[Lumen]

Isn't that exactly the point of having user-adjustable target curves? That you can adjust them to your own preference? This is a big step up from Audyssey where the target curve they prefer is the one you are forced to use, even if your own preference is somewhat different.

Sorry, should have been more clear: I was referring to a customized version of the triangle-hypotenuse mic location pattern, not house curves. Sent from my iPad using HTShack

 

[kbarnes70]

Sorry, should have been more clear: I was referring to a customized version of the triangle-hypotenuse mic location pattern, not house curves. Sent from my iPad using HTShack

Ah, OK. Sorry for misunderstanding. I am currently using a random mic placement pattern, recommended by Flavio of Dirac. First position is at MLP of course and the other 8 positions are 'random' around the listening area (which is a single person environment for me). Of the 8, some are higher than MLP, some lower. This has worked very well for me, but then so did the 'regular' pattern described in the Dirac Live user manual.

 

[Lumen]

I am currently using a random mic placement pattern, recommended by Flavio of Dirac. First position is at MLP of course and the other 8 positions are 'random' around the listening area (which is a single person environment for me). Of the 8, some are higher than MLP, some lower. This has worked very well for me, but then so did the 'regular' pattern described in the Dirac Live user manual.

No problem! Do you know if Flavio's recommendation matches the mic pattern shown in the software? For example, do you know if it matters if you do upper left mic location before lower right mic location; or does he recommend following all the mic locations in the same specific order?

Sent from my iPad using HTShack

 

[kbarnes70]

No problem! Do you know if Flavio's recommendation matches the mic pattern shown in the software? For example, do you know if it matters if you do upper left mic location before lower right mic location; or does he recommend following all the mic locations in the same specific order?

Sent from my iPad using HTShack

The order of the mic positions after the first is irrelevant - do them in any order that is convenient. Flavio's suggested mic positioning is slightly different to the pattern shown in the app, which uses a regular placement of 4 high and 4 low (relative to MLP No1 position).

Here are Flavio's suggested positions:

As you can, basically he has moved two of the upper tier and two of the lower tier positions away from the corners. I think this demonstrates that precise positioning is not needed, and I personally don't slavishly follow Flavio but use a pattern 'in the spirit' of his. So long as you get good coverage through the listening area, you are good to go.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Isn't that exactly the point of having user-adjustable target curves? That you can adjust them to your own preference? This is a big step up from Audyssey where the target curve they prefer is the one you are forced to use, even if your own preference is somewhat different.

I tend to agree. Dirac easily gives me the soundstage & imaging, I throw my favored target curve onto that, and Voila!

A key seems to be the size of the mic pattern. Big enough, but not too big. My experience has been:

• If soundstage and imaging are weird, a bigger, more random mic pattern is needed.
• If frequency response pre-optimization is too wild, indicating it will vary a lot over the listening area, a smaller mic pattern is needed.

About a 3-foot radius for two-channel has given me great results.
Trying to optimize more than three adjacent seats for home theater seems to be too much.

 

[AudiocRaver]

The order of the mic positions after the first is irrelevant - do them in any order that is convenient. Flavio's suggested mic positioning is slightly different to the pattern shown in the app, which uses a regular placement of 4 high and 4 low (relative to MLP No1 position).

Here are Flavio's suggested positions:

As you can, basically he has moved two of the upper tier and two of the lower tier positions away from the corners. I think this demonstrates that precise positioning is not needed, and I personally don't slavishly follow Flavio but use a pattern 'in the spirit' of his. So long as you get good coverage through the listening area, you are good to go.

I concur completely. My understanding of this is the diagrams are intended as examples to give the idea what kind of coverage tends to work. Flavio has also suggested "randomizing" the pattern, which is what I do with great success. The order after the first measurement makes no difference.

Part of the reason for showing a specific pattern and order is that some users want nothing left to chance, want to be told EXACTLY how to do it, so Dirac/miniDSP would get bugged to death if they didn't show a pretty specific approach, even though there is actually a lot of leeway allowable.

 

[Lumen]

The order of the mic positions after the first is irrelevant - do them in any order that is convenient.

