XMC / Dirac / multi-sub - how to prepare for Dirac.

[bestboy]

I'm in the same boat.
I'm currently holding back my order to see, if the dual sub support is improved with the update. If it is not, then I'm going to need a DSP first and I'm not sure which one to get. I'm a bit skeptical about the miniDSP as I've read it can only apply very limited delay. On the other hand I also don't wanna spend a lot of money for a full fledged Xilica or some such... Also since most of the DSPs are pro gear for studios, I'm not sure if I can feed them with consumer line levels...
My life would be a lot easier, if the XMC-1 would be able to handle aligned sub arrays

[khollister]

Mar 2, 2015 12:02:52 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

Mar 1, 2015 11:33:35 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

I talked to Emotiva tech support this morning and it seems that there are not going to be any changes w.r.t. this multiple sub issue in the new firmware or the full Dirac release. I believe it's fair to say that they believe the way multiple subs are currently being handled is satisfactory. And it probably is for most people.

That said, I think I'll wait anyway and see what happens. I'll likely end up getting the miniDSP.

I suspect the issue is Dirac, not Emotiva. Dirac Live (on any platform as far as I know) treats every speaker independently, sub or otherwise. Even if Emotiva wanted to, I seriously doubt they have the option to change the Dirac measurement and filter calculation algorithms, I'm sure they are constrained by the licensing as well as probably not having source code for the bits that aren't integrator-specific. 

[bestboy]

Mar 1, 2015 11:33:35 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

I talked to Emotiva tech support this morning and it seems that there are not going to be any changes w.r.t. this multiple sub issue in the new firmware or the full Dirac release. I believe it's fair to say that they believe the way multiple subs are currently being handled is satisfactory. And it probably is for most people.

That's quite sad as the XMC-1 is in a weird place when it comes to multiple subwoofers. Let me explain:

Basically there are 2 "schools" when it comes to multi subwoofer setups.
On the one hand there is the "Welti" setup after Todd Welti and Allan Devantier from Harmann. In their famous paper (pdf) they used multiple, symmetrically placed subwoofers. All subwoofers were set up to create the exact same response in order to form an array that would act as a single low frequency source. The goal of this setup is to stimulate as few room modes as possible. It bases on the fact that room modes stimulated by identical signals in opposite directions will cancel out.
This is what most people implement when they have multiple subwoofers. The model is scientifically sound and can be done in accordance with common home theater specifications (crossovers and LFE bandwidth). It's a little hard to do symmetrical sub placements in real world living rooms, tho.

On the other hand there is the "Geddes" setup after Dr. Earl Geddes, who is a Physics specialized in low frequency sound fields of small rooms. His setup model is discussed all over the internet [1, 2] and considered very viable. The Geddes setup uses exactly 3 asymmetrically placed subwoofers: One in a corner, one on an opposite wall and a third one where ever it may fit. Ideally its 3 subwoofers are bandpasses with natural rolloff, no low-pass and tuned for different regions below 200 Hz. Each subwoofer is set up individually aiming for a flat sum of all subwoofer outputs. In contrast to the "Welti" method this approach uses stimulated room modes actively for "equalization". In order to achieve this goal it is usually needed to include the mains in the scheme as well. They should be fullrange and should not be high-passed in order to act as additional "mode drivers".
This method is great for home use as it is more flexible with the placement than the "Welti" method. However, it does not match the classical home cinema use case too well. It works best with bandpass subwoofers (which I guess are not that common) and its no-crossover policy is in violation with the sub/satellite paradigm (Dolby, DTS, THX...)

So the sad thing is that the XMC-1 does not support either of those models adequately with Dirac. The fact that Dirac treats all subwoofers individually means that

1. We cannot create the required array for the popular "Welti" setup by bundling 2 subwoofers to act as one.
2. Even tho we can do the individual subwoofer setups required by the "Goddes" model, we can only do it for 2 of the 3 required channels. Also not everyone may be able (fullrange mains, 3 subs) or willing (THX) to go this way.

