|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 21, 2016 16:32:39 GMT -5
These results really make me wonder how perfect the XMC-1 would be if we could adjust the sub channel delay following Dirac calibration (like the $750 Dirac software will do) or if the XMC-1 applied the crossover upstream of Dirac (PLEASE ADD THIS AS PART OF THE XMC-1 UPGRADE)...
Dirac Live full software ($750) versus Emotiva XMC-1 Dirac Live "Full" upgrade ($99): Dirac Live $750 software wins?
System details: Dirac Live full software ($750) versus Emotiva XMC-1 Dirac Live "Full" upgrade ($99): Dirac Live Software wins!
System details: drive.google.com/open?id=0B1J0a4OV_WGLUVZBNUJBR29LTEU
All speakers crossed at 80Hz with 12dB slope to dual JL Audio F212 subs. REW files are also available for download above. Note there is a 200Hz room issue that I've never been able to fix (causes the one phase shift on right channel and a dip on the left channel with no phase issue). My room is very well treated though, just a FROG with short ceilings.
The PC version does a better job at fixing low frequency phase shift issues. This is likely because I set everything up manually using Preset 1 on the XMC-1. I custom set subwoofer delay and levels using REW (see Preset 1.mdat REW file at link above). Then I used the Dirac PC software to calibrate front left (see Dirac Software.mdat from link above).
For example, this means Dirac on my PC is calibrating subs crossed to 80Hz when it calibrates the front right channel, versus XMC-1 Dirac's software that would only calibrate the front left channel going to the front left speaker only. The result is a better water fall plot and more phase coherence for the low end.
Crazy how one algorithm is targeting the low end more (PC Dirac Live trial software), while the XMC-1 Dirac Live "Full" software targets the high end more. I'm getting lower extension and faster decay times as shown on the waterfall plots. One would definitely want the lowend targeted more, and the high-end left alone as much as possible, so I think the PC version of Dirac is actually better. In fairness, this could be due to time aligning my dual mono subs manually first and letting Dirac see the crossover and sub when it calibrates front left, etc...
Really makes one wonder how perfect the XMC-1 would be if we could adjust the sub channel delay following calibration (like the $750 Dirac software will do) or if the XMC-1 applied the crossover upstream of Dirac (PLEASE ADD THIS AS PART OF THE XMC-1 UPGRADE)...
Potentially, I could try to tackle the 200Hz issue in REW by exporting filters to the XMC-1's Preset 1, then rerun Dirac on my PC. I could also setup the optimum gain structure for levels (e.g. speaker trim) prior to running Dirac on the PC. I don't think I've seen a better waterfall plot anywhere though, so I'm tempted to enjoy the bass and leave things alone.
I'll have to enjoy my trial (and even better bass) since I'm unsure of paying the $750 for the software!?! Plus I'd have to let my PC software decode HD audio formats instead of using bitstreamed output to the XMC-1. Not sure if this is a drawback yet; will have to check my players' settings. It is cool that the software version doesn't downsample HD tracks to 48kHz (like the XMC-1 does when Dirac speaker preset is selected).
OLD Results (blue) using Dirac speaker mode on the XMC-1 Versus using Preset 1 on the XMC-1 with Dirac software (purple) are attached. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 21, 2016 16:40:52 GMT -5
Results aside - the only issue I see with using the PC version over the XMC-1 full version is that with the XMC-1 version - EVERY input I send can have Dirac vs. with the PC version, only sources I send from the PC get Dirac. For example, I don't store my videos on a hard drive and play them via my PC. I use my Oppo. So, my videos would not get Dirac if I used the PC version. My 2-channel would, but not my multichannel.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 21, 2016 16:51:36 GMT -5
Depends on your setup/players. Many of us have 100% of our content on the PC or use NAS and never touch a disc. For me, I bought a Corning optical USB cable and ran it to my PC. I also have a 60' long Monoprice Redmere HDMI cable, but will have to upgrade this when I get HDMI 2.0 and HDR. Let's just say that you can do all sorts of things with KODI Version 17 (completely redesigned) and MakeMKV.
