|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 31, 2016 11:00:41 GMT -5
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 wanted 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 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, or 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. Dirac rocks. Do yourself a favor. Do not judge ALL room correction based on a purist's theory, or on the room correction loaded into almost every AVR that you've heard. You owe it to yourself to give this one a try. Ok, will keep open mind. But I get such good results simply using REW and adjusting my room attributes, I'm hesitant to put anything else in my signal path. In my system, I have only two sets of interconnects, one from my Grace dac/preamp to my amps and one from the Grace to my sub. I really believe the simpler the signal chain, the better and the less intervention to the carefully engineered sonics of my components the better. I shudder when I see the "stacks" of components some use. Long, long ago I was there. |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Jan 31, 2016 11:04:49 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 My room is the red room. I've built the qrd panels and absorption panels myself. So far I've spent 250. In the end I'll have less than a $800 for the entire room. |
|
|
|
Post by simpleman68 on Jan 31, 2016 11:28:52 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 My room is the red room. I've built the qrd panels and absorption panels myself. So far I've spent 250. In the end I'll have less than a $800 for the entire room. Wow, that's completely reasonable and a very good spend. Well done!  Scott |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 11:40:45 GMT -5
You will hear the difference WAY more from properly treated and measured room than you will trying hundred of different DAC's amps. Pre/pro combos.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jan 31, 2016 11:49:47 GMT -5
Room correction is a misnomer, it is electronic 'one point in the room' compensation. Multiple microphone positions only deteriorates the single point compensation. Wear a headphone, it is more effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Jan 31, 2016 11:51:49 GMT -5
Ok, will keep open mind. I'm hesitant to put anything else in my signal path. In my system, I have only two sets of interconnects, one from my Grace dac/preamp to my amps and one from the Grace to my sub. I really believe the simpler the signal chain, the better and the less intervention to the carefully engineered sonics of my components the better. I shudder when I see the "stacks" of components some use. Long, long ago I was there. I hear you Bill. Adding more components is generally the last thing I'd recommend. And to the extent (WAF) that you can use room treatments, please do. Still, you may never want to add Dirac, it's your choice. My only point is Dirac really is better, much, much better, than anything that's come before. It's in a class by itself. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 31, 2016 11:53:38 GMT -5
Cool, those Ravens look sweet!
|
|
|
|
Post by ocezam on Jan 31, 2016 12:00:39 GMT -5
Cool, those Ravens look sweet! Ha ha. LOL, for a second I thought, "Ravens? Is that a sports team?" Thanks. They sound sweet too. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 13:01:34 GMT -5
Hi Talley - ZERO WAF. 'Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 31, 2016 13:24:11 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  Hey you have my walls, carpet and high ceilings! |
|
|
|
Post by Talley on Jan 31, 2016 13:37:52 GMT -5
Hi Talley - ZERO WAF. 'Nuff said. Not sure what to say then. You can do everything in the world but if you cannot apply acoustics to all dimensions of your room then you may never get it right. The walls/ceiling are the easy part. The side walls I will build QRDs that are on stands so I can move them and on the floor will build some more of the QRDs I have made on the back wall to help break up the floor reflections. The floor is one of the most crucial spots to treat since the reflections happen at the 2-3ms area. The panels I've built are just roughly done... I'm in the listening/testing stage. Once I know where everything is then I'll go back and finish them by either painting or wrapping in fabric or both. These QRD I built are designed to use common "furring strips" which are cheap and the effective range of these panels are from 750hz to 4khz. Testings shows they do work but you really have to listen to determine what sounds better... breaking up the reflection at a -6 to -8db drop in the reflection or to use absorption for a up to -15db drop in the reflection. My theory is to ride the audible line to keep the room as lively as possible. Absorption only sounds deadening. The nice thing about building floor panels are when you want to critical listen you place them down then when you want family time movies and such you just pick them up and stack em in a corner. It's my best comprise for having the best of both worlds unlike my uncle who build a dedicated 2 channel room. Remember, pretty rooms sound like crap... it's the funky treatments that are nonWAF friendly that really sound great. The WAF can have the entire house to herself and the outside... demand one room and tell her to stfu when she disapproves. I will have my room, and it will look like however it needs to to sound it's best. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 13:49:09 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Talley - and sooner or later, I may have a dedicated listening room. THEN I'd be most interested. But for now, my room is definitely a "dual use" living room / listening room. That DOES place limits on what can be done. So I'll have to live with "the best I can do for now" until other options are available. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,099
|
Post by klinemj on Jan 31, 2016 13:57:24 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Talley - and sooner or later, I may have a dedicated listening room. THEN I'd be most interested. But for now, my room is definitely a "dual use" living room / listening room. That DOES place limits on what can be done. So I'll have to live with "the best I can do for now" until other options are available. My room is sort of dedicated as my wife uses it for walking on her treadmill and it's shared by the family as a movie zone. But, it's mostly "mine". Still, I'd love to design a room from scratch some day. I wish I'd had the forethought to put in a full basement when we built this house. When It came time to build my space, I would have had a lot more options to lay it out perfectly. Still, it's pretty darn good. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 31, 2016 14:08:49 GMT -5
Mark, you need a whole "man barn" !
