Audyssey XT32 vs Dirac Live

[chych7]

I would not say Dirac is necessarily inherently better than XT32 at least in terms of FR. I cannot speak to nebulous things about how either affects stereo separation, etc. YMMV.

What do the impulse responses say? I saw a significant difference between the two when I tried to compare them (with Dirac reducing transients more > 500 Hz), even though the FR was similar. That said, I thought Dirac sounded better being off for >500 Hz, while I liked XT32 on for >500 Hz.

 

[krabapple]

I hate to say this because it's going to sound a little snobbish, but, everyone touts the x3700's performance in PreAmp mode which assumes external amplification and then "makes hay" about the amp performance of the RZ50 as if a LOT of people aren't going to use external amplification..

A LOT of people aren't. I would bet good money that most purchasers of either of these AVRs , are NOT going to use them just as preamps.

I haven't used the onboard amplification in a receiver in over a decade and won't be going back, so that "10dB" swing in the comparison is actually a 2-3dB swing ASSUMING you have one of the original x3700's with the good DAC's and not a new one.

You (like many here) are an outlier among AVR users.

Not to mention, the audibility of these DAC and AMP differences under normal conditions is highly suspect. (Versus room EQ differences, which should be quite audible)

What's amusing to me is that using an AVR as a separate inevitably opens the user to yet another avenue of critique/one-upmanship from golden ears in audio hobby circles -- 'What external amp are you using??'

 

[peng]

DLBC is probably much better than SubEQ, but you pay a serious $$$ for the upgrade (and not even possible on RZ50 currently). Going the route of miniDSP and Multi-Sub-Optimizer is probably a better and more cost effective solution for either receivers.

In my opinion, the miniDSP option (if the 2X4HD) for such purpose, seems a little overrated. I don't like the mini's 2 V output limit, and the extra interconnections required. MSO, apparently, or reportedly, is great so I don't know, may be there is a net gain in some cases. For what I can achieve without it in my 7.1.4, I see no point using it, that's just based on my own experience, ymmv..

 

[chych7]

In my opinion, the miniDSP option (if the 2X4HD) for such purpose, seems a little overrated. I don't like the mini's 2 V output limit, and the extra interconnections required. MSO, apparently, or reportedly, is great so I don't know, may be there is a net gain in some cases. For what I can achieve without it in my 7.1.4, I see no point using it, that's just based on my own experience, ymmv..

You don't have to use a miniDSP with MSO, but it's a cheap solution. MSO is really where it's at for subwoofer EQ as well as sub+mains integration, especially if you have multiple seats/rows you want to get bass uniform across. I have two rows and two subs, and MSO does a great job getting both rows smooth and matched.

 

[peng]

What do the impulse responses say? I saw a significant difference between the two when I tried to compare them (with Dirac reducing transients more > 500 Hz), even though the FR was similar. That said, I thought Dirac sounded better being off for >500 Hz, while I liked XT32 on for >500 Hz.

Do you mean something like this? I have not done a comparison yet with the latest versions. Did do the one below two years ago.

 

[chych7]

Do you mean something like this? I have not done a comparison yet with the latest versions. Did do the one below two years ago.

Yeah but you have to zoom in and cut off stuff below 500 Hz to see what Dirac is doing. Example in my previous post:

Audyssey's Next Generation of Room Correction (MultEQ-X)

We all understand that incorrect position. There is no miscommunication. Have you tried taking confirmatory measurements properly - same area, random sample points? Incorrect position, aping measure point? He's only talking about an apples to apples comparison in a specific sense. You are...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Dougey_Jones]

A LOT of people aren't. I would bet good money that most purchasers of either of these AVRs , are NOT going to use them just as preamps.




You (like many here) are an outlier among AVR users.

Not to mention, the audibility of these DAC and AMP differences under normal conditions is highly suspect. (Versus room EQ differences, which should be quite audible)

What's amusing to me is that using an AVR as a separate inevitably opens the user to yet another avenue of critique/one-upmanship from golden ears in audio hobby circles -- 'What external amp are you using??'

