|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 30, 2016 13:08:33 GMT -5
DIRAC and Dolby Atmos, among others are the latest attempts to "erase the room" from the home audio listening experience. Unfortunately, IMHO, the application of these technologies has been bundled almost exclusively with Home Theater products. While removing the room from the HT experience is valuable, the typical movie soundtrack lacks any "original acoustic" to reveal. The surround-sound experience of a movie, while potentially exciting, is more of a supplement to the video rather than any reproduction of an original acoustic. There are exceptions, but they're not the rule.
The same technology that is effective for movies, should in theory also be effective for stereo only. After all, room echoes don't change regardless of whether a song or a soundtrack is being played. But no room correction system that I've heard is terribly effective. I've heard DIRAC & Dolby Atmos in stores, and heard Emotiva and Yamaha YPAO room correction in my own home. They're better than nothing, in some ways, but in other ways, nothing is still the better sounding choice.
So questions and speculations abound.
Does a surround system do a better job of erasing the room echoes than does a (room-corrected) stereo only rig?
If so, then how many additional speakers might be needed to truly effectively remove room echoes? The current five or seven, or nine, or even eleven don't seem to quite cut the mustard.
Would a standardized in-wall and/or in-ceiling mount speaker be efficient (not for program, but for room correction only)?
How many more "generations" of software will be required until room correction is sufficient to actually fool the listener into believing that they're in an original recording venue (assuming that such information survives on the recording).
And when will correction software be adequate to fool the listener ALL the time instead of only occasionally?
I don't know the answers to these, but would welcome the comments of the educated, technically astute, and erudite denizens of the Lounge.
Thanks - Boomzilla
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 30, 2016 13:31:06 GMT -5
They're better than nothing, in some ways, but in other ways, nothing is still the better sounding choice. I disagree with this statement based on what I have heard in demos and lived with now for over 6 months. I understand you may think that "nothing" is the better sounding choice, but that's just not my experience at all. Net, most of your questions don't seem relevant to me (just my personal feeling, others may feel differently) so I struggle to answer those questions. When I first heard DIRAC, it was demo'd on a 2 channel system in a very highly treated room at Emotiva. We were treated to a demo my a Dirac rep who was toggling it on and off. He did not tell us which was which and left it to us to guess. Listening to a pair of Maggie 3.7's powered by a pair of Emotiva monoblocks (XPA-1's or XPR-1's?) whose source was files off a laptop into a DC-1. The difference between Dirac on and off was quite noticeable, with Dirac being far more clear than non-Dirac. And, each time, I was able to correctly identify which was the "on" and which was the "off". Fast forward in time to last year when I got DIRAC via my XMC-1. Again, the difference was immediately noticeable...in stereo, with my Maggie 1.7's, nCore amps, and using streamed music from any of my sources (my PC w/jRiver or TIDAL and my Sonos including files from my NAS or music from Tidal) Now, does the music sound like it did in the source room? As I was not there when any of it was recorded - I have no way to tell, and there's a lot more to making it sound like being in the room at the time of recording than the room correction. But, I can say the clarity is far improved and I listen exclusively with Dirac on now...for 2.1 and 7.1 - because it just sounds better. And you are correct in saying that most get their room correction comes with a multichannel processor, it is worthwhile noting you can get Dirac in a processor, as a stand-alone software for a PC or MAC (in multichannel or 2-channel only versions), or in a stand alone piece of gear whose name escapes me right now. As good as I think Dirac Live is, Unison certainly promises to be another step to greatness. I look forward to experiencing it. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by frenchyfranky on Jan 30, 2016 13:42:46 GMT -5
Boomzilla I don't agree with you, here is my thought: emotivalounge.proboards.com/post/788966/thread
