KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,992
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 10, 2014 15:26:52 GMT -5
Honestly, I never suggested that Amarra had any sonic flaws - but then I've never heard any flaws with Foobar2000 either (as long as it's running in WASAPI mode and you're using a DAC with an asynch input). I simply fail to see any justification for over $100 for a simple player app whose sole job is sending bits to a DAC without modifying them. Now, if we're including room correction like Dirac, the question becomes one of price vs flexibility.... $500 for Dirac for music is about what Dirac is charging for the software - if I recall.... but, if I'm spending that much for room correction, I'm going to want to use it for watching cable, and Blu-Ray discs, and all my other sources as well as computer audio - which to me makes either software-only solution seriously limited. (Actually, to be entirely truthful, at home I usually use room correction for movies and Blu-Rays, but turn it off and run in direct mode for stereo music... so I guess our needs are far different.) The Amarra version obviously only works with Amarra - and can only be used with source material played on Amarra, and with output hardware that you connect to Amarra (and on a Mac, of course). So, if you use your Mac and Amarra for playing stereo music, then you will ONLY be able to use it with stereo music you play on that computer. (Personally, since you can get FooBar2000 for free, or jRiver for $50, or the BitPerfect plugin for iTunes for somewhere around $10, and all of them can deliver the same perfect bits as Amarra, I am at a loss as to how anybody can justify the price of Amarra by itself, but I suppose it has some wondrous features I missed ). I missed this before, Keith. I am on Amarra since years and I upgraded to Amarra Symphony with iRC [Dirac]. It's totally clear you never heard Amarra. It has flaws, but they are not sonic. Never mind, keep using PC's.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,992
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 10, 2014 15:57:34 GMT -5
I would have to disagree here..... Yes, it's entirely true, if you just want to try out the controls and stuff like that, then any old speakers and microphone will do. HOWEVER, in all fairness, the whole point of room correction is how well it does its job. For most people, room correction is something you run to set up your room - and then leave alone after that. So what matters the most isn't how convenient it is to run, or how pretty the GUI is, but how well it does at correcting for room issues. That being the case, wouldn't running a high-end room correction with a cheap microphone and speakers be sort of like sitting behind the steering wheel of a car, with the engine off, going "vroom vroom" - and calling it a test drive? The only way you're going to tell how well it works is to use at least a decent microphone and real speakers. (At least use a $25 microphone and real speakers.) I thought the XSP-1 was the original version or first generation of the XMC. I have not used anything other than audyssey in my system, so this is all new to me. My system currently consist of a Marantz nr1403, crown xls 1500 amp, and Goldenear triton 2's. I am in the market for a better pre/pro, but feel like Dirac may be for someone with more experience than I currently have. Another option would be to utilize the free trial that Dirac offers. This way you can test the waters before you spend the $$ on the XMC. If you just want to see if you get along with the software you can use computer speakers and any microphone. Tony
|
|
|
Post by redog on Mar 10, 2014 16:36:02 GMT -5
What types of microphones are good for this type of setup? Is there a package of some type that includes all the necessary components?
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,211
|
Post by geebo on Mar 10, 2014 16:53:01 GMT -5
What types of microphones are good for this type of setup? Is there a package of some type that includes all the necessary components? The XMC will come with the necessary microphone.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,773
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 10, 2014 17:46:47 GMT -5
redog...unless I misinterpreted what you said, it sounds like you just have a 2-channel system. If so...look at the XSP-1. If you do have multichannel, then you would need something like the XMC-1 or other multichannel options. While you could get the XMC-1 and just use it for 2-channel, that's a bit of a waste, IMHO.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by redog on Mar 10, 2014 18:00:53 GMT -5
redog...unless I misinterpreted what you said, it sounds like you just have a 2-channel system. If so...look at the XSP-1. If you do have multichannel, then you would need something like the XMC-1 or other multichannel options. While you could get the XMC-1 and just use it for 2-channel, that's a bit of a waste, IMHO. Mark Your correct, but I do want to add surround in the near future. That is why I am looking at the XMC. I also have my eye on the oppo 105. It seems both of these offer good two channel playback, and can also handle surround. The oppo is tempting for its video playback possibilities, but then you loose the room correction. It's to bad Emo didn't incorporate some video processing.