No reason you can't add a pro grade USB I/O device and have XLR and RCA inputs feed into your PC too. I know this isn't ideal, and this setup isn't going to work for Atmos when it comes.
Results aside - the only issue I see with using the PC version over the XMC-1 full version is that with the XMC-1 version - EVERY input I send can have Dirac vs. with the PC version, only sources I send from the PC get Dirac. For example, I don't store my videos on a hard drive and play them via my PC. I use my Oppo. So, my videos would not get Dirac if I used the PC version. My 2-channel would, but not my multichannel. Mark |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 21, 2016 17:41:29 GMT -5
Depends on your setup/players. Many of us have 100% of our content on the PC or use NAS and never touch a disc. For me, I bought a Corning optical USB cable and ran it to my PC. I also have a 60' long Monoprice Redmere HDMI cable, but will have to upgrade this when I get HDMI 2.0 and HDR. Let's just say that you can do all sorts of things with KODI Version 17 (completely redesigned) and MakeMKV.
No reason you can't add a pro grade USB I/O device and have XLR and RCA inputs feed into your PC too. I know this isn't ideal, and this setup isn't going to work for Atmos when it comes.
Results aside - the only issue I see with using the PC version over the XMC-1 full version is that with the XMC-1 version - EVERY input I send can have Dirac vs. with the PC version, only sources I send from the PC get Dirac. For example, I don't store my videos on a hard drive and play them via my PC. I use my Oppo. So, my videos would not get Dirac if I used the PC version. My 2-channel would, but not my multichannel. Mark I think you are over-estimating that "many of us" have 100% of our content on PC/NAS and never spin a disk. I have 100% of my two channel on PC/NAS and 0% of my multichannel there. I suspect "many" of us still spin a lot of disks. Yes, "some" do not, but I bet "most" do spin discs still...at least for video. Hence, my comment... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 21, 2016 21:35:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I've thought hard about that path before, but then there are cable television and consoles. Plus, PCs streaming apps often get gimped.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 21, 2016 22:11:23 GMT -5
Keep in mind I only posted this to help those who want the absolute most out of their system (from a technical standpoint as the measurements showed an improvement for me). I can assure anyone in doubt that the PC version of Dirac + XMC-1 in Preset 1 or 2 is absolutely awesome and does sound better than just Dirac especially in bass. Not having my HD audio tracks down sampled is a plus in my mind too, but I don't have an easy way to measure this difference, all I can say is this mix is the best my system has ever measured and sounded.
Completely up to you if you want to rip your videos, buy a $30 blu-ray disc drive for your PC, buy a decent pro audio USB I/O device for your PC and use a standalone player with it, or ignore my thread entirely... Keep in mind free codecs like MadVR can compete with the best in standalone bluray players.
The only real drawback is there's no 4k UHD disc PC solution and may not be for a few years. I'm fine with that though as I'm not about to upgrade my projector, HDMI cables, video card and AV processor as I'm holding our for an XMR-1. This is definitely not for folks that aren't tech savvy. I am highly technical, and have spent 100's of hours to get my system and room to sound and measure the absolute best. This required a lot of time, but I am an EE and realize these types of solutions aren't for everyone.
Keep in mind there are millions of KODI users and most of them have all their media on a PC or NAS; that is what I was getting at. I think that qualifies as many, but don't want to argue on semantics. Unfortunately, when you spend several hours studying something and genuinely want to help others get that last 2-5% in performance, you invariably can't help everyone as everything is going to have some sort of drawback/road block. You are perfectly welcome to your opinion and definitely thanks for bumping my thread 
Depends on your setup/players. Many of us have 100% of our content on the PC or use NAS and never touch a disc. For me, I bought a Corning optical USB cable and ran it to my PC. I also have a 60' long Monoprice Redmere HDMI cable, but will have to upgrade this when I get HDMI 2.0 and HDR. Let's just say that you can do all sorts of things with KODI Version 17 (completely redesigned) and MakeMKV.
