bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 21, 2015 14:11:20 GMT -5
Really, guys.  HOWEVER, complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. And expecting someone who hasn't heard your system or your room to interpret your graphs in detail is an exercise in futility. I'll also admit I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off with the incessant banter about how "the measurements can't be right" and "the graphs can't look like that".
Well, the graphs don't mean much to me, but it cheeses me off, when EMO's chief engineer dismisses me, because I'm upset that when I turn on Dirac and play organ music, the pedal disappears, and the upper work screams. I don't know much about mikes and speakers, but I do know what organs sound like.
Without Dirac I hear pedal notes and balanced trebles. With Dirac the pedal disappears and the mixtures scream.
Do I just accept pedalless music? Really? Is it really my fault? Maybe I've got a bad mike, maybe you provided a bad calibration, maybe Dirac phucked up. I'm appalled you hear a chorus of concerns, and don't think that it's your problem. And appalled at your criticism of the people trying to help you sort your problem.
Sincerely /b
Are you appalled enough to send the unit back? Just trying to gauge "appalledness" level. I counted three. that is pretty high in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Priapulus on Jan 21, 2015 14:17:09 GMT -5
Well, the graphs don't mean much to me, but it cheeses me off, when EMO's chief engineer dismisses me, because I'm upset that when I turn on Dirac and play organ music, the pedal disappears, and the upper work screams. I don't know much about mikes and speakers, but I do know what organs sound like.
Without Dirac I hear pedal notes and balanced trebles. With Dirac the pedal disappears and the mixtures scream.
Do I just accept pedalless music? Really? Is it really my fault? Maybe I've got a bad mike, maybe you provided a bad calibration, maybe Dirac phucked up. I'm appalled you hear a chorus of concerns, and don't think that it's your problem. And appalled at your criticism of the people trying to help you sort your problem.
Sincerely /b
Are you appalled enough to send the unit back? I've been loyal and bought thousands of dollars of EMO gear; despite the foul taste of enduring the UMC-1. Deja vu. We endured years of delays, excuses, explanations, denials, more delays, partial shipments, more delays over the XMC-1. And I'm being unreasonable?
No, I don't want to send it back; I just want it to work as advertised. Is that unreasonable?
Sincerely /b
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 21, 2015 14:23:27 GMT -5
Are you appalled enough to send the unit back? I've been loyal and bought thousands of dollars of EMO gear; despite the foul taste of enduring the UMC-1. Deja vu.
No, I don't want to send it back; I just want it to work as advertised. Is that unreasonable?
Sincerely /b
No not unreasonable at all. But "as advertised" seems to have different interpretations depending on who you ask. Sometimes expectations escalate to a point of unwarranted frustrations. In your case it doesn't sound right to you so you are correct in wanting to find out why. |
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jan 21, 2015 14:31:51 GMT -5
Really, guys. A speaker (or individual driver) starts to become significantly directional when the wavelength of the frequency involved becomes SMALLER than the dimension of the radiating surface. This is one way to control (or predict) dispersion in a particular direction. For a round cone or dome in a regular cabinet, the "dimension" is the diameter of the driver, so they become seriously directional on all axes when the wavelength at whatever frequency you're describing becomes shorter than the diameter of the driver. The wavelength at 2 kHz is about 6", and becomes shorter as you go up in frequency, which means that it is quite normal (and virtually unavoidable) for an 8" cone to become somewhat directional at any frequency above 1 kHz or 2 kHz, and to become more directional as the frequency goes higher. Note that, in some circumstances, for a center channel speaker, this could be considered desirable. Because the speaker is directional at even midrange frequencies, most of the energy goes forward towards the listener, so less ends up arriving at the listener later after being reflected off the floor, ceiling, and walls. (In other words, the larger driver has "controlled vertical and horizontal dispersion at voice frequencies", which could serve to improve voice clarity and imaging, especially in a very live room.) The ability of a speaker to make low bass is limited by both its frequency response and its displacement. Even a tiny speaker can be designed to produce frequencies down to 20 Hz - just not very loudly. (Many headphones can deliver sound flat to 20 Hz with a 1" or 2" speaker - but only into a "room" the size of your ear canal.) Most normal speakers deliberately trade off the ability to produce very low frequencies in return for the ability to produce reasonable sound levels. The reason you need a subwoofer is to produce enough