|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 20, 2021 11:54:37 GMT -5
A quick question. Does dirac live using peq for fixing freq response? If they do, maximum how many number of peq does dirac capable of? Because if we do our on peq on xmc-2, only capable of 10 or 11 peq maximum. Dirac uses a proprietary mix of filters that they refer to as "mixed phase" filters. Technically speaking it's a combination of IIR filters similar to PEQ, as well as FIR filters that are very different from PEQ. Don't know the number, but it is significantly more than 11. In addition to peaking filters that we use in PEQ, they also use all-pass filters and a proprietary method of designing the filters as well as correcting phase and impulse response. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 20, 2021 12:21:44 GMT -5
There are always going to be limitations - and differences between microphones.
No microphone has precisely identical response at 0 degrees and 90 degrees. And, even if an expensive microphone provides calibration curves for both, there is no way to enter that information into Dirac. And that's still only two specific directions.
It is certainly possible to use time windowing to get an accurate measurement of the sound coming directly from the speaker - being received at 90 degrees.
And most calibrated microphones are rated for accuracy at 90 degrees and provide a 90 degree calibration curve.
However the "room response" is a combination of sound reaching the microphone from all directions. There is no way to differentiate how much of what sound is arriving from which direction. And, even if there was, it would be of limited usefulness without a full 3D plot of the microphone's response. And that would be useless unless there was some way to enter it into the calculations.
In reality the software was designed to be used with "common calibrated microphones" - like ours or the Umik... So, baked into its operation, there are assumptions about the directional response of the microphone it will be used with...
Therefore it might actually produce less accurate overall results if used with a microphone that performed significantly differently than what it expects...
2 questions? First? What is 'microphone coloration' when dealing with a calibration microphone? Second? If you repeat the measurments several times, what kind of repeatability do you expect in DB? And finally? What would you expect the system repeatabilty limits to BE? If the sound hits the microphone at the wrong angle it was calibrated to you’ll get different results. That’s why it’s so important to place the mic straight up for each measure point. Also all microphones used for home usage, like UMIK-1 or UMIK-2 are not industry spec. You can’t expect them to measure as correct as a $5000 microphone. Dirac does as good as it can with the gear you use with it, and also how the gear is used. Sometimes it gets it wrong and you’ll have to redo the measurement. If users follow Diracs recommendations they will get good results more often than not.. 100% repeatability is impossible with the kind of gear we’re using. Also most of us don’t have robots or lasers to place the mic at exact positions. We also measure in homes. This means something may have been moved or added between measurements. I have done about ten complete measurements and all but one sounded great. Although all of them looked about the same in the frequency graphs. I’d say Dirac can repeat its measument pretty good as long as the speaker or room doesn’t do anything really odd. Even with the cheap gear we’re using. Just get the first mic position dead center and pointing straight up. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 20, 2021 12:38:28 GMT -5
There's no great mystery - the license will almost certainly continue to be associated with the processor - via some sort of "unit ID number".
With our processors that "unit ID number" is derived from the MAC address - because it is both unique and permanently associated with the particular processor. It is also a number that the processor's firmware "knows" and can "report" to the Dirac Live software.
However that unit ID number could just as easily be derived from any permanent identification number - like an embedded serial number. All that is required is that each processor have some sort of unique ID number they can use to verify that it's manufacturer purchased a Dirac Live license for it.
Also note that the Dirac Live software must eventually both play test tones through the processor and transfer filters to it... So it can only ever work with processors that are able to carry out two-way communications with the device running the software... And virtually every modern device that can do that has the ability to access the Internet... (And there are plenty of ways in which licensed software can achieve "offline activation" - if they choose to offer it.)
Some of the early Dirac literature did give the impression that the processing was being done "on a server somewhere". (I assume this was because some folks are impressed by the idea of massively complicated secret calculations being done on a supercomputer buried under a mountain somewhere...)
Also, in the past, some programs actually were copy protected by "holding back" a few small parts of the program, which were then loaded from a server when you ran it (so you never had a complete copy saved anywhere). This did have some value in terms of making a program more difficult to hack or bootleg.
