|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Jul 30, 2014 11:46:50 GMT -5
I could agree more...but I'm not going to in the interests of keeping a calm mind and patiently waiting for my shipping details to come, its so close I can almost smell the silicon  |
|
|
|
Post by sme on Jul 31, 2014 1:24:40 GMT -5
I reckon there isn't enough CPU power to run both 11-band PEQ and Dirac, but I may be wrong. I agree that unless Dirac has algorithms specifically designed for EQing multiple subs to play well together, it's better to have Dirac just EQ the pair as a single mono sub after adjusting for delay, gain, and at least some PEQ if possible. The more the better. The MiniDSP provides 14 biquads per output, and I may end up using all of them for some of my sources. Keep in mind, my living room is not at all symmetric. Rooms that are more symmetric may not benefit as much from independent EQ.
I should also point out that the optimal EQ is not readily defined and depends on user preferences and the equipment capabilities. For the lowest frequencies where headroom is more limited and phase isn't as much of an issue, I apply the same filters to both deep bass subs. For higher frequencies, phase becomes more important, but headroom is more plentiful, so I gladly give some up in return for improved response over a wider area.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizardofoz on Jul 31, 2014 1:59:15 GMT -5
I think/thought Dirac has its own processor board IIRC
|
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Jul 31, 2014 3:39:21 GMT -5
I think/thought Dirac has its own processor board IIRC Dirac themselves doesn't make any hardware. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Aug 15, 2014 17:59:08 GMT -5
Wow! I am very impressed that Emotiva implemented the separate EQ on dual-mono subs feature so quickly. It is what you see. What I see is that they just implemented joining the bass before passing to separately equalized unrelated (how they call them "stereo") subs. It is not really dual sub bass management (or dual-mono subs as we call it to contradict their "stereo" concept). It's certainly a very powerful feature, even though making the best use of it may be difficult. While this can be made to proper dual-sub bass management manually (by mostly repeating parametric EQ config on both subs) this will lead to totally incorrect BM together with the main XMC-1 feature - the Dirac, if it is implemented the same way. This is not a dual sub bass management and not what was really asked! The comments with reasoning about the need to EQ both (pre-integrated) subs as a unit was to date ignored by Emotiva. Something tells me I'll need to raise the BM question again once Dirac is released. I do not want to have a choice between a dual sub BM and Dirac. And manual parametric EQ, while is very good on XMC-1, is not an option if the time-domain correction of the Dirac is on another side of the equation... So if I understand you correctly you want to know how DIRAC handles the .2 sub setup on the XMC, correct? The answer to that question may or may not lead to other questions but we should reserve comment until the DIRAC question is first answered. So Keith, how does DIRAC handle the XMC dual sub outs? Are they EQ'd independently or as a unit and who does that affect the current options available when using DIRAC? EDIT: I reposted this in the correct thread. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Aug 15, 2014 20:08:50 GMT -5
It is what you see. What I see is that they just implemented joining the bass before passing to separately equalized unrelated (how they call them "stereo") subs. It is not really dual sub bass management (or dual-mono subs as we call it to contradict their "stereo" concept). While this can be made to proper dual-sub bass management manually (by mostly repeating parametric EQ config on both subs) this will lead to totally incorrect BM together with the main XMC-1 feature - the Dirac, if it is implemented the same way. This is not a dual sub bass management and not what was really asked! The comments with reasoning about the need to EQ both (pre-integrated) subs as a unit was to date ignored by Emotiva. Something tells me I'll need to raise the BM question again once Dirac is released. I do not want to have a choice between a dual sub BM and Dirac. And manual parametric EQ, while is very good on XMC-1, is not an option if the time-domain correction of the Dirac is on another side of the equation... So if I understand you correctly you want to know how DIRAC handles the .2 sub setup on the XMC, correct? The answer to that question may or may not lead to other questions but we should reserve comment until the DIRAC question is first answered. So Keith, how does DIRAC handle the XMC dual sub outs? Are they EQ'd independently or as a unit and who does that affect the current options available when using DIRAC? EDIT: I reposted this in the correct thread. As I alluded to in the other thread, the problem here is that Emotiva still hasn't implemented a dual-mono sub setup. By providing you two different EQ settings, they've basically created a stereo setup that'll just get the same signal. We need a single EQ for the output of both subs. At the same time, we need independent level and delay settings for both subs. |
|
|
|
Post by thecrusherk on Aug 15, 2014 21:35:52 GMT -5
