chaluga2
Minor Hero
Enter your message here...
Posts: 95
|
Post by chaluga2 on Sept 9, 2013 0:21:57 GMT -5
For hdmi, I have around that now(6) Bluray Boxee Appletv Xbox360 Ps3 Cable box
Your.blueray , boxee , apple tv , could.all be combined into oppo103 or.dune.d1. Had.boxee and it doesn't hold.a.candle to the dune.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 9, 2013 2:10:56 GMT -5
In Addition to what Andrew notes above, DIRAC and Emotiva each had been working withMomentum Data Solutions - so there was a natural linkage that helps make integration into the XMC easier to get done. That 2 XMC's were already using it at Emofest is a clear demo of that. Mark I didn't know that DIRAC had been working with Momentum too. That's fascinating. That makes complete sense.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 9, 2013 7:29:26 GMT -5
Keeping in line with the original post, I think some comparisons can be made. If we are comparing dirac vs audyssey and not comparing the equipment they live in, I have devised a test plan utilizing the free trial of dirac. www.dirac.se/en/consumer-products/dirac-rcs.aspxGood idea. Would be interesting to see the results. The plan. Create a worst case scenerio. Probably it is not as good idea as it seems. We want the room correction not only to work in the worst environments possible, but to improve the sound in good environments, not to introduce their own negative artifacts when correcting. In artificially bad environments you will not be able to tell the effect of those artifacts. So, as many people here want to get the best possible from their system we need a good room for comparison as there is no point in having a DRC that works best in the worst conditions and fails in good ones Since the dirac software gives a before and after I should have 4 charts. Audyssey, audyssey + dirac, dirac only and stock. IMHO Audyssey+Dirac is useless and can be safely excluded from the test to save time. No one wants to combine them and the result of combining of two such high precision automatic systems can only be worse than separately using them. Neither expect any other correction system in the chain when doing it's measurements. For dirac to compete against audyssey. I feel it needs to provide noticable improvment in the time domain over the audyssey multeq xt. To make good analysis right set measurements are prerequisite. It would be good if you will be able to share them in the source form (REW files are the best). What measurements I would be interested is: - direct pre-out measurement (the baseline) - pre-out measurements with Audyssey and with Dirac (I am also interested to look to the impulse response there with different scales) - acoustic measurements in direct mode - acoustic measurements with Audyssey and with Dirac (besides the frequency response I would be interested in comparing 'minimum phase' graphs with the direct case) There is really a lot of interesting stuff about DRC qualities if you look deeper than just to the frequency response measurements. I've done this for XT vs. XT32.
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 9, 2013 7:52:01 GMT -5
My take is to keep it simple to help the most possible. I an not sure if I can use rew or not since this will be a software based filter. If possible I will get the info though and send it to those who want it. I just dont want to turn this thread into a how to read rew thread. Impulse. Spl. For the multiple mains. I will take some measurements before hand. I am trying to mimic loading the corners of a room. Tony sorry for the short response. sent from my phone.
