Can you please elaborate on your signal chain? ORC doesn't do time-alignment so I didn't want to use it, but with a basic ART receiver....
-
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!
Dirac ART is now running on beta FW for Denon Xx800H AVRs!
- Thread starter PHD
- Start date
That spectrogram is a massive improvement! I'm not sure that your waterfall plots are on the same scale.
I dunno, but look at the measurements... it's doing what it claims.
Nothing special: Mac->Babyface->optical input on AV-10.
The point is that the maximum number of ART filters limits number of supports (one group being supported by other groups), so potentially some useful improvements are not achievable.
I don't know how many filters did D&M implement. 94 is reference to support channels which, at least in plain language, in not the same as filters. As I recall, all 2022 models supporting ART have the same DSP so would expect the same number of support channels.
D&M implementation seems to work so as others noted, that is most important. But yes, ideally we would want to know the number of filters on a spec oriented forum.
2.2 layout? Do you correct FR w/ Dirac on top of ORC, or just use ART somehow?
Hobolicious
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 21
- Likes
- 23
I ended up taking the plunge. Did a very quick 9 measurement setup (could probably have been performed better), did some changes to the support groups and ranges (using 91 of the maximum 96 filters) and added Storm Audio target curves to the different speaker groups.
First impression is that everything seems a lot clearer and more distinct. Dialog especially is so much clearer. I have to turn up the volume on the receiver quite a bit higher than I used to, but I assume this is likely because of the lack of DynamicEQ and Dynamic Volume. Even when turning up the volume as high as I have now nothing feels boomy or distorted.
So overall very happy with my modest testing so far (no real A/B testing done and I have not performed any measurements). Currently rewatching Dune!
Last edited:
OK, thank you, so around 94 support channels across all of them.
The layout is 9.4.4, but for stereo I just use fronts supported only by 4 subs, not even self-supporting. I first calibrate ART and then do BACCH.
The first image shows pre-ORC, but post-ART situation: (grayed are measured)
and then post-ORC (grayed are pre-ORC)
The measured is close to optimal: (grayed are measured)
Last edited:
Wow - what happens in the 6-10kHz area? That's nearly an octave completely missing?
We can't see the scale for the RT60 and you have different scales for the spectrogram. Very hard to compare these measurements! Try to rescale, show the scales and ALWAYS use the same scales when comparing graphs - and everything get's clear and easy
OK, full images:Wow - what happens in the 6-10kHz area? That's nearly an octave completely missing?
We can't see the scale for the RT60 and you have different scales for the spectrogram. Very hard to compare these measurements! Try to rescale, show the scales and ALWAYS use the same scales when comparing graphs - and everything get's clear and easy
There is still a different scale for SPL on the left side so it looks bad on the 2nd picture - what it isn't.
Not sure why it has the peaks in the T60 response of ART, you would need to look closer to the calculated decay curves in REW. This is done by an algorithm and it's not always 100% correct and can be misinterpreted by the software. The waterfall doesn't show resonances there, so it doesn't fit the RT60 result here.
Also your main speakers measure pretty differently between these measurements ... always tricky to compare measurements done at different times.
Hi,Wow - what happens in the 6-10kHz area? That's nearly an octave completely missing?
We can't see the scale for the RT60 and you have different scales for the spectrogram. Very hard to compare these measurements! Try to rescale, show the scales and ALWAYS use the same scales when comparing graphs - and everything get's clear and easy
These images are from BACCH, measured in-ear, the optimal curve here is not flat, a bit similar to the headphones optimal curve.
Are you happy with the results?
I mean - there is a reason why your speakers should be flat cause your ear is doing these dips by itself and we (=our brain) are used to it and learned it's curve. Is there anything else going on in addition to the EQ?
When I would cut nearly an octave in that frequency area by >10dB in mastering ... I would really not be happy with the result
Is there a paper or some information what's the idea behind it?
