Dirac > Audyssey XT32 ... Sure, Always?

[Gedeon]

I know, I know ...

Dirac is more updated and more customizable. The company is also developing a new add-on to implement bass management replacing the AVRs one.

Audyssey, on the other hand, due to its app have added a certain customization level.

But at the end of the day what really matter are the results.

I've read a dozen of comparisons out there. Dirac usually wins in usability, customization, but not always in results.

Some users go back to Audyssey some stick with their latest acquisition.

What do you think are the real technical advantages in the Dirac filter implementation over Audyssey if such advantage is really there.

As far as I know both resample, both use FIR,...

I'd like to get more info than just "this sound better"...

Thanks in advance !

 

[raistlin65]

I'm curious, too, now that XT32 has the customization app. Is there a significant perceived difference in what you can achieve with Dirac vs. XT32?

 

[SynthesisCinema]

I'm curious, too, now that XT32 has the customization app. Is there a significant perceived difference in what you can achieve with Dirac vs. XT32?

The list what it offers is certainly intresting.

• View the Audyssey MultEQ speaker detection results, to check and modify the configuration, and adjust for any unusual speaker set-ups
• View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems and see just what changes the system is making
• Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit individual tastes
• Adjust the overall EQ frequency roll-off for each channel pair
• Switch between two high-frequency roll-off target curves
• Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the sound brighter or smoother, perhaps making dialogue even clearer or taming those hard-edged soundtracks
• Gives the home theater enthusiast even greater control over the performance of their surround sound system
• Save calibration results for ‘piece of mind’, ready for instant re-loading should one ever need to reset their system

 

[SynthesisCinema]

I`m more intrested to see how the Arcam receivers measure cause some people are reporting they sound better even with the Dirac disabled than D&M, Yamaha etc. I want to see does the measured performance support the high asking price.

@amirm any news about getting Arcam receiver to be tested at your man cave?

 

[Dj7675]

My only real complaint with Audyssey XT32 is the default reference and flat curves. If you simply run Audyssey in a Next/Next "wizard" like function, it doesn't sound good. Audisssey's belief appears to be flat frequency response is the desired goal. This belief is flawed as people prefer a downward sloping curve. It basically sounds both bright and no base at the same time. If they would add a better downward sloping default curve (like a harmon type curve) it would make things much easier. My favorite instructions for getting Audyssey to produce good results is via this" https://docs.google.com/file/d/1YH_eNHRCxKFCwXMddi28kzXqnUwYHfrD/edit?filetype=msword

Al least I have had good results with it.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems and see just what changes the system is making.

Edit: View measurements before and predicted results after of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems and see just what changes the system is making.

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Edit: View measurements before and predicted results after of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems and see just what changes the system is making.

Is the Dirac Live any different or does one need always to measure with REW to compare what really happened with the correction? The graphs by Dirac Live certainly looks more detailed than on Audussey app.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is the Dirac Live any different or does one need always to measure with REW to compare what really happened with the correction? The graphs by Dirac Live certainly looks more detailed than on Audussey app.

Same.

 

[raindance]

My only real complaint with Audyssey XT32 is the default reference and flat curves. If you simply run Audyssey in a Next/Next "wizard" like function, it doesn't sound good. Audisssey's belief appears to be flat frequency response is the desired goal. This belief is flawed as people prefer a downward sloping curve. It basically sounds both bright and no base at the same time. If they would add a better downward sloping default curve (like a harmon type curve) it would make things much easier. My favorite instructions for getting Audyssey to produce good results is via this" https://docs.google.com/file/d/1YH_eNHRCxKFCwXMddi28kzXqnUwYHfrD/edit?filetype=msword
Al least I have had good results with it.

Audyssey does not aim for flat. It creates a downward slope. Audyssey flat is an optional setting. I've never heard Audyssey sound bass light.

 

[Dj7675]

Audyssey does not aim for flat. It creates a downward slope. Audyssey flat is an optional setting. I've never heard Audyssey sound bass light.

Take a look at screenshots from the app. No changes made to the curve. Both sub and mains are flat. Mains flat to around 5k with roll off starting there. It has some roll off but not a general downward tilt and no bass added (where it is needed).
If you boost subwoofer levels post Audyssey or if you engage DEQ it certainly helps bass levels. But my point was that in its default settings, even the reference curve is too flat. As it is, in my opinion the Audyssey app can produce good results with some work, but they sure could have made it a lot easier.

 

[raistlin65]

I think it has to do with the fact that Audyssey evolve dduring a time when most speakerphiles thought neutral measurements were optimal.

Heck, even 10 years ago, I remember all the battles on AVS where the serious audiophiles (the ones that take themselves too seriously) lambasted the subwoofer enthusiasts who recommended everybody ought to add at least 5db of bass on the subwoofer channel as default optimization.

What bothers me, though, is why Audyssey has not added a couple of other EQ options other than Flat and Reference? It just doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to do in the firmware. And it certainly would be a popular feature.

 

[Dj7675]

I think it has to do with the fact that Audyssey evolve dduring a time when most speakerphiles thought neutral measurements were optimal.

