Thats a good point - I plan to get another set of KEF ls60 which can go down to 30Hz pretty well. Having 4 for ART support I do wonder what the result would be with a single monster of a sub - D6000 vs two.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac
- Thread starter Flak
- Start date
ANY brand room correction cannot make a single sub provide even bass throughout the room unless you have the literal perfect combo of sub, room dimensions, acoustic treatments, and sub placement.
More subs = more ability to create 'even and balanced' bass in a given area.
There is no other way to do it. Too many variables to say 'how many' for any space. IMO for a 'dedicated theater' you must have at least 2 to allow for multi-seat balance. I'm building a new demo room and will start with 3 (2 front, one behind 2nd row), but I've wired the back for 4 subs (and I could put 4 up front also) just in case.
Last edited:
Fully agree for multi seat consistency, you will need more subs to get it all. But with ART the fronts will act as subwoofers, albeit they will not go as low.
So I hope to get great <20herz bass in the MLP and good bass (>30 herz) in the rest of the seats plus enough output in the supporting speakers to tackle the room moders > 30 herz.
If that will not work out as planned I'll get a second sub.
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,413
- Likes
- 1,949
I'd say honestly that a decent, powerful single sub around 15" and a few RPG LF Modex Plates will get you most of the way there.
No argument that multiple subs are better. Hopefully ART will take the rest of us with less room most of the way towards that, too.
Last edited:
D6000 is not a 'monster sub' by most people's definition, its a ported 15" with a normal size cabinet. I'd get an HSU TN1 over that D6000 all-day-any-day, for many reasons.
Even a single high-quality 18" or 21" from a top sub good company (GTG, PSA, JTR, REL, etc) will not provide more even room bass than 2 high-quality 15" from those same companies. A D6000, while it may be a good sub is unlikely to perform in the same league as HSU, PSA, etc and for $1400 each, I'd get the others over the D6000 without even thinking about it. You can get a PSA 18" for that price and I'd bet the PSA 18" will easily outperform the D6000... I'd be the TN1 would outperform it also.
ART doesnt make 'fronts act as subwoofers'... ART does not "create" subs where they do not physically exist.
Yes, ART does not require a sub but the more bass-capable sources (speakers or subs) you have, the more "tools" that ART can apply to the correction/support function.
Your statement has no merit, you dont know anything about the room, the seating, the size, the acoustics, etc
When building a serious (doesnt need to be expensive) dedicated theater room then all of these things matter... for example, those Modex Plates, no pro theater designer uses those. Why would you ever waste money on those vs buying even 1 more sub.
Fronts will not act as subwoofers with ART. If you assign them as support speakers to the sub/s, they will play their regular duty and in addition emit canceling signal in support of the subwoofer. They will however, not play any sub or LFE signal directly.
Fronts would act as subwoofers in D&M (or Trinnov or Storm equivalent) if you decided to run them as full range and send actual LFE signal to the fronts as well.
Perhaps just semantics...
Monster is a relative word. If I lived in US, rather than in UK - HSU would be no brainer. Unfortunately impossible to get it, SVS is inflated af. So price to output Tonewinner is unbeatable here. In terms of being a monster - UK sizing - 21m2 - rather on bigger size room here - probably small in US terms. I would think overkill for that size but its physical size is manageable compared to some like pb16, yet output is just a bit lower. Bigger output margin will mean lower distortion, less likely to get port chuff.
ART will usitlize all capable speakers so having them will help for sure - alternative is to use more subwoofers of course
Your prob right in the sense that no LFE is send to them, but I understood that ART does not use cross overs and uses all available bass out there, so take it it sets the fronts ti full range right?
The way I understand it, overall Dirac package will still work as it works - based on the crossover concept. Setting passive speakers as large will not really work optimal for HT that has big subs, unless these passive speakers have some (big) active bass modules.
ART is a layer on top and it will provide support in 20-150hz range with emitting canceling signals. For each supporting speaker you will set a starting lowest frequency support point. EDIT: ART will set the suggested point but can also be set manually.
I don't know if this operates equivalent to crossover (with slope), or is a brick wall. So if you set your towers to support from 40hz - it will not be a full range support.
Last edited:
Curvature
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,413
- Likes
- 1,949
You're mistaken.
RPG is the most respected professional acoustic treatment manufacturer. Its team developed many treatment concepts in use today at studio, theaters and elsewhere.
Each Modex Plate is large and weighs 50 pounds. These are not overly expensive at around USD 2k each, but you'll need several depending on the size of the room. They are not as practical as additional subs, and not as cost effective, but they are good, and worth it if the space allows for it.