displacement of air to produce low notes at a satisfying volume level. The ability of a speaker to make high frequencies (and without distorting) is determined by a large number of factors, but it's not at all unusual for an 8" driver to start rolling off anywhere above a few kHz, and to be able to make some usable output down to 20 Hz, and it would be downright odd if an 8" driver DIDN'T become very directional above a few kHz. And any speaker that uses multiple drivers to produce an overlapping range of frequencies will also almost certainly be subject to assorted comb filter and interference effects between those drivers as well. Every room and every speaker is different. We've compared the measurements taken with our microphones (and our correction curve) to ones taken IN THE SAME ROOM, UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS with a "serious" calibrated measurement microphone - and they DO agree within a very small margin of error - and the microphones we've spot checked are ALL very consistent in their responses. Our microphone is quite flat AT 90 DEGREES OFF AXIS - AS THE INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFY with our correction curve. I don't know the details of exactly how Dirac evaluates its data, or how it weights the direct and reflected energy at various frequencies when calculating its corrections, so I don't at all assume that it will produce the same results as REW - especially under different conditions and with different rooms. (In fact, since Dirac is specifically correcting things that REW doesn't even CLAIM to fix, I would hope the results would be rather different.) The Full version of Dirac will be available shortly, and then you'll be able to use a different microphone if you like, and create your own Target Curves.... By all means, if you LIKE the results you get with REW better than the ones you get with Dirac, then use REW... we don't mind a bit...
HOWEVER, complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. And expecting someone who hasn't heard your system or your room to interpret your graphs in detail is an exercise in futility. I'll also admit I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off with the incessant banter about how "the measurements can't be right" and "the graphs can't look like that". If the onscreen graphs annoy you, then just close your eyes! The whole point of Dirac is to adjust the way your system SOUNDS; not to adjust graph so it looks prettier. When the Full version of Dirac comes out (which will be quite soon now), you'll be able to create and adjust your own Target Curve, which will allow you to adjust the way your results sound, at which point you can use the graphs as A GUIDELINE so you can see what you want to adjust and how... Please understand that I'm all for asking someone with more knowledge and experience if they recognize specific issues on a graph - like room modes or crossover anomalies - but trying to figure out "if your graph is accurate" by comparing it to SOMEONE ELSE'S MEASUREMENTS is just plain silly. In the mean time, if your real goal in all this is to produce a nice looking graph, and you're too busy doing that to listen to any music, I can recommend a few nice programs that will allow you to do that very easily, while entirely avoiding all that annoying listening and measuring... personally I prefer Adobe Photoshop.  Keith, Whilst I am sorry you are cheesed off after committing time, money, blood, sweat and tears into this project, you should be a little concerned about my comments, because as I said in my first post in this topic, I cannot sit back and enjoy yet because I do not own an XMC-1 and at the moment could not consider committing the money to a potential white elephant and I am sure I am not alone!
I have been avidly watching the forum because I like the sound of the XMC, and when (if) it works in it's basic element (as a Surround Sound Processor), (never mind possible add-ons like media player from attached USB drives) I would consider buying unless other vendors have leap frogged Emotiva and brought out a more suitable alternative. I don't want to commit yet because there are some glaring problems, like this one, that stop me from buying.
I can see that you are personally involved, and I like that, and I relish your forum posts usually, but I am also mindful that it took a long time to get the XMC to market and may take some time to iron out other problems.
I do not enjoy looking at graphs for the sake of looking at them. I am no more nerdy than you. I do like to understand how things are supposed to work and how they are actually working, just like you I suspect. I like to see/hear/feel that things are working as they should.
Proof of theory is a core tenet of science. Thus, the full version of Dirac may not satisfy the problems being discussed and demonstrated here. If an expected test tone is not being produced as expected and/or recorded by a microphone accurately and/or the measurement does not reflect what is or what should be happening then the corrections made will be wrong. Changing the target curve wont help me go from an unknown accuracy of measurement.
I still have a feeling that the worst of graphs here (loud bass detected and low highs) could be due to Windows slipping the mic's auto gain control back into action. Some settings just don't stay put.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 21, 2015 14:38:58 GMT -5
Well, the graphs don't mean much to me, but it cheeses me off, when EMO's chief engineer dismisses me, because I'm upset that when I turn on Dirac and play organ music, the pedal disappears, and the upper work screams. I don't know much about mikes and speakers, but I do know what organs sound like.
Without Dirac I hear pedal notes and balanced trebles. With Dirac the pedal disappears and the mixtures scream.
Do I just accept pedalless music? Really? Is it really my fault? Maybe I've got a bad mike, maybe you provided a bad calibration, maybe Dirac phucked up. I'm appalled you hear a chorus of concerns, and don't think that it's your problem. And appalled at your criticism of the people trying to help you sort your problem.
Sincerely /b
Are you appalled enough to send the unit back? Just trying to gauge "appalledness" level. I counted three. that is pretty high in my book. Seems like this is your standard response anytime someone speaks up and says what they feel. He should not have ot send it back and there is nothing wrong with having this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Jan 21, 2015 14:51:16 GMT -5
HOWEVER complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. And expecting someone who hasn't heard your system or your room to interpret your graphs in detail is an exercise in futility. I'll also admit I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off with the incessant banter about how "the measurements can't be right" and "the graphs can't look like that". If the onscreen graphs annoy you, then just close your eyes! The whole point of Dirac is to adjust the way your system SOUNDS; not to adjust graph so it looks prettier. When the Full version of Dirac comes out (which will be quite soon now), you'll be able to create and adjust your own Target Curve, which will allow you to adjust the way your results sound, at which point you can use the graphs as A GUIDELINE so you can see what you want to adjust and how... Please understand that I'm all for asking someone with more knowledge and experience if they recognize specific issues on a graph - like room modes or crossover anomalies - but trying to figure out "if your graph is accurate" by comparing it to SOMEONE ELSE'S MEASUREMENTS is just plain silly. In the mean time, if your real goal in all this is to produce a nice looking graph, and you're too busy doing that to listen to any music, I can recommend a few nice programs that will allow you to do that very easily, while entirely avoiding all that annoying listening and measuring... Well Keith my personal experience with the XMC-1 and DIRAC LE at home and at a demo location for other audiofreaks is that after DIRAC LE correction there is too much highs and very little bass in my setup. Switching it off gave a much more enjoyable listening experience. I'll try the corrected file of Ansat on Friday and verify the resulting frequency response with an measurement system of XTZ. By the way glad to hear that the full version will also work with other mic's. I'll seriously consider to purchase a UMIK-1 calibrated mic of Cross-Spectrum |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 21, 2015 14:52:04 GMT -5
Are you appalled enough to send the unit back? Just trying to gauge "appalledness" level. I counted three. that is pretty high in my book. Seems like this is your standard response anytime someone speaks up and says what they feel. He should not have ot send it back and there is nothing wrong with having this discussion. Agree with the second but it will take a while to check my previous posts to verify if it was indeed a canned response. Personally I do admit to having returned gear that I could not get to play well in my system. Now sorry for high jacking Tony's thread. he has done some excellent work here. Enough so that I would like to see Emotive give him a free Dirac upgrade for his efforts. |
|
|
|
Post by tunatamer on Jan 21, 2015 14:54:29 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm taking Keiths post in a way that wasn't intended but I don't see anyone trying to make good looking graphs. I started looking at the graphs because I heard something wrong. Sibilant highs and having to crank the bass are an indicator to me that something, somewhere in the measurements, in either the way they were taken or the way they're being processed turned my XMC's sound into something less than desirable. I think that there are more folks out there that feel as I do. If that was not the case this thread wouldn't exist. I turned Dirac off after multiple sweeps and time spent listening convinced me I did not like the result. Just Sayin..... Really, guys. A speaker (or individual driver) starts to become significantly directional when the wavelength of the frequency involved becomes SMALLER than the dimension of the radiating surface. This is one way to control (or predict) dispersion in a particular direction. For a round cone or dome in a regular cabinet, the "dimension" is the diameter of the driver, so