# Sticky  Audyssey XT32 vs. Dirac Live Listening Comparison



## AudiocRaver

*Audyssey XT32 vs. Dirac Live Listening Comparison*


*Introduction*

Last year HTS published a review of a the miniDSP DDRC-22D, a two-channel Dirac Live Digital Room Correction (DRC) product. The review included a comparison to Audyssey XT. A number of readers requested a comparison of Dirac Live with Audyssey XT32. That comparison was recently completed during the Home Theater Shack High-End Amplifier Evaluation Event at Sonnie Parker's Cedar Creek Cinema in rural Alabama. This report provides the results of that comparison.


*Test Approach, Equipment, and Environment; Abbreviations*


*Measurement Methods* 




*Test Approach*

Audyssey, Dirac Research, and miniDSP executives were contacted for input on our test methods. All were very helpful, and although our final test was almost certainly not conducted the way they would have done it, their advice was key in our finding an approach that we could be confident led to a fair comparison.
Calibration Microphones used were those normally provided with and recommended for the individual DRC products. The Denon calibration mic was supplied with the AVR-X5200. The miniDSP UMIK-1 is normally supplied with the nanoAVR DL. The one used belonged to Sonnie Parker and was calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs. It was used in the vertical orientation with the 90-degree calibration file supplied by Cross Spectrum Labs.
The nanoAVR DL was chosen as the Dirac Live platform because it would be processor and memory bound, as is Audyssey XT32 in any AVR. Specific processor and memory capability comparisons are difficult and involve proprietary information, so that choice was the best we could do to level the playing field. Had we used a PC-based Dirac Live platform, it would have had a clear advantage in processing and memory support over an XT32 implementation. The Dirac Live setup utility was run on a Windows 7 laptop.
*Test Equipment*

Oppo BDP-105D Blu-ray Player.
miniDSP nanoAVR DL HDMI Audio processor with 7.1 Dirac Live Room Correction, provided by miniDSP, a Home Theater Shack sponsor.
Denon AVR-X5200 Network A/V Receiver with Audyssey XT32 Room Correction. The Audysse Pro Kit was not available.
Parasound HALO A31 Power Amplifier.
MartinLogan ESL Hybrid Elecrostatic Loudspeakers.
Asus G74SX Laptop, Intel I7-2670QM @ 2.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 Memory, Windows 7 64-bit, Room EQ Wizard, foobar2000, Reaper DAW.
Bosch DLR130 Laser Distance Measurer.
*Test Environment*

Cedar Creek Cinema is a treated home cinema room generously provided by Sonnie Parker.
Other activities of the weekend had led to room treatment changes that gave us very good imaging and soundstage characteristics before the application of XT32 or Dirac Live.
*Abbreviations*

AVR = Audio/Video Receiver
DRC = Digital Room Correction (used generically, not referring to the freeware software product that goes by the same name)
FR = Frequency Response
LP = Listening Position, in our case the Main or Primary Listening Position
SS&I = Soundstage and Imaging, or Soundstage and Image Clarity





*Difficult Decisions: What To Compare and How*

The most important decisions about making a product or technology comparison are determining just what you are actually comparing and exactly how to make a fair apples-to-apples comparison. It is not always as easy as you might think it should be. I am convinced that most casual comparisons made between products are fraught with unaccounted-for variables, and are therefore flawed.

These were not easy decisions for the Dirac Live / XT32 comparison. In the end, we opted to complete a comparison that was very limited in scope but gave clear and meaningful answers as opposed to one that gave broad but vague results. Some readers will be disappointed in this choice, but in retrospect I stand by it as the right one, for the reasons which follow.

-----------------------

When I was writing the HTS Audyssey MultEQ FAQ and Setup Guide two years ago, it quickly became apparent that, as a somewhat particular two-channel listener, the results achieved by following the conventional guidelines for setup gave consistently unusable results for music and for movies. The soundstage was vague and image clarity was soft to nonexistent. Frequency response was not that great either.

With a little experimentation it became clear that the technology was very capable of creating great sound stage and imaging, but the emphasis was entirely upon trying to improve frequency response (FR) over a broad area with little regard for Soundstage and Imaging (SS&I). 

The only logical conclusion I could draw from this was that most listeners had never had a really great SS&I experience, and therefore did not recognize how immersive and completely engaging it could be. Since then I've become more and more convinced that this is true, even among serious and experienced listeners.

-----------------------

Why put more emphasis on SS&I versus FR, and why is this not done already?

Let's start with the second question.


Good quality SS&I are not as easy to achieve as good FR. It may be considered unachievable to the novice, and therefore automatic low priority.

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. It is clearly describable, however, and there is a common response for all who listen to the same SS&I setup.

But the biggest factor, I believe, is that most listeners have not experienced it. While not universally true, most audio lovers with whom I have talked who put enough priority on good sound to even bother with good FR are completely blown away when they hear great SS&I, and quickly prioritize it above other audio qualities. Sonny Parker spent a year as a SS&I missionary of sorts while working for a prominent speaker manufacturer as a customer service representative. Almost without exception, once he convinced a customer to "just try it" - take a few steps to prioritize SS&I in their speaker setups - he and customer service and company leadership received glowing letters and semails of thanks, that they were getting the best sound they had ever heard.
Now back to the other question. Why put more emphasis on it on SS&I?


In finer terms, human hearing is relatively insensitive to FR. We do not have a good internal reference system for flat FR. Our hearing response curve varies with sound pressure level, and is constantly adapting by accepting the status quo profile as normal and tuning it out, staying sensitive to change. This is an instinctive response. Tune out the sound of the waving grass so you might hear the footsteps of the stalking tiger. FR IS probably the most obvious quality to be noticed in a speaker or system, and often feeds our first impressions strongly, but it is far from being the defining "ultimate" quality.

You will never hear me argue against good FR. Horrible FR is very easy to perceive, and to be annoyed by. But we are talking about refinements here, not gross qualities. Our ability to gauge flat response without help is rather poor, and our tolerance for variations is fairly high, and even when it can be achieved, personal preference reigns supreme. Some like extra bass, some like less treble. Perhaps it is not the best listening quality to put at the top of the priority list.

Beyond that, SS&I engage us with three sensory systems instead of one: the auditory, the visual, and the kinesthetic. With SS&I, we can see where an instrument or vocalist sits, can gauge how far away and how large the source appears to be. Is that voice the size of a basketball? a golf ball? A pea? How big is the room the drums are being played in? What is that voice doing way over there? All three of the sensory systems with which we navigate our life experience are engaged in the interpretation and enjoyment of a music or movie experience. Audio becomes more than the series of sounds and can even convince the psycho-acoustical brain that instruments and people are right there in the room with us, challenging what we know to be real. As one HTS member put it, "It messes with your head." Flat FR, while nice, does not have that effect.

Here is where some will argue that great SS&I are qualities that occur at only one spot in the room, so why put such emphasis on qualities that only one person in the room can appreciate at a time? The answer? Cases where there are more than one person in a listening room or home theater at a time who really care about the audio quality are about as rare as the muon neutrino. And when that does occur, they are not interested in pretty-good sound across two or three seats, they are far more excited about taking turns in the one seat where the sound is truly phenomenal.

