|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 30, 2016 19:31:20 GMT -5
Sounds like a fancy name for a computer aided graphic equalizer, Pedro.
I threw mine out in 1978.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Jan 30, 2016 19:34:44 GMT -5
Sounds like a fancy name for a computer aided graphic equalizer, Pedro. I threw mine out in 1978. Precisely! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 19:59:14 GMT -5
Sounds like a fancy name for a computer aided graphic equalizer, Pedro. I threw mine out in 1978. Lol... actually that's pretty close. You adjust the graphical end of it in the target curve and it gets translated to parametric eq in the xmc. For 2 channel purists, not overly desirable. But those of us that want a specific response curve (for me to avoid boomy bloated bass) it has its uses. I found the treatment panels to tighten and bring out the details in the mids and highs better than dirac. |
|
|
|
Post by simpleman68 on Jan 30, 2016 20:32:06 GMT -5
Boom, you make some excellent points and I think the answers/solutions are as multi-faceted as the room/equipment combinations. Exactly why I was intrigued with Legacy Whispers in the first place. While certainly not a fix for all the aforementioned issues, they do an impressive job of eliminating much of the typical in room reactions. Highly efficient drivers mounted in "planks" rather than cabinets, were designed to "fire" the sound at the listener while maintaining a fairly wide sweet spot with full attenuation at 90 degrees off axis. The Xilica DSP is also a huge help and I'm in the middle of learning how to tweak it. Not a fan boy by any stretch but it really made sense to drastically reduce the speakers interaction with the room. If you treat your room to even a minimal degree and pay attention to placement and follow the basics, you have a shot at some natural sound reproduction. That said, I am a huge offender with regard to room treatments and am a minimalist at best. Largely a factor of convenience and/or lack of knowledge. I've never been, and never will be an audio snob. I have too many other interests to be so enmeshed with just one. DSM IV might portray me with an ADHD label of sorts.....  Scott |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 6:38:32 GMT -5
To make the thread more specific, and to ask what I'm really trying to get at:
I've tried three separate times to DSP my room. The first time was with Emotiva's original surround sound processor (I think it was called the USP-1?). The second time was with one and then two DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033 units. The third time was via Yamaha's YPAO (two different receivers). The USP1 and the first Yamaha used monophonic bass, the DSPeaker and the second Yamaha used stereo bass.
Each time DSP was used, the following audible results occurred: Low bass disappeared. Bass slam disappeared. The crossover from the main speakers to the subs sounded "tubby."
My room is treated with ATS panels (seven) and is free of slap echo. The room does not have significant standing wave problems (all four corners are vented). Why is DSP failing so miserably to make any improvement at all in my room? In fact, it's actually worse than that - DSP consistently makes the bass in my room sound worse than no DSP at all.
The DSP attempts have happened over time with a variety of different mains speakers. Crossover points have ranged from 40 to 80 Hz. I've sometimes allowed the DSP to analyze the speakers and to choose the crossover points. No difference in results.
Ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 31, 2016 6:48:13 GMT -5
To make the thread more specific, and to ask what I'm really trying to get at: I've tried three separate times to DSP my room. The first time was with Emotiva's original surround sound processor (I think it was called the USP-1?). The second time was with one and then two DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033 units. The third time was via Yamaha's YPAO (two different receivers). The USP1 and the first Yamaha used monophonic bass, the DSPeaker and the second Yamaha used stereo bass. Each time DSP was used, the following audible results occurred: Low bass disappeared. Bass slam disappeared. The crossover from the main speakers to the subs sounded "tubby." My room is treated with ATS panels (seven) and is free of slap echo. The room does not have significant standing wave problems (all four corners are vented). Why is DSP failing so miserably to make any improvement at all in my room? In fact, it's actually worse than that - DSP consistently makes the bass in my room sound worse than no DSP at all. The DSP attempts have happened over time with a variety of different mains speakers. Crossover points have ranged from 40 to 80 Hz. I've sometimes allowed the DSP to analyze the speakers and to choose the crossover points. No difference in results. Ideas? IMHO, the long and short of it is your room. Period! its setup is to the short wall and width is exaggerated and open ended. This is just my stab at it boom, I'm no engineer, but this is my guess. Dont know what else it could be. Large areas of reflection come to mind as well. Good luck my friend. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 31, 2016 7:51:48 GMT -5
OK - MONDO mixed signals - So half of the four respondents to date disagree on the efficacy of electronic room correction. Not a ringing endorsement... Seems to me that you have taken the first 4 responses you could to make your point and fully ignored the numerous posts on this board which mostly sing praises of the results they have obtained with DIRAC. Some, like me, might call that jumping to conclusions. Mark |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 7:53:52 GMT -5
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? No room and I literally mean NO room is perfect. But the less the he req need to do the better. So you should ALWAYS treat the room FIRST Then run room correction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 7:59:22 GMT -5
To make the thread more specific, and to ask what I'm really trying to get at: I've tried three separate times to DSP my room. The first time was with Emotiva's original surround sound processor (I think it was called the USP-1?). The second time was with one and then two DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033 units. The third time was via Yamaha's YPAO (two different receivers). The USP1 and the first Yamaha used monophonic bass, the DSPeaker and the second Yamaha used stereo bass. Each time DSP was used, the following audible results occurred: Low bass disappeared. Bass slam disappeared. The crossover from the main speakers to the subs sounded "tubby." My room is treated with ATS panels (seven) and is free of slap echo. The room does not have significant standing wave problems (all four corners are vented). Why is DSP failing so miserably to make any improvement at all in my room? In fact, it's actually worse than that - DSP consistently makes the bass in my room sound worse than no DSP at all. The DSP attempts have happened over time with a variety of different mains speakers. Crossover points have ranged from 40 to 80 Hz. I've sometimes allowed the DSP to analyze the speakers and to choose the crossover points. No difference in results. Ideas? Any thought that YOU don't like what a properly EQ room sounds like? Just because it's "flat" and corrected and neutral doesn't mean it's pleasing to you. There are plenty of people like that. It's why it's very personal presence related. Imho all of the dsp you have used are bottom tier. I would ONLY ever trust audyssey xt32 and Dirac with a big preference to Dirac. Anything else (maybe ARC in Anthem) is just not up to par from all I have read. But again....very possible you just have a preference of what you like. Stick with that.  . Ou have done the hard part and that is to make your room listenable with treatments. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 31, 2016 8:13:29 GMT -5
My room is treated with ATS panels (seven) and is free of slap echo. How do you know? Did you measure for this?  Seriously though, like you, I used EmoQ and didn't like its results. I also used Audyssey in my Denon 3806 and didn't like its results. The sound became dull and listless...highs sounds muted, bass sounded blah...just didn't like it. Despite having heard the great DIRAC demo at Emofest, I admit I was skeptical about how it would sound in my room,so I was quite pleasantly surprised when I heard it at home. So why the difference in result from EmoQ/Audyssey to DIRAC? Heck, I don't know...I don't understand the technical differences well enough to be able to give a specific reason. But, in reading about DIRAC, they talk a lot about their mathematical approach being superior and (being a Chemical Engineer with some understanding of control theory and the math they refer to) I would not be surprised if the detailed answer to why I got different results across the 3 lies in DIRAC having superior filters. So, what do I suggest? Try DIRAC using a properly calibrated mic like Cross Spectrum's Umik that is individually calibrated (not a batch calibrated mic). You can do a free trial of DIRAC. Given the experiences of so many here, you are more likely to experience a positive result than a neutral or negative one. There have been some negative results, but they are few relative to the successes. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 8:44:44 GMT -5
I draw no conclusions YET... I've heard it theorized that once the analog stereo system and room reach a certain quality point, that DSP can only reduce the overall quality of the sound. In other words, DSP can improve sound quality from "poor" or "average" to "good," but if you already have "good" or better, that DSP can only drag it back down to "good." After all, DSP does monkey with the signal extensively (no offense, hemster)... I contend that my room is already sufficiently treated because none of the DSP systems that I tried made any significant change to the midrange or treble. If I had significant slap echo left (and the hand-clap test tells me that I don't), then application of ANY DSP should have made the midrange & treble significantly clearer. It didn't. Not Emo, Not YPAO. So by process of elimination, the source of my room problems is in the bass. The problems manifest themselves in amplitude, but seem caused by phase. I can put the subs immediately adjacent to the speakers. Although I then have "clean" bass, it lacks slam and extension. I can put the subs in the corner and I get slam & extension, but lack clarity. The "subwoofer crawl" may be of help. For the time being, I think that I'm NOT interested in buying another DSP system. If I opt, down the road, to go that route, the XMC-1 & DIRAC will be high on my list. Although the demo at Emofest may have been impressive, I'm sure that their demo was optimized to show off the best characteristics of their XMC-1/DIRAC rig while masking its worst. One would expect no less. If I get no better results after careful tuning, then I'll download DIRAC & give it a whirl. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 31, 2016 9:01:40 GMT -5
Just try DIRAC. Measuring will tell you the truth of what is happening. You may not like the result, but at least you will document what truth is.
