Comparison of DRCs: Dirac Live for Studio, IK Multimedia ARC System 3 and Sonarworks Reference 4 Studio edition

[landco]

If you set a house curve that is flat to 200Hz, -3 dB at 2000Hz, and -6 dB at 20kHz, that's essentially the B&K 1974 target within a fraction of a dB.

Not very difficult.

View attachment 113031

The problem is that you set the frequencies roughly, manually, and the preset is made by engineers in strict accordance with the specifications. That's the difference.

 

[sejarzo]

There is nothing "sacred" about the B&K 1974 curve...or any house curve, for that matter. The B&K 1974 roll-off was designed to account for narrow dispersion tweeters of the era, from what I have read about it. There is not a single house curve that is perfect for all speakers and rooms.

 

[landco]

The B&K 1974 roll-off was designed to account for narrow dispersion tweeters of the era, from what I have read about it.

Since 1974, nothing has fundamentally changed in the speakers, I have a typical modern (not narrowly directional) tweeter and everything works great. And Dirac and ARC do not respect their customers, since they do not provide ready-made presets and force the client to search for information on their own.

 

[richard12511]

The problem is that you set the frequencies roughly, manually, and the preset is made by engineers in strict accordance with the specifications. That's the difference.

You can use the B&K 1974 curve in Dirac, not sure about ARC. In Dirac, you can actually use any target curve file you want, or make your own. I've got a directory on my machine with 50+ curves/famous targets I've gathered from scouring the internet. I believe @thewas put together a list of target curves for download in another thread here. I've tried the B&K curve, as well as several Harman curves, though I've settled on a more custom target curve. I've found that specific curves like B&K and Harman only really work optimally in a particular room, at a particular distance, with a particular speaker. You really need the ability to modify the curve to a target that works for your particular case. You can start with a generalized target like Harman or B&K(I've tried both and they work well), but for truly optimal results, you need a DRC that supports custom curves. If it doesn't support custom curves, then it absolutely needs the ability to limit the range of correction.

I'm really looking forward to trying Audiolense in the future. I've heard great things.

 

[thewas]

I've found that specific curves like B&K and Harman only really work optimally in a particular room, at a particular distance, with a particular speaker. You really need the ability to modify the curve to a target that works for your particular case.

Of course, if your loudspeakers directivity is smooth its best to have above transition frequency a linear direct sound, it just happens that this matches in my room to the B&K target till 10 kHz so need for correction:

 

[dj94030]

You can download variety of curves. I lost links, but it's googlable by "harman house curve txt" or something like that.

 

[landco]

You can download variety of curves. I lost links, but it's googlable by "harman house curve txt" or something like that.

Who made these presets? Amateur or professional? Here's the catch. Therefore, I do not like Dirac and ARC, they cannot offer a turnkey solution

 

[SIY]

Who made these presets? Amateur or professional? Here's the catch. Therefore, I do not like Dirac and ARC, they cannot offer a turnkey solution

Dirac comes with a default curve similar to the one in Sonarworks. If it's too difficult for the user to customize it, that user should not be allowed near a computer.

 

[landco]

Dirac comes with a default curve similar to the one in Sonarworks. If it's too difficult for the user to customize it, that user should not be allowed near a computer.

There is no need to blame the user because the client is not a professional acoustic engineer.
I find it very funny that Sonarworks has a preset for normal listening, even though it's a studio product, and Dirac, which is designed for home HiFi, doesn't have the useful presets to enhance sound like the B&K 1974 Speaker Target.

From this situation, I can conclude that Dirac is in secret collusion with audio equipment manufacturers. Otherwise, who will buy new speakers when the above preset can easily improve the sound of your old speaker system?

 

[SIY]

There is no need to blame the user because the client is not a professional acoustic engineer.

Perhaps you shouldn't be using a computer if you're not a professional coder?

 

[landco]

Perhaps you shouldn't be using a computer if you're not a professional coder?

Being able to move the mouse around the screen and press different keys does not mean that you can make a competent setting. You are substituting concepts.

 

[SIY]

Being able to move the mouse around the screen and press different keys does not mean that you can make a competent setting. You are substituting concepts.

You're making a trivially easy task seem like rocket surgery. The motive escapes me.

 

[landco]

You're making a trivially easy task seem like rocket surgery. The motive escapes me.

Dirac limits the number of points at which you can manually change the frequency response curve. That is, you will no longer have a SOFT, Smooth curve, as in the above preset. Not to mention the fact that there is a specification with exact data for this curve, the curve is developed on the basis of acoustic calculations, you cannot "manually, roughly, by eye" make a curve with identical parameters

And, as I said above, there is no need to force the user to search for something on the Internet, you paid for the product, you must be provided with a working, ready-made solution, a ready-made preset. Therefore Dirac is a bad solution for home Hi-Fi

 

[SIY]

Dirac limits the number of points at which you can manually change the frequency response curve. That is, you will no longer have a SOFT, Smooth curve, as in the above preset. Not to mention the fact that there is a specification with exact data for this curve, the curve is developed on the basis of acoustic calculations, you cannot "manually, roughly, by eye" make a curve with identical parameters

And, as I said above, there is no need to force the user to search for something on the Internet, you paid for the product, you must be provided with a working, ready-made solution, a ready-made preset. Therefore Dirac is a bad solution for home Hi-Fi

Besides the fact that Dirac's default curve is the one you're hammering about (so your statements are false), the whole "soft smooth curve" is likewise nonsense. Sonarworks has a limited and non-adjustable curve set. I own and reviewed both of these, they are both excellent, but there's no question that Dirac is much more flexible. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, but you've somehow latched onto a non-issue.