No reason you can't add a pro grade USB I/O device and have XLR and RCA inputs feed into your PC too. I know this isn't ideal, and this setup isn't going to work for Atmos when it comes.
I think you are over-estimating that "many of us" have 100% of our content on PC/NAS and never spin a disk. I have 100% of my two channel on PC/NAS and 0% of my multichannel there. I suspect "many" of us still spin a lot of disks. Yes, "some" do not, but I bet "most" do spin discs still...at least for video. Hence, my comment... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 21, 2016 22:32:08 GMT -5
I will try a streaming service for you if I don't have to install anything or sign up with a credit card, but I don't use one. Just tell me the name though. I did use YouTube and Netflix both seem to work fine.
Dirac Audio Processor (DAP) is what runs all the time. After calibration you load your filters into a DAP preset, enable it, and select an output (I've been using direct sound from my onboard intel display audio (e.g. HDMI output where the XMC-1 gets connected).
DAP appears as a direct sound, wasapi or asio device to programs/apps. You just set the default soundcard to DAP and it works. With you saying gimped, it makes me think this is some sort of copy protection issue and the streaming service will not work when it detects a virtual soundcard (e.g. one with a hardware ID that is non-existant or that it doesn't recognize). If that's the case, there isn't much you can do other than use a second sound card output and loop back into an input. This might trick it, but I don't know.
Cable television is pretty easy, just use a network based tuner like an HD Homerun Prime that accepts a cable-card. Consoles are a little harder as you have to capture the input (if possible) and have software that can control it. I don't have cable so I don't worry about it, but these solutions have been around for about a decade or more. There are also HDMI to RGB converters, etc to make this possible.
Yeah, I've thought hard about that path before, but then there are cable television and consoles. Plus, PCs streaming apps often get gimped. -tm |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,083
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 22, 2016 5:08:35 GMT -5
Keep in mind I only posted this to help those who want the absolute most out of their system (from a technical standpoint as the measurements showed an improvement for me). I can assure anyone in doubt that the PC version of Dirac + XMC-1 in Preset 1 or 2 is absolutely awesome and does sound better than just Dirac especially in bass. Not having my HD audio tracks down sampled is a plus in my mind too, but I don't have an easy way to measure this difference, all I can say is this mix is the best my system has ever measured and sounded.
Oh, I know why you posted it, and I understand the gain you are getting. Makes sense. I only pointed out what I did to highlight to readers that there is a downside. Some readers would not realize that. In no way does that take away from the gain you get. But to realize it fully, people do have to rip their video collection. I might do that someday myself. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 22, 2016 10:03:17 GMT -5
It's not anything you need to try. Example, Netflix will not provide 5.1 sound on a Windows PC if you are streaming through Silverlight/HTML5. It is stereo-only (gimped). Now, they have a universal app available in the store, so that would probably work with Netflix, but I'm not sure how well it would integrate for a seamless experience. Netflix isn't the only one that does this kind of stuff.
Cox flags everything Copy Once here so I can't use a network tuner. Again, DRM related. Media companies are so afraid of people stealing their content through PCs. I know there is a kickstarter to implement, but their progress has been slow and I doubt they'll finish.
Yes, the consoles can be made to work, but I doubt it will ever be as seamless and reliable on a PC. The XMC-1 just works. I never have to cycle power on sources or cycle inputs to get through HDMI handshake. I don't have to worry about Microsoft pushing down an update that breaks everything (well, actually I do, but at least I only lose my HTPC and not my entire A/V system).
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 22, 2016 20:49:40 GMT -5
Nothing is stopping you from using Emotiva's Dirac for the other sources. I would just setup a macro to switch speaker presets and inputs if I ever have the need. Will have to do that for 4k UHD discs anyways.