|
|
|
Post by redog on Mar 10, 2014 18:13:17 GMT -5
What do you guys think about the following statements:
Laurie Fincham, THX Chief Scientist, during a discussion on his patio: “We’re sitting here talking outdoors, your voice sounds fine to me, and I’m having no problems understanding you. But if we go into the car, into a completely different acoustical environment, I don’t suddenly think, ‘I’ve got to EQ Brent’s voice to make it sound right in this different space.’ Your hearing adapts instantly to it.”
Paul Hales, president of Pro Audio Technology, while he was showing me the digital signal processing technology built into his company’s amplifiers: “A grand piano sounds right no matter where you place it, whether it’s in a concert hall or your living room. You don’t go in and start EQ’ing it for different acoustical environments.”
I hijacked this from a sound and vision thread.
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Mar 10, 2014 18:56:16 GMT -5
I would have to disagree here..... Yes, it's entirely true, if you just want to try out the controls and stuff like that, then any old speakers and microphone will do. HOWEVER, in all fairness, the whole point of room correction is how well it does its job. For most people, room correction is something you run to set up your room - and then leave alone after that. So what matters the most isn't how convenient it is to run, or how pretty the GUI is, but how well it does at correcting for room issues. That being the case, wouldn't running a high-end room correction with a cheap microphone and speakers be sort of like sitting behind the steering wheel of a car, with the engine off, going "vroom vroom" - and calling it a test drive? The only way you're going to tell how well it works is to use at least a decent microphone and real speakers. (At least use a $25 microphone and real speakers.) Believe me, sitting behind the wheel of a Ferrari, even with the engine turned off, certainly gives you a sense of what's possible. If a user doesn't have the equipment near his stereo to try out Dirac, and is concerned that it'll be too complicated to make it worth his while, I think giving it a test run, even without buying a microphone and moving a computer into the listening area, makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by redog on Mar 10, 2014 19:34:58 GMT -5
I would have to disagree here..... Yes, it's entirely true, if you just want to try out the controls and stuff like that, then any old speakers and microphone will do. HOWEVER, in all fairness, the whole point of room correction is how well it does its job. For most people, room correction is something you run to set up your room - and then leave alone after that. So what matters the most isn't how convenient it is to run, or how pretty the GUI is, but how well it does at correcting for room issues. That being the case, wouldn't running a high-end room correction with a cheap microphone and speakers be sort of like sitting behind the steering wheel of a car, with the engine off, going "vroom vroom" - and calling it a test drive? The only way you're going to tell how well it works is to use at least a decent microphone and real speakers. (At least use a $25 microphone and real speakers.) Believe me, sitting behind the wheel of a Ferrari, even with the engine turned off, certainly gives you a sense of what's possible. If a user doesn't have the equipment near his stereo to try out Dirac, and is concerned that it'll be too complicated to make it worth his while, I think giving it a test run, even without buying a microphone and moving a computer into the listening area, makes perfect sense. I like the direction we are headed here: XMC-1 ~ Ferrari
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,773
|
Post by klinemj on Mar 10, 2014 20:05:53 GMT -5
I have the 105, and I must say - for 2 channel playback I am disappointed vs. Emotiva's old ERC-2 and their DC-1. Both sound noticeably better to me than the 105. I am not ashamed to say that I would prefer if I had not purchased the 105 and had instead bought a BluRay that was cheaper by not having the BluRay worry about audio.