This is not done much lately - although today many so-called "web based applications" are actually loaded into your browser and run locally on your computer after that. In general today servers are used mostly to store information - like your shopping cart and order information - because typical home computers have plenty of processing power to run software locally.
To be quite fair, assuming everything works as it should, it really doesn't matter.
In any case, as far as we know, the only information being exchanged with the servers, on the versions on both the XMC-1 and our new processors, is a license verification. There are two parts to the Dirac Live software - the software itself and the "filter engine" on the processor. The Dirac Live filters are NOT the same as ordinary PEQ settings... like the ones you get from REW... so you cannot "extract them and load them into an ordinary processor".
The Dirac Live filters can ONLY be used with a processor that includes the Dirac filter engine module in its firmware. The version of Dirac Live that originally came with the XMC-1, and the full version you can purchase now for use with the XMC-1, are both linked to the person who purchases the license (user name and password).
And you can use a single copy of the software with more than one processor (but, since it is custom, it will only work on an Emotiva XMC-1). With the latest version the license is tied to the processor instead. And, when you run the program, it fetches the MAC address of the processor, and uses a secure hash of that to verify your license with the license servers. (And you can download as many copies as you like, and install them on as many computers as you like, to use with your licensed processor.)
If you are really curious you can look at the network traffic easily enough with a packet sniffer like WireShark (since it is going over your network). It is obviously up to Dirac what they allow you to do with the software when it is not connected to "a licensed unit". (If you use other serious software you will realize that it is not all that unusual to have a program that is "only licensed for use with a single computer or device".)
However that is certainly a feature you could request directly from Dirac. (It wouldn't be that difficult for them to allow you to edit and save projects while not connected but still prevent you from downloading the resulting filters to "an unlicensed processor".)
Dirac tech support advised me that yes internet is required, to use a cell phone hotspot if home internet is not available and that traffic will be minimal and will not impact my data plan, so I doubt there’s much processing performed on their servers. One wonders what they are going to do now that they have licensed mass market manufacturers. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Sept 20, 2021 13:45:48 GMT -5
2 questions? First? What is 'microphone coloration' when dealing with a calibration microphone? Second? If you repeat the measurments several times, what kind of repeatability do you expect in DB? And finally? What would you expect the system repeatabilty limits to BE? If the sound hits the microphone at the wrong angle it was calibrated to you’ll get different results. That’s why it’s so important to place the mic straight up for each measure point. Also all microphones used for home usage, like UMIK-1 or UMIK-2 are not industry spec. You can’t expect them to measure as correct as a $5000 microphone. Dirac does as good as it can with the gear you use with it, and also how the gear is used. Sometimes it gets it wrong and you’ll have to redo the measurement. If users follow Diracs recommendations they will get good results more often than not.. 100% repeatability is impossible with the kind of gear we’re using. Also most of us don’t have robots or lasers to place the mic at exact positions. We also measure in homes. This means something may have been moved or added between measurements. I have done about ten complete measurements and all but one sounded great. Although all of them looked about the same in the frequency graphs. I’d say Dirac can repeat its measument pretty good as long as the speaker or room doesn’t do anything really odd. Even with the cheap gear we’re using. Just get the first mic position dead center and pointing straight up. Exactly what I mean. In NORMAL operation, how good can an operator be? I did measurement for a living. So, while I get 'precision'.....say to an NIST standard? I also think, i THIS case that 'repeatability' is more important. Good of you on mic position. Straight UP, eh? And than I've always been a big fan of REALLY taking time with location so you can do it the Same Way and Location again. Every measurent system has problems. I did studies where I was able to distinguish operator variability from machine. And Yes, FIRST POSITION? I'll just bet that .....sets the tone (pardon me) for the rest of the measures in that set. One day? I want to go to somebody's house who is DOING this so I can watch...... Keith's answer pretty much Skipped operator input. If you turned me loose with software and a 10000$ Lab Standard / NIST calibrated mic? I could STILL screw it up! Guaranteed! |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Sept 20, 2021 13:56:47 GMT -5
