Integra DRX-8.4 11.2CH Flagship AVR Better than Denon?

P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I think the PC version Dirac doesn’t downsample as much as the AVR based room correction. I could be wrong though. Not sure if that is a factor or not.
The limit is 192 kHz. For AV processors, it could be 192, 96, or 48, it is up to the manufacturers, who have to choose based on the dsp capability.
 
A

Andrein

Senior Audioholic
The limit is 192 kHz. For AV processors, it could be 192, 96, or 48, it is up to the manufacturers, who have to choose based on the dsp capability.
So it looks like there is a little we can do to explain transparency Dirac gives if before and after charts look similar - just based on the REW charts themselves. I am mostly talking about 500+hz range. Or maybe we should look at phase + spl rather than just spl charts?
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
You need to still use 1/24th oct smoothing but reduce vertical scale to 50dB. Also, measure multiple points, not single point. You can then spatially average the cluster of measurements without smoothing to get a better picture of what's going on.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Ok, I was able to get better results (Slot 3) by increasing the crossover on the subwoofer itself to 140 Hz and measuring all 14 points with Dirac, and setting a 90 Hz crossover.
View attachment 61831
That's exactly what @flak3 suggested when I sent him my file, that is to use 90 Hz instead of the 70 Hz DLBC default to. Your results indicate the final version isn't all that different than my trial version. That is, DLBC still has a way (a little bit) to go to further improve its effectiveness in integrated the bass capable speakers with the subs. It is a smart move that at least they make it very easy to change the crossover.

Your results is now very good, almost as smooth as what I manage to achieve with XT32 SubEQ HT+ hours of tweaking with Ratbuddyssey. DLBC, like DL3, is also consistently good if you look at the impulse response, better than Audyssey and Anthem ARCG for sure.

Gene just suggested you measure other mic positions too. I agree with him, but every time I did that, even with Audyssey, the other positions would not look at good, even much worse for some positions, but they pretty much always did better than if you disable the RC. I am sure you will find the same. That is one thing I found different than Matthew Poes, who found that some times RC (Audyssey specifically, as he mentioned in one video), would do good for the mmp but messed up for other positions within the listening bubble.
 
ban25

ban25

Audioholic
Gene just suggested you measure other mic positions too. I agree with him, but every time I did that, even with Audyssey, the other positions would not look at good, even much worse for some positions, but they pretty much always did better than if you disable the RC. I am sure you will find the same. That is one thing I found different than Matthew Poes, who found that some times RC (Audyssey specifically, as he mentioned in one video), would do good for the mmp but messed up for other positions within the listening bubble.
I'll try multiple measurements, as well as off and on, as Gene suggested. I will say that I am getting a wider field of corrected sound with Dirac compared to my previous Audyssey calibration (manually tweaked with MultEQ-X). I have Slot 3 set to wide correction for multiple viewers and Slot 2 for MLP only. I'll need to find a use for Slot 1. :D
 
H

hometheaterworld

Audiophyte
Ok, I was able to get better results (Slot 3) by increasing the crossover on the subwoofer itself to 140 Hz and measuring all 14 points with Dirac, and setting a 90 Hz crossover.
View attachment 61831
Sorry, silly question, but is this post-calibration with Dirac Live and DLBC? No more EQ will be applied? Because it looks... uneven :)
 
ban25

ban25

Audioholic
Sorry, silly question, but is this post-calibration with Dirac Live and DLBC? No more EQ will be applied? Because it looks... uneven :)
Correct, this is post EQ. Note that this is actually measured response in room versus the "predicted" curves most Room EQ software will show you.
 
H

hometheaterworld

Audiophyte
Correct, this is post EQ. Note that this is actually measured response in room versus the "predicted" curves most Room EQ software will show you.
Hmm, thanks. I guess I have to lower my expectations on what Dirac can achieve in a bad room (like mine). Here is my current center+subs measurement in my room, no speaker EQ/calibration applied, only to the subs up to 80 Hz with a MiniDSP. Do you think I would benefit from DLBC, or should I just get a receiver that supports a limited range Dirac Live to EQ my LCR speakers up to 500 Hz?

Center_wSubs.jpg
 
ban25

ban25

Audioholic
Hmm, thanks. I guess I have to lower my expectations on what Dirac can achieve in a bad room (like mine). Here is my current center+subs measurement in my room, no speaker EQ/calibration applied, only to the subs up to 80 Hz with a MiniDSP. Do you think I would benefit from DLBC, or should I just get a receiver that supports a limited range Dirac Live to EQ my LCR speakers up to 500 Hz?

View attachment 61987
Is DLBC worth the money? On balance, I'd say no. Now, with multiple subs in your case, it could be worth it, but then again, the multi-sub license is (yet another) additional expense.
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
My thinking....

First the Room EQ is an outcome - it shouldn't be a target... (as per postings by Floyd Toole)

It will vary from room to room, as well as from speaker to speaker.... the Room imposes its response primarily in the under 500Hz range... but reflective surfaces can affect the high frequencies as well, although our ears will mostly filter things out psychoacoustically as long as the reflected sound is sufficiently delayed from the direct sound.

Hence the flaw with the use of the "Target Curve" - it includes the reflected sound which our ears filter out!

So step one - have a set of speakers you LIKE the sound of.... ie: the direct sound of the speakers is good.
Step two, apply RoomEQ to adjust response below 500Hz
Step three - use the response of the main speakers as a template to define a target curve for the other speakers (ie: voice the surrounds, heights and possibly center, to match the mains) - apply this Target curve to everything except the mains. (if the mains and center are tonally matched, don't apply to center)

In a perfect world, we would use methods such as time gating (measuring response within a limited timespan from the original signal, so as to exclude reflections) to define the target curve from the mains.

One of the potential benefits of ART, once it gets extended further up the frequency range, will be the potential for it to actively cancel some of the reflections that can muddy the sound.

Based on what it does, it may also provide us with the ability to identify/see/measure the direct sound without the reflections, and therefore define the required "direct" target curve.
 
A

Andrein

Senior Audioholic
My thinking....

First the Room EQ is an outcome - it shouldn't be a target... (as per postings by Floyd Toole)

It will vary from room to room, as well as from speaker to speaker.... the Room imposes its response primarily in the under 500Hz range... but reflective surfaces can affect the high frequencies as well, although our ears will mostly filter things out psychoacoustically as long as the reflected sound is sufficiently delayed from the direct sound.

Hence the flaw with the use of the "Target Curve" - it includes the reflected sound which our ears filter out!

So step one - have a set of speakers you LIKE the sound of.... ie: the direct sound of the speakers is good.
Step two, apply RoomEQ to adjust response below 500Hz
Step three - use the response of the main speakers as a template to define a target curve for the other speakers (ie: voice the surrounds, heights and possibly center, to match the mains) - apply this Target curve to everything except the mains. (if the mains and center are tonally matched, don't apply to center)

In a perfect world, we would use methods such as time gating (measuring response within a limited timespan from the original signal, so as to exclude reflections) to define the target curve from the mains.

One of the potential benefits of ART, once it gets extended further up the frequency range, will be the potential for it to actively cancel some of the reflections that can muddy the sound.

Based on what it does, it may also provide us with the ability to identify/see/measure the direct sound without the reflections, and therefore define the required "direct" target curve.
Do you like how it sounds with Dirac? I have done my calibration using PC license and I don't like it. I prefer the sound without Dirac. Haven't done REW measurements yet though
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Do you like how it sounds with Dirac? I have done my calibration using PC license and I don't like it. I prefer the sound without Dirac. Haven't done REW measurements yet though
How it sounds is sujective. It makes my desktop speakers sound like they have been upgraded to something that sounds more transparent. The tower speakers sound better with DL too but not as obvious as that with the desktop pair. To evaluate them objectively, using REW is a better way for sure.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Do you like how it sounds with Dirac? I have done my calibration using PC license and I don't like it. I prefer the sound without Dirac. Haven't done REW measurements yet though
Welcome to your life. :D

Join the anti-RC group which includes me, TLS Guy and probably 50% of people since It is subjective. :D

I can see objectively that RC, even YPAO, make the FR graphs look smoother. But subjective SQ is another matter.
 
