How to use REW to measure Dirac ART sound improvement?

[Paul McNeil]

I'm using Dirac ART on my Marantz AV 10. I've posted before but now have 4 subwoofers (which probably does not matter). In my previous posts, it was suggested that I could measure, via REW, the difference Dirac ART made in sound by looking at the 'Delay' curves. I also see a difference, plus and minus Dirac, in the 'waterfall' curves. Please see the data below. Am I looking at the correct parameters? I ask because there is SO MUCH to adjust with Dirac ART! And no direction from Dirac...

 

[Keith_W]

Please see book 2 of "Taking and Interpreting measurements with REW" available here.

Re: how to set up Dirac. Someone wrote and posted a guide to Dirac ART setup a few hours before your post. Read this.

 

[Oddball]

We have so many ART threads, but seems most active is this one and you might get most of traction there so no need for separate threads.

Active Room Treatment (ART) by Dirac

Ah, okay thanks, you are correct - sorry if I came across as difficult. I see when looking at the filters you can see they are the same for sub 3 regardless: And REW confirms: EDIT - It's impressively effective: That respons can surely sound as "less bass then before" Congrats !!

www.audiosciencereview.com

I think your decay looks pretty good and in line with what one could expect based on various graphs posted. You might want to sweep the subs to 115dB if you want to get a bit of surprise. Decay will start to misbehave big time.

Based on my experience, having 4 subs will make your ART calibration pretty simple. ART will just do well whatever parameters you set. So I would not obsess over it. I hope you are enjoying the sound which is most important.

As we people are, there is now a whole new discussion about dry vs wet ART sound. Dry being too decay free and wet being more "natural". Some of discussion is in the thread above, if you want more need to go to AVS forum and spend some time there. I don't really worry about that. I had too much rain for many years and really appreciate what ART has done.

 

[kawauso]

Please see book 2 of "Taking and Interpreting measurements with REW" available here.

Re: how to set up Dirac. Someone wrote and posted a guide to Dirac ART setup a few hours before your post. Read this.

Thanks, Keith! That was really kind of you — I’m happy you shared it

 

[Oddball]

Thanks, Keith! That was really kind of you — I’m happy you shared it

I could not agree more. Keith has abundance of knowledge that we can aspire to. For one, I need to go back to phase and group delay as that is what ignored for the longest time on a simple premise that I can't do much about it and ultimately don't really hear it.

 

[jpqpi]

I'm using Dirac ART on my Marantz AV 10. I've posted before but now have 4 subwoofers (which probably does not matter). In my previous posts, it was suggested that I could measure, via REW, the difference Dirac ART made in sound by looking at the 'Delay' curves. I also see a difference, plus and minus Dirac, in the 'waterfall' curves. Please see the data below. Am I looking at the correct parameters? I ask because there is SO MUCH to adjust with Dirac ART! And no direction from Dirac...

Can I make a suggestion, what about changing the waterfall time axis to 800ms or even 1 second to get the full decay picture. In your graphs (default I think) they only go to 300ms which forces us to guess what it looks like after that. The whole point of ART is they it limits bass frequencies hanging on for ages bouncing around the room. This "echo" can last up to a second in bad rooms so we should see that if you extend the time access.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Hey jpqpi, now that's what I'm looking for, as I said, how to the measure Dirac improvement in bass response that I hear. I'll work on supplying data though it is Christmas for me, so may be a few day. What I can say for sure is that Dirac ART takes bass to a level I have never heard before in my room with my gear, not to mention at any audio show or showroom..

 

[jpqpi]

Hey jpqpi, now that's what I'm looking for, as I said, how to the measure Dirac improvement in bass response that I hear. I'll work on supplying data though it is Christmas for me, so may be a few day. What I can say for sure is that Dirac ART takes bass to a level I have never heard before in my room with my gear, not to mention at any audio show or showroom..

Hey Paul, that's great to hear... I've been waiting for this tech for over 10 years now and excited to see what it can do for my reburberant living room

 

[kawauso]

Hey jpqpi, now that's what I'm looking for, as I said, how to the measure Dirac improvement in bass response that I hear. I'll work on supplying data though it is Christmas for me, so may be a few day. What I can say for sure is that Dirac ART takes bass to a level I have never heard before in my room with my gear, not to mention at any audio show or showroom..

