|
Post by igorzep on Apr 19, 2014 15:41:27 GMT -5
Well the first Batch run will be used to fill the European Warehouse. Well, I don't have to pay the import tax then, nice!
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Feb 18, 2014 16:00:56 GMT -5
I was able to find some of my Audyssey graphs there but nothing about Bass Management and Dirac integration. Basically from the very little information there I can assume that the (ordinary) Bass Management in RS20i is applied after Dirac filters and Dirac knows nothing about it or even accounts for it, so no any special integration and phase is rotated in the crossover region, the same as happens with standard bass mgmt crossovers.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Feb 17, 2014 16:34:02 GMT -5
One interesting question come to my mind (well I think about it for quite some time already, but always forgot to ask).
I've newer seen any mentioning on how well Dirac integrates with Bass Management (redirecting bass from satellites to subwoofer). As Dirac is aiming for perfect phase/impulse response with it's mixed-phase correction it would be expected and quite natural to go further and do 'perfect' phase crossovers for subwoofer also. I know Audyssey pretty much limited with what they can do with Bass Management as they can not agree with receiver manufacturers on taking enough control on Bass Management. Is XMC-1/Dirac any better than that? Considering close collaboration between Emotiva and Dirac this should be possible..
Flavio?
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Jan 20, 2014 16:05:57 GMT -5
How about something like dynamic EQ. Anything like that available on it? - Selectable true Fletcher-Munson loudness compensation.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Jan 4, 2014 18:40:49 GMT -5
The part about the link over the net to Dirac appears tied to Dirac ensuring that the copies out there on PC's are valid/not pirate copies... Can you imagine pirate hardware... How can any copy of the software supporting the legal hardware can be invalid or pirate... I don't like this check. Hopefully XMC-1 version of the software will not do this. Otherwise how long can they guarantee the services will be running.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 19, 2013 18:47:12 GMT -5
I have no access to anything with xt32. We will have to rely on someone else with the gear available. Unless someone in st louis has something that I can use. Same as with Dirac Live there is XT32 based tool for PC - www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arc/But I am not sure if there is a trial for it... It was available some time ago...
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 19, 2013 18:34:40 GMT -5
Looking across the whole spl it appears that there is a fixed limit of 6db of gain that dirac is willing to add. Audyssey's max appears to be 8db according to the graph but in many cases audyssey did a lot of attenuating. Audyssey claims it's limit of boost is +9dB. Which I personally think is a way too much (and I've seen it doing more than that... while Audyssey denies it is possible). The limit of attenuating is -20dB.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 19, 2013 18:25:31 GMT -5
14 days left on the trial. I would need something set up soon. Can you do pre-out measurements? Also some acoustic measurements that are not in sweet-spot? Pre-out will allow to analyze what and where Dirac is doing. It is practically impossible to find from acoustic graphs what comes from the room and small mic displacements and what is from processing. And I have doubts about impulse response improvements... If they are at cost of making it worse out of the sweet spot then it is doubtful improvement. Generally it is impossible to correct high-frequency late reflections for anything except one single spot. As for correcting frequency response (looking at unsmoothed graphs) Dirac seems to be on par with XT. Just different target curves, but resolution look similar, and is quite low at the low frequencies. XT32 usually correct frequency response at those frequencies significantly better.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 17, 2013 5:55:23 GMT -5
What he said was that at Emofest, he made simplifications of his statements for clarity as it relates to time domain. And, that while Audyssey does claim doing impulse correction, Audyssey also says they use minimum phase filters. The statement that Audyssey says they use minimum phase filters is also over-simplification. They say nothing on their site, and what Chris says is that they handle minimum-phase and excess-phase issues separately. The only context in which it was said they use minimum-phase filtering was in comparison with linear-phase filtering. Here is the summary of the dialog with Chris about it: Audyssey filters and phaseSo, we decided to focus on an impulse response method using a deterministic signal that has the same spectrum as pink noise, but is based on a time domain representation. Once the signal is collected from each measurement, an analysis is performed to separate the minimum phase components from the excess phase components and each are treated differently for the exact reasons you mention in your message. Mourjopoulos and others have shown that the contribution of the excess phase is directly related to the reverberant field and requires different methods from what the minimum phase components need.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 9, 2013 16:29:00 GMT -5
I had assumed spacial remapping and room correction were linked as I thought it was Trinnov (limited implementation on R-972) that enabled this feature on the Sherwood. Yes, spacial remapping is connected to room correction... in some way. But it can be implemented on top of any other room correction system and a kind of separate feature that is not depending on the equalization part. I haven't seen Dirac mentioning spacial remapping in their papers. But it is definitely not unique to Trinnov. I believe Yamaha has it in it's top-level receivers and pre-processors, they call it YPAO R.S.C. with angle measurement.