|
|
|
Post by coldfusion on Sept 9, 2013 8:21:49 GMT -5
For hdmi, I have around that now(6) Bluray Boxee Appletv Xbox360 Ps3 Cable box Your.blueray , boxee , apple tv , could.all be combined into oppo103 or.dune.d1. Had.boxee and it doesn't hold.a.candle to the dune. The dune looks pretty cool. But the Dune website points to blank pages for both online resellers and B&M. Is this a current model? Can't find it anywhere except ebay? I'm not particularly fond of the Boxee, but it plays VIDEO_TS files just fine. I didn't feel like re-encoding all my rips, so i need something that'll see my Synology and play Video_TS. Sorry for taking this WAY off topic...I can take it to PM's Thanks chaluga2.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,776
|
Post by klinemj on Sept 9, 2013 8:34:21 GMT -5
Tony - I think your test sounds like a great idea. Looking forward to results. I like the idea of running Audyssey and then running DIRAC to see what Audyssey leaves the room with. Jim...re, "I didn't know that DIRAC had been working with Momentum too. That's fascinating. That makes complete sense."...yep, and guess what...that point is in the Emofest notes under the "DIRAC" section. Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,009
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 9, 2013 8:39:55 GMT -5
... But ISN'T sound quality the whole point? I had a receiver ten years ago. It was 100 watts x 7, and had all the decoders that were current at the time, and a lot of inputs and outputs (really a lot for back then). Heck, even though it was only 7.1, it has connections for 11(!) speakers.... you got surround, and height, and, I think, maybe, flavor, or something like that... It had some sort of cool sounding room correction (well, it sounded cool on the spec sheet.) It cost $249; not even on sale. Oh, yes, and it sounded like crap.... so all of those features weren't worth much - since you couldn't listen to any of them without getting a headache. So, at least for anybody HERE, isn't the whole point that we want something that SOUNDS GOOD? I know what I want is something that SOUNDS GREAT; then, if at all possible, I would like some features too. (Sure; if I can't connect all my stuff to it, I'll be looking for something else; but, if I can't listen to it, then I'll be doing the same thing.) If all you're looking for is a laundry list of features, then you probably can get more of them, right now, for a lot less money..... I assume you're still here because the sound quality IS important to you. From what we've heard, Dirac SOUNDS better than Audyssey, most of the time - at least in the situations where we had a chance to compare them. Slaughtered spec sheet wise? I would be interested to hear you expand on the spec sheets you refer to, and to which processors you are referring. You point out HDMI inputs/outputs and 9.2 or 11.2 processing, as has already been stated, I would be hard pressed to name more than 7 actual sources for HDMI inputs, but that's just me(anyone else here have more than 7, just curious?). As for outputs, I can understand that some home theater enthusiasts may actually have a flat panel and a projector, but a splitter will do the same job as other mirrored HDMI outputs, not to mention that two HDMI outputs looks to be a near future upgrade for the XMC-1. If 9.2 or 11.2 is your bag, then you must have plenty of room for 11 or 13 channels of speakers, personally I don't have the room and I'd be willing to bet many home theater enthusiasts are hard pressed to fit 5.1 in there given room, but that would be a guess. As for Audyssey XT32, yes it appears to be a proven mass market, set it and forget it, room correction, and I've actually heard it in action in several other enviroments, but personally if a processor doesn't have a robust P-EQ where I can actually correct my room manually, I won't be considering that processor. I've been present for two different audio calibrations by professionals, and the use of a good microphone and P-EQ with REW was superior in both cases, and this was proven by the response curves that were taken before and after using both softwares. As you say, will DIRAC be better, time will tell, or will the subjective "sound quality" be more to your liking, time will tell, but then again the integration of all of the technologies that go into a processor are what makes the difference and not just because it may or may not have the most expensive DAC's for example. Yes. Spec sheet wise. You don't agree? Legacy inputs vs none. 11.2/9.2 vs 7.2 AirPlay vs none Network streaming vs ?? Multiple hdmi outs vs 1 3 zones vs ?? Bluetooth vs ?? Pandora streaming. Only thing the XMC has that the others don't is Dirac. Yamaha cx-a5000 can be had for less than 2k from authorized dealers. Denon and onkyo models have similar features. And newer processors you can run both hdmi outs at the same time, which a switch couldn't do. I correct my room as well. I'll take $500 in room treatments over $500 in RCS any day. For hdmi, I have around that now(6) Bluray Boxee Appletv Xbox360 Ps3 Cable box The ps4 will take me to 7. Then I also have Wii Cd Minidisc Airport express Dreamcast And just because you don't use the feature doesn't mean it isn't there or useful. Many people don't have room, but many others (especially those buying a 2k pro) do. Most people don't have multiple subs either. Anyhow I wasn't debating the usefulness of features to different people, everyone has a different set up. But clearly the others have many features the XMC doesn't, and the XMC has Dirac that the others don't have, which is why I believe emotiva chose tact, then Dirac (to keep this on topic)
