Big news coming from Sound United in 2023!

[Sal1950]

Also, minor correction - JBL Synthesis includes a DLBC license on their 4-figure processor.

Which model is that?

Sir, please pay attention to context. It matters. The context for the statement you quoted out of context was a structured comparison of room correction systems.

You didn't answer the question?
Can't you ever stop the Audyssey hate here?

 

[jhaider]

My Audyssey mic was distinctly off compared to the calibrated one. This was my comparison (single measurement point, mic at same location). You could fix it by adjusting the target curve, but by default the stock mic gave me a slightly brighter sound with leaner bass.

Why did you match at 4.5kHz? It looks to me like the primary difference is the stock mic is reading higher from about 3.5kHz up.
It would be more interesting to see the differences with the graphs aligned at 1kHz, or somewhere on either side of your 200Hz null to see how they compare in the region where room correction provides the most potential benefit.

I should caveat my earlier statement by noting all of my experience with Audyssey mics is well before Covid. We all know that the quality of many items has been allowed to deteriorate in the course of the pandemic, unfortunately. "Supply chain" is the usual excuse.

Which model is that?

JBL SDP-55 Audio/Video Processor Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the audio performance of the JBL SDP-55 AVP home theater processor. It was kindly purchased by a member and drop shipped to me for testing first. It arrived about two months ago. The SDP-55 costs US $6000. Note: our company Madrona Digital is a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL SDR-35 AVR Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL Synthesis SDR-35 Audio/Video Receiver with 16 channels of processing with class G amplification and support for Dirac Room EQ. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $8,250. The unit looks elegant and user interface is simple to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

https://www.audiocontrol.com/knowle...rol-for-x-xr-series-processors-and-receivers/ - I don't know pricing but per this article DLBC is included with AudioControl's products and Dirac's page does not indicate upgrades available for them.

You didn't answer the question?
Can't you ever stop the Audyssey hate here?

I pointed out the "question" was based on an out-of-context quote, and re-explained the context in case you didn't understand it the first time around. Your further protests are in bad faith and intellectually dishonest. Beyond that you get nothing.

 

[Sancus]

Why, what is it I can't tweak here even with the simple Editor app?

The mobile app really overcomplicates things for the average user, because you have to manually draw a target curve for each channel on a touch screen(lol). To make matters worse, the sub target curve is just total nonsense because any boost is ignored and the whole sub level is brought DOWN so the highest point on your drawing is 0dB. This is *totally insane* and means Audyssey requires a workaround that isn't explained anywhere in its own documentation just to produce a standard, downwards sloping target curve which is what most people want.

As much as Dirac has a more complicated UI, it puts "global target curve" front and center as part of its calibration routine. And yes, this means you need to learn and understand what a global target curve is, but honestly that is way more intuitive than whatever the fuck the Audyssey mobile app wants you to do.

The default Audyssey target curve is way too flat btw even in Reference mode. E: Since last year, Dirac generates a target curve for your system's natural uncorrected response uniquely which, while not always perfect, is still wayyyyyyyyy better than the default Audyssey one. You usually end up with something like this(pink line) which is roughly what most people need.

 

[Chromatischism]

And here I am again saying a sub target curve is completely unnecessary with Audyssey. I needed it when I tried Dirac but I never could get it just right, so back to Audyssey I went. It's so much faster to set up my system.

 

[Newman]

@AdamG247 @BDWoody - it may be useful to cleave off the conversations re comparing room correction starting at this post by peng into a new thread - it's interesting stuff but apt to get lost in a thread about one specific piece of hardware.

Whoa there: the Big News, that this thread is named after, revolves entirely around the Very Big News that the latest gear allows users to choose RC between Audyssey and (at great additional expense) Dirac.

Hence IMHO it is entirely on-topic to discuss what one gets with each RC, ie comparing them, since potential buyers will be wondering whether they will need to budget for the expensive one.