|
|
|
|
Post by simpleman68 on Jan 31, 2016 14:43:26 GMT -5
Mark, you need a whole "man barn" ! This sounds reasonable.  At least I have the basement theater to play with. Upstairs 2 ch room is living room as well so can't go nut crazy with treatments. Basement theater is 19' X 38' and I did the entire ceiling with homasote and fabric mate. Floors are carpeted and I made wall treatments to capture at least 1st order reflections. It actually deadened the room too much so I took them off for now. Going to play with smaller and/or fewer panels before redoing Dirac. Scott  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 15:29:37 GMT -5
WOW!
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 31, 2016 15:30:21 GMT -5
I haven't read the complete thread but has there been any mention of refraction at all?
I think its as important as bass and high frequency absorption.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 31, 2016 15:35:26 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 As a former symphonic wind and orchestral musician I know not of this " room correction" you speak of. I have played in small rooms and large halls, gymnasiums and living rooms, indoors and out; some places before the vacuum tube computer was first built to aid in the design of the performance (and listening) area. I have yet to hear after any performance I was a part of, or any performance that I have attended since my retirement from performing any criticism of "room dynamics". In the studio acoustic instruments may have acoustic panels around them to keep from bleeding into a different mic than the one that is assigned to them. However, most electronic instruments are plugged directly into the mixing board even at "live" recordings (the crowd is recorded separate and added to the mix later along with overdubs to cover mistakes by the performers). This " room correction" you speak of is a modern creation; a marketing ploy, a gimmick, to be sold to those who think they need it. Create a need then sell the solution. While I do enjoy DIRAC on my XMC-1 I don't find it necessary to enjoy its output. When I listen to stereo music, it goes though my XSP-1 with no room correction whatsoever. My multi-channel music goes through the XMC-1 set to Direct (no DIRAC processing). I have had a number of musicians over to my humble abode to listen to my simple system; both stereo and multi-channel. And the greatest compliment that I can receive is when these past and current musicians, from symphonic musicians to modern electronic/pop-music musicians tell me that my set up sounds so "life-like; like the performer(s) are in the room with us". This "sound" that they hear, that they're commenting on, comes from a system with no " room correction" employed! How can the people that write the music and perform the music, who live and breathe and put food on their table by the fruits of their performances be so easily fooled by such a sound coming from a system with no " room correction"? This is not to say that " room correction" doesn't work or doesn't do what it supposed to do. Simply, it does (some better than others, agreed). I will also freely admit that good room correction produces a sound that can be comparatively "better" than the sound without room correction. And, if room correction is your "bag" then I say more power to you! I say the same thing to my friends that spend hundreds of dollars to take a 0.01 off their elapsed time at the drag strip. But, my question would be, "why remove the room"? Especially when every time you hear a performance there is a "room", and that room colors the sound you hear. And, for most people, the music they listen to has no "room" in the recording (because it went straight to a sound board without room acoustics and mixed down from there). |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 31, 2016 16:01:34 GMT -5
Hi stiehl11 - For recordings made with instruments close-miked or run directly to the mixing board - you're right. There IS no original acoustic. So for those recordings, who cares if room correction is used or not on playback. For recordings made in an original acoustic space, there IS an original acoustic. A pipe organ recorded in a church is a prime example. But when those recordings are played back in a room, the acoustic of the playback room is superimposed over the original acoustic. Results are less than happy, sometimes. DIRAC and other correction systems are intended to remove the sound of the playback room, allowing the original acoustic (if there is one) to be better perceived. I wouldn't really call it a solution in search of a problem, but as everyone admits, some algorithms are more effective than others. Boom |
|
|
|
Post by simpleman68 on Jan 31, 2016 18:26:29 GMT -5
|
|