It is a simple acoustical fact that averaging FR over an area, as advanced DRC products are designed to do, can only make FR at any one position worse. (To the reader who feels compelled to make a fuss about Schroder's work, hold on, we'll get to that.) The one person who cares gets mediocre sound quality so the other listeners, who probably care very little, can have mediocre sound as well. It is a totally fair auditory compromise and is pretty much a waste of time and effort.

The final reason for emphasizing SS&I is that the DRC setup process is actually easier, and can in fact be extremely easy. And, as it turns out - after all that discussion minimizing the importance of FR - Dirac Live and Audyssey MultEQ and other DRC technologies can help us get great SS&I AND flat FR at the same time.


*The Setup Mic Pattern*

The work of Schroeder and Toole and others can be used to argue that above a certain frequency, EQ is pointless because the speaker's response predominates in the sound achieved. The key word is _predominates_, and FR variations of 6 dB and more are easily possible at closely-spaced points. THAT is enough to matter. So, within a certain area, there tends to be a "room sound" which can be corrected by DRC to enhance the listening experience.

The intent of the averaging process employed by advanced DRC products like Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live is to determine that "room sound" over a certain area and correct the sound for all who sit in that area. Using widely-spread mic calibration mic patterns, these products try to make as much of the room sound good as possible. It is a nice idea.

But the result, regardless of your views on room or area FR characteristics and averaging techniques, is a compromise. Even with fuzzy logic throwing out or minimizing the importance of the worst data points (seating positions), the result will still be a compromise, making all positions sound equally mediocre and allowing none to sound really good.

All of this effort to please listeners who simply do not care. A nice democratic idea, but it kinda makes you wonder who got us going in this direction, and how differently these products might have been structured and marketed if the right people had only been exposed to a transcendent soundstage with precise image clarity in their formative years. I jest, of course. These are superbly engineered products by innovative, industry-leading companies. We simply see their best use from a different perspective, all due respect.

It is our good fortune that using these products we can attain both great SS&I AND great FR together. Which brings us, via the long route, to the listener's primary means of influencing the behavior of a DRC product like Audyssey XT32 or Dirac Live, and our decided emphasis for this product comparison: the setup mic pattern.

I wrote The Audyssey setup guide recommending setup mic patterns that emphasized SS&I at the main LP and gave great FR there at the same time. There were those who argued and those who tried the recommendations. Those who tried the recommended tightly-spaced mic setup patterns said that it sounded better. There was, however, one mic pattern that I did not include in the published guide, because I knew the amount of arguing against it would be immense. That is the single-point setup.

Here is why it works, and why it was ideal for our comparison:

As discussed, the main LP is the only one that matters 99.9% of the time.
At the main LP, the chair predominates in FR influences. Typically, a reflection and cancellation between the chair back and the ears causes a 10 to 15 dB FR dip above 1 kHz. This is not seen anywhere else in the room.
The listener's ears sit equidistant from the chair back, so any measurement point along the ear-to-ear line close to the center of the chair will measure the influence of the chair. Centered, the mic will measure speaker-to-ear timings in a way that reinforces SS&I performance and gives good FR performance at the same time.
And it fills a vital need for this exercise that was mentioned earlier: elimination of variables. With multiple mic points, how many uncontrolled variables are added? What pattern do you use? A favorite? A recommended one? Symmetrical or random? Use the same pattern for both products? How precisely can it be repeated? How do you accomplish that precision? How many times do you repeat the process to be able to trust that your result is repeatable. And how do you measure the result effectively? So many questions. With one mic point we eliminated those questions.

*The Setup Process*

Attaining the best soundstage and imaging with good FR is basically a two-step process:

Position the speakers for best SS&I without regard for FR (details beyond the scope of this article). The best SS&I at this point usually involves some off-axis listening angle, so high-frequency response will usually be down somewhat. But it will usually match fairly well between L and R channels (or else the Image Clarity would be poor), and will be improved by the second step.
Use DRC to equalize the system, correcting the FR and improving the SS&I further.
The Oppo HDMI output was run to the nanoAVR DL, which was run to the AVR's HDMI input. This series setup was used throughout testing, and either XT32 or Dirac Live or neither could be active at any one time. As a side note, at one point early on, Dirac Live was accidentally set up with XT32 active and some preliminary listening was done with both processors active. The resulting soundstage seemed very unnatural and fragmented. There may have been other variables involved, too, so this piece of data is offered as information with limited value.

It took us awhile to get everything working properly and to reach the point where a valid comparison was possible. Some of that detail is included to show how difficult it can be to accomplish such a comparison as we hoped to.

The first difficulties were with interfacing with the Denon AVR, choosing a configuration without disturbing that which Sonnie already had in use.

The ripple-upstream method was used to get HDMI configuration data to all the right places in the system, starting with the AVR, then attaching it to the nanoAVR DL and powering it on, then attaching that to the laptop used for Dirac Live configuration. It took a number of attempts to get all this to configure property, including windows 7 device settings. Then an accidental configuration change in the AVR might ripple back through the system and disrupt the configuration, not resetting to normal as as it should with the setting corrected, so the whole setup process would have to be repeated. This is not the fault of any individual product, just the way things go with digital audio sometimes.

We carefully determined the proper mic position with Sonnie sitting in the chair and then centered it after he stood up, further verifying equal distance from the two side walls with the laser distance meter. The Denon Audyssey setup mic was positioned pointed straight up and the UMIK-1 for nanoAVR DL setup was positioned pointed straight down, tip-to-tip. One would be swiveled out of the way, then moved back into place before the other was swung away, so the two setup processes were completed and measurements were taken with Room EQ Wizard without losing the measurement reference point. Once we accidentally did lose that reference point before we meant to, and we started the process over. XT32 setup was done first. then Dirac Live setup. This all happened numerous times (we lost track of the number of attempts) before we got everything running properly.

For both Dirac Live and XT32, we ran four repetitions of the measurement routine without moving the calibration mic. This was intended to give us better noise immunity. With Sonnie's system, we ran the calibration in 5.2 mode for XT32 and 5.1 mode for Dirac Live. Our listening tests involved only 2-channel material, and the system was set to Stereo with subwoofers active.

Twice we did the Dirac Live setup with Audyssey activated thinking we had turned it off. Several times we lost the AVR configuration completely and had to start from scratch. This happened twice just as evaluators were preparing to sit down and listen to the comparison. Once the laptop display froze up and it had to be re-booted, along with everything else. There were numerous reboots, restarts, resets, and a couple of exasperation breaks. Once we got completely through the configurations and it was not until we sat down to listen and compare that we realized we had forgotten to check AVR delay settings determined by the XT32 process, and there was a 1/2 foot difference between settings for the L and R front speakers. Needless to say SS&I were abysmal. we went through the whole process again. 

This is all reported to remind the potential user of the many ways that such an effort can be thrown off track, and the many ways that a user evaluation can have something go awry in the setup process, erroneously leading them to conclude that a product is unacceptable.

It is worth noting that miniDSP's instructions for achieving all of this are incredibly detailed. Our troubles were largely the nature of the often unruly digital audio system beast, of working under pressure when tired, of some quirky bad fortune, all of which I am already laughing about. With experience, much of this would go more smoothly. That said, that _beast_ sometimes just likes to bite! Note also that the final listening was done during afternoon hours after a break and a good nap when ears and brain were fresh.

