How many use Dirac?

[Topend]

Just wondering how many use Dirac with their XMC-2 or RMC-1/L.

I have used it and was happy with how it sounded. After a FW upgrade to 2.x (can't remmber which) I didn't set it up again. I'm currently on the lastest FW and might try it again this weekend.

Cheers,
Dave.

[ttocs]

My experience with Dirac has been that I tried to like it with the XMC-1, but decided to only use it for HT and not at all for music. It just didn't do a good job with my dipoles.

When I got the XMC-2 and Dirac 2 came out, I tried it and liked it much better - but still not for music. I kept using Reference Stereo for two channel music.

Then with the Dirac Version 3's things improved to the point where I was happy with Dirac up to around 300-500Hz. But then about a year ago I found that Dirac had improved so much that I allowed it to do full range correction on the dipoles, and this continues today.

XMC-2 firmware made some difference in how Bass Management worked, but other than that it hasn't affected how Dirac works in the processor. BM is now mostly fixed for most setups.

[405x5]

Haven’t used it just yet (I’ve had it since 2014). I promise I’ll get to it.
You failed to mention the XMC 1 which is the unit I have with Dirac on board….. any reason for that?

[cawgijoe]

Used it with the XMC-1 and now XMC-2. Made a big difference for HT. Using it for two channel also. Sounds great to me. I've also used Reference Stereo, but prefer Dirac due to wanting the subwoofer engaged.

[AudioHTIT]

May 3, 2023 8:29:42 GMT -5 405x5 said:

Haven’t used it just yet (I’ve had it since 2014). I promise I’ll get to it.
You failed to mention the XMC 1 which is the unit I have with Dirac on board….. any reason for that?

Probably because he has an XMC-2 (using V3/Dirac Live) and the XMC-1 uses a ‘special’ V1 version. He’s trying to decide whether to set it up again on his system (apples & apples).

[creimes]

My XMC-1 I use Dirac for Surround material, for 2ch I use Reference Stereo

[monkumonku]

I use Dirac on the subwoofer but for the other speakers it is in force only below 100hz. I prefer that to using Dirac full frequency for all the speakers. I like how it corrects the bass but not what it does to the sound of the other speakers.

A question I have is why use Dirac for HT/surround but not for two channel? If you think Dirac makes an improvement for HT/surround then why wouldn't it do the same when listening in stereo? Isn't room correction room correction regardless of the number of channels?

[Sayer]

I tried Dirac with the XMC-2, but found the results to be a bit dull and lifeless, especially with music. I am a musician and release my own music, which I know inside out, and didn't like the unnatural results.

I'm sticking with manually setting distance and levels using a measuring tape and sound meter. The results are great.

[marcl]

May 3, 2023 10:21:59 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I use Dirac on the subwoofer but for the other speakers it is in force only below 100hz. I prefer that to using Dirac full frequency for all the speakers. I like how it corrects the bass but not what it does to the sound of the other speakers.

A question I have is why use Dirac for HT/surround but not for two channel? If you think Dirac makes an improvement for HT/surround then why wouldn't it do the same when listening in stereo? Isn't room correction room correction regardless of the number of channels?

I guess I'll blurt it out ... yeah, the room is the room and the room doesn't know if you're playing one channel or twelve.  And whether you have a $50 speaker or a $50,000 speaker ,,,, we live in acoustically small rooms where modal resonances dominate below the Schroeder Frequency which is generally 150-250Hz.  So no matter what, the biggest thing Dirac does is correct those resonances and it's equally relevant to however many channels are playing.  As for correction above the Schroeder Frequency the benefits are mostly audible in the Impulse Response correction and more broad smoothing of any room-related peaks and dips.

But ... even if broadband results of Dirac correction are measurably more accurate, some people don't like room correction ... just like some people prefer tube amps or vinyl records ... preference is preference ... can't argue with that.

[monkumonku]

May 3, 2023 10:38:47 GMT -5 marcl said:

May 3, 2023 10:21:59 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

I use Dirac on the subwoofer but for the other speakers it is in force only below 100hz. I prefer that to using Dirac full frequency for all the speakers. I like how it corrects the bass but not what it does to the sound of the other speakers.

A question I have is why use Dirac for HT/surround but not for two channel? If you think Dirac makes an improvement for HT/surround then why wouldn't it do the same when listening in stereo? Isn't room correction room correction regardless of the number of channels?