[geebo]

Mar 2, 2015 14:38:37 GMT -5 khollister said:

Mar 2, 2015 12:02:52 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

I talked to Emotiva tech support this morning and it seems that there are not going to be any changes w.r.t. this multiple sub issue in the new firmware or the full Dirac release. I believe it's fair to say that they believe the way multiple subs are currently being handled is satisfactory. And it probably is for most people.

That said, I think I'll wait anyway and see what happens. I'll likely end up getting the miniDSP.

I suspect the issue is Dirac, not Emotiva. Dirac Live (on any platform as far as I know) treats every speaker independently, sub or otherwise. Even if Emotiva wanted to, I seriously doubt they have the option to change the Dirac measurement and filter calculation algorithms, I'm sure they are constrained by the licensing as well as probably not having source code for the bits that aren't integrator-specific. 

That's correct. It's the way Dirac does things and it's not something Emotiva can just change in firmware. But we still have the manual option with REW integration coming.

[lbrown105]

I am actually hopeful the full version will help address the sub issue. In the two channel version I trialed each channel had it's own adjustable time delay and the ability to group channels. If the full version for the XMC-1 has this capability it may well help the issue. We'll see.

[pmd918]

Mar 2, 2015 16:56:54 GMT -5 geebo said:

That's correct. It's the way Dirac does things and it's not something Emotiva can just change in firmware. But we still have the manual option with REW integration coming.

I'd like to offer an opinion on this one. I've had the software version of Dirac on my computer - I tried the trial - and the results were very, very good in my opinion. Way better than anything I ever got with Audyssey or any manual EQ that I was able to do with REW.

Based upon my experience I would guess that:

a) Even the current crippled (wrt multiple subs) version of Dirac is probably better than what you could achieve with manual PEQ using REW as a guide. The corrections that Dirac makes in the time domain to improve impulse response are real and significant. Can't duplicate that with PEQ; and

b) The better solution is to find a way to time align and combine the subs prior to Dirac. One proven method is to use a miniDSP. For $125 it is a cheap solution.

Personally, when I get my XMC-1 (hopefully next week) I am going to try it as-is and see how good or bad it is. I'll probably end up getting a miniDSP, but I'm going to give it a chance without it.

[KeithL]

I'm a bit confused about exactly what some people seem to be expecting.

The XMC-1 is a 7.2 channel pre/pro and it was designed to manage either a single sub or a stereo pair of subs, which is what most people have; we even added the option of treating two subs as a "dual mono" setup. We think that both the manual EQ controls and Dirac work quite well in either of those situations. The XMC-1 wasn't designed to directly support custom arrays of more than two subs. And, as noted, it seems to do what the vast majority of our customers need - and do it very well indeed.

Once you get into arrays of multiple speakers, there are a huge number of different ways to determine the optimum location for each speaker, and the optimum way to EQ and time-align them afterwards. From what I can see, Geddes simply theorizes that a bunch of small subs are more effective than one or two large ones, which makes sense in some regards, and his general idea has provoked a lot of discussion. He also seems to have a company that, not surprisingly, sells small subs, and offers "setup analysis" as part of your purchase. (The one huge downside to his idea is that, since each sub needs a signal feed, and either a power amplifier or a power feed to run its internal amp, it still requires a lot of cabling to run a lot of subs. Finding locations for three or four subs IS more difficult than finding a location for one.)  I am also seeing this as one way of accomplishing a goal, and not as some sort of "widely supported standard". Likewise, the "Welti paper" describes a way of configuring multiple subs - arranged symmetrically - to work in a room. However, both of these are simply ways of deciding where to best locate multiple subs and how to configure them once the locations are chosen. While I can see that it would be cool to have a box with enough channels of DSP processing to measure and calibrate four or eight subs, and where you might even be able to choose the particular method used (by name), that isn't what the XMC-1 was designed to be.

I would assume that, if either of these methods is as popular as some folks seem to think, someone makes a little black box with enough channels and the DSP processing software necessary to do it.. (That sounds like the sort of thing that miniDSP and DEQX or Behringer specialize in to me.) And, if you do choose to add extra channels and processing to use one of these methods, the XMC-1 will cheerfully treat your "aggregate array" as a single high quality sub and integrate it into the rest of your system. (We can't be all things to all people; but I can't bring myself to be sad over that fact. ) 

Mar 2, 2015 16:45:56 GMT -5 bestboy said:

Mar 1, 2015 11:33:35 GMT -5 pmd918 said:

I talked to Emotiva tech support this morning and it seems that there are not going to be any changes w.r.t. this multiple sub issue in the new firmware or the full Dirac release. I believe it's fair to say that they believe the way multiple subs are currently being handled is satisfactory. And it probably is for most people.

