How to use REW to measure Dirac ART sound improvement?

[Paul McNeil]

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

Thanks, rerunning the sweep, you mean microphone setup and all that, well that will take time. But, there is a measured difference in those curves, no doubt.

 

[kawauso]

Thanks, rerunning the sweep, you mean microphone setup and all that, well that will take time. But, there is a measured difference in those curves, no doubt.

Based on the FR and decay results, ART appears to be working properly.
ART offers many adjustment options, but it already functions well even with the default settings.
Rather than worrying too much about fine details, simply enjoying ART is also a valid approach.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Am I completely addicted to DIRAC Live without quantitative evaluation on the Audiosciences channel! Look at those graphs above and telll me what more you need? Or maybe they are NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE measurement?

 

[jpqpi]

Thanks, rerunning the sweep, you mean microphone setup and all that, well that will take time. But, there is a measured difference in those curves, no doubt.

No panic Paul, in your own time but ya, might need a rerun of the sweep. Just trying to help with analysis is all

 

[phoenixdogfan]

A question: Is Dirac Art doing many of the things that a Cardoid speaker design does since it limits the amount of reflected sound in the 100-500 hz range? Isn't it in effect creating the same effect as narrowing the dispersion (as a cardioid does) at those frequences? As a result the listener hears more direct sound and less of the room in the bass-lower mids in much the same way as someone would with a Kii 3 or a D & D 8c or Mesanovic CDM 65, or am I not correct here? It might be interesting to see a Klippel measurement of a non-cardoid speaker to see how ART changes the overall horizontal and vertical contour plots.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Based on the FR and decay results, ART appears to be working properly.
ART offers many adjustment options, but it already functions well even with the default settings.
Rather than worrying too much about fine details, simply enjoying ART is also a valid approach.

Yep, I first used on my Myrantz AV10 Audessey and it was a bass disaster, so I paid big bucks for Dirac, and I'm glad I did. I can post, if I'm in energetic mood that the Audessey versus today's Dirac on the AV10. But I don't get paid for this and none of the BIG reviewers out there have, compared Audessey and Dirac ART, in room! Why not? Does no one out there like data?

 

[Paul McNeil]

Am I completely addicted to DIRAC Live without quantitative evaluation on the Audiosciences channel! Look at those graphs above and telll me what more you need? Or maybe they are NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE measurement?

Typo addicted to "Dirac ART'...and before that LIVE too..,

 

[kawauso]

A question: Is Dirac Art doing many of the things that a Cardoid speaker design does since it limits the amount of reflected sound in the 100-500 hz range? Isn't it in effect creating the same effect as narrowing the dispersion (as a cardioid does) at those frequences? As a result the listener hears more direct sound and less of the room in the bass-lower mids in much the same way as someone would with a Kii 3 or a D & D 8c or Mesanovic CDM 65, or am I not correct here? It might be interesting to see a Klippel measurement of a non-cardoid speaker to see how ART changes the overall horizontal and vertical contour plots.

Cardioid speakers and Dirac ART can sometimes appear to produce similar effects, but what they control is fundamentally different.

Cardioid speakers control the radiation pattern of the speaker itself through the physical characteristics of the drivers, enclosure design, and DSP processing. Their goal is to shape the direct sound by reducing rear radiation and diffraction. However, once sound is radiated into the room, they cannot change what happens afterward. Reflections, room modes, and decay characteristics are determined by the room and remain unaffected. In essence, cardioid designs only optimize the “entry and exit” of sound.

ART, on the other hand, is based on a fundamentally different concept.
ART uses MIMO control and treats the directional axis (channel) as the primary reference, constructing the waveform across the entire system, including multiple speakers and the room itself. This includes not only the main speakers, but also subwoofers, surrounding speakers, and even reflected energy returning from the room, all optimized so that the waveform coherently represents sound arriving from that specific direction.

That said, this does not mean that cardioid speaker control becomes unnecessary. Combining cardioid speakers with ART may result in a stronger sense of directness and potentially a more preferable sound. It should also be noted that ART’s effective control range is limited to low frequencies, roughly up to around 150–200 Hz.

 

[Paul McNeil]

No panic Paul, in your own time but ya, might need a rerun of the sweep. Just trying to help with analysis is all

No, I just want to say, that given the admirable dedication on this channel to quantitative measurement of audio quality, it is surprising to see that ADS has NOT measured the differences that I, an old amateur, have attempted. And, this is not minor shite. If DIRAC is superior to everything else out there, or whatever. ADS can measure it, better than me, for sure!

 

[kawauso]

No, I just want to say, that given the admirable dedication on this channel to quantitative measurement of audio quality, it is surprising to see that ADS has NOT measured the differences that I, an old amateur, have attempted. And, this is not minor shite. If DIRAC is superior to everything else out there, or whatever. ADS can measure it, better than me, for sure!

Please take a look at the Dirac ART thread.
There are many people there who are actively measuring and analyzing it.
Think for yourself about how it can be properly evaluated and verified.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Please take a look at the Dirac ART thread.
There are many people there who are actively measuring and analyzing it.
Think for yourself about how it can be properly evaluated and verified.

Link please.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Cardioid speakers and Dirac ART can sometimes appear to produce similar effects, but what they control is fundamentally different.