And, the 105 does not have any automatic room correction system. And, it does not have time domain adjustment. If you are going surround, I would seriously look at the XMC-1 for a) it's "hot-rodded analog section", b) great multichannel audio even w/o room correction, and c) for it having DIRAC room correction (as well as a great PEQ manual system if you prefer to tinker) that promises to be an amazing system. While the Oppo 105 has a great video section (and an OK audio section, from my experience), even though the XMC only has HDMI video switching - there are plenty of BluRays or even TV's that handle the video part just fine for my needs. So, I don't need the XMC to do that part...pass it through and let it be is how I feel.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Mar 10, 2014 21:07:05 GMT -5
This is how I plan to test Dirac on the XMC-1.
When the XMC-1 arrives on my doorstep I will connect it to the XPA-2 and XPA-5 in my HT room. I will then use REW to fine tune my speaker positions and to adjust phase, PEQ etc to get the best possible results.
I will then run Dirac and compare the results by switching between my PEQ settings and the Dirac settings while listening for differences.
It will also be interesting to check the Dirac settings with REW.
Cheers, Dave.
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Mar 10, 2014 21:42:26 GMT -5
Dave,
Sounds like the best plan I've heard to get a handle on the true value of Dirac in it's XMC-1 configuration. I'm sure many of us will be very interested in your results!
Cheers!
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by flak on Mar 11, 2014 8:55:41 GMT -5
What do you guys think about the following statements: Laurie Fincham, THX Chief Scientist, during a discussion on his patio: “We’re sitting here talking outdoors, your voice sounds fine to me, and I’m having no problems understanding you. But if we go into the car, into a completely different acoustical environment, I don’t suddenly think, ‘I’ve got to EQ Brent’s voice to make it sound right in this different space.’ Your hearing adapts instantly to it.” Paul Hales, president of Pro Audio Technology, while he was showing me the digital signal processing technology built into his company’s amplifiers: “A grand piano sounds right no matter where you place it, whether it’s in a concert hall or your living room. You don’t go in and start EQ’ing it for different acoustical environments.” I hijacked this from a sound and vision thread. mmm... i.m.h.o those are fascinating statements which lead to wrong conclusions. We are accustomed from birth to recognize voices and there is no doubt that we will easily consider our mother's voice as natural even through a very poor and bandwidth limited telephone connection, we do not feel the urge of EQing it to make it sound right... that does not imply that a telephone handset is a high performance and faithful reproduction system. Also "if we go into a car" and the audio system has not been equalized, the sound of music (which is a different thing from narrow band voice) will be unsatisfactory at best. As far as the second statement is concerned we should take into account that we are not listening to a grand piano... we are listening to the recording of a grand piano in a concert hall, so that we listen to the acoustics of a concert hall together with the sound of the grand piano itself... we do not want to add the acoustics of our living room to the acoustics of the concert hall, even more so because the acoustics of our normal living rooms will generate dips and peaks of min. +- 5/10 dBs if not more. And we have been talking about frequency response only, but what about transients like a trimshot? You will notice that transients will be crisper and cleaner with headphones, and this happens because transients are not "smeared" by the room acoustics. In other words in my admittedly biased opinion a high quality correction of frequency and impulse responses is often the most valuable and perceivable improvement of an audio system Ciao, Flavio
|
|
|
Post by redog on Mar 11, 2014 12:35:13 GMT -5
What do you guys think about the following statements: Laurie Fincham, THX Chief Scientist, during a discussion on his patio: “We’re sitting here talking outdoors, your voice sounds fine to me, and I’m having no problems understanding you. But if we go into the car, into a completely different acoustical environment, I don’t suddenly think, ‘I’ve got to EQ Brent’s voice to make it sound right in this different space.’ Your hearing adapts instantly to it.” Paul Hales, president of Pro Audio Technology, while he was showing me the digital signal processing technology built into his company’s amplifiers: “A grand piano sounds right no matter where you place it, whether it’s in a concert hall or your living room. You don’t go in and start EQ’ing it for different acoustical environments.” I hijacked this from a sound and vision thread. mmm... i.m.h.o those are fascinating statements which lead to wrong conclusions. We are accustomed from birth to recognize voices and there is no doubt that we will easily consider our mother's voice as natural even through a very poor and bandwidth limited telephone connection, we do not feel the urge of EQing it to make it sound right... that does not imply that a telephone handset is a high performance and faithful reproduction system. Also "if we go into a car" and the audio system has not been equalized, the sound of music (which is a different thing from narrow band voice) will be unsatisfactory at best. As far as the second statement is concerned we should take into account that we are not listening to a grand piano... we are listening to the recording of a grand piano in a concert hall, so that we listen to the acoustics of a concert hall together with the sound of the grand piano itself... we do not want to add the acoustics of our living room to the acoustics of the concert hall, even more so because the acoustics of our normal living rooms will generate dips and peaks of min. +- 5/10 dBs if not more. And we have been talking about frequency response only, but what about transients like a trimshot? You will notice that transients will be crisper and cleaner with headphones, and this happens because transients are not "smeared" by the room acoustics. In other words in my admittedly biased opinion a high quality correction of frequency and impulse responses is often the most valuable and perceivable improvement of an audio system Ciao, Flavio Great response here!
