found that unlike in BC, setting custom target points actually doesn't really work and Dirac simply raises the whole bass region up (which I don't like), so I cannot setup a TC similar to what Audyssey Dynamic EQ is doing (= pretty much a Harman TC). Even when I set the TC to flat, ART still is too aggressive in the upper bass for my liking. Sure, it is very nice to have such a punchy, tight bass (it's way better than what BC managed to do in my setup) but it just sounds unnatural to me and it's fatiguing when listening to music. I'm currently using Storm Audio's TC (which I never used with BC) and while I kinda like it and it retrieved some deep bass, I think it might not be for me since it exaggerates the upper bass even more...

That's why I'm wondering if I should be tinkering with support levels instead... maybe I need some more room reverb back..? Or maybe I should try letting only the subs support anything..? BTW: There is a lot of talk about LFE and Stereo bass with ART but to me, both sound pretty much exactly the same. I know it's an apples to oranges comarison but whether I'm listening to an LFE track or bass heavy music, the characteristics of the bass sounds very similar to my ears...

My guess is that in a larger room, the number of support speakers probably doesn’t change things much, either way.

Maybe, I have a small room as well (19m2) and I sit very close to the SL/SR and even very close to one of the subs...

 

[fzst]

1. Before ART, you used the L/R (2216ND in 140 L sealed boxes) full-range, and even a small boost on the 2 × 4645C subs made the bass too strong.
2. With ART, the same setup now feels much more balanced — the subs aren’t overwhelming.

Even with just a slight raise the lower region 2 x 4645C was to much - not so much with ART.

I feel this way with ART as well. The bass is just cleaner, which usually means that you can turn it up more without it getting sloppy/boomy. It's a similar feeling like I had when I upgraded to better/more subs, the bass doesn't get louder, it just gets more dynamic/punchier, which means that you can turn it up more without "just adding boom".

 

[kawauso]

I have it setup pretty similar right now. I let L+R support each other but only at -6dB and only at >90hz since I have small LCRs (XTZ M6), the center doesn't support anything and the SL/SR cannot do much since they are tiny Monitor Audio Silver FX Dipoles (currently I still have them support each other and the LCRs but only at -5dB and >110Hz).
And of course all speakers get support from my subs (4 subs in one group, support level -18dB) but no speakers support the LFE since I don't have full range speakers with adequate amplification.

While I definitely do like the sound better than BC, I'm not where I want to be with ART yet. Biggest problems are less deep bass pressure in movies and too much bass in the upper region. So I'm mostly experimenting with target curves right now. Problem is, I found that unlike in BC, setting custom target points actually doesn't really work and Dirac simply raises the whole bass region up (which I don't like), so I cannot setup a TC similar to what Audyssey Dynamic EQ is doing (= pretty much a Harman TC). Even when I set the TC to flat, ART still is too aggressive in the upper bass for my liking. Sure, it is very nice to have such a punchy, tight bass (it's way better than what BC managed to do in my setup) but it just sounds unnatural to me and it's fatiguing when listening to music. I'm currently using Storm Audio's TC (which I never used with BC) and while I kinda like it and it retrieved some deep bass, I think it might not be for me since it exaggerates the upper bass even more...

That's why I'm wondering if I should be tinkering with support levels instead... maybe I need some more room reverb back..? Or maybe I should try letting only the subs support anything..? BTW: There is a lot of talk about LFE and Stereo bass with ART but to me, both sound pretty much exactly the same. I know it's an apples to oranges comarison but whether I'm listening to an LFE track or bass heavy music, the characteristics of the bass sounds very similar to my ears...

Maybe, I have a small room as well (19m2) and I sit very close to the SL/SR and even very close to one of the subs...

It’s a bit disappointing that you’re not getting the ideal bass curve, even with such powerful subwoofers like the SVS SB13s and Arendal 1723 1S units.
The fact that the Infra Bass option doesn’t make much difference is quite interesting too.

Maybe try separating the subwoofers into different groups and testing mixed Infra Bass patterns — for example, enabling it on only one sub or three subs instead of all four.

I’ll check the results in REW and save the combination that gives the best extension below 20 Hz.

 

[KenMasters]

I pulled the trigger on the ART extension yesterday, unfortunately it does not seem to be a good fit for my system.

I wasn't expecting much since I'm using LS50 Metas for my LCRs and R8As for the rest, but I was keen to experiment. Unfortunately it wasn't just of no benefit, it detracted from my system's bass performance to a surprising degree.

It's a 5.3.2 setup with 13.8" sealed subs (Arendal 1S) on the outside of both fronts and a 10" sub (Buchardt Sub10) mounted on the front mid-wall with a high universal crossover of 150Hz. With this setup using BC my system has a satisfyingly taut and punchy full bass sound.

With ART, no matter how I assigned support or to what degree, the bass is significantly neutered, taking on a supressed, muffled character. What's more, it seems to emanate from the front centre of my system, as opposed to the non-localisable bass I have normally.

