Dirac Reviews

[mr-audio]

Has anyone seen a quantitative list (e.g. a poll) of user ratings for Dirac? I ask because I am astonished at the difference between what I hear versus what is publicly tossed about by professional reviewers (pundits, magazines, audio stores etc.). Nearly all rave about Dirac (including from many that I trust).

I have tried Dirac in two completely different rooms, two amps and three sets of speakers. I have tried it in its limited and its full license version. I have yet to hear it sound any better and usually worse. My own experience is roughly:

• about 2/3 of the time it sounds worse...with less bass, less soundstage breadth
• about 1/3 of the time it has similar or slightly worse bass, with imaging that does 'centralize' the mid and high range, at the expense of a sense of instrument separation

I was beginning to doubt my own hearing (I am getting old that's true HA).

But just yesterday, I went with a friend to a high end audio store and listened to something completely different: A high end McIntosh versus a high end Prima Luna, both running thru speakers I know well. We both agreed 1) there were significant differences and 2) we both agreed at what they were. (by the way, we liked the primaluna a lot more, but that's a different topic.) Point being my hearing was absolutely able to discern (and agree with my friend on) the difference just between two relatively high end and similarly competitive amps.

Back to the topic. I also don't think it should take exhaustive fine tuning, different calibration curves, or god forbid an 'expert' hired to run this. If it's that 'tricky' then it feels more like a science/nerd experiment than a ubiquitous tool for improvement (as it seems to be publicized as).

So here is my suggested poll if you want to participate:

Rate YOUR own experience with Dirac from A to E, where

• A - outstanding/big improvement/difference
• B - good improvement/worth it, not game changing, may use sometimes
• C - no change or no significant advantage with/without Dirac on
• D - marginally worse than without Dirac, not preferred, don't use it
• E - significantly worse sounding, definitely prefer my system without it

My rating? D-

Mike

 

[Absolute]

My experience with all room correction systems is that the result depends on how you measure, what you let the software try to correct and how terrible the starting point is.

I don't know how many hundred hours worth of measuring, fiddling and adjusting I've done with manual EQ, automatic EQ, Dirac and Audiolense, but it's at least 500+. I've never unanimously preferred room correction software results over manual EQ.

 

[holdingpants01]

A/B - I like it and use it every day, but I found that I prefer doing just one measurement right in the middle and limiting the correction to 1kHz or so

 

[voodooless]

Point being my hearing was absolutely able to discern (and agree with my friend on) the difference just between two relatively high end and similarly competitive amps.

No you didn’t. Without any kind of controls, these tests are just nice anecdotes. Then again, it isn’t totally strange given the distortion profile and poor output impedance of the PrimaLuma. Don’t know about the Mac, if it’s not a tube amp it will probably perform very well.

Besides, being able to discern two amps doesn’t mean that you find a neutral sounding speaker pleasant sounding.

Dirac is very configurable. It can easily be that you’ll need to find the right target curve for your taste and environment.

 

[GXAlan]

Dirac Live Full Range
B+ or A-

I have both the Arcam SR250 and HTP-1

For the SR250, it is a B+ because I usually preferred it on, but you do sacrifice a bit center focus imaging if you try to correct full range. To the transition frequency it is good.

For the HTP-1, it is replacing the external EQ for my Bose 901 so it of course is an A. Even with the 901, you get a better center focus with Dirac off and simple PEQ when running in stereo.

Dirac Live Full Bandwidth with MultiSub Bass Control

C. No significant improvement with DLBC over plain DLBC.

I tried my standard setup of front and rear sub, and front and rear sub with dual 12” woofers from a full range speaker as sub 3 (JBL S/2600).

DLBC was tested both at 70Hz and 35 Hz crossovers. Neither make a big difference of simply running speakers full range and having the sub just focus on LFE.

 

[RayDunzl]

I vaguely remember trying a Dirac Trial. It was July of 2015.

