Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

[lessthanjoey]

Thank you! I also really enjoy reading your posts and seeing your likes, Oddball


For independent subwoofers, you need to click on the group area in the lower left and assign them manually.
Any subwoofer that isn’t assigned to a group won’t produce sound, so make sure every group includes a subwoofer.

I’m not sure if separating subwoofers is really necessary, but it can help if the subs have different performance levels or are placed in less-than-ideal positions.
However, if you just separate them but keep the same support range (for example, 20–150 Hz), the result will sound identical to having them in a single group.
View attachment 486877
View attachment 486879

Right, subwoofer separation would be for differing frequency range, power (support level) or if you were trying to localize them by assigning them to only support certain channels.

 

[Oddball]

Thank you! I also really enjoy reading your posts and seeing your likes, Oddball

Funny enough we also have two animals in our avatar

 

[ban25]

Even when bumpy looks awesome.

Could you extend the decay to 10hz? Really interested in how it works in that range without ART. Mostly academic as sub 20hz is not really working for my room. There is a corner loaded position for one sub that could get me it that range, but also did a bit of a havoc in the past....

View attachment 486842

Looks like a Fleetwood window. <20 is a no-go for me as there's too much glass to break.

 

[fzst]

I tried changing all the support levels from –18 dB to –6 dB today,
but the frequency response just became a bit uneven, and the bass didn’t get any wetter.
It might be that achieving a wetter bass is only possible with Storm processors.

18 vs 6
View attachment 486850
18
View attachment 486851
6
View attachment 486854

That's too bad but thx for testing, I'll probably still try it myself to see what it does in my system

 

[KenMasters]

It's not no ART, it supports other channels, eg it's specific to ART. You can only have one sub group be targeted for LFE with a target curve, etc, but the other groups should have configurable support for it and all other channel groups. Can you show your support options from another group after separating the subs? Think of this like your normal crossover but better!

Ah, I see. I thought because it had no ART configuration window it was ignored. But I see it is present in the other configurations, but do you not lose the BC component?

I’m not sure if separating subwoofers is really necessary, but it can help if the subs have different performance levels or are placed in less-than-ideal positions.

No, I don't think it is necessary, I'll keep them grouped.

I watched Weapons with ART in place and was impressed, it sounded good - but not liking it with music. Haven't had the time to take measurements yet.

 

[ooheadsoo]

I use a +6db bass curve on all channels and am satisfied with the level and quality of bass I'm getting.

 

[dlaloum]

You do not have a direct link on what the differences are and how to do it ?

I simply noted it in passing while reading... I don't have ART capable gear yet, so I didn't think any further on it.

You can find the (very long) thread here:

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/dirac-live.3137722/

 

[dlaloum]

Yeah, I read about that too but I think that was kind of a tone control al a bass/treble as an extra feature the D&M products don't have. I wish they had it though, I have to find an option for me as well to emulate that, I probably have to play with the support range... if I lower the support level to -12dB, the sound should get a little "wetter" right?

@kawauso BTW: I did listen to the two songs you used in your demo video and in in my setup in real live I actually did prefer the ART-presentation over the DLBC one with both - at least with the Storm Audio target curve.

I don't think it directly relates to bass levels - it has more to do with decay times, and using ART, but consciously leaving some decay "on the table" as a personal preference ("wet sound") rather than the ART default of fully controlling decay to the degree it is possible ("Dry sound")

"Wet" often makes the bass seem more prominent - as you are hearing and feeling the decay component as part of the bass... but of course, it is not strictly speaking "accurate" rather it is a form of distortion, one that some people find pleasing in moderation.

"Dry" controls the bass more tightly, leaving less decay in the room, and as a result it can be perceived as having "less bass" - many users have noted that with the ART setup, they can crank up the bass without it getting objectionable.... which may be due to the fact that the excess "loudness" due to the contribution of decay, has been removed. On the other hand, others find the outcome too bass light for their tastes.... and therefore revert to DLBC or other schemes, or change their setup to allow for a slightly more "wet" sound.

(at least that's my understanding...)

 

[lessthanjoey]

Ah, I see. I thought because it had no ART configuration window it was ignored. But I see it is present in the other configurations, but do you not lose the BC component?

ART supersedes DLBC (even though it requires the license when working with subwoofers). It does a much better job of utilizing the other subs in a coherent manner to manage room interactions.

