Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

[rkrkrk]

Correct. You do not set a crossover. ART takes care of it.

And distance based time correction for multiple subs too?

 

[Mort]

And distance based time correction for multiple subs too?

Yes, phase and timing.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

The issue at hand does not extend beyond SPL. At least the issue I raised. I can sense AI in your posts, which could be used for the purposes of translation if English is a challenge - but then the posts should make some sense and make the point. Your point is no point at all.

Is there no advantage to segregating bass and tweeter frequencies into separate channels? This separation would enhance the control for Dirac ART. Towers EQ is less controlable than bookshelf + sub in different channels.

 

[JRowland]

Towers and subs is a good combination for me, ART seems well in control of everything.

 

[Oddball]

Is there no advantage to segregating bass and tweeter frequencies into separate channels? This separation would enhance the control for Dirac ART. Towers EQ is less controlable than bookshelf + sub in different channels.

Now what does tweeter has to do with ART? And why would towers be less controllable? And what are "separate channels"?

 

[JRowland]

Does ART negate the need for sub management with something like a MiniDSP?

As long as your AVR supports enough subs, some folks need something to combine some of their similar subs to present as one sub to ART. I’ve seen more than a few posts from Denon/Marantz folks with 4 subs and those butt shaker things trying to figure it out.

 

[dlaloum]

Does Dirac Art really improve decay times by a noticeable amount, so that's audibly obvious? Is it night and day or more of a "might be noticeable depending on the situation"? I would hate to spend all the money on an AVR that supports this, buy the license and still have a "did it really improve the sound or was I imagining it?" type improvement.

The enhanced clarity was very obvious to me.

 

[dlaloum]

If you look at the REW graphs submitted throughout this thread the answer is resoundingly yes as long as you have 2 or more subwoofers. Ideally 3 or 4 subwoofers. Dirac ART in most rooms shortens decay especially (40-120hz) and decreases seat-to-seat variation. Result is very smooth sounding even bass.

I've said this before - but it bears repeating - you need 2 or more BASS CAPABLE SPEAKERS for best results (and ideally 3 or 4) - full range capable main speakers count! - hence you can get excellent results with 4 x full range speakers and NO subs... (FL, FR, SL, SR)

Typically, full range mains will be more SPL constrained than subs in the bass - so the choice between full range and subs may well come down to what you need to achieve your desired SPL's.

Actual measurements show the decay increasing substantially as the full rangers reach their limits (in my case around 30Hz and 40Hz respectively) - at which point subs become advantageous.

 

[dlaloum]

I'm thinking of adding a second sub as this should already improve the bass in the room when dialed in. But investing in a third might be difficult. Would subs over 2 need to still be identical or would buying a cheaper, smaller subwoofer still work?

And if I can only use two subs, would you say it's probably not worth getting Dirac Art?

I'm just thinking of the investment in terms of financial commitment and space. My room isn't particularly large and it's open to a kitchen.

In lifestyle / room setup terms, an easier alternative to finding space for subs, is often to get full range mains and surrounds.

There are compact / narrow designs - which may well be SPL constrained at the lower end - but will perform very well down to 50Hz or so

Supplementing full range mains with a single subs, or 2 subs, can then give the setup the required low end muscle if you need more SPL's

 

[dlaloum]

Is there no advantage to segregating bass and tweeter frequencies into separate channels? This separation would enhance the control for Dirac ART. Towers EQ is less controlable than bookshelf + sub in different channels.

Dirac ART only works below 150Hz...

Dirac Live RC takes over above 150Hz, providing the standard target curve and phase / impulse adjustment

No there is no advantage to seperation in this case.

ART can absolutely control tower EQ for ART - I run 4x Full range towers (FL, FR, SL, SR) and supplement with 2 subs - the results are exemplary

 

[dlaloum]

As long as your AVR supports enough subs, some folks need something to combine some of their similar subs to present as one sub to ART. I’ve seen more than a few posts from Denon/Marantz folks with 4 subs and those butt shaker things trying to figure it out.