As far as your contention that "any" DSP should have help, I disagree. The math in the filters of a controller matters. And that is what DSP's are...they are just controls with filters. While my study of the math was related to how process controls impact process response, the theory is the same...most applied differently. And I have made/tested good filters and bad filters in that context. The math makes a huge difference.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 9:11:31 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I may just do that. I heard one at novisnick's place, and it sounded every bit as good as my current analog setup. Plus, the DAC in that XMC-1 sounded every bit as good as my current Oppo BDP-105, and that isn't faint praise! To avoid additional D/A-A/D conversions, I'd do best to send the XMC-1 a fully digital signal rather than analog? I've got a flock of preamps now, what's one more? LOL A final question, please, Mark - How effective would the DIRAC be in compensating for subwoofer placement? The "acoustically best" placements for my subs would be to have one away from the walls & elevated, and the other on the floor, according to Tom Vodenhal. Since that isn't feasible in my room, how effective would DIRAC be in compensating for less than ideal sub placement? |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Jan 31, 2016 9:27:05 GMT -5
One comment, for audio only listening-2 channel or 2.1/2.2 channel is still king in a typical listening room
|
|
|
|
Post by dga on Jan 31, 2016 9:29:29 GMT -5
I've tried three separate times to DSP my room. The first time was with Emotiva's original surround sound processor (I think it was called the USP-1?). The second time was with one and then two DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033 units. The third time was via Yamaha's YPAO (two different receivers). The USP1 and the first Yamaha used monophonic bass, the DSPeaker and the second Yamaha used stereo bass. Each time DSP was used, the following audible results occurred: Low bass disappeared. Bass slam disappeared. The crossover from the main speakers to the subs sounded "tubby." My experience has been the same. I tried the DIRAC OSX based demo 3 different times in my 2 channel room and couldn't live with the perceived loss of dynamics. I tried really hard to like it but couldn't get there, especially for $500. For me, nothing is better. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jan 31, 2016 9:33:32 GMT -5
The Future of Room Correction is Reconstruction.  |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 31, 2016 9:57:28 GMT -5
BoomzillaThe standard advice is to get the subs placed as well as you can in your room first. If you can't get to ideal, get them as close as you can. I am lucky that I found a sub placement that, before DIRAC, kept the sub level within 1 db all over my room. And if you are going to use multiple sub's, read up on the threads here about that. That is a bit trickier. I have not studied those much as I only have one sub so it was not relevant for me. Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Jan 31, 2016 10:27:30 GMT -5
I draw no conclusions YET... I've heard it theorized that once the analog stereo system and room reach a certain quality point, that DSP can only reduce the overall quality of the sound. In other words, DSP can improve sound quality from "poor" or "average" to "good," but if you already have "good" or better, that DSP can only drag it back down to "good." After all, DSP does monkey with the signal extensively (no offense, hemster )... I contend that my room is already sufficiently treated because none of the DSP systems that I tried made any significant change to the midrange or treble. If I had significant slap echo left (and the hand-clap test tells me that I don't), then application of ANY DSP should have made the midrange & treble significantly clearer. It didn't. Not Emo, Not YPAO. So by process of elimination, the source of my room problems is in the bass. The problems manifest themselves in amplitude, but seem caused by phase. I can put the subs immediately adjacent to the speakers. Although I then have "clean" bass, it lacks slam and extension. I can put the subs in the corner and I get slam & extension, but lack clarity. The "subwoofer crawl" may be of help. For the time being, I think that I'm NOT interested in buying another DSP system. If I opt, down the road, to go that route, the XMC-1 & DIRAC will be high on my list. Although the demo at Emofest may have been impressive, I'm