It had to run on the PC, which I found inconvenient.

Maybe I didn't give it a proper chance before giving up on it,

I found the concept of DSP interesting and wound up with a MiniDSP OpenDRC-DI with AcourateDRC in the signal chain so everthing that plays gets "adjusted".

I would vote "It did something, but I don't remember what, exactly, and the measurements I took were goofy looking, so I abandoned it, because it required multiple measurements and I just wasn't enthused" but that wasn't one of the choices listed above, so I'll abstain.

 

[Ricwa]

Dirac Live full range with DLBC, 2 channel, 4 subs

A — Outstanding

 

[Flexecutioner]

A/B - I like it and use it every day, but I found that I prefer doing just one measurement right in the middle and limiting the correction to 1kHz or so

I recently tried this method limited to ~500 Hz and have been liking the results so far. Some additional measurements using the moving mic method in REW are useful for checking that Dirac isn't overcompensating and causing other issues. I've also been experimenting with the option to remove delays from the generated filters with some good results.

 

[RickyC34]

Great topic for conversation. I expect a vast range of experiences from trash to can't live without it. The reason for the wide range of responses is due to 1) Dirac's biggest misconception that it's an easy button with a minimal learning curve. (I'm guilty of this) and 2) user error. (guilty) This in some cases is not really the user's fault. I have seen countless people struggle with Dirac (some give up) simply because the current software version doesn't jive with their hardware and they needed to switch versions. The user shouldn't have to dig for this. Why not a pop-up "we see you're using xxx AVR we recommend xxx software with your device." or why even make it possible for people with those devices to update to a software version that's not compatible with their device in the 1st place.

The biggest "gripe" I've seen with Dirac is "it kills my bass".
This is especially true with Nad and Onkyo users. Like the above started, they are probably on the wrong software. I've also seen workarounds in the volume calibration section specifically for some AVR's. Again, not user friendly but the info is out there.

This complaint about bass in most cases where subs are capable and positioned correctly happens because 1) the user doesn't fully grasp the target curve section of Dirac. or 2) The user did not perform the volume calibration correctly. (guilty) An example of #2 would be the user has their subwoofers trim post-Dirac at the maximum allowed for their application. Some are -10 others I think are -15. Example of a 2.2 system that incorrect FL +1 , FR 0, Sub 1 -10, Sub 2 -10. You need to adjust the gain on the back of the subs and run the calibration again. Audy always left me wanting more in the bass department as well, I've always adjusted the subs +4 db or so post eq.

These two guides along with the assistance I've received here and AVS were essential in getting me up and running.
All credit to the guides provided by the guys over at AVS
Speaker level calibration guide
Dirac Guide with target curves

Dirac issue 2 imaging. I had the same experience, maybe not quite to the extreme as others but I preferred the imaging in my 2.3 system better with Dirac off. Happy to say that is not even close to my feelings today. The solution? Adjusting how many measurements I was taking, the measurement layout per Dirac, and the distance apart from each measurement.
Previously I always measured the 13 pt measurement, I think it may be called focused. but I switched to the tightly focused 9pt measurement and only moved the mic max 18 inches away from the 1st measurement. I could not believe the difference this made in my system in my room. The image was the best I've heard in my system and am now very happy. The trade-off to this would be a more narrow "sweet spot". I'm a selfish listener and others could care less so I'm good with this. I now run the 9pt layout but only measure 6 of the 9 pts. If someone's imaging issue still persists it is most likely a timing issue. I would check delays, the impulse screen in Dirac, and check rew with a timing reference. I'm not the most knowledgeable with this but feel it should get people headed in the right direction.

My Dirac experience has been a journey but an overall positive one. In my very challenging room, I'm very happy with the results from Dirac. I really enjoy the customization the target curves provide and the numerous presets you can save. I would say no matter how "good" Dirac gets for a lot of users Audy is going to be a better choice with a much more pleasant user experience with less margin for error.