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 9, 2013 8:40:11 GMT -5
Tony - I think your test sounds like a great idea. Looking forward to results. I like the idea of running Audyssey and then running DIRAC to see what Audyssey leaves the room with. Jim...re, "I didn't know that DIRAC had been working with Momentum too. That's fascinating. That makes complete sense."...yep, and guess what...that point is in the Emofest notes under the "DIRAC" section. Mark Yeah, I'm off to re-read your notes again. Perhaps, actually try to memorize them now. I understood that Emotiva had been working with Momentum to integrate DIRAC, what I didn't comprehend from the notes the first time through, was that it sounds like Momentum had *prior* experience with DIRAC - before the XMC-1. It's a minor but important distinction in my head -- I bet there aren't that many companies with experience with DIRAC that are willing to be involved the way that Momentum is. So good for Momentum.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,776
|
Post by klinemj on Sept 9, 2013 8:45:50 GMT -5
LOL! (FYI, even I had to go check to make sure I had put that there...and I had. It was quite a nice revelation and Dan's story about how the connection came up and then he realized the powerful 3 way connection that it would make was classic.)
Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,009
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 9, 2013 8:47:57 GMT -5
Igorzep is right, Comparing the two in the worst-case scenario couldn't hurt, but most of us will (hopefully) NOT be in that worst case scenario. You need to do both the worst-case scenario and a bunch of more normal (and even best case) scenarios. There are many solutions which have massively "powerful" DSP filter engines that can pound virtually any room, no matter how bad, into "some semblance of decent sound" (one highly regarded Behringer device comes to mind). From what I've heard (claimed), that Behringer unit could make a bathroom, or an auditorium, sound almost as good as a real room. Now, this is awesome if you're doing sound in a nightclub, or the Nassau Colosseum, or your bathroom, but it probably isn't what you want in your theater room. What you want there is something with the finesse to make a decent room sound even better. The two are usually not the same thing. I would also urge anyone actually doing tests to place MOST of the emphasis on the acoustic measurements. After all, any system designed to perfect the acoustic response will be doing so by modifying the electrical response. (If an electrical signal with good transient characteristics would give us an acoustic output with good transient characteristics, then we wouldn't need room correction; therefore, it stands to reason that the electrical signal we need to get a good acoustic response may not be at all what we would expect - that's why we're using the room correction system. Therefore, if we're testing a system designed to deliver an acoustic response, it makes sense to measure and rate the acoustic results. If the results turn out well acoustically - and audibly - then we must assume that the electrical output is whatever was necessary to achieve that success.) Keeping in line with the original post, I think some comparisons can be made. If we are comparing dirac vs audyssey and not comparing the equipment they live in, I have devised a test plan utilizing the free trial of dirac. www.dirac.se/en/consumer-products/dirac-rcs.aspxGood idea. Would be interesting to see the results. The plan. Create a worst case scenerio. Probably it is not as good idea as it seems. We want the room correction not only to work in the worst environments possible, but to improve the sound in good environments, not to introduce their own negative artifacts when correcting. In artificially bad environments you will not be able to tell the effect of those artifacts. So, as many people here want to get the best possible from their system we need a good room for comparison as there is no point in having a DRC that works best in the worst conditions and fails in good ones Since the dirac software gives a before and after I should have 4 charts. Audyssey, audyssey + dirac, dirac only and stock. IMHO Audyssey+Dirac is useless and can be safely excluded from the test to save time. No one wants to combine them and the result of combining of two such high precision automatic systems can only be worse than separately using them. Neither expect any other correction system in the chain when doing it's measurements. For dirac to compete against audyssey. I feel it needs to provide noticable improvment in the time domain over the audyssey multeq xt. To make good analysis right set measurements are prerequisite. It would be good if you will be able to share them in the source form (REW files are the best). What measurements I would be interested is: - direct pre-out measurement (the baseline) - pre-out measurements with Audyssey and with Dirac (I am also interested to look to the impulse response there with different scales) - acoustic measurements in direct mode - acoustic measurements with Audyssey and with Dirac (besides the frequency response I would be interested in comparing 'minimum phase' graphs with the direct case) There is really a lot of interesting stuff about DRC qualities if you look deeper than just to the frequency response measurements. I've done this for XT vs. XT32.
