More Dirac questions

[paulwgraber]

So I have been going back and forth between no Dirac, Narrow Dirac unenhanced, Narrow Dirac with 8db Harmon Curve and wide Dirac with 10db curve. Switching between all 4 while watching some Atmos content. Saving Private Ryan mostly.
5.1.4 setup. Onkyo RZ50, Monoprice THX Inwalls for fronts, Alpha 8" in ceiling for surround, Aplha 6" for all 4 heights. RSL 12s Sub.
My cutoffs are as follows with all 4 settings: LCR= 70hz, Height speakers=80, Surrounds 80, LFE= 100.

What I have noticed is that when dirac is off bass response is terrible but my fronts and surrounds and Heights are very crystal clear and precise.

When I go thru the dirac settings 1,2,3 the bass response is phenomenal and the sound in general is much more enveloping. However, My fronts, Surr and Heights become somewhat subdued and nowhere near as bright. Still are clear but maybe not quite as precise. What I would like is kind of the best of both worlds.

Overall the sound is insane and things are going everywhere they should be. Any suggestions or tips on tweaks to make the aforementioned a little brighter? Seems Dirac is holding things back a bit even though the sound is def much more around me.

 

[dlaloum]

You have a few options...

Firstly many people suggest limiting RoomEQ to the Schroeder frequency...

What that pragmatically involves, is using the "Curtains" to limit Dirac's influence to frequencies below 500Hz (where exactly you set the curtain 250Hz, 400Hz, 500Hz etc... varies in theory based on room size)

So that is the simplest option, and should provide the best of both worlds.

Another option is to use the automatic target profile of Dirac - which in theory, should keep the existing "voicing" of your speakers with minimal adjustments

Finally you can set your own target curves to voice the speakers (and room) to your preference.

I would suggest first trying the Auto target setting rather than the target curves... you can use the handle to boost the bass, while leaving the highs pretty much alone - see whether that achieves your aim.

 

[TankTop5]

I’m starting to feel like Dirac is a professional product or at the very least a very advanced hobbyist product. I’m not saying it’s a bad product but it’s probably wall over the average person’s expertise level, this is based on reading lots of reviews and write-ups but no personal experience. Think they need a beginners/basic UI and some of the settings need to be a bit more automated,. It’s an amazing tool but I think it’s too advanced for most users and perhaps why you see so many used M33’s on the secondhand market.

 

[paulwgraber]

You have a few options...

Firstly many people suggest limiting RoomEQ to the Schroeder frequency...

What that pragmatically involves, is using the "Curtains" to limit Dirac's influence to frequencies below 500Hz (where exactly you set the curtain 250Hz, 400Hz, 500Hz etc... varies in theory based on room size)

So that is the simplest option, and should provide the best of both worlds.

Another option is to use the automatic target profile of Dirac - which in theory, should keep the existing "voicing" of your speakers with minimal adjustments

Finally you can set your own target curves to voice the speakers (and room) to your preference.

I would suggest first trying the Auto target setting rather than the target curves... you can use the handle to boost the bass, while leaving the highs pretty much alone - see whether that achieves your aim.

So, what your basically saying is to bring in the curtains to limit what Dirac actually influences?
I have no clue what a Schroeder frequency is.
I have not run accu eq but am thinking of doing that as well to see how it compares.

What is the automatic target profile? Just what it normally does without us screwing with it?

 

[Paul McNeil]

I’m starting to feel like Dirac is a professional product or at the very least a very advanced hobbyist product. I’m not saying it’s a bad product but it’s probably wall over the average person’s expertise level, this is based on reading lots of reviews and write-ups but no personal experience. Think they need a beginners/basic UI and some of the settings need to be a bit more automated,. It’s an amazing tool but I think it’s too advanced for most users and perhaps why you see so many used M33’s on the secondhand market.

I disagree, Dirac got it right for me, the first time!

 

[Paul McNeil]

So, what your basically saying is to bring in the curtains to limit what Dirac actually influences?
I have no clue what a Schroeder frequency is.
I have not run accu eq but am thinking of doing that as well to see how it compares.

What is the automatic target profile? Just what it normally does without us screwing with it?

