Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

[smygolf]

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

That respons can surely sound as "less bass then before"
Congrats !!

 

[KenMasters]

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?

No, just across the front wall (one on either side of the fronts and one mounted centre mid wall).

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).

 

[dlaloum]

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...


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...

Some thoughts...

The support levels are not a "fixed support level" - rather they are the maximum you are allowing ART to use... If it doesn't think it needs that much, then it won't use more than it needs.

So when messing with different support levels, if you drop the support level and find that it sounds (/ measures) the same as with a higher support level, what has happened is that even the lower support level was more than what ART's algorhythms deemed necessary, hence there is in fact no difference between them in actual use in your room!

To reduce actual support provided, you would need to keep lowering until it starts to have an impact - that will identify the max point of support that ART recommends for a "Dry" setup - and as you lower below that point, I assume your setup will start to get "wetter".

It would be easier if Dirac provided more feedback.... From reading some of the postings by alphatesters, I believe that there is much more data available in various config files and logs... but identifying them right now is a bit of a black art!

@TimoJ could you provide any guidance as to where we can find more info of what an individual ART config is doing? (show us how to look under the covers!)

 

[TimoJ]

Some thoughts...

The support levels are not a "fixed support level" - rather they are the maximum you are allowing ART to use... If it doesn't think it needs that much, then it won't use more than it needs.

So when messing with different support levels, if you drop the support level and find that it sounds (/ measures) the same as with a higher support level, what has happened is that even the lower support level was more than what ART's algorhythms deemed necessary, hence there is in fact no difference between them in actual use in your room!

To reduce actual support provided, you would need to keep lowering until it starts to have an impact - that will identify the max point of support that ART recommends for a "Dry" setup - and as you lower below that point, I assume your setup will start to get "wetter".

It would be easier if Dirac provided more feedback.... From reading some of the postings by alphatesters, I believe that there is much more data available in favious config files and logs... but identifying them right now is a bit of a black art!

@TimoJ could you provide any guidance as to where we can find more info of what an individual ART config is doing? (show us how to look under the covers!)

I don’t have any additional information/knowledge about the configurations etc. But the “Show filters” view in the Dirac software does illustrate how adjusting the support levels and ranges affects the filters. But the real-world impact is still difficult to predict since even small changes in bass filters can noticeably alter how the bass sounds or feels.

 

[KenMasters]

I don’t have any additional information/knowledge about the configurations etc. But the “Show filters” view in the Dirac software does illustrate how adjusting the support levels and ranges affects the filters. But the real-world impact is still difficult to predict since even small changes in bass filters can noticeably alter how the bass sounds or feels.

This had looked like a promising option to get back to the bass character I enjoy with BC, but no success. I've tried every setup variation I can think of and nothing alters its fundamental character.

My wife called it lifeless last night and told me to change back to BC for the rest of the evening, which cinched the decision to proceed with the refund.

It's a tough thing to do, since measurements indicate a clear improvement:



Though there is a fly in the ointment:



Ultimately I have to go with my ears, and ART just doesn't have the same satisfying bass slam as BC in my room.

 

[TimoJ]

This had looked like a promising option to get back to the bass character I enjoy with BC, but no success. I've tried every setup variation I can think of and nothing alters its fundamental character.

My wife called it lifeless last night and told me to change back to BC for the rest of the evening, which cinched the decision to proceed with the refund.

It's a tough thing to do, since measurements indicate a clear improvement:

View attachment 487230View attachment 487229View attachment 487227View attachment 487231View attachment 487232

Though there is a fly in the ointment:

View attachment 487234

Ultimately I have to go with my ears, and ART just doesn't have the same satisfying bass slam as BC in my room.

Since your unit has not other ways to adjust bass, you need to add more bass boost to your ART target curve. System with ART can take a big amount of bass boost without sounding boomy or bad, or at least my system can. I usually use bass tone control and occasionally also loudness. 2ch music is my main listening material.

 

[smygolf]

This had looked like a promising option to get back to the bass character I enjoy with BC, but no success. I've tried every setup variation I can think of and nothing alters its fundamental character.

