|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 15, 2021 19:43:49 GMT -5
View AttachmentThere is no room for anything because of large openings and furniture. The Room is 15x30 with large openings. I can know down the 42 Hz with EQ. - Rich We make do ... I always suspected that architects are taught to design houses, by setting up a home theater system ... then placing a door, window, pole or fireplace wherever there is a speaker, TV or listening position  Wouldn't it be NEAT to start with a clean sheet of paper? Provide for at least a 40 amp service TO the HT / Stereo / TV. Various sound improvements DURING construction like staggered studs, double sheetrock and perhaps some sound 'blankets' woven between studs? There ARE audio consultants but you must have fairly Deep Pockets to take advantage of such a service. A 30x15 room? Even multiple of length / width is NOT the best start.....Add in a potential 8 foot ceiling and as an additional complication. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Jul 15, 2021 21:54:46 GMT -5
We make do ... I always suspected that architects are taught to design houses, by setting up a home theater system ... then placing a door, window, pole or fireplace wherever there is a speaker, TV or listening position Wouldn't it be NEAT to start with a clean sheet of paper? Provide for at least a 40 amp service TO the HT / Stereo / TV. Various sound improvements DURING construction like staggered studs, double sheetrock and perhaps some sound 'blankets' woven between studs? There ARE audio consultants but you must have fairly Deep Pockets to take advantage of such a service. A 30x15 room? Even multiple of length / width is NOT the best start.....Add in a potential 8 foot ceiling and as an additional complication. Actually, the room is very good. There is a 10 foot opening on one side to the kitchen and dinning room and a 16 foot room. The ceiling is 8 foot rising to 12 feet, so average 10. There are beams that also break things up bit.  - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by oleops on Jul 16, 2021 15:35:15 GMT -5
I have some KLIPSCH KS-525 (same as THX-5000-SUR)
Those are Bipolar or whatever, I never mind as the plan was from the beginning to split them up and use them as two seperate speakers. [direct radiating] I have been told its not such a good idea and it would be diffiult to build a appropriate x-over as I have no meassurement from the drivers, and also not much experience.
The original idea was to use the KL-525 as front and a bunch of splitted KS-525 as surrounds and Atmos for same character of sound all around in a 9.1(3).4 setup..
So long story short, I bought a couple of KL-525 more to be used as surround back and keep the KS-525 as is, it seems a better speaker than I first tought, as it is not bi or di in the purest form, more like a mini array.. so I use them as side surround and wide. But to still use the spiltup KS-525 as Atmos.
And finally to the core question... I am going for active x-overs for those Atmos. Could I just use a plain x-over [Behringer CX2310 or like] and let the Dirac make the driver correction or is it best to EQ it before amp? [tought to use two miniDSP 2x4] I am leaning towards the latter so I dont miks up speaker variation together with the room problems, or would Dirac care less...
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,115
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Jul 16, 2021 18:53:43 GMT -5
I have some KLIPSCH KS-525 (same as THX-5000-SUR) Those are Bipolar or whatever, I never mind as the plan was from the beginning to split them up and use them as two seperate speakers. [direct radiating] I have been told its not such a good idea and it would be diffiult to build a appropriate x-over as I have no meassurement from the drivers, and also not much experience. The original idea was to use the KL-525 as front and a bunch of splitted KS-525 as surrounds and Atmos for same character of sound all around in a 9.1(3).4 setup.. So long story short, I bought a couple of KL-525 more to be used as surround back and keep the KS-525 as is, it seems a better speaker than I first tought, as it is not bi or di in the purest form, more like a mini array.. so I use them as side surround and wide. But to still use the spiltup KS-525 as Atmos. And finally to the core question... I am going for active x-overs for those Atmos. Could I just use a plain x-over [Behringer CX2310 or like] and let the Dirac make the driver correction or is it best to EQ it before amp? [tought to use two miniDSP 2x4] I am leaning towards the latter so I dont miks up speaker variation together with the room problems, or would Dirac care less... I use a Behringer CX3400 for my Center speaker setup. I've got a Martin Logan Motif which goes down to only 73Hz and doesn't have any protection for really low frequencies, but I want the Center Channel to run as Large. So I run the Center Channel to the CX3400, set the XO at 170Hz, then one out goes to the amp for the speaker and the other goes to a dedicated subwoofer just for the Center Channel. Dirac doesn't have a problem with it. |
