I found dirac to have a more diffuse wall of sound compared to trinnov which has uncanny 3d holographic imaging. These solutions areĭefinitely not for amateurs, and the assumption is the advanced users know what they are doing and understand how it all works.ĭoes it really matter ? At the end of it all, as all these packages have a subjective target curve applied, you just do what sounds best for you. Instead they direct to outside apps or a workaround which is not in the manual. It would not be difficult to introduce simple "filter validation" function. My take is Dirac hopes to avoid the situation where amateur users (vast majority of applications) accuse them of misrepresenting the filter effects shown in the simulated curve. The conclusion (in blue) is that you can measure the calibrated curve, even with Dirac - "if you want".
It's not hard to see some wishy-washy talk and contradictions in the above. The reason the Dirac Live Calibration Tool disables filtering is that most measurements will not be for validation but for room analysis, and in this case any filtering has to be disabled. If this method is selected it is very important to note that the Dirac Live Calibration Tool will disable filtering in the Dirac Audio Processor before each measurement, and you will have to enable it manually real quick. If you want to measure the result of the filter you can either use some application such as HOLMImpulse, or you can select the Dirac Audio Processor as the output device on the sound setup page. It is also important to compare a validation measurement to the curve that corresponds to that measurement position and not the average curve. However, for a measurement to produce the predicted curve the microphone need to be in the exactly same position, otherwise the result will just be close to the prediction. Together with the spatial robustness of the Dirac Live room correction technology this will result in a filter that sounds good in a large area. Their average is the basis for the filter calculations.
In order to avoid optimizing the filter for a really small area at the expense of the actual listening area, multiple measurements are used, taken in different points. In theory the curve can be totally different just a small distance away from it, but in practice this is rarely the case. The predicted response may look too good to be true, but it is important to interpret the curves in the right way the prediction curves show the response in exactly the point each curve is based on.
Only one must-do: the central position first measurement. Performance because the microphone positions need some spread in order to acquire enough acoustical information about the room.Įlsewhere there is information that even the number of nine mic positions is "typical" or "approximate" (marked with tilde). Taking all measurements close to the sweet spot will generally not give optimum You may use a different set of microphone positions. However, the microphone positions are not required to be in exactly these positions - if your listening environment looks different then Using the microphone positions indicated by the Dirac Live Calibration Tool™ will generally give you consistent results. I revisited Dirac after more than a year and dug up these: Even in that case, low frequency distortion will be much lower with multi subs. It would have to be a truly exceptional room very large and very well designed. If multi subs are properly integrated and well setup, I find it very hard to believe anyone would prefer 2Ch R/L setup over a multi sub setup. This is especially true if you have ported R/L speakers. Would you buy a pair of speakers that didn’t have crossovers and weren’t time coherent between the drivers?(other than planar). It’s never a good idea to integrate subs without proper crossovers and delays. If anyone is attempting to integrate multiple subs with Dirac, you are wasting your time. IME, if you stick with 1/12 per octave smoothing in REW, things will line up very well with Acourate or Audiolense predicted result. When you loopback using REW, REW doesn’t use the same psychoacoustic smoothing as the DSP software. However, Acourate does allow the user to choose different smoothing for the filter and consequently the predicted response.
#SOUND QUALITY PSPPS SOFTWARE#
Therefore, each software reflects that psychoacoustic filter in their predicted response. The filtering is based on psychoacoustics. Maybe is talking about the predicted frequency response? Each DSP software uses its own special way of filtering prior to inversion. Dirac is a little harder to make the comparison because it uses the (useless) impulse response. I’ve compared the predicted step response in Acourate and Audiolense to REW loopback.