My wife called it lifeless last night and told me to change back to BC for the rest of the evening, which cinched the decision to proceed with the refund.

It's a tough thing to do, since measurements indicate a clear improvement:

View attachment 487230View attachment 487229View attachment 487227View attachment 487231View attachment 487232

Though there is a fly in the ointment:

View attachment 487234

Ultimately I have to go with my ears, and ART just doesn't have the same satisfying bass slam as BC in my room.

Have you tried to raise the ARTbtarget curve a couple of dBs ?
Also, tried with "infra" checked ?

 

[KenMasters]

Have you tried to raise the ARTbtarget curve a couple of dBs ?
Also, tried with "infra" checked ?

Yes to both. I think ultimately LS50s are just not suited for support duties.

Though even with the subs set to -24dB and all speakers set to -6, the bass has the same “off” character.

I can make another comparative recording if anyone is interested.

 

[KenMasters]

Since your unit has not other ways to adjust bass, you need to add more bass boost to your ART target curve. System with ART can take a big amount of bass boost without sounding boomy or bad, or at least my system can. I usually use bass tone control and occasionally also loudness. 2ch music is my main listening material.

I could adjust the subs, they have their own PEQ options. I've played around with different curves and bass levels, nothing changes the fundamental character of the bass

 

[TimoJ]

I could adjust the subs, they have their own PEQ options. I've played around with different curves and bass levels, nothing changes the fundamental character of the bass

So you have used +12dB bass target curve for your front L/R and still no change? Why are you using -6dB for the speakers? Have you adjusted bass with the "dot" type target curves and not with the basic sliders? The sliders boost too much upper bass and can make bass boomy.

 

[smygolf]

Yes to both. I think ultimately LS50s are just not suited for support duties.

Though even with the subs set to -24dB and all speakers set to -6, the bass has the same “off” character.

I can make another comparative recording if anyone is interested.

As above, i meant to raise the target curve

 

[Audiofrog]

Purpose: Stereo Dirac ART / BC performance evaluation and REW data sharing for feedback

Hi everyone,

I’m just a hobbyist (not an acoustics expert) and my setup is in a normal living room, not a dedicated listening room.
I’d like to share my REW measurements and Dirac ART configuration for technical feedback and advice.

The original REW .mdat file is too large to upload, so I’ve exported the data as text.
If needed, I can post specific screenshots (e.g., overlays for No Dirac / Dirac BC / Dirac ART).

Speakers: 5.1 layout with dual subwoofers
System: Denon AVR-4800H with Dirac Live ART (latest version)+AUDIOPHONICS HPA-DM750ET Power Amplifier for mains
Measured with Umik-1 calibrated at 90 deg and REW 5.40 beta 104

---

Measurement Overview​

Measurements were taken at the MLP (Left / Right / Left+Right combined) for three configurations:

• No Dirac
• Dirac Bass Control (BC)
• Dirac ART

Both Dirac BC and ART were calculated using the same main and subwoofer home target curves .
I correct with Dirac only until 7kHz to preserve speakers voicing ( Dynaudio Confidence C20)
Dirac BC used a 76 Hz crossover.
Dirac ART was configured with fully separated groups and defined support relationships (see below).

---

Room & Setup Details​

• Room dimensions: 4.64 m × 4.64 m × 2.50 m
  
  • Small alcove (1.6 m × 0.75 m)
  • Behind MLP (slightly left): open doorway (door removed)
  • Broadband panels at first reflection points
  • Triangle-shaped Isoakustik bass traps in corners
• Listening position: symmetrical, ~2.4 m diagonally from main speakers and 1,75 m from back wall
• Surrounds: placed symmetrically at 90° relative to MLP
• Main placed symmetrically at 80 cm from from wall and 1,25 m from side walls
  • Sub 1: front-right corner
  • Sub 2: rear-left corner
  • Both level-matched at MLP before Dirac

---

Dirac ART Configuration (Stereo Mode)​

Groups:

• Front Left, Front Right, Surround Left, Surround Right — each in a separate group
• Both subwoofers combined into a single group

Measurement pattern: 9 points (narrow) + 3 extra → 12 points total with UMIK-1

Dirac-calculated gains:

• Mains: +1.0 dB
• Surrounds: +1.5 dB
• Subwoofer front: –1.5 dB
• Subwoofer rear: –0.5 dB

---

Support Matrix (Stereo ART )​

Group	Own Support	Supported by	Support Level	Band
Front L/R	50–120 Hz @ –18 dB	Surround L/R –18 dB (90–140 Hz)	Subwoofer –18 dB (20–90 Hz)
Surround L/R	60–140 Hz @ –18 dB	—	—	—
Subwoofer group	20–100 Hz @ –18 dB	(optional) Front L/R –20 dB (80–100 Hz)	—	—

---

Subjective Impressions​

Despite the unconventional room shape, Dirac ART performs impressively well.
Bass feels tight and evenly distributed between front and rear corners, imaging is precise, and dialog / midrange clarity remains strong even at moderate listening levels.

I’d be very interested in any technical feedback or observations based on these parameters or my REW data.

Targets breakpoints:
main:
10 -4.0
20 -1.0
22 -0.5
25 -0.7
28 -0.8
31.5 -1.2
35.5 -1.2
37.5 -1.3
40 -1.3
45 -1.0
50 -0.7
56 -0.5
63 -0.3
70 -0.1
75 -0.4
80 0.0
90 -0.2
100 0.3
112 0.3
125 0.0
140 -0.5
160 -0.3
180 0.0
200 -0.5
225 -0.3
250 -0.3
280 -0.2
315 -0.2
355 0.0
400 -0.3
450 -0.3
500 -0.4
560 -0.1
630 -0.05
710 0.0
800 0.0
900 -0.05
1000 -0.1
1120 -0.3
1250 -0.4
1400 -0.4
1600 -0.4
1800 -0.5
2000 -0.6
2250 -0.6
2500 -0.6
2800 -0.6
3150 -0.7
3550 -0.7
4000 -0.7
4500 -0.7
5000 -0.7
5600 -0.7
6300 -0.7
7100 -0.6
8000 -0.6
9000 -0.6
10000 -0.6
11200 -0.7
12500 -0.7
14000 -0.8
16000 -0.8
18000 -0.9
20000 -0.9

Target breakpoints subwoofers:
20 -3.0
25 -2.5
31.5 -2.0
40 -1.5
50 -1.0
63 -0.5
70 -0.2
75 0.0
80 0.0
90 -0.3
100 -0.6
112 -0.6
125 -0.5
150 -0.5

 

[Oddball]

I could adjust the subs, they have their own PEQ options. I've played around with different curves and bass levels, nothing changes the fundamental character of the bass

We all have different preferences, rooms and systems. So yeah not really easy to find the right path between all of them.

If I understand you correctly, you preference falls somewhere between Bass Control and ART? If so, perhaps could try do disrupt ART to work less effective and don't "dry" up the presentation too much. Did not try as don't feel needed in my system, but after you apply +12 (max) boost in ART, could try to add a bit more output to your subs through additional gain at the sub level (say +3dB), and if needed to match your preference additional positive trim on the AVR compared to what Dirac has set. At theoretical level I see how this could throw off ART's effectiveness to match your preferences.

If that does not work, then you could try sub DSP. First place where I would start is phase. Or alternatively distance/delay settings for the subs. This will for sure mess up ART. How far you want to go is up to you and that would need to be adjusted with REW so you don't end up messing it up too much, especially in the FQ response curve.

Partially, I can't believe I am writing the above tips as don't really think it is "proper" but then as noted, if it helps you to do what you want why not. I have been using Audy for quite a while in the ways that were not considered wisest by most, and was happy with it.

 

[KenMasters]

So you have used +12dB bass target curve for your front L/R and still no change? Why are you using -6dB for the speakers? Have you adjusted bass with the "dot" type target curves and not with the basic sliders? The sliders boost too much upper bass and can make bass boomy.

