Neumann MA1 vs. Dirac Live Bass Control (DLBC) - Dual KH750 subs

[levimax]

Although it's a post from quite a while ago, I carefully asked the OP, and he kindly shared the measurements. Thank you once again. You had already posted many graphs, but I checked them more neatly through IR timing alignment and looked at a few additional graphs.

View attachment 444917
(DLBC)

View attachment 444918
(MA1)

The MA1 seems to have a generally slower late decay attenuation, and the shape of the DLBC and full-range might appear different, but this seems to be due to the influence of the noise floor in the image attached below.

View attachment 444919
(DLBC noisefloor)

View attachment 444920
(MA1 noise floor)

Therefore, the overall attenuation pattern across the entire range (especially above the midrange) is likely to be similar, and the difference observed in the measurements may be due to measurement variations.

View attachment 444921

(DLBC)

View attachment 444922
(MA1)

I have received and reviewed the mdat files from quite a few DLBC users, but to be honest, I still don't fully understand the intention behind DLBC's phase wrap.

View attachment 444923
View attachment 444924
When looking at the Excess Group Delay, the effect of the bug reported on the Dirac side (increase in group delay of the subwoofers) is evident.

View attachment 444925
this is original step response.(no dlbc, no ma1)

View attachment 444926
(DLBC)

View attachment 444927
(ma1)

The 30ms section of the DLBC is unusual. To make this easier to visualize, let's compare the graphs of the minimum phase responses of each DLBC and MA1.


View attachment 444928
(DLBC compare Minimumphase)

View attachment 444929
(MA1 compare Minimumphase)

The results will vary depending on the procedures such as pre-ringing cutoff and subsonic filters for each DRC, but the difference between MA1 and DLBC appears to be quite large.

View attachment 444930
(Original FR)


View attachment 444931
(Top: DLBC / Bottom: MA1)

As mentioned earlier, it seems that the OP's MA1 measurements, including the noise floor, were not measured under the same conditions as the DLBC. Therefore, I don't think the objective characteristics of each DRC are fully accurately reflected in the comparison, making it somewhat unstable.
However, despite that, the difference between the two DRCs (DLBC and MA1) is still quite significant.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have had the PC version of DLBC with some Neuman KH 310's and either 2 or 4 subwoofers and it absolutley does not work. You can read on other threads on this site about the issues and the waiting for new versions which so far don't help. The problem is timing, it seems to work fairly well for FR but in my case every run sets different timing and it is always WAY off.... like 125 ms delay when 12 ms is correct. I have not tried the MA1 but I am sure it is better based on your post. I get good results with manual EQ and timing using REW.

 

[Lion♡]

I have had the PC version of DLBC with some Neuman KH 310's and either 2 or 4 subwoofers and it absolutley does not work. You can read on other threads on this site about the issues and the waiting for new versions which so far don't help. The problem is timing, it seems to work fairly well for FR but in my case every run sets different timing and it is always WAY off.... like 125 ms delay when 12 ms is correct. I have not tried the MA1 but I am sure it is better based on your post. I get good results with manual EQ and timing using REW.

I previously generated virtual ITD (interaural time difference) delays for the impulses of DLBM and DLBC, and looped them back to share in another thread. Of course, it works differently from actual binaural recordings, but at least you should be able to notice the oddities of the DLBC.

Listen to this with IEMs or headphones and let me know your thoughts.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

As mentioned earlier, it seems that the OP's MA1 measurements, including the noise floor, were not measured under the same conditions as the DLBC. Therefore, I don't think the objective characteristics of each DRC are fully accurately reflected in the comparison, making it somewhat unstable.
However, despite that, the difference between the two DRCs (DLBC and MA1) is still quite significant.

Thanks for examining my measurements. As i wrote in my OP, i am not a technical expert and honestly don´t understand much of what you did here.
However, i tried to be as transparent as possible and wrote in my OP:

"In both cases i used the same mic with calibration file and the same positions (as far as possible). The crossover frequency was 80Hz in both cases. Due to the different hard- and software requirements i made the measurements not at the same level (Dirac calibration was quieter) and tried to align them afterwards for comparison. Particularly for the subwoofers i don´t really know how to do that correctly, so i can not interpret the subwoofer graphs 100% correctly. For Dirac i made Java-measurements with RWE, for MA1 i used ASIO. I don´t know i some of the differences may be influenced by this. I always used the same channel (left main) for acoustical timing reference."

 

[Lion♡]

Thanks for examining my measurements. As i wrote in my OP, i am not a technical expert and honestly don´t understand much of what you did here.
However, i tried to be as transparent as possible and wrote in my OP:

"In both cases i used the same mic with calibration file and the same positions (as far as possible). The crossover frequency was 80Hz in both cases. Due to the different hard- and software requirements i made the measurements not at the same level (Dirac calibration was quieter) and tried to align them afterwards for comparison. Particularly for the subwoofers i don´t really know how to do that correctly, so i can not interpret the subwoofer graphs 100% correctly. For Dirac i made Java-measurements with RWE, for MA1 i used ASIO. I don´t know i some of the differences may be influenced by this. I always used the same channel (left main) for acoustical timing reference."