WMC works fine for the DRM/copy once flag and so does the HD Homerun App for android. Not sure if there are others.
KODI also lets you have app short-cuts under favorites though, so it is plausible you could have a seamless experience. I use native Netflix from within KODI all the time on my other setup that uses an nVidia Shield. Don't have Windows 10 or 8 on my HTPC and don't care for those options. My PC runs windows and works fine 24/7, not sure why you are concerned with reliability.
Again this post isn't about building an HTPC. It's free to try the Dirac software for 30 days (no credit card required, just email address). I am definitely after a no compromise audio system.
It's not anything you need to try. Example, Netflix will not provide 5.1 sound on a Windows PC if you are streaming through Silverlight/HTML5. It is stereo-only (gimped). Now, they have a universal app available in the store, so that would probably work with Netflix, but I'm not sure how well it would integrate for a seamless experience. Netflix isn't the only one that does this kind of stuff. Cox flags everything Copy Once here so I can't use a network tuner. Again, DRM related. Media companies are so afraid of people stealing their content through PCs. I know there is a kickstarter to implement, but their progress has been slow and I doubt they'll finish. Yes, the consoles can be made to work, but I doubt it will ever be as seamless and reliable on a PC. The XMC-1 just works. I never have to cycle power on sources or cycle inputs to get through HDMI handshake. I don't have to worry about Microsoft pushing down an update that breaks everything (well, actually I do, but at least I only lose my HTPC and not my entire A/V system). -tm |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 22, 2016 21:33:02 GMT -5
Myself, I wouldn't go back to WMC. I don't think Microsoft has used the term EOL, but they might as well have.
Yes, it's free to try, but your time is worth something and anyone considering going the same route as you should be aware of the both pros and cons. No compromise audio means lots of compromise elsewhere.
Back to the PC vs XMC-1 comparison, everything I've read indicates the algorithm is the same. For the extra cost, the main benefits are the elimination of the 48kHz sample rate and the extra configuration options (delay, low-latency mode, etc.). It's more likely that the configuration is what is resulting in the difference in correction.
There's nothing to fear in letting the PC do the decoding versus bitstreaming. The algorithm is straightforward, x in y out. The new audio formats would be problematic, of course, but that's not an option with the XMC-1 anyway.
-tm
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Aug 22, 2016 22:00:37 GMT -5
Keep in mind there are millions of KODI users and most of them have all their media on a PC or NAS; that is what I was getting at. I think that qualifies as many, but don't want to argue on semantics.
Mark
...and how many of those millions of kodi users would spend $750 on Dirac? I would say only a very few since a typical Kodi user (free) would be a hard sell to get to spend $750 on a PC software. Think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 23, 2016 22:56:37 GMT -5
The sub channel measures better with absolutely no change to it, so I'm curious how you can say that the algorithms are the same looking at the waterfall plot and phase plot below 80Hz!?! Not being smart, but the same algorithm would NEVER fluctuate like that for the same system, and we are talking about low frequencies well under 80Hz (so one can't attribute it to a sampling frequency used in processing as the famous Nyquist theorem would show, plus I used 48kHz in REW for all measurements anyway).
The only possible difference for well below 80 Hz (e.g. a good bit down from the 3dB crossover) might be in the gain structure (e.g. trim levels), BUT that isn't going to matter for the Dirac software as long as the system is loud enough for it to calibrate (as pointed out in the Dirac software itself and the manual). At least this is for certain based on how Dirac works.
I have always crossed to my subs with the XMC-1 and Emotiva Dirac. Same crossover and slope too for the plots I posted, but due to a limitation in the XMC-1, the XMC-1 isn't smart enough to apply the crossover before running dirac, plus it has no time delay adjustment for the sub when using Dirac internally. This is what got me down this path, but I was floored by the results as they clearly show the Dirac algorithm is more improved on their $750 software versus what I paid $99 for.
What have you read that says the algorithms are exact and equal except for sampling frequency? Please post the link as I'd love to take a look. Also, why don't you test it yourself? It's completely free to try and takes a few hours or less. After you do, post some measurements please... Even your current REW measurements would be nice to check out.
I can understand why you think I changed other stuff looking at the plots, but I can promise you anyone with measurements like mine knows what they are doing. The link in the original post has more pics of my system and how I've got my waterfall and impulse to where they are: dozens of room treatments, hand built bass traps, lots of studying REW, and tons of other things! I am also only calibrating for one seat like I always have, haven't moved subs or speakers or furniture, etc...
I've been into acoustics for years now and audio for about a decade or more. Have lots of test equipment too, etc... I don't make any change to my system unless I know it will improve my system's measurements and I always re-measure using REW after doing anything. This change really seemed to pay off, presumably due to an improved algorithm. Hopefully some technical folks will look into this.
Back to the PC vs XMC-1 comparison, everything I've read indicates the algorithm is the same. For the extra cost, the main benefits are the elimination of the 48kHz sample rate and the extra configuration options (delay, low-latency mode, etc.). It's more likely that the configuration is what is resulting in the difference in correction. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 24, 2016 1:33:02 GMT -5
You've already confirmed that your two configs are performing room correction differently. With the PC version, you are correcting the combined result of the subwoofer and main speaker. With the XMC-1, it is correcting each channel individually. That is likely to have a major impact on the correction filters. What if you take the sub out of the equation and perform correction on mains only? Is there a difference between the PC and XMC-1 then? The consensus is that the XMC-1 implementation of correcting each channel individually is most optimal (best compromise) for most. I'm pretty sick of repeating that. The Emotiva FAQ on Dirac indicates no significant difference. I'm not interested in hunting around the Internet or performing experiments now. I can play the same game...link me something that confirms there is a difference in algorithm. Maybe Keith or somebody else from Emotiva could comment... -tm Even the sub channel measures better with absolutely no change to it, I'm curious how you can say that the algorithms are the same looking at the waterfall plot and phase plot below 80Hz!?! Not being smart, but the same algorithm would NEVER fluctuate like that, and we are talking about low frequencies (so you can't attribute it to a sampling frequency, plus I used 48kHz in REW for all measurements anyway).
Obviously they are not the same algorithms, this should be very obvious looking at the plots. If that was true the highend would be much closer to the same in EQ and they are not. Like I said in my post, the only difference for the mains is I crossed them to the subs and then let Dirac on my PC do the EQ.
I have always crossed to my subs with the XMC-1 and Emotiva Dirac. Same crossover and slope too, but due to a limitation in the XMC-1 it isn't smart enough to apply the crossover before running dirac and has no time delay for the sub afterwards (which is a huge drawback).
What have you read that says the algorithms are exact and equal except for sampling frequency? Please post the link. Also, why don't you test it yourself? It's completely free to try. Post some measurements please... Even your current REW measurements would be nice to check out.
I can promise you anyone with measurements like mine knows what they are doing. If you bothered to explore the link in the original post you might know that and see the dozens of room treatments, hand built bass traps etc... I am also only calibrating for one seat like I always have, haven't moved subs or speakers, etc...
