Marantz AV10 AV Processor Review

[Oddball]

@kawauso so well said that it would be difficult to add another relevant point.

 

[dlaloum]

Now with Dirac ART it seems that amps are not that important any more so AVR starts to make more sense.

Why ?

 

[Sal1950]

If you don't then I guess you are not really entitled to critizese as you have no idea what to compare to. If too expensive, well it is what it is.

If you've read my posts here, I've mentioned 3 or 4 times that after I get system included Audy optimized I will give ART the 30 day free trial.

You mentioned that people are being misled by marketing, but in the case of Dirac ART, its effects—such as consistent frequency response across multiple seats, reduced distortion, and optimized decay times—have been objectively observed and measured. These improvements are not limited to the main listening position, but are evident throughout the room.

I said,
"I think many have bought into the huge marketing hype."
Of which there's been a lot, that you can't deny.
I know many who danced to the MQA marketing, how it was going to re-write the book on recording and digital playback, only to find all was not as it seemed.
Now for me I only have a single listening position in this room of any relevance or import.
Time will tell and we shall see.

However, dismissing the entire system as "worthless" just because it lacks a loudness compensation feature is, frankly, a misguided and unreasonable criticism.

If your going to quote me please don't put words in my mouth.
"If it doesn't offers features I want, it's valueless to me."
That would be a improvement in the "across the board" performance I get in my room, with my system, and worthy of a near $1k investment.
And yes I do feel it's way past time any DRC offers a proper operating equal loudness contour eq.

 

[Oddball]

If you've read my posts here, I've mentioned 3 or 4 times that after I get system included Audy optimized I will give ART the 30 day free trial.


I said,
"I think many have bought into the huge marketing hype."
Of which there's been a lot, that you can't deny.
I know many who danced to the MQA marketing, how it was going to re-write the book on recording and digital playback, only to find all was not as it seemed.
Now for me I only have a single listening position in this room of any relevance or import.
Time will tell and we shall see.


If your going to quote me please don't put words in my mouth.
"If it doesn't offers features I want, it's valueless to me."
That would be a improvement in the "across the board" performance I get in my room, with my system, and worthy of a near $1k investment.
And yes I do feel it's way past time any DRC offers a proper operating equal loudness contour eq.

No need to get angry Sal. There are many posts - and true I might have not read all of yours as they deserve to be read.

We are looking forward to your comments from the trial and hope you switch to the ART camp. BTW ART had no marketing or barely, but the buzz it caught over the years on the forums was huge. And they ultimately delivered.

Also, pls don't be harsh to @kawauso. She is one of the few ladies we have around, knows a ton about audio and has 2 systems that can make both of us a bit envious.

 

[Oddball]

Why ?

Well you don't need to pump so much power into your speakers anymore. Audy with LFE+Main and LFE distribution was a stretch even for systems like mine. I was using LFE distribution at -6 and -8dB at best as otherwise would bring amps and speakers to mild distortion.

ART is doing a similar thing, and much more, but intelligently and with targeted response. No waste and no need to pump all that power all the time, to all the speakers.

 

[Newman]

You mentioned that people are being misled by marketing, but in the case of Dirac ART, its effects—such as consistent frequency response across multiple seats, reduced distortion, and optimized decay times—have been objectively observed and measured. These improvements are not limited to the main listening position, but are evident throughout the room.

That doesn't mean people are not being mislead by marketing. Nobody is saying DA has no measurable effect. For example, exotic loudspeakers using different technologies establish this myth, hype and legend where the differences are claimed to provide important advantages. And even where those advantages do exist and are non-zero ("objectively observed and measured", as you put it), their perceptual advantage is hugely overblown. It all comes back to perception, perceived importance, weighting of attributes.

@Sal1950 is right: the marketing claim is that DA is a whole 'nother level, attainable only with DA or vast volumes of absorbent room treatment, and people are buying that claim with practically zero science to back it up. It is a long way from having measurements to demonstrating perceptual importance in controlled listening conditions.

Of course, it may not be essential for everyone.

It is probably not essential for anyone, because there are other ways to achieve perpetually similar results. There are two criteria for a product to be essential as a product: the function it provides is essential, and that product is the only way to get that function. In the case of DA, neither criterion seems to be met.