 

[Sancus]

And here I am again saying a sub target curve is completely unnecessary with Audyssey. I needed it when I tried Dirac but I never could get it just right, so back to Audyssey I went. It's so much faster to set up my system.

If it's totally unnecessary why do so many people find that it's necessary in order to prevent Audyssey from sucking all the bass out of their system? The reality is, most people would consider Audyssey's default target curve too flat due to its lack of tilt.

Incidentally, Audyssey themselves seem to agree with me that their mobile app UI is bullshit, since MultEQ-X does actually give you the ability to set a global target curve in a sane way.

 

[Chromatischism]

If it's totally unnecessary why do so many people find that it's necessary in order to prevent Audyssey from sucking all the bass out of their system? The reality is, most people would consider Audyssey's default target curve too flat due to its lack of tilt.

I don't have that problem, but if you do, it's your subwoofer levels, not the target curve to blame.

Incidentally, Audyssey themselves seem to agree with me that their mobile app UI is bullshit, since MultEQ-X does actually give you the ability to set a global target curve in a sane way.

They have never made a mobile app. D+M did. But yes, the curve editor is not its strong point.

 

[jhaider]

Whoa there: the Big News, that this thread is named after, revolves entirely around the Very Big News that the latest gear allows users to choose RC between Audyssey and (at great additional expense) Dirac.

Hence IMHO it is entirely on-topic to discuss what one gets with each RC, ie comparing them, since potential buyers will be wondering whether they will need to budget for the expensive one.

Not until "integration has not started, TBD 2024" in a way that really matters though. Also it looks like they're going to hobble Dirac out of the gate with no loudness compensation. Maybe they will include the new version of Dolby Volume with it?

I took the post by @peng to relate to a more general comparison of RC systems, a successor to Olive 2009. ARC Genesis and RoomPerfect are around too! I suppose YPAO is a thing too, though honestly I don't know if or how it's improved since the useless iteration on my old Yamaha 5100 AVP. (Though that was a good, if gigantic, AVP because it was the only one that kept Dolby Pro Logic II with Atmos.) Trinnov too, but unless there's a second coming of the Sherwood Trinnov AVR that's less relevant.

 

[Sal1950]

The mobile app really overcomplicates things for the average user, because you have to manually draw a target curve for each channel on a touch screen(lol).

Agreed, that's why I've run mine in Bluestacks emulator on my 32" monitor since about day 1.
And if that wasn't large enough for ya,, I can put in on my 75" Sony. LOL
That was the main reason for X, because fine control could be difficult if not impossible on a smart phone.
We asked over and over for a PC port.

But that brings up why comparing room correction is a staggering task. While a mono+sub test may have worked when Dr. Olive et al. did the test, but I think today we'd need to compare full immersive setups, to see how each handles bass management for effects channels, and generally fosters "the bubble." Then how many subs, and what kind of mains capability? Also, do you tweak each to a common target curve or do you evaluate based on the default targets? (In the latter case, obviously Audyssey is toast, again.)

Maybe you need to speak more clearly.
I'll repeat, I can tweak each individual channel target curve to whatever I choose. where am I being left out?

Also, minor correction - JBL Synthesis includes a DLBC license on their 4-figure processor.

https://www.audiocontrol.com/knowle...rol-for-x-xr-series-processors-and-receivers/ - I don't know pricing but per this article DLBC is included with AudioControl's products and Dirac's page does not indicate upgrades available for them.

Don't know why you posted those links for reference, useless. None show as DLBC being included with the base software.
I would think if such an expensive license was included they be braging to holy hell about it.
I'm not swearing they're not, but you claim they do but can't provide any evidence in the matter.

 

[AudioJester]

I use Dirac and Audyssey in different rooms. Have swapped the processors around a few times.
My take: Audyssey is good enough but Dirac is much easier and does sound better, at least in my hands. Thats even before DLBC, I would be ok paying for DLBC based on what it can do. The concept for ART appears amazing, hopefully it filters down.
Yeah, if you cant afford or dont want to pay for Dirac/DLBC, I think Audyssey is more than ok for your typial HT setup.