At this point I have to confess that all the other evaluators were gone before we had a working comparison, and it was only Sonnie and me completing this work. I had really hoped to have those other fine sets of ears to help out with this comparison. But I am still confident in our results.


*Fine Tuning and Results*

We were set up to switch quickly between Dirac Live and XT32. XT32 could be activated or deactivated with about a two-second silence gap as the AVR switched modes from a single-button-push on the automated system remote. Dirac Live was turned on and off using a universal remote programmed to control the nanoAVR DL.

Here are the uncorrected and corrected FR measurements at the LP, as measured by Dirac Live and by Room EQ Wizard, respectively.

Measured FR at LP, no correction.
 

Measured FR at LP, Dirac Live with Default Target Curve, XT32 Reference, and XT32 Flat.
 

It was immediately apparent to my ear that there were significant differences between the corrections resulting from the XT32 and Dirac Live target curves. XT32 produces corrections using two target curves, named Reference and Flat. Dirac Live has a default target curve, which is infinitely customizable and can be saved and recalled at will. XT32 has a similar capability with the Audyssey Pro Kit, with AVRs that are Pro Kit capable. The Pro Kit was not available for this test. It was easy to identify each of the three resulting corrections and the no-correction state. The XT32 Flat and Dirac Live corrections were fairly similar in the high frequencies and a little harder to differentiate. Bass response for the Dirac Live correction was quite different from that of the two XT32 corrections. As seen below, the Dirac Live FR contour involved a steady rise from HF to LF, and both XT32 corrections had a small step-down in the LF range. Sonnie had dealt with numerous Audyssey users who were disappointed with initial Audyssey LF response, but there is no reason why subwoofers cannot be turned up to give hotter LF response if desired after calibration is complete.

This target curve difference might have some users picking Dirac Live over XT32 because of its higher default bass level without realizing that subwoofer bass levels can be increased to compensate. Modifying target curves is much more convenient and flexible. Again, the Audyssey Pro Kit makes this possible for XT32 with some AVRs.

We decided to modify the Dirac Live target curve to match the XT32 Flat target curve. It only took a few mouse clicks to make the Dirac Live curve mimic the LF response of the XT32 curves. Likewise, it only took a couple of clicks to roll off Dirac Live to match the top end of the XT32 Flat curve. Then the Dirac Live correction was reprocessed and loaded into one of the four nanoAVR DL program slots, all in less than a minute.

Dirac Live Corrected, Default Target Curve
 

Dirac Live Corrected, Subwoofer
 

Dirac Live Corrected, Target Curve Modified to match XT32 Flat
 

Finally, we had achieved an apples-to-apples comparison base. I listened through a number of familiar test tracks as Sonnie switch at will between the Dirac Live and XT32 Flat, every ten or fifteen seconds or so. Sometimes I would repeat parts of tracks, sometimes I would ask him to switch at certain points while I was listening for certain differences. The tracks included full-range rock, an orchestral piece (primarily strings), a classical piano piece, a bluegrass instrumental, and a male/female vocal track with acoustic guitar and piano backing.

The first contrast I listened for was any FR difference. Although the two target curves did not end up precise matches, they were close enough that I could not pick out any shifts in frequency content between Dirac Live and XT32 Flat. Perhaps with a track specifically chosen with content in the right frequency range, the difference might be discernible. But with the tracks chosen, I was not able to hear a FR difference.

I listened also for differences in Soundstage and Image Clarity. This is where I had expected to be able to hear a difference if there was any. I was listening for any shifts or differences in image placement or size or clarity, for any apparent differences in image definition or stability, for changes in instrument definition and detail, for changes in the overall cohesiveness and clarity of the soundstage, and for contrasts in soundstage characteristics relating to how natural and easy they were to engage with, to accept as reality.

Here is the bottom line. I could hear no differences whatsoever. Extended listening sessions might have exposed some difference, but I believe it would have been extremely subtle, if any. The resulting performance from each of the products was completely engaging, completely natural sounding, gave us pinpoint imaging and a huge, deep soundstage with decent depth acuity, and very good clarity and detail. 

Sonny Parker spent time in the evaluation seat as well, and reported the same findings, that he could hear no difference.

Other points to consider:

HDMI audio was passing through the nanoAVR DL during all testing. With Dirac Live inactive, miniDSP informs us that only the delay blocks would be active, that all of the processing would be bypassed and effectively straight-wire. I do not know at this point if resampling takes place with Dirac Live inactive, but I believe it would. I will report on this in the upcoming nanoAVR review.
The Nano AVR gain was set at -12 dB throughout testing. Gain matching as we switched between XT32 and Dirac Live was important, so this value had to remain constant. Sonnie complained about the signal loss, that he would not be able to achieve the maximum volume that he sometimes likes to use. The -12 dB gain setting was chosen arbitrarily. Depending on the equalization required, this value might be set higher. With Dirac Live inactive, it is my understanding that it can safely be 0 dB. I will verify this for the upcoming nanoAVR DL review.
XT32 gets points for ease of use, being built into the AVR.
The Dirac Live configuration program gets points for flexibility and for ease of use, too, once everything is communicating properly. It is very intuitive. Individual measurements can be retaken at will, and the target curve can be modified at will. An infinite number of correction programs can be saved and recalled and reloaded to the nanoAVR DL unit, which holds up to 4 correction programs at a time (a clear advantage over XT32 for some). The Audyssey Pro Kit gives much of the same capability, but only with Pro Kit capable AVRs. Loading a configuration into the nanoAVR DL takes around 30 seconds, much faster than loading an alternate configuration to an AVR from the Audyssey Pro configuration utility, according to Sonnie.

*Subwoofers and Bass Correction*

We did not have time to focus on subwoofers and bass correction. This is an area that could take days of work on its own. We realize it is of great interest to many home theater owners.

XT32 has separate outputs for two subwoofers and corrects their delays and levels independently, then applies MultEQ correction to them together. Dirac Live has a single subwoofer control channel.

The three-curve corrected response diagram above shows us the Dirac Live FR was very flat below 100 Hz with a small amount of variation between 50 and 80 Hz. Both XT32 curves have a sizable dip between 70 and 80 Hz. 

In later work Sonny was able to tame the dip with XT32 by changing delay times independently for the two subwoofers in the front left and right corners of his room. He also increased subwoofer levels and ended up with a slightly increasing bass response below 100 Hz. This was all done manually. It has been his experience that some manual variations are usually needed to get the bass response that he likes with XT32.

The Direct Live bass response, on the other hand, would have been totally acceptable to him "out of the box."

This is a small amount of data as it pertains to one room, and I am not suggesting it should be projected to form a universal statement about XT32 vs Dirac Live as it pertains to bass correction. We simply offer the data available for your consideration.


*Impulse Response*

Dirac Research emphasizes that their product performs impulse response correction. Audyssey XT32 certainly does some degree of phase correction to achieve the SS&I results which it does, but "impulse response correction" per se is not mentioned, for what that is worth. Looking at impulse response measurements taken with Room EQ Wizard, it is clear that Dirac Live cleans up impulse response far more effectively than XT32. What this means to the listener is not immediately obvious. I can imagine arguments in either direction, that Dirac Live gives a more perfect correction, or that XT32 does all that it needs to and nothing more. I have done some research which leads me to believe that a cleaner impulse response can yield greater clarity with dense program material at high volumes, but it is an unproven theory with little data at this point. In reality, there is no conclusive answer to this question that I am aware of.

