I have kind of posted this already in my MCLA thread but I wanted to devote a separate thread for additional discussion
The purpose of this post is merely to share my personal experience about using Dirac Live 3.3.0 for room correction versus correcting the room 'manually' using a different approach that I came up with
Below I will describe both methods and provide measurement results (at listening position)
I have a Murphy's Corner Line Array system (see above link for details) which is a 1-way speaker hence my findings might not apply to multi-way systems
Method 1:
Using Dirac Live 3.3.0 and Dirac Processor 1.5.12 on my PC
9-point measurement using a 'cube' with a diameter of 1 meter
Method 2:
1-point measurement with REW at 75dB for each channel
Exporting the measurement into a text file
In Excel subtracting the measured frequency response values from the value 75 so I get a series of points that will fit on a 75dB target curve
Upload the resulting text file into Voxengo CurveEQ per channel (make sure to turn Minimum Phase mode ON)
Note: CurveEQ also supports multichannel, not just stereo
This is actually performing the correction
Now the resolution of CurveEQ below 150-200Hz is low so I need to correct that further by performing these steps:
Measure the CurveEQ results again with REW
Using REW EQ with 1/12 smoothing with a target curve of 75dB I am creating correction filters below 150Hz per channel (only cutting!)
Note: I could also fill in the dips with EQ but in my room that will cause highly elevated ringing so I don't do that
Then I upload these into Izotope Ozone 9 Equalizer per channel
Now let's see the measurements!
I am applying a fully flat target curve in Dirac so I can compare apples to apples
First let's see how MCLA frequency curve looks like without any corrections (right channel)
Pretty disgusting, isn't it?
Now let's see the same channel corrected using Method 1 vs Method 2
Blue is Dirac, Orange is CurveEQ and Ozone EQ
We can see that Dirac is unable to raise the highs to an adequate level and its flatness overall the whole frequency range is somewhat questionable
Regarding the lows there is a 2dB dip btw 25-40Hz with Method 2 but then there is a dip with Dirac btw 55-70Hz so I would call that kind of a tie
Now let's see the distortion figures:
No significant difference
Let's see the phase:
No significant difference
Step response:
I would say that Method 2 has less ringing vs Dirac but only minor difference
Group Delay:
No big difference
Wavelet diagrams:
Dirac
There is a 2-3ms energy delay starting at 43Hz
Method 2
The energy delay starts only at 32Hz
So that's all, any comments/questions are welcome
A few notes:
- I have tried creating filters in REW for the full range and exporting it into a wav impulse file but that has always sounded 'dead' to me. Using the above method provides a much better, 'live' sound, at least to my taste
- I have tried many different EQs but always ended up with Ozone, for some reason I personally like how it 'sounds'
- It would be nice to increase the resolution of CurveEQ below 200Hz - I have had a conversation about that with its author and he said he was thinking about it
- As stated at the beginning, this whole thing might not apply to multi-way systems since Dirac can accurately time align the signal and optimize the step response curve while that is not part of my method and shall provide inferior results from that perspective compared to Dirac
Thank you
The purpose of this post is merely to share my personal experience about using Dirac Live 3.3.0 for room correction versus correcting the room 'manually' using a different approach that I came up with
Below I will describe both methods and provide measurement results (at listening position)
I have a Murphy's Corner Line Array system (see above link for details) which is a 1-way speaker hence my findings might not apply to multi-way systems
Method 1:
Using Dirac Live 3.3.0 and Dirac Processor 1.5.12 on my PC
9-point measurement using a 'cube' with a diameter of 1 meter
Method 2:
1-point measurement with REW at 75dB for each channel
Exporting the measurement into a text file
In Excel subtracting the measured frequency response values from the value 75 so I get a series of points that will fit on a 75dB target curve
Upload the resulting text file into Voxengo CurveEQ per channel (make sure to turn Minimum Phase mode ON)
Note: CurveEQ also supports multichannel, not just stereo
This is actually performing the correction
Now the resolution of CurveEQ below 150-200Hz is low so I need to correct that further by performing these steps:
Measure the CurveEQ results again with REW
Using REW EQ with 1/12 smoothing with a target curve of 75dB I am creating correction filters below 150Hz per channel (only cutting!)
Note: I could also fill in the dips with EQ but in my room that will cause highly elevated ringing so I don't do that
Then I upload these into Izotope Ozone 9 Equalizer per channel
Now let's see the measurements!
I am applying a fully flat target curve in Dirac so I can compare apples to apples
First let's see how MCLA frequency curve looks like without any corrections (right channel)
Pretty disgusting, isn't it?
Now let's see the same channel corrected using Method 1 vs Method 2
Blue is Dirac, Orange is CurveEQ and Ozone EQ
We can see that Dirac is unable to raise the highs to an adequate level and its flatness overall the whole frequency range is somewhat questionable
Regarding the lows there is a 2dB dip btw 25-40Hz with Method 2 but then there is a dip with Dirac btw 55-70Hz so I would call that kind of a tie
Now let's see the distortion figures:
No significant difference
Let's see the phase:
No significant difference
Step response:
I would say that Method 2 has less ringing vs Dirac but only minor difference
Group Delay:
No big difference
Wavelet diagrams:
Dirac
There is a 2-3ms energy delay starting at 43Hz
Method 2
The energy delay starts only at 32Hz
So that's all, any comments/questions are welcome
A few notes:
- I have tried creating filters in REW for the full range and exporting it into a wav impulse file but that has always sounded 'dead' to me. Using the above method provides a much better, 'live' sound, at least to my taste
- I have tried many different EQs but always ended up with Ozone, for some reason I personally like how it 'sounds'
- It would be nice to increase the resolution of CurveEQ below 200Hz - I have had a conversation about that with its author and he said he was thinking about it
- As stated at the beginning, this whole thing might not apply to multi-way systems since Dirac can accurately time align the signal and optimize the step response curve while that is not part of my method and shall provide inferior results from that perspective compared to Dirac
Thank you
Last edited: