|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Mar 5, 2015 1:17:46 GMT -5
I would gladly slap on my 30ft hdmi cable between the XMc and laptop when running Dirac if it optimized my LFE subs. It's not like I do it every day. Lets face it, running Dirac is a process already and as easy as we might think it is, most people would look at us like we're crazy. What's one more cable if it helps get it right? Yes, a wireless world would be better, but we aren't there yet.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Mar 5, 2015 8:03:35 GMT -5
The question I would have is what else does emotiva plan to use the dll files for? Can they be used to provide communication between rew and the XMC at some point? Wireless streaming? Wireless control?
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2015 8:28:24 GMT -5
They could. My point was they didn't.  Why would that be a Dirac requirement to run the test tones out of the XMC-1? I'm not as clumsy as to trip on a wire that I know is already there. And the mic cable is just as easy to trip over. The laptop is in a stationary place away from the listening position which means the HDMI cable can be out of the way and you never have cross its path. For you it's a one time connection. For others with a 50 foot Ethernet cable it's not so easy. Not everyone is as technically savvy and use wireless bridges. I get your point. You are justifying Emotiva's decision to spend a thousand development hours (or whatever) to use this method which I am saying didn't really buy us much and caused delays in supporting the Mac version. Furthermore, it caused potential delays in the full version because they had to make additional potential code changes to get the correct test tones...if they didn't, the full version of Dirac on the XMC-1 still would not factor in the crossover when the mains and center are set to small.. Maybe I'm not correct in saying "correct" test tones. It's different than the Dirac Live PC version is what I'm saying which I think has been established here as correct. And seriously, why do I care either way? It's not my money and I'm prolly not going to get the full version since my 1 sub worked out ok with the LE version...it's close enough for me. I guess I care too much about Emotiva. My laptop is portable. It's liable to be anywhere. And my system is part of the home entertainment which had a wireless bridge long before I had an XMC and I'm not exactly a rocket scientist. Wireless adapters are also inexpensive and very easy to set up and probably easier than running a 50ft HDMI cable every time I want to use Dirac. And it's easy " justifying Emotiva's decision to spend a thousand development hours" when they made things very easy to use and much easier than the Dirac software on a PC. The bottom line is that Emo/Dirac made the process super easy. I connect the mic and click an icon. I don't know how much easier it could get. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2015 8:37:13 GMT -5
I would gladly slap on my 30ft hdmi cable between the XMc and laptop when running Dirac if it optimized my LFE subs. It's not like I do it every day. Lets face it, running Dirac is a process already and as easy as we might think it is, most people would look at us like we're crazy. What's one more cable if it helps get it right? Yes, a wireless world would be better, but we aren't there yet. Cheers Mark But an HDMI cable and an externally generated test tone would change nothing as far as the procedure and results go. An internally generated tone can be injected into the stream just like any other external source so what would a cable change that's better? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 5, 2015 11:30:18 GMT -5
What he said  The XMC-1 is generating the test tones that are required - it wouldn't make any difference if you were to generate them in the computer and "pipe them in". I would gladly slap on my 30ft hdmi cable between the XMc and laptop when running Dirac if it optimized my LFE subs. It's not like I do it every day. Lets face it, running Dirac is a process already and as easy as we might think it is, most people would look at us like we're crazy. What's one more cable if it helps get it right? Yes, a wireless world would be better, but we aren't there yet. Cheers Mark But an HDMI cable and an externally generated test tone would change nothing as far as the procedure and results go. An internally generated tone can be injected into the stream just like any other external source so what would a cable change that's better? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 5, 2015 12:28:42 GMT -5
The test tones in both versions come from the XMC-1 (and they are the same test tones). There is no benefit to generating or playing the test tones in software. The differences between the two versions are in your ability to customize the results after you take the measurements (and the ability to individually adjust channel levels for running the tests). The software version of Dirac works the way it does because of the limitations of operating as software at the point where the content is sourced. The reason why, if you test your Small Left Front with the Dirac software, the test tone "moves from the main to the sub" is simply that, to the software, it is simply "the main channel" - and the software has no way of knowing or controlling when that signal is sent to the sub rather than the main speaker by the bass management in the pre/pro. To put it another way, the Dirac SOFTWARE has no way of measuring the response of that speaker below the crossover frequency you have set in the pre/pro because the bass management won't LET it play those frequencies through that speaker; it's simply sending the test tone to "Left Front". This also means that, with the software version, if you change the crossover settings on your pre/pro after the measurements have been made, the measurements and the Correction Filters calculated using them will no longer be correct, so you'll have to do them over again. With the way we did it on the XMC-1, as long as a given speaker wasn't set to None when the measurements were taken, the Correction Filters will still be correct, even if you change the speaker size or crossover point. It would be nice if Emotiva could confirm if the test tones in the full Dirac version will be from the XMC-1 like the LE version or from the PC like the Dirac Trial/Full version. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Mar 5, 2015 12:29:41 GMT -5
It's probably best to wait for the full version before any further comments are made since it's coming this month. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2015 13:50:40 GMT -5
The question I would have is what else does emotiva plan to use the dll files for? Can they be used to provide communication between rew and the XMC at some point? Wireless streaming? Wireless control? Tony Now sending REW tone sweeps wirelessly along with PEQ filters would be very cool. |
|
|
|
Post by snafujg on Mar 5, 2015 14:15:35 GMT -5
The test tones in both versions come from the XMC-1 (and they are the same test tones). There is no benefit to generating or playing the test tones in software. The differences between the two versions are in your ability to customize the results after you take the measurements (and the ability to individually adjust channel levels for running the tests). The software version of Dirac works the way it does because of the limitations of operating as software at the point where the content is sourced. The reason why, if you test your Small Left Front with the Dirac software, the test tone "moves from the main to the sub" is simply that, to the software, it is simply "the main channel" - and the software has no way of knowing or controlling when that signal is sent to the sub rather than the main speaker by the bass management in the pre/pro. To put it another way, the Dirac SOFTWARE has no way of measuring the response of that speaker below the crossover frequency you have set in the pre/pro because the bass management won't LET it play those frequencies through that speaker; it's simply sending the test tone to "Left Front". This also means that, with the software version, if you change the crossover settings on your pre/pro after the measurements have been made, the measurements and the Correction Filters calculated using them will no longer be correct, so you'll have to do them over again. With the way we did it on the XMC-1, as long as a given speaker wasn't set to None when the measurements were taken, the Correction Filters will still be correct, even if you change the speaker size or crossover point. Thanks Keith. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Mar 5, 2015 15:14:00 GMT -5
The test tones in both versions come from the XMC-1 (and they are the same test tones). There is no benefit to generating or playing the test tones in software. The differences between the two versions are in your ability to customize the results after you take the measurements (and the ability to individually adjust channel levels for running the tests). The software version of Dirac works the way it does because of the limitations of operating as software at the point where the content is sourced. The reason why, if you test your Small Left Front with the Dirac software, the test tone "moves from the main to the sub" is simply that, to the software, it is simply "the main channel" - and the software has no way of knowing or controlling when that signal is sent to the sub rather than the main speaker by the bass management in the pre/pro. To put it another way, the Dirac SOFTWARE has no way of measuring the response of that speaker below the crossover frequency you have set in the pre/pro because the bass management won't LET it play those frequencies through that speaker; it's simply sending the test tone to "Left Front". This also means that, with the software version, if you change the crossover settings on your pre/pro after the measurements have been made, the measurements and the Correction Filters calculated using them will no longer be correct, so you'll have to do them over again. With the way we did it on the XMC-1, as long as a given speaker wasn't set to None when the measurements were taken, the Correction Filters will still be correct, even if you change the speaker size or crossover point. It would be nice if Emotiva could confirm if the test tones in the full Dirac version will be from the XMC-1 like the LE version or from the PC like the Dirac Trial/Full version. First, thanks for your response and explanation Keith. And forgive my novice knowledge on room correction, but I'm not clear on this. From my viewpoint, it seems like the way Dirac is run on the XMC-1, the only valid setting is if all the speakers are set to large i.e. no crossovers are used. Is it not logical to want the test tone to be produced in the same manner as when music is played? So, if the crossover is set at 50Hz, then I want the test tone to come out of my sub up to 50 Hz, then the main speaker from 50 Hz on up. I would expect to have to rerun Dirac or any other room correction if I changed the crossover. I'll have to set all my speakers to Large to see how it sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Mar 5, 2015 15:32:49 GMT -5
The test tones in both versions come from the XMC-1 (and they are the same test tones). There is no benefit to generating or playing the test tones in software. The differences between the two versions are in your ability to customize the results after you take the measurements (and the ability to individually adjust channel levels for running the tests). The software version of Dirac works the way it does because of the limitations of operating as software at the point where the content is sourced. The reason why, if you test your Small Left Front with the Dirac software, the test tone "moves from the main to the sub" is simply that, to the software, it is simply "the main channel" - and the software has no way of knowing or controlling when that signal is sent to the sub rather than the main speaker by the bass management in the pre/pro. To put it another way, the Dirac SOFTWARE has no way of measuring the response of that speaker below the crossover frequency you have set in the pre/pro because the bass management won't LET it play those frequencies through that speaker; it's simply sending the test tone to "Left Front". This also means that, with the software version, if you change the crossover settings on your pre/pro after the measurements have been made, the measurements and the Correction Filters calculated using them will no longer be correct, so you'll have to do them over again. With the way we did it on the XMC-1, as long as a given speaker wasn't set to None when the measurements were taken, the Correction Filters will still be correct, even if you change the speaker size or crossover point. It would be nice if Emotiva could confirm if the test tones in the full Dirac version will be from the XMC-1 like the LE version or from the PC like the Dirac Trial/Full version. Thanks for the clarification Keith, this makes sense to me. No matter which way you did it someone would *bleep*. Too many armchair quarterbacks im afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2015 15:35:47 GMT -5
The test tones in both versions come from the XMC-1 (and they are the same test tones). There is no benefit to generating or playing the test tones in software. The differences between the two versions are in your ability to customize the results after you take the measurements (and the ability to individually adjust channel levels for running the tests). The software version of Dirac works the way it does because of the limitations of operating as software at the point where the content is sourced. The reason why, if you test your Small Left Front with the Dirac software, the test tone "moves from the main to the sub" is simply that, to the software, it is simply "the main channel" - and the software has no way of knowing or controlling when that signal is sent to the sub rather than the main speaker by the bass management in the pre/pro. To put it another way, the Dirac SOFTWARE has no way of measuring the response of that speaker below the crossover frequency you have set in the pre/pro because the bass management won't LET it play those frequencies through that speaker; it's simply sending the test tone to "Left Front". This also means that, with the software version, if you change the crossover settings on your pre/pro after the measurements have been made, the measurements and the Correction Filters calculated using them will no longer be correct, so you'll have to do them over again. With the way we did it on the XMC-1, as long as a given speaker wasn't set to None when the measurements were taken, the Correction Filters will still be correct, even if you change the speaker size or crossover point. First, thanks for your response and explanation Keith. And forgive my novice knowledge on room correction, but I'm not clear on this. From my viewpoint, it seems like the way Dirac is run on the XMC-1, the only valid setting is if all the speakers are set to large i.e. no crossovers are used. Is it not logical to want the test tone to be produced in the same manner as when music is played? So, if the crossover is set at 50Hz, then I want the test tone to come out of my sub up to 50 Hz, then the main speaker from 50 Hz on up. I would expect to have to rerun Dirac or any other room correction if I changed the crossover. I'll have to set all my speakers to Large to see who it sounds. If you run the software version of Dirac with the speakers set to small then you are married to whatever crossover that was selected when you ran Dirac. If you get the full response capabilities of your speakers factored into the resulting filter you are then free to use whatever crossover you want that's within the capability of the speakers. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Mar 5, 2015 16:41:23 GMT -5
Well, wow! It does sound better when my F208 is set to Large. The only problem is that it cried uncle to the mighty XPR-2 yet once again.  Can't watch movies with ridiculous bass like Edge of Tomorrow with the Fronts set to Large for fear of bottoming out plus my C208 only goes down to 50 Hz. I can't believe I'm listening to Ariana Gramde's One Last Time but the bass line is incredible. hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 5, 2015 16:56:10 GMT -5
Well, wow! It does sound better when my F208 is set to Large. The only problem is that it cried uncle to the mighty XPR-2 yet once again. Can't watch movies with ridiculous bass like Edge of Tomorrow with the Fronts set to Large for fear of bottoming out plus my C208 only goes down to 50 Hz. I can't believe I'm listening to Ariana Gramde's One Last Time but the bass line is incredible. hehe. In the Dirac preset you can change the crossover to whatever you like after you run Dirac. It makes no difference whatsoever what the sizes or crossovers are set to when you run Dirac. They are only factored in after the fact and they can be changed without having to run Dirac again. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 5, 2015 17:07:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification Keith, this makes sense to me. No matter which way you did it someone would *bleep*. Too many armchair quarterbacks im afraid. I don't think the optional mic calibration files would have come about if it wasn't for a little "quarterbacking". It is all in the quest for knowledge.  |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Mar 5, 2015 18:52:36 GMT -5
