[Pictures Inside] Dirac Correction 0-300Hz Vs Full Range Correction

[alont]

You can definitely EQ above the transition frequency.

for example my living room is reflective as fuck and my response is dead flat from 1K to 20Khz, i use Dirac to add a high frequency roll-off.

If your speaker's LW is flat and your ERDI is smooth, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a flat in-room measurement - the way your brain and ears perceive sound is very different from how a microphone does. If the room is too reverberant EQ won't save you, only room treatment or switching to narrower-directivity speakers will help.

Putting that aside, if for whatever reason you still want to implement a high-frequency rolloff you can do so easily with plain-old PEQ and probably get a better result.

 

[digitalfrost]

I chose 0-300, but only because your full correction curve is so weird. Why is it straight?

 

[abdo123]

If your speaker's LW is flat and your ERDI is smooth, there's nothing wrong with having a flat in-room measurement - the way your brain and ears perceive sound is very different from how a microphone does.

Putting that aside, if for whatever reason you still want to implement a high-frequency rolloff you can do so easily with plain-old PEQ and probably get a better result.

what’s ERDI?

Edit: Early reflections DI got it.

 

[alont]

what’s ERDI?

Early reflections directivity index - I highly recommend reading Floyd Toole's "sound reproduction" book for more info. It's the best audiophile investment I've made so far

 

[symphara]

What’s your uncorrected response? How does it sound to you?

 

[SadMonster]

your speakers aren’t anechoicly flat anymore when you use DSP.

So the logical decision is to aim for the performance of a flat speaker in a good room. (Not flat).

They are flat above the transition frequency if I limit Dirac to under 300hz

I chose 0-300, but only because your full correction curve is so weird. Why is it straight?

Dr Toole says Harman curve is just typical in room response of highly rated speakers and also advises against EQing above transition frequency on good speakers and he seems to like the speakers I have

What’s your uncorrected response? How does it sound to you?

Completely uncorrected the bass gets much worse, uneven. With correction limited to under 300hz the speakers sound pretty much the same but with even bass. Corrected all the way through to flat makes the speakers sound very detailed but sometimes slightly unnaturally so and occasionally shrill.

 

[abdo123]

Can you at least use the default target curve when you limit it to 300 Hz.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I do full range with the default Dirac curve and have for 6 years. Sounds great. If your speaker has well controlled directivity, I don't know why you would not want to use DL full range.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But aren't the speakers super flat and the rest is just room interaction that my brain processes somewhat separately from the direct sound without significant decreases in preference ratings?

One adapts to the room but I doubt if the brain can separate it from the speakers without effort. You can adapt to almost anything but the whole point of this endeavor is to avoid that necessity.

 

[Dj7675]

Dirac Correcting Up To 300HZ:
View attachment 133171
Dirac Full Range Correction:
View attachment 133172

Which would you pick?

I'm aware of the experiments done by Dr. Toole that suggest that a good speaker is a good speaker regardless of the room that it's in with questionable benefits to be gained above processing above 300-400hz.

He says that the JBL M2 doesn't need any processing above the 300-400hz range. On another comment he says that the JBL 7 series, which is what I have, are basically as good as the M2 and difficult to pick apart from each other short of volume potential.

Following this logic I should go for the top target curve where only the low end is corrected but still I'd like to hear what you all think...

It's kind of hard to A/B them because Dirac has a 5 second delay between switching the corrections but my impression is:

- The 0-300hz correction feels more natural and easier to listen to but less detailed. This correction basically lets the JBL 7 series sound like the 7 series except with controlled and even bass.

- The full range correction sounds clearer but it's so clear it sometimes dips into shrill territory and there is definitely a noticeable tone change to the speakers that make me worry that even though the system measures better to a dumb microphone it will sound worse than the "uncorrected" top version which our powerful brains can correct on their own as suggested by Dr Toole.

The one thing I will say for anyone who is considering Dirac is that there is no question that the bass is improved on my system. Bass notes that are way too loud are brought down into line and bass notes that almost felt absent before are suddenly right up there with the rest of them. If I had to describe it simply I would use the words: even and balanced.

I'm honestly not sure which I prefer from the two curves...which of these 2 would you pick?

Edit: This is subject to change still, but been listening to the above curves, and I’m preferring flat target full range correction on these speakers in this room by a pretty good amount right now…

Your observation of the flat room curve is completely predictable. For most people it will sound bass light and the highs can be piercing/shrill (especially at higher volumes). If you are really interested in full range correction, do as others have suggested. Use the default curve, or one of the various Harman curves. Or something simple like .7-.9 per octave slope. You may not like or need it as those are very good speakers (I had a pair).

 

[SadMonster]

Your observation of the flat room curve is completely predictable. For most people it will sound bass light and the highs can be piercing/shrill (especially at higher volumes). If you are really interested in full range correction, do as others have suggested. Use the default curve, or one of the various Harman curves. Or something simple like .7-.9 per octave slope. You may not like or need it as those are very good speakers (I had a pair).

Overall I quite like the flat target so far it's mostly on movies I've noticed it feels like it can be a tad "piercing" ;[ I am guessing that is because of the dynamic range or something

 

[SIY]

I greatly prefer full range. But I use a target response similar to Dirac default.

