• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Dirac Live Bass Management?

Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
It feels like it is urgent to wait before buying anything with Dirac right now as it might become obsolete soon (MiniDSP for sure, NAD maybe as well).
Edit: That could explain why those companies are reluctant to communicate.
Quite the opposite. More hardware brands are moving to Dirac. Onkyo and Pioneer are the latest. Not sure why you think miniDSP would drop it as it seems to have been a big success for them across multiple products. NAD are just being complacent (see recent game of chicken over Roon certification for M10 and C658) but I’m guessing we will see Dirac Live Bass Control feature eventually. I don’t see miniDSP or NAD giving up on Dirac Live anytime soon. Unless Audyssey has something new and exciting about to be released soon, I imagine they will wither on the vine and die as Dirac grabs more market share.

https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/b...licensing-agreement-with-dirac-research.7478/
 

Soundstage

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
152
Likes
93
Quite the opposite. More hardware brands are moving to Dirac. Onkyo and Pioneer are the latest. Not sure why you think miniDSP would drop it as it seems to have been a big success for them across multiple products. NAD are just being complacent (see recent game of chicken over Roon certification for M10 and C658) but I’m guessing we will see Dirac Live Bass Control feature eventually. I don’t see miniDSP or NAD giving up on Dirac Live anytime soon. Unless Audyssey has something new and exciting about to be released soon, I imagine they will wither on the vine and die as Dirac grabs more market share.

https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/b...licensing-agreement-with-dirac-research.7478/
There is a misunderstanding. I am not saying companies are giving up on Dirac Live. Just that the current hardware might no compatible with the new generation of Dirac based DSP and therefore buying now is risky.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
There is a misunderstanding. I am not saying companies are giving up on Dirac Live. Just that the current hardware might no compatible with the new generation of Dirac based DSP and therefore buying now is risky.
What is this new generation of Dirac you’re speaking of? Most of the Dirac magic is done via the cloud. Measurements and filters are pretty easy to implement on the hardware side locally.
 

Soundstage

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
152
Likes
93
What is this new generation of Dirac you’re speaking of? Most of the Dirac magic is done via the cloud. Measurements and filters are pretty easy to implement on the hardware side locally.
If you look at MiniDSP SHD studio, they don’t plan to release Bass Control, and I don’t think it can actually manage 4 channels as needed (so this is not related cloud computing).
 

Gedeon

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
191
Likes
175
What is this new generation of Dirac you’re speaking of? Most of the Dirac magic is done via the cloud. Measurements and filters are pretty easy to implement on the hardware side locally.
What do you mean about "the cloud" ? I just don't understand that statement.

Does the Dirac kit send info to Dirac servers and filters are calculated in a remote servers and sent back to client/customer?
 

TimoJ

Active Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
150
Likes
108
Does the Dirac kit send info to Dirac servers and filters are calculated in a remote servers and sent back to client/customer?
Dirac Live Bass Control does something like that. Regular Dirac doesn't, it just checks activation.
 

phoenixdogfan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
756
Likes
659
What do you mean about "the cloud" ? I just don't understand that statement.

Does the Dirac kit send info to Dirac servers and filters are calculated in a remote servers and sent back to client/customer?
No. All done on your machine. You need the internet connection b/c Dirac is checking the validity of your license, nothing more. It's a copyright protection mechanism.
 

devteam

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
9
Likes
42
If you look at MiniDSP SHD studio, they don’t plan to release Bass Control, and I don’t think it can actually manage 4 channels as needed (so this is not related cloud computing).
@Soundstage, I've now seen you in quite few post on ASR making that statement... That's an interesting statement.. Maybe you know better than our team who's coding the DSP.. :)

May I inquire what makes you think of the above? DLBC is a DSP implementation. Got literally "nothing" to do with the Sharc DSP we use (plenty of space left for the implementation). We've been coding Dirac back from 2012 when we were one of the first implementer in Dirac list. We did our first sharc implementation, never been using ready made libs.. I can assure you that it's got nothing to do with hardware.. It's a simple software upgrade and we've actually never stated that we'd "never implement it" as you implied on few posts by now.. :-( We simply stick to our company's policy to only talk of something when it's ready to ship.. Prevents vaporware and potential delays.. that's all. :)

Hoping this clarifies. Feel free to start a support ticket with our team if you have questions (Support.minidsp.com)

DevTeam
 

TimoJ

Active Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
150
Likes
108
@Soundstage, I've now seen you in quite few post on ASR making that statement... That's an interesting statement.. Maybe you know better than our team who's coding the DSP.. :)