 

[fzst]

It’s a bit disappointing that you’re not getting the ideal bass curve, even with such powerful subwoofers like the SVS SB13s and Arendal 1723 1S units.
The fact that the Infra Bass option doesn’t make much difference is quite interesting too.

Maybe try separating the subwoofers into different groups and testing mixed Infra Bass patterns — for example, enabling it on only one sub or three subs instead of all four.

I’ll check the results in REW and save the combination that gives the best extension below 20 Hz.

Yeah, I'll have to check out different configurations. Honestly, I don't think the lack of sub 20Hz bass is the problem... Maybe it really does make a difference in my setup but I'd guess probably not. Imo infrasonics are not really that important unless you use BEQ with huge subs and/or shakers. I feel like the whole range under about 50Hz is the problem in my case... BC just sounds deeper/fuller, more forceful even with deep bass music (electronic) but maybe it's just the shorter decay, I'm not used to which gives the subjective impression of less deep bass. I probably should take some RTA in REW to test this.

 

[fzst]

I pulled the trigger on the ART extension yesterday, unfortunately it does not seem to be a good fit for my system.

I wasn't expecting much since I'm using LS50 Metas for my LCRs and R8As for the rest, but I was keen to experiment. Unfortunately it wasn't just of no benefit, it detracted from my system's bass performance to a surprising degree.

It's a 5.3.2 setup with 13.8" sealed subs (Arendal 1S) on the outside of both fronts and a 10" sub (Buchardt Sub10) mounted on the front mid-wall with a high universal crossover of 150Hz. With this setup using BC my system has a satisfyingly taut and punchy full bass sound.

With ART, no matter how I assigned support or to what degree, the bass is significantly neutered, taking on a supressed, muffled character. What's more, it seems to emanate from the front centre of my system, as opposed to the non-localisable bass I have normally.

Did you take REW-measurements to make sure ART is even working? I couldn't get ART to work until I took new measurements in Dirac - no idea why - before that it made some really weard random things and it sounded and measured horrible.

 

[TimoJ]

What's more, it seems to emanate from the front centre of my system, as opposed to the non-localisable bass I have normally.

So you prefer "all over the place" bass more than ART's pinpoint precise bass?

 

[KenMasters]

Did you take REW-measurements to make sure ART is even working? I couldn't get ART to work until I took new measurements in Dirac - no idea why - before that it made some really weard random things and it sounded and measured horrible.

It's definitely doing something, but I am using my previous 14 point measurement. Though I thought it wasn't necessary to take new measurements?

So you prefer "all over the place" bass more than ART's pinpoint precise bass?

I prefer non-localisable bass.

 

[fzst]

It's definitely doing something, but I am using my previous 14 point measurement. I though I thought it wasn't necessary to take new measurements?

I thought so too, no idea why it wasn't working. My measurements even were pretty new, only taken a couple of moths ago with the newest Dirac version back then. I did take my ART measurements with the Umik-1 connected directly to the AVR for the first time (I usually did so via my laptop), so maybe that made a difference..?
It definitely didn't work though, I'm talking like worse than with Dirac turned completely off...

 

[kawauso]

Yeah, I'll have to check out different configurations. Honestly, I don't think the lack of sub 20Hz bass is the problem... Maybe it really does make a difference in my setup but I'd guess probably not. Imo infrasonics are not really that important unless you use BEQ with huge subs and/or shakers. I feel like the whole range under about 50Hz is the problem in my case... BC just sounds deeper/fuller, more forceful even with deep bass music (electronic) but maybe it's just the shorter decay, I'm not used to which gives the subjective impression of less deep bass. I probably should take some RTA in REW to test this.

Maybe the issue isn’t the lack of sub-20 Hz bass, but rather everything above that range.
When I first tried ART, I didn’t even know about the “Infrabass” option — so my JTRs lost everything below 20 Hz.
Even then, I thought “this still sounds great.”
Once I enabled Infrabass, it became even better.

ART has a lot of strengths, but if the reduced decay makes movie bass feel less powerful, that’s completely understandable.
For films, non-ART may indeed sound more natural, while ART shines with music.

 

[KenMasters]

I thought so too, no idea why it wasn't working. My measurements even were pretty new, only taken a couple of moths ago with the newest Dirac version back then. I did take my ART measurements with the Umik-1 connected directly to the AVR for the first time (I usually did so via my laptop), so maybe that made a difference..?
It definitely didn't work though, I'm talking like worse than with Dirac turned completely off...

In that case, I do think it's working as it's meant to. I just don't like whatever choices it's making in the upper bass region.

Maybe it's because I can't split out the Buchardt from the Arendals as I'm using a Denon X6800H, but whatever it is, there's something off about the division of labour in that region.

 

[kawauso]

I made some air recordings comparing BC and ART.
The frequency response graphs look quite similar, but they actually sound very different to my ears.
These recordings were made earlier, with the Infrabass option turned off.