In my experience, Dirac does not need a curtain, or tweeks. Audyssey definitely does need the curtain, because it makes 'idiotic' adjustments to the higher frequencies, and it does not compare to Dirac Bass Live, in the bass region. Audyssey required a 10dB boost in the bass on my system, and was still not as flat as Dirac, and reduce sub 20htz bass.

But of course it is all room and equipment dependent...

 

[everettT]

In my experience, Dirac does not need a curtain, or tweeks. Audyssey definitely does need the curtain, because it makes 'idiotic' adjustments to the higher frequencies, and it does not compare to Dirac Bass Live, in the bass region. Audyssey required a 10dB boost in the bass on my system, and was still not as flat as Dirac, and reduce sub 20htz bass.

But of course it is all room and equipment dependent...

RoomPerfect is the only set it and forget it outside of Trinnov. Both DIRAC and XTPro require some thoughts behind them, neither are extremely difficult if tweaking is one's thing.

 

[dlaloum]

I’m starting to feel like Dirac is a professional product or at the very least a very advanced hobbyist product. I’m not saying it’s a bad product but it’s probably wall over the average person’s expertise level, this is based on reading lots of reviews and write-ups but no personal experience. Think they need a beginners/basic UI and some of the settings need to be a bit more automated,. It’s an amazing tool but I think it’s too advanced for most users and perhaps why you see so many used M33’s on the secondhand market.

I disagree...

I first set up Dirac Live (no DLBC, no ART) - using the simplest possible configuration, using the smartphone app provided with my AVR, and using only a single mic position.

This took very little time, and the immediate result was excellent... I sat back and went "Wow"... My most important criteria is midrange performance, vocals/dialogue clarity - and this was definitely superior to what I have had my setup sounding as for years. (moving from a 15 year old Audyssey XT32 setup)

Setup was simple, easy, and painless... I did no tweaking of the target curve, simply accepted the defaults and "followed the bouncing ball" for setup.

I was up and running within less than 1 hr

A few weeks later I decided it was time to try the PC app, and see what things were like with multi point mic measurements, and adjusting target curves etc...

After many hours of measurement, messing about with mic & speaker levels, trying target curves, etc... etc... I ended up with results which were no better than my 35 to 40min initial setup.

My conclusion is this... to get 95% of the benefits of Dirac, you can choose the path of least resistance, the easiest possible option and leave it at that.

If you want to delve into the complexities of what is possible with Dirac, you can then dive into the PC app, and the many many available options there. - The downside, is that many of those options, can in fact end up resulting in WORSE results than the basic defaults.

Extracting the last couple of % points of performance out of Dirac, can be a complex and painful process, and may well justifiably be called a "professional, or advanced hobbyist" product.

I think we need to stress to many people starting out with Dirac, or who are not inclined to the complexities of the full manual setup, that for most setups, most AVR's, the simplest possible option will provide excellent results, without stress.... and if one then wants to get involved in the complexities... consider it a hobby option, and expect to chew up many many hours in trying to squeeze the additional performance out of your system.

 

[dlaloum]

So, what your basically saying is to bring in the curtains to limit what Dirac actually influences?
I have no clue what a Schroeder frequency is.
I have not run accu eq but am thinking of doing that as well to see how it compares.

What is the automatic target profile? Just what it normally does without us screwing with it?

The Schroeder frequency is the point at which the Room effect starts to dominate over the speaker effect...
It varies depending on room size, openings, etc... but is basically bass limited.

If you want Dirac to handle EQ'ing the "room effect" on the bass - just set the upper curtain at 500Hz, that way your speakers will be playing "au naturel" above 500Hz, and Dirac will handle sorting out the bass for you.

In terms of the Target profile - Dirac always had the ability to set different reference EQ points, and to shift them up and down, to define a FR curve as the target, which it would then attempt to match.

In the last year they released an alternative option, which is the default setting when first running dirac, where it provides a Bass "Handle" and a "Treble" handle, and you just drag them up or down to adjust.

This is a heck of a lot simpler - also the algorhythms used through the frequency range with this option, are intended to keep the natural voicing of your speakers... and not to over-ride them as a traditional target curve does.

Typically, you would raise the bass handle a dash to give you that "Harman" style +4 to +10db in the bass, and adjust the treble handle to taste, based on whether you want the highs more prominent or slightly rolled off....

The software will show you its estimated "target" onscreen, and will also show you its estimated "speaker response" based on it.