Those are 2 entirely different scenario's. Complaining about something that someone thinks should or shouldn't have been implemented VS figuring out something is not working as it should. I am not well versed on the subject the way Tony is , and few others on the forum are either so perhaps we should leave it to the experts.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 5, 2015 19:05:39 GMT -5
Those are 2 entirely different scenario's. Complaining about something that someone thinks should or shouldn't have been implemented VS figuring out something is not working as it should. I am not well versed on the subject the way Tony is , and few others on the forum are either so perhaps we should leave it to the experts. The proper way to EQ two subs in a room is to level and phase adjust each individually then EQ as a set. The idea is NOT to get each one flat (EQ each separately), but to get the combination as smooth as possible at the listening position. (EQ both as one) With the XMC you can't do that with the dual sub out as it is implemented today in dual mono mode. You have to use single mono and a y splitter and an external box that will do the independent phase and level adjustment. I see parallels between the two very different topics. If you are interested it did start back in July. emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/37908/xmc-bass-management |
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Mar 5, 2015 20:06:31 GMT -5
I have followed this since the beginning and have discussed it with ansat as well , but the fact is the XMC-1 really didn't come with an option list. I don't know why they chose to do it the way they did, whether it was financial constraint, limitation of the hardware or some other reason but it is what it is. I think I got a lot of processor for the money I spent and another 120 usd for a minidsp is not going to break the bank if I really need it at all. Really the only thing that bothers me is the incessant complaining like Emo is somehow going to bend its will our way if there is enough complaining. My kids act like this and I tell the STFU. I know I don't have to come here and read the comments but I cant seem to stop , but it just weird how the same thing keep getting said over and over in different ways by different people. If a car company has a car your interested in but its missing an option you wanted , do you buy it and then go back to the dealer every day and complain.
|
|
|
|
Post by lbrown105 on Mar 5, 2015 20:37:33 GMT -5
I'm sure the kids react well to STFU. Sounds like a great learning environment for this thread too |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 5, 2015 23:00:51 GMT -5
I have followed this since the beginning and have discussed it with ansat as well , but the fact is the XMC-1 really didn't come with an option list. I don't know why they chose to do it the way they did, whether it was financial constraint, limitation of the hardware or some other reason but it is what it is. I think I got a lot of processor for the money I spent and another 120 usd for a minidsp is not going to break the bank if I really need it at all. Really the only thing that bothers me is the incessant complaining like Emo is somehow going to bend its will our way if there is enough complaining. My kids act like this and I tell the STFU. I know I don't have to come here and read the comments but I cant seem to stop , but it just weird how the same thing keep getting said over and over in different ways by different people. If a car company has a car your interested in but its missing an option you wanted , do you buy it and then go back to the dealer every day and complain. I don't see things this way. Constructive feedback (you may call it criticism) should be a good thing. Of course if it is done in a respectful way. (as evidenced by the evolution of the alternate mic calibration file) I get if engineering decisions were made that had to draw the line one way or another. But I have yet to read this when it comes to bass management, definitively one way or another. If they can't do it and you need to get a minidsp to get dual subs right, then so be it. But seeing how dual subs were done previous to firmware 1.1 tells me it can in theory be done. As to why not? I as you don't know why.  Look, I don't have any "skin" in this game. I currently do not own a XMC. That doesn't mean that what humble suggestions I may make on this forum is just complaining. You can take constructive criticism as "bitching" and you can chose to ignore me, but I'm not STFU.  If the same in essence was said during the questioning of the mic file would you have felt the same? After all that is what this forum is all about. Believe it or not, my ONLY intent is to possibly in some small way help make the unit better! (and I'm sure yours was too then) Not slam it because I feel this feature is lacking in any way. (and I know some of those who are actually trying to do just that!) So you see there are parallels to be made here. What's wrong with trying to make a great product even better if it is actually possible? After all you yourself was also involved in making the mic file "better", no? Even though I don't own a XMC, I applaud the efforts by all in that endeavor. |
|
Why would that be a Dirac requirement to run the test tones out of the XMC-1? 