However, dismissing the entire system as "worthless" just because it lacks a loudness compensation feature is, frankly, a misguided and unreasonable criticism.
Loudness correction is a convenience feature, whereas Dirac ART represents a fundamentally different innovation in spatial control.

You see, there is the overblown hype, in your very words.

@kawauso so well said that it would be difficult to add another relevant point.

I have added quite a few for you. You're welcome.

No need to get angry Sal. There are many posts - and true I might have not read all of yours as they deserve to be read.

We are looking forward to your comments from the trial and hope you switch to the ART camp.

Oh no... please don't tell me you are dividing us into 'product camps', or seeing the audio world that way. As soon as that happens, this forum is corrupted. I am firmly in the audio science, er, camp, and it is independent of products and product 'camps'. I hope you switch out of the DA 'camp' and return to the audio science camp, which can only be entered by people not in any product 'camp'.

BTW ART had no marketing or barely, but the buzz it caught over the years on the forums was huge. And they ultimately delivered.

They ultimately delivered?? Please link me to the level-matched, frequency-response-matched, controlled listening trials of the actual product DA, establishing its perceptual differentiation and preference, weighted for importance against other factors. I have asked a few times here on ASR, and as far as I'm aware there is none.

Methinks what you are describing as 'ultimately delivered' is numerous sighted listening reports, with all the baggage therein, and tabling of measurements that consistently show large frequency response changes that can be achieved via conventional EQ and would be dominating most perceptions (other than the sighted listening effect, which always vies for dominance). The first part speaks to the power of the sighted listening effect, and the second part speaks to things not exclusively DA. My standards for 'ultimately delivered' are nowhere near met by such.

[to Sal] Also, pls don't be harsh to @kawauso. She is one of the few ladies we have around, knows a ton about audio and has 2 systems that can make both of us a bit envious.

I am not sexist, so I treat the sexes equally and fairly. No special treatment for women from me, and I hope the women here appreciate that more than if we gave them what you are suggesting.

I am waiting for DA to be backed up by some rigour. It has been a long wait. Too many posts read like marketing blurb.

Be aware that when any maker brings a new product feature to market, its importance and effect is vastly exaggerated.

And if there is a measure that this product scores better on by a good margin, then the importance and audibility of that measure is vastly exaggerated.

Then the prone-to-overexcitement first-adopters get their hands on said product and huge levels of audible improvement are reported, driven by confirmation bias of course. A legend is born. Game Changer.

Soon, even the middle-adopters are wetting themselves in excitement at said product filtering down to their market segment. "I won't buy any product without this feature." "I can't wait for this feature to appear in my market segment."

Man, such easy money for the makers.

I prefer to be evidence-driven. All I am, sincerely, pressing for, is quality experimental evidence that Dirac ART is clearly perceptually preferred to an expert implementation of multiple subwoofers plus EQ up to the transition frequency, in a sensibly furnished or modestly treated home audio room. Without that, it's just an ambit claim and a pretty graph. Where is the experimental evidence that reducing decay times in the bass, beyond what can be done with passive multi-sub-and-EQ techniques, is audibly preferred in domestic rooms? Remember, there is a threshold of audibility of decay times, aka "enough is enough", and further improvements are pointless, except to the maker who sells them.

There is a paper by Fazenda et al that describes an experiment that determines an audible preference for reduced decay times below 120 Hz. It does not mention DA, and it achieves the reductions with conventional (non-DA) techniques that use no room treatments. My reading is that it reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers.

You have also reminded me of what Floyd Toole wrote in ASR:-

Question: Are there any examples of this "active room treatment" for people's listening rooms? I wonder how it would compare in cost and function to passive treatments like bass traps, resonators, tube traps, diffusers, etc.

Answer: Yes indeed. If you have my book - any edition - you will find explanations about how passive combinations of multiple subwoofers can be used to predictably attenuate room resonances in rectangular rooms, and in active solutions for rooms of any shape, can manipulate them, to create regions of similar sounding bass for several listeners. NO traditional acoustical absorption is required. The information is also in the Audio Engineering Society publications, under Todd Welti, the inventor and author, part of my research group at Harman.

My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. Toole saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.

cheers

 

[multisport4me]

"Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold."

Funny, I don't remember anyone asking you? You seem to have an inflated sense of self-worth. As to ART - us mere mortals find value in it and enjoy it very much. I don't have the brain cells you have there Mega-mind, so I'll blissfully listen to my crappy set up and cherish the time I saved as the gravy I didn't ask for.