|
|
|
Post by coldfusion on Sept 9, 2013 9:22:02 GMT -5
... But ISN'T sound quality the whole point? I had a receiver ten years ago. It was 100 watts x 7, and had all the decoders that were current at the time, and a lot of inputs and outputs (really a lot for back then). Heck, even though it was only 7.1, it has connections for 11(!) speakers.... you got surround, and height, and, I think, maybe, flavor, or something like that... It had some sort of cool sounding room correction (well, it sounded cool on the spec sheet.) It cost $249; not even on sale. Oh, yes, and it sounded like crap.... so all of those features weren't worth much - since you couldn't listen to any of them without getting a headache. So, at least for anybody HERE, isn't the whole point that we want something that SOUNDS GOOD? I know what I want is something that SOUNDS GREAT; then, if at all possible, I would like some features too. (Sure; if I can't connect all my stuff to it, I'll be looking for something else; but, if I can't listen to it, then I'll be doing the same thing.) If all you're looking for is a laundry list of features, then you probably can get more of them, right now, for a lot less money..... I assume you're still here because the sound quality IS important to you. From what we've heard, Dirac SOUNDS better than Audyssey, most of the time - at least in the situations where we had a chance to compare them. It is. But it's highly subjective as well, and almost impossible to put on paper. It's hard to say sound quality is better or worse on something that isn't "here" yet. Not that i don't trust you guys, but you are after all selling it... It's easy (and objective) to compare features. You have them or you don't. But, as you point out, the whole point is sound quality (balanced with convenience). If i can't hook up my stuff or if its the size of a refridgerator, etc. Features can lead to (in)convenience as well. Yes, yes, you can work around some of the "features" like setting up an external HDMI splitter or running an airport express into the back in lieu of airplay. But each workaround degrades the "value" a little. But i guess you can't work around sound quality, even if you can't quantify it objectively. I think my UMC-1 sounds way better than my Yamaha RX-V2500. My wife prefers the Yamaha. Not because it sounds better/worse, but because to her it sounds the same, isn't as buggy, and i already had it (she viewed the UMC as a $500 expense for no perceived increase in quality). Just proves that no two people value the same things the same way or can even hear the differences. I hope the Emo implementation of Dirac blows away Audyssey and sets the industry on its ear, i really do. Better sound for all. I'm just waiting for someone (other than Emo or it's biggest fans) to review it. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by TKO on Sept 9, 2013 10:04:00 GMT -5
A first professional attempt at doing some objective/subjective testing of room correction systems/technologies was undertaken a few years back by Dr. Sean Olive, one of the foremost scientists in the business, and can be found at: seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html it is a great example of how to test the implementation of products performing this correction. It is also interesting to note that flat was not the preferred option. From my own personal testing, and measurements, using REW and FuzzMeasure, Anthem's ARC (MRX line) was superior to Audyssey XT32 which was superior to Pioneer's MCACC. I am not a fan/believer in correcting for any frequency above 300Hz as this is correcting the speaker and not the room. I have been very interested in what I have read about Dirac and how it works as it seems to have built a hybrid capability building on the others implementations, taking the best from each. I hope it works as well as the documentation sounds like it would. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Yetirider on Sept 9, 2013 15:15:00 GMT -5
When calibrating with Dirac is it done with a PC & calibrated mic etc like Audyssey pro so that the PC does all the number crunching & then transfers the filters to the processor ?