sure that their demo was optimized to show off the best characteristics of their XMC-1/DIRAC rig while masking its worst. One would expect no less. If I get no better results after careful tuning, then I'll download DIRAC & give it a whirl. Having 7 panels doesn't necessarily your room is sufficiently treated. All absorption could potentially mean the opposite. Have you taken the time to really check all your reflections using REW and find the trouble spots? Hand clap is not the end all checks. Your issue is a flat response is not your personal preference yet most all the room corrections tend to apply flat except for Dirac has a "slight" curve to it. I personally adjust a +2db at 80hz and +6db at 20hz to put a slight umph on the bottom end. My uncles 2 channel setup is a purist room... all analog no corrections. He's had to extensively treat the room and I'll have to pick up a photo of the rear showing the helmholzt stuff he has built. the room correction is more about phasing/EQ. You have to treat properly. Look at my before/after from where I'M CURRENTLY AT in my room. I've significantly reduced some harsh reflections. I treat/test... I move things I test. I'm no where near being done. On average about 2 years of constant treating, testing and listening is about what it takes to dial the room in. Don't forget the floor. You corners are vented.... how do you know it works? I haven't seen any spectrogram or waterfall plots posted by you. This helps determine where your bass is at. I haven't even seen a FR graph. I've attached mine w/ the bump at the low end which I admit is a tad much for music but for movies it's pretty good |
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Jan 31, 2016 10:43:47 GMT -5
Sounds like a fancy name for a computer aided graphic equalizer, Pedro. I threw mine out in 1978. Precisely! This is the attitude I USED to have. I'm still what I'd call a "purist" when it comes to my stereo rig. However, until you've heard a GOOD room correction, I'd suggest you try to leave your mind open. I believe both of you in another thread took the position that you were tube enthusiasts because you want great sound, not necessarily the most accurate sound. This is also why I'm a tube guy and Dirac will provide this. I have heard Dirac on high quality stereo rigs on two occasions. The difference was STUNNING. One system used a mini DSP and one was Dirac loaded in an apple computer. I will say it again, INCREDIBLE, STUNNING. My only upgrade plan for my two channel is to add Dirac someday. From what I've read, one of the reasons Dirac works so well is it doesn't try to make the room completely flat. It only corrects the response a bit. I've also read that it does very little, if any, frequency boost, it really only cuts peaks, and then only somewhat. What ever the technical difference between Dirac and all other room correction software, Dirac is the real deal. I have a bunch of experience with MultEQ XT32 as well as Yamaha's YPAO. In my opinion, both of these CASTRATE the sound. You may or may not like them on movie soundtracks, but they render two channel unlistenable in my experience. Because of this I went dragging, kicking, and screaming to my first Dirac demo. Man I'm glad I went. Dirac renders room treatments almost irrelevant. Almost. If you have a room that is so alive that you almost have echoes, Dirac may have a hard time, but in a normal room, Dirac will make a huge difference. Like klinemj said, even in a well treated room Dirac can make a profound improvement. Do not think that Dirac is simply a computer controlled graphic equalizer that you threw out in the 70's. (I threw mine out in the early 80's.) Dirac is much more than that. I'm no software guy, nor a sound engineer. I can not tell you exactly why Dirac works where every other room correction has failed IMO, all I can tell you is that Dirac works. Do yourself a favor. Do not judge ALL room correction based on a purist's theory, or on the room correction software loaded into almost every AVR that you've heard. You owe it to yourself to give this one a try. |
|
|
|
Post by simpleman68 on Jan 31, 2016 10:47:08 GMT -5
Nice! I wish I had that much dedication, and a room I could aesthetically deface, to experience the difference.
That's a lot of time spent with measurements and a bucket of cash for some of those room treatments.
That's the point they have completely lost me; some of these panels are $100+ sq ft.
Scott
|
|
. Ou have done the hard part and that is to make your room listenable with treatments. 