May I inquire what makes you think of the above? DLBC is a DSP implementation. Got literally "nothing" to do with the Sharc DSP we use (plenty of space left for the implementation). We've been coding Dirac back from 2012 when we were one of the first implementer in Dirac list. We did our first sharc implementation, never been using ready made libs.. I can assure you that it's got nothing to do with hardware.. It's a simple software upgrade and we've actually never stated that we'd "never implement it" as you implied on few posts by now.. :-( We simply stick to our company's policy to only talk of something when it's ready to ship.. Prevents vaporware and potential delays.. that's all. :)

Hoping this clarifies. Feel free to start a support ticket with our team if you have questions (Support.minidsp.com)

DevTeam
What about DDRC-88A, have you said you would never implement DLBC to that model?
 

devteam

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
9
Likes
42
What about DDRC-88A, have you said you would never implement DLBC to that model?
Same as above, I can't see why we'd ever make such statement...:confused: especially knowing it's our friends @ Dirac, we keep working on products behind the scenes.. miniDSP has quite few Dirac platforms by now.. So we just rotate engineering efforts, that's all.. :)

So the short answer is "Never say Never"... :)
 

Vasr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
935
Likes
1,088
Same as above, I can't see why we'd ever make such statement...:confused: especially knowing it's our friends @ Dirac, we keep working on products behind the scenes.. miniDSP has quite few Dirac platforms by now.. So we just rotate engineering efforts, that's all.. :)

So the short answer is "Never say Never"... :)
Fair enough. On the other hand, if the company has made a (business/technical) decision to not provide a DLBC update to any of the current Dirac implementations or a unit currently being sold isn't able to support DLBC for whatever reason (not saying this is the case), it would be considered ethical to publish that information in the description of the unit.

If people should go by the above maxim you say that unless you have said otherwise, it may happen, they would be buying a unit with a false expectation if you had already decided not to internally.
 

devteam

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
9
Likes
42
Fair enough. On the other hand, if the company has made a (business/technical) decision to not provide a DLBC update to any of the current Dirac implementations or a unit currently being sold isn't able to support DLBC for whatever reason (not saying this is the case), it would be considered ethical to publish that information in the description of the unit.

If people should go by the above maxim you say that unless you have said otherwise, it may happen, they would be buying a unit with a false expectation if you had already decided not to internally.
mmmh, maybe my choice of words here but to the point, we don't have a Maxim to say that we'd do "Everything". :) I was just having an issue with the very categoric statement that was made about DLBC + miniDSP = never.. Almost sounding like it was an official statement we made and that wasn't the case. That's all.. :)

Why not go to the good old days when a product does what it can and is advertised as such, no marketing gimics.. Then get upgraded over time as we do for all our products... (e.g. 2x4HD getting Dirac, all our customers getting Dirac 3.x for free.. ).

I don't know if our way of keeping future feature under wrap is that unique though.. I don't think Apple tells you you're going to get this feature and this feature when you buy a macbook.. When we can do something, we state it. When we can't, we state it as well up until we update the product.. that simple. :) This is a firmware update, it's got nothing to do with the hardware chipset. That's the point I was trying to make.

Anyway, not trying to derail this great thread.. DLBC rocks! :)

devteam
 

devteam

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
9
Likes
42
@devteam

My opinion was based on the fact that the SHD has two channels, and on this statement from your own forum where you said it would collide with the code.

https://www.minidsp.com/forum/software-support/17143-dirac-live-bass-control#49450

Happy to be wrong and thanks for clarifying.
SHD = 2 x IN, 4 x OUT I/O DSP structure but you can do whatever you want when it comes to DSP. It's currently using stereo dirac live (instead of 4 x Dirac live banks) as we indeed proved over and over that it's better for Dirac to perform room correction on the "overall" system. i.e. Main + Sub. This way the potential crossover mismanagement you might have, dips at crossover points, level issues are all dealt with one easy to use "overall target curve".

DLBC = Bass management, a process to reroute the bass and automatically calculate the crossover points + ease tuning of multiple subs. A new feature of "Dirac 3.x" released about 6months ago and that didn't exist when SHD was released 2years ago. Will most likely require to remove the flexibility we provide inside the SHD plugin (duplicated)

DDRC-88BM (With Bass management) = If you run your own manual BM tuning (as currently done) AND run Dirac DLBC, it is indeed colliding. That's still a correct statement. You can't have both system tackling the same settings. If DLBC were to be enabled, it would need to disable the manual mode.

Hoping this clarifies.
 

Vasr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
935
Likes
1,088
Why not go to the good old days when a product does what it can and is advertised as such, no marketing gimics.. Then get upgraded over time as we do for all our products... (e.g. 2x4HD getting Dirac, all our customers getting Dirac 3.x for free.. ).
The difference is that Dirac prices the DLBC as a separate item, not an upgrade to Dirac Live (unlike the DIrac 1,2,3,...). And not cheap change either.