" My 1974 (worst decade for construction regulations in Quebec) bungalow living room is maybe the worst environment for a listening room I had ever seen, first the room is very small 12' X 18' and the construction materials are very cheap (wall of 2" X 4" Studs and outside aluminum clapboard, floor of 2" X 10" strut and not enough thick plywood and not enough rigid and strong), it resulting in a too flexible room to obtaining a good sound. Imagine that you try to listening music in a cardboard shoe's box, all that you hear come from vibrating box's. It is practically and physically impossible to tune correctly the room. There's the Dirac change the game, even for 2 channel stereo critical listening session, I never think that it could be possible in my living room environment, and I never had good results in the past with all the room correction software in my past AVR ( Anthem MRX-700 with ARC and before Denon AVR-3803 with Audyssey ) or my last pre-pro UMC-1 with Emo Q, they all failed to make my room sounds good, "BTW I am not considerate myself as an "educated, technically astute, and erudite denizens of the Lounge" as you said, I'm just a music lover and an audiophile
|
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Jan 30, 2016 15:03:54 GMT -5
Most won't do the proper treatments needed for a transparent room. I'm not talking a few absorption panels on the wall I'm talking full treatment.... floors being a primary place to treat but yields unwalkable conditions. 5 channel system is fine... 7 is a bit more. Maybe a few ceiling to match new atmos/dts codecs.... you want transparent treat the room and quit making pretty rooms that sound like crap. My room is only about 30% done... gotta build more stuff. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 30, 2016 15:12:16 GMT -5
They're better than nothing, in some ways, but in other ways, nothing is still the better sounding choice. I disagree with this statement based on what I have heard in demos and lived with now for over 6 months. I understand you may think that "nothing" is the better sounding choice, but that's just not my experience at all. Net, most of your questions don't seem relevant to me (just my personal feeling, others may feel differently) so I struggle to answer those questions. When I first heard DIRAC, it was demo'd on a 2 channel system in a very highly treated room at Emotiva. We were treated to a demo my a Dirac rep who was toggling it on and off. He did not tell us which was which and left it to us to guess. Listening to a pair of Maggie 3.7's powered by a pair of Emotiva monoblocks (XPA-1's or XPR-1's?) whose source was files off a laptop into a DC-1. The difference between Dirac on and off was quite noticeable, with Dirac being far more clear than non-Dirac. And, each time, I was able to correctly identify which was the "on" and which was the "off". Fast forward in time to last year when I got DIRAC via my XMC-1. Again, the difference was immediately noticeable...in stereo, with my Maggie 1.7's, nCore amps, and using streamed music from any of my sources (my PC w/jRiver or TIDAL and my Sonos including files from my NAS or music from Tidal) Now, does the music sound like it did in the source room? As I was not there when any of it was recorded - I have no way to tell, and there's a lot more to making it sound like being in the room at the time of recording than the room correction. But, I can say the clarity is far improved and I listen exclusively with Dirac on now...for 2.1 and 7.1 - because it just sounds better. And you are correct in saying that most get their room correction comes with a multichannel processor, it is worthwhile noting you can get Dirac in a processor, as a stand-alone software for a PC or MAC (in multichannel or 2-channel only versions), or in a stand alone piece of gear whose name escapes me right now. As good as I think Dirac Live is, Unison certainly promises to be another step to greatness. I look forward to experiencing it. Mark By any chance were these instances overseen by Audioquest representatives?  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 30, 2016 15:20:10 GMT -5
By any chance were these instances overseen by Audioquest representatives? Now that you mention it...  Mark |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 30, 2016 15:24:19 GMT -5
I have seen pictures of some rooms that members post here and I just have to wonder how can it possibly sound any good...People also need to be mindful that Dirac is not the cure for a bad listening environment and it will not do much for a proper set up listening environment...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 30, 2016 15:45:26 GMT -5