That's quite sad as the XMC-1 is in a weird place when it comes to multiple subwoofers. Let me explain:

Basically there are 2 "schools" when it comes to multi subwoofer setups.
On the one hand there is the "Welti" setup after Todd Welti and Allan Devantier from Harmann. In their famous paper (pdf) they used multiple, symmetrically placed subwoofers. All subwoofers were set up to create the exact same response in order to form an array that would act as a single low frequency source. The goal of this setup is to stimulate as few room modes as possible. It bases on the fact that room modes stimulated by identical signals in opposite directions will cancel out.
This is what most people implement when they have multiple subwoofers. The model is scientifically sound and can be done in accordance with common home theater specifications (crossovers and LFE bandwidth). It's a little hard to do symmetrical sub placements in real world living rooms, tho.

On the other hand there is the "Geddes" setup after Dr. Earl Geddes, who is a Physics specialized in low frequency sound fields of small rooms. His setup model is discussed all over the internet [1, 2] and considered very viable. The Geddes setup uses exactly 3 asymmetrically placed subwoofers: One in a corner, one on an opposite wall and a third one where ever it may fit. Ideally its 3 subwoofers are bandpasses with natural rolloff, no low-pass and tuned for different regions below 200 Hz. Each subwoofer is set up individually aiming for a flat sum of all subwoofer outputs. In contrast to the "Welti" method this approach uses stimulated room modes actively for "equalization". In order to achieve this goal it is usually needed to include the mains in the scheme as well. They should be fullrange and should not be high-passed in order to act as additional "mode drivers".
This method is great for home use as it is more flexible with the placement than the "Welti" method. However, it does not match the classical home cinema use case too well. It works best with bandpass subwoofers (which I guess are not that common) and its no-crossover policy is in violation with the sub/satellite paradigm (Dolby, DTS, THX...)

So the sad thing is that the XMC-1 does not support either of those models adequately with Dirac. The fact that Dirac treats all subwoofers individually means that

1. We cannot create the required array for the popular "Welti" setup by bundling 2 subwoofers to act as one.
2. Even tho we can do the individual subwoofer setups required by the "Goddes" model, we can only do it for 2 of the 3 required channels. Also not everyone may be able (fullrange mains, 3 subs) or willing (THX) to go this way.

[bradford]

Mar 3, 2015 11:57:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I'm a bit confused about exactly what some people seem to be expecting.

The XMC-1 is a 7.2 channel pre/pro and it was designed to manage either a single sub or a stereo pair of subs, which is what most people have; we even added the option of treating two subs as a "dual mono" setup. We think that both the manual EQ controls and Dirac work quite well in either of those situations. The XMC-1 wasn't designed to directly support custom arrays of more than two subs. And, as noted, it seems to do what the vast majority of our customers need - and do it very well indeed.

Once you get into arrays of multiple speakers, there are a huge number of different ways to determine the optimum location for each speaker, and the optimum way to EQ and time-align them afterwards. From what I can see, Geddes simply theorizes that a bunch of small subs are more effective than one or two large ones, which makes sense in some regards, and his general idea has provoked a lot of discussion. He also seems to have a company that, not surprisingly, sells small subs, and offers "setup analysis" as part of your purchase. (The one huge downside to his idea is that, since each sub needs a signal feed, and either a power amplifier or a power feed to run its internal amp, it still requires a lot of cabling to run a lot of subs. Finding locations for three or four subs IS more difficult than finding a location for one.)  I am also seeing this as one way of accomplishing a goal, and not as some sort of "widely supported standard". Likewise, the "Welti paper" describes a way of configuring multiple subs - arranged symmetrically - to work in a room. However, both of these are simply ways of deciding where to best locate multiple subs and how to configure them once the locations are chosen. While I can see that it would be cool to have a box with enough channels of DSP processing to measure and calibrate four or eight subs, and where you might even be able to choose the particular method used (by name), that isn't what the XMC-1 was designed to be.