|
|
|
Post by oleops on Jul 17, 2021 3:49:57 GMT -5
I am going for active x-overs for those Atmos. Could I just use a plain x-over [Behringer CX2310 or like] and let the Dirac make the driver correction or is it best to EQ it before amp? [tought to use two miniDSP 2x4] I am leaning towards the latter so I dont miks up speaker variation together with the room problems, or would Dirac care less... I use a Behringer CX3400 for my Center speaker setup. I've got a Martin Logan Motif which goes down to only 73Hz and doesn't have any protection for really low frequencies, but I want the Center Channel to run as Large. So I run the Center Channel to the CX3400, set the XO at 170Hz, then one out goes to the amp for the speaker and the other goes to a dedicated subwoofer just for the Center Channel. Dirac doesn't have a problem with it. Thanks for reply, but I am not sure its the same as maybe both or at least your Martin Logan operates with its own x-over wich correct eventually flaw in its drivers, and lots of subs also has dsp or some kind of correction to handle the driver correct. Mine would end up with no correction at all before dirac takes over, toughts? |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jul 17, 2021 11:58:31 GMT -5
A very interesting interview, this time with Dirac Product Manager Jakob Ågren on Erin's Audio Corner July 14. Yes, it's a video and it's 1:31 long ... and Jakob speaks somewhat slowly ... so put it on 1.25 or 1.5 and you'll be happy www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfT7jwTm2w&t=1sI encourage you to watch the whole thing because Jakob spends a good bit of time talking about why Dirac is different from (as far as he's been able to discern) all other room correction systems: Impulse Response. He also gives a more detailed explanation of why/where IIR and FIR filters are used. And finally, an excellent explanation of Dirac Live Bass Control ... including recognition of the recently addressed issues which he says are fixed in the current beta release, and will be released to the public "in the next few weeks". I'll make it a little easier if you want to skip ahead ... look at the little black dots on the YouTube timeline: 1 - IIR vs FIR Filters 2 - Active vs Passive room correction 3 - Dirac compared to other systems 4 - What is meant by Impulse Response correction 5 - Why are there "House" curves 6 - Dirac Live Bass Control |
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Jul 19, 2021 8:53:42 GMT -5
General question on subwoofer levels after Dirac. I ran Dirac yesterday after following the setup for Dirac itself and for setting the mstr volume, mic gainand spker gain. After running it, I mainly noticed the bass was more prominent. When I checked the spl levels with my spl meter (c weight, slow) and the “low” internal tone on the rmc, my speakers were outputting around 60db and my sub around 70-72db. I also did not change the default target curve either to increase the low end as I wanted to test it out first without changing it. Is that common? Any idea why?
Note - When I level match the sub w the other speakers, it is pretty hard to tell the difference w Dirac on and off (at least in my early testing). I do have quite a bit of room treatments so that may be why.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jul 19, 2021 8:59:07 GMT -5
That is a good solution if you specifically want a certain device to have the same address every time. But that's about all it will accomplish.
If you do it that way, you are still relying on DHCP on the device to fetch the address from the DHCP server. (So, if there is an issue with DHCP, this isn't likely to solve it.)
If you are really convinced that the DHCP on your device is not working properly then here's a better way... Reserve an IP address for the device on your DHCP server. Then enter THE SAME ADDRESS into your device MANUALLY.
This way you get to enter the address into your device manually... thus avoiding any possible DHCP problems. But, since the DHCP server allowed you to reserve the address, you know that it's a valid address, and that the DHCP server knows about it.