 

[peng]

Why, what is it I can't tweak here even with the simple Editor app?

It seems to me you may not be disagreeing on this point, because he said "the latter case, Audyssey is toast", and the latter case would be, as I understood it, to use the default curves, that is not using the tweaked curves for the comparison. He did not say you can't tweak with the editor app, obvious you can and we all know that.

I also found it very time consuming to tweak with the Editor app to achieve a smooth curve to my liking, that's because fingers, mouse, touch pens etc., don't work for me. Using Ratbuddssey though (free, I understand there is at least on paid UI software that may do better, or not), I could have my two very different subs and the FL/FR towers integrated very well, including smooth transition at the crossover points. I am talking about better than +/- 2 dB smooth even if I only spent a couple hours tweaking, including the REW time. There are going to be variations between positions but +/- 2 dB from 15 to 120, even 200 Hz, wasn't too hard to achieve if average the results for 6 to 9 positions within a roughly 36 inch bubble. With Dirac, and I have used the PC standalone version only, it was much easier to tweak the target curve than using the Editor app and a little easier than using the app with Rat too, though I can imagine the Audyssey MEQ X app may be just as easy (vs Dirac). "easy" in relative term only.

By the way, since you use the app, the Editor app+Rat actually has a feature that no one seems to talk about, that is, you can tweak the target curve on per channel basis, not just per channel pair but to do it you have to use Ratbuddssey or other 3rd party UI and I don't believe you can do that with the $200 X app. One can argue that target curve should always be tweaked on per channel pairs only, while I can understand their point, I do have a different take, in the case of Audyssey, but that's a complicated thing for me to even try to explain or argue my point so I won't get into that one, just want to point out it can be done if one wants to play..

 

[chych7]

Why did you match at 4.5kHz? It looks to me like the primary difference is the stock mic is reading higher from about 3.5kHz up.
It would be more interesting to see the differences with the graphs aligned at 1kHz, or somewhere on either side of your 200Hz null to see how they compare in the region where room correction provides the most potential benefit.

I should caveat my earlier statement by noting all of my experience with Audyssey mics is well before Covid. We all know that the quality of many items has been allowed to deteriorate in the course of the pandemic, unfortunately. "Supply chain" is the usual excuse.

I didn't intentionally match at 4.5 kHz. This was the default result after Audyssey calibration, without any additional adjustment, at the same volume level on the receiver for both calibration runs. In any case that doesn't change the point that the stock mic is off. One can apply some simple math in the head to figure out what it would look like if it was aligned at a different frequency; it's just a dB offset.

My mic was also from pre-Covid, came with my Denon X3600.

 

[hmt]

Interesting, but since according to Floyd Toole the frequency response is simply an FFT calculated from the impulse, there would be a difference there, too. There's no changing one without changing the other

That applies only to a minimum phase system. A loudspeaker is usually not that so you need also the phase response. What dirac does is that it corrects for the phase shift due to the crossovers of the speakers. That's why it's imulse looks cleaner.

 

[chych7]

That applies only to a minimum phase system. A loudspeaker is usually not that so you need also the phase response. What dirac does is that it corrects for the phase shift due to the crossovers of the speakers. That's why it's imulse looks cleaner.

I still wonder about the whole phase correction part that Dirac does. From what I understand, we can't hear a speaker's phase. But, we can hear phase differences or misalignment of phase across multiple emitters, like between a speaker and sub, or left and right speaker (inverting the polarity of one speaker easily confirms this). From my study, I looked at the phase mismatch between the left and right speakers, and found that Audyssey did a better job at reducing error between the left and right (and also was better at matching SPL between left and right speakers). Subjectively Audyssey sounded better. Well, this was the case in my system and speakers, YMMV.