 

[smygolf]

I don't think it directly relates to bass levels - it has more to do with decay times, and using ART, but consciously leaving some decay "on the table" as a personal preference ("wet sound") rather than the ART default of fully controlling decay to the degree it is possible ("Dry sound")

"Wet" often makes the bass seem more prominent - as you are hearing and feeling the decay component as part of the bass... but of course, it is not strictly speaking "accurate" rather it is a form of distortion, one that some people find pleasing in moderation.

"Dry" controls the bass more tightly, leaving less decay in the room, and as a result it can be perceived as having "less bass" - many users have noted that with the ART setup, they can crank up the bass without it getting objectionable.... which may be due to the fact that the excess "loudness" due to the contribution of decay, has been removed. On the other hand, others find the outcome too bass light for their tastes.... and therefore revert to DLBC or other schemes, or change their setup to allow for a slightly more "wet" sound.

(at least that's my understanding...)

I think you are correct

First thing i did when i bought the Marantz was to compare DLBC vs ART
Same measurement, same target curve and in REW they had exactly the same respons (Art was a bit better from 120 to 150hz)
And it sounded miles apart with DLBC bass heavy and Art feelin slim in comparison

And i do not think adjusting support will do any drastic changes
Dirac aims for our target and the support can help out to achive it
But it also helps to reduce the decay - it is a fixed thing it is programmed to do

It might be done but without any real control on how the result will be
When i got the time i will connect the bafflewall subs as i had it before - parallel gives roughly +103dB sensitivity
It should "overwhelm" the rear sub since it lacks bafflewall support, can also fiddle with the output lvl and support lvl

 

[KenMasters]

ART supersedes DLBC (even though it requires the license when working with subwoofers). It does a much better job of utilizing the other subs in a coherent manner to manage room interactions.

I would have to test, but simply looking at Dirac, it appears to me that a subwoofer removed from the LFE group is no longer being co-optimised with that group. I'll see if I can set aside some time later today to take some measurements - BC / ART / ART with one sub separated out, all else remaining equal (target curves, curtains etc).

 

[kawauso]

I would have to test, but simply looking at Dirac, it appears to me that a subwoofer removed from the LFE group is no longer being co-optimised with that group. I'll see if I can set aside some time later today to take some measurements - BC / ART / ART with one sub separated out, all else remaining equal (target curves, curtains etc).

Even if you separate subwoofers in ART, their settings remain independent and nothing changes for BC.
BC doesn’t have an option to separate subwoofers in the first place.

Group 5 is the original LFE group, and if a new Group 6 is created by separating a subwoofer, you need to enable Group 6 under LFE; otherwise, the separated subwoofer will be inactive for LFE.
You have to configure it in all groups.

 

[KenMasters]

Even if you separate subwoofers in ART, their settings remain independent and nothing changes for BC.
BC doesn’t have an option to separate subwoofers in the first place.

Group 5 is the original LFE group, and if a new Group 6 is created by separating a subwoofer, you need to enable Group 6 under LFE; otherwise, the separated subwoofer will be inactive for LFE.
You have to configure it in all groups.

It is enabled by default when you split it out. My fundamental understanding of ART might be the issue here, but as I understand it, the co-optimised EQ of the subs is still a part of the process, the MIMO aspect factored in on top of that. It appears to me when looking at Dirac that if you split out a sub, that sub is not longer factored into that process:


LFE Group


Individual Sub

But I concede I may be misunderstanding things. I will take measurements later today to see what the effect is (splitting out the sub but leaving all other parameters the same).

 

[kawauso]

It is enabled by default when you split it out. My fundamental understanding of ART might be the issue here, but as I understand it, the co-optimised EQ of the subs is still a part of the process, the MIMO aspect factored in on top of that. It appears to me when looking at Dirac that if you split out a sub, that sub is not longer factored into that process:

View attachment 487028 View attachment 487029
LFE Group

View attachment 487030View attachment 487031
Individual Sub

But I concede I may be misunderstanding things. I will take measurements later today to see what the effect is (splitting out the sub but leaving all other parameters the same).

It only looks like Group 6 isn’t doing anything!
If you check the LFE group’s graph, you can clearly see it’s being used — no measurement needed to confirm that.