If the sound hits the microphone at the wrong angle it was calibrated to you’ll get different results. That’s why it’s so important to place the mic straight up for each measure point. Also all microphones used for home usage, like UMIK-1 or UMIK-2 are not industry spec. You can’t expect them to measure as correct as a $5000 microphone. Dirac does as good as it can with the gear you use with it, and also how the gear is used. Sometimes it gets it wrong and you’ll have to redo the measurement. If users follow Diracs recommendations they will get good results more often than not.. 100% repeatability is impossible with the kind of gear we’re using. Also most of us don’t have robots or lasers to place the mic at exact positions. We also measure in homes. This means something may have been moved or added between measurements. I have done about ten complete measurements and all but one sounded great. Although all of them looked about the same in the frequency graphs. I’d say Dirac can repeat its measument pretty good as long as the speaker or room doesn’t do anything really odd. Even with the cheap gear we’re using. Just get the first mic position dead center and pointing straight up. Exactly what I mean. In NORMAL operation, how good can an operator be? I did measurement for a living. So, while I get 'precision'.....say to an NIST standard? I also think, i THIS case that 'repeatability' is more important. Good of you on mic position. Straight UP, eh? And than I've always been a big fan of REALLY taking time with location so you can do it the Same Way and Location again. Every measurent system has problems. I did studies where I was able to distinguish operator variability from machine. And Yes, FIRST POSITION? I'll just bet that .....sets the tone (pardon me) for the rest of the measures in that set. One day? I want to go to somebody's house who is DOING this so I can watch...... Keith's answer pretty much Skipped operator input. If you turned me loose with software and a 10000$ Lab Standard / NIST calibrated mic? I could STILL screw it up! Guaranteed! Time to stop beating this dead horse yet? |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Sept 20, 2021 14:55:14 GMT -5
Sure........And I wish all users of DIRAC a wonderful time searching for perfection which most likely will elude them. If you are makiing system / room changes, I can get it about the need to remeasure / recalibrate.
But for those who continue while using poor technique? They have problems.
keep in mind this is a measurement SYSTEM and all parts work together. Operator? Equipment? Software? Technique?
the guys who are best at this do seem to get very good results and can repeat it.
Have fun, all......
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,235
|
Post by KeithL on Sept 20, 2021 15:12:56 GMT -5
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment... Marcl already gave the correct answer... which is that Dirac Live uses a different sort of filters... However you made an interesting comment about PEQ filters... The reality is that, with PEQs, you should almost never need anywhere near all of the 11 filters we provide. In the very early days most "hi-fi gear" had a single "tone" control that adjusted the balance between high and low frequencies. This was replaced by separate Bass and Treble controls and later often joined by a Midrange control. Note that, at this point, the controls were considered more for personal preference than for any sort of precise "correction"
Early equalizers used knobs - which were soon replaced by vertical slide potentiometers that actually allowed you to "see a graph of your settings" (and so were known as "graphic equalizers"). Graphic equalizers started out with 5 bands but 10 band models soon appeared (known as "octave equalizers" because bands were centered one octave apart and covered about one octave each). While these were able to make more precise adjustments than ordinary tone controls, each band was still too wide to make accurate corrections of narrow peaks and notches. So, eventually, graphic equalizers with 30 bands started to appear (known as "third octave equalizers"). Unfortunately, because of the complex circuitry required, these tended to be expensive, and often had significant side effects (like excessive noise). And, even with that many bands, you couldn't always find a narrow band centered exactly where you needed it, and it required many bands to make broader gentler corrections. (And, with gentler adjustments, a lot of controls had to be adjusted to make a single correction.)
A PEQ ("parametric equalizer") offers far better flexibility to either of those... For each individual band you can program both the center frequency and the width... This allows you to make both sharp narrow adjustments and broad gentle adjustments with a single band... And, because of this flexibility, a single band of PEQ can do the job of many bands on an ordinary graphic equalizer. In general most corrections consist of a few "issues that need to be solved"... And, in most cases, each correction can be accomplished by properly adjusting a SINGLE BAND of PEQ. Early "professional PEQs" offered a total of two bands per channel... Later ones offered as many as four or five bands... And a lot of current editing and mastering software is most often used with two or three... (Most modern software allows you to create as many bands as you need... but you are only expected to NEED two or three.)