Impulse Response Graphs
 


*Conclusions*

While I hoped to get additional expert ears involved in this comparison, I am still quite confident in our results. Given the conditions outlined above, with a two-channel listening focus, we ultimately achieved what we believe was a true apples-to-apples comparison between Dirac Live and Audyssey XT32 and concluded at both did an excellent job and that under the chosen conditions any differences in performance were not audible. Usability differences are many, and are likely to be driving factors in a product choice.

Thanks to miniDSP for supplying the nanoAVR DL hardware and software for this exercise, and thanks to the executives at Audyssey, miniDSP, and Dirac Research for their suggestions and help.




*EDIT:*

A complete review of the miniDSP nanoAVR DL has been posted HERE. Where appropriate, comparisons are made to Audyssey XT32, focusing on the *end-user experience.*

A post has been added to this thread titled *Audyssey XT32 (without Pro Kit) vs Dirac Live End User Experience Comparison Summary of Audible Characteristics.* Read it HERE.




*EDIT:*

A post has been added to this thread titled *Further Conclusions Regarding the Comparison of Audible Results Between Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live.* Read it HERE.


----------



## Talley

My uncle always tells me for the best SS&I the only way to make it happen is identically matching the speaker placement to the main LP.

Both speakers must be identically placed vertically... their toe has to match perfectly... the distance from the LP must match identically and the level/plum and/or how plum the fronts of the speakers are has to match perfectly.

Height, distance from LP has to be within .005" and the toe has to be within .05° and the plum/leveling of the speakers has to also be within .05°

Once you match this perfectly.... you are time aligned naturally to the speakers and the signalling will reach your ears at the exact same time. Doing this by Dirac/Audyssey is sorta a helping bandaid. Get it perfect right out of the box is the key.

This being said it takes laser alignment, digital levels and not some run of the mill stuff as their tolerances are too loose. A decent digital level is one used in foundation work but will set you back $400 alone but that gets you your .05° accuracy.

It doesn't matte how much correction you apply... if your speakers are not 100% perfect then you will not get perfect SS&I. This is the reason all speakers should have spikes so you can make these adjustments.


----------



## Flak

Thanks for your comparison between Dirac Live and Audyssey XT32, in my admittedly biased opinion it reveals much more info than apparent at first sight 

Let's start from the fact that with the laudable intent of making a fair comparison the approach has been to make Dirac Live align with Audyssey and not the opposite... I don't think that to be the best choice and I explain it with your own words:



AudiocRaver said:


> It was immediately apparent to my ear that there were significant differences between the corrections resulting from the XT32 and Dirac Live target curves. XT32 produces corrections using two target curves, named Reference and Flat. Dirac Live has a default target curve, which is infinitely customizable and can be saved and recalled at will. XT32 has a similar capability with the Audyssey Pro Kit, with AVRs that are Pro Kit capable.
> .................
> Sonnie had dealt with numerous Audyssey users who were disappointed with initial Audyssey LF response, but there is no reason why subwoofers cannot be turned up to give hotter LF response if desired after calibration is complete.


At this point it is very important to notice that you fairly state that the Audyssey target curves are disappointing for numerous Audyssey users and you also add that:



> We decided to modify the Dirac Live target curve to match the XT32 Flat target curve. It only took a few mouse clicks to make the Dirac Live curve mimic the LF response of the XT32 curves. Likewise, it only took a couple of clicks to roll off Dirac Live to match the top end of the XT32 Flat curve


In a few words Dirac Live has total flexibility in setting target curves in a few seconds while Audyssey has "similar" capability only with the Audyssey Pro Kit and at an additional cost of 550 dollars:
http://www.shop.perfecthometheater.com/Audyssey-MultEQ-Pro-Calibration-Kit-Audyssey-Kit.htm

Also the Dirac Live proposed target curve is often considered better than the fixed Audyssey target curves, and the fact that the Audyssey target curves are fixed in my opinion is not meaningless.

Furthermore it has been mentioned that with Audyssey it may be necessary to turn up the the subwoofers after calibration... this can be done with accuracy by experts like you eventually with some REW measurements but it does not look like a compliment.

No mention has been done of the fact that Dirac Live allows to very easily define the regions of frequencies that the user may want to correct while leaving others unaffected if desired (which is important to some) as well as of the possibility of instantly commuting and comparing different target curves (which is important to all)

Up to now we have been commenting aspects concerning the frequency response but in accurately reproducing a signal the other aspect is the behaviour in the time domain so we can look at the impulse response...
you explain that you could not hear a difference and that only extended listening sessions might have exposed some difference... I'll not argue with your perceptions but I have to outline that your measurements support your statement that:



> Looking at impulse response measurements taken with Room EQ Wizard, it is clear that Dirac Live cleans up impulse response far more effectively than XT32.


Furthermore you write:


> The three-curve corrected response diagram above shows us the Dirac Live FR was very flat below 100 Hz with a small amount of variation between 50 and 80 Hz. Both XT32 curves have a sizable dip between 70 and 80 Hz.
> 
> In later work Sonny was able to tame the dip with XT32 by changing delay times independently for the two subwoofers in the front left and right corners of his room. He also increased subwoofer levels and ended up with a slightly increasing bass response below 100 Hz. This was all done manually. It has been his experience that some manual variations are usually needed to get the bass response that he likes with XT32.


Again I think that your measurements speak for themselves...

Also my understanding is that the full test has been done by using a single measurement, this is not the method for which Dirac Live has been designed for but you already wrote that you "knew the amount of arguing against it would be immense"... 

I thank you for the time and efforts in conducting this test and I'm confident that your readers will draw from it their conclusions 

With appreciation, Flavio


----------



## Talley

And also... for the perfect LP there can only be one. even in a theater enviroment you can add many more speakers like what happens in the theaters and you spread the sound out over a wider range but this is done so at the expense of adding more timing issues.

There can only be one perfect spot... anywhere else and it's not. for 2 channel listening this is crucial.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Talley said:


> My uncle always tells me for the best SS&I the only way to make it happen is identically matching the speaker placement to the main LP.
> 
> Both speakers must be identically placed vertically... their toe has to match perfectly... the distance from the LP must match identically and the level/plum and/or how plum the fronts of the speakers are has to match perfectly.
> 
> Height, distance from LP has to be within .005" and the toe has to be within .05° and the plum/leveling of the speakers has to also be within .05°
> 
> Once you match this perfectly.... you are time aligned naturally to the speakers and the signalling will reach your ears at the exact same time. Doing this by Dirac/Audyssey is sorta a helping bandaid. Get it perfect right out of the box is the key.
> 
> This being said it takes laser alignment, digital levels and not some run of the mill stuff as their tolerances are too loose. A decent digital level is one used in foundation work but will set you back $400 alone but that gets you your .05° accuracy.
> 
> It doesn't matte how much correction you apply... if your speakers are not 100% perfect then you will not get perfect SS&I. This is the reason all speakers should have spikes so you can make these adjustments.