I told him straight up that I wasn't interested in a critique of my external amp choices (they're listed in my signature anyway). But it was beside the point, which was that the x3700's upsides are most pronounced in PreAmp only mode, and so when comparing it to other receivers we should compare apples to apples.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on the other point you made, about there not being a lot of people using external amps. The reason I disagree is that we're at an interesting point in the HiFi world, where good/great amplification has become cheap (especially lightly used) and AV processors seem to be a dying product segment that no manufacturers care about. The only companies really making AVP's anymore are exclusively making VERY expensive ones, and based on the reviews on this site they aren't at all worth the asking price. So all of the consumers who would traditionally have preferred to buy separates for Home Theater are looking to the AVR world for processors since the other options suck.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

You don't have to use a miniDSP with MSO, but it's a cheap solution. MSO is really where it's at for subwoofer EQ as well as sub+mains integration, especially if you have multiple seats/rows you want to get bass uniform across. I have two rows and two subs, and MSO does a great job getting both rows smooth and matched.

How difficult is it to setup and configure MSO? What is the most cost effective MiniDSP unit to run it? I'm a little fuzzy on how the room EQ process would go, assuming my various hardware.

1) Run Dirac on RZ50 for 7.2 setup (tell it not to do anything with bass info?)
2) Run sub outputs from RZ50 to MiniDSP 2x4 with MSO
3) Not sure what next..

 

[luft262]

A LOT of people aren't. I would bet good money that most purchasers of either of these AVRs , are NOT going to use them just as preamps.




You (like many here) are an outlier among AVR users.

Not to mention, the audibility of these DAC and AMP differences under normal conditions is highly suspect. (Versus room EQ differences, which should be quite audible)

What's amusing to me is that using an AVR as a separate inevitably opens the user to yet another avenue of critique/one-upmanship from golden ears in audio hobby circles -- 'What external amp are you using??'

That's just it. There are only a handful of stereo amplifiers that have objectively tested as better than the Denon so if you already have the AVR why not just use it? There are so many audiophile guys around here that are against using an AVR for some odd reason, but AVRs are a great all around solution for music, movies, and video games all in one. The AMP and DAC in the Denon are good enough to get you up to CD quality and if you want to EQ your lows and the autocorrection isn't enough there is always miniDSP or get SVS subs that have that PEQ filters built in...

 

[Dj7675]

View attachment 198516

I would not say Dirac is necessarily inherently better than XT32 at least in terms of FR. I cannot speak to nebulous things about how either affects stereo separation, etc. YMMV.

But that isn’t Dirac DLBC. There is case to be made that Audyssey subeq ht is better than Dirac if DLBC is not being used It seems to me. But DLBC is better and does more than sub eq ht but at a cost of course.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

That's just it. There are only a handful of stereo amplifiers that have objectively tested as better than the Denon so if you already have the AVR why not just use it? There are so many audiophile guys around here that are against using an AVR for some odd reason, but AVRs are a great all around solution for music, movies, and video games all in one. The AMP and DAC in the Denon are good enough to get you up to CD quality and if you want to EQ your lows and the autocorrection isn't enough there is always miniDSP or get SVS subs that have that PEQ filters built in...

Did I miss the update to Amir's methodology where he tests AVR's with all 5/7/9 channels? Even at 5w? Let alone to rated output? For all you (or any of us) know, the x3700's SINAD drops like a rock when the power supply is saturated and the DAC is processing seven or nine channels instead of 1-2.

Or am I being an "audiophile guy" for asking that question?

 

[luft262]

Did I miss the update to Amir's methodology where he tests AVR's with all 5/7/9 channels? Even at 5w? Let alone to rated output? For all you (or any of us) know, the x3700's SINAD drops like a rock when the power supply is saturated and the DAC is processing seven or nine channels instead of 1-2.

Or am I being an "audiophile guy" for asking that question?

We can only make decisions based on the information available. Assuming potential drawbacks that haven't been measured in product A is not an endorsement for product B.

 

[Steve Dallas]

But that isn’t Dirac DLBC. There is case to be made that Audyssey subeq ht is better than Dirac if DLBC is not being used It seems to me. But DLBC is better and does more than sub eq ht but at a cost of course.

I do not have DLBC, so I cannot comment. I am looking at the common range between the two. How well to they fill nulls such as the once created by SBIR, etc.