OK - MONDO mixed signals - Mr. Kline & FrenchyFranky say it's the cat's meow - I believe them. Talley says acoustic treatments are king - my experience matches to the greater extent. pedrocols says Dirac is limited to the environment, and won't do much more if the room is properly set up in the first place. So half of the four respondents to date disagree on the efficacy of electronic room correction. Not a ringing endorsement... My experiences to date have left me less than wowed. The Emotiva room correction consistently identified one of my two main speakers as out of phase (it wasn't). The YPAO room correction didn't seem to do a great deal. My room is free of slap echo (thanks to seven large ATS panels) and isn't heavily loaded for bass due to venting at all four corners. So the next step is to buy or borrow a XMC-1, implement DIRAC, and see what (if any) changes result? I've heard "industrial grade" room correction that did amazing things. I'm not sure what the "pros" use, but I'm strongly suspecting it isn't DIRAC or Dolby Atmos. Any ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 30, 2016 15:48:42 GMT -5
OK - MONDO mixed signals - Mr. Kline & FrenchyFranky say it's the cat's meow - I believe them. Talley says acoustic treatments are king - my experience matches to the greater extent. pedrocols says Dirac is limited to the environment, and won't do much more if the room is properly set up in the first place. So half of the four respondents to date disagree on the efficacy of electronic room correction. Not a ringing endorsement... My experiences to date have left me less than wowed. The Emotiva room correction consistently identified one of my two main speakers as out of phase (it wasn't). The YPAO room correction didn't seem to do a great deal. My room is free of slap echo (thanks to seven large ATS panels) and isn't heavily loaded for bass due to venting at all four corners. So the next step is to buy or borrow a XMC-1, implement DIRAC, and see what (if any) changes result? I've heard "industrial grade" room correction that did amazing things. I'm not sure what the "pros" use, but I'm strongly suspecting it isn't DIRAC or Dolby Atmos. Any ideas? True, having the room set up properly in the first place is very important. But Dirac can also correct deficiencies in the response of the speakers, too, by flattening the curve. If your speakers are too hot in the treble range, Dirac will tone it down or raise it up if the treble is too rolled off. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 30, 2016 15:51:00 GMT -5
...BTW I am not considerate myself as an "educated, technically astute, and erudite denizens of the Lounge" as you said, I'm just a music lover and an audiophile Don't downrate yourself, Frenchy - I consider you ALL of those things! |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 30, 2016 16:01:52 GMT -5
Hi monkumonku - Your point is taken - SPL differences from the speakers would be the easiest thing to correct. For that, the program has only to function as an acoustic equalizer. Taming the room echoes is a radically different thing. The microphone / software must "hear" the original source sound from the speaker, differentiate it from the room echoes of the same sound, and then mix an inverse "echo" into the audio program, timed to cancel the room reflections. Once that is done, then equalizing the audio program to "flat" is simple. I don't really understand how the room analysis software works, but from what I've read, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithms are used for the room correction component. The math is somewhat complex, but that's what the microprocessor is for. Since each speaker is corrected individually, it shouldn't really matter whether one, two, or two dozen speakers are used. The algorithm should be the same for each. But in this day and age, how many speakers really need electronic correction? Their deviations from flat frequency response are not normally due to drivers or crossovers, bur rather to room effects. |
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Jan 30, 2016 16:02:21 GMT -5
Audyssey would be a better comparison since it is a room correction software like Dirac is. Atmos is a sound format in the manner of DTS & Dolby Digital etc - more speakers! As for room correction in my case Audyssey MultEQ XT32 W/Sub EQ HT does a great job of smoothing the house curve in the 40-80hz area with two very different subs. I used to turn off the 12" sealed sub for movies since the bass was overpowering in that house curve area. The XT32 did a great job of getting the two subs to sound good together. I was somewhat skeptical at first but it does sound great. I have no idea whether Dirac can juggle two subs independently within the XMC-1 platform like Audyssey Sub EQ HT.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 30, 2016 18:01:37 GMT -5
The term "room correction" is misleading.
The room isn't being corrected, rather equalization is being applied to electronics.
Bose did that with the 901s, IIRC.