My point here is that 11 bands of PEQ is a HUGE number of PEQ bands... In most cases using 11 bands of PEQ to correct a speaker or a room is like measuring how flat your front lawn is with a LASER micrometer... I guess it would be cool to know that every blade of grass is within 1 mm of optimum height - but you're wasting a lot of effort on meaningless precision. To oversimply, Dirac Live starts by correcting the biggest problem, then the next biggest, "until it runs out of processing budget". This is a practical operating philosophy for a computer-based solution.
However anyone doing manual room correction should be able to do an excellent job with at most three or four PEQ bands per channel. After that you are usually far past the reasonable point of diminishing returns.
And, incidentally, on the XMC-2 that's 11 bands PER CHANNEL (so multiply that by as many full-range channels you're using).
A quick question. Does dirac live using peq for fixing freq response? If they do, maximum how many number of peq does dirac capable of? Because if we do our on peq on xmc-2, only capable of 10 or 11 peq maximum. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Sept 20, 2021 16:18:19 GMT -5
I just wanted to chime in here with a comment... Marcl already gave the correct answer... which is that Dirac Live uses a different sort of filters... However you made an interesting comment about PEQ filters... The reality is that, with PEQs, you should almost never need anywhere near all of the 11 filters we provide. In the very early days most "hi-fi gear" had a single "tone" control that adjusted the balance between high and low frequencies. This was replaced by separate Bass and Treble controls and later often joined by a Midrange control. Note that, at this point, the controls were considered more for personal preference than for any sort of precise "correction"
Early equalizers used knobs - which were soon replaced by vertical slide potentiometers that actually allowed you to "see a graph of your settings" (and so were known as "graphic equalizers"). Graphic equalizers started out with 5 bands but 10 band models soon appeared (known as "octave equalizers" because bands were centered one octave apart and covered about one octave each). While these were able to make more precise adjustments than ordinary tone controls, each band was still too wide to make accurate corrections of narrow peaks and notches. So, eventually, graphic equalizers with 30 bands started to appear (known as "third octave equalizers"). Unfortunately, because of the complex circuitry required, these tended to be expensive, and often had significant side effects (like excessive noise). And, even with that many bands, you couldn't always find a narrow band centered exactly where you needed it, and it required many bands to make broader gentler corrections. (And, with gentler adjustments, a lot of controls had to be adjusted to make a single correction.)
A PEQ ("parametric equalizer") offers far better flexibility to either of those... For each individual band you can program both the center frequency and the width... This allows you to make both sharp narrow adjustments and broad gentle adjustments with a single band... And, because of this flexibility, a single band of PEQ can do the job of many bands on an ordinary graphic equalizer. In general most corrections consist of a few "issues that need to be solved"... And, in most cases, each correction can be accomplished by properly adjusting a SINGLE BAND of PEQ. Early "professional PEQs" offered a total of two bands per channel... Later ones offered as many as four or five bands... And a lot of current editing and mastering software is most often used with two or three... (Most modern software allows you to create as many bands as you need... but you are only expected to NEED two or three.)
My point here is that 11 bands of PEQ is a HUGE number of PEQ bands... In most cases using 11 bands of PEQ to correct a speaker or a room is like measuring how flat your front lawn is with a LASER micrometer... I guess it would be cool to know that every blade of grass is within 1 mm of optimum height - but you're wasting a lot of effort on meaningless precision. To oversimply, Dirac Live starts by correcting the biggest problem, then the next biggest, "until it runs out of processing budget". This is a practical operating philosophy for a computer-based solution.
However anyone doing manual room correction should be able to do an excellent job with at most three or four PEQ bands per channel. After that you are usually far past the reasonable point of diminishing returns.
And, incidentally, on the XMC-2 that's 11 bands PER CHANNEL (so multiply that by as many full-range channels you're using).