 

[hmt]

View attachment 198516

I would not say Dirac is necessarily inherently better than XT32 at least in terms of FR. I cannot speak to nebulous things about how either affects stereo separation, etc. YMMV.

Both use the same system? Why is the bass response below 35Hz so massively different?

 

[Dougey_Jones]

We can only make decisions based on the information available. Assuming potential drawbacks that haven't been measured in product A is not an endorsement for product B.

Enjoy your assumptions.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Both use the same system? Why is the bass response below 35Hz so massively different?

I suppose that does deserve explanation. XT32 includes dual subs with bass management in my Denon 4700 AVR (crossed at 80Hz). Dirac does not include subs. Its signal path is: laptop running music player and Dirac Live 3 Standalone -> Schiit Modius DAC -> Peachtree Nova 300 amp -> Revel F206 speakers.

Just look at 80 through 600Hz.

Anyway, I am not asserting one is better than the other. Both can be massaged through further iterations and tweaking to achieve very similar results. In the particular graph I posted, XT32 appears to have the upper hand. Making that graph caused me to realize I need to re-measure with for Dirac in that room and do more tweaking. There is more potential there.

 

[chych7]

How difficult is it to setup and configure MSO? What is the most cost effective MiniDSP unit to run it? I'm a little fuzzy on how the room EQ process would go, assuming my various hardware.

1) Run Dirac on RZ50 for 7.2 setup (tell it not to do anything with bass info?)
2) Run sub outputs from RZ50 to MiniDSP 2x4 with MSO
3) Not sure what next..

It's not too difficult, the tutorial looks large/daunting but it really isn't. I can do a MSO calibration in <1 hr, now that I know the process. MiniDSP 2x4HD is the recommended unit (and a UMIK-1 is a good mic), but there are other DSPs out there that will work and may be less expensive, I'm not sure.

The general process would be:
1) Plug in the miniDSP to the receiver and subwoofers to it
2) Run Dirac/Audyssey/whatever REQ on the receiver; disable subwoofer correction as much as possible
3) Perform the MSO process
4) Apply MSO gains/delays/PEQs to the miniDSP and verify results

There are more details in this process, but generally this approach will work.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

It's not too difficult, the tutorial looks large/daunting but it really isn't. I can do a MSO calibration in <1 hr, now that I know the process. MiniDSP 2x4HD is the recommended unit (and a UMIK-1 is a good mic), but there are other DSPs out there that will work and may be less expensive, I'm not sure.

The general process would be:
1) Plug in the miniDSP to the receiver and subwoofers to it
2) Run Dirac/Audyssey/whatever REQ on the receiver; disable subwoofer correction as much as possible
3) Perform the MSO process
4) Apply MSO gains/delays/PEQs to the miniDSP and verify results

There are more details in this process, but generally this approach will work.

Just out of curiosity, what’s the inherent downside to just plugging my two subs into the RZ50 and letting Dirac take a crack at it? Is it just that the FR will only be “on target” for a really small sweet spot that I measure?

 

[chych7]

Just out of curiosity, what’s the inherent downside to just plugging my two subs into the RZ50 and letting Dirac take a crack at it? Is it just that the FR will only be “on target” for a really small sweet spot that I measure?

Yes that's part of it, will only be targeted for the area that's covered by the measurements. Also, Dirac (without DLBC) probably will be limited in how much it can optimize for FR using PEQ/gains/delays/time alignment, especially since the RZ50 doesn't have two independent sub outputs. That said, I'd first evaluate how the bass response looks after Dirac, before investing in the miniDSP. I did this in my system primarily because I have two rows; it's *really* hard to get two rows to both have good bass, without something like miniDSP/MSO. If I was only optimizing for the front row/MLP, Audyssey by itself would do a reasonably decent job (while leaving the back row sounding horrible). Still with MSO, it improves upon what Audyssey can do. It inherently has a much more sophisticated algorithm at optimizing bass response (more similar to DLBC in this regard... but free!).

 

[Soundmixer]

I do not have DLBC, so I cannot comment. I am looking at the common range between the two. How well to they fill nulls such as the once created by SBIR, etc.

You should not use equalization (auto or manual) to fill in nulls. You should use bass traps, broadband absorbers, or move the MLP. Using EQ to fill in nulls is just asking for more driver distortion without actually curing the problem.