Hmmmm, im going to dive deeper into into this as I read and heard different....
I've not seen a single professionally designed home theater use them -- nor have I ever heard any high-end theater designer (Grimani, Poes, Erskine, and others) ever mention them. And as I mentioned, I'd never recommend anyone use a single sub then go buy multiple $2k USD acoustic panels... that is not a smart way to spend money give the returns on a few $2k subs would be far superior to whatever that panel can do.
Goodfellas27
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
- Messages
- 72
- Likes
- 65
Please do and let us know. I can't say I am 100% confident either as did not find the ART bible yet - info is scattered around like we all enjoy scavenger hunts
. I certainly never did.However, once you watch the setup videos, or play with the demo, it becomes relatively clear that "support" is the key word and that if you hear the support signals, you need to turn the level of support down in terms of dB. This practically excludes any support in the core frequency response that I noted exists with D&M, Storm and Trinnov - and is not supported by Dirac in any way, shape or form.
I am with you on the point that Dirac did not go far enough, but then only Trinnov really supports the super advanced bass management with their Optimizer system, but their waweforming decay solution is not as elegant as Dirac and includes massive hardware requirements and positioning constraints. With Storm, you can do it but will have to use manual PEQ. With Audy, you can do it as well, but will need to make so many manual adjustments that it would be really similar to Storm.
I do agree with you in principle but the physical dimensions and placement of subs are quite different from those of panels, such as the Modex Plate. Some setups can more easily accommodate one vs. the other as determined by physical layout and aesthetics.
While not exactly on the point, don't feel like customising it so just cut-paste from a different thread. This describes what a full cross-support system would do, albeit decay is controllable only with primitive DBA and to some extent with random cancelations from 8 bed channels and 4 subs.
==============
Bed channels have F3 between 30 and 50hz and can withstand that without significant distortion to some 95-100dB. I run them as full range speakers so they get the full range signal that is rolled off with Audy MultiEQ-X according to individual in-room response of the speaker.
While not ideal solution, I find that using LFE+Main setting is still a better trade off than not using it with large speakers. So I send to the subs low end signal from all bed channels with LPF filter set at 60hz (should be 12dB per octave). Without this solution, lots of low end content would be lost, or would exclude possibility to run speakers as full range. It would be better if D&M had more granular settings for better matching but 40/60/80 hz is all that is on the menu. This does introduce some duplication between the subs and bed channels, but one can also think of it as building the custom curve and to the extent possible compensated through adjustments to the EQ curve of subs and bed channel speakers so that overall response is as close to one's target as possible.
In addition, I use LFE distribution that sends LFE signal to all full-range speakers (except for the center to keep it focused on its own tall task). That signal is before +10dB bump that subwoofer outputs get as part of the processing. It is also EQd by Audy according to the specific channel curve for each channel (where roll-off is according to in-room response) so that it does not overload the speaker. I use further SPL level adjustment for distributed LFE that is -4dB for more capable speakers and -6dB for less capable speakers (on scale -20dB to 0dB).
Subs are positioned in a primitive DBA array as a result of very extensive exercise to find optimal response not only at MLP but entire multi-purpose room (living room, dining area, kitchen and 2 hallways). While there were slightly better solutions for MLP itself, taming the room modes in the rest of the space was imperative. Can't really enjoy the perfect bass while all the china and windows are rattling. Front 2 subs are at 20 degree phase to mains and 2 back subs 180 degree (almost inverted to front subs) to mains. Some SPL is lost in this setup, but it really clears the mud and decay all the way to some 30hz.
So while the setup looks "tidy" as some say, it is a real mess under the hood. Lots of compromises had to be made as this type of setup ends up being very manual, despite the help from Audy MultiEQ-X. Far from ideal, but still IMO sounding better than standard bass management using 80hz crossover. Measurements are also marginally better. Trinnov would probably be easier (and likely better) platform to implement this signal path as it would be fully supported by their Optimizer room EQ. Interesting that Dirac did not go down this route even with their latest ART solution. ART will fix decay through cancelation signals from supporting speakers, but is not going to use supporting speakers to improve the core frequency response of the system. That will still be based on traditional crossover bass management.
At the end the system uses all bass drivers to work together productively - for the most part - there are always bad actors in the game. So that would be 6x13.8" drivers and 4.4kW of amps for the subs and 4x8" drivers (and 8x8" passive radiators - mains) plus 6x10" drivers (surrounds), with 1.4kW of amps for bed channel speakers.
==============
Bed channels have F3 between 30 and 50hz and can withstand that without significant distortion to some 95-100dB. I run them as full range speakers so they get the full range signal that is rolled off with Audy MultiEQ-X according to individual in-room response of the speaker.
