|
|
Post by Ex_Vintage on Feb 22, 2021 21:56:08 GMT -5
The last one is the net result of either using REW or some other method of creating your own custom EQ values per frequency range. I am curious as to what the difference would be between using REW to create the filters and the EQ values created by Dirac. Is Dirac doing anything more than "flattening the response" overall “ What makes Dirac Live superior to other Room Correction technologies? By using mixed-phase correction we can enable impulse response correction. A loudspeaker’s impulse response affects staging, clarity, detail and all spatial aspects of the sound. Dirac Live® is unique in that it improves the impulse response throughout the listening area, not just in a particular zone. The Dirac Live® algorithm suggests a target response appropriate for your listening environment and speakers, which you can of course adjust to your taste using our simple graphical interface.” I get what the objective if Dirac is based on the description, but my experience is somewhat opposite of what they are trying to do. I am finding that detail and spatial aspects of the sound are diminished with Dirac. I have my system in a family room. Both of my mains speakers are about 2 ft from the front wall, but my right speaker has an opening to the kitchen area (to the right side of that speaker). The right speaker does not have a first reflection surface involved as opposed to the left speaker which has a wall to its left. I wonder if that is screwing with Dirac? To reiterate, I am getting better imaging and a centering of the vocal image with Preset 1 vs Dirac. Dirac produces more depth to the soundstage, but less imaging and clear definition. Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with the sound of my system, just obsessing lately on the imaging aspect of the sound. |
|