|
|
dan50
Minor Hero
Posts: 12
|
Post by dan50 on Mar 17, 2014 17:25:34 GMT -5
Will the Dirac software in the xmc1 handle 2 subs like Audyssey Sub EQ HT ?
|
|
|
Post by Topend on Mar 19, 2014 1:19:34 GMT -5
Will the Dirac software in the xmc1 handle 2 subs like Audyssey Sub EQ HT ? Yes, it will correct each sub independently and in stereo on the XMC-1. Dave.
|
|
gn0m4
Minor Hero
Posts: 12
|
Post by gn0m4 on Mar 23, 2014 19:15:53 GMT -5
Will the Dirac software in the xmc1 handle real rear Parametric EQ?
|
|
|
Post by audioguy123 on Mar 23, 2014 21:02:33 GMT -5
Will the Dirac software in the xmc1 handle 2 subs like Audyssey Sub EQ HT ? Yes, it will correct each sub independently and in stereo on the XMC-1. Dave. That is not how Audyssey in a pre-pro or a receiver works. Audyssey adjusts trim and distance of the two subs and THEN does the correction of both subs combined. That is a much preferred solution than what the XMC is going to do. I have spent hours getting the combined output of my subs to be as flat (pre EQ) as possible. They are not individually in the best position but they are in the best position collectively. Doing what the XMC will be doing takes away most of the advantages of using multiple subs. For example ( this is the situation I have): my front subs have a broad range dip (if measured by themselves) that would require a huge amount of amp power to correct (which is what the XMC will try to do). My rear sub has a peak in approximately the same range of the front sub dip so when corrected together, the amps do almost no work as the correction filters are very flat. The original Audyssey SubEQ provided both options but Audyssey (the company, not the product) were adamant that the way I described (which is how Audyssey x32 works) was by far the preferred approach.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,211
|
Post by geebo on Mar 23, 2014 21:07:56 GMT -5
Will the Dirac software in the xmc1 handle real rear Parametric EQ? The Dirac filters are not created on the local machine and require more than just PEQ to create them. They are made on a computer using measurements taken in your room then loaded into the XMC-1 to use. The PEQ of the XMC isn't in the mix with Dirac.
|
|
|
Post by rcohen on Mar 24, 2014 7:34:59 GMT -5
I hope there is an option to correct multiple subs as a group and just adjust gain and delay for each sub output.
I use 4 subs. 2 at the front and 2 at the back of the room. They are used to cancel out room modes. The response of an individual sub without cancellation is awful, and impossible to EQ individually, but the group response is good. I do need 2 sub outputs to tune gain and delay, since the front and back pairs aren't equidistant form the listening position. Audyssey XT32 does all this right.
If Dirac just has the option to EQ subs as a group or to EQ them individually, nothing wrong with that, but it would be a real bummer if there was no option to EQ them as a group, but with individual gain and delay.
|
|