klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,072
|
Post by klinemj on Jun 20, 2021 7:22:37 GMT -5
Dumb question as I've been out of the loop a bit...what's the latest version of Dirac that people are trusting to work right/no crash? I think I have 11 on my PC and didn't update due to issues with the next version or two. I'm planning to update the FW on my XMC-2 and while I'm at it - I will also update Dirac and re-run it also. I've made a few changes that make a new run needed.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 20, 2021 9:01:49 GMT -5
Dumb question as I've been out of the loop a bit...what's the latest version of Dirac that people are trusting to work right/no crash? I think I have 11 on my PC and didn't update due to issues with the next version or two. I'm planning to update the FW on my XMC-2 and while I'm at it - I will also update Dirac and re-run it also. I've made a few changes that make a new run needed. Mark 3.0.13 is the version many had crashing issues with so I never tried it. I'm running 3.0.14 which is supposed to have fixed it and I have not experienced any crashes using it on a Windows 10 laptop. |
|
|
|
Post by rk1981 on Jun 21, 2021 22:37:08 GMT -5
Do you have to redo a Dirac run with every new FW update ?? You do not. Do the previously determined Dirac filters function with the new Dolby configurations in firmware 2.3? And since Dirac is so speaker configuration-specific, has anyone tried to run it after updating to firmware 2.3? |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Jun 21, 2021 23:27:40 GMT -5
Do the previously determined Dirac filters function with the new Dolby configurations in firmware 2.3? And since Dirac is so speaker configuration-specific, has anyone tried to run it after updating to firmware 2.3? What are the new Dolby configurations? The Emotiva processors can go up 16 channels ie 9.1.6 or 9.3.4 or 7.3.6 so anything less than that is covered. Max 3 subs though. I’d like them to expand the subs 7.5.4…it’d be nice to run 4 subs in lieu of the wides. |
|
|
|
Post by BigE on Jun 22, 2021 12:31:55 GMT -5
Do the previously determined Dirac filters function with the new Dolby configurations in firmware 2.3? And since Dirac is so speaker configuration-specific, has anyone tried to run it after updating to firmware 2.3? What are the new Dolby configurations? The Emotiva processors can go up 16 channels ie 9.1.6 or 9.3.4 or 7.3.6 so anything less than that is covered. Max 3 subs though. I’d like them to expand the subs 7.5.4…it’d be nice to run 4 subs in lieu of the wides. How are you getting 7.3.6? We are limited to 9.1.6 or 9.3.4. Similarly, I'd like option to remap wides to overhead Atmos to get 7.3.6. |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs
Posts: 3,434
|
Post by Lsc on Jun 22, 2021 13:56:05 GMT -5
What are the new Dolby configurations? The Emotiva processors can go up 16 channels ie 9.1.6 or 9.3.4 or 7.3.6 so anything less than that is covered. Max 3 subs though. I’d like them to expand the subs 7.5.4…it’d be nice to run 4 subs in lieu of the wides. How are you getting 7.3.6? We are limited to 9.1.6 or 9.3.4. Similarly, I'd like option to remap wides to overhead Atmos to get 7.3.6. You are right. 7.3.6 doesn’t exist since the two channels can be used as subs or heights. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jun 22, 2021 15:01:08 GMT -5
How are you getting 7.3.6? We are limited to 9.1.6 or 9.3.4. Similarly, I'd like option to remap wides to overhead Atmos to get 7.3.6. You are right. 7.3.6 doesn’t exist since the two channels can be used as subs or heights. I believe - from Dolby's perspective, and I think I read this in their specs - that there is only ever ONE sub "channel" and so every configuration from a channel perspective is X.1.Y for Atmos and X.1 for Surround. You can connect 1, 2, 3 ... 8 subs ... it's still .1 because they all get the same signal. And as has been discussed from a Dirac perspective, you really should connect all your subs to one output because Dirac does not calibrate with all subs running at once the way it actually happens in use. The response of the sub "channel" will be wrong if you calibrate subs separately but send a mono signal to them together. Emotiva does have the unique option of sending .1 LFE only to the center sub output, and small speaker bass management only to the left or left+right sub outputs. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,115
|
Post by ttocs on Jun 22, 2021 15:31:02 GMT -5
^^^^ +1
Please read the above post carefully. It's absolutely correct.
Dolby has one subwoofer channel, and it's called the .1 channel.
Over time the .1 channel got all mixed up in A/V systems being able to use smaller and smaller speakers and satellites necessitating the usage of subwoofers for proper bass, but these subwoofers should have ALWAYS been totally separate from the .1 subwoofer channel. One subwoofer channel for the .1, and one subwoofer channel for screen speakers and satellites which cannot produce the specified bass.
I'll go further with this. Any processor capable 5.1 surround or more should be required to have a .1 channel, and offer a Bass Management subwoofer channel. Keep them separate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rk1981 on Jun 22, 2021 16:03:19 GMT -5
Do the previously determined Dirac filters function with the new Dolby configurations in firmware 2.3? And since Dirac is so speaker configuration-specific, has anyone tried to run it after updating to firmware 2.3? What are the new Dolby configurations? The Emotiva processors can go up 16 channels ie 9.1.6 or 9.3.4 or 7.3.6 so anything less than that is covered. Max 3 subs though. I’d like them to expand the subs 7.5.4…it’d be nice to run 4 subs in lieu of the wides. This was stated in the description of the firmware update. I took great pains to get the height speakers configured correctly to avoid the Dirac “ low signal to noise” error. I wondered if this information has any bearing on Dirac. Important Change in Speaker Configuration There has been a change in the way Dolby designates what we call “bounce speakers” as well as in how they are now required to be configured. (This refers to height speakers that face upwards and bounce their audio signal off the ceiling). You will notice changes to the Speaker Size Menu page after performing the update. Dolby no longer recognizes “Dolby Enabled Height Speakers” as such. Height speakers that operate facing upwards, and bounce their signal off the ceiling, are now designated as “Reflective Speakers”. You will now find a separate item in the Speaker Size Menu: Reflective Speakers. On this page you will check a box for each pair of Reflective Speakers you have. You should make this selection BEFORE making other speaker configuration settings. (This selection will affect the configuration choices you have in other places.) NOTE: One limitation you need to be aware of is that, IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE PAIR OF REFLECTIVE HEIGHT SPEAKERS, they MUST be designated as your Middle Height speakers. Therefore, if you check ONLY the Reflective Speaker check box for Fronts, when you exit that menu you will find your Front Height speakers designated as Dolby Enabled Middles (and, when configured that way, you will be expected to connect those Dolby Enabled Middle speakers to the FRONT HEIGHT OUTPUTS on the processor). Most other settings are intuitive as long as you identify your Reflective Speakers first. NOTE: Also note that ALL speakers designated as Reflective Speakers WILL be considered to be SMALL speakers and by default their crossover frequency will be set to 250 Hz. This default is a Dolby requirement and will work best with many speakers and rooms. However you may feel free to adjust it if you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Jun 23, 2021 13:18:11 GMT -5
Yesterday I ran my first measurements since last fall, necessary because I decided to move my subs back from Y’d center to L/R dual mono … just cause, I like to swim upstream. 🏊♂️🏊♂️🏊♂️
Several things were changed for these measurements:
Dirac 3.0.14 for macOS — No issues to report, other than new help screens that I hadn’t seen back in the 3.0.3 days.
Mac mini 2018 — sold my MacBook Pro 2013, had to deal with the OSD transparency on top of Mac desktop, pretty annoying.
Emo ECC-1 mic — Couldn’t find my long USB-B mini to USB-C or A cable to use UMIK-1
Nothing really to report, other than I’d read about crashes with 3.0.14 and didn’t experience any. What little I’ve tried sounds good, it seems to be balancing my heights better. 🤷♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Jun 23, 2021 15:37:38 GMT -5
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? I can use REW to measure a before and after, but that is only from a single listening position, but I can't really do an apples to apples comparison as Dirac does (proprietary?) averaging over the 16 or so mike positions. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is?
