Does Dirac(or other software room correction) make acoustic treatments redundant?

[kolestonin]

I’ve been using Dirac room correction and in my experience it can transform a mediocre room (let’s say 3-4/10 on a subjective imaginary scale) into something sounding like an 8/10.

if Dirac can achieve this high level of sound quality (8/10) regardless of the room’s starting point, does that render traditional acoustic treatment like bass traps, diffusers, absorbers, or even basic furnishings like curtains and carpets essentially useless? For instance, could an empty room with Dirac sound just as good as a fully treated room with Dirac? Or do physical treatments still offer benefits that DSP can’t fully address, perhaps by easing the software’s workload or improving off-axis performance?

The empty room example might be extreme for emphasis, but I think it highlights my point.
Since I use Dirac and have no plans to treat my room, this is more of an audio enthusiast’s curiosity than a practical dilemma.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you tested treated vs. untreated setups with Dirac? Could measurements (e.g., frequency response or RT60) reveal differences?

 

[respice finem]

The answer to the title question will be no, for most rooms (maybe except very big rooms).
Decay time, early reflections, SBIR... A proper measurement will tell you what's needed.

 

[Curvature]

For the most part EQ and autoEQ like Dirac solve a lot of problems. The main area of concern is always 100-400Hz, and that can't be addressed without treatments. Treatment is expensive, somewhat tricky in the details, and impractical for low frequencies or, for many people, impractical in all cases because it clashes with the decor or there's no room.

I always suggest regular humans not treat and measure and apply EQ instead. For the more motivated, I suggest additionally only low frequency biased panels and active absorbers. For studios, some broadband absorbers are appropriate to ensure consistent reverb across the spectrum, but not too much.

 

[respice finem]

One can sometimes have both, kind of. One treated room + PEQ for serious listening, another room for casual listening (living room in my case). There is some living room treatment, but not obvious as such (thick white carpet on a white wall), and an "audio friendly" listening position away from walls.

 

[Oddball]

With enough resources, Dirac ART makes room treatments for low bass quite redundant. I just got ART and already enjoying great results only with shelf filters. Hope that further tweaks and custom curves will help even more. Fully untreated, multi-purpose and very irregular room. Initial measurements below.

Dirac ART is now running on beta FW for Denon Xx800H AVRs!

Could CEC from some connected HDMI device somehow cause this problem? As i have Pc and Bluray in and only Pc screen on output.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[dominikz]

I’ve been using Dirac room correction and in my experience it can transform a mediocre room (let’s say 3-4/10 on a subjective imaginary scale) into something sounding like an 8/10.

if Dirac can achieve this high level of sound quality (8/10) regardless of the room’s starting point, does that render traditional acoustic treatment like bass traps, diffusers, absorbers, or even basic furnishings like curtains and carpets essentially useless? For instance, could an empty room with Dirac sound just as good as a fully treated room with Dirac? Or do physical treatments still offer benefits that DSP can’t fully address, perhaps by easing the software’s workload or improving off-axis performance?

The empty room example might be extreme for emphasis, but I think it highlights my point.
Since I use Dirac and have no plans to treat my room, this is more of an audio enthusiast’s curiosity than a practical dilemma.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you tested treated vs. untreated setups with Dirac? Could measurements (e.g., frequency response or RT60) reveal differences?

Room correction EQ is IMHO a hugely important factor for sound quality, even in treated rooms (note that room treatments will rarely be very effective much below 100Hz).
However room correction cannot address all types of acoustical issues.

Very recently I summarized my view on this in a different forum:

Room correction EQ is a very effective way to address resonances/peaks in the response below the room transition frequency, but is NOT the right tool to solve:

• nulls in the response (you need to optimize listener/speaker/sub placement and sub crossover for this)
• to optimize low bass response for a very wide listening area (you need multiple subs for this)
• to optimize upper bass response (>80Hz) for a very wide listening area (you need physical room treatment or something like Dirac ART for this)
• for acoustical issues higher up in the spectrum (you need physical room treatment for this)
• or to fix loudspeaker responses full-range (you need to EQ based on anechoic data for this, or just get better speakers )

The post in question was not aimed at DL specifically, but IMHO it applies to it equally.

 

[DVDdoug]

Room treatment is more effective. If you have a pro studio or you want to build a "perfect" home listening environment, you'd start good speakers/monitors and room treatment and then make the final tweaks with EQ.

EQ/DSP can't (completely) fix a dip where standing waves cancel because it takes "infinite power" and "infinitely large" woofers to overcome cancelation. But you CAN knock-down a bump where a standing waves sum in-phase. The good news is the bumps (which can be fixed) tend to be more noticeable and annoying than the dips.

Bass traps reduce reflected waves, smoothing both the dips and bumps.

Or if you have a "live" room with lots of hard surfaces and reverb/reflections, that can't be fixed electronically.

have no plans to treat my room, this is more of an audio enthusiast’s curiosity than a practical dilemma.

You're not alone. Some people have some acoustic treatment but not many people have bass traps at home. They are usually bulky, eating-up a lot of square footage, although there are thin "membrane" bass traps. But even the thin traps have to cover a significant percentage of wall space and they are expensive. RealTraps makes membrane traps and they have photos of some installations on their home page The image with the big video screen is the living room of one of the Founders (Ethan Winer).

 

[Snarfie]

Using room treatment my DSP has to do (calculate) less. A thick Rug has already quite some combined result.

 

[Blueprint]

DIRAC ART and similar techniques do change the game somewhat, but acoustic treatment will never be redundant. ART can remove the need for absorption to work below 150hz, which is beneficial aesthetically and practically for choosing room treatments. I can’t imagine any scenario where ART can be used above the sub-bass region though, since any ‘compensation wave’ will draw attention to itself in terms of localisation, which would likely be a horrid experience. So acoustic treatment will endure.