No, thank you for sharing. I appreciate it.
On the contrary, after looking at your measurements, I was able to revisit the points where many users raised questions about the DLBC. If you configure everything with the Neumann product line, the MA1 also seems like a good choice.

 

[IamJF]

MA1 got the transition sub to mains way better - that's very important and probably the main benefit of MA1 in a studio setup, getting the sub integration right for "normal" users.
I miss a realistic target/house curve in these measurements. Give the low end a few dB boost and roll off high end depending on listening situation (I don't do a roll of for nearfield) and you should be good to go.

p.s.: always be careful with conclusions like "measurement system X has slower late decay". This is hardly possible but very easy influenced with measurement mistakes or influences! Don't trust calculated lines on sheets when they seem strange - tripple check what's going on.

 

[Lion♡]

p.s.: always be careful with conclusions like "measurement system X has slower late decay". This is hardly possible but very easy influenced with measurement mistakes or influences! Don't trust calculated lines on sheets when they seem strange - tripple check what's going on.

So I attached something like the noise floor, just in case someone might misunderstand about it (even though it’s an old post).

 

[IamJF]

So I attached something like the noise floor, just in case someone might misunderstand about it (even though it’s an old post).

Yes - that's exactly how it needs to be done! Look at all the parameters and find explanations for strange results.

 

[Lion♡]

Yes - that's exactly how it needs to be done! Look at all the parameters and find explanations for strange results.

(MA1 noise floor)

Therefore, the overall attenuation pattern across the entire range (especially above the midrange) is likely to be similar, and the difference observed in the measurements may be due to measurement variations.

I’ve already written about that... You know what I mean, and I know what you mean, so there’s no need for this exchange to continue.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

I miss a realistic target/house curve in these measurements. Give the low end a few dB boost and roll off high end depending on listening situation (I don't do a roll of for nearfield) and you should be good to go.

Sorry, but no. The MA1 sounded good, DLBC still too bassy in my room.
My room is very dry and the distance is short. So i don't need more slope. Neumann knows and makes the target accordingly, Dirac was always off in my case. The typical "Harman curve" does not apply under these dry, nearfield conditions. I never got the target right before i got MA1, because i always were too close to recommedations like yours.
Only when MA1 came out, it finally got the target right for me and i realized how wrong i was before.

 

[IamJF]

Sorry, but no. The MA1 sounded good, DLBC still too bassy in my room.
My room is very dry and the distance is short. So i don't need more slope. Neumann knows and makes the target accordingly, Dirac was always off in my case. The typical "Harman curve" does not apply under these dry, nearfield conditions. I never got the target right before i got MA1, because i always were too close to recommedations like yours.
Only when MA1 came out, it finally got the target right for me and i realized how wrong i was before.

MA1 actually DOES a bass boost on default (3dB wehn I remember right). I also don't do a hf roll off in a nearfield situation - as I wrote.
My room is also VERY dry and without the little bass boost it doesn't translate well for mixing/mastering. It's too precise compared to the real world, a little boost (ca. 4dB) gives it enough "weight" so mixes are correct.

Harmann curve is for in room far field listening ... it's also to dark for me in most situations.

 

[DJBonoBobo]

MA1 actually DOES a bass boost on default (3dB wehn I remember right). I also don't do a hf roll off in a nearfield situation - as I wrote.
My room is also VERY dry and without the little bass boost it doesn't translate well for mixing/mastering. It's too precise compared to the real world, a little boost (ca. 4dB) gives it enough "weight" so mixes are correct.

Harmann curve is for in room far field listening ... it's also to dark for me in most situations.

I don´t understand your post then. As i wrote in my OP, i used the original MA1 target. It had a little bass boost, but less than 3dB in my case. More like 2dB, which was good for my room. MA1 does not use a fixed boost. The target is calculated individually for every system based on distance and measurements.
It is fine if you like more boost in your room better, but i do not understand why you "miss a realistic target". I used a very good sounding house curve with a small bass boost.

 

[Lion♡]

I also don't do a hf roll off in a nearfield situation

curve is for in room far field listening ..

The room curve is not a goal but a result. That result comes from distance attenuation, off‑axis radiation characteristics, and the density, timing, and intensity of reflections. You can always adjust the LF/HF balance later to suit your preferences, but once again, all the answers lie in Dr. Toole’s brief comment below.

If you dig through my posts you will see several occasions on which I say something like: "A room curve is a result, not a target".

 

[Mike8040]

So to summarize, Dirac Live Bass Control/Management (confusing product naming convention..) is a waste of time for 2.1 or 2.2 systems?

I really had interest to trial the newest Dirac system after using Sonarworks for years and always being disappointed by the veil and transient issues that comes with it. Their prediction is somewhat brazen if you verify it with REW. Looks eyecandy but resolves nearly nothing and sound like shiiet tbh..
Since then I moved to using a custom DSP solution with only REW phase alignment tool and EQ correction below Schroeder frq. I'm impressed by the REW phase alignment tool. The prediction is always correct with the measurement results. I have a similar project studio like OP and so far releasing stuff that works on bigger PAs, so I should be telling me "I'm fine, you're happy what you got" speaking about "TheZebraKilledDarwin" post which was a good read! Thanks!

But then my monkey brain wants me to squeeze out the extra bit out of my system, when I start to struggle with a project where mids or low end is a pain to get right...