Unsubscribed.

 

[Newman]

I try to raise the level of discourse, and look what I get. Oh well.

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't mean people are not being mislead by marketing. Nobody is saying DA has no measurable effect. For example, exotic loudspeakers using different technologies establish this myth, hype and legend where the differences are claimed to provide important advantages. And even where those advantage do exist and are non-zero ("objectively observed and measured", as you put it), their perceptual advantage is hugely overblown. It all comes back to perception, perceived importance, weighting of attributes.

@Sal1950 is right: the marketing claim is that DA is a whole 'nother level, attainable only with DA or vast volumes of absorbent room treatment, and people are buying that claim with practically zero science to back it up. It is a long way from having measurements to demonstrating perceptual importance in controlled listening conditions.


It is probably not essential for anyone, because there are other ways to achieve perpetually similar results. There are two criteria for a product to be essential as a product: the function it provides is essential, and that product is the only way to get that function. In the case of DA, neither criterion seems to be met.


You see, there is the overblown hype, in your very words.


I have added quite a few for you. You're welcome.


Oh no... please don't tell me you are dividing us into 'product camps', or seeing the audio world that way. As soon as that happens, this forum is corrupted. I am firmly in the audio science, er, camp, and it is independent of products and product 'camps'. I hope you switch out of the DA 'camp' and return to the audio science camp, which can only be entered by people not in any product 'camp'.


They ultimately delivered?? Please link me to the level-matched, frequency-response-matched, controlled listening trials of the actual product DA, establishing its perceptual differentiation and preference, weighted for importance against other factors. I have asked a few times here on ASR, and as far as I'm aware there is none.

Methinks what you are describing as 'ultimately delivered' is numerous sighted listening reports, with all the baggage therein, and tabling of measurements that consistently show large frequency response changes that can be achieved via conventional EQ and would be dominating most perceptions (other than the sighted listening effect). The first part speaks to the power of the sighted listening effect, and the second part speaks to things not exclusively DA. My standards for 'ultimately delivered' are nowhere near met by such.


I am not sexist, so I treat the sexes equally and fairly. No special treatment for women from me, and I hope the women here appreciate that more than if we gave them what you are suggesting.

I am waiting for DA to be backed up by some rigour. It has been a long wait. Too many posts read like marketing blurb.

Be aware that when any maker brings a new product feature to market, its importance and effect is vastly exaggerated.

And if there is a measure that this product scores better on by a good margin, then the importance and audibility of that measure is vastly exaggerated.

Then the prone-to-overexcitement first-adopters get their hands on said product and huge levels of audible improvement are reported, driven by confirmation bias of course. A legend is born. Game Changer.

Soon, even the middle-adopters are wetting themselves in excitement at said product filtering down to their market segment. "I won't buy any product without this feature." "I can't wait for this feature to appear in my market segment."

Man, such easy money for the makers.

I prefer to be evidence-driven. All I am, sincerely, pressing for, is quality experimental evidence that Dirac ART is clearly perceptually preferred to an expert implementation of multiple subwoofers plus EQ up to the transition frequency, in a sensibly furnished or modestly treated home audio room. Without that, it's just an ambit claim and a pretty graph. Where is the experimental evidence that reducing decay times in the bass, beyond what can be done with passive multi-sub-and-EQ techniques, is audibly preferred in domestic rooms? Remember, there is a threshold of audibility of decay times, aka "enough is enough", and further improvements are pointless, except to the maker who sells them.

There is a paper by Fazenda et al that describes an experiment that determines an audible preference for reduced decay times below 120 Hz. It does not mention DA, and it achieves the reductions with conventional (non-DA) techniques that use no room treatments. My reading is that it reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers.

You have also reminded me of what Floyd Toole wrote in ASR:-


My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.
cheers

Your post is so long that i did not, nor will ever read it. Sounds also like is smeared with the tone that I don't appreciate.

I do advise you to do your own research and don't draw conclusions from otherwise well intended posts in this thread.

 

[masterhw]

My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.

Addressing room modes is what DLBC and traditional room correction does. You’re correct that ART doesn’t do this. Toole’s response seems to be answering a different question, as it’s focused on evening out room modes and this is not what ART claims to do. ART hastens the decay of low frequencies, which has been repeatedly demonstrated on customer systems by REW waterfall graphs on dedicated ART threads.