 

[Oddball]

DIRAC ART and similar techniques do change the game somewhat, but acoustic treatment will never be redundant. ART can remove the need for absorption to work below 150hz, which is beneficial aesthetically and practically for choosing room treatments. I can’t imagine any scenario where ART can be used above the sub-bass region though, since any ‘compensation wave’ will draw attention to itself in terms of localisation, which would likely be a horrid experience. So acoustic treatment will endure.

ART works to 300hz, but apparently not that well, so that only up to 150hz support has been rolled out for mass implementation. I can imagine quite a few scenarios where advanced EQ will fix issues above that range. We have AI and quantum computers, but obviously we are in the niche that does not warrant much attention.

 

[Curvature]

ART works to 300hz, but apparently not that well, so that only up to 150hz support has been rolled out for mass implementation. I can imagine quite a few scenarios where advanced EQ will fix issues above that range. We have AI and quantum computers, but obviously we are in the niche that does not warrant much attention.

It works into the kHz range in cars because the positions of listeners are consistent and known. With headtracking, as with BACCH, it would work for the full spectrum. That's probably one of the futures of home theater for multiple listeners.

 

[Oddball]

It works into the kHz range in cars because the positions of listeners are consistent and known. With headtracking, as with BACCH, it would work for the full spectrum. That's probably one of the futures of home theater for multiple listeners.

Let's give it some time and sure there will be more to come. What we have is already amazing so not sure why not to acknowledge that.

 

[Digital_Thor]

If a room is reflective, then a room is reflective.
If a room 'rings' the room rings no matter what.
At higher frequencies we can make it better by having a controlled even dispersion that make the sound source minimally distorted to the original signal.... But it will not remove ringing.... Only damping will smooth out ringing.
But the sound from a speaker is controlled by the complete design of the speaker, and not something you can just force-feed the line-level signal and then expect the speaker to tag along.
Only reason we can fiddle with the low frequencies, is because of longer wavelengths and our typically 'small' rooms.
It'll smooth out the response, but ringing is still there, maybe just below our threshold of annoyance.
A lot of marketing and creativity is at play here, and mostly it's just a mixture of which compromises we can each live with or afford.
Bottom line, everything still matters, both room treatment and EQ - but your mileage may vary, which needs to be taken into consideration in each individual case.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

EQ is tries to solve the acoustic problem for the listening spot(s) , but does not solve the whole problem of the room.
Acoustic treatment can fix the whole room experience by implementing solutions where they are required, helping the acoustic in other than the listening spot.
This is easier for higher than 200hz. Below that frequency, where room modes are present, and acoustic treatment es difficult, EQ is easier.

 

[amirm]

For instance, could an empty room with Dirac sound just as good as a fully treated room with Dirac?

An empty room will be too live. While it may be good for big band/orchestral music, it will be too much for studio recordings. And for dialog comprehension. You want to have either acoustic products or enough furnishing to bring the reverberation time down to 0.5 seconds or so for a reasonably sized room. This is a problem that cannot be solved with EQ.

 

[respice finem]

I went from 0.9 to 0.3 seconds in my listening room, but with big absorbers and diffusers. Size matters

 

[Digital_Thor]

Take any room, sit down 2–4 people, have a conversation. If you need to strain yourself and find it annoying within seconds, the room needs treatment - KISS.
Speakers should always be pretty smooth and even throughout the frequency range and also at all axis'.
How wide the spread of the tweeter is, can be preferred wide, because your room is not that reflective or you like more upper frequency energy. You can also aim for a "darker" sound by having a narrowing spread in the tweeter, which also gives you fewer issues with reflections and sharper imaging - like KEF. Could also tell a story, that your hearing is showing its age or work/habits of your past, is creeping in - we all experience this more or less at some point.
Also, sensitivity and type of music can play some role.
Bass - both woofers and subwoofers, are mostly a matter of level and distribution. Hard to dampen and disperse - therefore a couple of subwoofers, EQ and maybe some auto-software to dial it in, is usually a good option.

 

[kawauso]

I sometimes listen with Dirac turned off at high volumes, because Dirac limits the available headroom.
So I don’t think acoustic treatment is completely unnecessary.
However, many people — myself included — probably feel that ART makes low-frequency treatment far less essential.
At higher listening levels, the fine details of sound quality become less noticeable anyway.

 

[Keith_W]

Some homework for you. Read about the Schroder frequency here: SynAudCon link. Make sure you understand it, because the different frequency zones require different strategies.

Modal zone: DSP and multiple subs > room treatment. Room treatment is large (velocity absorbers) or narrow band and difficult to tune (pressure absorbers) so it is impractical for long wavelengths.

Transition zone and above: room treatment > DSP. DSP can be used as a tone control, but it can not improve ringing. Toole points out that the RT60 target of 500ms can be achieved with normal room furnishings. Some bare rooms do not meet this target, so you might benefit from room treatment.

 

[ErVikingo]

if Dirac can achieve this high level of sound quality (8/10) regardless of the room’s starting point, does that render traditional acoustic treatment like bass traps, diffusers, absorbers, or even basic furnishings like curtains and carpets essentially useless?

IMHO No. DSP cuts off or boosts certain frequencies. Brightness and boominess can be minimized but at what cost? Dropping down lows to control boominess means I will miss certain frequencies (same with highs). With treatments I get very low lows from my speakers (<20hz without subwoofers) which are not boomy because I treated the room; problem solved without attenuating the offending frequency; I want to hear it but "only as recorded and only the first time".

Bacch is very interesting.