I concur completely. My understanding of this is the diagrams are intended as examples to give the idea what kind of coverage tends to work. Flavio has also suggested "randomizing" the pattern, which is what I do with great success. The order after the first measurement makes no difference. Part of the reason for showing a specific pattern and order is that some users want nothing left to chance, want to be told EXACTLY how to do it, so Dirac/miniDSP would get bugged to death if they didn't show a pretty specific approach, even though there is actually a lot of leeway allowable.

Thank you both. It all makes so much more sense now! Some people need boundaries. They will get very good results. Some people like to think they don't need boundaries. They're the ones that will still get very good results despite themselves. Then there's the rest who don't think about boundaries, and wind up setting them for the other two factions. And don't forget the software itself. Dirac Live room correction is an accomplishment to be proud of!

Sent from my iPad using HTShack

 

[kbarnes70]

I tend to agree. Dirac easily gives me the soundstage & imaging, I throw my favored target curve onto that, and Voila!

A key seems to be the size of the mic pattern. Big enough, but not too big. My experience has been:

• If soundstage and imaging are weird, a bigger, more random mic pattern is needed.
• If frequency response pre-optimization is too wild, indicating it will vary a lot over the listening area, a smaller mic pattern is needed.

About a 3-foot radius for two-channel has given me great results.
Trying to optimize more than three adjacent seats for home theater seems to be too much.

I use a random mic pattern similar to Flavio's and my mic positions are spread over about a 3 to 4 foot area. Although my use is for HT specifically, I am only concerned with optimising one seat and this pattern seems to work very well for that, confirming your own experience.

 

[grandpixel]

"SS&I are not directly measurable. There are those who will argue that because of this fact they do not exist, and therefore are not worth pursuing." And they would be right. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it, end of story.

What you are likely experiencing is a combination of time alignment, harmonics, directionality, reflections, etc. all of which can be measured. To make up a term and say it can't be measured but it's there is totally bogus.

 

[Lumen]

"SS&I are not directly measurable.

For now.

There are those who will argue that because of this fact they do not exist, and therefore are not worth pursuing." And they would be right. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it, end of story.

Opinion & Ostrich Syndrome (OO&S). Not fact. Using your logic, we'd still be listening in mono and sound waves wouldn't have existed before corresponding experiments proved otherwise. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? There are those who would argue "no", because there's no one around to hear it. Then there are those who would argue "yes", because the tree striking the ground creates an outwardly-expanding change in atmospheric pressure that can be measured. It's a trick philosophical question based on science. Both sides of the equation are correct. So if a person can't hear - or chooses not to hear - an acoustic phenomenon based on physics (sound reproduction) and psychoacoustics (sound interpretation), then it's my opinion that particular person suffers from OO&S.

What you are likely experiencing is a combination of time alignment, harmonics, directionality, reflections, etc. all of which can be measured.

And don't forget recording techniques purposely utilized to create and enhance SS&I (Soundstage and Imaging)! Do the math. Why would recording engineers manipulate instrument size and positions across a soundstage if they didn't exist? SS&I is not something you have to strain to hear in a properly set up system. If it's in the recording, it's blatantly obvious during playback. Period. End of story.

To make up a term and say it can't be measured but it's there is totally bogus.

SS&I is referenced extensively in audio and acoustic circles. A quick Google search will serve as verification. Use the search term "soundstage and imaging" (between quotes).
OO&S (Opinion & Ostrich Syndrome) is a term I made up. It also can't be measured, but it's still out there!

MORAL OF THE STORY:
If you can't measure it and can't hear it, try setting it up properly and listen!
If you can't measure it but can hear it, you've measured the wrong thing!

 

[AudiocRaver]

"SS&I are not directly measurable. There are those who will argue that because of this fact they do not exist, and therefore are not worth pursuing." And they would be right. If you can't measure it, you can't hear it, end of story.

To make up a term and say it can't be measured but it's there is totally bogus.

This is true.