|
|
|
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 igorzep on Sept 7, 2013 2:54:25 GMT -5
Do you mean Spacial Remapping, where the location / imaging of sound is corrected in case of non-symmetrical/weird speaker placements, or the ability of the receiver to remap speaker channels for different use, like second zone, front bi-amp, front-height vs front-wide, etc.? If it is the latter then it is not a function of room correction, but a function of the receiver/processor.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 5, 2013 17:57:08 GMT -5
Now I realize my response was all about Trinnov vs. Audyssey but it is also very key to understanding how Dirac Live works (and compares) as well. These are just snippets of the actual conversations taking place. These are easy to find if you want to follow the entire conversation - spanning 3 or 4 years. Bottom line is these offerings are advanced compared to what Audyssey is bringing to the table - even with their Pro version. Thanks for interesting information, I've found something new for me. But 3-4 years is a lot of time, there was no XT32 at that time. So, if there were gaps, they are changed since then. There are definitely something unique between those systems, but as was said about Trinnov vs. Dirac, same can be said about Audyssey too - the differences between them today are fewer than similarities.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 5, 2013 17:32:56 GMT -5
Dirac is supposed to address time as well as spl. Something that audyssey does not look at. Sorry, ansat and others, this is misinformation, Audyssey is also a time domain correction system, and it is that way from the very first versions. You can find it on their site easily. So, Audyssey corrects time-domain (and so, impulse response and both frequency response and phase) and with XT32 does it really well. And I have done my own measurements going to pretty fine details to confirm this. And while pre-XT32 versions of Audyssey created their own problems in IR while correcting, XT32 is careful enough not to create such problems. So in this respect they should be quite equal and the difference is in implementation details, at least if what Dirac papers claim will be fully implemented in XMC-1.
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2013 8:37:35 GMT -5
Ohh, just thought about it and found this thread with my questions partly answered (or at least giving some hints). But there is one important question still not touched. As to the volume control and dynamic range compensation, will it be adaptable for music content, i.e. is some alternative expected to what Audyssey calls Reference Level Offset?
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Sept 4, 2013 8:25:35 GMT -5
Dirac should be something special compared to Audyssey in the Marantz. Could you point to something where you think Dirac Live is expected to be something special comparing to Audyssey XT32. According to my own research, looking to my own Audyssey measurements and Dirac papers - there is really nothing fundamental that makes a difference. Yes, there is potential to have correction in 96kHz/192kHz mode, but if it will be done is still a question and not as fundamental to correction as such. Yes, it is expected to have some more target curve tweaking than default Audyssey provides, but there is a pro version, and there was a talk that Dirac will also be separated to two version and more advanced one will be available for additional money. What will be in standard version is still unknown. Also Audyssey has a lot of supporting technologies such as Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume, etc. I would be really interested to know what will be the alternatives to them from Emotiva. I really hope that Dirac will become a good competitor to Audyssey, as there is currently no any alternative to it in the reasonable price-range. But until it is released end extensively tested it is really not enough information to safely tell if one have something special over another.
|
|