A) for A this wasn't as easy as I had thought but is now outstanding. : )

 

[vicenzo_del_paris]

For me, A+ !
- Dirac full range with minidsp Flex
- Stereo setup (2 floorstanders + 2 subs)

Combinations of amplifiers, rooms, speakers have changed over years but Dirac always did and still does improve sound quality.

For last few years I did tons of measurements and also compared limited correction (<500hz) with full range correction.
For me, full range does a much better job with my parameters.
It sorts most of my bass issues, improves frequency and impulse responses.

 

[slaweks]

In my case I also had problems that made the sound worse. First, at some stage, when I ran DiracLive on Mac, things got very bad, I speculate it is somethiong about microphone UMIK-1 not working well on Mac, when I switched to Windows, things got much better. The second issue was, I believe, measuring in locations close to the furniture, the real layout, the way I would normally sit, but presumably reflections got things messed up. When I started moving away sofa, say 1m, things got much better. I am also using thightly-focused position. I am missing authoritative guidlines from Dirac on the measurements.
When everything works: B

 

[ppataki]

I have been having imaging and delay issues with the most recent versions (3.6.X and now 3.7.X too)
Version 3.4.4 is supposed to be the latest 'fully stable' version but @Flak might be able to comment on this too
What I do to circumvent it is to perform and save more measurements (up to 5) and then I listen to them and choose the best which is the closest to when Dirac is off
This is definitely something that shall be fixed by Dirac ASAP

However there is another issue since version 3.6.X - the 'exclamation mark issue': when performing measurements, you see an exclamation mark instead of a checkmark in the measurement 'bubble'. This is bad since in that case Dirac only performs min phase correction instead of the full mixed phase correction (especially audible in the bass)
I simply could not measure my smaller system since everytime I try it I run into this issue. With my main system I get this issue in 50-60% of the cases (still really bad)
Again, this is another bug that should be fixed ASAP (note: in version 3.4.4 this issue is non-existing but the sound is waaay better with version 3.7.X in every other regard)

 

[Deleted member 48726]

A+
Single best transforming investment I've ever done in HiFi. Period.

I'm convinced that you accidently made some errors along your way with Dirac Live. Either IR to measurements or setting up your target curve to preference.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Has anyone seen a quantitative list (e.g. a poll) of user ratings for Dirac? I ask because I am astonished at the difference between what I hear versus what is publicly tossed about by professional reviewers (pundits, magazines, audio stores etc.). Nearly all rave about Dirac (including from many that I trust).

I have tried Dirac in two completely different rooms, two amps and three sets of speakers. I have tried it in its limited and its full license version. I have yet to hear it sound any better and usually worse. My own experience is roughly:

• about 2/3 of the time it sounds worse...with less bass, less soundstage breadth
• about 1/3 of the time it has similar or slightly worse bass, with imaging that does 'centralize' the mid and high range, at the expense of a sense of instrument separation

I was beginning to doubt my own hearing (I am getting old that's true HA).

But just yesterday, I went with a friend to a high end audio store and listened to something completely different: A high end McIntosh versus a high end Prima Luna, both running thru speakers I know well. We both agreed 1) there were significant differences and 2) we both agreed at what they were. (by the way, we liked the primaluna a lot more, but that's a different topic.) Point being my hearing was absolutely able to discern (and agree with my friend on) the difference just between two relatively high end and similarly competitive amps.

Back to the topic. I also don't think it should take exhaustive fine tuning, different calibration curves, or god forbid an 'expert' hired to run this. If it's that 'tricky' then it feels more like a science/nerd experiment than a ubiquitous tool for improvement (as it seems to be publicized as).

So here is my suggested poll if you want to participate:

Rate YOUR own experience with Dirac from A to E, where

• A - outstanding/big improvement/difference
• B - good improvement/worth it, not game changing, may use sometimes
• C - no change or no significant advantage with/without Dirac on
• D - marginally worse than without Dirac, not preferred, don't use it
• E - significantly worse sounding, definitely prefer my system without it

My rating? D-

Mike

It’s a useless poll as none of the impressions are based on any controlled tests. Just a collection of subjective anecdotes. I could add mine too without adding value whatsoever.