I would assume that, if either of these methods is as popular as some folks seem to think, someone makes a little black box with enough channels and the DSP processing software necessary to do it.. (That sounds like the sort of thing that miniDSP and DEQX or Behringer specialize in to me.) And, if you do choose to add extra channels and processing to use one of these methods, the XMC-1 will cheerfully treat your "aggregate array" as a single high quality sub and integrate it into the rest of your system. (We can't be all things to all people; but I can't bring myself to be sad over that fact. ) 

Mar 2, 2015 16:45:56 GMT -5 bestboy said:

That's quite sad as the XMC-1 is in a weird place when it comes to multiple subwoofers. Let me explain:

Basically there are 2 "schools" when it comes to multi subwoofer setups.
On the one hand there is the "Welti" setup after Todd Welti and Allan Devantier from Harmann. In their famous paper (pdf) they used multiple, symmetrically placed subwoofers. All subwoofers were set up to create the exact same response in order to form an array that would act as a single low frequency source. The goal of this setup is to stimulate as few room modes as possible. It bases on the fact that room modes stimulated by identical signals in opposite directions will cancel out.
This is what most people implement when they have multiple subwoofers. The model is scientifically sound and can be done in accordance with common home theater specifications (crossovers and LFE bandwidth). It's a little hard to do symmetrical sub placements in real world living rooms, tho.

On the other hand there is the "Geddes" setup after Dr. Earl Geddes, who is a Physics specialized in low frequency sound fields of small rooms. His setup model is discussed all over the internet [1, 2] and considered very viable. The Geddes setup uses exactly 3 asymmetrically placed subwoofers: One in a corner, one on an opposite wall and a third one where ever it may fit. Ideally its 3 subwoofers are bandpasses with natural rolloff, no low-pass and tuned for different regions below 200 Hz. Each subwoofer is set up individually aiming for a flat sum of all subwoofer outputs. In contrast to the "Welti" method this approach uses stimulated room modes actively for "equalization". In order to achieve this goal it is usually needed to include the mains in the scheme as well. They should be fullrange and should not be high-passed in order to act as additional "mode drivers".
This method is great for home use as it is more flexible with the placement than the "Welti" method. However, it does not match the classical home cinema use case too well. It works best with bandpass subwoofers (which I guess are not that common) and its no-crossover policy is in violation with the sub/satellite paradigm (Dolby, DTS, THX...)

So the sad thing is that the XMC-1 does not support either of those models adequately with Dirac. The fact that Dirac treats all subwoofers individually means that

1. We cannot create the required array for the popular "Welti" setup by bundling 2 subwoofers to act as one.
2. Even tho we can do the individual subwoofer setups required by the "Goddes" model, we can only do it for 2 of the 3 required channels. Also not everyone may be able (fullrange mains, 3 subs) or willing (THX) to go this way.

It seems like having 2 sub outs feeding DIRAC Unison would yield better results than adding signal processed array's. I hope it eventually is supported by the XMC-1. It would add to what is already a great value.

[pmd918]

Mar 3, 2015 11:57:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I'm a bit confused about exactly what some people seem to be expecting.

The XMC-1 is a 7.2 channel pre/pro and it was designed to manage either a single sub or a stereo pair of subs, which is what most people have; we even added the option of treating two subs as a "dual mono" setup. We think that both the manual EQ controls and Dirac work quite well in either of those situations. The XMC-1 wasn't designed to directly support custom arrays of more than two subs. And, as noted, it seems to do what the vast majority of our customers need - and do it very well indeed.