If you’re going to be contentious around what is or isn’t an ‘essential’ technology, I am not remotely interested in preparing a rigorous scientific proof. But it is plainly clear that ART is the most advanced room correction suite available to customers, its claims have at least surface level merit, and it is natural for enthusiasts to gravitate toward it even where it might lack specific configuration parameters of other EQ suites.

 

[kawauso]

That doesn't mean people are not being mislead by marketing. Nobody is saying DA has no measurable effect. For example, exotic loudspeakers using different technologies establish this myth, hype and legend where the differences are claimed to provide important advantages. And even where those advantage do exist and are non-zero ("objectively observed and measured", as you put it), their perceptual advantage is hugely overblown. It all comes back to perception, perceived importance, weighting of attributes.

@Sal1950 is right: the marketing claim is that DA is a whole 'nother level, attainable only with DA or vast volumes of absorbent room treatment, and people are buying that claim with practically zero science to back it up. It is a long way from having measurements to demonstrating perceptual importance in controlled listening conditions.


It is probably not essential for anyone, because there are other ways to achieve perpetually similar results. There are two criteria for a product to be essential as a product: the function it provides is essential, and that product is the only way to get that function. In the case of DA, neither criterion seems to be met.


You see, there is the overblown hype, in your very words.


I have added quite a few for you. You're welcome.


Oh no... please don't tell me you are dividing us into 'product camps', or seeing the audio world that way. As soon as that happens, this forum is corrupted. I am firmly in the audio science, er, camp, and it is independent of products and product 'camps'. I hope you switch out of the DA 'camp' and return to the audio science camp, which can only be entered by people not in any product 'camp'.


They ultimately delivered?? Please link me to the level-matched, frequency-response-matched, controlled listening trials of the actual product DA, establishing its perceptual differentiation and preference, weighted for importance against other factors. I have asked a few times here on ASR, and as far as I'm aware there is none.

Methinks what you are describing as 'ultimately delivered' is numerous sighted listening reports, with all the baggage therein, and tabling of measurements that consistently show large frequency response changes that can be achieved via conventional EQ and would be dominating most perceptions (other than the sighted listening effect). The first part speaks to the power of the sighted listening effect, and the second part speaks to things not exclusively DA. My standards for 'ultimately delivered' are nowhere near met by such.


I am not sexist, so I treat the sexes equally and fairly. No special treatment for women from me, and I hope the women here appreciate that more than if we gave them what you are suggesting.

I am waiting for DA to be backed up by some rigour. It has been a long wait. Too many posts read like marketing blurb.

Be aware that when any maker brings a new product feature to market, its importance and effect is vastly exaggerated.

And if there is a measure that this product scores better on by a good margin, then the importance and audibility of that measure is vastly exaggerated.

Then the prone-to-overexcitement first-adopters get their hands on said product and huge levels of audible improvement are reported, driven by confirmation bias of course. A legend is born. Game Changer.

Soon, even the middle-adopters are wetting themselves in excitement at said product filtering down to their market segment. "I won't buy any product without this feature." "I can't wait for this feature to appear in my market segment."

Man, such easy money for the makers.

I prefer to be evidence-driven. All I am, sincerely, pressing for, is quality experimental evidence that Dirac ART is clearly perceptually preferred to an expert implementation of multiple subwoofers plus EQ up to the transition frequency, in a sensibly furnished or modestly treated home audio room. Without that, it's just an ambit claim and a pretty graph. Where is the experimental evidence that reducing decay times in the bass, beyond what can be done with passive multi-sub-and-EQ techniques, is audibly preferred in domestic rooms? Remember, there is a threshold of audibility of decay times, aka "enough is enough", and further improvements are pointless, except to the maker who sells them.

There is a paper by Fazenda et al that describes an experiment that determines an audible preference for reduced decay times below 120 Hz. It does not mention DA, and it achieves the reductions with conventional (non-DA) techniques that use no room treatments. My reading is that it reinforces just how much can be done in the ‘ART space’ with multiple subwoofers and EQ, plus the sizable gap between the best and the worst implementations of subwoofers.

You have also reminded me of what Floyd Toole wrote in ASR:-


My two takeaways are:-

1. multiple subwoofers can predictably attenuate room resonances (without Dirac ART)
2. saying that NO traditional acoustical absorption is required, hints that Dirac’s specialty product is not required, given that it is promoted as doing what traditional acoustic absorption does.