 

[Dj7675]

For example as Amir mentioned something like a 5dB drop from 80-20hz (and boost your bass to taste). Speakers should be flat Anechoic and when placed in a room, it will tilt downwards. When you artificially flatten (boost the highs to get flat) it will sound bright/unnatural (To most people).

 

[SadMonster]

For example as Amir mentioned something like a 5dB drop from 80-20hz (and boost your bass to taste). Speakers should be flat Anechoic and when placed in a room, it will tilt downwards. When you artificially flatten (boost the highs to get flat) it will sound bright/unnatural (To most people).

My FR graph shows a natural kind of slope with my neutral speakers but the dirac default curve seems to slope down the speakers more than they naturally do.

A flat target curve here seems to want to squish the midrange more than it boosts the highs.

Still going back and forth but I have a preference right now for the flat target curve currently...

 

[AudioExplorer]

I am trying out Dirac Live 3 and I came across this thread. The Harman target curves at the Dirac site (also linked in Kalman Rubinson's article on Stereophile) seem to basically be flat from 400 Hz to 20 kHz. Below 400 Hz of course there is a bass boost with four different curves for different levels of boost. The target above 400 Hz for the default curve on the other hand has the continuing downward linear slope. It seems that many including Kalman in his Stereophile article seem to prefer the Harman target curve to the default curve. I am curious whether this means that they preferred a flat target above 400 Hz or if there was some more tweaking done above 400 Hz to change the Harman target curve.

 

[abdo123]

I am trying out Dirac Live 3 and I came across this thread. The Harman target curves at the Dirac site (also linked in Kalman Rubinson's article on Stereophile) seem to basically be flat from 400 Hz to 20 kHz. Below 400 Hz of course there is a bass boost with four different curves for different levels of boost. The target above 400 Hz for the default curve on the other hand has the continuing downward linear slope. It seems that many including Kalman in his Stereophile article seem to prefer the Harman target curve to the default curve. I am curious whether this means that they preferred a flat target above 400 Hz or if there was some more tweaking done above 400 Hz to change the Harman target curve.

If you want a target curve based on the Olive score / Preference score that is thrown out after every review here then you're in good luck, i made one myself. save it as a .targetcurve file in C:\Users\*your username*\Dirac\targets

I have a 4dB sub-bass boost from 80Hz and below, this is a subjective thing that i picked up from Harman research too, feel free to adjust the amount as you wish. my target curve is usually a great starting point.

if you have high scoring speaker then you can probably move the curtains and limit the correction to ~200Hz or 300Hz.


NAME
Unnamed
DEVICENAME

BREAKPOINTS
40 8.6
80 7.6
100.7 3.6
115.8 3.3
133.0 3
152.9 2.7
175.7 2.4
201.9 2.1
232.1 1.9
266.7 1.6
306.5 1.4
352.3 1.2
404.8 1
465.3 0.9
534.7 0.7
614.5 0.6
706.2 0.4
811.6 0.3
932.8 0.2
1072.0 0
1232.0 -0.1
1415.8 -0.2
1627.1 -0.3
1870.0 -0.4
2149.1 -0.4
2469.9 -0.5
2838.5 -0.6
3262.1 -0.7
3749.0 -0.8
4308.6 -0.8
4951.6 -0.9
5690.7 -1
6540.0 -1
7516.1 -1.1
8637.9 -1.1
9927.1 -1.2
11408.7 -1.2
13111.5 -1.3
15068.4 -1.4
17317.4 -1.4
18801.1 -1.4
LOWLIMITHZ
19.5
HIGHLIMITHZ
21797.2

 

[Daka]

Flat is not necessarily good. Its good for movies to get all channels balanced but not so much for stereo listening. Each speaker has got certain characteristics if we flat line them they all would sound similar - I don't think that's the point. Renowned RoomPerfect doesn't flat line the curve only makes sure that between dip and peak isn't more than 10db hence preserving speaker characteristics negating any bigger dips or peaks due to room.

 

[flaviowolff]

If I set a curtain to, say, 300hz in Dirac, will it adjust the overall level of the rest of the spectrum (301-20khz) to be in-level with the EQ'd section?
According to the visualization, the EQ'd section (0-300hz) appears to be much lower than the rest when a curtain is used.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I use Dirac and I used a full range correction which was implemented after I did Maiky76 peq for my LS 50 Metas with Sb2000 sub. Frankly it was so close either way that I just left the target curve full range. I don't think that the correction was more than +/- 1 db anywhere above the Schroeder frequency, so I refrained from using the curtain feature. If getting the overall room eq'd affected the anechoic on axis response at all, the effect was very slight.

And yes, I did start with the Dirac curve and slightly modified it manually to make it more in line with the Harman curve.

Final result sounds great.

 

[Flak]

If you have the inclination, we are very interested in your thoughts and comments about a target curve custom designed according to the measurements of each specific room (it can be eventually modified with sliders)
Such a target curve can be tested using a smartphone or tablet and the new mobile apps that we are currently testing:

Downloads - Dirac

www.dirac.com

Thanks for your time
Flavio