What needs to be done. Measure the room response before, and after Dirac automated correction eg with REW/UMIK1 and even better let eg Audyssey do the same. Then compare. That gives you some quantitative difference without the influence of personal preference and bias.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It’s a useless poll as none of the impressions are based on any controlled tests. Just a collection of subjective anecdotes. I could add mine too without adding value whatsoever.

What needs to be done. Measure the room response before, and after Dirac automated correction eg with REW/UMIK1 and even better let eg Audyssey do the same. Then compare. That gives you some quantitative difference without the influence of personal preference and bias.

And even then the response would differ according to taste anyway. My take is that if it's not a total sh** room and sh** speakers, it's a substantial value added and that some (most?) people are just used to their speakers as they are and like the fluctuating response. They have ended up with the speakers that they have because they liked the sound from them in the first place. Now this pesky computer comes and changes it.. Grr!

 

[HarmonicTHD]

And even then the response would differ according to taste anyway. My take is that if it's not a total sh** room and sh** speakers, it's a substantial value added and that some (most?) people are just used to their speakers as they are and like the fluctuating response. They have ended up with the speakers that they have because they liked the sound from them in the first place. Now this pesky computer comes and changes it.. Grr!

Who knows.

And arguing about preferences is pretty futile - some like Pepsi, some Coke and some hate both.

 

[GXAlan]

And even then the response would differ according to taste anyway. My take is that if it's not a total sh** room and sh** speakers, it's a substantial value added and that some (most?) people are just used to their speakers as they are and like the fluctuating response. They have ended up with the speakers that they have because they liked the sound from them in the first place. Now this pesky computer comes and changes it.. Grr!

The question is if you think Dirac should correct full range or just to the transition frequency. Good arguments for both and correcting full range, which has science against it but experience in favor of it, explains why it’s not fair to say that people who don’t like Dirac are just owners of bad speakers/bad room or used to coloration…

 

[Deleted member 48726]

The question is if you think Dirac should correct full range or just to the transition frequency. Good arguments for both and correcting full range, which has science against it but experience in favor of it, explains why it’s not fair to say that people who don’t like Dirac are just owners of bad speakers/bad room or used to coloration…

It has everything to do with the speakers and the room so which other variables are there? -Other than taste. I don't call peoples gear bad. They have bought it because they like it so I can see why they would be put off by Dirac if it changes a lot of what they liked in the first place. It can easily be that the corrected response is much better, objectively, but that they just don't like it that way.

Dirac should have a recommended burn-in time in their manual..

 

[HarmonicTHD]

It has everything to do with the speakers and the room so which other variables are there? -Other than taste. I don't call peoples gear bad. They have bought it because they like it so I can see why they would be put off by Dirac if it changes a lot of what they liked in the first place. It can easily be that the corrected response is much better, objectively, but that they just don't like it that way.

Dirac should have a recommended burn-in time in their manual..

Exactly. Because it might be objectively better but the individual still doesn’t like it. And that is fine. In that case just EQ until you like it.

 

[vicenzo_del_paris]

It’s a useless poll as none of the impressions are based on any controlled tests. Just a collection of subjective anecdotes. I could add mine too without adding value whatsoever.

What needs to be done. Measure the room response before, and after Dirac automated correction eg with REW/UMIK1 and even better let eg Audyssey do the same. Then compare. That gives you some quantitative difference without the influence of personal preference and bias.

I have hundreds of rew measurements without / with Dirac and every time in exact same context / parameters (same room, same mic placement, same speakers placement, same crossover) across various situations (speakers, rooms, crossovers).
I did not post any here (away from home) and only summarised the outcome, which is always very positive.