Hence, until persuaded otherwise with quality evidence, I am going to recommend that people treat Dirac ART as, at best, a time-saver. Other than time saved, it looks like a solution in search of a problem, aka marketing gold.

cheers

If we want to keep the discussion at a higher level, I’d appreciate it if we could avoid blanket assumptions such as “people are being misled by marketing” or “this is overhyped.” Those statements come across as dismissive and discourteous.
I’ll share several sets of measurements and observations that I’ve personally conducted. Please evaluate whether the results could realistically be achieved with conventional multi-subwoofer and EQ setups.

You’ve acknowledged that ART shortens low-frequency decay times, correct? The change is objectively measurable. My question is simply: Can the same results be achieved through conventional multi-sub and EQ methods — yes or no?
If yes, please also indicate how difficult it would be to achieve the same results in practice, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very easy and 5 = extremely difficult).

Whether that outcome is subjectively preferred or not is a completely different question. I also agree that conducting ABX blind tests would be valuable to explore how many listeners actually prefer the ART result compared to traditional EQ approaches.

KEF Room – Dirac BC vs ART
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12943041526.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vsJfFTi2eHLE4mlAcyGhY6LPSiLvPpGJ/view?usp=drive_link
JBL Room (2.0) – Dirac RC vs ART & Multi-SW Integration
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12941004017.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjE0xYjzWfa7u9TLtpTkEcOrpaPDqIlu/view?usp=drive_link
a position far off from the main listening spot
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-runs-subs-of-any-kind-why.61714/post-2438069

 

[Oddball]

If we want to keep the discussion at a higher level, I’d appreciate it if we could avoid blanket assumptions such as “people are being misled by marketing” or “this is overhyped.” Those statements come across as dismissive and discourteous.
I’ll share several sets of measurements and observations that I’ve personally conducted. Please evaluate whether the results could realistically be achieved with conventional multi-subwoofer and EQ setups.

You’ve acknowledged that ART shortens low-frequency decay times, correct? The change is objectively measurable. My question is simply: Can the same results be achieved through conventional multi-sub and EQ methods — yes or no?
If yes, please also indicate how difficult it would be to achieve the same results in practice, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very easy and 5 = extremely difficult).

Whether that outcome is subjectively preferred or not is a completely different question. I also agree that conducting ABX blind tests would be valuable to explore how many listeners actually prefer the ART result compared to traditional EQ approaches.

KEF Room – Dirac BC vs ART
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12943041526.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vsJfFTi2eHLE4mlAcyGhY6LPSiLvPpGJ/view?usp=drive_link
JBL Room (2.0) – Dirac RC vs ART & Multi-SW Integration
https://ameblo.jp/kawauso9991/entry-12941004017.html
mdat
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WjE0xYjzWfa7u9TLtpTkEcOrpaPDqIlu/view?usp=drive_link
a position far off from the main listening spot
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-runs-subs-of-any-kind-why.61714/post-2438069

As usual, you are being too kind.

What he is asking for is mostly ignorant for someone who claims great knowledge in audio.

Trinnov does not have ART so they came up with wave forming as a response to Storm's implementation of ART. They claim it's not just physical bass array, but also enhanced with software, which is likely true as given their market position they don't need or should make false statements. How much enhanced is a bit less transparent. They have obviously spent a lot of time on their solution and are top brand in niche audio market so their conclusions should be respected on that basis. Don't think that someone's basement or garage experiment should have more weight than what Trinnov decided to do. And they don't produce subs so they don't make money from recommending more subs (to the best of my knowledge).

Their conclusion was minimum of 8 subs and placed in specific array (some in/on wall) was necessary. That is pretty much a no-go for most people. For some cost, for some placement, or for some both. How much worse would 4 sub system be? Have no idea but apparently not good enough for Trinnov to sign it.

I would also love to see Trinnov vs Storm showdown measurements in a reference level theater, but that is apparently not widely available. My best guess is that properly set Trinnov could be better, but then 8 subs is a fortune and positioning very challenging. ART has results that are much more attainable by enthusiasts with different levels of systems and rooms. And compared to Trinnov pricing is extremely attractive.

 

[Everett T]

As usual, you are being too kind.

What he is asking for is mostly ignorant for someone who claims great knowledge in audio.

