|
Post by deltadube on Oct 26, 2016 22:09:44 GMT -5
Thanks, fbczar! You make a compelling case. Perhapa I should try some of the latest room correction technologies you mentioned... room treatments in my opinion are much more important that room correction technologies try some inexpensive diy room treatments you will be amazed.. cheers..
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Oct 26, 2016 22:24:57 GMT -5
500khz? That is a typo right? Right. Should be 5KHz.
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Oct 26, 2016 23:28:24 GMT -5
Thanks, fbczar! You make a compelling case. Perhapa I should try some of the latest room correction technologies you mentioned... room treatments in my opinion are much more important that room correction technologies try some inexpensive diy room treatments you will be amazed.. cheers.. No doubt it is best to do what you can with room treatments before using a program like Dirac. The less correction Dirac must do the better. Speaker placement, main listening position placement, room treatments and EQ all need to work together.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Oct 27, 2016 3:35:53 GMT -5
room treatments in my opinion are much more important that room correction technologies try some inexpensive diy room treatments you will be amazed.. cheers.. No doubt it is best to do what you can with room treatments before using a program like Dirac. The less correction Dirac must do the better. Speaker placement, main listening position placement, room treatments and EQ all need to work together. But what if listening provides proof that the EQ is the only guy who isn't working together?
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Oct 27, 2016 4:00:52 GMT -5
Room correction, in theory, is not only desirable, but mandatory in eliminating the effect of the room on the acoustic of the original venue.
Room correction, in practice, is not only undesirable, but often creates more problems than it solves.
The majority disagree with the second statement, and I respect their conclusions. But my experiences with at least three "flavors" of room correction lead me unavoidably to the second statement. These experiences also dissuade me from any further interest in room correction until at least another generation or three of development is complete and commercially available.
Boom
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 3, 2016 9:40:01 GMT -5
No doubt it is best to do what you can with room treatments before using a program like Dirac. The less correction Dirac must do the better. Speaker placement, main listening position placement, room treatments and EQ all need to work together. But what if listening provides proof that the EQ is the only guy who isn't working together? Proof would be the key term. All room EQ systems are not the same. The base version of Dirac provided by Emotiva, Dirac Full and the version of Dirac in the MiniDSP are a far cry from each other. Audyssey XT32 and the Audyssey Pro Kit are vastly different. Both Dirac and Audyssey have different approaches from ARC and of course there are other EQ systems out there as well. I would agree that the base version of Dirac and Audyssey can be incapable of good results in some situations. However, hardware problems, incorrect measuring techniques, a misunderstanding of the capabilities of a given EQ program, and the lack of flexibility of some basic EQ systems. are more likely causes of failure than some inherent deficiency of all EQ systems. If you have Dirac Full, measure correctly, know how to create a custom room curve and the hardware is working correctly you should be able to achieve a satisfactory result. Of course, getting to that point can definitely be a learning process. I suppose there are always exceptions, but they would be rare. All that said, I still believe in doing the best job you can getting the room right first.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 3, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5
But what if listening provides proof that the EQ is the only guy who isn't working together? Proof would be the key term. All room EQ systems are not the same. The base version of Dirac provided by Emotiva, Dirac Full and the version of Dirac in the MiniDSP are a far cry from each other. Audyssey XT32 and the Audyssey Pro Kit are vastly different. Both Dirac and Audyssey have different approaches from ARC and of course there are other EQ systems out there as well. I would agree that the base version of Dirac and Audyssey can be incapable of good results in some situations. However, hardware problems, incorrect measuring techniques, a misunderstanding of the capabilities of a given EQ program, and the lack of flexibility of some basic EQ systems. are more likely causes of failure than some inherent deficiency of all EQ systems. If you have Dirac Full, measure correctly, know how to create a custom room curve and the hardware is working correctly you should be able to achieve a satisfactory result. Of course, getting to that point can definitely be a learning process. I suppose there are always exceptions, but they would be rare. All that said, I still believe in doing the best job you can getting the room right first. Agreed that all room EQ systems are not the same, but with a good pair of big floorstanding speakers placed strategically in a well treated toom, the more or less discerning ear should have no problem whatsoever finding the proof I was referring to. Most audiophiles I know have arrived at that conclusion, and IMO this is primarily because there simply are no steep filters that don't produce quite severely audible artifacts; in fact avoidance of such filters is what I and all these other people believe to be the core purpose of listening to stereo music in Hi Rez through a very capable separate DAC so no, it's not an exception, and the reality is that it's a very far cry from being rare.