Once you get into arrays of multiple speakers, there are a huge number of different ways to determine the optimum location for each speaker, and the optimum way to EQ and time-align them afterwards. From what I can see, Geddes simply theorizes that a bunch of small subs are more effective than one or two large ones, which makes sense in some regards, and his general idea has provoked a lot of discussion. He also seems to have a company that, not surprisingly, sells small subs, and offers "setup analysis" as part of your purchase. (The one huge downside to his idea is that, since each sub needs a signal feed, and either a power amplifier or a power feed to run its internal amp, it still requires a lot of cabling to run a lot of subs. Finding locations for three or four subs IS more difficult than finding a location for one.)  I am also seeing this as one way of accomplishing a goal, and not as some sort of "widely supported standard". Likewise, the "Welti paper" describes a way of configuring multiple subs - arranged symmetrically - to work in a room. However, both of these are simply ways of deciding where to best locate multiple subs and how to configure them once the locations are chosen. While I can see that it would be cool to have a box with enough channels of DSP processing to measure and calibrate four or eight subs, and where you might even be able to choose the particular method used (by name), that isn't what the XMC-1 was designed to be.

I would assume that, if either of these methods is as popular as some folks seem to think, someone makes a little black box with enough channels and the DSP processing software necessary to do it.. (That sounds like the sort of thing that miniDSP and DEQX or Behringer specialize in to me.) And, if you do choose to add extra channels and processing to use one of these methods, the XMC-1 will cheerfully treat your "aggregate array" as a single high quality sub and integrate it into the rest of your system. (We can't be all things to all people; but I can't bring myself to be sad over that fact. ) 

Very well said. I'd love to see some of these folks try to design a product that does everything for everyone. I'd hate to be in your shoes.

Can't wait to get my XMC-1!

[jmilton]

"I'd love to see some of these folks try to design a product that does everything for everyone. "

"What? No electric dog polisher?"     Obsolete!!

[bootman]

Mar 3, 2015 11:57:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I'm a bit confused about exactly what some people seem to be expecting.

I was expecting level and phase (time) adjustment on each mono output but after that is completed, the ability to EQ the pair as one.

Is this possible?

This was brought up back in Aug when the dual mono option was released.

emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/37908/xmc-bass-management?page=7

[autocrat]

Mar 3, 2015 14:48:15 GMT -5 bootman said:

Mar 3, 2015 11:57:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I'm a bit confused about exactly what some people seem to be expecting.

I was expecting level and phase (time) adjustment on each mono output but after that is completed, the ability to EQ the pair as one.

Is this possible?

This was brought up back in Aug when the dual mono option was released.

emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/37908/xmc-bass-management?page=7

Yes, that's precisely what people are wanting, and I too would like to know if it is ever going to be possible with the XMC-1/Dirac LE combination.

[KeithL]

I'm sensing a major disconnect here between what people seem to be asking for and what they seem to be hoping for.

Dirac Live treats each speaker channel separately. So, if I have two subs, set as Dual Mono, it is going to measure each separately, and calculate a different Correction Filter for each; but, assuming they have the same Target Curve, they will be EQed to achieve the same response. (Of course, getting two different speakers, in different locations, to end up at the same Target Curve WILL require that each be EQed differently). Alternately, you could set the XMC-1 to have a single Mono sub, run both subs off a splitter, and Dirac Live would adjust the pair together to achieve the Target Curve assigned to them. What I just described covers both permutations of what "EQing them together" might mean. And, in theory, in the majority of situations, either will do an excellent job of correcting the sorts of anomalies you might encounter in a typical room.

My guess is that what you're really hoping for is the ability to EQ one sub, then use another sub to modify the response of the first one by EQing the new one to add or subtract from the output of the first sub, then maybe even extending this process to a third or fourth sub. This is far more complicated than simply "EQing multiple subs together" - because there are a huge number of ways of adding them together. (To take the extreme case, do I make silence by turning them both off, or by setting both to play a certain frequency very loudly, but precisely out of phase at a specific location?) Therefore, it's not simply a matter of "EQing them separately", but of choosing a methodology for deciding how to do so to achieve the results you want. The theories I'm seeing discussed include iterative processes - run and EQ one sub; run another sub and adjust both; then run a third and adjust all three. You may then even be required to reposition one or more subs and try again if it turns out you've simply chosen bad locations.

The ability to use one speaker to specifically modify the response of another is the sort of capability that Dirac Unison will have, but it's not something you can "just switch on" in Dirac Live, or something that you can do easily "simply by adding a few more channels of adjustment and EQ"; the tricky bit isn't adding the extra channels of adjustment; the tricky bit is determining how to do the measurements and calculations to determine how to set them. (And, while I wouldn't rule it out, at this point I don't expect it to happen with the XMC-1.)