they become seriously directional on all axes when the wavelength at whatever frequency you're describing becomes shorter than the diameter of the driver. The wavelength at 2 kHz is about 6", and becomes shorter as you go up in frequency, which means that it is quite normal (and virtually unavoidable) for an 8" cone to become somewhat directional at any frequency above 1 kHz or 2 kHz, and to become more directional as the frequency goes higher. Note that, in some circumstances, for a center channel speaker, this could be considered desirable. Because the speaker is directional at even midrange frequencies, most of the energy goes forward towards the listener, so less ends up arriving at the listener later after being reflected off the floor, ceiling, and walls. (In other words, the larger driver has "controlled vertical and horizontal dispersion at voice frequencies", which could serve to improve voice clarity and imaging, especially in a very live room.) The ability of a speaker to make low bass is limited by both its frequency response and its displacement. Even a tiny speaker can be designed to produce frequencies down to 20 Hz - just not very loudly. (Many headphones can deliver sound flat to 20 Hz with a 1" or 2" speaker - but only into a "room" the size of your ear canal.) Most normal speakers deliberately trade off the ability to produce very low frequencies in return for the ability to produce reasonable sound levels. The reason you need a subwoofer is to produce enough displacement of air to produce low notes at a satisfying volume level. The ability of a speaker to make high frequencies (and without distorting) is determined by a large number of factors, but it's not at all unusual for an 8" driver to start rolling off anywhere above a few kHz, and to be able to make some usable output down to 20 Hz, and it would be downright odd if an 8" driver DIDN'T become very directional above a few kHz. And any speaker that uses multiple drivers to produce an overlapping range of frequencies will also almost certainly be subject to assorted comb filter and interference effects between those drivers as well. Every room and every speaker is different. We've compared the measurements taken with our microphones (and our correction curve) to ones taken IN THE SAME ROOM, UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS with a "serious" calibrated measurement microphone - and they DO agree within a very small margin of error - and the microphones we've spot checked are ALL very consistent in their responses. Our microphone is quite flat AT 90 DEGREES OFF AXIS - AS THE INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFY with our correction curve. I don't know the details of exactly how Dirac evaluates its data, or how it weights the direct and reflected energy at various frequencies when calculating its corrections, so I don't at all assume that it will produce the same results as REW - especially under different conditions and with different rooms. (In fact, since Dirac is specifically correcting things that REW doesn't even CLAIM to fix, I would hope the results would be rather different.) The Full version of Dirac will be available shortly, and then you'll be able to use a different microphone if you like, and create your own Target Curves.... By all means, if you LIKE the results you get with REW better than the ones you get with Dirac, then use REW... we don't mind a bit...
HOWEVER, complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. And expecting someone who hasn't heard your system or your room to interpret your graphs in detail is an exercise in futility. I'll also admit I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off with the incessant banter about how "the measurements can't be right" and "the graphs can't look like that". If the onscreen graphs annoy you, then just close your eyes! The whole point of Dirac is to adjust the way your system SOUNDS; not to adjust graph so it looks prettier. When the Full version of Dirac comes out (which will be quite soon now), you'll be able to create and adjust your own Target Curve, which will allow you to adjust the way your results sound, at which point you can use the graphs as A GUIDELINE so you can see what you want to adjust and how... Please understand that I'm all for asking someone with more knowledge and experience if they recognize specific issues on a graph - like room modes or crossover anomalies - but trying to figure out "if your graph is accurate" by comparing it to SOMEONE ELSE'S MEASUREMENTS is just plain silly. In the mean time, if your real goal in all this is to produce a nice looking graph, and you're too busy doing that to listen to any music, I can recommend a few nice programs that will allow you to do that very easily, while entirely avoiding all that annoying listening and measuring... personally I prefer Adobe Photoshop. Keith, Whilst I am sorry you are cheesed off after committing time, money, blood, sweat and tears into this project, you should be a little concerned about my comments, because as I said in my first post in this topic, I cannot sit back and enjoy yet because I do not own an XMC-1 and at the moment could not consider committing the money to a potential white elephant and I am sure I am not alone!