Grouped

Separated

 

[kawauso]

Today I tried playing with three subwoofers, then reduced them to two and finallyto just one.
As expected, three subs sounded the best — but I was honestly surprised at how well a single sub performed.
If you’re running multiple subs, try separating the subwoofer groups and see what happens. You might find some interesting surprises!

 

[fzst]

I don't think it directly relates to bass levels - it has more to do with decay times, and using ART, but consciously leaving some decay "on the table" as a personal preference ("wet sound") rather than the ART default of fully controlling decay to the degree it is possible ("Dry sound")

Indeed that's what I meant. That's why I thought about reducing the support level in the ART settings, which in theory, should result in more decay again since the support speakers (subs and main speakers) aren't allowed to partcipate as much to help reduce the decay times. But as @kawauso was showing, it didn't really raise the decay times significantly nor did it change her subjective sound impression - at least in her setup.

Maybe reducing the FSL could help with that? Since I feel like the bit that is bothering me, happens mostly in the upper region of the bass. So maybe I'd like it more when ART is only allowed to correct the frequencies up to 100Hz or so..? No idea, frankly what I need is some time on my hand to test out some more variations/settings...

"Wet" often makes the bass seem more prominent - as you are hearing and feeling the decay component as part of the bass... but of course, it is not strictly speaking "accurate" rather it is a form of distortion, one that some people find pleasing in moderation.

"Dry" controls the bass more tightly, leaving less decay in the room, and as a result it can be perceived as having "less bass" - many users have noted that with the ART setup, they can crank up the bass without it getting objectionable.... which may be due to the fact that the excess "loudness" due to the contribution of decay, has been removed. On the other hand, others find the outcome too bass light for their tastes.... and therefore revert to DLBC or other schemes, or change their setup to allow for a slightly more "wet" sound.

That could very well be the case even though I want to trust my ears and state that what I'm hearing is not just tighter bass. I really have to take some RTAs to check if ART really has as much bass as DLBC. Last night I watched A House of Dynamite on Netflix, which had a quite nice sound design and I really liked how it sounded with ART, there was a pleasing amount of deep bass and it never got annyoing in the upper bass region...

I wouldn't describe the bass with BC as more prominent though, quite the contrary even but it feels deeper/more potent in terms of pressurising the room. In terms of "forceful/punchy" bass, BC doesn't hold a candle against ART in my setup, things like gunshots or kickdrums punch way harder with ART. I would actually describe the BC/longer decay- presentation as more natural sounding. Especially with music that is noticeable, BC sounds like I imagine a drumset or a bass would sound like if it was actually in my room and ART sounds more like if it was placed in a perfectly optimised and acoustically treated studio. However, ART just integrates my subs better and optimises the region from 100-150Hz way better so I hear more detailes in the bass and in some songs BC tends to smear the notes together and ART does kinda lift the metaphorical veil in these cases. I also feel like I can hear the subpar phase integration and group delay of BC now when I switch between them, BC can sound kinda skewed and fatiguing to my ears but there's a big chance this is just the placebo effect from seeing all those pretty ART graphs compared to the BC-ones.

So overall I still prefer ART for music but I imagine if I had a perfectly symmetrical, extensively acoustically treated room, I'd might prefer BC...

 

[KenMasters]

It only looks like Group 6 isn’t doing anything!
If you check the LFE group’s graph, you can clearly see it’s being used — no measurement needed to confirm that.

Ah, okay thanks, you are correct - sorry if I came across as difficult.

I see when looking at the filters you can see they are the same for sub 3 regardless:



And REW confirms:

EDIT - It's impressively effective:

 

[fzst]

Ah, okay thanks, you are correct - sorry if I came across as difficult.

I see when looking at the filters you can see they are the same for sub 3 regardless:

View attachment 487059 View attachment 487060

And REW confirms:

View attachment 487063

EDIT - It's impressively effective:

View attachment 487066View attachment 487067

Wow that's a huge improvement! Are these the measurements in your room?

 

[KenMasters]

Wow that's a huge improvement! Are these the measurements in your room?

Yes, taken this morning.

 

[fzst]

Yes, taken this morning.

Damn, that's one of the biggest improvements I've seen with ART and you don't even have a sub behind the MLP right?

You should lower the window in the waterfall diagramm though to see the whole decay, at least 40dB, better yet 60dB (depending on the measurement volume and noise floor).