Trinnov does not have ART so they came up with wave forming as a response to Storm's implementation of ART. They claim it's not just physical bass array, but also enhanced with software, which is likely true as given their market position they don't need or should make false statements. How much enhanced is a bit less transparent. They have obviously spent a lot of time on their solution and are top brand in niche audio market so their conclusions should be respected on that basis. Don't think that someone's basement or garage experiment should have more weight than what Trinnov decided to do. And they don't produce subs so they don't make money from recommending more subs (to the best of my knowledge).

Their conclusion was minimum of 8 subs and placed in specific array (some in/on wall) was necessary. That is pretty much a no-go for most people. For some cost, for some placement, or for some both. How much worse would 4 sub system be? Have no idea but apparently not good enough for Trinnov to sign it.

I would also love to see Trinnov vs Storm showdown measurements in a reference level theater, but that is apparently not widely available. My best guess is that properly set Trinnov could be better, but then 8 subs is a fortune and positioning very challenging. ART has results that are much attainable by enthusiasts with different levels of systems and rooms. And compared to Trinnov pricing is extremely attractive.

The Wave Forming is really geared for custom installations where as ART is sorta a "every man" solution and more of a set it and forget it. Both have their place and really hard to make AB comparisons.

 

[Oddball]

The Wave Forming is really geared for custom installations where as ART is sorta a "every man" solution and more of a set it and forget it. Both have their place and really hard to make AB comparisons.

I do agree. Trinnov and Storm share a market of their own and are apparently both successful and loved. I wish them both long and prosperous life as they are iconic brands.

The comparison was for a specific purpose, to illustrate now much hardware is needed for Trinnov solution. They probably considered more than one basement or garage as basis for their requirements.

 

[peng]

If we want to keep the discussion at a higher level, I’d appreciate it if we could avoid blanket assumptions such as “people are being misled by marketing” or “this is overhyped.” Those statements come across as dismissive and discourteous.

Agreed to some extent. There are cases (eg. exotic, or expensive interconnects, speaker feed wires kind of marketing info, MQA as mentioned etc.) where I would say many people are being misled by marketing information and/or something is overhyped, in those cases I wouldn't say those who said such things (I have done some of those so guess I may be biased..) should be taken as discourteous, and in fact it could help others who otherwise might be misled.

I’ll share several sets of measurements and observations that I’ve personally conducted. Please evaluate whether the results could realistically be achieved with conventional multi-subwoofer and EQ setups.

Very nice for you to share those graphs, obviously you have spent a lot of time doing it, so many thanks, though I might have to spend a few hours studying them lol.... A quick look, has given me the impression that the claimed benefits can be confirmed from those measurements. Subjectively, I am not sure if the differences are barely noticeable, or very noticeable (better, that is) if only subjective comparative listening is done, and I would guess (just educated guess for now) that the decay time might be key, because the FR difference between the two curves don't different significantly.

Thanks again for sharing.

 

[Hayabusa]

Nobody is saying DA has no measurable effect.

What is DA in this context? I have no clue....

 

[Everett T]

What is DA in this context? I have no clue....

Dirac ART

 

[Hayabusa]

Dirac ART

Ok thanks! Why the .... making this even more difficult to follow....
I will reread it now to see if I can make some sense of it

 

[Sal1950]

Then the prone-to-overexcitement first-adopters get their hands on said product and huge levels of audible improvement are reported, driven by confirmation bias of course. A legend is born. Game Changer.

OMG, that is so true. When you've been as deeply involved in this hobby for as long as I have you have you've seen this happen over and over. MQA been one of the most recent and glaring examples. I won't say that it had no redeeming value but I think it was the overly promoted market as a world shaker that eventually killed with most audiophiles.

Your post is so long that i did not, nor will ever read it. Sounds also like is smeared with the tone that I don't appreciate.

Please Oddball, complicated subjects deserve more than single sentence posts and it's only fair to read the response.
That wasn't bad, I know a guy here that finds in necessary to write full pages on just about everything.

BTW ART had no marketing or barely, but the buzz it caught over the years on the forums was huge. And they ultimately delivered.