BC Charlie Puth - Patient
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yWwx5Ouup9XqLSvjQ8dFN31uIOB5rqHh/view?usp=drive_link
ART Charlie Puth - Patient
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EiZX2pQ7XkLLYYA53BkwIKr7WQDGT_by/view?usp=drive_link
BC IVE - XOXZ
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J3XPU2Gv_qLZduKpS9zCP9z9NGuQ1aNx/view?usp=drive_link
ART IVE - XOXZ
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ac5Qnk7omIKADYxJ2nYCyLEIi_8VH4t1/view?usp=drive_link

 

[dlaloum]

I made some air recordings comparing BC and ART.
The frequency response graphs look quite similar, but they actually sound very different to my ears.

BC Charlie Puth - Patient
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yWwx5Ouup9XqLSvjQ8dFN31uIOB5rqHh/view?usp=drive_link
ART Charlie Puth - Patient
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EiZX2pQ7XkLLYYA53BkwIKr7WQDGT_by/view?usp=drive_link
BC IVE - XOXZ
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J3XPU2Gv_qLZduKpS9zCP9z9NGuQ1aNx/view?usp=drive_link
ART IVE - XOXZ
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ac5Qnk7omIKADYxJ2nYCyLEIi_8VH4t1/view?usp=drive_link
View attachment 486553

Measurements look the same - but ears are telling a different story - always a good indication that we aren't measuring the right parameters!

 

[TimoJ]

Dirac asks to contact their helpdesk if you get the "Updating Filter Calculations" message every time you open a saved Dirac project.
Select Home Audio here:

Contact support | Dirac Live

Select one of the options below to create a Dirac Live support request, and we will get back to you as soon as possible.如果您希望获得中文客服支持，请访问微信小程序“Dirac Live 线上商店“。

helpdesk.dirac.com

 

[fzst]

Maybe the issue isn’t the lack of sub-20 Hz bass, but rather everything above that range.
When I first tried ART, I didn’t even know about the “Infrabass” option — so my JTRs lost everything below 20 Hz.
Even then, I thought “this still sounds great.”
Once I enabled Infrabass, it became even better.

I did try it out but it didn't do much in my setup:

ART has a lot of strengths, but if the reduced decay makes movie bass feel less powerful, that’s completely understandable.

This might really be what I'm hearing although the decay in the deep bass was already pretty good with BC in my room, so the difference there is not as stark as in other setups:

Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

REW will show the improvement with waterfalls (before and after) I must thank entire Dirac team for developing such great product as ART is. Not only it works, but it is virtually idiot proof. Amazing job all around.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Subjectively though, I feel like the measurements underrepresent the audible differences - to me the difference is huge. I'm not very confident in my hearing memory and my ability to judge sound in general (and I think most audiophiles grossly overestimate theirs) but I'm pretty sure I could easily pick out ART vs. DLBC in a blind test.

For films, non-ART may indeed sound more natural, while ART shines with music.

Indeed, I love ART for music especially for stuff like Metal (which is a genre I like a lot), the double bass now hits so dynamic and clean - BC just cannot keep up with that. However, I always felt that bass was more forgiving with music than with movies since a slight sloppy sound/longer decay actually even sounds good with lots of songs. Some decay sounds natural to me and it gives music a touch of warmth, which actually makes it sound subjectively better/more enjoyable than with a colder/tighter bass (depending on what you are listening to). For some genres it doesn't work that good though like Metal of Jazz where the bass is pretty complex and the notes tends to smear together with subpar bass performance.

I know I'm in the minority here but for me, sloppy bass always bothered me more in movies since there, the bass really is "in your face" and therefore it's much more noticeable when the bass performance is bad. With music, the bass is usually so quiet and subtle that it is hard to even hear differences in the bass without directly A-B-testing - at least it is for me.

 

[KenMasters]

Measurements look the same - but ears are telling a different story - always a good indication that we aren't measuring the right parameters!

It's interesting. I recorded a snippet of Kiesza's Hideaway to show the difference in bass, but the two sound virtually indistinguishable on the recording.

Perhaps the bass is simply too dry/contained. Whatever the case, I don't enjoy the effect and will continue using BC:

BC.m4a

drive.google.com

ART.m4a

drive.google.com

 

[smygolf]

Measurements look the same - but ears are telling a different story - always a good indication that we aren't measuring the right parameters!

We are measuring correct but need to look at the correct parameters
Group delay, Decay, Impulse and waterfall say it all.

Phase

Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

Honestly, my advice is not to even look into group delay. Not much you will ever be able to do about that except worry excessively. I'd add phase response to that as well. In my simple world, once you are good with FQ response and delay, you are good to go. Or otherwise, what would be the tools...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Respons, decay and waterfall

Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

REW will show the improvement with waterfalls (before and after) I must thank entire Dirac team for developing such great product as ART is. Not only it works, but it is virtually idiot proof. Amazing job all around.

www.audiosciencereview.com