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,115
|
Post by ttocs on Jun 23, 2021 16:59:36 GMT -5
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? No. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is? Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 23, 2021 17:03:31 GMT -5
I should add, however, that Dirac Live and REW don't measure things the same way...
Therefore, while you can compare REW measurements from before a correction to REW measurements from after...
You should NOT necessarily expect graphs and measurements produced by REW to match those produced by Dirac Live...
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? No. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is? Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 23, 2021 17:10:24 GMT -5
There are many different ways of measuring room response... And each will produce different results... sometimes VERY different...
REW absolutely gives you more information and more control over how it takes measurements and what it corrects...
But Dirac Live is capable of making some types of corrections that just aren't available to REW...
The best way to "know the result of applying Dirac" is to LISTEN to the results. If it sounds great - then the numbers don't really don't matter... And if it doesn't sound good - then the numbers really don't matter much either... Right...?
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? I can use REW to measure a before and after, but that is only from a single listening position, but I can't really do an apples to apples comparison as Dirac does (proprietary?) averaging over the 16 or so mike positions. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is? |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,115
|
Post by ttocs on Jun 23, 2021 17:16:46 GMT -5
I should add, however, that Dirac Live and REW don't measure things the same way...
Therefore, while you can compare REW measurements from before a correction to REW measurements from after...
You should NOT necessarily expect graphs and measurements produced by REW to match those produced by Dirac Live...
No. Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. True, REW and Dirac do not measure things in the same manner. However, I find that the prediction that Dirac makes is very close - most of the time - to what REW measures. |
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Jun 23, 2021 21:14:04 GMT -5
There are many different ways of measuring room response... And each will produce different results... sometimes VERY different...
REW absolutely gives you more information and more control over how it takes measurements and what it corrects...
But Dirac Live is capable of making some types of corrections that just aren't available to REW...
The best way to "know the result of applying Dirac" is to LISTEN to the results. If it sounds great - then the numbers don't really don't matter... And if it doesn't sound good - then the numbers really don't matter much either... Right...?
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? I can use REW to measure a before and after, but that is only from a single listening position, but I can't really do an apples to apples comparison as Dirac does (proprietary?) averaging over the 16 or so mike positions. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is? Thanks. Our system sounds fantastic. I was mainly interested to understand differences I saw between Dirac Live predicted response and REW measured response, knowing they are not apples to apples. |
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Jun 24, 2021 12:23:34 GMT -5
Is there any way in Dirac Live to measure the result after the Dirac filter has been applied? No. So how does anyone really know what the result of applying Dirac Live filter actually is? Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. I suspect that Dirac don’t measure the post correction result because they don’t want customers to see target vs actual corrected response. As was pointed out, REW and Dirac don’t measure the same things so there is no way to know if making manual tweaks to the Dirac filters will make objective improvements. We are supposed to just trust the result. I’m going to continue to use Dirac filters . On my system both before and after Dirac sounds good, Dirac might sound better, but it’s difficult to get all levels matched. Dirac target and REW show discrepancies that are more than +/- 3 dB for me. So we can just enjoy the sound, whatever it is. I just wish there was a better way to know for sure that what we are hearing is faithful to what the music artist and producer intended. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Jun 24, 2021 12:30:08 GMT -5
No. Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. I suspect that Dirac don’t measure the post correction result because they don’t want customers to see target vs actual corrected response. As was pointed out, REW and Dirac don’t measure the same things so there is no way to know if making manual tweaks to the Dirac filters will make objective improvements. We are supposed to just trust the result. I’m going to continue to use Dirac filters . On my system both before and after Dirac sounds good, Dirac might sound better, but it’s difficult to get all levels matched. Dirac target and REW show discrepancies that are more than +/- 3 dB for me. So we can just enjoy the sound, whatever it is. I just wish there was a better way to know for sure that what we are hearing is faithful to what the music artist and producer intended. I suspect most cannot repeat the same results above the transition mode with multiple mic positions. Below Schroeder, REW and Dirac should be close. If they don't agree, I would trust one, can you guess which one?  - Rich |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 24, 2021 13:07:08 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever be the case - with speakers in a room...