While not ideal solution, I find that using LFE+Main setting is still a better trade off than not using it with large speakers. So I send to the subs low end signal from all bed channels with LPF filter set at 60hz (should be 12dB per octave). Without this solution, lots of low end content would be lost, or would exclude possibility to run speakers as full range. It would be better if D&M had more granular settings for better matching but 40/60/80 hz is all that is on the menu. This does introduce some duplication between the subs and bed channels, but one can also think of it as building the custom curve and to the extent possible compensated through adjustments to the EQ curve of subs and bed channel speakers so that overall response is as close to one's target as possible.
In addition, I use LFE distribution that sends LFE signal to all full-range speakers (except for the center to keep it focused on its own tall task). That signal is before +10dB bump that subwoofer outputs get as part of the processing. It is also EQd by Audy according to the specific channel curve for each channel (where roll-off is according to in-room response) so that it does not overload the speaker. I use further SPL level adjustment for distributed LFE that is -4dB for more capable speakers and -6dB for less capable speakers (on scale -20dB to 0dB).
Subs are positioned in a primitive DBA array as a result of very extensive exercise to find optimal response not only at MLP but entire multi-purpose room (living room, dining area, kitchen and 2 hallways). While there were slightly better solutions for MLP itself, taming the room modes in the rest of the space was imperative. Can't really enjoy the perfect bass while all the china and windows are rattling. Front 2 subs are at 20 degree phase to mains and 2 back subs 180 degree (almost inverted to front subs) to mains. Some SPL is lost in this setup, but it really clears the mud and decay all the way to some 30hz.
So while the setup looks "tidy" as some say, it is a real mess under the hood. Lots of compromises had to be made as this type of setup ends up being very manual, despite the help from Audy MultiEQ-X. Far from ideal, but still IMO sounding better than standard bass management using 80hz crossover. Measurements are also marginally better. Trinnov would probably be easier (and likely better) platform to implement this signal path as it would be fully supported by their Optimizer room EQ. Interesting that Dirac did not go down this route even with their latest ART solution. ART will fix decay through cancelation signals from supporting speakers, but is not going to use supporting speakers to improve the core frequency response of the system. That will still be based on traditional crossover bass management.
At the end the system uses all bass drivers to work together productively - for the most part - there are always bad actors in the game. So that would be 6x13.8" drivers and 4.4kW of amps for the subs and 4x8" drivers (and 8x8" passive radiators - mains) plus 6x10" drivers (surrounds), with 1.4kW of amps for bed channel speakers.
Please do and let us know. I can't say I am 100% confident either as did not find the ART bible yet - info is scattered around like we all enjoy scavenger hunts
However, once you watch the setup videos, or play with the demo, it becomes relatively clear that "support" is the key word and that if you hear the support signals, you need to turn the level of support down in terms of dB. This practically excludes any support in the core frequency response that I noted exists with D&M, Storm and Trinnov - and is not supported by Dirac in any way, shape or form.
I am with you on the point that Dirac did not go far enough, but then only Trinnov really supports the super advanced bass management with their Optimizer system, but their waweforming decay solution is not as elegant as Dirac and includes massive hardware requirements and positioning constraints. With Storm, you can do it but will have to use manual PEQ. With Audy, you can do it as well, but will need to make so many manual adjustments that it would be really similar to Storm.
This guy takes you through a complete set up and it is clear that ART does not ask you to set crossovers like you do in DLBC. So in my mind it uses all the bass available to make the bass as flat as possible and to correct the room modes.
But not 100% sure ofcourse.
I recall watching his video - not sure if this one. My understanding is that you need to set up Dirac first (including crossovers), and then go to ART setup which is different screen and methodology.
Getting rid of time decay is most difficult thing in the bizz as room treatments for sub 80hz range are military grade in terms of looks, size and price. Double bass arrays are minimum 4 subs and will have strict placing requirements so in most cases you end up with primitive aka not fully functioning DBA. This is where ART is supposedly going to excel and for example do the same thing with 2 subs and less placing constraints. Time decay will of course improve the frequency response as the lingering bass will no longer be recorded as peak as it is not lingering. But that is where the magic stops.
ART will not really fill in your null at e.g. 50hz (if DLBC was not able to or placement of the subs) as for that it would need to play a really loud signal from the supporting speakers, which is contrary to the settings provided and instructions to keep the signal low and far from obviously audible. For the core frequency response you will be limited to what you got and traditional DLBC approach.
As noted, ART information comes in bits and peaces. Then you try to patch them together best you can. Surprised that more advanced users and beta testers have so little to say though.
Similar threads