Mar 3, 2015 16:40:45 GMT -5 autocrat said:

Mar 3, 2015 14:48:15 GMT -5 bootman said:

I was expecting level and phase (time) adjustment on each mono output but after that is completed, the ability to EQ the pair as one.

Is this possible?

This was brought up back in Aug when the dual mono option was released.

emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/37908/xmc-bass-management?page=7

Yes, that's precisely what people are wanting, and I too would like to know if it is ever going to be possible with the XMC-1/Dirac LE combination.

[socketman]

Keith, I myself am not hoping for anything or complaining and it seems a lot of people are just voicing ideas of What If. We all have different rooms and different situations and limitations in our homes. In my situation, I have 2 identical subs, one is at the front right corner and the other is at the left rear corner . If each is EQ'd separately ie: dual mono , when they are then combined the response isn't really acceptable, now if I could set each subs distance's post dirac would they not play better together? At present I have them on a "Y" cable and it works pretty good but I cant help wondering What If . I suppose I could add a minidsp , which I may at some point but I will wait to see if Unison becomes available at a price I can afford. Try not to take things too personally, most of us are just beating around idea's in an open forum.

Richard

[autocrat]

Mar 3, 2015 18:01:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I'm sensing a major disconnect here between what people seem to be asking for and what they seem to be hoping for.

Dirac Live treats each speaker channel separately. So, if I have two subs, set as Dual Mono, it is going to measure each separately, and calculate a different Correction Filter for each; but, assuming they have the same Target Curve, they will be EQed to achieve the same response. (Of course, getting two different speakers, in different locations, to end up at the same Target Curve WILL require that each be EQed differently). Alternately, you could set the XMC-1 to have a single Mono sub, run both subs off a splitter, and Dirac Live would adjust the pair together to achieve the Target Curve assigned to them. What I just described covers both permutations of what "EQing them together" might mean. And, in theory, in the majority of situations, either will do an excellent job of correcting the sorts of anomalies you might encounter in a typical room.

Thanks Keith. 

There's definitely a disconnect somewhere, I'm certainly not ruling out that it's in my understanding (most likely). If we take Dirac out of the equation for the moment, the proposition is that to integrate 2 or more subs first match phase and level for each sub individually, but EQ the combined response to a target curve, ie. apply the same equalisation settings to each sub. Setting them as dual mono achieves the first part, and connecting them in parallel via a splitter achieves the second part, just not at the same time (so to speak).

This is at odds with your statement that

getting two different speakers, in different locations, to end up at the same Target Curve WILL require that each be EQed differently

.
Dirac is obviously more complicated than merely adjusting phase and level, and I don't pretend to understand what it is doing in the time domain; specifically, how the phase/level adjustment is incorporated in the data sent back to the XMC and stored, and whether it's even possible for Dirac to calculate filters approximating the above methodology.

[ansat]

Nov 4, 2014 21:13:51 GMT -5 ansat said:

Was playing around phase aligning my center xover while using three subs and the 2 main speaker subs in extended bass and I save the measurement and it is a great illustration of how delay in multiple subs can effect your frequency. I settled on 19ft for my rear sub placement (actual distance is about 8 feet from the mic. You can see a measurement from 8ft in the distance selection to 21 feet.




Correction. This was just the rear sub integration into the front 2 and enhanced bass turned on. So 3 12's and the two st-l's

Mar 3, 2015 18:01:27 GMT -5 KeithL said:

My guess is that what you're really hoping for is the ability to EQ one sub, then use another sub to modify the response of the first one by EQing the new one to add or subtract from the output of the first sub, then maybe even extending this process to a third or fourth sub. This is far more complicated than simply "EQing multiple subs together" - because there are a huge number of ways of adding them together. (To take the extreme case, do I make silence by turning them both off, or by setting both to play a certain frequency very loudly, but precisely out of phase at a specific location?) Therefore, it's not simply a matter of "EQing them separately", but of choosing a methodology for deciding how to do so to achieve the results you want. The theories I'm seeing discussed include iterative processes - run and EQ one sub; run another sub and adjust both; then run a third and adjust all three. You may then even be required to reposition one or more subs and try again if it turns out you've simply chosen bad locations.

