|
Post by marcl on Feb 8, 2024 16:48:40 GMT -5
I think we should all appreciate KeithL participating in the Lounge as much as he does and sharing what he can when he can. There has been lots of talk about DLBC since Dirac introduced it, and many of us have been asking for status. Some of us have had occasion to talk to Keith and Lonnie personally and we ask direct questions and have candid conversations and we have to respect confidentiality of course, and also (especially) understand that despite a company's honest intent sometimes circumstances change.
So this is THE most definitive statement that we've heard. It isn't "on the roadmap" ... it's "in progress". Let's take it as a good faith statement of intent. And let's be optimistic that things continue on track.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 8, 2024 16:54:26 GMT -5
Okay friends ... I was just chatting with Keith and he gave me permission to share something that I think many of us will be very happy about. 1 - The "hooks" for DLBC are being implemented in the G4P, and the intent is that DLBC would be supported by the new processors when they are released - with software license purchased separately from Dirac. Not an "official announcement" but this is the intent. Code isn't finished so it hasn't been tested. But work is in progress. 2 - DLBC will NOT be implemented with the firmware update to the current RMC/XMC platform. It will only be available to add to the new processors. And I'll repeat ... not included for free, but as an optional separate purchase from Dirac for the new processors. As many of you know, DLBC is currently offered at two price points depending on whether you have one or multiple subs. No word on ART ... many unknowns there, no doubt. One thing at a time. But this sounds like very good news! And thanks KeithL for sharing! Out of curiosity do you know what the difference is between dlbc and MSO. Would you lose the effect of DLBC if you say used a minidsp with MSO and BEQ and fed it with the DLBC single sub correction? I have a feeling multi sub dlbc would be superior. Thanks for the other news btw. I'm not familiar with the details of how MSO works. What I do know is that Dirac does phase correction of speaker pairs as part of DLBC which is why it improves sub integration even with only one sub. MSO does not do that. So DLBC with multiple subs does this in addition to integrating the multiple subs. So ... with DLBC one would definitely not use MSO.
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Feb 8, 2024 17:25:05 GMT -5
Per the link I had I provided…
”Dirac Live Bass Control with Multi-Sub is trying to do what MSO + Dirac Live together are doing, except do it much faster using machine learning and AI. It aims to:
Time align the subs Work out which filters would result in the most even frequency response across all measured seats Apply those filters and then EQ the summed response together The main advantage of letting Dirac Live do this end to end is the system’s phase-response: all frequencies will be time-aligned to arrive at the listeners’ ears at the same time.
As mentioned in my review, possible time and phase-alignment issues are one of the drawbacks of MSO, as it is inherent of using PEQ. While the frequency-domain might be corrected, the phase / time-alignment of frequencies can be made worse, which will “smear” the impulse response.
So letting Dirac Live Bass Control (DLBC) handle this end to end will definitely result in better time-domain response for the system, not just corrected frequency-domain performance.”
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 20:11:40 GMT -5
I think we should all appreciate KeithL participating in the Lounge as much as he does and sharing what he can when he can. There has been lots of talk about DLBC since Dirac introduced it, and many of us have been asking for status. Some of us have had occasion to talk to Keith and Lonnie personally and we ask direct questions and have candid conversations and we have to respect confidentiality of course, and also (especially) understand that despite a company's honest intent sometimes circumstances change. So this is THE most definitive statement that we've heard. It isn't "on the roadmap" ... it's "in progress". Let's take it as a good faith statement of intent. And let's be optimistic that things continue on track. YOU issued an EMOTIVA 'statement of intent'. You are treading in dangerous territory.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Feb 8, 2024 20:23:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 20:47:08 GMT -5
Aren't you a few hours late for your next bi-daily Dirac room calibration?
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 20:53:41 GMT -5
YOU issued an EMOTIVA 'statement of intent'. You are treading in dangerous territory. YOU are the most irksome person on this board. You are treading in pathetic territory. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of our present litigious world. I don't care if I irk you. I see you removed your previous post questioning my integrity. Smart move.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Feb 8, 2024 21:10:16 GMT -5
Aren't you a few hours late for your next bi-daily Dirac room calibration? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 21:11:42 GMT -5
Aren't you a few hours late for your next bi-daily Dirac room calibration? Nope. You did it already! YAY!!