There is an alternative - use old tech, most subs still have the facility on them to integrate them with a speaker to make a full range speaker (built in crossovers, or adjustments to facilitate additive operation, with phase/level adjustments) - set them up that way - then let ART do its magic.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Now what does tweeter has to do with ART? And why would towers be less controllable? And what are "separate channels"?

You are right, tweeters are out of the “magic” of ART, but Dirac can affect the full range of frequencies from low frequencies (subwoofers) up to highs (tweeters).

Dirac separates the speakers or subwoofers into different channels that can be adjusted independently. Tower speakers typically consider woofers, midrange cones and tweeters, but they are usually detected (within Dirac) as a single channel per speaker. Consequently, you can’t define different inversions or delays between lows and mids/highs, or different crossover points between them.

Dirac ART won’t have the opportunity to manipulate the bass of tower speakers as you could play with subwoofers and bookshelf speakers. Is this a disadvantage? Not at all; I’m simply pointing out that you have fewer variables to control within Dirac.

Woofers in towers are perfectly integrated from the factory with mids from the same speaker, but MSO teach me that bass delay should not always be defined by distance, but by coherence within the rest of speakers or subs. The more speaker/subs you have, the better you can mitigate room modes. In this case, I’d prefer many bookshelf speakers and many subs, than 2 towers and 1 sub.

Now you understand my point?

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Trust me, you are not speaking to an IA.

let’s have two assumptions

Case study 1:
-assymetric room (one side open to be living the other side is a glass window to the garden)
-2 towers that you can’t separate from the front wall (50cm away)
-you head is perfectly located in between the towers but you have the back wall just behind you head (50cm away)
-1 sub located on one side of your sofa.

Case study 2:
-same room, same listening position
-instead of 2 towers you have 2 bookshelf speakers at the same spot of the towers
-now you have 3 subs that you can locate in the place you want.

Would you consider that case study 1 is as configurable for Dirac ART as case study 2? Even in the case you have to locate the subs below the bookshelf speakers you would have more control over the bass, because you are comparing a 2.1 with a 2.3 layout. You can get the same amount of bass but less controlled.

Obviously you can have 4 towers, and 4 subs and there you solve the whole issue, but my point is simplier: is better to have more independent channels within Dirac to have more control of the room modes.

 

[Oddball]

Trust me, you are not speaking to an IA.

let’s have two assumptions

Case study 1:
-assymetric room (one side open to be living the other side is a glass window to the garden)
-2 towers that you can’t separate from the front wall (50cm away)
-you head is perfectly located in between the towers but you have the back wall just behind you head (50cm away)
-1 sub located on one side of your sofa.

Case study 2:
-same room, same listening position
-instead of 2 towers you have 2 bookshelf speakers at the same spot of the towers
-now you have 3 subs that you can locate in the place you want.

Would you consider that case study 1 is as configurable for Dirac ART as case study 2? Even in the case you have to locate the subs below the bookshelf speakers you would have more control over the bass, because you are comparing a 2.1 with a 2.3 layout. You can get the same amount of bass but less controlled.

Obviously you can have 4 towers, and 4 subs and there you solve the whole issue, but my point is simplier: is better to have more independent channels within Dirac to have more control of the room modes.

It is all relative. Your "case studies" are just not detailed enough, although more subs will generally do a better job. I have 9 full range speakers and 4 subs and when they say too much is never enough, they are wrong. Too much is just too much.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Now I understand your point. You were considering a 9.4 layout, while I was thinking about a more modest layout that meets the minimum requirements to make Dirac ART layout work: as much subs as possible even at the expense of cutting some full range speakers.

I have a 2.2-channel layout with two Mofi SP10 speakers and two SVS SB2000 subwoofers. To enhance the bass response evenly, I had to reduce the low-frequency range of the Mofis using a 48Hz high-pass filter. However, based on the MSO study, the subs have different crossover points. Sometimes, I regret not opting for the SP8, maybe they would have been enough for my space.