I appreciate your good words, and assure you that you are "preaching to the choir" as far as I am concerned. This is exactly what my own experience has convinced me of and what we found in our HTS Speaker Evaluation Events. There is no substitute for rigorous precision in setting up speakers.

And while I agree that DRC can not create good SS&I from nothing - where speakers are set up poorly or match poorly for some other reason - DRC can definitely help tighten it up. Not everyone has the luxury of a dedicated, symmetrical listening room, for instance. Many factors can get in the way of getting all the way to great SS&I by natural setup means, and DRC can be a real aid in "bringing it home."


----------



## AudiocRaver

Talley said:


> And also... for the perfect LP there can only be one. even in a theater enviroment you can add many more speakers like what happens in the theaters and you spread the sound out over a wider range but this is done so at the expense of adding more timing issues.
> 
> There can only be one perfect spot... anywhere else and it's not. for 2 channel listening this is crucial.


A truer word was never spoken.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Flavio,

I appreciate your comments. You did an admirable job of analyzing my thoughts, and of reading between the lines.

I will be completing and posting a review of the nanaAVR DL over the coming week, and many of your points will be covered in that review. It will include some reference to this comparison. It is not a "vs. XT32" review, but much of the review exercise did involve the comparison, so some of that commentary will be inevitable.

We felt there was a real value in drilling down to core technologies for this exercise, and that by providing all the details surrounding the work of getting there, "the rest of the story" would surface, as it did quite clearly in your post. Although there are, no doubt, a few different points that might be made by the designers of Audyssey if they were to post their comments in this thread. I would welcome that feedback!

An interesting tidbit revealed itself through the posted measurement graphs. A Dirac Live user can use the DL Configuration Program to do a lot of what we use Room EQ Wizard for, including inspecting impulse diagrams!

The review will include plenty of multi-point calibration work, have no fear of that.

Flavio, although we do not always see 100% eye-to-eye in these matters, I always look forward to hearing from you and discussing them with you in the forum. Thanks for your involvement.


----------



## Talley

AudiocRaver said:


> I appreciate your good words, and assure you that you are "preaching to the choir" as far as I am concerned. This is exactly what my own experience has convinced me of and what we found in our HTS Speaker Evaluation Events. There is no substitute for rigorous precision in setting up speakers.
> 
> And while I agree that DRC can not create good SS&I from nothing - where speakers are set up poorly or match poorly for some other reason - DRC can definitely help tighten it up. Not everyone has the luxury of a dedicated, symmetrical listening room, for instance. Many factors can get in the way of getting all the way to great SS&I by natural setup means, and DRC can be a real aid in "bringing it home."


Awesome. and I agree. I think DRC is a step up above the Audyssey just based on what I've been seeing thus far and this review confirms it.

This was quite the lengthy review and was very well put together... major kuddos!

Even with perfect setup of speakers... I STILL WANT THIS!


----------



## tesseract

Talley said:


> My uncle always tells me for the best SS&I the only way to make it happen is identically matching the speaker placement to the main LP.
> 
> Both speakers must be identically placed vertically... their toe has to match perfectly... the distance from the LP must match identically and the level/plum and/or how plum the fronts of the speakers are has to match perfectly.
> 
> Height, distance from LP has to be within .005" and the toe has to be within .05° and the plum/leveling of the speakers has to also be within .05°
> 
> Once you match this perfectly.... you are time aligned naturally to the speakers and the signalling will reach your ears at the exact same time. Doing this by Dirac/Audyssey is sorta a helping bandaid. Get it perfect right out of the box is the key.
> 
> This being said it takes laser alignment, digital levels and not some run of the mill stuff as their tolerances are too loose. A decent digital level is one used in foundation work but will set you back $400 alone but that gets you your .05° accuracy.
> 
> It doesn't matte how much correction you apply... if your speakers are not 100% perfect then you will not get perfect SS&I. This is the reason all speakers should have spikes so you can make these adjustments.


All this work is for naught if you don't secure your head in a plumb level vice.


----------



## tesseract

Wish I could have stayed around a bit longer for the Audyssey XT32 vs. Dirac Live comparison, Wayne. We are fortunate you have recorded Sonnie and your efforts for us to follow along, thank you for all the work!


----------



## AudiocRaver

tesseract said:


> All this work is for naught if you don't secure your head in a plumb level vice.


You've seen the vice I have installed at my listening chair. Doesn't hurt a bit!

Your point, of course, is that some people don't like that restriction. They can have all the flexibility they want, they just won't have as nice a soundstage & imaging. I think it's nice we get to choose.


----------



## Flak

AudiocRaver said:


> Flavio, although we do not always see 100% eye-to-eye in these matters, I always look forward to hearing from you and discussing them with you in the forum. Thanks for your involvement.


I'm the one who has to thank you for giving us the opportunity to explain our point of view...

please understand that some readers may not read the graphs and evaluate the test conditions... they will only jump to the conclusions and because you tests are authoritative and independent those may unwillingly lead them to think that they would get the same results by using both "out of the box" products (while you correctly qualified your statements with "under the chosen conditions")

Only by reading your valuable test in detail they would realize that while it is possible to force Dirac Live to get results that are similar (but not equal) to Audyssey XT32 the opposite is not possible... and what you actually got out of the box from Dirac Live vs.Audyssey (and your measurements prove it) is a better frequency response because of the better target, a better impulse response because of the phase correction and a better bass response unless the subwoofers were additionally manually corrected by an expert like Sammy (and may be some REW measurements).

I know I'm biased but I think I had to outline the above, thanks for your understanding 
Flavio


----------



## jtalden

Wayne,
Great Review. Thanks for the effort!
I very much like the test conditions you chose. I find SPL response to be an overriding factor to the sound quality with a given speaker-room setup; changes are easily detected. Your methodology allowed you to test if there are other strong contributors due to the differences in the algorithms used. 

The Dirac EQ provides a significant level of phase correction and thus the impulse and step response will look more ideal. Many indicate that phase correction very helpful, but I have not been able to tell any difference with program material. My hearing falls below normal standards however and I have no opinion on what others can hear. Your results were interesting to me.

[A bit off subject but, with a PC, Foobar and headphones it is relatively easy to ABX the impact of phase correction alone. It might be interesting to post a few excerpts of music with both a control version and one a with lots of phase rotation. We could poll to see how many people can reliably tell the difference using ABX testing. headphones have relatively low phase rotation as they are typically a single driver for the whole range so the control file is the low phase rotation and a rePhase filtered file can be created with any amount of additional phase rotation we choose. I can probably set up test samples if there is interest. Probably this has already been done somewhere, but I don't have a link.]

I agree that the SS&I is more a product of the speaker design and room setup. I find there are several important factors in speaker design and room setup that impact SS&I and the overall sound quality. These are factors that cannot be corrected with EQ. 

EQ can adjust the SPL response to a target curve and in many cases improve the sound quality significantly. As both systems recommend, averages around the LP are important to help avoid over correction for local reflections. The Dirac system provides much more flexibility in choosing a target curve and appears to be significantly more capable of accurately achieving the target. The miniDSP DDRC-22D appears to finally provide the Dirac option at a more attractive price point.