 

[GalZohar]

Well, there’s a thread on that. To summarize, aside from the unacceptable licensing terms and high cost…it doesn’t even run on macOS, has a UI that goes back to the 1990s with faux parametric EQ abstractions instead of direct target curve drawing, and doesn’t offer the bass management or multisub integration capabilities one should expect from an expensive paid room correction upgrade. It also seems dependent on REW - aren’t the optics of a paid software with restrictive and onerous licensing terms presumptively free-riding* off of donationware off-putting?

*I suppose it is possible there is a non-public fee sharing agreement or other compensatory mechanism. There should be!

I meant why it doesn't count while the mobile app does? Mobile app is limited to Android/IoS, PC app is limited to PC, so both have similar limitations there. Licensing is shit, sure, but it doesn't make it a bad product if it fits the budget. The UI isn't good in any way, but it's way superior to the mobile app. Bass management has slight advantage over mobile app, which also doesn't have the features you desire. So all in all I agree with you about the shortcomings of MultEQ-X, but if you like the mobile app I don't see why you'd hate MultEQ-X aside from the price. The only thing is you don't draw the target curve directly, but I find that better because you know exactly what kind of function you are creating and can modify it precisely without breaking everything with a single bad touch.

I still wonder about the whole phase correction part that Dirac does. From what I understand, we can't hear a speaker's phase. But, we can hear phase differences or misalignment of phase across multiple emitters, like between a speaker and sub, or left and right speaker (inverting the polarity of one speaker easily confirms this). From my study, I looked at the phase mismatch between the left and right speakers, and found that Audyssey did a better job at reducing error between the left and right (and also was better at matching SPL between left and right speakers). Subjectively Audyssey sounded better. Well, this was the case in my system and speakers, YMMV.

I wonder the same, because I haven't seen any proof that this is actually an advantage of Dirac, even though they market it as such.

 

[hmt]

they correct for phase shifts caused by IIR crossovers. The IR response is actually a proof for that. Due to the phase shift the impulses of the different drivers are not aligned. With dirac they re better aligned. You seem to confuse overall polarity of a speaker with its phase response.

 

[dlaloum]

Whether by measurement or ear, how do we determine "a winner" with software that's designed to modify the
incoming signal?
I'm no EE but I guess there's a way to measure any THD or noise introduced? SINAD?
When Amir reviewed Audyssey + Editor, he did so only in a basic UI subjective way.
That's not a criticism, simply an observation.

Exactly, what do we compare?
Which makes a flatter FR at the listening position, auto-magically?
Which is getting the distance for each speaker more accurately determined?
Who's is easier to set a desired room curve with?
I could go on but the software's job is to modify a signal, not be transparent.
So who's does a better job at not being transparent? LOL

Sure - but it is only relevant if you are looking at it in a perfect environment.... ie: an anechoic chamber, where there will be no reflections, no room effects etc...

The point of Room Correction software, is to take an imperfect environment, and adjust it for improved psycho-acoustic performance.... the key being "psycho acoustic".

The first thing one has to accept, is that the room is imperfect (non transparent, if you prefer!) - once you are past that, the question is, what can be done to ameliorate that inherently flawed environment.

You can perfect the environment, and then use the signal "RAW" - but that environment (anechoic) is a truly horrid place to listen to stuff in!

In reality stereo and surround recordings, are designed to be listened to in a living space or movie theater, environments that are imperfect, and have inherent flaws.

So, transparent to what!? - Transparent how!?

And of course all of this through those least transparent of all components... speakers - with most people's speakers having THD of over 1% (especially in the bass)

What some of the Room EQ systems are now starting to demonstrate (eg: Dirac Live ART), is that active correction, which is effectively another step away from purist "transparency" - gets substantially closer to achieving perceived transparency.

I have no idea what a system of measurement to identify perceived transparency would look like. But our current measurements are designed to identify signal transparency, in one dimension only... and now we are talking about perceiving the end result of that signal in a three dimensional domain.