ALSO, BE VERY VERY SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TWO ROUTERS, WITH TWO SEPARATE DHCP SERVERS, HANDING OUT ADDRESSES. That way lies madness (or at least serious frustration).  Best way, IMO, is to have DHCP active on the device but reserve an IP address on the router for that device. That’s exactly how I do it.. Everything works perfectly except the Emotiva app which won’t find my RMC. This is probably an issue with ASUS routers of late. I have tried three models that behave the same.. They all share the same code base and probably also network chips. |
|
|
|
Post by oleops on Jul 19, 2021 10:31:24 GMT -5
General question on subwoofer levels after Dirac. I ran Dirac yesterday after following the setup for Dirac itself and for setting the mstr volume, mic gainand spker gain. After running it, I mainly noticed the bass was more prominent. When I checked the spl levels with my spl meter (c weight, slow) and the “low” internal tone on the rmc, my speakers were outputting around 60db and my sub around 70-72db. I also did not change the default target curve either to increase the low end as I wanted to test it out first without changing it. Is that common? Any idea why? Note - When I level match the sub w the other speakers, it is pretty hard to tell the difference w Dirac on and off (at least in my early testing). I do have quite a bit of room treatments so that may be why. Have you zeroed out any manual Speaker Level adjustments you eventually have made? All the this level adjustments will come in addition to the Dirac levels.. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Jul 19, 2021 11:19:07 GMT -5
A very interesting interview, this time with Dirac Product Manager Jakob Ågren on Erin's Audio Corner July 14. Yes, it's a video and it's 1:31 long ... and Jakob speaks somewhat slowly ... so put it on 1.25 or 1.5 and you'll be happy www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfT7jwTm2w&t=1sI encourage you to watch the whole thing because Jakob spends a good bit of time talking about why Dirac is different from (as far as he's been able to discern) all other room correction systems: Impulse Response. He also gives a more detailed explanation of why/where IIR and FIR filters are used. And finally, an excellent explanation of Dirac Live Bass Control ... including recognition of the recently addressed issues which he says are fixed in the current beta release, and will be released to the public "in the next few weeks". I'll make it a little easier if you want to skip ahead ... look at the little black dots on the YouTube timeline: 1 - IIR vs FIR Filters 2 - Active vs Passive room correction 3 - Dirac compared to other systems 4 - What is meant by Impulse Response correction 5 - Why are there "House" curves 6 - Dirac Live Bass Control I have never really bought in the "impulse response" correction at higher frequencies. So for 2 kHz, this is inches. If your listening area is more than a single seat, I don't get how this can do anything. I suppose if Dirac embraced before and after measurements, then we could see for ourselves. IMO, correction should be limited below Schroeder for bass frequencies unless is broad based, low Q tone control. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Jul 19, 2021 13:27:50 GMT -5
General question on subwoofer levels after Dirac. I ran Dirac yesterday after following the setup for Dirac itself and for setting the mstr volume, mic gainand spker gain. After running it, I mainly noticed the bass was more prominent. When I checked the spl levels with my spl meter (c weight, slow) and the “low” internal tone on the rmc, my speakers were outputting around 60db and my sub around 70-72db. I also did not change the default target curve either to increase the low end as I wanted to test it out first without changing it. Is that common? Any idea why? Note - When I level match the sub w the other speakers, it is pretty hard to tell the difference w Dirac on and off (at least in my early testing). I do have quite a bit of room treatments so that may be why. Have you zeroed out any manual Speaker Level adjustments you eventually have made? All the this level adjustments will come in addition to the Dirac levels.. Yes, I zeroed all of my manual speaker levels prior to running dirac and for some reason the sub is about 10db higher than all the other channels even though I level set them within dirac to all be at the same prior to running the calibration. |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,115
Member is Online
|
Post by ttocs on Jul 19, 2021 14:42:39 GMT -5
Have you zeroed out any manual Speaker Level adjustments you eventually have made? All the this level adjustments will come in addition to the Dirac levels.. Yes, I zeroed all of my manual speaker levels prior to running dirac and for some reason the sub is about 10db higher than all the other channels even though I level set them within dirac to all be at the same prior to running the calibration. Menu::Setup::Speakers::Preset2::Levels: Dirac EQ Center Sub -11.0dB Left Sub -11.0dB L Top Rear -1.0dB
R Top Rear -1.0dB
R Top Front -2.0dB
L Top Front -2.5dB
Left Surround -0.5dB
Left Rear -0.0dB
Right Rear -1.0dB
Right Surround -0.0dB
Right Front -2.0dB
Center -4.5dB
Left Front -2.5dB
The LCR are not this low in earlier firmware versions. All the speaker channels are usually between -1.5dB-0.0dB, and the subs are usually around -6dB. |
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Jul 19, 2021 15:05:25 GMT -5
Yes, I zeroed all of my manual speaker levels prior to running dirac and for some reason the sub is about 10db higher than all the other channels even though I level set them within dirac to all be at the same prior to running the calibration. Menu::Setup::Speakers::Preset2::Levels: Dirac EQ Center Sub -11.0dB Left Sub -11.0dB L Top Rear -1.0dB