----------



## Savjac

Thank You Wayne and Sonnie, the instructions and results are of tremendous value to us all. I am of the version that does not have a exceedingly perfect room, so no amount of laser pointing accuracy between both speakers and the LP will make all well. These products you mention really are of huge help to me and I cant wait to get a proper microphone and go at this myself. I have been living on the cheap of late and rely on the Audyssey in my Denon to make it all work. Never the less when I can afford the proper microphone for my computer, I will give more tests a go.


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> *Audyssey XT32 vs. Dirac Live Listening Comparison*
> *Introduction*
> *Test Approach, Equipment, and Environment; Abbreviations*
> *Difficult Decisions: What To Compare and How*
> *The Setup Mic Pattern*
> *The Setup Process*
> *Fine Tuning and Results*
> *Subwoofers and Bass Correction*
> *Impulse Response*
> *Conclusions*


Okay, now I'm a Wayne-fan and I'd like to add myself to your list of admirers for this report. Your technical and listening prowess are impressive. And so are your keen writing skills. I'm not just talking about grammar, sentence structure, or punctuation--which are all there in spades. I'm talking about your organizational flow and clear communication of a technical topic for the novice and experienced enthusiast alike. Bravo!! :clap:

And consider the huge task with which you were faced--not unlike a System Engineer's project cycle:
Define project concept and scope
Gather relevant information
Specify requirements
Set up tests
Conduct tests
Detect and solve issues/problems
Repeat tests until issue-free
Peer-test results
Draw conclusions based on supporting evidence
Prepare report
Release



AudiocRaver said:


> Our troubles were largely the nature of the often unruly digital audio system beast, of working under pressure when tired, of some quirky bad fortune, all of which I am already laughing about. With experience, much of this would go more smoothly. That said, that _beast_ sometimes just likes to bite! Note also that the final listening was done during afternoon hours after a break and a good nap when ears and brain were fresh.





AudiocRaver said:


> This is all reported to remind the potential user of the many ways that such an effort can be thrown off track, and the many ways that a user evaluation can have something go awry in the setup process, erroneously leading them to conclude that a product is unacceptable.





AudiocRaver said:


> At this point I have to confess that all the other evaluators were gone before we had a working comparison, and it was only Sonnie and me completing this work. I had really hoped to have those other fine sets of ears to help out with this comparison. But I am still confident in our results.


:hail: How can you not love this: Full disclosure of both personal and technical caveats!
:hail: And how about this: Extreme patience and perseverance in the face of technical debug!
:hail: And last but not least: Logical debug skill and sound (haha) scientific methodology!

utstanding: :yourock: :thankyou:


----------



## willis7469

Nice Lou!


----------



## AudiocRaver

BlueRockinLou,

You are too kind. Thank you.


----------



## Lumen

You're welcome!


----------



## bkeeler10

Thanks for your hard work on this, gentlemen. Very interesting that the results are basically indistinguishable to the ear, assuming a similar target curve. I guess this is a sign that both systems are capable equalizers, which isn't surprising given the years of R&D that went into both systems. I suppose it is surprising that the better time domain performance of Dirac did not seem to give any audible benefits in this particular situation.

The question in my mind now (which is clearly beyond the scope of your stated goals for this project) is whether there are significant differences when you do the calibration as recommended by each company. I think you've already established that doing so would compromise the primary goal of optimum SS&I. But which system, set up as recommended, takes away less from this primary goal. And it would be interesting to compare the two set up as recommended, and also set them both up as recommended by Audyssey, and then set them both up as recommended by Dirac (same mic positions). And of course, which system provides the better compromise in achieving good (not perfect) FR and subjective sound quality across multiple listening positions.

I love the idea of Dirac because of its flexibility in choosing how the system is EQ'd. That alone makes me gravitate toward it. I know that MultEQ Pro is supposed to be able to do the same thing, but I understand the curve editor in it is crude and difficult to use.

Starting to ramble here, and I'm sure all these ideas and questions have occurred to you as you pondered how best to do this comparison. I think you've done everything possible to eliminate variables and keep the playing field even. Bravo!


----------



## AudiocRaver

bkeeler10 said:


> ...it would be interesting to compare the two set up as recommended, and also set them both up as recommended by Audyssey, and then set them both up as recommended by Dirac (same mic positions). And of course, which system provides the better compromise in achieving good (not perfect) FR and subjective sound quality across multiple listening positions.


I had hoped to address this, too, but there was just too much stuff to get into our few-hour-exercise. A matter for future consideration.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> I had hoped to address this, too, but there was just too much stuff to get into our few-hour-exercise. A matter for future consideration.


What do you suggest when the back of the seat is higher than the ears?

Most say you need the mic at least 12" away from the seat back to avoid reflections, are you saying not to do that?

Ears are approx. 6/7" away from the seat back, should one just place the mic there?


----------



## willis7469

Hi rapaolloav. I use a plush blanket over the seat back when doing measurements and cal, and listening (alone). I know a few others here that do too. Not sure if that's what your looking for.


----------



## RapalloAV

willis7469 said:


> Hi rapaolloav. I use a plush blanket over the seat back when doing measurements and cal, and listening (alone). I know a few others here that do too. Not sure if that's what your looking for.


Yes I do that too but do you also keep the mic exactly where the ears are which would be closer than 12" away from the back of the seat?


----------



## willis7469

Yes, I do. In my brain, this makes the most sense,lol. I may be wrong, but I'm not willing to split the hairs it would take to find a difference.


----------



## AudiocRaver

RapalloAV said:


> What do you suggest when the back of the seat is higher than the ears?
> 
> Most say you need the mic at least 12" away from the seat back to avoid reflections, are you saying not to do that?
> 
> Ears are approx. 6/7" away from the seat back, should one just place the mic there?


From my perspective, I am still trying to figure out a good answer to your question. I have tried a lot of methods and none have been satisfactory, and have gone back and forth a bit on what I recommend. Right now I am leaning toward what you suggested above, 12" or more away, above the top of the seat back and forward somewhat, so it would be roughly straight above the top of your head if you were seated (don't be for measurements, though), perhaps a little forward of that. That is my best suggestion right now.

The problem with trying to put the mic where the head location would be is that everything changes there when you are actually seated, so that position is not an accurate representation of reality when you are not there. Trying to take measurements while you are seated is ridiculously complicated, so don't try that. Best to get away from that area a foot or so, above the disturbances but still centered on the LP as much as possible so that timings from speakers are accurate.

This is for Audyssey, by the way, the answer for Dirac is different. I will elaborate.


----------



## Talley

AudiocRaver said:


> From my perspective, I am still trying to figure out a good answer to your question. I have tried a lot of methods and none have been satisfactory, and have gone back and forth a bit on what I recommend. Right now I am leaning toward what you suggested above, 12" or more away, above the top of the seat back and forward somewhat, so it would be roughly straight above the top of your head if you were seated (don't be for measurements, though), perhaps a little forward of that. That is my best suggestion right now.
> 
> The problem with trying to put the mic where the head location would be is that everything changes there when you are actually seated, so that position is not an accurate representation of reality when you are not there. Trying to take measurements while you are seated is ridiculously complicated, so don't try that. Best to get away from that area a foot or so, above the disturbances but still centered on the LP as much as possible so that timings from speakers are accurate.
> 
> This is for Audyssey, by the way, the answer for Dirac is different. I will elaborate.