I have been avidly watching the forum because I like the sound of the XMC, and when (if) it works in it's basic element (as a Surround Sound Processor), (never mind possible add-ons like media player from attached USB drives) I would consider buying unless other vendors have leap frogged Emotiva and brought out a more suitable alternative. I don't want to commit yet because there are some glaring problems, like this one, that stop me from buying.
I can see that you are personally involved, and I like that, and I relish your forum posts usually, but I am also mindful that it took a long time to get the XMC to market and may take some time to iron out other problems.
I do not enjoy looking at graphs for the sake of looking at them. I am no more nerdy than you. I do like to understand how things are supposed to work and how they are actually working, just like you I suspect. I like to see/hear/feel that things are working as they should.
Proof of theory is a core tenet of science. Thus, the full version of Dirac may not satisfy the problems being discussed and demonstrated here. If an expected test tone is not being produced as expected and/or recorded by a microphone accurately and/or the measurement does not reflect what is or what should be happening then the corrections made will be wrong. Changing the target curve wont help me go from an unknown accuracy of measurement.
I still have a feeling that the worst of graphs here (loud bass detected and low highs) could be due to Windows slipping the mic's auto gain control back into action. Some settings just don't stay put.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 21, 2015 14:57:08 GMT -5
For most of us returning the XMC is not even a consideration for us and it doesn't warrant being mentioned. I have a denon 3311, I don't like what audyssey does but its still a great receiver and would not send it back for one small flaw. Maybe we are looking for something that doesn't exist but I see no harm in discussing it and sharing our finding , thoughts and experiences this is what the hobby is all about. I feel we are advancing thought in this thread , we are not trying to insult Dirac or Emotiva .
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Jan 21, 2015 15:15:29 GMT -5
Hello Ansat, I did an comparison in excel of the my original CAL file (orange line) and the CAL file provided by you (Math version, blue line in the graph). See graphic below:  I can understand that "math" CAL file will lead to more Bass and less Treble but I just don't understand the bump in the range from 485 Hz to around 800 Hz. Are you able to explain this? If you look at my graphs above, you will see some issues in the 400-900 range that I applied correction to. Right now, this exists in all the microphone comparison measurements that I looked at. I used my lunch to put together 4 of the microphones comparisons that I had on my laptop. Not much time to do any of the others. Since I do not have precise control over the measurements, I used parts where it made sense in the calibration files. One of the microphones in this was a problem and emotiva has shipped that person a new mic.  rew file for those that are interested |
|
|
|
Post by barrak on Jan 21, 2015 15:26:40 GMT -5
The Full version of Dirac will be available shortly, and then you'll be able to use a different microphone if you like, and create your own Target Curves.... By all means, if you LIKE the results you get with REW better than the ones you get with Dirac, then use REW... we don't mind a bit...
I'm not terribly impressed with the perceived inference from the second line above, though. The Dirac feature, along with the Emotiva customer-centric approach, are the main reasons I chose the XMC-1. Without a satisfyingly functioning and supported Dirac feature, the XMC-1 would be a waste of time and money for me. |
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Jan 21, 2015 15:38:44 GMT -5
Hello Ansat, I did an comparison in excel of the my original CAL file (orange line) and the CAL file provided by you (Math version, blue line in the graph). See graphic below: I can understand that "math" CAL file will lead to more Bass and less Treble but I just don't understand the bump in the range from 485 Hz to around 800 Hz. Are you able to explain this? If you look at my graphs above, you will see some issues in the 400-900 range that I applied correction to. Right now, this exists in all the microphone comparison measurements that I looked at. I used my lunch to put together 4 of the microphones comparisons that I had on my laptop. Not much time to do any of the others. Since I do not have precise control over the measurements, I used parts where it made sense in the calibration files. One of the microphones in this was a problem and emotiva has shipped that person a new mic. rew file for those that are interested Thanks for the explanation. I'll do a DIRAC run on friday with the Math CAL file. Curious about the results... |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,094
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 21, 2015 17:13:10 GMT -5
Really, guys. ... The Full version of Dirac will be available shortly, and then you'll be able to use a different microphone if you like, and create your own Target Curves.... By all means, if you LIKE the results you get with REW better than the ones you get with Dirac, then use REW... we don't mind a bit...
