• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

miniDSP Flex

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Thanks, so one does not need REW to effectively implement Dirac, correct?

On that note have you compared Dirac performance results with Dirac separates (SHD, etc. + chosen amp) to Dirac integrated with units like Arcam SA30, Arcam AVR's, new Onkyo AVR's, NAD units etc.

Is it easier to calibrate with those units?

And, is the resulting sound performance as good as Dirac separates?
In theory it should be identical as it is the computer making the filters, not the processor.
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
In theory it should be identical as it is the computer making the filters, not the processor.

The quality of the DSP chip used might affect the results I'd have thought? If we're comparing devices then other factors will come into play as well of course (e.g. the DAC).

Sample rates can differ between devices I believe (with actually the Flex running Dirac at 48 kHz vs I think 96 kHz on the SHD series). To what extent this may make an audible difference is of course a different question.
 

Ataraxia

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
136
Likes
76
I want Dirac but also don't want to have to rabbit hole too far into it. I think, miniDSP Flex plus Vidar? Add external streamer. Or Arcam SA30 or AVR 10 or NAD M10 all in one

It would be nice not needing a laptop as well to perform Dirac calibration using SHD/Studio/Flex...
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
^That's a good looking setup you have there :).

I've never used a subwoofer nearfield myself and this will affect what you find works best for you. In general a key reason to not want subwoofers to be localisable is so that they can be placed wherever in the room gives the best bass response, but obviously this is only useful if someone has the freedom to actually place subs there.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
The quality of the DSP chip used might affect the results I'd have thought? If we're comparing devices then other factors will come into play as well of course (e.g. the DAC).

Sample rates can differ between devices I believe (with actually the Flex running Dirac at 48 kHz vs I think 96 kHz on the SHD series). To what extent this may make an audible difference is of course a different question.
@Flak previously disclosed that there wouldn’t be a meaningful difference.
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
I want Dirac but also don't want to have to rabbit hole too far into it. I think, miniDSP Flex plus Vidar? Add external streamer. Or Arcam SA30 or AVR 10 or NAD M10 all in one

It would be nice not needing a laptop as well to perform Dirac calibration using SHD/Studio/Flex...

Or a NAD C658 plus active speakers.

Thinking about it one way that these other systems usually differ from what I've seen it the type of microphone used, and actually how it's used (as in not with a microphone stand). For just low bass correction I bet the microphones are fine but for people wanting to experiment with higher frequency correction I'd have more doubt (but they may be fine). Others here are bound to know more... There is nothing to stop someone using a microphone stand with the supplied microphones either, since I'm sure it wouldn't take too much ingenuity to attach one.

The bottom line for me though would be this: if all you want to do is to get something like a NAD M10 and use it in the simplest possible way then you're still almost certainly going to end up with significantly better bass response than you do right now. Similarly you could use a miniDSP Flex and still keep things simple rather than getting bogged down in all the details.
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK

Ataraxia

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
136
Likes
76
Or a NAD C658 plus active speakers.

Thinking about it one way that these other systems usually differ from what I've seen it the type of microphone used, and actually how it's used (as in not with a microphone stand). For just low bass correction I bet the microphones are fine but for people wanting to experiment with higher frequency correction I'd have more doubt (but they may be fine). Others here are bound to know more... There is nothing to stop someone using a microphone stand with the supplied microphones either, since I'm sure it wouldn't take too much ingenuity to attach one.

The bottom line for me though would be this: if all you want to do is to get something like a NAD M10 and use it in the simplest possible way then you're still almost certainly going to end up with significantly better bass response than you do right now. Similarly you could use a miniDSP Flex and still keep things simple rather than getting bogged down in all the details.

Thanks for your input I had the same thoughts about mic quality, stand, etc. I already own an Umik-1 from dabbing in REW a while back. I'm tempted by Flex/Vidar or Emotiva BasX A2. But still undecide if I want to go back minimalistic 2.0 or 2.1 Dirac PCM or have AVR for potential 5.0 or 5.1..
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
Basically all implementations of Dirac are more or less the same.

Bear in mind that my sample rate point means higher res. audio formats being downsampled so the question is then less specific to Dirac Live and more to high res. in general. And as I said, other device differences will affect the comparison asked about.

It is of course in the interests of those working for Dirac Live to say their product is equally fabulous on all platforms :). Which is not to say that it isn't.
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
Thanks for your input I had the same thoughts about mic quality, stand, etc. I already own an Umik-1 from dabbing in REW a while back. I'm tempted by Flex/Vidar or Emotiva BasX A2. But still undecide if I want to go back minimalistic 2.0 or 2.1 Dirac PCM or have AVR for potential 5.0 or 5.1..