So the only solution is a microphone that looks like headphones that you wear on your head while the testing is performing using two mics that mimic your ears. Two MONO mics a left and right. 

ONLY way to do this IMHO.


----------



## willis7469

Talley said:


> So the only solution is a microphone that looks like headphones that you wear on your head while the testing is performing using two mics that mimic your ears. Two MONO mics a left and right. ONLY way to do this IMHO.


 binaural in head mics maybe?


----------



## AudiocRaver

Well..... There is some wisdom in the idea. There are problems with it, too, the main one being measurement repeatability. Also, mic quality, ability of the system to handle two mic inputs gracefully, mic matching, and did I mention measurement repeatability? Then there is the issue of needing near 360 degree exposure of both mics so they can get clean measurements of the surrounds. And there is the shape of the Audyssey mic, and which mic is active for which speaker and and when, and...

I realize you were speaking somewhat generically, and again, I agree with your logic in principal, but there ARE complications.

Dirac Live seems to have solved the problem. The review of the nanoAVR DL looks at the question specifically. The first mic position needs to be at LP Center, and handles all the timing and L/R frequency response _matching_ needs, and the other mic positions can be randomly spaced around the seat area (no symmetry or careful spacing required) and their "average" gives the proper frequency response profile. Easy as pie and gives superb, no-compromise results. Seriously, works like a dream, satisfies the critical needs of the LP and helps you minimally compromise overall FR if you wish to accommodate other seat positions.


----------



## RapalloAV

AudiocRaver said:


> From my perspective, I am still trying to figure out a good answer to your question. I have tried a lot of methods and none have been satisfactory, and have gone back and forth a bit on what I recommend. Right now I am leaning toward what you suggested above, 12" or more away, above the top of the seat back and forward somewhat, so it would be roughly straight above the top of your head if you were seated (don't be for measurements, though), perhaps a little forward of that. That is my best suggestion right now.
> 
> The problem with trying to put the mic where the head location would be is that everything changes there when you are actually seated, so that position is not an accurate representation of reality when you are not there. Trying to take measurements while you are seated is ridiculously complicated, so don't try that. Best to get away from that area a foot or so, above the disturbances but still centered on the LP as much as possible so that timings from speakers are accurate.
> 
> This is for Audyssey, by the way, the answer for Dirac is different. I will elaborate.


Wayne I too have experimented many many times, writing everything down and always getting better to worse results.

Can you elaborate a bit on why you like just ONE measurement more than 3/4 or more please, Im very interested in your thoughts?

What I find with all my experiments is actually the bass seems cleaner for me with just one measurement then audyssey turned OFF!

I find every time no matter what positions I test for XT32, when I engage it the treble is too bright for my likings and the bass is coloured or distorted someway. I will try to explain.... With EQ engaged the bass notes seem to be extended and run for longer than what they should, which makes the bass sound wrong... Without EQ the bass notes stop BANG in their tracks, none of the extension, no distortion, its clean, big and smooth in all 12 seats...

I keep trying to use EQ as it almost seems like a religion that one should follow, but still after hundreds and hundreds of EQs, reading every forum on the planet about Audyssey I cant get it to sound good in my cinema!

Do you think this is true for some rooms?
I use it in my lounge room that's furnished with the normal things and its fine, better on...
My cinema is a very different room with lots of bass trapping, and acoustic treatments. Seems od that a room that's more perfect for acoustics should sound worse with it on than off... When a lounge room with normal acoustics should sound better with EQ turned on...:rolleyesno:

Interested in your thoughts????


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Audyssey XT32 (without Pro Kit) vs Dirac Live End User Experience Comparison Summary of Audible Characteristics*


Audyssey has two target curves available, only slightly different in sound. Users are forced to use external EQ in addition to Audyssey to get the sound they want if they are not happy with the stock target curves. Dirac Live makes virtually any desired tailored sound available through its highly customizable target curves, which can be applied to a single channel or to a channel group.

Dirac Live makes use of mixed-phase filtering. Low frequencies are corrected by minimum-phase filters which can be much more focused and correct LF response problems more effectively than Audyssey's all-FIR filtering system.

Audyssey is integrated with the AVR, which would seem to be ideal, but the reality is that AVR settings often have been changed improperly after an Audyssey calibration, affecting the sound negatively, and must be thoroughly checked and corrected after each Audyssey calibration. By remaining independent of the AVR's speaker settings, Dirac Live frees the end user from needing to recheck those settings.

The Audyssey correction algorithm puts the priority on frequency response averaging. Getting a decent soundstage and imaging (SS&I) result requires use of a single-mic-position calibration, with questionable frequency response, or a tight, carefully measured, symmetrical pattern focused on the LP. Dirac Live appears to use the first measurement at the LP as reference for all frequency response matching of speakers and for all timing information which is critical to soundstage and imaging. As a result, strong SS&I at the LP occurs with every calibration, and the remaining calibration measurement points can be randomly chosen, their primary function being to give the overall frequency response profile. Dirac Live gives repeatable and highly satisfactory results very easily from every calibration.

Where Audyssey users have developed complex processes to help them get desired results, Dirac Live gives desired results much more predictably and easily.




*RapalloAV:*

To answer your question directly, the single mic position calibration will give the best soundstage and imaging results. Using more mic positions, tightly spaced and carefully place for symmetry, gives better frequency response, but this gets more complicated, tedious, and hard to repeat.

Your bass problems could be from modal issues that are being boosted by Audyssey, causing ringing and distortion. That kind of thing varies immensely from room to room. You mentioned treatment and bass trapping, but really effective bass treatment is difficult, and without custom-designed traps for the modes in your room, the trapping you have might not be doing much for you at the frequencies where you need it.

Your issues with the high frequencies are most likely centered on the general brightness of Audysseys target curves, along with the acoustics around your seating. If your mic calibration pattern happens to catch an area with lowered high frequencies, Audyssey will correct and give hotter higher frequencies. Better high frequency response would come from using a more spread calibration pattern, at the expense of SS&I.

Treating a room, as you have, without designing the treatment specifically to address the measured acoustical problems in the room, can mislead you into the exact frustration you are experiencing. That is not usually the case, but it is certainly very possible. That possibility, along with the possibility of your calibration pattern just happens to catch another unlucky break along a way and has Audyssey emphasizing high frequencies... well, it is just not your lucky day. This is conjecture based upon minimal information.


----------



## AustinJerry

RapalloAV said:


> Wayne I too have experimented many many times, writing everything down and always getting better to worse results.
> 
> Can you elaborate a bit on why you like just ONE measurement more than 3/4 or more please, Im very interested in your thoughts?
> 
> What I find with all my experiments is actually the bass seems cleaner for me with just one measurement then audyssey turned OFF!
> 
> I find every time no matter what positions I test for XT32, when I engage it the treble is too bright for my likings and the bass is coloured or distorted someway. I will try to explain.... With EQ engaged the bass notes seem to be extended and run for longer than what they should, which makes the bass sound wrong... Without EQ the bass notes stop BANG in their tracks, none of the extension, no distortion, its clean, big and smooth in all 12 seats...
> 
> I keep trying to use EQ as it almost seems like a religion that one should follow, but still after hundreds and hundreds of EQs, reading every forum on the planet about Audyssey I cant get it to sound good in my cinema!
> 
> Do you think this is true for some rooms?
> I use it in my lounge room that's furnished with the normal things and its fine, better on...
> My cinema is a very different room with lots of bass trapping, and acoustic treatments. Seems od that a room that's more perfect for acoustics should sound worse with it on than off... When a lounge room with normal acoustics should sound better with EQ turned on...:rolleyesno:
> 
> Interested in your thoughts????


