Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

[gepgep]

As I understand it ART designates Sub 1 as primary with 2,3 & 4 as support

Although my 4 subs are the same and in the corners, the responses measured with REW show significant variation in level and smoothness of response.

My question is if Sub 1 is not the best in terms of output and/or smoothness, might it be beneficial to swop over the AVR outputs to make one of the other subs Sub 1?

This would require new measurements but is it worth trying?

SaveShare

 

[KenMasters]

As I understand it ART designates Sub 1 as primary with 2,3 & 4 as support

Although my 4 subs are the same and in the corners, the responses measured with REW show significant variation in level and smoothness of response.

My question is if Sub 1 is not the best in terms of output and/or smoothness, might it be beneficial to swop over the AVR outputs to make one of the other subs Sub 1?

This would require new measurements but is it worth trying?

SaveShare

It wouldn’t make a difference. If they’re in the same group they gave the same parameters and so are regarded equally.

The reason for the seemingly erratic responses is because ART is not only looking at how their output fits together but how phase aligns through their respective ranges along with spatial timings - things we can’t intuit from looking at their responses alone - in order to ensure the smoothest, most coherent output.

 

[smygolf]

With two subs it can make a huge difference.
But with four i would say we reach 100% coverage for ART

 

[gepgep]

It wouldn’t make a difference. If they’re in the same group they gave the same parameters and so are regarded equally.

The reason for the seemingly erratic responses is because ART is not only looking at how their output fits together but how phase aligns through their respective ranges along with spatial timings - things we can’t intuit from looking at their responses alone - in order to ensure the smoothest, most coherent output.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was talking about the REW measuremnts pre Dirac not after ART

 

[KenMasters]

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was talking about the REW measuremnts pre Dirac not after ART

The answer is the same. ART is focused on getting all subs to work together as a cohesive unit for LFE, there’s no hierarchy within a group, and the default reference is the centre channel.

 

[EWL5]

As I understand it ART designates Sub 1 as primary with 2,3 & 4 as support

Although my 4 subs are the same and in the corners, the responses measured with REW show significant variation in level and smoothness of response.

My question is if Sub 1 is not the best in terms of output and/or smoothness, might it be beneficial to swop over the AVR outputs to make one of the other subs Sub 1?

This would require new measurements but is it worth trying?

SaveShare

Sub 1 is considered the dedicated "LFE channel" by ART and the other subs are support. You'll want Sub 1 to be closest to center if possible (4 corners may appear equal but are any of them blocked by a couch, end table, etc.?).

 

[Soundmosphere]

Hello everyone,

until now, I've been a silent reader, so I'd like to thank everyone for their many contributions!

So much valuable input and lots of food for thought—absolutely brilliant.
I may be able to contribute a little myself in the future (depending on how much time I have outside of my job).

So far, I haven't invested much time in ART since November 2025, but that's about to change bit by bit. I've already tried a few small things and am satisfied with my system so far, but I know for sure that I can still get a lot more out of it.

HT is and remains a great hobby, and somehow you're never really done

Thanks for everything so far, and see you soon!

 

[kawauso]

Sub 1 is considered the dedicated "LFE channel" by ART and the other subs are support. You'll want Sub 1 to be closest to center if possible (4 corners may appear equal but are any of them blocked by a couch, end table, etc.?).

No, there is no hierarchy between “primary” and “support,” and there is no need to treat Subwoofer 1 as special. A quick look in the Dirac app after recalibration shows that swapping the AVR’s Sub1–Sub4 output connections does not affect the allocation. The only limitation is that Subwoofer 1 cannot be disabled from the LFE channel.

If you have four subwoofers, it is reasonable to check the allocation and move the highest-performance subwoofer to the position with the greatest low-frequency assignment. However, there is no requirement to designate that subwoofer as Subwoofer 1.

 

[kawauso]

Hello everyone,

until now, I've been a silent reader, so I'd like to thank everyone for their many contributions!

So much valuable input and lots of food for thought—absolutely brilliant.
I may be able to contribute a little myself in the future (depending on how much time I have outside of my job).

So far, I haven't invested much time in ART since November 2025, but that's about to change bit by bit. I've already tried a few small things and am satisfied with my system so far, but I know for sure that I can still get a lot more out of it.

HT is and remains a great hobby, and somehow you're never really done

Thanks for everything so far, and see you soon!

Welcome to ASR.
I’m also using the Denon A1H and enjoying ART.
Please share your ART experiences when you get the chance.

 

[Oddball]

Did not want to post this in ART thread as wanted some non ART people to pitch in and get their views. But think it is very relevant to Dirac and ART overall, and using Dirac ART as example, so please feel free to pitch in either in this or the other thread. I am trying to see if this might be the next development direction for Dirac.

Would a double room correction be a bad idea? If not - why don't we have it?

I sometimes get ideas while taking a morning shower. IMO a good time to think as one is still not fully awake. Some ideas are decent, some good, and some are of course just plain stupid. Tell me what you think about this one. Let's take one EQ system as example. Say Dirac with ART. You measure...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[smygolf]

Sub 1 is considered the dedicated "LFE channel" by ART and the other subs are support. You'll want Sub 1 to be closest to center if possible (4 corners may appear equal but are any of them blocked by a couch, end table, etc.?).

Out of curiosity, why ?
It is just a timing reference and sub 1 can be placed where ever.

Imo

 

[EWL5]

Out of curiosity, why ?
It is just a timing reference and sub 1 can be placed where ever.

Imo

In all the ART threads I've read, the LFE channel tries to be as aligned with the center channel as much as possible.

I understand not all setups can be done this way but a physical placement similar to this would help ART better than a corner.
An alternative setup for him would be "stereo SWs" near the front channels and having the rears be in the corners.