I've adjusted everything in every combination I could come up with, nothing changes the fundamental character of the bass. Come to think of it, I've also removed the speaker support entirely and just used the subs, and still the same problem.

Maybe the algorithm balances the subs differently to BC, whatever it is, I can find no way around it.

We all have different preferences, rooms and systems. So yeah not really easy to find the right path between all of them.

If I understand you correctly, you preference falls somewhere between Bass Control and ART?

My preference is strongly in BC's favour. I like how ART sounds for movie effects, but I also like BC, it's not like there's a clear winner in this department. However, as soon as music with any kind of bass comes into the picture (which incorporates film soundtracks), there is no contest between the two - at least for my wife and I.

If so, perhaps could try do disrupt ART to work less effective and don't "dry" up the presentation too much. Did not try as don't feel needed in my system, but after you apply +12 (max) boost in ART, could try to add a bit more output to your subs through additional gain at the sub level (say +3dB), and if needed to match your preference additional positive trim on the AVR compared to what Dirac has set. At theoretical level I see how this could throw off ART's effectiveness to match your preferences.

If that does not work, then you could try sub DSP. First place where I would start is phase. Or alternatively distance/delay settings for the subs. This will for sure mess up ART. How far you want to go is up to you and that would need to be adjusted with REW so you don't end up messing it up too much, especially in the FQ response curve.

Partially, I can't believe I am writing the above tips as don't really think it is "proper" but then as noted, if it helps you to do what you want why not. I have been using Audy for quite a while in the ways that were not considered wisest by most, and was happy with it.

I appreciate all the advice you guys have to offer, but I feel I've given ART more than a reasonable shake in my room with my setup and it's just not going to work in its current iteration. There is something fundamental about the way its approaching the sub/speaker integration that's changing the character of my system's performance in a way we don't like.

You can listen for yourself and see what you think, once again using Hideaway (it's a simple beat that, once it drops, demonstrates the difference clearly):

BC.wav

drive.google.com

ART.wav

drive.google.com

 

[peng]

We all have different preferences, rooms and systems. So yeah not really easy to find the right path between all of them.

If I understand you correctly, you preference falls somewhere between Bass Control and ART? If so, perhaps could try do disrupt ART to work less effective and don't "dry" up the presentation too much. Did not try as don't feel needed in my system, but after you apply +12 (max) boost in ART, could try to add a bit more output to your subs through additional gain at the sub level (say +3dB), and if needed to match your preference additional positive trim on the AVR compared to what Dirac has set. At theoretical level I see how this could throw off ART's effectiveness to match your preferences.

If that does not work, then you could try sub DSP. First place where I would start is phase. Or alternatively distance/delay settings for the subs. This will for sure mess up ART. How far you want to go is up to you and that would need to be adjusted with REW so you don't end up messing it up too much, especially in the FQ response curve.

Partially, I can't believe I am writing the above tips as don't really think it is "proper" but then as noted, if it helps you to do what you want why not. I have been using Audy for quite a while in the ways that were not considered wisest by most, and was happy with it.

Agreed, once people get into the wet vs dry, and/or in between kind of talks, it becomes a subjective thing that everyone may have different taste. As an example, some members posted they prefer Audyssey, may be they actually prefer the "wet" sound. For me, I don't prefer anything enough that I always go by the Mic/REW, not my ears, wet or dry don't bother me at all.

 

[Oddball]

I've adjusted everything in every combination I could come up with, nothing changes the fundamental character of the bass. Come to think of it, I've also removed the speaker support entirely and just used the subs, and still the same problem.

Maybe the algorithm balances the subs differently to BC, whatever it is, I can find no way around it.



My preference is strongly in BC's favour. I like how ART sounds for movie effects, but I also like BC, it's not like there's a clear winner in this department. However, as soon as music with any kind of bass comes into the picture (which incorporates film soundtracks), there is no contest between the two - at least for my wife and I.