A quick question. Does dirac live using peq for fixing freq response? If they do, maximum how many number of peq does dirac capable of? Because if we do our on peq on xmc-2, only capable of 10 or 11 peq maximum. Agree with everything Keith said, and have used all those devices over the years. But there are a couple other important points: 1 - You really can't lift a null in the bass with a PEQ filter. A cancellation that is due to the sum of modal reflections at a particular listening position is the result of the sum of those reflections being out of phase with the direct sound. Lifting the direct sound at that frequency just causes the out of phase reflection to be deeper in the opposite direction. Best case you get a little correction and a lot of distortion ... worst case you damage something. 2 - PEQ filters are IIR filters, and what that means to us in practical terms is the phase always changes with the amplitude. Dirac uses IIR filters for some correction, and FIR filters for other correction. FIR filters can affect amplitude and phase independently (all of this very oversimplified, of course) 3 - Dirac also corrects phase and impulse response. We can't do that with PEQ filters. Since there are a finite number of IIR biquads and FIR taps available to Dirac, I think it's prudent to limit the band to be corrected to just what is needed, allowing Dirac to apply all the filters it has to do the best possible job. i.e. I can't hear above 13KHz so I pull the curtains to the left a bit. There are interviews with folks from Dirac that go into more detail on how they determine minimum phase and non-minimum phase correction. This is where they do a LOT better than our old graphic EQ or PEQ. |
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Sept 20, 2021 19:55:58 GMT -5
Good 'short course' in filter / tone control.......
|
|
|
|
Post by jbrunwa on Sept 20, 2021 20:51:18 GMT -5
There's no great mystery - the license will almost certainly continue to be associated with the processor - via some sort of "unit ID number". With our processors that "unit ID number" is derived from the MAC address - because it is both unique and permanently associated with the particular processor. It is also a number that the processor's firmware "knows" and can "report" to the Dirac Live software.
However that unit ID number could just as easily be derived from any permanent identification number - like an embedded serial number. All that is required is that each processor have some sort of unique ID number they can use to verify that it's manufacturer purchased a Dirac Live license for it.
Also note that the Dirac Live software must eventually both play test tones through the processor and transfer filters to it... So it can only ever work with processors that are able to carry out two-way communications with the device running the software... And virtually every modern device that can do that has the ability to access the Internet... (And there are plenty of ways in which licensed software can achieve "offline activation" - if they choose to offer it.)
Dirac tech support advised me that yes internet is required, to use a cell phone hotspot if home internet is not available and that traffic will be minimal and will not impact my data plan, so I doubt there’s much processing performed on their servers. One wonders what they are going to do now that they have licensed mass market manufacturers. I was actually thinking more of the price (Dirac must be seriously discounting license price in lower end AVRs if they are, as reported, including the full Dirac Live, or maybe using the phone app vs PC/Mac), tech support (where users are probably less knowledgeable - perhaps all Dirac support will be provided by the AVR manufacturers), and if this in effect cannibalizes the market of more expensive processors using Dirac (if cheaper processors have Dirac, Dirac is no longer a product differentiating feature). |
|
|
|
Post by swedishcaveman on Sept 21, 2021 6:49:30 GMT -5
Good DIRAC sound at last! My Imac have OSX 10.13, so I loaded DIRAC SW v3.0.0. IAW Dirac live changelog v3.0.0, they added unofficial support for MacOS 10.11, 10.12 and 10.13. Next I adjusted my sub´s high pass filter to 100hz, and low passed my Klipsch RF-63 tower speakers to 60hz, surround´s, rear´s and center to low pass 80hz. During volume setup before measurements I used values supplied by marcl and ttocs on this forum. -20db for the sub and -25db for all the rest. It´s a 7.1 set up no ATMOS. Mic gain 100% gave me -53db noise floor. I did an tight focus listening area measurement, using Storm Audio´s asymmetric mic placement pattern. Loaded a Harman6db curve to all channels. The result are crazy good. Solid center stage, deep strong punchy bas and detailed surround effects moving all around my cave. I now realize that Emotiva Dirac user guide are the wrong way to go. As somebody wrote here, it is time for an update. Emotiva already applies a 120hz LFE filter, with a 12dB slope if I remember correctly. BM gets their own high pass filters with each crossover.. Don’t understand why you need to use an external one? It’s recommended to use the same crossover for atleast LCR. You will NOT loose anything by setting you fronts to 80hz as the center. It will rather improve sound quality.. -53dB is quite a high noise floor. Dirac recommends about 30dB above for best results. But you’ll probably get by with 20-25dB above when measuring. As long as it doesn’t complain about too much noise or clipping you’re fine. Only the MLP is really really important to place correctly and dead center. The rest are are mostly points that Dirac uses to see what happens around the MLP when doing its thing. From