 

[smygolf]

In all the ART threads I've read, the LFE channel tries to be as aligned with the center channel as much as possible.

I understand not all setups can be done this way but a physical placement similar to this would help ART better than a corner.
An alternative setup for him would be "stereo SWs" near the front channels and having the rears be in the corners.

As timing ref it is all clear , we need one
And to choose LFE, far away or close to the timing ref should not matter.
Subs standing at the front wall can acousticly be several meter from the front speaker.

With a 1 sub setup placement should (?) be a bit more important.
Added boundaries will give you more output but it will also impact room modes more - in theory.
So with fronts that cant go very deep i would try to keep the sub away from walls.

But not for it to be close to the reference

Thats my thinking.

 

[Oddball]

ART uses the timing reference that is now center channel by default. It used to be L if correct which did not work so optimally in HT setup. I am not really questioning why as center makes sense to be reference for all in HT setup. In stereo setups you do need to chose L or R.

The subs should be placed where they produce optimal and complementary output, same as before ART. What is new in ART is that by using cancellations, subs will tend to do it better in front/back configuration like DBA. The latter might not be necessary depending or room/placement but could help. If you can't do both then you need to choose the placement that works best for your setup.

 

[middlemarch]

Is there a consensus yet on whether it makes sense to have all the subs support all the overhead channels? I doubt very much, if any, bass content is being sent to them. And if I remove sub support to those channels I free up 24 cross terms that could be used for my base channels. Would I gain much by increasing the amount of support among the base channels?

 

[Oddball]

Is there a consensus yet on whether it makes sense to have all the subs support all the overhead channels? I doubt very much, if any, bass content is being sent to them. And if I remove sub support to those channels I free up 24 cross terms that could be used for my base channels. Would I gain much by increasing the amount of support among the base channels?

You are asking questions that only you can likely answer.

Based on the book, Atmos are just regular full range channels. To that extent they are supposed to be bass managed. In traditional setup that would be crossover, in ART it would be sub support. How much low bass content is mixed in Atmos will depend on the mix. If you don't support your Atmos channels with subs that low end content will be gone as it will not be bass managed. This might also impact spatial presentation.

What would you gain in the base chanel depends on your system - do you feel there is anything to gain? I don't think I need more of cross-support for my beds in 9.4.4 system so I rather use the filters to support Atmos. To be fair, Atmos are only supported by each other in pairs and subs. But they still put up quite a good show.

 

[ban25]

Is there a consensus yet on whether it makes sense to have all the subs support all the overhead channels? I doubt very much, if any, bass content is being sent to them. And if I remove sub support to those channels I free up 24 cross terms that could be used for my base channels. Would I gain much by increasing the amount of support among the base channels?

I would say that in the case of home theater content, there's quite a bit of low frequency audio in the height channels. Consider all the explosions, jet engine flyovers, and so forth that you find in an Atmos mix of an action movie. Some of the most demanding moments in a film is an all-channels explosion -- it might last only a second, but it hits all channels at low frequencies at once.

My in-ceiling speakers have an F6 of 33 Hz and I am running them with the recommended/default ART support range of 50-150 Hz. In my old AVR-based configuration, I did manage to trip over-current protection once while watching an Atmos film at reference volume (0dB) during one of those all-channel explosion scenes. To be fair, it happened only once, and I don't normally watch films at that level. I watched the new 4K/Atmos release of Master and Commander last night at -6dB and no issues at all with my current configuration that has 250WPC for all surround/height channels.

 

[middlemarch]

I realized when I posted that that only I can really answer the question. But I'm feeling lazy, so there's that. Just wondered if anyone else has done the homework and come to a conclusion.

I keep thinking in a few years someone will have written "The Definitive Guide to Dirac Art" and all the possible permutations will have been evaluated and "The One True Way" defined that we can all just follow. But it's early days. I just don't feel like going down the Evo rabbit hole again, that just got so exhausting.

 

[middlemarch]

I would say that in the case of home theater content, there's quite a bit of low frequency audio in the height channels. Consider all the explosions, jet engine flyovers, and so forth that you find in an Atmos mix of an action movie. Some of the most demanding moments in a film is an all-channels explosion -- it might last only a second, but it hits all channels at low frequencies at once.

My in-ceiling speakers have an F6 of 33 Hz and I am running them with the recommended/default ART support range of 50-150 Hz. In my old AVR-based configuration, I did manage to trip over-current protection once while watching at Atmos film at reference volume (0dB) during one of those all-channel explosion scenes. To be fair, it happened only once, and I don't normally watch films at that level. I watched the new 4K/Atmos release of Master and Commander last night at -6dB and no issues at all with my current configuration that has 250WPC for all surround/height channels.

My listening is over 90% music, and we're not really into action movies, a lot of the stuff we watch, when we do, are older movies in mono or stereo. (I know, so why a 9.4.6 system, you ask). I do love exploring Atmos music, so that's my focus.

 

[ban25]

My listening is over 90% music, and we're not really into action movies, a lot of the stuff we watch, when we do, are older movies in mono or stereo. (I know, so why a 9.4.6 system, you ask). I do love exploring Atmos music, so that's my focus.

For Atmos music, most of the mixes I've heard are fairly subdued and there really isn't that much content in the heights. That said, if you want to give your 9.4.6 system a serious workout, I highly recommend the 4K UHD Blu-ray of Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague. It's the first thing I tried with my ART calibration. I was only intending to listen a few moments to test things out, but I sat through the entire concert at reference volume.

Amazon.com: Live In Prague[4K UHD] [Blu-ray] : Hans Zimmer: Movies & TV

Amazon.com: Live In Prague[4K UHD] [Blu-ray] : Hans Zimmer: Movies & TV

www.amazon.com