I appreciate all the advice you guys have to offer, but I feel I've given ART more than a reasonable shake in my room with my setup and it's just not going to work in its current iteration. There is something fundamental about the way it's approaching the sub/speaker integration that's changing the character of my system's performance in a way we don't like.

You can listen for yourself and see what you think, once again using Hideaway (it's a simple beat that demonstrates the difference clearly):

BC.wav

drive.google.com

ART.wav

drive.google.com

Sorry that I misunderstood your preference. Well if you like Bass Control, than all is set. Simple and clean solution that has been working well for lots of folks for years.

But there are so many things that Bass Control does wrong that at conceptual level it will make sense for most to explore vastly superior ART alternative. Bass control does very little for controlling decay and using your bed channel speaker's capability which was always my issue with Bass control. It would need to be a combination of at least 2x2 DBA and BC to get somewhere where ART can take you through much simpler route.

If you think ART is difficult, people have spent months tuning their systems with REW to get half of the result that ART now promises for any preference. Everyone is a step/s away from getting the ART working as you would want, but if that step is the drop that in your case makes the spill, I fully understand....

 

[Oddball]

Agreed, once people get into the wet vs dry, and/or in between kind of talks, it becomes a subjective thing that everyone may have different taste. As an example, some members posted they prefer Audyssey, may be they actually prefer the "wet" sound. For me, I don't prefer anything enough that I always go by the Mic/REW, not my ears, wet or dry don't bother me at all.

Agreed as well.

Part of this whole wet and dry confusion might be the SPL. ART will not be so dry at 115dB/20-30 hz while Bass Control will be flooding the whole place with significant decay by then. We see pretty "dry" ART decay graphs but generally not at the peaks. ART could easily send you north of 200ms range at the very low end, especially with less powerful subs.

This poses really a different question of loudness support, such as DEQ. In absence of native solution (that most people would likely want) there are 2 presets on D&M gear and people could try to set them up in the ways that fit various SPL levels if that is the use case. Subs should obviously stay at the same sub level gain for both presets, but you would be able to set higher positive trim for the setup meant for low level listening - provided that ART curves are not enough for you.

To repeat my previous statement - ART is really great and customizing it would not appear so difficult.

Just deleted 10GB of junk from REW and Dirac folders as pretty happy with what I have...Amazing how much data becomes useless in just a months time.

 

[KenMasters]

Everyone is a step/s away from getting the ART working as you would want, but if that step is the drop that in your case makes the spill, I fully understand....

I honestly don't think it's possible to get ART to sound as I would like, not in my setup with the options currently available. Nothing I've tried has made the slightest difference, whatever is causing the "problem", there appears to be nothing within ART as it stands to compensate for it.

Have you listened to my recordings through headphones or IEMs?

 

[Oddball]

I honestly don't think it's possible to get ART to sound as I would like, not in my setup with the options currently available. Nothing I've tried has made the slightest difference, whatever is causing the "problem", there appears to be nothing within ART as it stands to compensate for it.

Have you listened to my recordings through headphones or IEMs?

No I have not as that is not really relevant. Once you record it a different thing than what you might have heard.

On the other hand, you have not really tried the options I suggested - have you? Again - fair if you did not as lots of people don't really like to step out and tweak beyond what was given initially.

 

[KenMasters]

No I have not as that is not really relevant. Once you record it a different thing than what you might have heard.

Having listened to the recording, I can say it's a fair approximation.

On the other hand, you have not really tried the options I suggested - have you? Again - fair if you did not as lots of people don't really like to step out and tweak beyond what was given initially.

I have, I've tried everything I can come up with (including independent adjustment of the subs). Nothing I've tried hints at any avenue for improvement in the character of the bass imposed by ART.

I've approached my system in many different ways, I have a MultEQ-X license as well and have spent much time doing full manual calibrations using REW, my sub's apps and MSO. I'm quite familiar with my system and its behaviour.

I believe ART is a fantastic solution for most people, it just doesn't appear to be right for me - at least not with the current customisation options available.