I found AccuEQ to be surprisingly good, but even the quick and easy Dirac EQ, keeping everything at default, was better than AccuEQ (and my most important criteria is midrange performance, I'm not bass centric).

You can easily get lost in all the Dirac options and tuning alternatives, with no audible improvement!
Like any EQ system - often a very light touch gives the best results!

 

[paulwgraber]

Ive decided to rerun the narrow positions. The middle one. Im going to keep that as my default, save it as RAW and then screw around with the handles as you say and save diff ones. The cool thing I do like is that I can save up to three slots and with the controller just go thru them. I do think its cool, Just not 100% sold on it yet. I did accu eq and well it didnt sound as good as dirac IMO. It was missing the enveloping sound that dirac gave me.
What kind of confuses me is the crossovers it gives. Sometimes its giving diff crossovers for diff speakers even though the speakers are the same. Accu EQ gave me 30hz as my front crossovers. Diract gives me 70 which Im thinking is more accurate?
My sub is at 120 but to tighten it do I just drop it to say 100 or 90? This is all on my Onkyo of course.

 

[TankTop5]

I disagree...

I first set up Dirac Live (no DLBC, no ART) - using the simplest possible configuration, using the smartphone app provided with my AVR, and using only a single mic position.

This took very little time, and the immediate result was excellent... I sat back and went "Wow"... My most important criteria is midrange performance, vocals/dialogue clarity - and this was definitely superior to what I have had my setup sounding as for years. (moving from a 15 year old Audyssey XT32 setup)

Setup was simple, easy, and painless... I did no tweaking of the target curve, simply accepted the defaults and "followed the bouncing ball" for setup.

I was up and running within less than 1 hr

A few weeks later I decided it was time to try the PC app, and see what things were like with multi point mic measurements, and adjusting target curves etc...

After many hours of measurement, messing about with mic & speaker levels, trying target curves, etc... etc... I ended up with results which were no better than my 35 to 40min initial setup.

My conclusion is this... to get 95% of the benefits of Dirac, you can choose the path of least resistance, the easiest possible option and leave it at that.

If you want to delve into the complexities of what is possible with Dirac, you can then dive into the PC app, and the many many available options there. - The downside, is that many of those options, can in fact end up resulting in WORSE results than the basic defaults.

Extracting the last couple of % points of performance out of Dirac, can be a complex and painful process, and may well justifiably be called a "professional, or advanced hobbyist" product.

I think we need to stress to many people starting out with Dirac, or who are not inclined to the complexities of the full manual setup, that for most setups, most AVR's, the simplest possible option will provide excellent results, without stress.... and if one then wants to get involved in the complexities... consider it a hobby option, and expect to chew up many many hours in trying to squeeze the additional performance out of your system.

Thanks for your input. Going to pick up a Denon 3800 pretty soon and I was tempted to just use Audessey but maybe I’ll take the plunge.

edit add: going to run the Denon for a couple months before adding Dirac just to make sure the Denon isn’t a bad unit, wouldn’t want to throw away $800

 

[isolar8001]

Totally ridiculous what Dirac charges to add Dirac to the Denon units.

My Pioneer AVR comes with the full-bandwidth version (20Hz – 20KHz) of Dirac.
Dirac wants $349 USD to add that to the Denon capable models.
Talk about price gouging !!

 

[isolar8001]

Below is an evaluation of Dirac vs MCACC on the avnirvana review of my AVR.
Sure doesn't sound like the Dirac was worth $349 if I had to add it like I would with a Denon.
Of course, this review is subjective.
Personally, Im happy with what MCACC did and have never even ran Dirac.


Room Correction - The Pioneer VSX-LX305 is blessed with two, count em', two, room correction systems. The proprietary Pioneer Advanced MCACC system (Multi-Channel AcoustiC Calibration System) is accessed and enabled through the setup and OSD. The other available system is a version of DIRAC Live accessed and set up using the Pioneer Remote App. The Pioneer Remote App is a free download for iOS and Android devices at either the Apple App Store or Google Play Store.