To some degree, this will force us back to subjective evaluations, while the tools for objective measurement are developed.

 

[jhaider]

I didn't intentionally match at 4.5 kHz. This was the default result after Audyssey calibration, without any additional adjustment, at the same volume level on the receiver for both calibration runs.

A few points, but first a preliminary question: are you confident the individualized calibration was not applied for your other mic during the measurements? That's one of those easy things to miss.

• I don't think anyone is claiming that Audyssey mics are are exactingly sensitivity matched, only that their frequency response is generally good enough for room correction purposes. Your two seem to have a broad-band sensitivity difference of around 1dB for the most part. That's within reasonable error tolerance for acoustic measurements. In fact, even great microphones can vary a bit in sensitivity. For example, my four iSemcon EMX-7150 measurement microphones vary in sensitivity by about 0.75mV for 94dB output at 1kHz (using a 48V mic preamp) according to their calibration sheets. Doing the math explained here amounts to just over 1dB difference in measured broadband level. (All are similarly flat in response.) When I calibrate levels to use them simultaneously in REW Pro, the microphone preamp setting ends up slightly different for each one, as expected.
  
• Given the broadband level was slightly higher with your calibrated microphone, your expression of preference for the calibrated-mic run is as expected. Also no surprise that you ascribed the differences you heard to something other than level differences. We all seem to do that! One must wonder if the individual calibration files intentionally result in slightly louder results so as to make people perceive "the calibration" as better. Or it could just be sample variation.
  
• I think you're assuming a level of precision in acoustic measurements that is very hard, if not impossible, to achieve in an anechoic chamber let alone a normal human home. There's some good discussion on this in the third Neumann KH80 Klippel NFS measurement thread, if memory serves.

So again, if you want to compare the microphones' relative FR, which is what really matters, you should align their SPL at a reasonable reference point, because the absolute SPL is not material unless you’re multiplexing. And allow for some HF error tolerance because they won't be placed exactly the same. That's not to say your two microphones don't read slightly differently and thus will lead to slightly different results. By eyeball - which is difficult because of the lack of useful SPL alignment - they seem to exhibit some variance on the top and bottom ends. Is it enough variance to make a difference even with levels matched? I don't assume that's impossible. Your listening position response looks excruciatingly hot either way for my tastes. Here's what I consider great in-room performance.

N.B. The point of ART is to extend the region of low mean spatial variation (MSV or “spread” in Dirac-ese -the shaded area in the graph above) to the octaves above the subs. Here, you see very good MSV in the bass - generally under 5dB across a 6’ x 4’ area - thanks in large part DLBC. But the MSV gets much wider above the subwoofer crossover. With ART, one hopes to see similarly low MSV in in the octave above the subs, and into the octave above that.

I meant why it doesn't count while the mobile app does? Mobile app is limited to Android/IoS, PC app is limited to PC, so both have similar limitations there.

Because it can't be run natively within macOS (i.e. a macOS software, or run through a web browser). That is IMO a threshold requirement for relevance for any commercial consumer software. Note that all of Audyssey's peer and aspirational competitors can be used natively on Macs - Dirac, ARC Genesis, and Trinnov have native macOS software, as do Genelec and Neumann; RoomPerfect runs on the AVP through a web browser, as do the pre-correction processing sections in Storm and Monoprice.

but if you like the mobile app I don't see why you'd hate MultEQ-X aside from the price. The only thing is you don't draw the target curve directly,

Well, faking PEQ filters instead of just seeing and drawing the damn target curve is pointless and really dumb in my view. PEQ filters are perhaps on occasion useful before room correction measurements, e.g. to apply equalization based on anechoic data. That is how they can be used on, e.g. Storm or Monoprice AVPs in conjunction with Dirac. (Storm also lets you use PEQ as part of active crossover filters.) But in lieu of a target curve? No thanks.