If you want to provide DLBC as a free upgrade to all of your Dirac Live units, then I applaud you. Unless you advertised DLBC as available (now or in the future), I suspect that a free upgrade is not going to happen.

So there are two different issues - one whether DLBC would be able to run on an unit which you say is not an issue because the DSP is powerful enough, two a business decision of if and how to charge for DLBC. A $500 add-on for a $800 device may not make it worthwhile to offer it as a possibility even if technically feasible.

My take-away from all of this is to assume (like the good old days) that nothing else is going to be available (other than a firmware/version update) on a device other than what it is sold as.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
Fair enough. On the other hand, if the company has made a (business/technical) decision to not provide a DLBC update to any of the current Dirac implementations or a unit currently being sold isn't able to support DLBC for whatever reason (not saying this is the case), it would be considered ethical to publish that information in the description of the unit.
I’ve never seen a consumer electronics product marketed with reference to its limitations, as that list is theoretically infinite. Rather, it’s always marketed with regards to its capabilities. DLBC is a an optional feature of Dirac Live. No one has ever said that all hardware with current Dirac Live capability will also be capable of DLBC. We are optimistic, but until it actually happens, it’s just a wish.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
If you want to provide DLBC as a free upgrade to all of your Dirac Live units, then I applaud you... a business decision of if and how to charge for DLBC. A $500 add-on for a $800 device may not make it worthwhile to offer it as a possibility even if technically feasible.
Of course DLBC would be an additional cost option on miniDSP products if/when it becomes available. Someone has to pay the licensing fee so that Dirac gets paid for their intellectual property. So far it’s only included “for free” on select high-end hardware that cost many, many thousands of dollars where those manufacturers can more easily absorb such costs rather than making it a la carte.

I don’t buy your argument that miniDSP is unlikely to offer the option because you think people won’t pay for the DLBC license on a $500 or $1000 hardware product. I think whomever has a use case for it will strongly consider it and some percentage will take the leap. I’ve got 2 subs in my system so am definitely going to pay for DLBC if/when it’s available to me. I’ve seen reports that perhaps only ~40% of home theater owners with room correction DSP available actually make use of it. So today it’s still somewhat niche. But eventually it will gain more acceptance until it is ubiquitous.
 

Vasr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
935
Likes
1,088
I’ve never seen a consumer electronics product marketed with reference to its limitations, as that list is theoretically infinite. Rather, it’s always marketed with regards to its capabilities. DLBC is a an optional feature of Dirac Live. No one has ever said that all hardware with current Dirac Live capability will also be capable of DLBC. We are optimistic, but until it actually happens, it’s just a wish.
I don't disagree with this. But that was in response to a post that seemed to imply/overstate that it is indeed on the table (this was restated later). A vendor cannot have it both ways - imply that because they have done some free/paid upgrades earlier that there may be a possibility of a free/paid upgrade for another thing but at the same time hide any decision not to provide a specific upgrade to a device. That would prompt some consumers to buy with false expectations.

It will be like Apple implying that they have always provided free upgrades to the next version OS for a device so nothing is off the table for next OS version but having decided already that the device will not make the cut for the next OS upgrade. It is done but I don't find it ethical.
 

Vasr

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
935
Likes
1,088
I don’t buy your argument that miniDSP is unlikely to offer the option because you think people won’t pay for the DLBC license on a $500 or $1000 hardware product. I think whomever has a use case for it will strongly consider it and some percentage will take the leap.
You really have to look at it from a business point of view. It is not that nobody will pay for it. It requires (not insignificant) resources on their part to implement it (time and money) and support it. They have to get an ROI on it. If the high cost of the license creates too small a market for it, then that effort would be wasted and not provide the returns for the efforts which they could have used for something else that can provide returns (even counting for intangibles like good will, etc). They are not a charity.

This is why a $500 add-on on a $800-$1000 device can be a tougher business case than a $500 update on a $4000 device. The target audience and the ability would be different to justify it.
 

Soundstage

Active Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
152
Likes
93
You really have to look at it from a business point of view. It is not that nobody will pay for it. It requires (not insignificant) resources on their part to implement it (time and money) and support it. They have to get an ROI on it. If the high cost of the license creates too small a market for it, then that effort would be wasted and not provide the returns for the efforts which they could have used for something else that can provide returns (even counting for intangibles like good will, etc). They are not a charity.

This is why a $500 add-on on a $800-$1000 device can be a tougher business case than a $500 update on a $4000 device. The target audience and the ability would be different to justify it.
So far, MiniDSP is selling products cheaper than USD 1500 like the SHD power amp. If what you say is true, then they will have eventually to create a new line of high end products as opposed to DIY DSP on the other lines. But if MiniDSP can’t sell it, then it is also a problem for DIRAC.
 
Top Bottom