 

[Dj7675]

As someone that has used ART since it was in beta on the Storm, and believe it works wonders in a variety of setups and spaces... how certain do we know what it is doing?
A similar discussion was on AVS as well but I thought it was interesting enough to see what users think/know here?
Is it using active cancellation, like in headphones?
Is it using other speakers to contribute to the target curve?
Their early documentation seemed to talk quite a lot about active cancellation. It seems many of their later videos in particular don't.
This isn't really a question of if ART works, but do we know how it works and if it is using Active Cancellation or not? Is this possible to measure and has anyone done that which might prove one way or the other if it is using active cancellation?

 

[thcdru2k]

As someone that has used ART since it was in beta on the Storm, and believe it works wonders in a variety of setups and spaces... how certain do we know what it is doing?
A similar discussion was on AVS as well but I thought it was interesting enough to see what users think/know here?
Is it using active cancellation, like in headphones?
Is it using other speakers to contribute to the target curve?
Their early documentation seemed to talk quite a lot about active cancellation. It seems many of their later videos in particular don't.
This isn't really a question of if ART works, but do we know how it works and if it is using Active Cancellation or not? Is this possible to measure and has anyone done that which might prove one way or the other if it is using active cancellation?

I have not used ART but you can see from spectrograms that it is consistently reducing spectral decay in 40-150hz region and reducing variation in peak energy time trace (peak level at any given frequency). It is absolutely working. It is using low frequencies from any speaker/subwoofer in system that is capable to do this.

 

[neRok]

Active cancellation implies a device (like headphones) is actively trying to cancel problematic noises. If you are using ART and your neighbour is using their petrol lawnmower, you will still hear their lawnmower. So ART isn't "active" in that sense.

ART does cancel "sound" in the room - you can see this on the waterfall charts - but the sound it "cancels" is sounds that have been produced by your audio system. This means it doesn't just cause your speakers to constantly output "negative sound", and instead just "outputs some extra sound" (includes extra sound in the signal) that will cancel out the decay (the ongoing sound reflections in your room).

So I guess you could call it "reactive cancellation", because it knows that your speakers will cause a certain in-room response, and that you want a different response, and thus it does what it can to fix the response (which implies cancellation of room decay).

 

[Oddball]

As someone that has used ART since it was in beta on the Storm, and believe it works wonders in a variety of setups and spaces... how certain do we know what it is doing?
A similar discussion was on AVS as well but I thought it was interesting enough to see what users think/know here?
Is it using active cancellation, like in headphones?
Is it using other speakers to contribute to the target curve?
Their early documentation seemed to talk quite a lot about active cancellation. It seems many of their later videos in particular don't.
This isn't really a question of if ART works, but do we know how it works and if it is using Active Cancellation or not? Is this possible to measure and has anyone done that which might prove one way or the other if it is using active cancellation?

I have used a semi-functioning DBA before ART. So yes, the cancelation principle. Based on that experience, I can say with 100% certainty that ART is doing cancellations - and in very effective way. My prior DBA and all the effort that went into it - a silly joke compared to what ART does.

EDIT: To some extent I agree that cancelation part is a bit concealed, as graphs are showing what i think is the active contribution. But then their algo is proprietary and I can understand the limitations on what they can or can not show. But it is certainly there and working big time.

 

[Oddball]

Active cancellation implies a device (like headphones) is actively trying to cancel problematic noises. If you are using ART and your neighbour is using their petrol lawnmower, you will still hear their lawnmower. So ART isn't "active" in that sense.

ART does cancel "sound" in the room - you can see this on the waterfall charts - but the sound it "cancels" is sounds that have been produced by your audio system. This means it doesn't just cause your speakers to constantly output "negative sound", and instead just "outputs some extra sound" (includes extra sound in the signal) that will cancel out the decay (the ongoing sound reflections in your room).

So I guess you could call it "reactive cancellation", because it knows that your speakers will cause a certain in-room response, and that you want a different response, and thus it does what it can to fix the response (which implies cancellation of room decay).

I guess if you go loud enough, the lawnmower will not be a problem at all. But absolutely correct in stating the principle.