|
|
Post by minthral on Jan 18, 2016 11:56:03 GMT -5
I have XMC-1 and live version that was $100 extra. Anyone know if the PC version is better, worse, or the same? I do everything through a HTPC and understand the software would only work to enhance sound on the PC. Here's a link for it to anyone who isn't aware... www.dirac.com/online-storeIts really expensive at $500. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 18, 2016 12:01:43 GMT -5
I have XMC-1 and live version that was $100 extra. Anyone know if the PC version is better, worse, or the same? I do everything through a HTPC and understand the software would only work to enhance sound on the PC. Here's a link for it to anyone who isn't aware... www.dirac.com/online-storeIts really expensive at $500. To use the PC version the music has to be on that PC. You can't use it for other sources. A nice thing about the PC version is that you can have multiple filters created and switch between them pretty easily. But the XMC can use it for any source other than the 7.1 anaolg inputs. |
|
|
|
Post by minthral on Jan 18, 2016 12:07:48 GMT -5
I have XMC-1 and live version that was $100 extra. Anyone know if the PC version is better, worse, or the same? I do everything through a HTPC and understand the software would only work to enhance sound on the PC. Here's a link for it to anyone who isn't aware... www.dirac.com/online-storeIts really expensive at $500. To use the PC version the music has to be on that PC. You can't use it for other sources. A nice thing about the PC version is that you can have multiple filters created and switch between them pretty easily. But the XMC can use it for any source other than the 7.1 anaolg inputs. Yes as I mentioned, I understand this and it works in my configuration. What I am trying to figure out is how is the $500 software different than what is used with XMC-1? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 18, 2016 12:14:01 GMT -5
To use the PC version the music has to be on that PC. You can't use it for other sources. A nice thing about the PC version is that you can have multiple filters created and switch between them pretty easily. But the XMC can use it for any source other than the 7.1 anaolg inputs. Yes as I mentioned, I understand this and it works in my configuration. What I am trying to figure out is how is the $500 software different than what is used with XMC-1? I used the trial version and they are pretty much the same other than what's been said above. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,072
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 18, 2016 12:41:10 GMT -5
When Emotiva said they were going with Dirac, I seriously considered getting the PC version as I had all my tunes on a hard drive and I was not sure if Emotiva was going to get the XMC-1 out there and have Dirac (there were numerous changes along the XMC-1 development). I decided to wait it out, and I was glad I did. I like having DIRAC on every source, and sometimes I am listening via my PC, sometimes via Sonos, and then of course from the cable box and BluRays. Dirac is so good that I want it on every source.
And, other than what George notes, there's nothing to be gained by paying more once you have the XMC-1.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by minthral on Jan 18, 2016 12:51:35 GMT -5
OK thanks for info.
I like Dirac, but seems bypassing all the processing makes music sound best for me via DC-1 DAC. Really like that XMC has fully balanced stereo input and outputs. For movies and games, I'm less critical and you need Dirac for an accurate surround sound experience.
I was mainly wondering if maybe I might benefit listening to music HTPC (using DIRAC) > DC-1 > XMC-1 (balanced in and out) > XPA-2 ... probably no different than trying to use Stereo mode with XMC with Dirac calibrated there.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 18, 2016 21:52:41 GMT -5
They are definitely not the same. If you only need Dirac processing on the HTPC, then you get these benefits over what comes with the XMC-1:
1) View and set channel delay
2) View and set channel trim
3) 192kHz/24-bit processing
4) Multiple filter banks
5) A reduced latency mode
6) All the features that you get by paying $99 for Emotiva's Dirac full upgrade
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by minthral on Jan 18, 2016 22:01:32 GMT -5
Interesting, so the PC software offers more? Do those features impact sound quality though?
I might need to try tinker with target curves, but so far Dirac does not improve music for me. This is really new for me because other room correction software made a big difference. Maybe I just like unfiltered music and not the flat sound.
|
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Jan 19, 2016 1:06:02 GMT -5
Why not just do the free trial and see for yourself?
I did the trial when I still had the UMC-200 and couldn't believe the improvement. Is it worth $500? It wasn't for me as I waited for the XMC-1.