R Top Rear -1.0dB
R Top Front -2.0dB
L Top Front -2.5dB
Left Surround -0.5dB
Left Rear -0.0dB
Right Rear -1.0dB
Right Surround -0.0dB
Right Front -2.0dB
Center -4.5dB
Left Front -2.5dB
The LCR are not this low in earlier firmware versions. All the speaker channels are usually between -1.5dB-0.0dB, and the subs are usually around -6dB.So I assume u zeroed your levels prior to Dirac and then tweaked your speakers afterwards with those trim adjustments? If so, then that is similar to mine as all my other adjustments were only 1-2db +- but my sub was pretty much -11db as yours shows. Am I interpreting your post correctly? |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jul 19, 2021 15:11:24 GMT -5
A very interesting interview, this time with Dirac Product Manager Jakob Ågren on Erin's Audio Corner July 14. Yes, it's a video and it's 1:31 long ... and Jakob speaks somewhat slowly ... so put it on 1.25 or 1.5 and you'll be happy www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfT7jwTm2w&t=1sI encourage you to watch the whole thing because Jakob spends a good bit of time talking about why Dirac is different from (as far as he's been able to discern) all other room correction systems: Impulse Response. He also gives a more detailed explanation of why/where IIR and FIR filters are used. And finally, an excellent explanation of Dirac Live Bass Control ... including recognition of the recently addressed issues which he says are fixed in the current beta release, and will be released to the public "in the next few weeks". I'll make it a little easier if you want to skip ahead ... look at the little black dots on the YouTube timeline: 1 - IIR vs FIR Filters 2 - Active vs Passive room correction 3 - Dirac compared to other systems 4 - What is meant by Impulse Response correction 5 - Why are there "House" curves 6 - Dirac Live Bass Control I have never really bought in the "impulse response" correction at higher frequencies. So for 2 kHz, this is inches. If your listening area is more than a single seat, I don't get how this can do anything. I suppose if Dirac embraced before and after measurements, then we could see for ourselves. IMO, correction should be limited below Schroeder for bass frequencies unless is broad based, low Q tone control. - Rich Speaking of small wavelengths at higher frequencies, I guess you're talking about amplitude correction at those frequencies. I believe I've heard folks from Dirac speak to the point that they would not correct narrow amplitude anomalies, especially above the Schroeder frequency. And they only correct anomalies that are common to all the measurement positions. But in the interview Jakob is talking about correction in the time domain. Aligning frequencies to give what he refers to as a minimum phase impulse response ... an impulse response that more closely matches the ideal impulse with virtually no pre-ringing and very little after, especially not the characteristic low frequency delayed ripples. It's also important that they use both IIR and FIR filters, being able to selectively affect phase, or not. I thought it was a good discussion of how those filters are used. BTW there's a discussion of running Dirac full range vs just low frequencies over on AVS Forum. Consensus after a listening test was pretty conclusive among the listeners, though apparently not dramatic. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Jul 19, 2021 17:41:12 GMT -5
I have never really bought in the "impulse response" correction at higher frequencies. So for 2 kHz, this is inches. If your listening area is more than a single seat, I don't get how this can do anything. I suppose if Dirac embraced before and after measurements, then we could see for ourselves. IMO, correction should be limited below Schroeder for bass frequencies unless is broad based, low Q tone control. - Rich Speaking of small wavelengths at higher frequencies, I guess you're talking about amplitude correction at those frequencies. I believe I've heard folks from Dirac speak to the point that they would not correct narrow amplitude anomalies, especially above the Schroeder frequency. And they only correct anomalies that are common to all the measurement positions. But in the interview Jakob is talking about correction in the time domain. Aligning frequencies to give what he refers to as a minimum phase impulse response ... an impulse response that more closely matches the ideal impulse with virtually no pre-ringing and very little after, especially not the characteristic low frequency delayed ripples. It's also important that they use both IIR and FIR filters, being able to selectively affect phase, or not. I thought it was a good discussion of how those filters are used. BTW there's a discussion of running Dirac full range vs just low frequencies over on AVS Forum. Consensus after a listening test was pretty conclusive among the listeners, though apparently not dramatic. Both, how is phase correction going to work with multiple seating positions. DLBC is the product that interests me. My rooms sounds good and I do find that processing comes at a cost. - Rich |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Jul 19, 2021 23:55:08 GMT -5