Last edited:
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
Do you like how it sounds with Dirac? I have done my calibration using PC license and I don't like it. I prefer the sound without Dirac. Haven't done REW measurements yet though
Yes - I do indeed like how it sounds with Dirac - moving from an older Audyssey XT32 based setup, it sounded immediately noticeably better than with no roomeq or with Audyssey.

And this was using the default Dirac setup with the Smartphone and AVR only - later I used the PC app to further adjust the target curves etc....
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
Welcome to your life. :D

Join the anti-RC group which includes me, TLS Guy and probably 50% of people since It is subjective. :D

I can see objectively that RC, even YPAO, make the FR graphs look smoother. But subjective SQ is another matter.
With Audyssey, I preferred no RoomEQ, with Dirac, I prefer with RoomEQ.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Full Audioholic
I will run Dirac on my rig....some day. For fun I guess.
So far I've been happy without it...did run MCACC for delays and standing waves though.
 
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
I will run Dirac on my rig....some day. For fun I guess.
So far I've been happy without it...did run MCACC for delays and standing waves though.
I tried AccuEQ on my integra (MCACC rebranding on Onkyo and Integra gear, after they bought Pioneer) - it was surprisingly good, and also quick and easy compared to Dirac.

But Dirac did do a slightly better job... particularly with Dialogue/midrange intelligibility and imaging.

(note: all of this is heavily room and speaker dependent.... so YMMV! - save your settings in a config file, in case you find the MCACC results better than the Dirac ones, so you can easily go back to them!)
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Full Audioholic
I tried AccuEQ on my integra (MCACC rebranding on Onkyo and Integra gear, after they bought Pioneer) - it was surprisingly good, and also quick and easy compared to Dirac.

But Dirac did do a slightly better job... particularly with Dialogue/midrange intelligibility and imaging.

(note: all of this is heavily room and speaker dependent.... so YMMV! - save your settings in a config file, in case you find the MCACC results better than the Dirac ones, so you can easily go back to them!)

I always save config files and name them for their differences...handy feature.
I've almost started Dirac a number of times, but every time I see all the level matching and such I just say "why does this expensive smartass program need me at all ?"
I'm in a real small room with my gear and its pretty stellar...I think MCACC does a good job also.
I haven't really had any issues to the point where i might think that Dirac will make all better.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I will run Dirac on my rig....some day. For fun I guess.
Yeah gotta do it for fun and giggles. :D

I tried AccuEQ on my integra (MCACC rebranding on Onkyo and Integra gear, after they bought Pioneer) - it was surprisingly good, and also quick and easy compared to Dirac.

But Dirac did do a slightly better job... particularly with Dialogue/midrange intelligibility and imaging.
Wow. As much as Dirac costs and is raved about, it did a SLIGHTLY better job than MCACC?
 
Last edited:
D

dlaloum

Full Audioholic
Yeah gotta do it for fun and giggles. :D



Wow. As much as Dirac costs and is raved about, it did a SLIGHTLY better job than MCACC?
It's all relative - I was surprised how good MCACC/AccuEq was.

On the other hand - my mains are pretty good, and the room doesn't make the struggle - so it is always a matter of additional detail rather than dramatic changes.

The dialogue is something that has been troubling me for years, and Dirac has made dialogue a lot more intelligible - which is interesting - I was expecting changes in the bass, when where it really made a difference was in the midrange. - So much for limiting roomeq to below 500Hz!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top