Burning Sounds
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Yes, I know - I have a MiniDSP 2x8 board (which is really a 4x10 - don't ask ) - at the end of the day you weren't using the LX521 so it's not important.
But the minidsp has both digital and analogue stereo inputs, only
outputs are 8 analogue +2 digital ??
I was thinking more like Trinnov Altitude32 for 20k and Dirac app on PC for 300. But the best spent money is room acoustics IMHO, I agree with you. Here no questions asked.Pirad, Well , dirac via minidsp is $900 and a new trinnov is around $10k so 50 to 100x the price is a bit exaggerated...however the eu 3600 I paid for my pre owned unit is not a huge amount compared to system price or what I spent re doing/treating my room.
As per Dallas's post re dirac validation:
Graphs don't totally explain how a system sounds. They are only tools to demonstrate and help to solve room acoustics problems and give broad acoustic trends.
Dallas I am wondering about that 18 point measurement .. I never ran dirac on a single speaker , its always been a stereo pair .. for every measurement it emits 3 tones , L, R and then left again?
Based on my understanding of room acoustics, I am not seeing the contradictions that apparently you do. Their explanation makes perfect sense.I revisited Dirac after more than a year and dug up these:
Dirac manual page 17
Using the microphone positions indicated by the Dirac Live Calibration Tool™ will generally give you consistent results.
However, the microphone positions are not required to be in exactly these positions - if your listening environment looks different then
you may use a different set of microphone positions. Taking all measurements close to the sweet spot will generally not give optimum
performance because the microphone positions need some spread in order to acquire enough acoustical information about the room.
Elsewhere there is information that even the number of nine mic positions is "typical" or "approximate" (marked with tilde) . Dirac demands
only one must-do: the central position first measurement.
View attachment 12327
Dirac FAQ
3.6. Why is there no validation feature?
The predicted response may look too good to be true, but it is important to interpret the curves in the right way; the prediction curves show the response in exactly the point each curve is based on.
In theory the curve can be totally different just a small distance away from it, but in practice this is rarely the case. In order to avoid optimizing the filter for a really small area at the expense of the actual listening area, multiple measurements are used, taken in different points. Their average is the basis for the filter calculations. Together with the spatial robustness of the Dirac Live room correction technology this will result in a filter that sounds good in a large area. However, for a measurement to produce the predicted curve the microphone need to be in the exactly same position, otherwise the result will just be close to the prediction. It is also important to compare a validation measurement to the curve that corresponds to that measurement position and not the average curve.
If you want to measure the result of the filter you can either use some application such as HOLMImpulse, or you can select the Dirac Audio Processor as the output device on the sound setup page. If this method is selected it is very important to note that the Dirac Live Calibration Tool will disable filtering in the Dirac Audio Processor before each measurement, and you will have to enable it manually real quick. The reason the Dirac Live Calibration Tool disables filtering is that most measurements will not be for validation but for room analysis, and in this case any filtering has to be disabled.
It's not hard to see some wishy-washy talk and contradictions in the above. The conclusion (in blue) is that you can measure the calibrated curve, even with Dirac -- "if you want".
My take is Dirac hopes to avoid the situation where amateur users (vast majority of applications) accuse them of misrepresenting the filter effects shown in the simulated curve.
It would not be difficult to introduce simple "filter validation" function. Instead they direct to outside apps or a workaround which is not in the manual. These solutions are
definitely not for amateurs, and the assumption is the advanced users know what they are doing and understand how it all works.
Arguments about the techical advantages of single point vs. multi point spatially averaged will no doubt go on, inconclusively.
Well, neither is perfect. Nothing is. So, choose the one that makes the most sense to you. Or, do neither, and just passively treat. But, even to do that right, you gotta measure. Again, that requires a choice, though, single point or multipoint spatially averaged.single point- for one eared audiophiles in anechoic chambers
multi point- getting closer to psychoacoustic models of hearing
sound field measurements with linear robots- my next project
Do I have to read a whole book? Can't you summarize into a paragraph or two?In addition, @mitchco demonstrates that single point effectively corrects the entire listening area consonant with target. He shows this in his book.
I don't think it is simply hype at all. There are two divergent schools of thought in a very complex discipline, not uncommon. Neither side has a "killer" argument that simply KOs the other side.Don’t believe the multi-point hype. Everyone has their way of doing it. Only through real loopback measurements can you know what you are getting. I’ve measured loopbacks of Dirac, Acourate and Audiolense. They are all valid and do what they say they do. In addition, @mitchco demonstrates that single point effectively corrects the entire listening area consonant with target. He shows this in his book.
Sure, happy to help if I can. I have a Word file somewhere with the instructions for the LX521 EQ/x-over settings, so I'll need to take out the specific LX521 information and also make sure it makes sense as the original was in German. I'll PM you in a couple of days if that's OK.
Check out these Acourate and Audiolense examples of this:
single point- for one eared audiophiles in anechoic chambers
multi point- getting closer to psychoacoustic models of hearing
sound field measurements with linear robots- my next project
I can now imagine a swarm of nano-robots with there own little speakers positioned around my head giving me the illusion of sitting in the middle of a symphony orchestra. I say bring it on.ASIAN- Airborne Swarm of Intelligent Audio Nanites View attachment 12358
I am a bit short of venture capital, but the thing is doable.I can now imagine a swarm of nano-robots with there own little speakers positioned around my head giving me the illusion of sitting in the middle of a symphony orchestra. I say bring it on.