I believe this explains pretty well what we are asking for. www.minidsp.com/support/community-powered-tutorials/201-dual-sub-integrationJust think of the XMC-1 replacing the MiniDSP device in the diagram for connecting 2 subs. The concepts of crossover block to split .1 signal, independent levels and delays for each sub, and the ability to introduce a curve that affects two subs as one unit simultaneously If I understand the proper way to do it. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Aug 15, 2014 22:05:48 GMT -5
As I alluded to in the other thread, the problem here is that Emotiva still hasn't implemented a dual-mono sub setup. By providing you two different EQ settings, they've basically created a stereo setup that'll just get the same signal. We need a single EQ for the output of both subs. At the same time, we need independent level and delay settings for both subs. Got it and I think DIRAC will treat them like that. Just need verification from Emotiva.  |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Aug 16, 2014 1:21:51 GMT -5
As I alluded to in the other thread, the problem here is that Emotiva still hasn't implemented a dual-mono sub setup. By providing you two different EQ settings, they've basically created a stereo setup that'll just get the same signal. We need a single EQ for the output of both subs. At the same time, we need independent level and delay settings for both subs. Got it and I think DIRAC will treat them like that. Just need verification from Emotiva. I hope that's how Dirac will treat them, but I'm not sure there's a reason to assume Dirac will treat the subs different than the PEQ. |
|
|
|
Post by sme on Aug 16, 2014 1:49:14 GMT -5
As I alluded to in the other thread, the problem here is that Emotiva still hasn't implemented a dual-mono sub setup. By providing you two different EQ settings, they've basically created a stereo setup that'll just get the same signal. We need a single EQ for the output of both subs. At the same time, we need independent level and delay settings for both subs. I don't see the problem here. Just use the same PEQ settings for both. It makes no difference. I think you mean to request that it be possible for Dirac to calculate one EQ that both subs (with independent distances) use. SInce Dirac isn't available yet, we don't know if such functionality is implemented yet. |
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Aug 16, 2014 2:21:03 GMT -5
SInce Dirac isn't available yet, we don't know if such functionality is implemented yet. Since Dirac isn't available we know for sure it is not implemented yet  And the point is, as bluescale pointed out already, and what I, as a software engineer also think, there is absolutely no reason to have it implemented differently in manual (PEQ) and automated mode (Dirac). And, as you have to follow the process when managing bass with dual subs and the process is 1) integrate subs between each-other 2) EQualize combined response, and with Dirac you have to have the UI for managing the first part, so you have to have the interface representing the process anyway it would be logical for them to implement it one way and the way is to represent the process for both automatic and manual, as it will be more convenient for users than to hack the current way and doing the 'combined' part of EQ by changing same settings at two different locations at the same time. And so... If they chosen to implement it as a fast hack in manual mode instead of providing a convenient user interface that would be needed for Dirac case anyway... I can assume with very high probability it is not (yet) implemented/ready for Dirac. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Aug 16, 2014 7:51:59 GMT -5
SInce Dirac isn't available yet, we don't know if such functionality is implemented yet. Since Dirac isn't available we know for sure it is not implemented yet And the point is, as bluescale pointed out already, and what I, as a software engineer also think, there is absolutely no reason to have it implemented differently in manual (PEQ) and automated mode (Dirac). And, as you have to follow the process when managing bass with dual subs and the process is 1) integrate subs between each-other 2) EQualize combined response, and with Dirac you have to have the UI for managing the first part, so you have to have the interface representing the process anyway it would be logical for them to implement it one way and the way is to represent the process for both automatic and manual, as it will be more convenient for users than to hack the current way and doing the 'combined' part of EQ by changing same settings at two different locations at the same time. And so... If they chosen to implement it as a fast hack in manual mode instead of providing a convenient user interface that would be needed for Dirac case anyway... I can assume with very high probability it is not (yet) implemented/ready for Dirac. Have you tried the Dirac trial to get a taste if how it works yet? Maybe that will offer a clue here as to the options the XMC may have. Because as I saw it it only does .1 (trial version) I don't think the commercial one does .2 but maybe someone else can confirm or deny? |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Aug 16, 2014 15:18:59 GMT -5
I don't see the problem here. Just use the same PEQ settings for both. It makes no difference. I think you mean to request that it be possible for Dirac to calculate one EQ that both subs (with independent distances) use. SInce Dirac isn't available yet, we don't know if such functionality is implemented yet. It's inconvenient, time consuming, and there's no good reason to have to do it this way. |
|
|
|
Post by bluescale on Aug 16, 2014 15:27:35 GMT -5