As I understand it: a flat curve measured with a microphone in air will convert to very much non-flat when measured in ear. Because BACCH measurements are done with in-ear microphones, the optimal curve is not flat in area > 1KHz. Apparently, there is some ideal non-flat shape as measured in ear, and that is what BACCH is adjusting for, see the last "Optimal" image.Are you happy with the results?
I mean - there is a reason why your speakers should be flat cause your ear is doing these dips by itself and we (=our brain) are used to it and learned it's curve. Is there anything else going on in addition to the EQ?
When I would cut nearly an octave in that frequency area by >10dB in mastering ... I would really not be happy with the result
Is there a paper or some information what's the idea behind it?
But still, especially bass area and general slope, can be adjusted, e.g. using "Olive" curve, which is the same as Harman in Dirac Live, I believe.
Last edited:
Hobolicious
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 21
- Likes
- 23
For someone very new to the field of Dirac and its different products (Live, Bass Control and ART), how do these different products interact? When I did my calibration I only made modifications to Dirac ART before uploading this to the receiver, but does ART just build on top of both Live and Bass Control and for example the house curves I added to ART are in principle also added to parts of Live and Bass Control that ART uses?
It is obviously an assumption on my end that ART uses parts of Live and Bass Control based on the need to have these licenses as well when using ART (Bass Control when subwoofers are in play). As I said above I never went in and checked or modified anything directly in Live or Bass Control before uploading (ART) to the receiver, but did modifications within ART (like changing support groups and ranges, as well as adding house curves to the different speaker groups).
Also, what does LFE Reference actually mean in the drop down list under the subwoofer speaker group (for me Group 7)? Currently I have nothing selected in this drop down list, should I, and if so, what?
It is obviously an assumption on my end that ART uses parts of Live and Bass Control based on the need to have these licenses as well when using ART (Bass Control when subwoofers are in play). As I said above I never went in and checked or modified anything directly in Live or Bass Control before uploading (ART) to the receiver, but did modifications within ART (like changing support groups and ranges, as well as adding house curves to the different speaker groups).
Also, what does LFE Reference actually mean in the drop down list under the subwoofer speaker group (for me Group 7)? Currently I have nothing selected in this drop down list, should I, and if so, what?
Last edited:
My understanding is as follows:
Dirac Live does the basic phase/impulse alignment and applies frequency based target curves
Dirac Live provides a processing platform for bass tuning that can be used on its own, or via ART - if running ART then ART loads its filters into the platform provided by DLBC.
DLBC mostly handles bass management - ART handles any tuning that can be achieved via "support" whether additive or cancellation (just like noise cancelling headphones).
ART is limited to frequencies below 150Hz and above 20Hz - by default it High Pass Filters at 20Hz, but it has an option to disable that filter - however it does not processing below 20Hz ( so what you get in Infrasonics is pot luck)
Below 150Hz it is ART territory with DL providing target curve - above 150Hz it is DL alone.
Weakness / Flaw of ART is primarily the lack of Infrasonic support - for those seeking to tune/optimise below 20Hz - ART, at least in its current iteration, won't do it. - You may get nodes, boosting or depressing performance at unpredictable points in the infrasonics....
However, by all accounts, those who have tried ART rave about it, pretty consistently - perhaps ART will demonstrate to many that the infrasonics aren't all that important... (and maybe Dirac will come out with an update that extends it's processing down below 20Hz or up above 150Hz...)
This is probably the best explanation we have at this point. I am not into infrasonics as it really wrecks havoc in my multi-purpose room, but have seen some good and smooth graphs in the infrasonic area. Dirac themselves are saying that there could be a bump or a dip around 20hz transition frequency and I have seen such graphs as well. So it's pretty much the room and gear below that point.
While ART will not do any processing below 20hz, Dirac says it will follow the set curve even below 20hz. I hope that will be the the case once I get to ART as I have a nasty bump at 15 hz that if not eliminated by ART will be a significant problem. As last resort I have DSP on all subs to deal with this issue, but I would hope that for $950 one would have this problem solved at AVR/AVP level.
Similar threads
- Poll