Not only are different rooms and speakers very different - but the ways in which they INTERACT are also very different...
For example... you could have two pairs of speakers with virtually identical on-axis frequency response... And, if you listen to both in a relatively dead room, they're going to sound very similar... But, if you listen to the same two pairs of speakers in a live room, the ones with wider off axis frequency response are going to sound brighter...
In the relatively dead room most of that off-axis high frequency output will be absorbed by the walls... But, in the live room, more of that sound will be reflected by the walls, and come back to contribute to the power response... And, if you were to turn down the treble on those speakers, so that the long term average comes out well balanced... Then the direct arrival sound coming from them will sound a bit dull... So things like drum hits and cymbals may sound a little less sharp than they should. In the end, you'll be able to electronically adjust EITHER the direct arrival response, OR the long term power response, to be what you want... But the only way to control both will unavoidably involve adjusting the acoustic properties of the room.
About the only way you can get anywhere near absolute control over all of these factors is to use headphones... thereby effectively removing the room, and room interactions, from the equation. (And, if the recording engineer did his mastering with headphones, then that's going to be about as close as you can get to what he heard.)
No. Use REW before/after with both USER EQ and Dirac EQ. Setup one Preset for a Dirac EQ, and the other Preset for USER EQ. This will let you set the Levels for the USER EQ, and tweak the Levels for the Dirac EQ after running Dirac. Once set, use REW. This is the true before and after, USER and Dirac. I measure before/after with every Dirac run. I suspect that Dirac don’t measure the post correction result because they don’t want customers to see target vs actual corrected response. As was pointed out, REW and Dirac don’t measure the same things so there is no way to know if making manual tweaks to the Dirac filters will make objective improvements. We are supposed to just trust the result. I’m going to continue to use Dirac filters . On my system both before and after Dirac sounds good, Dirac might sound better, but it’s difficult to get all levels matched. Dirac target and REW show discrepancies that are more than +/- 3 dB for me. So we can just enjoy the sound, whatever it is. I just wish there was a better way to know for sure that what we are hearing is faithful to what the music artist and producer intended. |
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Jun 24, 2021 13:34:50 GMT -5
Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever be the case - with speakers in a room...
Not only are different rooms and speakers very different - but the ways in which they INTERACT are also very different...
For example... you could have two pairs of speakers with virtually identical on-axis frequency response... And, if you listen to both in a relatively dead room, they're going to sound very similar... But, if you listen to the same two pairs of speakers in a live room, the ones with wider off axis frequency response are going to sound brighter...
In the relatively dead room most of that off-axis high frequency output will be absorbed by the walls... But, in the live room, more of that sound will be reflected by the walls, and come back to contribute to the power response... And, if you were to turn down the treble on those speakers, so that the long term average comes out well balanced... Then the direct arrival sound coming from them will sound a bit dull... So things like drum hits and cymbals may sound a little less sharp than they should. In the end, you'll be able to electronically adjust EITHER the direct arrival response, OR the long term power response, to be what you want... But the only way to control both will unavoidably involve adjusting the acoustic properties of the room.
About the only way you can get anywhere near absolute control over all of these factors is to use headphones... thereby effectively removing the room, and room interactions, from the equation. (And, if the recording engineer did his mastering with headphones, then that's going to be about as close as you can get to what he heard.)
I suspect that Dirac don’t measure the post correction result because they don’t want customers to see target vs actual corrected response. As was pointed out, REW and Dirac don’t measure the same things so there is no way to know if making manual tweaks to the Dirac filters will make objective improvements. We are supposed to just trust the result. I’m going to continue to use Dirac filters . On my system both before and after Dirac sounds good, Dirac might sound better, but it’s difficult to get all levels matched. Dirac target and REW show discrepancies that are more than +/- 3 dB for me. So we can just enjoy the sound, whatever it is. I just wish there was a better way to know for sure that what we are hearing is faithful to what the music artist and producer intended. Ok. But it would be great if Dirac Live could provide a feature to compare target vs actual post-filter response. I suspect I’m not the only customer that would like to have this feature. It would be surprising if they don’t already do this to test their releases. |
|