Back to the PC vs XMC-1 comparison, everything I've read indicates the algorithm is the same. For the extra cost, the main benefits are the elimination of the 48kHz sample rate and the extra configuration options (delay, low-latency mode, etc.). It's more likely that the configuration is what is resulting in the difference in correction. |
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 24, 2016 10:58:19 GMT -5
Sick of repeating what? Stuff that novice users think is OK because they haven't done audyssey pro calibrations and don't know what is possible in the low-end? Thanks for the nice tone btw... But there are many posts here on the limitations of the XMC-1 wrt bass performance by some very smart folks including an engineer at Emotiva. Let me ask you this, for the 15-30Hz area why do you think my speakers are having such a big impact on the waterfall plot? Already told you in both cases the REW measurements were done with the same crossover slope and frequency. No offense, but if you aren't willing to try it yourself, you are just adding baseless claims and from my perspective just want to argue. I'm dumb founded as to why won't do basic measurements or testing or even post your current REW measurements for your XMC-1 configuration. It would seriously help the discussion here to see the results for a different room/setup versus that of the trial software. You've already confirmed that your two configs are performing room correction differently. With the PC version, you are correcting the combined result of the subwoofer and main speaker. With the XMC-1, it is correcting each channel individually. That is likely to have a major impact on the correction filters. What if you take the sub out of the equation and perform correction on mains only? Is there a difference between the PC and XMC-1 then? The consensus is that the XMC-1 implementation of correcting each channel individually is most optimal (best compromise) for most. I'm pretty sick of repeating that. The Emotiva FAQ on Dirac indicates no significant difference. I'm not interested in hunting around the Internet or performing experiments now. I can play the same game...link me something that confirms there is a difference in algorithm. Maybe Keith or somebody else from Emotiva could comment... -tm Even the sub channel measures better with absolutely no change to it, I'm curious how you can say that the algorithms are the same looking at the waterfall plot and phase plot below 80Hz!?! Not being smart, but the same algorithm would NEVER fluctuate like that, and we are talking about low frequencies (so you can't attribute it to a sampling frequency, plus I used 48kHz in REW for all measurements anyway).
Obviously they are not the same algorithms, this should be very obvious looking at the plots. If that was true the highend would be much closer to the same in EQ and they are not. Like I said in my post, the only difference for the mains is I crossed them to the subs and then let Dirac on my PC do the EQ.
I have always crossed to my subs with the XMC-1 and Emotiva Dirac. Same crossover and slope too, but due to a limitation in the XMC-1 it isn't smart enough to apply the crossover before running dirac and has no time delay for the sub afterwards (which is a huge drawback).
What have you read that says the algorithms are exact and equal except for sampling frequency? Please post the link. Also, why don't you test it yourself? It's completely free to try. Post some measurements please... Even your current REW measurements would be nice to check out.
I can promise you anyone with measurements like mine knows what they are doing. If you bothered to explore the link in the original post you might know that and see the dozens of room treatments, hand built bass traps etc... I am also only calibrating for one seat like I always have, haven't moved subs or speakers, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 24, 2016 11:13:51 GMT -5
Sick of repeating what? Stuff that novice users think is OK because they haven't done audyssey pro calibrations for dual subs that are individually pinged and then EQ'd together? I'd contend such folks have never experienced what is possible in the low-end? This thread is showing how to get similar results to what Audyssey XT32 SubHT EQ can do, but while keeping one of the best processors btw. I know because I've actually owned an audyssey pro kit. Thanks for the nice tone btw... But there are many posts here on the limitations of the XMC-1 wrt bass performance by some very smart folks including an engineer at Emotiva. Let me ask you this, for the 15-30Hz area why do you think my speakers are having such a big impact on the waterfall plot? Already told you in both cases the REW measurements were done with the same crossover slope and frequency. No offense, but if you aren't willing to try it yourself, you are just adding baseless claims and from my perspective just want to argue. I'm dumb founded as to why you won't do basic measurements or testing or even post your current REW measurements for your XMC-1 configuration. It would seriously help the discussion here to see the results for a different room/setup versus that of the trial software. You've already confirmed that your two configs are performing room correction differently. With the PC version, you are correcting the combined result of the subwoofer and main speaker. With the XMC-1, it is correcting each channel individually. That is likely to have a major impact on the correction filters. What if you take the sub out of the equation and perform correction on mains only? Is there a difference between the PC and XMC-1 then? The consensus is that the XMC-1 implementation of correcting each channel individually is most optimal (best compromise) for most. I'm pretty sick of repeating that. The Emotiva FAQ on Dirac indicates no significant difference. I'm not interested in hunting around the Internet or performing experiments now. I can play the same game...link me something that confirms there is a difference in algorithm. Maybe Keith or somebody else from Emotiva could comment... -tm |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 24, 2016 11:17:41 GMT -5
You are the one continually spouting your qualifications and experience. Good for you. Am I supposed to be impressed?