A very interesting interview, this time with Dirac Product Manager Jakob Ågren on Erin's Audio Corner July 14. Yes, it's a video and it's 1:31 long ... and Jakob speaks somewhat slowly ... so put it on 1.25 or 1.5 and you'll be happy www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLfT7jwTm2w&t=1sI encourage you to watch the whole thing because Jakob spends a good bit of time talking about why Dirac is different from (as far as he's been able to discern) all other room correction systems: Impulse Response. He also gives a more detailed explanation of why/where IIR and FIR filters are used. And finally, an excellent explanation of Dirac Live Bass Control ... including recognition of the recently addressed issues which he says are fixed in the current beta release, and will be released to the public "in the next few weeks". I'll make it a little easier if you want to skip ahead ... look at the little black dots on the YouTube timeline: 1 - IIR vs FIR Filters 2 - Active vs Passive room correction 3 - Dirac compared to other systems 4 - What is meant by Impulse Response correction 5 - Why are there "House" curves 6 - Dirac Live Bass Control I have never really bought in the "impulse response" correction at higher frequencies. So for 2 kHz, this is inches. If your listening area is more than a single seat, I don't get how this can do anything. I suppose if Dirac embraced before and after measurements, then we could see for ourselves. IMO, correction should be limited below Schroeder for bass frequencies unless is broad based, low Q tone control. - Rich Wavelength of sound, of course varies as a function of the SPEED of sound. Call it 343 meters / second or about 1040 FEET per second. or for 2khz? A wavelength of about 6". This is NOT a trivial distance and is roughly the distance between your ears.....straight thru. This is why, for DIRAC purposes, it is difficult to be TOO exact in setup and the REPEAT of position of everything when measuring. Both microphone and speakers. If you move stuff a total of 3 inches? You can turn peak into a valley.....not the same at all. Now I dont' know from 'impulse' but when actually listening to music, it will make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jul 20, 2021 0:55:35 GMT -5
I have never really bought in the "impulse response" correction at higher frequencies. So for 2 kHz, this is inches. If your listening area is more than a single seat, I don't get how this can do anything. I suppose if Dirac embraced before and after measurements, then we could see for ourselves. IMO, correction should be limited below Schroeder for bass frequencies unless is broad based, low Q tone control. - Rich Wavelength of sound, of course varies as a function of the SPEED of sound. Call it 343 meters / second or about 1040 FEET per second. or for 2khz? A wavelength of about 6". This is NOT a trivial distance and is roughly the distance between your ears.....straight thru. This is why, for DIRAC purposes, it is difficult to be TOO exact in setup and the REPEAT of position of everything when measuring. Both microphone and speakers. If you move stuff a total of 3 inches? You can turn peak into a valley.....not the same at all. Now I dont' know from 'impulse' but when actually listening to music, it will make a difference. Impulse response does not vary that much over a few inches or even a couple feet. It's not subject to comb filter effects like amplitude response. It's easy to measure, and Jakob discusses this directly in the interview where he shows that with multiple Dirac measurements the differences in impulse response with respect to position happen due to late reflections (which Dirac does not attempt to correct). This is a time domain issue, not an amplitude issue. And impulse response correction translates into better transient response and clarity in the music. It is audible. In fact, other than taming down bass resonances, I think the most audible aspect of using Dirac is the clarity and impact that it brings to transients in music and movie sound. |
|
richb
Sensei
Oppo Beta Group - Audioholics Reviewer
Posts: 889
|
Post by richb on Jul 20, 2021 11:21:48 GMT -5
Wavelength of sound, of course varies as a function of the SPEED of sound. Call it 343 meters / second or about 1040 FEET per second. or for 2khz? A wavelength of about 6". This is NOT a trivial distance and is roughly the distance between your ears.....straight thru. This is why, for DIRAC purposes, it is difficult to be TOO exact in setup and the REPEAT of position of everything when measuring. Both microphone and speakers. If you move stuff a total of 3 inches? You can turn peak into a valley.....not the same at all. Now I dont' know from 'impulse' but when actually listening to music, it will make a difference. Impulse response does not vary that much over a few inches or even a couple feet. It's not subject to comb filter effects like amplitude response. It's easy to measure, and Jakob discusses this directly in the interview where he shows that with multiple Dirac measurements the differences in impulse response with respect to position happen due to late reflections (which Dirac does not attempt to correct). This is a time domain issue, not an amplitude issue. And impulse response correction translates into better transient response and clarity in the music. It is audible. In fact, other than taming down bass resonances, I think the most audible aspect of using Dirac is the clarity and impact that it brings to transients in music and movie sound. Filter implementation can be optimized to both reduce pre-ringing and post-ringing and both. The more "taps" the better but that would be hardware dependent. However, time-aligning is another matter since that is related to frequency but Dirac measures using mics that are not that great at separating direct and indirect. If you like it, use it, but if the results are not repeatable above Schroeder, then it is it really trial, error, and entirely subjective. - Rich |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,246
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 20, 2021 12:01:08 GMT -5
There is essentially no way that a microphone can truly separate direct from reflected sound in a real room. The best you can do is to use a very short sampling window to "catch the direct sound but stop listening before the reflected sound has time to arrive". This will give you a result that is approximately equivalent to an anechoic response.