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Nov 3, 2016 16:21:53 GMT -5
Proof would be the key term. All room EQ systems are not the same. The base version of Dirac provided by Emotiva, Dirac Full and the version of Dirac in the MiniDSP are a far cry from each other. Audyssey XT32 and the Audyssey Pro Kit are vastly different. Both Dirac and Audyssey have different approaches from ARC and of course there are other EQ systems out there as well. I would agree that the base version of Dirac and Audyssey can be incapable of good results in some situations. However, hardware problems, incorrect measuring techniques, a misunderstanding of the capabilities of a given EQ program, and the lack of flexibility of some basic EQ systems. are more likely causes of failure than some inherent deficiency of all EQ systems. If you have Dirac Full, measure correctly, know how to create a custom room curve and the hardware is working correctly you should be able to achieve a satisfactory result. Of course, getting to that point can definitely be a learning process. I suppose there are always exceptions, but they would be rare. All that said, I still believe in doing the best job you can getting the room right first. Agreed that all room EQ systems are not the same, but with a good pair of big floorstanding speakers placed strategically in a well treated toom, the more or less discerning ear should have no problem whatsoever finding the proof I was referring to. Most audiophiles I know have arrived at that conclusion, and IMO this is primarily because there simply are no steep filters that don't produce quite severely audible artifacts; in fact avoidance of such filters is what I and all these other people believe to be the core purpose of listening to stereo music in Hi Rez through a very capable separate DAC so no, it's not an exception, and the reality is that it's a very far cry from being rare. Don't you have any link "proving" your OPINION?
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 3, 2016 21:59:21 GMT -5
Proof would be the key term. All room EQ systems are not the same. The base version of Dirac provided by Emotiva, Dirac Full and the version of Dirac in the MiniDSP are a far cry from each other. Audyssey XT32 and the Audyssey Pro Kit are vastly different. Both Dirac and Audyssey have different approaches from ARC and of course there are other EQ systems out there as well. I would agree that the base version of Dirac and Audyssey can be incapable of good results in some situations. However, hardware problems, incorrect measuring techniques, a misunderstanding of the capabilities of a given EQ program, and the lack of flexibility of some basic EQ systems. are more likely causes of failure than some inherent deficiency of all EQ systems. If you have Dirac Full, measure correctly, know how to create a custom room curve and the hardware is working correctly you should be able to achieve a satisfactory result. Of course, getting to that point can definitely be a learning process. I suppose there are always exceptions, but they would be rare. All that said, I still believe in doing the best job you can getting the room right first. Agreed that all room EQ systems are not the same, but with a good pair of big floorstanding speakers placed strategically in a well treated toom, the more or less discerning ear should have no problem whatsoever finding the proof I was referring to. Most audiophiles I know have arrived at that conclusion, and IMO this is primarily because there simply are no steep filters that don't produce quite severely audible artifacts; in fact avoidance of such filters is what I and all these other people believe to be the core purpose of listening to stereo music in Hi Rez through a very capable separate DAC so no, it's not an exception, and the reality is that it's a very far cry from being rare. Every room introduces distortion. Even well treated rooms have flaws and insinuate their own signature on the sound. 99% of all the recordings in existence have been equalized in the recording studio. Almost no two speakers, even great ones, sound the same. Many speakers, even great ones, are intentionally voiced by their designers to achieve a specific sound signature. Digital to Analog Converters themselves process music in amazingly sophisticated ways. Music players like Audirvana and HQPlayer are infinitely adjustable relative to the sound they can deliver. Audiophiles listening to their systems are not listening to live music. They are listening to the result of numerous filters and stages of equalization and the preferences of a sound engineer. There is nothing "pure" about the process. Audible artifacts are introduced at every stage. The one thing that seems to unite all audiophiles is the desire to make the sound from their music system sound as much like live music as possible. In my very well treated, dedicated, purpose built room with two well placed, extraordinarily capable, large, full range, floorstanding speakers, Dirac Full with a carefully thought out custom room curve yields a sound that is closer to live music than the system can produce without Dirac in play. Like you, I can only trust what I hear. If you do not find equalization to be beneficial that is fine. My experience tells me it can be. I would encourage all those who value good sound to investigate room equalization for themselves with an open mind and reach their own conclusion.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 3, 2016 22:35:02 GMT -5
Two channel for my room is strictly without Dirac. A properly set up system with room treatments should be all thats needed. HT, I use it . Along with room treatments produces the best experience. Five channels needs Dirac, too many variables without it.