HOWEVER, complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. Sorry Keith, but I have to say "really Keith"...I think you are missing the point that Tony has been looking into, what his data says, and what many XMC users have been saying about how Dirac sounds. First, what I have been reading from many is that once they have run Dirac and use it, the highs sound too loud and the lows sound to quiet. Nobody "Photoshopped" that...it is what they have reported hearing. Please don't belittle those who have reported this problem...they are not just looking at graphs. Second, what Tony's data is showing is that if he uses the Emo Mic with the Emo-provided calibration curve built into Dirac, it measures low at the upper end and high at the lower end relative to using another mic he's got a calibration curve for. If he changes the Emo mic's calibration curve, he can match the results of his calibrated mic. Let's just put 2+2 together here...Emo mic measures off vs. known calibrated individual other mic in the same way that would suggest that if Diract took data from the Emo mic and built filters off the data, Dirac would over-boost the upper end and cut back the low end too much. Hmmm...this seems to agree with the most common complaint of people who are saying they have not liked the sound post Dirac. Could there possibly be a relationship here? We have a saying in engineering: "GIGO"..."Garbage in, Garbage out". Simply put...feed a computer program bad data and the output will be bad. It is looking like something like that is affecting DIRAC...based on the full data I am seeing. So...please stop being so defensive of Emotiva in this situation. I am one who has been tempted by the XMC-1 but am really waiting for an even higher end version (an RMC-1) and whether I get impatient and pull the trigger on an XMC-1 or wait for an "RMC-1"...I really want DIRAC working. And, it doesn't look like it is yet. Simple as that...no attack on you, no attack on Emotiva...just concerned current and future customers. Mark |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2015 17:50:14 GMT -5
First off, I do apologize if you feel that way (and I'm not a chief engineer; just a member of the team). However, the simple fact remains that there seems to be an awful lot of misunderstanding around about how room measurement and correction works, and what it can and cannot do. For example, people don't seem to understand that you can take a set of measurements in one place and get one result, yet get an entirely different result if you take the same set of measurements six inches to the left, or a foot further towards the rear. And you can get entirely different results if you take another measurement, in exactly the same place, yet use software that uses a different WAY to take measurements. And, of course, moving one of your speakers a few feet, or angling it differently, can also change everything. The simple fact is that Dirac Live produces an excellent result for most people in most rooms. It ISN'T "broken" and you very probably DON'T have a bad microphone either (although the latter is possible). What's more likely is that some combination of your room, your speakers, and where your speakers are located in the room, is confusing the software somehow. There could be problems it is unable to correct, or it could even be trying to correct certain problems, and causing other problems as a result. My point was that Dirac was NOT designed to make pretty graphs, or to replicate the results you can get with REW. Dirac is also NOT a miracle cure; it is a room correction system. It takes a series of measurements, compares them with what it considers to be "correct", then creates a set of filters which are intended to make your system sound more like what it considers to be correct. As with all such systems, it is part science and part art. You could also consider it to be "artificial intelligence" since it does actually make decisions about which things to try and fix and which to leave alone. It really does produce results that sound better (to most people) than any of the other alternatives out there... but nobody's promising that it can do as good a job as $10k worth of room treatments and a $1k visit from a human expert (and nobody's promising that a human expert will do a great job every time either). Certainly nobody expects you to listen to music that sounds bad; so it's lucky that you have lots of other options besides Dirac. Your XMC-1 sounds excellent without Dirac, and includes two separate presets which you can use to manually configure it to sound any way you like. If you happen to like the results produced by REW, then you can use REW if you want to; and simply key the filter settings it provides into one of the XMC-1's presets. Soon you'll be able to import filters from REW directly into the XMC-1. The Full version of Dirac, which will also be available soon, will let you set your own Target Curves, which may get you exactly what you want. If not, then you may want to consider moving your speakers around, or adding some sort of room treatment. (And, if you want to discuss whether your setup is optimum, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will be glad to provide input and suggestions.) Or, if you think it sounds just right the way it is, then you can just leave your XMC-1 set flat. We certainly don't want to force anyone to use Dirac who isn't pleased with the results. Either way, enjoy your music; that's what really counts.  Really, guys. HOWEVER, complaints about how "the measurements must be wrong because I just know my speaker couldn't measure like that" and "we shouldn't believe measurements like that" are just plain tedious. And expecting someone who hasn't heard your system or your room to interpret your graphs in detail is an exercise in futility. I'll also admit I'm starting to get a bit cheesed off with the incessant banter about how "the measurements can't be right" and "the graphs can't look like that".