• I did not make up the terms. The terms have been around for ages, I have no idea who came up with them.
• I did not say they are are not measurable, I said they are not directly measurable. There is no Imaging graph or Soundstage plot that is commonly available with a tool like Room EQ Wizard, or with any kind of meter or scope.
• It is true that there are many components which contribute, and some of them are very easily measurable. I have seen one attempt to combine frequency response and phase into an imaging plot, but it was very rudimentary attempt, not very informative.
• In broad strokes terms, it is possible to show that the experience can be shared across a group of listeners. Poor SS&I vs. good SS&I is not difficult to discriminate. There are many examples through our forums of suggestions for improving SS&I which have been implemented and those implementing them have almost universally agreed that the improvement is dramatic. The common terms used in the descriptions of their results indicate that there is commonality in those experiences.

 

[FargateOne]

This is true.

[*]In broad strokes terms, it is possible to show that the experience can be shared across a group of listeners. Poor SS&I vs. good SS&I is not difficult to discriminate. There are many examples through our forums of suggestions for improving SS&I which have been implemented and those implementing them have almost universally agreed that the improvement is dramatic. The common terms used in the descriptions of their results indicate that there is commonality in those experiences.
[/LIST]

It is my experience (imho) and one reason why I would like, one day, to try Dirac Live.

For instance, I am currently making experiences between bitstreams and PCM from my blue-ray player to my receiver (in order to decide if I nanoAvr DL could be a good idea). In theory there is no difference. Not in fact for me. I can not measure it but I am sure that there is a difference in SS&I. Decoding in the blue-ray player (mine is maybe not the best but I think it is not a cheap one) does not give the same result than in the receiver. It changes the sound and the image to my ears. If I was able to do science, I would like to try to measure the difference.

 

[AudiocRaver]

Others have reported experiences like this, too. In all honesty, I assumed there would be none and never even tried it (a listening test) to see if there was a difference. It could be very surprising and informative. I will try it myself one of these days.

 

[wes]

I wonder if and when other AVR manufacturer will incorporate DIRAC

 

[tonyvdb]

Its a cost factor, Just like the Trinnov Optimizer wont likely bee seen in any other units.

 

[bkeeler10]

You may already know about Emotiva's XMC-1. Also, announced at CEDIA are the Arcam AVR550 ($3400) and AVR850 ($6000); both are Atmos/DTS:X receivers that implement full Dirac Live on all channels. And, while they are expensive, if you're looking for Dirac Live on an 11-channel Atmos system, the price is reasonable compared to the only other option for that configuration (which would be two of the miniDSP DDRC-88A ($1k each) between some other Atmos AVR and external amps). Arcam also has the SR250 which is just two-channel and runs Dirac Live, but the value is not there IMO ($3600).

Audio Control also debuted two Atmos/DTS:X AVRs at CEDIA, the Concert AVR-7 ($4200) and AVR-9 ($6200). Same thing: 11-channels and Dirac Live on all channels.

Edit: Should point out that all four multichannel units process 11 channels, but only drive 7 channels of speakers internally, requiring 4 channels of outboard amplification for the additional four speakers.

 

[wes]

You may already know about Emotiva's XMC-1. Also, announced at CEDIA are the Arcam AVR550 ($3400) and AVR850 ($6000); both are Atmos/DTS:X receivers that implement full Dirac Live on all channels. And, while they are expensive, if you're looking for Dirac Live on an 11-channel Atmos system, the price is reasonable compared to the only other option for that configuration (which would be two of the miniDSP DDRC-88A ($1k each) between some other Atmos AVR and external amps). Arcam also has the SR250 which is just two-channel and runs Dirac Live, but the value is not there IMO ($3600).

Audio Control also debuted two Atmos/DTS:X AVRs at CEDIA, the Concert AVR-7 ($4200) and AVR-9 ($6200). Same thing: 11-channels and Dirac Live on all channels.

Edit: Should point out that all four multichannel units process 11 channels, but only drive 7 channels of speakers internally, requiring 4 channels of outboard amplification for the additional four speakers.

The question is to find dealers in the US that sells ARCAM?

 

[bkeeler10]

Check the dealer locator here. I found two in my area. I don't know what their dealer base is like, but I would think it shouldn't be too hard to get.

 

[FargateOne]

We have one dealer in Québec:neener:

 

[FargateOne]

We have one in Québec

More seriously I doubt that I will have the budget. But all those new avr with maybe the reason why Emotiva lowered the prices these days !?