To evaluate how much ART has improved things, I think it’s useful to compare it with Dirac RC or BC by looking at how smooth the frequency response (FR) has become, as well as the decay characteristics.
Phase performance is already good with RC and BC, but ART provides even more consistent phase alignment across channels.
As for decay, the long-term decay time does not change much, but the level at which the sound pressure drops is much steeper.
Because sounds are masked once the sound pressure level falls, it ends up sounding as if the reverberation was never there to begin with.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...oom-treatment-art-by-dirac.40743/post-2448233

 

[Paul McNeil]

OK, jpqii, this was not so much of a problem. Please let me know what you think. I'm an amateur, but I think Dirac ART makes a big difference. PS, I have a HUGE room.

 

[Paul McNeil]

To evaluate how much ART has improved things, I think it’s useful to compare it with Dirac RC or BC by looking at how smooth the frequency response (FR) has become, as well as the decay characteristics.
Phase performance is already good with RC and BC, but ART provides even more consistent phase alignment across channels.
As for decay, the long-term decay time does not change much, but the level at which the sound pressure drops is much steeper.
Because sounds are masked once the sound pressure level falls, it ends up sounding as if the reverberation was never there to begin with.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...oom-treatment-art-by-dirac.40743/post-2448233

Ok, I don't know what Dirac RC or BC is...let me know.

 

[Paul McNeil]

To evaluate how much ART has improved things, I think it’s useful to compare it with Dirac RC or BC by looking at how smooth the frequency response (FR) has become, as well as the decay characteristics.
Phase performance is already good with RC and BC, but ART provides even more consistent phase alignment across channels.
As for decay, the long-term decay time does not change much, but the level at which the sound pressure drops is much steeper.
Because sounds are masked once the sound pressure level falls, it ends up sounding as if the reverberation was never there to begin with.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...oom-treatment-art-by-dirac.40743/post-2448233

Just let me know how to measure it bro!

Can I make a suggestion, what about changing the waterfall time axis to 800ms or even 1 second to get the full decay picture. In your graphs (default I think) they only go to 300ms which forces us to guess what it looks like after that. The whole point of ART is they it limits bass frequencies hanging on for ages bouncing around the room. This "echo" can last up to a second in bad rooms so we should see that if you extend the time access.

Plese see my data above...

 

[Philbo King]

I'd suspect decay to be mostly dependent on room acoustics.

 

[kawauso]

Just let me know how to measure it bro!

Plese see my data above...

RC = Room Correction, BC = Bass Control.
If you directly compare Dirac off with ART, the differences in frequency response (FR) and sound pressure level (SPL)
are so large that it becomes unclear what is actually being evaluated.
If the goal were simply to correct the FR, that could be done with other EQs as well.
Waterfall graphs are difficult to read and therefore not very useful.

 

[jpqpi]

OK, jpqii, this was not so much of a problem. Please let me know what you think. I'm an amateur, but I think Dirac ART makes a big difference. PS, I have a HUGE room.

Hmm, there are 3 dimensions to the waterfall graph. Frequency is one, left to right, time is another front to back (which @Paul McNeil still seems to top out at 300ms, rew allows you to adjust this afaik) and SPL is the last(which should show us how quickly the SPL drops off as well as the total time reverb hangs around for at each frequency). This is how I would would measure ART's improvements over DLBC.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Hmm, there are 3 dimensions to the waterfall graph. Frequency is one, left to right, time is another front to back (which @Paul McNeil still seems to top out at 300ms, rew allows you to adjust this afaik) and SPL is the last(which should show us how quickly the SPL drops off as well as the total time reverb hangs around for at each frequency). This is how I would would measure ART's improvements over DLBC.

Sorry will try again, old man!

 

[Paul McNeil]

PS I did 'try' to set it to 1000 ms...I am so sorry.

 

[jpqpi]

Sorry will try again, old man!

Old man where you based anyway McNeil? It may require rerunning a sweep after setting max decay at 1000ms

 

[Paul McNeil]

I am a retired scientist, cell biology, in Poland with Polish wife, don't try it with me...

 

[jpqpi]

I am a retired scientist, cell biology, in Poland with Polish wife, don't try it with me...

Thought maybe with a name like McNeil you might be based in Ireland is all