 

[chych7]

A few points, but first a preliminary question: are you confident the individualized calibration was not applied for your other mic during the measurements? That's one of those easy things to miss.

• I don't think anyone is claiming that Audyssey mics are are exactingly sensitivity matched, only that their frequency response is generally good enough for room correction purposes. Your two seem to have a broad-band sensitivity difference of around 1dB for the most part. That's within reasonable error tolerance for acoustic measurements. In fact, even great microphones can vary a bit in sensitivity. For example, my four iSemcon EMX-7150 measurement microphones vary in sensitivity by about 0.75mV for 94dB output at 1kHz (using a 48V mic preamp) according to their calibration sheets. Doing the math explained here amounts to just over 1dB difference in measured broadband level. (All are similarly flat in response.) When I calibrate levels to use them simultaneously in REW Pro, the microphone preamp setting ends up slightly different for each one, as expected.
• Given the broadband level was slightly higher with your calibrated microphone, your expression of preference for the calibrated-mic run is as expected. Also no surprise that you ascribed the differences you heard to something other than level differences. We all seem to do that! One must wonder if the individual calibration files intentionally result in slightly louder results so as to make people perceive "the calibration" as better. Or it could just be sample variation.
• I think you're assuming a level of precision in acoustic measurements that is very hard, if not impossible, to achieve in an anechoic chamber let alone a normal human home. There's some good discussion on this in the third Neumann KH80 Klippel NFS measurement thread, if memory serves.

So again, if you want to compare the microphones' relative FR, which is what really matters, you should align their SPL at a reasonable reference point, because the absolute SPL is not material unless you’re multiplexing. And allow for some HF error tolerance because they won't be placed exactly the same. That's not to say your two microphones don't read slightly differently and thus will lead to slightly different results. By eyeball - which is difficult because of the lack of useful SPL alignment - they seem to exhibit some variance on the top and bottom ends. Is it enough variance to make a difference even with levels matched? I don't assume that's impossible. Your listening position response looks excruciatingly hot either way for my tastes. Here's what I consider great in-room performance.

Yes I'm 100% sure I didn't accidentally apply the calibration on the stock mic. It's a pretty obvious setting in MultEQ-X.

To clarify, what I did was a very specific test to compare the two mics; this does not reflect my normal calibration (I normally put in a -1 dB/dec target, similar to your Dirac plot, which follows the natural speaker response). For the test, I had removed all target curve options in MultEQ-X, which means Audyssey targets flat. I ran the Audyssey calibration at a single measurement position with L/R speakers only, and the two mics were exactly at the same position when the calibrations were run (I used a fixed tripod at the MLP). There was no subjective assessment done in this test. No level matching done, because I wanted to see the default output of the calibration.

Now in my past calibrations with the stock mic, I had always noticed that the highs sounded bright. I also checked the response with REW/UMIK-1, and it kept showing boosted highs, even though the Audyssey default curve is supposed to put a high frequency roll-off. To compensate, I forced a stronger high freq roll-off (by changing the target curve) to get a reasonable high frequency response/downward slope. The mic calibration issue was validated when I got the ACM-1X and that boosted high went away by default, and I didn't need to put in that extra high frequency roll-off.

 

[peng]

they correct for phase shifts caused by IIR crossovers. The IR response is actually a proof for that. Due to the phase shift the impulses of the different drivers are not aligned. With dirac they re better aligned. You seem to confuse overall polarity of a speaker with its phase response.

I am not too sure how to interpret the phase thing vs audible effects, so I plotted the following to see what's happening in the crossover point, that is 80 Hz as shown:

It seems that with Audyssey on, the phase vs frequency curves look similar but more linear, at 80 Hz with Audyssey on, it was 23 degrees, with Audyssey off, it was 32 degrees. Is that a problem, significant enough to use MSO/minidsp to fix that? I also read, such phase change does not matter much audibly speaking but I really don't know in theory is it something audibly detectable by people with normal hearing when listening to music.