Well, the graphs don't mean much to me, but it cheeses me off, when EMO's chief engineer dismisses me, because I'm upset that when I turn on Dirac and play organ music, the pedal disappears, and the upper work screams. I don't know much about mikes and speakers, but I do know what organs sound like.
Without Dirac I hear pedal notes and balanced trebles. With Dirac the pedal disappears and the mixtures scream.
Do I just accept pedalless music? Really? Is it really my fault? Maybe I've got a bad mike, maybe you provided a bad calibration, maybe Dirac phucked up. I'm appalled you hear a chorus of concerns, and don't think that it's your problem. And appalled at your criticism of the people trying to help you sort your problem.
Sincerely /b
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 21, 2015 18:06:19 GMT -5
Let's just put 2+2 together here...Emo mic measures off vs. known calibrated individual other mic in the same way that would suggest that if Diract took data from the Emo mic and built filters off the data, Dirac would over-boost the upper end and cut back the low end too much. Hmmm...this seems to agree with the most common complaint of people who are saying they have not liked the sound post Dirac. Could there possibly be a relationship here? We have a saying in engineering: "GIGO"..."Garbage in, Garbage out". Simply put...feed a computer program bad data and the output will be bad. It is looking like something like that is affecting DIRAC...based on the full data I am seeing. Mark I just wanted to repeat your paragraph for emphasis. I've never interpreted Tony's hard work as anything more than well intentioned diagnosis. It was exactly that spirit that helped identify some issues with the XPA-1L early on. I'm not saying there is a problem - but if the most technical people in the room think there might be - it's probably worth taking a second look to be sure that there isn't. It's a bad day if you realize that they were on to something - months later. A couple EMM mics professionally calibrated and compared against the generic included cal file could be really insightful. It's a calibration issue - or it's not. |
|
|
|
Post by yeeeha17 on Jan 21, 2015 18:08:37 GMT -5
Can we not high jack this thread please. If you want to give some more technical guru talk please create a new thread.
|
|
tubby
Emo VIPs
Route 2 in Weekapaug!!!
Posts: 408
|
Post by tubby on Jan 21, 2015 18:27:30 GMT -5
I have to disagree with a few points there Keith.
Fist off you keep referring to using REW to fix issues. REW is not room correction it is simply a measuring program. It is a very well regarded one at that and lucky enough to be free so we can all use it, which is why it is also the most popular.
It should also not matter what software is used to display the measurement recorded by the Microphone. If two measurements are performed at the same location they should be the same and be reported the same. There are plenty of examples of people testing the Dirac measurements and results in other products that line up fine. Go over to avs and check out the work the notorious Marcus has been doing with the new Minidsp box. Even Flak posted some rew results as backup to how Dirac performs. So don't blame REW for measuring things differently.
Now people should not be comparing the 9 point result vs a one point result, that is silly. There has to be consistency between measurements to be valid.
I also have not seen anyone say Dirac is broken or that all the mics are bad. The question is around the calibration file. Rather than dismiss/deny the issue why not come back with valid test data to support your position? I mean seriously we are trying to help improve a product.