You can then sample using a longer window, which will measure the sum of both, then assume that the difference is mostly the reflected sound. Although the fact that cancellations can occur between them means that the results will not be perfect.
(In theory you could also exclude the shorter arrival times from the measurement window and read mostly reflections from room acoustics.) (Also note that, if your walls are different, then reflections from each will also be different, and you would really want to measure the reflections from each separately.)
Obviously, in order to fully characterize the speakers and the room, you would need a LOT of measurements.
The bottom line is that Dirac Live is using some fancy math to allow it to get a good idea of all of this with a relatively few measurements. Then it uses some even fancier math to attempt to figure out what's wrong, decide what can or should be fixed, and then fix it.
And it's all still going to work better if your room is good, and reasonably symmetrical, to begin with.
Time alignment is, at least in principle, a lot simpler. Your brain uses the relative arrival times of non-periodic sounds to determine the apparent location of the source.
If they don't agree between your speakers then your brain will end up with the equivalent of "a blurry image of the sound stage". (And, if it's really off, then things can sound very odd indeed.)
So, by fixing that, you can create a sharper and more accurate sound stage image. (Note that you need to examine both the overall arrival time of sounds from multiple speakers and the variation of arrival time with frequency for each individual speaker.)
Impulse response does not vary that much over a few inches or even a couple feet. It's not subject to comb filter effects like amplitude response. It's easy to measure, and Jakob discusses this directly in the interview where he shows that with multiple Dirac measurements the differences in impulse response with respect to position happen due to late reflections (which Dirac does not attempt to correct). This is a time domain issue, not an amplitude issue. And impulse response correction translates into better transient response and clarity in the music. It is audible. In fact, other than taming down bass resonances, I think the most audible aspect of using Dirac is the clarity and impact that it brings to transients in music and movie sound. Filter implementation can be optimized to both reduce pre-ringing and post-ringing and both. The more "taps" the better but that would be hardware dependent. However, time-aligning is another matter since that is related to frequency but Dirac measures using mics that are not that great at separating direct and indirect. If you like it, use it, but if the results are not repeatable above Schroeder, then it is it really trial, error, and entirely subjective. - Rich |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,246
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 20, 2021 12:07:01 GMT -5
As I interpret what he's saying... he's saying that, with a single listening position, the improvements you get with multiple subs aren't important.
He basically said: "While there might be improvements with multiple subs... you could get the same results with just EQ... which is easier and cheaper."
The Todd Welti video is VERY interesting...
I'm normally inclined to prefer white papers to lengthy video chats... However, while he does ramble a bit, he has a LOT of interesting things to say...
And I think a lot of people on our forums might want to adjust their perspectives a bit after hearing what he has to say. (Some may find the part that starts a bit after 45 minutes in to be especially interesting... although I personally don't find any of it especially surprising.)
The thing that surprised me the most was when he was talking about a conversation with a guy, and when the guy told him he had one listening position Welti told him multiple subs wouldn't be worth doing. That is just weird! I understand the benefits of multiple subs for evening out response over a wider area than one seat. But the physics of waves propagating from opposite ends of the room, cancellation of some harmonic resonances ... and the fact that it's easily measurable at a single point that multiple subs improve the response ... very strange to me that he would say that. |
|