To get the ball rolling, I simply identified my speaker set up, 5.1.4 in this case, and went immediately to room correction. I wanted to try the Pioneer Advanced MCACC first. I started the test by pressing the Home Button on the remote, navigating to the Full Auto MCACC menu selection, inserting the calibration microphone, and sitting it at the first of up to nine positions. Like other room correction schemes, the program first forced a subwoofer confirmation using a test tone and cycled through each speaker with a series of sweep tones. The Pioneer Advanced MCACC moves quickly through the calibration.

There is also a manual version of the Pioneer Advanced MCACC where you can later tweak what was automatically done with the auto version. Listening to and then looking at the results posted in the manual MCACC verified that speaker distance and levels were accurately set by the complete auto run-through of the Advanced MCACC. The Pioneer Advanced MCACC system seemed to work just fine and provided a competent room calibration.

Pioneer also provides Dirac Live calibration. The supplied DIRAC Live is the full bandwidth 20Hz to 20kHz version and NOT THE LITE VERSION, sometimes supplied by other manufacturers. The free-to-download Pioneer Remote App can be installed and used on your phone or tablet device to access DIRAC Live. I downloaded and installed the Pioneer Remote App from the Apple App Store onto my iPad and jumped right in. If you already have DIRAC installed on a laptop and a calibrated microphone, you can also use that and upload the DIRAC files to the Pioneer.

The Pioneer implementation offers up two versions of DIRAC Live. The "Quick" three-position and the "Full" nine-position calibration. I started with the "Quick" calibration just for "giggles and grins" and found it was easily accomplished and quickly done. In comparing it to the Pioneer Advanced MCACC calibration results, I found it very close to the same with possibly additional clarity and impact in the lower registers.

Next was the "Full" DIRAC Live calibration using all nine microphone positions. I took another listen post-calibration, using some of my "reference" music and movie material. The DIRAC "Full" version was my definite choice among the three calibration schemes offered. The room response was smooth and presented with added clarity over the Advanced MCACC, "Quick" version, or DIRAC Live. The most significant difference again seemed to be in the bass regions. After calibration with DIRAC, the lower end was better defined, balanced, and dynamic.

While the "Full" DIRAC Live calibration was the clear winner, the differences and improvements were not huge, glaring, in-your-face changes but were easily noted when listening.

Of course, never content to leave well enough alone, I dove into the Manual DIRAC curve editor and tweaked the results to my liking. The manual tweaks were quickly done and totally satisfying!

As is becoming the usual, virtual slots are available to hold three different versions of the DIRAC calibration results for instant recall through the Pioneer Remote App.

 

[PENG]

In my experience, Dirac does not need a curtain, or tweeks. Audyssey definitely does need the curtain, because it makes 'idiotic' adjustments to the higher frequencies, and it does not compare to Dirac Bass Live, in the bass region. Audyssey required a 10dB boost in the bass on my system, and was still not as flat as Dirac, and reduce sub 20htz bass.

But of course it is all room and equipment dependent...

Subjective, personal preference, skill and knowledge level (related to how to use the software) are usually the reasons why some/or many people said what they said about Audyssey. That makes it a fact that some said Audyssey made things worse, or better, even better than Dirac Live, and vice versa. That's why there is no point debating with users which one is better or worst based on what they said they heard.

It is however, lots of factual things base on measurements such as what I commented before, that for someone who doesn't want to spend time making adjustments post calibration, Dirac Live will yield better results based on measurements with a mic and software such as REW, in terms of smoother frequency response and better impulse response. I typically say "would" but in this case I am confident enough to say "will, that is DL will do better, on paper, objectively that is...

Now if some someone (me included) who are willing to spend time tweaking, as guided by feedback from measurement results in every step, and that could take hours or days, Audyssey could also yield similar or in some cases, better results.

I agree with you that it is all room and equipment dependent too, so what I said above is a variable thing, for example, in some room/equipment setups, it might only take a few minutes to tweak either Audyssey, or DL, to excellent results (on paper), while in others such as my rooms, it could take many hours.

Both are excellent tools if you know how to go about it. Audyssey may be better for people on a tighter budget as it comes included for D+M users, for DL you have to pay for the licenses and that could set you back from $350 to $800 and that's without ART. Audyssey typically only costs $20 to buy the app, or $200 for the much more friendly and easier to use app.