Have you tried the Dirac trial to get a taste if how it works yet? Maybe that will offer a clue here as to the options the XMC may have. Because as I saw it it only does .1 (trial version) I don't think the commercial one does .2 but maybe someone else can confirm or deny? I've given Dirac a test run (it's amazing - I wish I'd had the chance to do a few measurements before the trial ran out), and there's no option for .2 management. I've actually wondered how this would work for people who want to run stereo subs. Datasat is probably the best place to look to to see how this might be handled. I haven't done much research to that end. Does anyone know if they handle dual (or tri or quad) mono bass in their PEQ the way we're requesting? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 18, 2014 14:50:57 GMT -5
There seems to be a bit of confusion here... The new firmware for the XMC-1 (v1.1) includes full Dual Mono Subs.... If you pick Dual Mono, you will be able to set the DISTANCE (distance=delay) AND EQ INDEPENDENTLY for each subwoofer.  SInce Dirac isn't available yet, we don't know if such functionality is implemented yet. Since Dirac isn't available we know for sure it is not implemented yet And the point is, as bluescale pointed out already, and what I, as a software engineer also think, there is absolutely no reason to have it implemented differently in manual (PEQ) and automated mode (Dirac). And, as you have to follow the process when managing bass with dual subs and the process is 1) integrate subs between each-other 2) EQualize combined response, and with Dirac you have to have the UI for managing the first part, so you have to have the interface representing the process anyway it would be logical for them to implement it one way and the way is to represent the process for both automatic and manual, as it will be more convenient for users than to hack the current way and doing the 'combined' part of EQ by changing same settings at two different locations at the same time. And so... If they chosen to implement it as a fast hack in manual mode instead of providing a convenient user interface that would be needed for Dirac case anyway... I can assume with very high probability it is not (yet) implemented/ready for Dirac. |
|
|
|
Post by igorzep on Aug 18, 2014 15:17:24 GMT -5
There seems to be a bit of confusion here... The new firmware for the XMC-1 (v1.1) includes full Dual Mono Subs.... There seems to be a bit (or a lot) of confusion or misunderstanding about dual sub bass management on another side. If you pick Dual Mono, you will be able to set the DISTANCE (distance=delay) AND EQ INDEPENDENTLY for each subwoofer. If the Dirac will do the same - i.e. automatically set level, distance, and EQ each subwoofer independently... It will be anything but dual sub bass management. Try to properly setup DBA that way to understand the root of the problem. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Aug 18, 2014 15:23:59 GMT -5
I think what igorzep is refering to is having a dual mono mode with independent distance and level but one EQ for the pair.
I think that is how Dirac will treat a dual sub setup but Keith, why can't you confirm this? (one way or another)
After all the .2 setup was in the original design when Dirac came on board so how does it get treated?
|
|
|
|
Post by thecrusherk on Aug 18, 2014 18:11:55 GMT -5
There seems to be a bit of confusion here... The new firmware for the XMC-1 (v1.1) includes full Dual Mono Subs.... If you pick Dual Mono, you will be able to set the DISTANCE (distance=delay) AND EQ INDEPENDENTLY for each subwoofer. The desired result that works best for manually dialing in the subs is to have the option to set independent Level and Delay for each mono sub and then be able to adjust a single EQ curve that applies to both. This way at the microphone or listening position the sound from both subs on the .1 channel is arriving at the same time from both and at the appropriate volume level from both. You may have to have one sub hotter or quieter than the other. The same applies to distance or phase, the distances can vary between both subs. You don't want to EQ them separately, you want them to be working together and running the same EQ split between them so they both react to the change in signal from the EQ as a partnership in regards to measured room response. I believe it was pointed out that you can manually adjust each to be the same, but that is more work and gives skewed results until the EQs match when measuring room response. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Laufman on Aug 18, 2014 18:34:39 GMT -5
If the EQ was tied together, you'd want it split... Can't win. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 18, 2014 18:48:03 GMT -5
If the EQ was tied together, you'd want it split... Can't win. Dan, can I have mine with a banana split and extra hot fudge? Mark |
|
And the point is, as bluescale pointed out already, and what I, as a software engineer also think, there is absolutely no reason to have it implemented differently in manual (PEQ) and automated mode (Dirac). And, as you have to follow the process when managing bass with dual subs and the process is 1) integrate subs between each-other 2) EQualize combined response, and with Dirac you have to have the UI for managing the first part, so you have to have the interface representing the process anyway it would be logical for them to implement it one way and the way is to represent the process for both automatic and manual, as it will be more convenient for users than to hack the current way and doing the 'combined' part of EQ by changing same settings at two different locations at the same time.