I'd rather treat the room.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 18:06:28 GMT -5
The term "room correction" is misleading. The room isn't being corrected, rather equalization is being applied to electronics. Bose did that with the 901s, IIRC. I'd rather treat the room. Room correction is a fine term The program is making corrections of problems that the room is causing. Thus room (problem) correction |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 30, 2016 18:12:25 GMT -5
No. It has nothing to do with it. Also Dolby Atmos doesn't have anything to do with room correction. additional speakers aren't the answer. You are talking about surround sound. You're thinking that surround sound speakers work in cancelling out issues to do with other (front) speakers with room correction. As far as I know that's not what happens in room correction. And it isn't what happens in Atmos. Atmos is a sourround sound format designed to just work with speakers 7.4 and greater so that it can scale appropriately. It doesn't FIX the room. Good lord, no!  What have you been reading? Well I wouldn't hold my breath. Dirac sounded DIFFERENT. In some ways it worked. In some ways it didn't. It had a noticeable sound signature. But not something I would choose for music. I wouldn't hold my breath. The factors are complex. I think it would take too much to correct it adequately. |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Jan 30, 2016 18:37:24 GMT -5
Talley says acoustic treatments are king - my experience matches to the greater extent. So half of the four respondents to date disagree on the efficacy of electronic room correction. Not a ringing endorsement... I've heard "industrial grade" room correction that did amazing things. I'm not sure what the "pros" use, but I'm strongly suspecting it isn't DIRAC or Dolby Atmos. Any ideas? I never said Dirac isn't good. I'm using both setups. The problem lies in speaker/room placement with cancelations and room modes and such. Phasing is important and even if the speakers are setup perfect there is still room interaction. #1: Acoustic Treatment is king YES and should be applied first in moderation with absorption and diffusion "as needed" for your particular room to minimize audible reflections within the first 40ms... #2: Polish this off with Dirac or equal. The better the room is treated properly and sounds.... the more effective the room software can work. With multiple speakers room correction software is key. But treatment really drives the results. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 18:53:40 GMT -5
Audyssey would be a better comparison since it is a room correction software like Dirac is. Atmos is a sound format in the manner of DTS & Dolby Digital etc - more speakers! As for room correction in my case Audyssey MultEQ XT32 W/Sub EQ HT does a great job of smoothing the house curve in the 40-80hz area with two very different subs. I used to turn off the 12" sealed sub for movies since the bass was overpowering in that house curve area. The XT32 did a great job of getting the two subs to sound good together. I was somewhat skeptical at first but it does sound great. I have no idea whether Dirac can juggle two subs independently within the XMC-1 platform like Audyssey Sub EQ HT. Dirac doesn't do the same as sub eq. Audyssey measures distance of the subs separately and then eq's them together, so the boomy Area you mention is cut from both subs equally. Dirac would try and eq them separate and would therefore end up with nulls and cancellations in the response. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 19:00:49 GMT -5
Dirac has done wonders for giving me a flat or boomy or whatever other frequency response I could ask for in my subwoofers, due to flexibility in the target curve.
But it did nothing for helping with echoes and decay times.
It also does pretty much nothing to the response curve above 3kHz. It also does a poor job of integrating my main lcr and my subwoofers at the crossover frequency. If I add a 1.5ms delay to my subwoofers I have a smooth transition through the crossover instead of a huge null in the 80-140Hz range.
Adding a dozen roxul panels and bass traps in the 4 corners has helped with the decay times and the crispness of the midrange.
Atmos imo would actually require more treatment to the room than 5 channel surround as there is more originating points of sound, thus more first reflection points.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 30, 2016 19:15:47 GMT -5
FWIW,
Dirac made it easy to match the sound and setup I had done by ear, for two channel. My room is well treated and all that is in my ability (physically) has been done.
That said, for HT, I'm not sure I could do the same by ear,,,,,,,,,,,,and why bother??
I do think Dirac does a better job for RC in HT then YPAO, but I wouldn't bet on them not being extremely close in results.
Was paying extra for the upgrade to Dirac Full, still out to lunch but I haven't had much time to play with it.
Just some of my thoughts about RC
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 30, 2016 19:18:35 GMT -5
The term "room correction" is misleading. The room isn't being corrected, rather equalization is being applied to electronics. Bose did that with the 901s, IIRC. I'd rather treat the room. Room correction is a fine term The program is making corrections of problems that the room is causing. Thus room (problem) correction So basically, it would make sense to only change things in the room? Thus Dirac is basically unnecessary? |
|