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Sept 9, 2013 15:17:24 GMT -5
When calibrating with Dirac is it done with a PC & calibrated mic etc like Audyssey pro so that the PC does all the number crunching & then transfers the filters to the processor ? Yes. Tony sorry for the short response. sent from my phone.
|
|
|
Post by Yetirider on Sept 9, 2013 15:25:42 GMT -5
Thanks Tony, A man of few words eh ! So would one also need to invest in a calibration kit like Audyssey pro too?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 9, 2013 15:32:37 GMT -5
Thanks Tony, A man of few words eh ! So would one also need to invest in a calibration kit like Audyssey pro too? No, I don't believe so. I'm sure that someone else will chime in, but I believe it includes something like the UMIK-1. A USB connected calibrated mic. The Audyssey pro kit is just a mic stand, a mic (with proprietary calibration), a preamp, cables and a CD (and access to buy the calibration license from Audyssey). By providing a USB connected calibrated mic, you greatly simplify things. Heck, even with Audyssey Pro, the mic still plugs into the Pre/pro..... I'd MUCH rather have a USB solution.
|
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,922
|
Post by hemster on Sept 9, 2013 15:35:17 GMT -5
When calibrating with Dirac is it done with a PC & calibrated mic etc like Audyssey pro so that the PC does all the number crunching & then transfers the filters to the processor ? Yes the PC does the work but it is also expected to be connected online at the time and some of the work is done on Dirac's servers. The resulting filters are then loaded onto the processor. As I understand it, the XMC will ship with a decent mic (not a 'puck') and I don't believe you'd need something like Audyssey Pro on top of that. Edit: Jim beat me to it and he expressed it very eloquently too!
|
|
|
Post by Yetirider on Sept 9, 2013 15:42:15 GMT -5
Thanks everyone for all the great input. It's really sounding like an interesting prospect.
|
|
|
Post by TKO on Sept 9, 2013 17:10:57 GMT -5
When calibrating with Dirac is it done with a PC & calibrated mic etc like Audyssey pro so that the PC does all the number crunching & then transfers the filters to the processor ? Yes the PC does the work but it is also expected to be connected online at the time and some of the work is done on Dirac's servers. The resulting filters are then loaded onto the processor. As I understand it, the XMC will ship with a decent mic (not a 'puck') and I don't believe you'd need something like Audyssey Pro on top of that. Edit: Jim beat me to it and he expressed it very eloquently too! If they do it like Anthem did it simplifies things greatly for the end user. The Anthem microphone has the pre-amp and the USB connection built into the microphone. This way all you do is plug it into the laptop with the supplied USB cable and with the Anthem ARC software select the serial number for the microphone. The serial number for the microphone provides the calibration file from Anthem to ensure a flat measurement reference for the microphone. Cheers.
|
|
geebo
Emo VIPs
"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxicabs and cutting hair"
Posts: 24,213
|
Post by geebo on Sept 9, 2013 17:18:18 GMT -5
Yes the PC does the work but it is also expected to be connected online at the time and some of the work is done on Dirac's servers. The resulting filters are then loaded onto the processor. As I understand it, the XMC will ship with a decent mic (not a 'puck') and I don't believe you'd need something like Audyssey Pro on top of that. Edit: Jim beat me to it and he expressed it very eloquently too! If they do it like Anthem did it simplifies things greatly for the end user. The Anthem microphone has the pre-amp and the USB connection built into the microphone. This way all you do is plug it into the laptop with the supplied USB cable and with the Anthem ARC software select the serial number for the microphone. The serial number for the microphone provides the calibration file from Anthem to ensure a flat measurement reference for the microphone. Cheers. The OmniMic microphone is a self contained and works well with the Dirac trial. All you have to do is point the program to the cal file and it's ready to go.
|
|