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 4, 2016 9:31:48 GMT -5
Two channel for my room is strictly without Dirac. A properly set up system with room treatments should be all thats needed. HT, I use it . Along with room treatments produces the best experience. Five channels needs Dirac, too many variables without it. Do you have any experience with a 2.1 stereo setup with or without Dirac? I assume your room has no significant peaks or valleys with room treatments installed? When you listen in stereo would you describe your speaker placement as nearfield or normal? Thanks.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 4, 2016 10:52:14 GMT -5
Two channel for my room is strictly without Dirac. A properly set up system with room treatments should be all thats needed. HT, I use it . Along with room treatments produces the best experience. Five channels needs Dirac, too many variables without it. Do you have any experience with a 2.1 stereo setup with or without Dirac? I assume your room has no significant peaks or valleys with room treatments installed? When you listen in stereo would you describe your speaker placement as nearfield or normal? Thanks. My listening room is well treared and I've had multiple correction systems as well as Dirac and YAOP. Also ive experimented with 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4! 2.5 and yes even 2.6 for two channel! Hey, if you have it, at least try it!! Right? Speakers are equilateral triangle and my seated position is 3/5 off fron wall. Nearfield is relitive My preference for two channel is without Dirac or other correction and 2.0 or 2.2 depending on the music. The .2 are a matched set of 8" woofers, each has a 350 watt plate amp and one driver and two passive. They match well with my Studio 100 which don't lack bass at all in my room. Speakers are 18" off the wall, and thats to the back of the speaker. Near field is relative, mine are full sized towers and are about 8' apart and 8' from tweeter to my ear. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions.
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 4, 2016 11:11:53 GMT -5
Do you have any experience with a 2.1 stereo setup with or without Dirac? I assume your room has no significant peaks or valleys with room treatments installed? When you listen in stereo would you describe your speaker placement as nearfield or normal? Thanks. My listening room is well treared and I've had multiple correction systems as well as Dirac and YAOP. Also ive experimented with 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4! 2.5 and yes even 2.6 for two channel! Hey, if you have it, at least try it!! Right? Speakers are equilateral triangle and my seated position is 3/5 off fron wall. Nearfield is relitive My preference for two channel is without Dirac or other correction and 2.0 or 2.2 depending on the music. The .2 are a matched set of 8" woofers, each has a 350 watt plate amp and one driver and two passive. They match well with my Studio 100 which don't lack bass at all in my room. Speakers are 18" off the wall, and thats to the back of the speaker. Near field is relative, mine are full sized towers and are about 8' apart and 8' from tweeter to my ear. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions. How does your room measure? Any peaks or nulls greater than 5db with your room treatments in place? Do you have any idea how the room measured before you treated it?
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 4, 2016 11:20:20 GMT -5
First, your question isn't relative to the sweet spot. Im not really concerned about three feet to my left or right. We are talking two channel and not HT.
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 4, 2016 11:56:47 GMT -5
First, your question isn't relative to the sweet spot. Im not really concerned about three feet to my left or right. We are talking two channel and not HT. Yes it is. My Dirac measurements are designed to measure the situation at the main listening position. I incorrectly assumed you did the same. I use a tight measurement pattern like the one shown in the miniDSP manual for a single listening position. It works well for stereo. There can be only one best listening position, after all! No doubt, a wide measurement pattern would not be optimal for stereo listening.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,213
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 4, 2016 12:45:10 GMT -5
Yes, Ive done the same as you and have found it to be good.
Since ive gone to my tube system for most of my two channel I don't have the access to Dirac, and don't feel I need it. Now, when I switch over to SS i do engage Birac.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 5, 2016 9:21:28 GMT -5
Agreed that all room EQ systems are not the same, but with a good pair of big floorstanding speakers placed strategically in a well treated toom, the more or less discerning ear should have no problem whatsoever finding the proof I was referring to. Most audiophiles I know have arrived at that conclusion, and IMO this is primarily because there simply are no steep filters that don't produce quite severely audible artifacts; in fact avoidance of such filters is what I and all these other people believe to be the core purpose of listening to stereo music in Hi Rez through a very capable separate DAC so no, it's not an exception, and the reality is that it's a very far cry from being rare. Every room introduces distortion. Even well treated rooms have flaws and insinuate their own signature on the sound. 99% of all the recordings in existence have been equalized in the recording studio. Almost no two speakers, even great ones, sound the same. Many speakers, even great ones, are intentionally voiced by their designers to achieve a specific sound signature. Digital to Analog Converters themselves process music in amazingly sophisticated ways. Music players like Audirvana and HQPlayer are infinitely adjustable relative to the sound they can deliver. Audiophiles listening to their systems are not listening to live music. They are listening to the result of numerous filters and stages of equalization and the preferences of a sound engineer. There is nothing "pure" about the process. Audible artifacts are introduced at every stage. The one thing that seems to unite all audiophiles is the desire to make the sound from their music system sound as much like live music as possible. In my very well treated, dedicated, purpose built room with two well placed, extraordinarily capable, large, full range, floorstanding speakers, Dirac Full with a carefully thought out custom room curve yields a sound that is closer to live music than the system can produce without Dirac in play. Like you, I can only trust what I hear. If you do not find equalization to be beneficial that is fine. My experience tells me it can be. I would encourage all those who value good sound to investigate room equalization for themselves with an open mind and reach their own conclusion. The fact that there is nothing "pure" about the process has got nothing to do with this "other" most important fact, which is that my own ears are telling me room correction software adds more objectionable distortions to the stereo music listening experience than it removes; the only exceptions to this are in a (IMO anyway) poorly treated and/or badly set up room. I don't use Audirvana because I have zero need for it, and I don't use HQ Player because I have zero need for that one either. That said, I am not "all audiophiles" so this "one thing" that you are referring to doesn't unite me in any way whatsoever. For me, music doesn't have to sound like a live performance before I can enjoy it, and in fact I find that most music I like sounds better if it was recorded in a studio as well as was mastered by a mastering engineer who doesn't murder musical content for a living... in the vast majority of cases it implies vinyl playback is 150% compulsary (again, to my own ears, with music I like).