Heck, even 10 years ago, I remember all the battles on AVS where the serious audiophiles (the ones that take themselves too seriously) lambasted the subwoofer enthusiasts who recommended everybody ought to add at least 5db of bass on the subwoofer channel as default optimization.

What bothers me, though, is why Audyssey has not added a couple of other EQ options other than Flat and Reference? It just doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to do in the firmware. And it certainly would be a popular feature.

That is my point as well. Simply boosting sub levels helps but if you simply boost the sub level, the crossover slopes don’t match. Audyssey XT32 is in so many products a change like this sure would be nice. Audyssey has been around a long time and I’m sure that is why as well. But more choices would be nice.

 

[Gedeon]

I'd just like to understand if which way Dirac could be "superior" to Audyssey in the final results.

As far as I know if you have already "phase aligned" (forgive me if I'm expressed badly) setup due to care taken in distances and through manual subwoofer phase adjust (for those wtih a continuous potentiometer) from the listening point ... ¿ Which "corrections" can be performed by Dirac which can't be performed by Audyssey, if any ?

Mainly, that's the kind of info and debate I'm looking for trying to keep it as objective as possible.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Audyssey XT32 is horrible. It helps with room modes, but in the process screws up the timber of your system. In Harman blind listening test, it was described as "thin", "harsh", "bright" and preferred less than no room correction. This is consistent with my own listening. You can use the app to adjust the timber, but it's a pain in the ass to align properly.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/target-room-response-and-cinema-x-curve.10/

 

[Gedeon]

That description to certain degree, as you point, drives me to think that it is a target-curve-issue more than a serious difference between filter technics. I've never read about changing/messing up the speakers timber in such terms. The curve and the timber are different things, as far as I know.

 

[Sancus]

Audyssey XT32 is horrible. It helps with room modes, but in the process screws up the timber of your system. In Harman blind listening test, it was described as "thin", "harsh", "bright" and preferred less than no room correction. This is consistent with my own listening. You can use the app to adjust the timber, but it's a pain in the ass to align properly.

You're confusing Audyssey MultEQ with XT32. They're very different, and XT32 has never been in any Harman blind test.

https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...illing-my-ht-sound.114634/page-8#post-1336966

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

You're confusing Audyssey MultEQ with XT32. They're very different, and XT32 has never been in any Harman blind test.

https://forums.audioholics.com/foru...illing-my-ht-sound.114634/page-8#post-1336966

They use the same target curve. That is the main problem with it.

 

[Dj7675]

They use the same target curve. That is the main problem with it.

I would agree that if nothing else is done but the default flat and reference target curve, it sounds thin and harsh. If you use matching curves on the sub and other speakers, and boost the sub level the same amount as your target curve boost, it sounds and measures really well. It is just a shame that with the number of receivers/processors out there, that Audyssey doesn't simply make another option or two in the target curves. But with the app now at least it is possible to configure a system to sound good.

 

[crossrh]

I'm having an issue with Dirac 2.4 on my Monoprice HTP-1 inverting the phase of my two FI IB318 Infinite Baffle subs. They're installed one above the other in the wall, so the distance to the MLP is the same. The subs run off of one output channel on the HTP-1 via a Y-splitter to two channels on the Monolith 7X amp.

The problem is, I think, that my Zaph Audio SB12.3 mains and ZD3C center have their tweeters and mids polarity reversed, due to a 2nd order crossover on the woofers. I ran REW on the system after Dirac, and, sure enough, there was the huge notch in each speaker/sub FR at the crossover freq. I swapped the sub polarities, and it solved the problem.

I've run Dirac about five different times so far, and I don't always get the same results. One time it reversed the polarity of the Center channel and the Subs. Usually though, it just swaps the Subs. I've reached out to Dirac Support, and they requested my REW .mdat and the Dirac Live Projects. It's only been a day since I sent the data, but I haven't heard back yet. They did respond quickly to my first email, though.

And to echo what Kal Rubinson said, the "Corrected" graphs in Dirac are merely Predicted. They bear little resemblance to what I measure with REW after the Dirac cal. Wouldn't it be nice if REQ software checked its own results, and made further refinements with multiple iterations? Fortunately the HTP-1 has 16 bands of PEQ for each of the 16 channels. No, that's not time-consuming at all.

I'm currently running through some listening tests, comparing Dirac, PEQ, and clean, in the various combinations. The problem is, though, that I can't just enable/disable Dirac for a nice A/B comparison. Dirac trimmed down my LCR and Subs about -15dB, to match my surrounds and tops, so the levels are not even close. I'm going to have to finagle the user trims In the HTP-1 to match the Dirac trims, and try it that way. None of the combinations I've tried so far sounds bad, but I have some experimenting to do with the curtains in Dirac, to maybe limit the corrections to my room's transition freq, or 1kH, or some other value.

Rick

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And to echo what Kal Rubinson said, the "Corrected" graphs in Dirac are merely Predicted. They bear little resemblance to what I measure with REW after the Dirac cal. Wouldn't it be nice if REQ software checked its own results, and made further refinements with multiple iterations?

And let me take the opposite posture. How can you confirm with REW that the results of the Dirac cal was accurate? You cannot because, unless you have a multi-microphone array, you cannot reproduce the same measurement positions. In order to get some idea of the effectiveness of the RC, you should compare the before/after with REW only.