The only weaknesses I'm aware of in regards to Dirac and bass on the XMC-1 are integration of multiple subwoofers, which is why some people add MiniDSPs. Others have implied that the XMC-1 applies Dirac filters to the mains signal sent to the subwoofer. This is wrong, the bass management is done first.
I already have done REW measurements, before and after, but they aren't pertinent to this conversation. I'm not interested in running lots of configuration/measurement and installing Dirac PC software. What's the point? I'm not interested in spending over $700 on the software due to the limitations already described. My time/money would get a better return in audio quality elsewhere.
Anyway, I've already told you a likely reason for the differences in your results and gave you a simple experiment to confirm/disprove it. You chose to ignore it. If you don't eliminate the difference in how the room correction is being applied in the two setups, you are comparing apples to oranges and we'll never know if the PC version is more powerful...
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by etc6849 on Aug 24, 2016 11:46:49 GMT -5
I am asking how you would interpret the differences in the plots for 15-30 Hz region... seems you are refusing to answer this. Why would I do more work when you further ignore plots I've shared? Do you think Dirac continuously updates/improves their own PC software (they do) and that these changes may/may not be carried over to the Emotiva software? Keep in mind I'm not just spouting my experience, but provide REW files in the link in my original post, and these files look phenomenal from an acoustic standpoint. If you were objective you'd be impressed lol... You are the one continually spouting your qualifications and experience. Good for you. Am I supposed to be impressed? The only weaknesses I'm aware of in regards to Dirac and bass on the XMC-1 are integration of multiple subwoofers, which is why some people add MiniDSPs. Others have implied that the XMC-1 applies Dirac filters to the mains signal sent to the subwoofer. This is wrong, the bass management is done first. I already have done REW measurements, before and after, but they aren't pertinent to this conversation. I'm not interested in running lots of configuration/measurement and installing Dirac PC software. What's the point? I'm not interested in spending over $700 on the software due to the limitations already described. My time/money would get a better return in audio quality elsewhere. Anyway, I've already told you a likely reason for the differences in your results and gave you a simple experiment to confirm/disprove it. You chose to ignore it. If you don't eliminate the difference in how the room correction is being applied in the two setups, you are comparing apples to oranges and we'll never know if the PC version is more powerful... -tm |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Aug 24, 2016 12:16:42 GMT -5
My interpretation is that Dirac correcting your subwoofer/main as a single channel (versus the XMC-1 correcting the subwoofer and main individually, then combining their corrected response) is the reason for the difference. I don't and have never disputed that the results are different. I could be wrong, but no way to tell without eliminating that variable from the equation.
It's entirely possible for Dirac to do different things on different platforms. They control the servers that do all the work so they're a black box to us. From a marketing perspective, it seems like they would be pumping up the PC offering's better correction if it existed, no? They already flout the extra features/functionality and high-res.
Yes, they look great and I'm interested to know why, but not so interested that I'll do a trial. If the price wasn't so high, I'd get it just for HTPC content, but the cost/benefit just isn't there for me at that pricepoint. Provide us incontrovertible evidence and we can harass Emotiva for providing us a watered down version.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by sycraft on Aug 24, 2016 12:38:49 GMT -5
Do you think Dirac continuously updates/improves their own PC software (they do) and that these changes may/may not be carried over to the Emotiva software? Do note though they haven't updated it in quite some time, if you have a look at the demo it is pretty old. Also because the processing to design the filters is done on your computer, any updates should be able to be carried forward since the version for Emotiva can be updated too. I'm not sure why they'd be different. Best guess would be that there are more coefficients in the PC's filter given that CPUs are hundreds of times more powerful than the DSPs in the XMC-1. So maybe they make a larger filter for their PC version. |
|