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Nov 6, 2016 10:28:36 GMT -5
Every room introduces distortion. Even well treated rooms have flaws and insinuate their own signature on the sound. 99% of all the recordings in existence have been equalized in the recording studio. Almost no two speakers, even great ones, sound the same. Many speakers, even great ones, are intentionally voiced by their designers to achieve a specific sound signature. Digital to Analog Converters themselves process music in amazingly sophisticated ways. Music players like Audirvana and HQPlayer are infinitely adjustable relative to the sound they can deliver. Audiophiles listening to their systems are not listening to live music. They are listening to the result of numerous filters and stages of equalization and the preferences of a sound engineer. There is nothing "pure" about the process. Audible artifacts are introduced at every stage. The one thing that seems to unite all audiophiles is the desire to make the sound from their music system sound as much like live music as possible. In my very well treated, dedicated, purpose built room with two well placed, extraordinarily capable, large, full range, floorstanding speakers, Dirac Full with a carefully thought out custom room curve yields a sound that is closer to live music than the system can produce without Dirac in play. Like you, I can only trust what I hear. If you do not find equalization to be beneficial that is fine. My experience tells me it can be. I would encourage all those who value good sound to investigate room equalization for themselves with an open mind and reach their own conclusion. The fact that there is nothing "pure" about the process has got nothing to do with this "other" most important fact, which is that my own ears are telling me room correction software adds more objectionable distortions to the stereo music listening experience than it removes; the only exceptions to this are in a (IMO anyway) poorly treated and/or badly set up room. I don't use Audirvana because I have zero need for it, and I don't use HQ Player because I have zero need for that one either. That said, I am not "all audiophiles" so this "one thing" that you are referring to doesn't unite me in any way whatsoever. For me, music doesn't have to sound like a live performance before I can enjoy it, and in fact I find that most music I like sounds better if it was recorded in a studio as well as was mastered by a mastering engineer who doesn't murder musical content for a living... in the vast majority of cases it implies vinyl playback is 150% compulsary (again, to my own ears, with music I like). Well, if you don't care whether or not your music system sounds like a live performance that is fine with me. It is hard to discuss sound without some sort of base understanding of what the participants in a discussion are trying to achieve. The sound of a live performance is my goal. Your goal is different. My best to you.
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 6, 2016 13:16:34 GMT -5
The fact that there is nothing "pure" about the process has got nothing to do with this "other" most important fact, which is that my own ears are telling me room correction software adds more objectionable distortions to the stereo music listening experience than it removes; the only exceptions to this are in a (IMO anyway) poorly treated and/or badly set up room. I don't use Audirvana because I have zero need for it, and I don't use HQ Player because I have zero need for that one either. That said, I am not "all audiophiles" so this "one thing" that you are referring to doesn't unite me in any way whatsoever. For me, music doesn't have to sound like a live performance before I can enjoy it, and in fact I find that most music I like sounds better if it was recorded in a studio as well as was mastered by a mastering engineer who doesn't murder musical content for a living... in the vast majority of cases it implies vinyl playback is 150% compulsary (again, to my own ears, with music I like). Well, if you don't care whether or not your music system sounds like a live performance that is fine with me. It is hard to discuss sound without some sort of base understanding of what the participants in a discussion are trying to achieve. The sound of a live performance is my goal. Your goal is different. My best to you. I want it to sound like the recording, which isn't the same thing as a live performance. Obviously it never can be, but my hearing is very sensitive to the detrimental artifacts resulting from room correction software so maybe you and I just hear sound differently.
|
|
ericl
Minor Hero
Posts: 15
|
Post by ericl on Jan 15, 2017 14:01:40 GMT -5
My experience & feelings about Dirac full are right on with fbczar.
I'll let Dirac align my driver timing, perform baffle step compensation & fix standing wave issues any day of the week.
|
|