Some claim there's no PEQ for Audyssey and DL, but that's not totally true, because on functionality basis, instead of just "terminology/the term PEQ", I would argue that Audyssey and DL are actually superior than the PEQ that people tend to use with a basic minidsp device or Yamaha AVRs/AVPs. Take a look of the following graphs that show how I could implement something similar to using PEQs, achieved simply by editing the target curves.

Audyssey:
Here I used 13 points, if you were to use a minidsp 2X4HD or a Yamah AVR, you are probably limited to less than 10, whereas with Audyssey, you could use practically as many as you want, same with Dirac Live.

Dirac Live:

Here, I did more than 30 points.

It is easy to see that with either one, you can shape your target curve to your taste if transparency/accuracy is not your thing!

 

[PENG]

Below is an evaluation of Dirac vs MCACC on the avnirvana review of my AVR.
Sure doesn't sound like the Dirac was worth $349 if I had to add it like I would with a Denon.
Of course, this review is subjective.

How true!! Unfortunately, people like us can emphasize this 10X a day on forums, many people (not everyone, thankfully..) continue to make statements as though their experience represents facts that apply to everyone.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Totally ridiculous what Dirac charges to add Dirac to the Denon units.

My Pioneer AVR comes with the full-bandwidth version (20Hz – 20KHz) of Dirac.
Dirac wants $349 USD to add that to the Denon capable models.
Talk about price gouging !!

You are right but the extra dollars converted my Ford AV10 (Marantz) into a Ferrari. Of course, the wife thought I had bought a Ferrari to begin with...

 

[Paul McNeil]

Subjective, personal preference, skill and knowledge level (related to how to use the software) are usually the reasons why some/or many people said what they said about Audyssey.

Well, in my case I made REW measurements, to confirm what Audyessey and Dirac did to the sound from my systems. Of course, I still cannot evaluate my

"Subjective, personal preference, skill and knowledge..."! All I have is REW...

 

[isolar8001]

Well, in my case I made REW measurements, to confirm what Audyessey and Dirac did to the sound from my systems. Of course, I still cannot evaluate myView attachment 67944 "Subjective, personal preference, skill and knowledge..."! All I have is REW...

Audyssey is famous for ruining bass and cutting highs...as per your results.
(I had a Denon but dumped it...not a fan of Audyssey and Dynamic EQ/Volume.)

Looks like you could have got the same results by raising/adjusting levels and playing with the manual EQ though.
(But isn't that what these correction programs are doing anyhow?)

 

[Paul McNeil]

Audyssey is famous for ruining bass and cutting highs...as per your results.
(I had a Denon but dumped it...not a fan of Audyssey and Dynamic EQ/Volume.)

Looks like you could have got the same results by raising/adjusting levels and playing with the manual EQ though.
(But isn't that what these correction programs are doing anyhow?)

Yes, I could and did get similar (but not as accurate or as low, sub 20 htz) results in the bass region with Audyssey, by adjusting bass gain by 8-10dB, but I had lost faith in Audyssey. And the high end is also superior with Dirac. Now I have to tweek Dirac, by moving the dots in to elevate the ~100-500 htz, 'warmth region'.

 

[dlaloum]

Ive decided to rerun the narrow positions. The middle one. Im going to keep that as my default, save it as RAW and then screw around with the handles as you say and save diff ones. The cool thing I do like is that I can save up to three slots and with the controller just go thru them. I do think its cool, Just not 100% sold on it yet. I did accu eq and well it didnt sound as good as dirac IMO. It was missing the enveloping sound that dirac gave me.
What kind of confuses me is the crossovers it gives. Sometimes its giving diff crossovers for diff speakers even though the speakers are the same. Accu EQ gave me 30hz as my front crossovers. Diract gives me 70 which Im thinking is more accurate?
My sub is at 120 but to tighten it do I just drop it to say 100 or 90? This is all on my Onkyo of course.

It's not perfect... the algorhythms have multiple possible "correct" answers... and many people have observed that some manual adjustments of the XO's have improved or degraded things...

If you have the equipment and the inclination, measurements with REW of the post Dirac EQ result in your space, can sometimes identify issues, which can then be corrected by shifting the XO slightly (followed by remeasure, re EQ, and recheck with REW!)

It would be nice if Dirac also provided an ability to measure post EQ, to verify the software estimates - and potentially go into a feedback loop of subsequent adjustments.... but if wishes were fishes...