Is it possible for you to demo any of the products you were asking about where you live? That's the logical way to go if you can.
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
Bear in mind that my sample rate point means higher res. audio formats being downsampled so the question is then less specific to Dirac Live and more to high res. in general. And as I said, other device differences will affect the comparison asked about.

It is of course in the interests of those working for Dirac Live to say their product is equally fabulous on all platforms :). Which is not to say that it isn't.
The reason why Dirac is so appealing to users and manufacturers alike is that a lot of resolution is provided for very little processing power by the processor (With the computer generating the filters doing the most work). It's their main selling point, so i guess @Flak 's comments make sense with that original narrative.
 

Ataraxia

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
136
Likes
76
Is it possible for you to demo any of the products you were asking about where you live? That's the logical way to go if you can.
Probably. I've been casually considering Dirac implementation for a long time. I need to make up my mind on Dirac separates vs. Dirac integrated unit.
 

anotherhobby

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Messages
623
Likes
1,319
I had the house to myself and the day off work, so I dove in deep with Dirac today. Here how the Flex fits into my system:


desktop.png

After first spending a bunch of time comparing crossover points and listening to them, I settled on the LR 24dB/oct at 80 Hz for crossovers. I also put a BW 24dB/oct high pass filter on my subs at 18 Hz. They are only 8" and there is no point wasting any effort down there. The first test was whether DSPing the subs makes any difference. Here are my subs with and without EQ:

sub-eq.png


And the pic below is what dirac corrected each one to. Ha! EQing the subs was a waste of time other than for learning. This is freaking impressive! I think it's fair to say any differences in this graph are from me moving the mic during the different measurements and process. Dirac apparantly knows what it wants to do with my setup in my room and willl do it no matter what I did to my subs:

pre-eq-compare.png

This is the uncorrected respose vs the default correction that Dirac does with my system from nothing but crossovers set. I think it's quite impressive and it's quite a bit better than I was able to do on my own given only 10 bands of EQ per channel in the Flex:

dirac-correction.png


EDIT: this is where I come back to this post and mention that after careful A/B listening, the Dirac default curve sounds better than the curve I edited myself. The "flatter" response does not actually sound better. It's barely different, and a little worse. I'll leave the comments in place anyway. By making quite a few corrections to the target curve, I was able to get a flatter response than I was ever expecting to pull off in my room. This pic shows the adjustments to the target curve in Dirac:

Screen Shot 2022-01-31 at 4.49.41 PM.png


Every single point on the curve was confirmed and dialed in over dozens of REW measurements. You don't have to dial in any numbers, just ad points and drag. You can zoom in super close if you need also. I think the interface is pretty slick. The comparison below shows how much I was able to dial it in on my own on top of Dirac:

target-curve.png


And because comparisons are fun, below is the original uncorrected response from the image above compared to the final corrected response I was able to get in Dirac alone. I have zero EQ settings in the miniDSP. It sounds fantastic! Dirac was 100% worth the $200. Zero question at all in my mind.

uncorrected-compare.png


My question is how much dynamic range did you trade off by using both REW and Dirac for DSP? Looks like you're playing about 78 db, is that system capable of playing 90db with all that dsp?
Yep, and this is definitely as loud as I'd ever listen on this system. I didn't test louder because I have no interest in damaging my subs for cool graphs. :)

76vs90dB.png


I spent many hours on this today, but the final result was generated by:

1. Set delay/levels/crossovers in miniDSP plugin
2. Run Dirac, export correction default curve to Flex
3. Measure in REW and see what it did
4. Adjust target curve, save to Flex, then repeat between this and step 3 until happy (EDIT: this proved to be a waste of time and a worse subjective result)

If I had just done that from the start, less than 2 hours.
 

Attachments

  • 76vs90dB.png
    76vs90dB.png
    86.4 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
7,423
Likes
7,940
Location
Brussels, Belgium
I had the house to myself and the day off work, so I dove in deep with Dirac today. Here how the Flex fits into my system:


View attachment 183429
After first spending a bunch of time comparing crossover points and listening to them, I settled on the LR 24dB/oct at 80 Hz for crossovers. I also put a BW 24dB/oct high pass filter on my subs at 18 Hz. They are only 8" and there is no point wasting any effort down there. The first test was whether DSPing the subs makes any difference. Here are my subs with and without EQ:

View attachment 183426

And the pic below is what dirac corrected each one to. Ha! EQing the subs was a waste of time other than for learning. This is freaking impressive! I think it's fair to say any differences in this graph are from me moving the mic during the different measurements and process. Dirac apparantly knows what it wants to do with my setup in my room and willl do it no matter what I did to my subs:

View attachment 183427
This is the uncorrected respose vs the default correction that Dirac does with my system from nothing but crossovers set. I think it's quite impressive and it's quite a bit better than I was able to do on my own given only 10 bands of EQ per channel in the Flex:

View attachment 183430

But Dirac lets you go further if you want. By making quite a few corrections to the target curve, I was able to get a flatter response than I was ever expecting to pull off in my room. This pic shows the adjustments to the target curve in Dirac:

View attachment 183431

Every single point on the curve was confirmed and dialed in over dozens of REW measurements. You don't have to dial in any numbers, just ad points and drag. You can zoom in super close if you need also. I think the interface is pretty slick. The comparison below shows how much I was able to dial it in on my own on top of Dirac:

View attachment 183432

And because comparisons are fun, below is the original uncorrected response from the image above compared to the final corrected response I was able to get in Dirac alone. I have zero EQ settings in the miniDSP. It sounds fantastic! Dirac was 100% worth the $200. Zero question at all in my mind.

View attachment 183438


Yep, and this is definitely as loud as I'd ever listen on this system. I didn't test louder because I have no interest in damaging my subs for cool graphs. :)

View attachment 183439
Looks good, too much seat to seat variation for my taste though.
 

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,035
Likes
1,288
I had the house to myself and the day off work, so I dove in deep with Dirac today. Here how the Flex fits into my system:


View attachment 183429
After first spending a bunch of time comparing crossover points and listening to them, I settled on the LR 24dB/oct at 80 Hz for crossovers. I also put a BW 24dB/oct high pass filter on my subs at 18 Hz. They are only 8" and there is no point wasting any effort down there. The first test was whether DSPing the subs makes any difference. Here are my subs with and without EQ:

View attachment 183426

And the pic below is what dirac corrected each one to. Ha! EQing the subs was a waste of time other than for learning. This is freaking impressive! I think it's fair to say any differences in this graph are from me moving the mic during the different measurements and process. Dirac apparantly knows what it wants to do with my setup in my room and willl do it no matter what I did to my subs:

View attachment 183427
This is the uncorrected respose vs the default correction that Dirac does with my system from nothing but crossovers set. I think it's quite impressive and it's quite a bit better than I was able to do on my own given only 10 bands of EQ per channel in the Flex:

View attachment 183430

But Dirac lets you go further if you want. By making quite a few corrections to the target curve, I was able to get a flatter response than I was ever expecting to pull off in my room. This pic shows the adjustments to the target curve in Dirac:

View attachment 183431

Every single point on the curve was confirmed and dialed in over dozens of REW measurements. You don't have to dial in any numbers, just ad points and drag. You can zoom in super close if you need also. I think the interface is pretty slick. The comparison below shows how much I was able to dial it in on my own on top of Dirac:

View attachment 183432

And because comparisons are fun, below is the original uncorrected response from the image above compared to the final corrected response I was able to get in Dirac alone. I have zero EQ settings in the miniDSP. It sounds fantastic! Dirac was 100% worth the $200. Zero question at all in my mind.

View attachment 183438


Yep, and this is definitely as loud as I'd ever listen on this system. I didn't test louder because I have no interest in damaging my subs for cool graphs. :)

View attachment 183439

I spent many hours on this today, but the final result was generated by:

1. Set delay/levels/crossovers in miniDSP plugin
2. Run Dirac, export correction default curve to Flex
3. Measure in REW and see what it did
4. Adjust target curve, save to Flex, then repeat between this and step 3 until happy

If I had just done that from the start, less than 2 hours.
Have you tried moving your subs closer to the wall to see if you can reduce the notch at 50Hz?
 

Ultrasonic

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
742
Likes
593
Location
UK
But Dirac lets you go further if you want. By making quite a few corrections to the target curve, I was able to get a flatter response that I was honestly ever expecting to pull off in my room.

Up till this comment all was looking good :). I have a feeling the step I quoted may been a mistake though. Did you compare what Dirac did on its own to what it sounded like after your extra tweaking?

Why I suspect this wasn't the way to go is the distinction I made somewhere above between getting the smoothest response at a single point, and the volume average that Dirac deliberately targets. Dirac could have got the response you ended up with but 'chose' not to...

What you enjoy listing to most is the ultimate deciding factor though :).
 

anotherhobby

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Messages
623
Likes
1,319
Have you tried moving your subs closer to the wall to see if you can reduce the notch at 50Hz?
That notch is caused by the left and right walls, and the me sitting perfectly in the middle of my subs. I did try moving them side to side and offsetting them. The notch just moves around. I concluded I'd need to build a 3rd sub and put it behind me to remove that notch.
 
Top Bottom