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 8, 2024 21:18:52 GMT -5
I think we should all appreciate KeithL participating in the Lounge as much as he does and sharing what he can when he can. There has been lots of talk about DLBC since Dirac introduced it, and many of us have been asking for status. Some of us have had occasion to talk to Keith and Lonnie personally and we ask direct questions and have candid conversations and we have to respect confidentiality of course, and also (especially) understand that despite a company's honest intent sometimes circumstances change. So this is THE most definitive statement that we've heard. It isn't "on the roadmap" ... it's "in progress". Let's take it as a good faith statement of intent. And let's be optimistic that things continue on track. YOU issued an EMOTIVA 'statement of intent'. You are treading in dangerous territory. YOU crack me up.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 21:37:18 GMT -5
YOU issued an EMOTIVA 'statement of intent'. You are treading in dangerous territory. YOU crack me up. I could have been Gallagher/Carlin in another life... I was serious. I hope you who are laughing have the last laugh. I don't want to be right on this one.
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Feb 8, 2024 21:41:45 GMT -5
This thread sure has taken a bit of a negative turn that has resulted in some destructive interference (ie we’re “out of phase”). Let’s get back to a positive polarity with some constructive interference (ie put us back “in phase”). 🤓
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Feb 8, 2024 21:47:44 GMT -5
This thread sure has taken a bit of a negative turn that has resulted in some destructive interference (ie we’re “out of phase”). Let’s get back to a positive polarity with some constructive interference (ie put us back “in phase”). 🤓 Great sentiment. But, don't forget that 'constructive interference' can be double the error.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 8, 2024 22:12:47 GMT -5
Per the link I had I provided… ”Dirac Live Bass Control with Multi-Sub is trying to do what MSO + Dirac Live together are doing, except do it much faster using machine learning and AI. It aims to: Time align the subs Work out which filters would result in the most even frequency response across all measured seats Apply those filters and then EQ the summed response together The main advantage of letting Dirac Live do this end to end is the system’s phase-response: all frequencies will be time-aligned to arrive at the listeners’ ears at the same time. As mentioned in my review, possible time and phase-alignment issues are one of the drawbacks of MSO, as it is inherent of using PEQ. While the frequency-domain might be corrected, the phase / time-alignment of frequencies can be made worse, which will “smear” the impulse response. So letting Dirac Live Bass Control (DLBC) handle this end to end will definitely result in better time-domain response for the system, not just corrected frequency-domain performance.” I assume this is still the case even when the minidsp itself uses dirac like the 88bm or might that do better because it's using dirac filters pre MSO and then it could still be integrated to the main unit with dlbc?
|
|
|
Post by jagman on Feb 8, 2024 23:00:21 GMT -5
Glad to read DLBC will be an optional upgrade with the G4P's. I have a 9."5".6 setup with my RMC-1 so I use a MiniDSP to control the five subs. Looks like I'll use the one sub DLBC option unless Emotiva comes out with a four subwoofer expansion module. Since I use BEQ to augment the low end output of 3 of my subs (which is awesome), I may end up keeping the MiniDSP in the loop even if Emotiva offers the expansion modules.
|
|
|
Post by docevil on Feb 8, 2024 23:02:34 GMT -5
Out of curiosity do you know what the difference is between dlbc and MSO. Would you lose the effect of DLBC if you say used a minidsp with MSO and BEQ and fed it with the DLBC single sub correction? I have a feeling multi sub dlbc would be superior. Thanks for the other news btw. I think this link is a good overview/comparison. I currently use a minidsp but plan to get rid of it if/when dlbc is available as I too believe it’d be the superior option for me - assuming the new g4p has option for 15 speakers PLUS 4 independent sub outs! I have a 9.4.6 setup simplehomecinema.com/2023/07/14/bass-performance-of-audyssey-vs-dirac-live-vs-dirac-live-bass-control-vs-mso/I am interested in how this will work, I also have 4 subs in a 9.4.6 configuration. Wouldn't DLBC require an independent sub output for each sub? The prototype RMC-1+ they showed at AXPONA only had 16 outputs so will DLBC only be able to work in a 7.4.4 setup or potentially on the RMC-1+ model but only if you also had an expansion card to increase the number of outputs? If you had the RMC-1L+ or XMC-2+ are you out of luck on this? Perhaps the final production models will have more sub outputs than the preproduction units shown at AXPONA? edit: seems jagman already beat me to this thought!