I can't wait to see the result of the cross spectrum calibration on socket man's mic. It will be very interesting to see what, if any deviation there is from your cal. There is also a reason his services are used so much, deviations between mic can be significant even within the same brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Jan 21, 2015 18:31:49 GMT -5
Yes Keith I (we) can be a little pedantic  We are just sniffin round to see whats what and I freely admit I am no expert. I will have some independent measurements for my Mic soon and then I can move on. As you say, the full version will give us all kinds of options and that will be awesome. I personally am not faulting anyone real or imagined , this is mere curiosity for me and since Dirac provides a nice interface to help explore my curiosity that's what I am doing. What I find interesting is that all our rooms /equipment are so diverse and dissimilar yet we seem to be seeing the same issue and that raises a red flag for me. I say lets go where the clues take us. Peace |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,094
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 21, 2015 18:36:56 GMT -5
+1 tubby !!! KeithL please take to heart what we are saying and stop defending and treating us like idiots. It it safe to say all of us understand everything you put in you last post. But frankly, either stop defending it start showing some DATA to the contrary of what Tony is presenting. Period. I find your attitude on this topic unacceptable. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Jan 21, 2015 18:47:38 GMT -5
Let's just put 2+2 together here...Emo mic measures off vs. known calibrated individual other mic in the same way that would suggest that if Diract took data from the Emo mic and built filters off the data, Dirac would over-boost the upper end and cut back the low end too much. Hmmm...this seems to agree with the most common complaint of people who are saying they have not liked the sound post Dirac. Could there possibly be a relationship here? We have a saying in engineering: "GIGO"..."Garbage in, Garbage out". Simply put...feed a computer program bad data and the output will be bad. It is looking like something like that is affecting DIRAC...based on the full data I am seeing. Mark I just wanted to repeat your paragraph for emphasis. I've never interpreted Tony's hard work as anything more than well intentioned diagnosis. It was exactly that spirit that helped identify some issues with the XPA-1L early on. I'm not saying there is a problem - but if the most technical people in the room think there might be - it's probably worth taking a second look to be sure that there isn't. It's a bad day if you realize that they were on to something - months later. A couple EMM mics professionally calibrated and compared against the generic included cal file could be really insightful. It's a calibration issue - or it's not. I agree, but sadly with Dirac Full being released in a few days and having it work with any microphone. I don't think anyone besides the one that I know of, being sent in to cross spectrum to be calibrated. The cost to ship your own microphone plus getting the calibration is about the cost of a umik. I am in hopes to gather as much as we can to ensure that LE is operating as intended (enough for most users out there) At this point, I have seen too many comments state "well hopefully the full version will solve what I am hearing" and that is disheartening, as I know what dirac can do when it is fed a cal file that brings the microphone to flat. I have spent a lot of time gathering data and reviewing the information anticipating the reactions that are unfolding. I created this thread and probably was a little vague as to why. I am only looking at the data between 1khz and 3khz followed by lower then flat response to 20k. My goal however is quite simple. My emotiva microphone with the emotiva calibration should be close to my calibrated microphones regardless of what program is using it. If REW shows significant difference, then Dirac will as well. The reason that I asked for dirac graphs, is I would get a better response then asking for REW graphs. And while I understand that there is no concrete data that can be derived from a 9 point average, there should also be no common trends that can be identified in the graphs as well (with the exception that lower frequencies can get out of control easily). I know at this point, I am likely viewed as a S*@# disturber by emotiva, But something is defiantly wrong somewhere. Is Cross-Spectrum Reference mic data off? or is emotivas? According to REW, it has to be one of the two. On a side note: I am curious hear the new experiences using my math cal file. If you do not want to post them publically, feel free to send me a PM. If you don't want to discuss it through the forums, PM me and I will provide my personal email. Thanks, Tony |
|
We are just sniffin round to see whats what and I freely admit I am no expert. I will have some independent measurements for my Mic soon and then I can move on. As you say, the full version will give us all kinds of options and that will be awesome. I personally am not faulting anyone real or imagined , this is mere curiosity for me and since Dirac provides a nice interface to help explore my curiosity that's what I am doing. What I find interesting is that all our rooms /equipment are so diverse and dissimilar yet we seem to be seeing the same issue and that raises a red flag for me. I say lets go where the clues take us.