Keith, I can only speak for myself, but I am looking / hoping for the ability to do what you stated. But not for the reasons that you stated. If you put two subwoofers in a room and time align them to the initial impulse, then eq each one flat. Once played at the same time, the result will rarely be flat (with the ideal +6 db boost). Your statement of the second sub eq'ing the first is what I am trying to undo using only the XMC. In my setup, time aligning to the impulse or distance will not yield positive results (as can be seen in my post above) and the phase cancelation needs to be pushed to a non listening location.

After talking with Dirac, and watching what has played out in the dataset's dirac integration. The issue is on Dirac's end and will be resolved if Unison makes it to market and designed to function in a way that is designed for multiple subwoofer integration. The one tool that is missing from the XMC/Dirac combination that causes me to use a miniDSP, is the lack of additional delay to the subwoofer channels.

So to be precise in what I am hoping to see, is the ability to add additional delay to the subwoofer channels over the top of Dirac. Or allow for the delay to be set xmc then have Dirac adjust the sum.

Tony

[Lsc]

Is this feature you are asking available on other pre pros? I never heard of this array of subs management by a pre pro.

[ansat]

Mar 3, 2015 22:47:37 GMT -5 Lsc said:

Is this feature you are asking available on other pre pros? I never heard of this array of subs management by a pre pro.

The only one I know of is the datasat, but that is an unfair comparison. Audyssey's xt32 offers some multi sub integration, (time align each sub then eq them as one sub) but is still not quite there.

I have achieved what I need using a minidsp + Dirac, but I was able to achieve better results using the tools in the XMC and PEQ that what I could get with Dirac.

At this stage in the game, I honestly am not sure if I would give up the miniDSP even if I could eliminate it, but it would allow for more options.


Tony

[socketman]

Mar 3, 2015 22:53:45 GMT -5 ansat said:

Mar 3, 2015 22:47:37 GMT -5 Lsc said:

Is this feature you are asking available on other pre pros? I never heard of this array of subs management by a pre pro.

The only one I know of is the datasat, but that is an unfair comparison. Audyssey's xt32 offers some multi sub integration, (time align each sub then eq them as one sub) but is still not quite there.

I have achieved what I need using a minidsp + Dirac, but I was able to achieve better results using the tools in the XMC and PEQ that what I could get with Dirac.

At this stage in the game, I honestly am not sure if I would give up the miniDSP even if I could eliminate it, but it would allow for more options.


Tony

Tony is there really that much audible difference being able to do it the way you are presently equalizing your subs. What would the difference sound like to the average person.

[ansat]

Mar 3, 2015 23:04:02 GMT -5 socketman said:

Mar 3, 2015 22:53:45 GMT -5 ansat said:

The only one I know of is the datasat, but that is an unfair comparison. Audyssey's xt32 offers some multi sub integration, (time align each sub then eq them as one sub) but is still not quite there.

I have achieved what I need using a minidsp + Dirac, but I was able to achieve better results using the tools in the XMC and PEQ that what I could get with Dirac.

At this stage in the game, I honestly am not sure if I would give up the miniDSP even if I could eliminate it, but it would allow for more options.


Tony

Tony is there really that much audible difference being able to do it the way you are presently equalizing your subs. What would the difference sound like to the average person.

The two main rules on this would be that we can hear a difference between 3db sound changes and that we average roughly 1/3 of an octave worth of sound (some will argue 1/6 of an octave). At lower frequencies, an octave will not span much of the frequency range. In my measurement above from 30 to 60hz, a 10hz block (40 - 50hz) being higher or lower then 3db will result in something that you can hear.

In describing what you would hear, it is more of what doesn't exist when its configured properly. With an appropriate house curve you can achieve predictable and repeatable results where your attention is not drawn to a certain frequency range. I have been in a lot of rooms (like my upstairs) where a particular frequency range is just out of control. Like an out of control room, multiple subs can create the same effect when some frequencies are combining and others are canceling.

Tony