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Feb 9, 2024 0:29:26 GMT -5
jagman and docevil, since DLBC needs control of each subwoofer via individual outputs from the processor, I also hope the expansion modules are ready when DLBC is. When I spoke to Lonnie last year about Assignable Outputs on the current processors he said it's not possible to assign any of the 16 default outputs for anything else. He didn't say if the Plus models would be any different, but I don't expect those outputs to be assignable either. But it would be great to have that flexibility which would then mean a possible 5 subwoofer outputs on the lower two models assuming the Wide channels could be reassigned. This is probably a pipe dream. So adding three expansion modules to the RMC-1+ could mean a possible 15 subwoofers without the need for miniDSP! It might also mean that Emotiva sells more RMC-1+ units.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 9, 2024 5:19:36 GMT -5
YOU crack me up. I could have been Gallagher/Carlin in another life... I was serious. I hope you who are laughing have the last laugh. I don't want to be right on this one. No, not FUNNY, funny! Okay let's back up. Not withstanding the fact that you're not interested in anything Dirac, what is your point regarding me relaying this message from Keith? Is it about the fact that he told me I could share what he told me about DLBC ... instead of posting himself? Or is it that you don't believe Emotiva will deliver DLBC? What is your point? And BTW ... I think we have a unique opportunity to have the interaction we have with the folks at Emotiva. It's a mature relationship where we have some dialogue and express our wishes about product features and get some answers to questions; and they get feedback - and at times beta testing - and the benefit that we represent a network of informed users who can help guide potential new customers. Along with all of this ... we implicitly cut each other some slack ...
|
|
|
Post by zdoggz on Feb 9, 2024 7:20:31 GMT -5
jagman and docevil, since DLBC needs control of each subwoofer via individual outputs from the processor, I also hope the expansion modules are ready when DLBC is. When I spoke to Lonnie last year about Assignable Outputs on the current processors he said it's not possible to assign any of the 16 default outputs for anything else. He didn't say if the Plus models would be any different, but I don't expect those outputs to be assignable either. But it would be great to have that flexibility which would then mean a possible 5 subwoofer outputs on the lower two models assuming the Wide channels could be reassigned. This is probably a pipe dream. So adding three expansion modules to the RMC-1+ could mean a possible 15 subwoofers without the need for miniDSP! It might also mean that Emotiva sells more RMC-1+ units. yes, my hope for additional sub outs in those with 9.6 setups was expressed in my first response to this news. I really hope the rmc1+ offers this expansion so rmc1 owners can utilize the expansion capability - I HIGHLY doubt the xmc2/rmc1l or default rmc1 will offer more channels without an expansion module. The ability to add sub channels was my primary reason for opting for the rmc1 in the first place. As I recall, dlbc for one sub would offer minimal benefit - unless the user is having issues integrating their sub to their mains around the crossover point (and no minidsp). Dlbc’s main benefit is for multiple independent subs imo.
|
|
|
Post by aswiss on Feb 9, 2024 7:54:24 GMT -5
I can understand, that for some of you DLBC is the great news.
I'm still a bit disappointed, as first planned date was END OF SUMMER 23, and then it was END of YEAR, then was End of Q1/24 and now it is END of JUNE 24? So again 1 year later than planned - and my box runs out of warranty in April 24. and just another 5 months away. very sad news.
In addition, there is a price raise? For me, I lost a bit confidence about the G4P and the Brand. so in half a year or later...
|
|