OK, that's your opinion, on your system. But if I come to a different conclusion here ???
When we speak of marketing in this day, at least in Hi-Fi, it goes way beyond manufacturer ads to behind the scene deals with publications, websites, it's writers, even shills, and much more; to "get the word out" without showing any direct involvement.
Then there is/was the whole "vinyl revival" deal. LOL
I'm not cheap and invest a lot (for me) on my system but a near $1k pricetag for a DRC app is a bit stiff and put-off for me.
I do remember here, feel free to search, when Audy MultiEQ-X was introduced at $200, and many folks went nuts over the high cost.

Ok thanks! Why the .... making this even more difficult to follow....
I will reread it now to see if I can make some sense of it

Sorry, folks get lazy and tire of typing the same product name over and over.

No need to get angry Sal. There are many posts - and true I might have not read all of yours as they deserve to be read.

I'm not angry but dig yourself and the constant promotion of D-A as Gods gift to audiophiles.
I'm sure it's good, maybe great, but still maybe not everyone's cup of tea?
I've done a bit of room treatment here and in the big picture isn't that a better option?

Also, pls don't be harsh to @kawauso. She is one of the few ladies we have around, knows a ton about audio and has 2 systems that can make both of us a bit envious.

I didn't know she was a she but I don't see where anything I've said here was harsh?
Sorry @kawauso if anything I said offended?

 

[Oddball]

OMG, that is so true. When you've been as deeply involved in this hobby for as long as I have you have you've seen this happen over and over. MQA been one of the most recent and glaring examples. I won't say that it had no redeeming value but I think it was the overly promoted market as a world shaker that eventually killed with most audiophiles.


Please Oddball, complicated subjects deserve more than single sentence posts and it's only fair to read the response.
That wasn't bad, I know a guy here that finds in necessary to write full pages on just about everything.


OK, that's your opinion, on your system. But if I come to a different conclusion here ???
When we speak of marketing in this day, at least in Hi-Fi, it goes way beyond manufacturer ads to behind the scene deals with publications, websites, it's writers, even shills, and much more; to "get the word out" without showing any direct involvement.
Then there is/was the whole "vinyl revival" deal. LOL
I'm not cheap and invest a lot (for me) on my system but a near $1k pricetag for a DRC app is a bit stiff and put-off for me.
I do remember here, feel free to search, when Audy MultiEQ-X was introduced at $200, and many folks went nuts over the high cost.


Sorry, folks get lazy and tire of typing the same product name over and over.


I'm not angry but dig yourself and the constant promotion of D-A as Gods gift to audiophiles.
I'm sure it's good, maybe great, but still maybe not everyone's cup of tea?
I've done a bit of room treatment here and in the big picture isn't that a better option?


I didn't know she was a she but I don't see where anything I've said here was harsh?
Sorry @kawauso if anything I said offended?

This is AV10 thread and with all do respect - we are just enjoying the recent toy we got on top of our very (overly?) expensive hardware. If there was room to argue about expensive, I would move that to the hardware part.

I am always more than happy to engage with you as you have been contributing greatly to the forum and in a very constructive way.

I do truly endorse ART for the change it made in my system. There is theory behind ART and that was the reason why ART got the attention they had from the Storm start. Nothing else like it out there. There are posts that I made about my journey with MultiEQ-X and all the frustrations that eventually made me abandon my own tweaking and just hire the professional to finish it. Not necessarily for the lack of skill, but for the decision paralysis that such setup was posing with all the bells and whistles engaged. With ART, I just need to set it up decently and there we go. Presets from +4 to +12 and it is done. No tweaking or no pain, at least in my system. Admittedly, I do have a bit more resources than the average system and don't care about infrasonics.

Experiencing decay reduction is really freeing up so much detail in the soundstage that I would even argue that benefit is equally spread across the spectrum board. Not providing money-back guarantee for your system, but the stats are relevant and they speak in ART's favour. I just be louder than some - but that's just my nature. My experience with Bass control was not nearly that positive - that's why I never used it. It was a great and not too complicated tool but nothing like ART.

There is a problem on the forum that ART is being discussed in 2 or 3 threads and posts are scattered around. There is much out there and many graphs to see. If I recall, there was only one member that opted out of ART as it was to dry aka bass power was gone. That is a fair point, but one can actually control the amount of decay, so this is a useful tool that provides additional options not available before. You can go wet and dry based on your own scale.

I already responded to the posts how much hardware takes to get similar results. Trinnov made that quite apparent, so not sure why any of us would know any better. Trinnov standards are high, but then question of how cheap you can go is for people to answer for themselves. Some are cheaper than the others or just adhere to lower standards.