Cardioid speakers control the radiation pattern of the speaker itself through the physical characteristics of the drivers, enclosure design, and DSP processing. Their goal is to shape the direct sound by reducing rear radiation and diffraction. However, once sound is radiated into the room, they cannot change what happens afterward. Reflections, room modes, and decay characteristics are determined by the room and remain unaffected. In essence, cardioid designs only optimize the “entry and exit” of sound.

ART, on the other hand, is based on a fundamentally different concept.
ART uses MIMO control and treats the directional axis (channel) as the primary reference, constructing the waveform across the entire system, including multiple speakers and the room itself. This includes not only the main speakers, but also subwoofers, surrounding speakers, and even reflected energy returning from the room, all optimized so that the waveform coherently represents sound arriving from that specific direction.

That said, this does not mean that cardioid speaker control becomes unnecessary. Combining cardioid speakers with ART may result in a stronger sense of directness and potentially a more preferable sound. It should also be noted that ART’s effective control range is limited to low frequencies, roughly up to around 150–200 Hz.

I don't know what 'Cardioid' speakers are. Should I?

 

[Paul McNeil]

Well, now I can not post a new thread, on the topic of why ASR has not reviewed Aduy versus Dirac, etc., with high level quantitative data, which for so would be very helpful. And more tha I can provide.

 

[jpqpi]

@Paul McNeil Wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia

 

[Paul McNeil]

Yes, merry Christmas to all!

 

[Kaameelis]

I have maybe stupid question.
How can Dirac change rooms reverberation time and dampen room modes as seen in first post?
Is it injecting some sound to actively kill room modes?

 

[Paul McNeil]

I have maybe stupid question.
How can Dirac change rooms reverberation time and dampen room modes as seen in first post?
Is it injecting some sound to actively kill room modes?

Well, yes it is, injecting sound, in cancellation mode, from speakers arranged around the room. The objective, is to cancel the dreaded and dreadful 'room modes',dictated by the physics of the room geometry, which is not canceled by speaker or any other component cost. Does this help?

 

[Keith_W]

When you ask yourself a question like this, "what has ART done", you need to have some idea of what you are going to look for. According to its marketing claims, it improves the bass by smoothing the frequency response and reducing decay. You also need to know how to look for unwanted side effects. With ANY DSP, the price for any improvement in the frequency domain is paid in the time domain.

So to answer your question, you need to look at:

1. Has it improved the frequency response? I am pretty sure you know how to look to see if the frequency response.
2. Has decay been reduced? Take a look at book 2 of the REW eBook Section 4.8 (p60 onwards) on the waterfall and spectrogram.
3. What has happened in the time domain? Again, book 2, Section 4.4 (p44 onwards) on the impulse and step response.

I gave you the link to the eBook earlier in the thread. It's clear you didn't look at it, because if you did, you wouldn't need to ask these questions.

Note that you need specific settings for waterfall/spectrogram to best demonstrate the difference. Remember that any null in the freq response will "improve" the decay time on a waterfall or spectro, so you need to tick the "normalize to peak at each frequency" option.

 

[Paul McNeil]

When you ask yourself a question like this, "what has ART done", you need to have some idea of what you are going to look for. According to its marketing claims, it improves the bass by smoothing the frequency response and reducing decay. You also need to know how to look for unwanted side effects. With ANY DSP, the price for any improvement in the frequency domain is paid in the time domain.

So to answer your question, you need to look at:

1. Has it improved the frequency response? I am pretty sure you know how to look to see if the frequency response.
2. Has decay been reduced? Take a look at book 2 of the REW eBook Section 4.8 (p60 onwards) on the waterfall and spectrogram.
3. What has happened in the time domain? Again, book 2, Section 4.4 (p44 onwards) on the impulse and step response.

I gave you the link to the eBook earlier in the thread. It's clear you didn't look at it, because if you did, you wouldn't need to ask these questions.

Note that you need specific settings for waterfall/spectrogram to best demonstrate the difference. Remember that any null in the freq response will "improve" the decay time on a waterfall or spectro, so you need to tick the "normalize to peak at each frequency" option.

I asked a simple question, as you must know. And also as you must know, yes DIRAC ART improved the frequency response, as did DIRAC LIVE and even Audyssey. See my data above. OK, that in response to "1". Yes, decay has been reversed, see the data, again. That's "2". What? That's "3". Happy New Years!

 

[Paul McNeil]

So the question you did not answer directly, at all, with ambiguous references, is, how to measure the improvement that Dirac Art offers, via REW? Let me know. Tell us how, all powerful wizard!

When you ask yourself a question like this, "what has ART done", you need to have some idea of what you are going to look for. According to its marketing claims, it improves the bass by smoothing the frequency response and reducing decay. You also need to know how to look for unwanted side effects. With ANY DSP, the price for any improvement in the frequency domain is paid in the time domain.

So to answer your question, you need to look at:

1. Has it improved the frequency response? I am pretty sure you know how to look to see if the frequency response.
2. Has decay been reduced? Take a look at book 2 of the REW eBook Section 4.8 (p60 onwards) on the waterfall and spectrogram.
3. What has happened in the time domain? Again, book 2, Section 4.4 (p44 onwards) on the impulse and step response.

I gave you the link to the eBook earlier in the thread. It's clear you didn't look at it, because if you did, you wouldn't need to ask these questions.

Note that you need specific settings for waterfall/spectrogram to best demonstrate the difference. Remember that any null in the freq response will "improve" the decay time on a waterfall or spectro, so you need to tick the "normalize to peak at each frequency" option.