the Dirac Live Bass Control Guide. Note that Dirac doesn’t say every mic position have to be in line of sight. Marcus (the Dirac guru on AVS) pretty much confirmed this as well. Quote: AustinJerry said: Those are indeed good guidelines, although I don't understand why mention of maintaining a line-of-site to all speakers is not mentioned. I think this is an important guideline as well. Marcus767 answered: "maintaining a line-of-site to all speakers" is a good recommendation for setting up a listening room but it's irrelevant for a room correction system as it deals with the room as is not with the room as it should be. End quote Tips for a good measurement There is no strict way of positioning the measurement points; however, there are some things that are worth to have in mind during the measurement procedure: 1. The basic principle is that any additional measurement improves the correction. However, depending on the acoustics of your room and equipment the benefit from more measurements may diminish faster. Therefore, note that you do not necessarily need to do all the measurements defined in the arrangement. However, we strongly recommend you to never do fewer than five measurements. 2. The measurement points should have a distance of at least 30 cm (12 inches) between each other. 3. Avoid making measurements in a too-small space. Even for the “Tightly focused” listening environment, it is important to spread out the microphone positions to a sphere of at least 1 metre in diameter. A too small space will result in over compensation and sound dry and dull. 4. Measure some points outside the listening area, e.g., for a sofa, it is recommended to do a few of the measurements 20-30 cm in any direction outside the couch. 5. Remember that you are measuring a volume rather than a surface and be certain that you take the measurements in different vertical positions as opposed to in a single horizontal plane. 6. Point the microphone upwards to the ceiling (90 degrees) when measuring to ensure that additional colouration from the microphone is similar for both the wall reflections and the direct wave from the speaker. 7. Remember that the positions specified in the arrangements act as a guide and you may deviate from them to put or de-crease emphasis on particular spaces. Thanks for your input. I will try to have all crossovers at the same Hz. I and many with me have had a hard time to get a good result out of the Dirac process. My journey started with the replacement of my XMC-1. Everything else are the same in my HT. The first ten measurements and filter exports, resulted in worse sound than the raw XMC-2 factory performance. The new Dirac live procedure are very much like the XMC-1 Dirac procedure, if you follow Emotiva Dirac Live user guide. My biggest problem was the subwoofer test signal level. It was hard work to get all channels set up correctly in the volume calibration and then get it to pass the test sweeps without clipping or get the to much noise message. My Sunfire user manual recommend to use high cut at 100hz if the in coming signal are full range. And some were on this forum I read that dirac treats all channels as full range during test sweeps. So I decided to let my sub work with a narrower frequency band during dirac set up and measurement. Emotiva dirac guide says -30dB for mic gain other manufacturer says leave the slider at 100%, that gives me -53dB. I tried that and for me it worked. So I stopped using Emotiva´s user guide and mixed and matched different ideas from this forum and when you can´t use the manufacturers manual, you can´t say what´s wrong or right anymore. It´s like red wine, you get noisy after a bottle even if it taste bad. I am happy with my present sound quality and sound stage, but as usual it can be improved. |
|
|
|
Post by hanse1 on Sept 21, 2021 8:02:34 GMT -5
I had a thunderstorm that damaged my XMC-2 (with Diraclicense) that could not be repaired. Now a new XMC-2 is on its way to me without a Diraclicense. Will I be able to use my new XMC-2 with the previous Dirac license?
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Sept 21, 2021 8:21:49 GMT -5
I had a thunderstorm that damaged my XMC-2 (with Diraclicense) that could not be repaired. Now a new XMC-2 is on its way to me without a Diraclicense. Will I be able to use my new XMC-2 with the previous Dirac license? Emotiva will have to activate your new license with Dirac. Each processor has a unique number assigned which is created from the MAC address of the unit that Emotiva supplies to Dirac. Once that's done the software will work with the new processor. If it does not work with the Dirac software when you receive it the you can go here and start the process. This assumes your new XMC-2 was purchased with Dirac which is now a $199 upgrade. emotiva.com/pages/diraclive |
|
|
|
Post by hanse1 on Sept 21, 2021 11:35:38 GMT -5
I was told by Emotiva that I should log in at emotiva.com/pages/diraclive and enter the MAC address of my new XMC-2 and then I can connect with my interface. |
|
|
|
Post by Alvough on Sept 22, 2021 15:14:33 GMT -5
I am trying to set up Dirac using a Mac. Dirac see the microphone, I load in the calibration specs, but when I go to the volume calibration setting there nothing being captured from the microphone. I do not get the black level bar showing up for anything. I go into the Mac sound setting and it shows input coming from the microphone there so it's not the microphone not working. Is there a driver I need to load for Dirac to see the microphone in the program? Is there some other setting I need to set to get Dirac to see the microphone? I am using the stock microphone that came with my RMC-1L.
