Dirac > Audyssey XT32 ... Sure, Always?

[markus]

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.

If he would have measured all single points that were used in the DL calibration and averaged them in REW then the results should be very close.

If he would use only one single position for DL calibration and wouldn't move the mic for remeasuring with REW the results should be exactly the same. If not then there's something wrong.

 

[XpanD]

For what it's worth... I switched from Dirac version 1 (running from a PC) to Audyssey XT32 in my previous setup (nearfield, small room) and found myself slightly preferring Audyssey. It seemed to do a better job at masking the issues (desk reflections, woo) of that particular setup. I'm still using XT32 in a much bigger space now, though that's largely down to the convenience of having a single receiver that I can just pipe all my devices through.

On a somewhat-related side note, I still like Audyssey's Dynamic EQ a lot. You can probably achieve something similar by using multiple Dirac profiles, but Audyssey's solution is just about set-and-forget and gives music listened to at lower levels a lot more body.


Early 2022 update, since I notice a lot of people have seen this post over time: I'm back on Dirac now, version 3 this time. Different space, different setup, everything (bass management, custom crossovers) now fully done on the PC end of things through EqualizerAPO/Element/Voicemeeter Banana. Sounds great! Dirac provides a bit more flexibility for advanced setups like this, but I don't think you can go wrong with either.

 

[Gedeon]

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

I don't have enough math background but XT32 seems to use a 512 resolution for sub and main channels, while XT uses 128 for subs and 16 for mains. XT32 doesn't sound harsh or artificial, or with artifacts, or things like that to me.

It seems clear that XT32 is fair superior to XT. I don't know if Dirac has a similar number/resolution to compare with and if it would have sense since different curves and mics will, obviously, lead to different results.

The question remains unsolved unless we could "mimic" curves and measuring conditions. Obviously same speakers/power amps/positions should be used for both.

 

[BDWoody]

On a somewhat-related side note, I still like Audyssey's Dynamic EQ a lot. You can probably achieve something similar by using multiple Dirac profiles, but Audyssey's solution is just about set-and-forget and gives music listened to at lower levels a lot more body.

I agree...i almost always have Dynamic EQ on, and it really does seem quite effective. Not sure how well other alternatives work...

 

[Snarfie]

Ik mentiond before if somebody did or could do An comparison test between room correction soft/hardware. I'm using Mathaudio room EQ with good results but their could be other solutions with better results. This would be very helphul. Have a look at Mathaudio room eq claims i realy don't have An Idea if other roomcorrection solutions have the same features or more or better. https://mathaudio.com/room-eq.htm

 

[SIY]

Does anyone know how the measurements at different positions in DL are weighted?

 

[Gedeon]

Does anyone know how the measurements at different positions in DL are weighted?

As far as I know, both Dirac and Audyssey try to address issues only found in the average of all measures. So both avoid to solve very specific peaks or dips which only are measured in one mic position, usually in mid-high frequencies.

 

[SIY]

As far as I know, both Dirac and Audyssey try to address issues only found in the average of all measures. So both avoid to solve very specific peaks or dips which only are measured in one mic position, usually in mid-high frequencies.

Yes, I understand the need for multiple mike positions, but my question is how they are weighted when the averaged response is used by the software.

 

[Gedeon]

It's probably a clustering algorithm with certain ranges to establish how common a peak/valley is among the measures, after applying some smooth. So filter will focus on addressing room modes and some speakers unbalances. The specific math behind isn't usually published. Obviously, the first position will have more weight to perform those calculations/decisions or used as reference.

 

[SIY]

It's probably a clustering algorithm with certain ranges to establish how common a peak/valley is among the measures, after applying some smooth. So filter will focus on addressing room modes and some speakers unbalances. The specific math behind isn't usually published. Obviously, the first position will have more weight to perform those calculations/decisions or used as reference.

That's very plausible, but it would be interesting to tease those differences out- that could be a major factor in the sound difference between different room correction packages.

 

[Gedeon]

I think that the main differences are the mic and the target curve. Sure there could be other ones in resolution or algorithm implementation but not as relevant as those. Sadly it's just a guess.

 

[SIY]

I think that the main differences are the mic and the target curve. Sure there could be other ones in resolution or algorithm implementation but not as relevant as those. Sadly it's just a guess.

In the packages I have (Sonarworks, Dirac, ARC), the target curve is adjustable, and mike calibration can be entered (in the case of units like the NAD M10, the mike cal curve is built-in). But to your point, the packages DO sound different, and I wish I had a better understanding of the variables. As you said, they're not publishing them, though Sonarworks has a lot of information in their patent; however if I had more time, I bet I could figure it out via measurement. If only I didn't have a day job... sigh.

 

[Gedeon]

Probably a set of measurements pre-post calibration with frequency response and rt info is the only reliable way to get useful info. Complicated but not too much if focused in just the subwoofer and one main channel.

 

[markus]

Does anyone know how the measurements at different positions in DL are weighted?

No spatial weighting in MultEQ or Dirac Live. First position determines delay though.

 

[Sancus]

On a somewhat-related side note, I still like Audyssey's Dynamic EQ a lot. You can probably achieve something similar by using multiple Dirac profiles, but Audyssey's solution is just about set-and-forget and gives music listened to at lower levels a lot more body.

It's kind of surprising to me that Dirac doesn't have an equivalent. I consider Dynamic EQ essential if you want to listen significantly below reference level. Having to manually switch curves every time you change the volume level seems rather annoying.

 

[BDWoody]

It's kind of surprising to me that Dirac doesn't have an equivalent. I consider Dynamic EQ essential if you want to listen significantly below reference level. Having to manually switch curves every time you change the volume level seems rather annoying.

I had thought about that if I was going to have the DDRC88d be my theater Dirac box...

I also noticed that the Monolith HTP-1 has some kind of dynamic loudness setting... It looked like about 8 or 9 different curves depending on volume. Doesn't look infinitely dynamic, but not sure if that would matter.

 

[Gedeon]

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.

I almost forgot this comment. Very interesting indeed that approach. On the other hand as, already has been said, DynamicEQ can really help to close the gap between the reference/flat and the Harman curve.

 

[Gedeon]

Just a question about Dirac ...

Does anyone know how much latency adds to the chain (more or less ..) ?

Does it support some kind of "low latency mode" or something like that ?

Thanks

 

[SIY]

Just a question about Dirac ...

Does anyone know how much latency adds to the chain (more or less ..) ?

Does it support some kind of "low latency mode" or something like that ?

About 3ms.

I'm unaware of low latency modes, but as it sits, it's probably low enough for most purposes.

 

[Gedeon]

About 3ms.

I'm unaware of low latency modes, but as it sits, it's probably low enough for most purposes.

I'm confused.
It seems too low to correct with FIR issues below 300hz (about 3ms between pulses/waves)… even with signal processing tricks...