Comparison of Dirac Live Bass Control (DLBC) and Dirac ART for all known AVRs/Processors

[Oddball]

I think the heading of the thread is its most important limitation. There is virtually nothing that could make DLBC (or the lower DL version) better that ART for certain systems. However, how the ART fares with bass routing options of Storm or D&M processors is something that I have not seen - but would love to see. Lots of people seem to be gearing up to meet the ART "expectations". Lots of people actually had such systems before and managed do get best of them - but I can't really see any comparison or guidance as to how ART compares to other than its own lesser versions.

 

[Aaronb1138]

I think the heading of the thread is its most important limitation. There is virtually nothing that could make DLBC (or the lower DL version) better that ART for certain systems. However, how the ART fares with bass routing options of Storm or D&M processors is something that I have not seen - but would love to see. Lots of people seem to be gearing up to meet the ART "expectations". Lots of people actually had such systems before and managed do get best of them - but I can't really see any comparison or guidance as to how ART compares to other than its own lesser versions.

In the mainstream consumer market (AVRs / licenses <$10k) there is no direct competition to ART. It is using cancelation similar to noise reduction technologies to control impulse response and room resonance.

When we talk pricing, Dirac's pricing likely has nothing to do with how much it costs to provide to consumers. Its price optimized to maximize revenue while remaining in its niche and minimizing technical support riff-raff. It is as expensive as it can be while snagging the most buyers who are interested. I'm sure the MBA math says Dirac won't make more money selling their technology at true mass market rates (e.g. $100-300 for the full suite of DLFR/BC/ART) because they would only sell 5x more licenses and get 10x the support calls and tickets. The same applies to Audyssey XT / XT32.

If we want to compare technologies, it is from the perspective of this evolution and stacking of feature sets:

Dirac Live / Dirac Live Full Range - Audyssey / Audyssey MultiEQ XT / XT32, Yamaha YPAO, Sony DCAC IX / 360 Spatial, Pioneer MCACC, Tinnov RC in Sherwood AVRs, REW (REW + software PC EQ source or standalone DSP/EQ - REW is meaning any build your own toolchain here)

• Per speaker distance / time alignment
• Per channel EQ
• Limited bass management
• Variable end user tuning - DL can apply Harman and other custom curves, requires XT32 to do similar with Audyssey. Unsure on each of the other offerings.
• Sony DCAC IX / Spatial 360 is getting lots of praise, but it seems to be coming from those who have not used room correction before. If anything this it is really bringing the technology to a wider cohort of consumers who would not have used room correction otherwise similar to D&M including Audyssey XT in the box. Seems to be hard to get clear facts on Sony DCAC IX features.
• No clue on Pioneer MCACC and consumer centric (<$10k) Trinnov / Sherwood offerings.

Dirac Live FR + Bass Control (multi-sub) - Audyssey XT32, REW (unsure if Sony, Pioneer, or Sherwood's Trinnov implementation have any overlap here)

• Multi-sub management
• Bass steering to multiple subs from all other channels / room balancing of LF content
• Audyssey is a bit behind here as it levels all subs and then treats them as 1 channel, so arguably DLBC is already its own tier by the time we get here.

Dirac ART - No similar competitor in consumer space <$10k

• Impulse response control via cancelation / noise reduction techniques <150/300Hz,
• This frequency range covers the majority of room gain transfer function as well as frequencies which are difficult to room treat (i.e. large bass traps).

Looking further into the future, the next technology might be more advanced beamforming for higher frequencies, but beamforming may be a bit too position specific to a single listener in its most precise use (at least comparing directly to RF / Wifi beamforming I am more vocationally familiar). Depending on implementation, object based audio (e.g. DTS:X) would naturally decode into some beamforming elements with room correction. An example would be blending some center content to L/R speakers to widening the soundstage of the center channel to overcome absurdities like M/T/M and W/T/W center channel dispersion. Beamforming is a bit more frequency and phase dependent in the truest forms compared to conventional speaker / object virtualization and EQ.

 

[Oddball]

In the mainstream consumer market (AVRs / licenses <$10k) there is no direct competition to ART. It is using cancelation similar to noise reduction technologies to control impulse response and room resonance.

If we want to compare technologies, it is from the perspective of this evolution and stacking of feature sets:

Dirac Live / Dirac Live Full Range - Audyssey / Audyssey MultiEQ XT / XT32, Yamaha YPAO, Sony DCAC IX / 360 Spatial, Pioneer MCACC, Tinnov RC in Sherwood AVRs, REW

• Per speaker distance / time alignment
• Per channel EQ
• Limited bass management
• Variable end user tuning - DL can apply Harman and other custom curves, requires XT32 to do similar with Audyssey. Unsure on each of the other offerings.
• Sony DCAC IX / Spatial 360 is getting lots of praise, but it seems to be coming from those who have not used room correction before. If anything this it is really bringing the technology to a wider cohort of consumers who would not have used room correction otherwise similar to D&M including Audyssey XT in the box. Seems to be hard to get clear facts on Sony DCAC IX features.
• No clue on Pioneer MCACC and consumer centric (<$10k) Trinnov / Sherwood offerings.