I guess I'll blurt it out ... yeah, the room is the room and the room doesn't know if you're playing one channel or twelve.  And whether you have a $50 speaker or a $50,000 speaker ,,,, we live in acoustically small rooms where modal resonances dominate below the Schroeder Frequency which is generally 150-250Hz.  So no matter what, the biggest thing Dirac does is correct those resonances and it's equally relevant to however many channels are playing.  As for correction above the Schroeder Frequency the benefits are mostly audible in the Impulse Response correction and more broad smoothing of any room-related peaks and dips.

But ... even if broadband results of Dirac correction are measurably more accurate, some people don't like room correction ... just like some people prefer tube amps or vinyl records ... preference is preference ... can't argue with that.

Good point about what people prefer. But if you like what Dirac does in surround, the effect ought to be the same in two channel so it seems incongruent to prefer it depending on how many channels are in use. Now I suppose one might prefer it with movies and things with dialog versus music but that would mean if you watch a surround concert that Dirac ought to do the same with all the channels playing that it does if mixed down to two channels so why Dirac in one case but not the other.

Anyway I know there's no real answer to this and it just comes down to what we prefer.

[ttocs]

May 3, 2023 10:21:59 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

A question I have is why use Dirac for HT/surround but not for two channel? If you think Dirac makes an improvement for HT/surround then why wouldn't it do the same when listening in stereo? Isn't room correction room correction regardless of the number of channels?

In my case, and specifically with the XMC-1 and Dirac Full Ver-1 for the XMC-1: Full disclosure, this version of Dirac for the XMC-1 just didn't work well with my dipole speakers and I just couldn't use it for two channel music. I lived with it for HT because of the ease of use with Dirac doing the heavy lifting. Yes, I had timing issues with the dipoles, but this was most noticeable when only listening to the two main speakers and two channel music. For HT I was able to get good enough results. The key words here are "good enough". Since I cared then, like I do now, more for two channel music, the HT side of things was fine for me.

When I got the XMC-2 I also had new dipole speakers, and with what was originally Dirac 2  I liked how this newer and very much different Dirac handled the bass up to a limited range on the dipole speakers. This allowed me to get what I wanted at the time, which was to correct all the channels and just the bass of the Front L&R speakers to just the range of 400-500Hz and use Dirac filters for HT and Music. So in point of fact, I used Dirac for both two channel and HT at that time, but at the 500Hz limit for just the two front speakers.

Then last year Dirac changed for the better and suddenly worked very well for my system, and I finally got great results for my current speakers! So I have been using Dirac filters for everything since.

edit: Dirac Live Full for the XMC-1 is so different from Dirac 2 and now Dirac 3 that it really cannot be thought of as the same application. There is so much improvement in the versions for the G3P, it's just a different app altogether.

[marcl]

Speaking of dipoles ... I started using Dirac nearly five years ago with the XMC-1. At the time I had Magnepan 3.7's as fronts, MC1 surrounds and CC5 center. My room had a lot of bass traps and also diffusion behind the Magnepans. Dirac always worked great for me! XMC-1, XMC-2 ... always an improvement and I always ran it full range.

Since then I've done a lot of changes to my system and in the process literally hundreds of Dirac calibrations. With some system changes I had to do a few calibrations to get mic placement, target curves, curtains, etc. to work together. The challenges were not Dirac's fault ... but rather my somewhat unconventional speaker placement. But it always sounded better. In fact sometimes I'd accidentally have it off ... and I immediately knew something was wrong ... a sort of inadvertent blind test.

Dirac really doesn't say anything about improvements to the algorithms, etc. They don't say "with this new release you get these new processing benefits". Some of us seem to notice that it sounds better as time goes on, but we can't point to just what it is because usually the measurements look about the same. Kind of like how some people think an Emotiva firmware update sounds better ... when maybe, nothing actually changed ...

[hsamwel]

I use it since it was released for G3P.
To me it makes a good improvement. Both for stereo and HT.

Especially the bass is so much better.. That’s first obvious thing that anyone will notice in a direct comparison.
The upper frequencies are a little more suttle for me, but depending on your room and speakers.

[foggy1956]

In my system, Dirac makes a huge improvement in specific vocals and instrument location for 2 channel music