There's some agenda here and I am getting curious about what it is.

 

[dominikz]

In Sonarworks, there is a ready-made preset for stereo Hi-Fi listening in a typical room, this preset is designed by professionals and gives a good result in any typical room:

Dirac and ARC don't have this preset, which is bad, because it forces you to adjust the sound "according to the feeling", and not in the right way.

In my opinion it is safe to say that these DRC products target slightly different audiences, which is why they have slightly different feature sets.
My personal main issue with Sonarworks was lack of target curve and correction customizability (which I'm sure some other users might actually prefer). Other thing I noted was lack of filter sharpness in the bass vs other solutions.

Now thinking about it - it might also be interesting to look more deeply into HF range correction, as it may give some insight into how and if a DRC does FDW/smoothing/averaging - I must admit I haven't looked into that much in my time doing comparisons, but I suppose one can deduce a bit from the filter responses I posted before.

And yes, I did test the B&K 1974 curve in SW too - it was better than default in the far-field, but I still felt it was not a close enough match for my speakers and room. That is subjective of course, which is why I suggest to give more value to the objective data provided from my tests.

In general, I agree that it can be difficult for a non-technical person to get room correction right, and I applaud SW vendors who try to streamline and simplify the process for the end users - however IMHO for now there doesn't seem to exist a simple, 'one-size-fits-all' solution to this problem, unfortunately.

I do believe all of the DRC solutions were designed by professionals, though. Similar to how many different in-room target curves available today (not just the one from B&K) were often the result of research of professionals.

 

[sejarzo]

If one thoughtfully digests the paper that describes the reasoning behind the B&K 1974 curve, one should conclude that there is nothing in particular to recommend it compared to more recent work in the field.

https://www.bksv.com/media/doc/17-197.pdf

From page 4:

When music is recorded under farfield conditions, it will contain a suitable mixture of direct and reflected sound, and the curve ought to be absolutely flat in that case. This is true for recordings, for instance, made with two B &K condenser microphones in the far-field.

However, since most recordings are made as a combination of nearfield and far-field information, the curve should boost a little at low frequencies and roll off a little at high frequencies. A suitably shaped curve is shown in Fig.5. [Fig. 5 being the B&K 1974 curve.]

The curve shows only the necessary tendencies. This curve was derived partly as a result of listening tests and partly by consideration of curves from average concert halls. According to Beranek (Ref. 2) the average concert hall has a roll off similar to that in the curve shown, but at twice the rate. Only half the rate is chosen because most recordings are equally distributed between near-field and far-field recording. Practice has shown that this characteristic is absolutely reasonable for reproduction of most commercial recordings.

The salient points from that excerpt:

1. The work was conducted by B&K, a microphone manufacturer, not an independent organization/researcher, using technology that is fast approaching 50 years old.

2. The B&K 1974 curve was a compromise based on recordings made using near-field, far-field, and mixed recording techniques.

3. The curve was a compromise between listening tests and average concert hall data. The comment re average hall roll off suggests that concert halls averaged 3 dB lower at 2 kHz and 6 dB lower at 20 kHz versus the B&K 1974 curve. That's a huge difference.

 

[landco]

Are the posts above, as I understand it, intended to justify Dirac? But Dirac is a bad solution for the home, since it only gives the user a bare tool, without understanding how to use it correctly. The client is forced to change the frequency response curve at random and search for info on the Internet

Sonarworks offers a ready-made preset that works well for stereo hi-fi, as I've personally tested. Dirac gives nothing.

 

[richard12511]

Of course, if your loudspeakers directivity is smooth its best to have above transition frequency a linear direct sound, it just happens that this matches in my room to the B&K target till 10 kHz so need for correction:

View attachment 113097

Yeah that matches really well. I would probably stop the correction at about 6kHz or so in your situation. If you were sitting an extra meter or 2 back, though, the target might not work as well, which is kinda what I was trying to say. I've recently switch to using full range correction with Dirac, using a modified Harman curve that better matches the natural response of the 8351s at my listening distance. Switching back and forth between full range and limited range(500Hz) correction, it's honestly hard to tell the difference, but I slightly prefer the full range correction. The measured frequency responses also look identical, but the full range correction has a slightly prettier step response, which is where I think my tiny(easily could be expectation bias) preference comes froml

 

[richard12511]

Are the posts above, as I understand it, intended to justify Dirac? But Dirac is a bad solution for the home, since it only gives the user a bare tool, without understanding how to use it correctly. The client is forced to change the frequency response curve at random and search for info on the Internet

Sonarworks offers a ready-made preset that works well for stereo hi-fi, as I've personally tested. Dirac gives nothing.

Personally, I've got no attachment to Dirac. I was merely speaking to Dirac vs Sonarworks, where Dirac is (imo) the better DRC, due to it allowing you to adjust your target curve to your room and listening distance. Recently, I've had some issues with Dirac, and I agree the customer service hasn't been great. I can't get my new UMIK-2(old one worked) to measure with Dirac. It says the noise floor is too high, though I can measure with other programs just fine.

From what I've heard, Audiolense and Accourate are better than Dirac, which is why I'm excited to switch once my 8351b center channel arrives.

 

[thewas]

Yeah that matches really well. I would probably stop the correction at about 6kHz or so in your situation.

Actually I only correct the peaks below 300 Hz as above the direct sound dominates which is quite linear on those loudspeakers.

If you were sitting an extra meter or 2 back, though, the target might not work as well, which is kinda what I was trying to say.

Yes, that's why it is often better to EQ for a linear direct sound instead of a predefined target curve above transition frequency.