Dirac Live FR + Bass Management (multi-sub) - Audyssey XT32, REW (unsure if Sony, Pioneer, or Sherwood's Trinnov implementation have any overlap here)

• Multi-sub management
• Bass steering to multiple subs from all other channels / room balancing of LF content
• Audyssey XT32 a bit behind here as it levels all subs and then treats them as 1 channel, so arguably DLBM is already its own tier by the time we get here.

Dirac ART - No similar competitor in consumer space <$10k

• Impulse response control via cancelation / noise reduction techniques <150/300Hz,
• This frequency range covers the majority of room gain transfer function as well as frequencies which are difficult to room treat (i.e. large bass traps).

Looking further into the future, the next technology might be beamforming, but beamforming is a bit too position specific to a single listener in its most precise use (at least comparing directly to RF / Wifi beamforming which I am more vocationally familiar). Unsure if Trinnov Waveforming is an offshoot, I haven't tried to deep dive their tech specs and papers.

I liked your post as it seemed interesting. But not sure where are you getting this from? To the best on my knowledge there is no direct comparison between the Storm or D&M bass management and ART? Not that I don't believe in ART's concept, but it would be really interesting to see its real life impact to big systems that have been used in the past, absent ART's availability.

 

[Aaronb1138]

I liked your post as it seemed interesting. But not sure where are you getting this from? To the best on my knowledge there is no direct comparison between the Storm or D&M bass management and ART? Not that I don't believe in ART's concept, but it would be really interesting to see its real life impact to big systems that have been used in the past, absent ART's availability.

I limited my conversation to mainstream consumer targeted technologies with an arbitrary, but I think reasonable <$10k ballpark for AVR/processor + technology licensing. Same reason I was limited in mentioning Trinnov to the restrictive Sherwood implementation. Really I was thinking of some of this going back to the Denon / Marantz ART thread, but you mentioned the technology differences of Dirac only being compared to the prior tier of Dirac and I thought it was useful to re-summarize the product segmentation and features among vendors.

 

[Oddball]

I limited my conversation to mainstream consumer targeted technologies with an arbitrary, but I think reasonable <$10k ballpark for AVR/processor + technology licensing. Same reason I was limited in mentioning Trinnov to the restrictive Sherwood implementation. Really I was thinking of some of this going back to the Denon / Marantz ART thread, but you mentioned the technology differences of Dirac only being compared to the prior tier of Dirac and I thought it was useful to re-summarize the product segmentation and features among vendors.

Appreciate the effort but won't sped 20 min going over your post - if you have a point pls make it obvious otherwise wont really have much impact.

 

[Oddball]

I limited my conversation to mainstream consumer targeted technologies with an arbitrary, but I think reasonable <$10k ballpark for AVR/processor + technology licensing. Same reason I was limited in mentioning Trinnov to the restrictive Sherwood implementation. Really I was thinking of some of this going back to the Denon / Marantz ART thread, but you mentioned the technology differences of Dirac only being compared to the prior tier of Dirac and I thought it was useful to re-summarize the product segmentation and features among vendors.

Sorry but still don’t understand what would ART to my system and why should I pay the fee. Big systems were managed by Storm and as or 2023 by D&M quite successfully. If there is anything new that could be done, ready for a pitch with measurements and stuff like that. Not really digging interviews with Dirac senior staff. Seems like pretty bad way to pitch to people that are not expecting just the usual BS fluffy thing.

 

[jtatknox]

Sorry but still don’t understand what would ART to my system and why should I pay the fee. Big systems were managed by Storm and as or 2023 by D&M quite successfully. If there is anything new that could be done, ready for a pitch with measurements and stuff like that. Not really digging interviews with Dirac senior staff. Seems like pretty bad way to pitch to people that are not expecting just the usual BS fluffy thing.

I thought that you weren't going to go over the post.

 

[Oddball]

I thought that you weren't going to go over the post.

Might have made a back-to-back, but still no response. Perhaps should not bump it up again though?

 

[jtatknox]

Might have made a back-to-back, but still no response. Perhaps should not bump it up again though?

It just seems like you are putting in a lot of effort responding to someone that you are so dismissive of. I will chalk it up to bewilderment.

 

[Oddball]

Just a notion that comparison should be broadened. Obviously here to argue relevant technical points, not be dismissive or irrespective. If it sounded that way - it was definitely not intended.

Storm audio has pretty good bass management module on its own, a bit more expensive than DLBC, including ART, though. And REW measurements/filters would come for free with most dealers. That could be a more relevant comparison than DL or DLBC for full tower systems with multiple subs. DL or DLBC don’t provide any kind support between speakers, just transition and phase alignment.

That approach works for traditional bookshelf comparison, but see a lot of people saying they would want to upgrade speakers/subs to have better ART support. So IMO the valid question is how ART compares to Storm for big(er) systems. Especially if ART is finally coming to D&M where D&M could do similar bass routing as Storm, plus running both REW filters and Audyssey on top of it.

If you think that my approach is unreasonable, more than happy to discuss why I think it is pretty relevant.