I never take it out of Dirac mode and never even had to get the full version. Just some carefully measurements and the sound is dialed in.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 19, 2016 10:41:05 GMT -5
If you listen to high res music, then the the elimination of downsampling should improve quality. The rest of the features can help you get the sound you want.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by greenpsycho on Jan 21, 2016 7:22:31 GMT -5
They are definitely not the same. If you only need Dirac processing on the HTPC, then you get these benefits over what comes with the XMC-1: 1) View and set channel delay 2) View and set channel trim 3) 192kHz/24-bit processing 4) Multiple filter banks 5) A reduced latency mode 6) All the features that you get by paying $99 for Emotiva's Dirac full upgrade -tm Ideally? Maybe, however, i will say I downloaded the demo (and even purchased a UMIK mic) to test out Dirac before picking up my xmc-1. And I'll tell you, its not good. It is actively a bad experience on the PC, because the software is so bad. First, disable cortana to get the mic working (took me a few hours fiddling around with this to figure it out). Next, while the live calibration tool works well enough (this is what you use to measure and create the filters), the audio processing side is god awful. Basically, you choose your sound output source and what filter you want to use, and then the dirac audio processor makes a virtual sound device that you select as your primary playback source via windows (and your player). Sounds good and straight forward, right? Well, in practice I got it to work maybe 10% of the time. The software is so glitchy and the lag is a good 30s behind where the PC is at. The few times that I got it to work successfully, I had to select one of my sources that I DID NOT want to use (hdmi out on my video card) and then I got music coming through my DAC. Stupid stupid software. Additionally, I'm not so sure it works with 192/24 music. It might be advertised that way and I know you can create filters for those levels, but according to jriver, it was downsampling. Honestly, emotiva should be congratulated for such a tight integration and implementing such a seamless process, because I know the Dirac software is fairly bad, yet my experience setting up and taming the XMC-1 was painless. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 21, 2016 10:43:48 GMT -5
I have heard from others that had much better success. I'd guess it has something to do with your collection of hardware. That's life with general purpose computers. It's the console vs gaming PC argument. Limited and dedicated hardware vs flexible and more powerful hardware that's going to require some legwork. That's why I eventually ended up on the XMC-1 instead of HTPC.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 21, 2016 10:51:42 GMT -5
The demo PC version worked just fine for me. No problems at all. But I see no reason to opt for it with the full version on the XMC unless you want to switch filters quickly AND you run everything through the PC it's installed on.
|
|
|
|
Post by minthral on Jan 21, 2016 11:54:49 GMT -5
I imagine that sound latency will increase with the pc version too. Mainly due to OS buffers and queuing. Would be bad for gaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenpsycho on Jan 21, 2016 12:57:00 GMT -5
Too true, the configuration of the computer makes all the difference, and honestly, it probably comes down to random luck whether it works well or not. I'm guessing it wasn't quite optimized for windows 10 yet, which is why I had alot of problems. Still, when it did work, the latency and cpu utilization was fairly high, making it impossible to use for gaming, and annoying enough I wouldn't use it on anything older than a Haswell (what I have).
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 21, 2016 13:07:09 GMT -5
I imagine that sound latency will increase with the pc version too. Mainly due to OS buffers and queuing. Would be bad for gaming. I doubt there is significant latency. If there was, it wouldn't be usable for video watching because the audio would be out of sync. PC processors are way more powerful than anything in the XMC-1. They are general purpose, but usually the latency from convolution comes from filter length. No amount of processing power can fix improve that. A slight delay in audio due to processing isn't going to affect gaming. When people talking about latency in gaming, they are referring to the delay between their input and the impact on the on-screen action. I bet greenpsycho's point about the CPU utilization is a real problem for gaming, however. -tm |
|
|
|
Post by greenpsycho on Jan 21, 2016 19:56:09 GMT -5
Millst, honestly, please try it and then comment. I've personally tried it, I have a very fast computer, and the latency is real, and very bad (as in seconds, not milliseconds). There seems to be a lot of hearsay and theorizing on this thread, while I'm giving you a first hand account.
Its not a horsepower issue, its a code issue. Bad code can cripple Watson, good code can run make Doom play on a printer.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,072
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 21, 2016 20:11:51 GMT -5
I have heard from many people who ran DIRAC from their PC's with great results. Such as geebo and several others. And, I heard it myself at Emofest off a laptop, and it sounded great. So...maybe it is not the software or hardware but the setup.
Just a possibility...
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Jan 22, 2016 0:45:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I'll admit I haven't personally tried, but I'm not just speculating either. I'm basing it on what I've heard online (to be taken with a grain of salt, of course). Hopefully, geebo or somebody else with first-hand experience can comment. I'd be willing to try it out if nobody else can confirm...
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by flak on Jan 22, 2016 6:51:30 GMT -5
Millst, honestly, please try it and then comment. I've personally tried it, I have a very fast computer, and the latency is real, and very bad (as in seconds, not milliseconds). There seems to be a lot of hearsay and theorizing on this thread, while I'm giving you a first hand account. Hi greenpsycho, I don't doubt that you had latency issues but I'd not like people to think that it was the standalone version of Dirac Live that introduced a latency of seconds  As you may have noticed there is a "low latency" option that is alternative to the "max. performance" one but it is a matter of milliseconds... a good guess could be something 15/16 milliseconds latency when using "max. performance" You can know the exact value of the latency introduced by the Dirac correction by looking at the distance (in milliseconds) between the impulses in Dirac's impulse response graphs:  As you correctly noticed you can create dedicated filters for each sampling frequency up to 192 KHz, as a result there is no downsampling or upsampling... may be the necessary filters had not been initially selected and created (it happens that this step is left out) By the way I don't personally think that there is an audible difference between 96Khz and 192 KHz but that's another story... Ciao, Flavio |
|