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,107
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 22, 2021 17:02:41 GMT -5
I am trying to set up Dirac using a Mac. Dirac see the microphone, I load in the calibration specs, but when I go to the volume calibration setting there nothing being captured from the microphone. I do not get the black level bar showing up for anything. I go into the Mac sound setting and it shows input coming from the microphone there so it's not the microphone not working. Is there a driver I need to load for Dirac to see the microphone in the program? Is there some other setting I need to set to get Dirac to see the microphone? I am using the stock microphone that came with my RMC-1L. Which Mac model, and which OS? Also which version of Dirac? When I've updated the OS and/or Dirac, sometimes the mic needs a nudge in the Mac OS settings. I'll try to scan my brain for the memory of what I did. |
|
|
|
Post by Alvough on Sept 23, 2021 11:03:16 GMT -5
I am using a MacBook Pro Early 2015 with macOS version 11.6. Using Dirac Live 3.1.1 Build 688-b5cfd9a6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2021 11:13:46 GMT -5
Didn't know if most already knew or this bug extends beyond Minidsp and is solely a Dirac issue or has been corrected for OSx users: "We've been made aware of an important issue by two of you in the past 48h that we've been able to reproduce with the latest build of Dirac Live v3.1.1 under OSx. This issue doesn't apply to Windows. The symptoms happen with the latest Dirac Live build + 2.1/2.2 setup. Basically the combined bass (L+R) is being cancelled at low frequency as you can see below."  Read More: www.minidsp.com/forum/announcements/19394-dirac-v3-1-1-issue-with-2-1-2-2-systems-applies-to-shd-ddrc-24-under-mac-osx#56980I've asked the question over and over again why Dirac if you know how to use REW? Contrary to what most people suggest in that the results are the same....... |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,107
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 23, 2021 11:24:56 GMT -5
I am using a MacBook Pro Early 2015 with macOS version 11.6. Using Dirac Live 3.1.1 Build 688-b5cfd9a6 Interesting. I use a Mac mini early 2014 with OS 11.4, but also can use same MacBook Pro as yours but with OS 11.4. Makes me wonder about the OS version, but since @deleted just posted about a Dirac problem with MacOS, I'm not sure what to think right now. On both Macs of mine I use Dirac 3.1.1. Updating the OS is a big deal, so I'm not doing that. The only recommendation I can give that is fairly easy to do is to uninstall Dirac 3.1.1 using their Maintenance Tool, then reboot the computer, then install Dirac 3.0.14. |
|
uwe
Minor Hero
RMC-1
Posts: 20
|
Post by uwe on Sept 23, 2021 12:08:48 GMT -5
Didn't know if most already knew or this bug extends beyond Minidsp and is solely a Dirac issue or has been corrected for OSx users: "We've been made aware of an important issue by two of you in the past 48h that we've been able to reproduce with the latest build of Dirac Live v3.1.1 under OSx. This issue doesn't apply to Windows. The symptoms happen with the latest Dirac Live build + 2.1/2.2 setup. Basically the combined bass (L+R) is being cancelled at low frequency as you can see below." Read More: www.minidsp.com/forum/announcements/19394-dirac-v3-1-1-issue-with-2-1-2-2-systems-applies-to-shd-ddrc-24-under-mac-osx#56980I've asked the question over and over again why Dirac if you know how to use REW? Contrary to what most people suggest in that the results are the same....... If you had phase problems with Dirac for macOS, the v3.1.2 update may be of interest. Gain and delay optimizations can also be deactivated on a test basis. Dirac Live Update v3.1.2
|
|
