I said Audyssey doesn't apply phase correction while Dirac does and you blamed me for "perpetuating misinformation". What Audyssey told you is completely irrelevant to my statement!
Miscommunication then! In view of this, I would like to hopefully stop any more back and forth, using the following point by point approach for better clarify this time.
First and foremost, I did
not blame you for perpetuating misinformation in saying "Audsyssey doesn't apply phase correction while Dirac does". Those are, as far as I know, correct information. If I had responded in point form, we would have avoided this part of the miscommunication.
The part I referred to as misinformation is what you stated in post#21, specific the quoted line below, even with that, I did not mean you were the one perpetuating anything, just not helping the existing the current situation, that there are so much of it on the internet, about what Audyssey do, or not do already.
All its filters are in the frequency domain.
Regardless, I should not have worded my response that way, unless I provided my own supporting, factual information. On your part though, if you insist it is factual, then the burden of proof is on you. I know you can probably decipher what's in the .ady file completely, but I think the filter calculations/creation only takes place during (and, or prior to) the upload to device process, so you may or may not be able to see all the pertinent information about the filters. If Audyssey says their filters are, or also, in the time domain, are you going to believe them?
I never claimed Dirac does phase correction because Dirac filters change phase response. None of these filters change phase in any significant way. Dirac applies phase correction to fix problems "between the speakers" stemming from asymmetric room reflections, this is actually why phase correction is done if ever
I never said you did, not that it matters now, just still curious about where you read those things from, that I had not even commented on?
and Audyssey simply cannot do that. Their narrative that they don't do phase correction because their filters don't change phase is bit of an abuse of lack of knowledge at best and you didn't help others learn the facts which was my only intention.
No idea what this is about, I have not said anything about those things, but I do wonder now about your "audyssey cannot do that" comment. I don't know if you mean Audyssey cannot do because they don't know how, or they won't, because of their own reasons, and how would you know? To be clear, I am not suggesting you are wrong, just have questions that's all.
Also Dirac Live can crossover subwoofer at any frequency (unlike the fixed frequencies of Audyssey) and has higher speaker distance (delay) level limits than Audyssey for the same receiver (I heard that from a trusted friend who tested both but did not yet confirm myself!)
Now that I re-read this part, I would add that it is sort of fixed in terms of steps of 10 or 20 Hz such as 40, 60, 80, 90 Hz etc., not fixed at one value, so to just say "fixed", new users may misinterpret it as just one value that cannot be changed, but I did
not take is
sue with you on that at all, I said I didn't like that (the "fixed crossover frequencies" part the Audyssey does). So, we are in agreement on this anyway.
I am not a programmer (far from it) but I have an aeronautical engineering degree and we used Laplace transforms quite heavily for solving differential equations in computational fluid dynamics some decades back in school.
Good to know, so we are both engineers. In my country we are abide by our code of ethics, after this back and forth, I feel like re-reading it, and see if it says anything about mutual respect between engineers, just an example lol...
I asked if you know Fourier, Laplace and Z transforms because in my mind, they are essential for those involved in IIR and FIR applications in Room correction. I learnt those also decades ago, mostly when studying advanced mathematics and communication (i.e. telecommunications) theory.
I am not posting any of these here to counter argue you or anyone else and please don't take it personal but I usually only post to share information with others who have a desire to learn. The algorithm (I used a simplified version of Radix 2) is much easier to grasp than one would imagine.
I overreacted when you told me to "You need to learn the basics before making such assumptions." remark because I did not feel I had "made such assumptions" in the first place. If you thought I did, you misunderstood, and/or I was not clear in what I was trying to say. Even about the term misinformation, I only said
"Unless we don't believe what Audyssey is telling us, we should do our part not to perpetuate misinformation". That is quite different than saying you perpetuated misinformation. Also, if you read it in full context of my post, I referred mainly to my feeling that people have been saying all kinds of thing about Audyssey and that in the early days (I have since learnt more), I didn't know if they were true, false, in between or partially true, false etc., there were just all kinds of back and forth on the internet. So I felt unless we know something for sure now, such as directly from Audyssey, we should not say things that perpetuate such things about Audyssey.