Murray, you have been at this for so long, it is hard to believe that you are having these problems. Have you posted a comprehensive set of measurements from your home theater anywhere? Poor results must be reflected in the measurements, either bass ringing in the waterfalls, ragged frequency response, or something.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> Dirac Live seems to have solved the problem. The review of the nanoAVR DL looks at the question specifically. The first mic position needs to be at LP Center, and handles all the timing and L/R frequency response _matching_ needs, and the other mic positions can be randomly spaced around the seat area (no symmetry or careful spacing required) and their "average" gives the proper frequency response profile. Easy as pie and gives superb, no-compromise results. Seriously, works like a dream, satisfies the critical needs of the LP and helps you minimally compromise overall FR if you wish to accommodate other seat positions.


I disagree somewhat with your comment that the remaining eight Dirac measurement positions can be randomly spaced. In the user guide for my DDRC-88A, and using the "single chair" measuring approach, the user guide specifically states that remaining measurements should be taken on the circumference of a 1M-diameter circle and that the height of the mic should be varied up and down by 1ft over the measurements. While Dirac's web site is not quite as specific as the MiniDSP user guide, they do recommend varying the mic position, horizontally and vertically, and specifically advise against "tight mic positioning".

I absolutely agree, however, that excellent results with Dirac do not seem to be quite as dependent on mic positioning as does Audyssey. In the numerous Dirac calibrations I have done over the last six months, I have never experienced a "bad calibration". I can't say the same for my Audyssey calibrations, which were done with the Pro kit.


----------



## Lumen

AustinJerry said:


> ....While Dirac's web site is not quite as specific as the MiniDSP user guide, they do recommend varying the mic position, horizontally and vertically, and specifically advise against "tight mic positioning".


Should that particular recommendation be generalized? The Dirac user manual for my Emotiva XMC-1 states that the pattern should be tightened for a reduced listening area. It further urges the user to follow the on-screen mic locations, which can be viewed orthogonally or obliquely, but without dimensions. To be fair, Dirac Live LE and Dirac Live Full are customized to run on Emotiva hardware, so it may therefore be optimized for tight mic patterns.

If you're interested, advantages of emptying the stack of all but one mic position have been discussed here.



AustinJerry said:


> ....In the numerous Dirac calibrations I have done over the last six months, I have never experienced a "bad calibration".


Excellent repeatability! Yet others have obtained questionable results. For instance, the default (and only) XMC-1's Dirac house curve yields aggressive treble, annoying sibilance, and anemic bass to these ears. Further, imaging suffered. Both conditions occurred regardless of mic pattern. I anted-up for the full version to achieve customizable house-curves and windowed frequency processing. Using the latter to bypass filter generation for frequencies above about 10kHz, improved imaging was realized, especially with tight mic patterns. Subsequent trials revealed that imaging remained independent of house curve manipulation.


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> I disagree somewhat with your comment that the remaining eight Dirac measurement positions can be randomly spaced. In the user guide for my DDRC-88A, and using the "single chair" measuring approach, the user guide specifically states that remaining measurements should be taken on the circumference of a 1M-diameter circle and that the height of the mic should be varied up and down by 1ft over the measurements. While Dirac's web site is not quite as specific as the MiniDSP user guide, they do recommend varying the mic position, horizontally and vertically, and specifically advise against "tight mic positioning".
> 
> I absolutely agree, however, that excellent results with Dirac do not seem to be quite as dependent on mic positioning as does Audyssey. In the numerous Dirac calibrations I have done over the last six months, I have never experienced a "bad calibration". I can't say the same for my Audyssey calibrations, which were done with the Pro kit.


Jerry,

As always, you have done your homework. I always appreciate your comments and occasional nudges to keep me and other posters honest and accurate.

When I suggested randomness in the mic positioning for Dirac Live, I was remembering Flavio's (of Dirac Research) wording in this post, commenting on an earlier review, where he stated:

"We recommend that the microphone positions are spread out as "randomly" as possible within the measurement region and that the measurement region is not too small."

I agree this is worded a bit differently than is found in the Dirac Live documentation.

Again, thanks for the feedback.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I think the key point to be made about mic placement for Dirac Live calibration is that it is quite flexible, after that first critical LP position, and tends to be very forgiving.

I recently re-read some of the deep background info on the Dirac Research web site, and it is worth noting that Dirac Live's algorithm is designed to provide robustness in the way correction is applied, and that data from each point is analyzed multi-dimensionally (my term) to determine which parts of its data should be applied and in what way for effective correction that preserves frequency response and phase information critical to soundstage & imaging (SSI) at and close to the LP, while correcting frequency response and impulse response where it can be done without disrupting the sound somewhere else in the listening area. The approach suggests the benefit of having a "rich and varied" set of data points to work with, again hinting at some amount randomness in mic positioning to achieve it.

The takeaway, as far as I can interpret from this, is that even if one follows a somewhat set pattern like in the diagrams that accompany the application and documentation, the placement is not critical, and even benefits from some randomness in that placement. My own best Dirac Live calibration, with which I have been listening for close to 2 weeks, made use of a purposely very random pattern for the points away from the LP "center," as I wanted to stretch the idea to the max.

I see no harm in following the pattern suggested in the documentation, only suggesting for the sanity and enjoyment of the user through the setup process - and for the richer and more varied data set that will result - that the tape measure and laser distance finder be set aside after that first critical point and placement be done quickly and with eyeball estimates, rather than with painstaking spacing measurements that many are used to.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> Jerry,
> 
> As always, you have done your homework. I always appreciate your comments and occasional nudges to keep me and other posters honest and accurate.
> 
> When I suggested randomness in the mic positioning for Dirac Live, I was remembering Flavio's (of Dirac Research) wording in this post, commenting on an earlier review, where he stated:
> 
> "We recommend that the microphone positions are spread out as "randomly" as possible within the measurement region and that the measurement region is not too small."
> 
> I agree this is worded a bit differently than is found in the Dirac Live documentation.
> 
> Again, thanks for the feedback.


Thanks for the response, Wayne. And I certainly appreciate the effort you have spent in your analysis. I think it is interesting that the mic placement guidelines vary slightly, depending on whether you are looking at Dirac's recommendations, Emotiva's recommendations, or MiniDSP's recommendations. I think all agree that the order of the placements is not critical, and I believe Dirac and MiniDSP agree that "narrow" for a single chair is a 1M-diameter circle, and that varying height is important.

It's always interesting to hear the experiences of others, which is what makes this forum valuable.


----------



## kbarnes70

AustinJerry said:


> Thanks for the response, Wayne. And I certainly appreciate the effort you have spent in your analysis. I think it is interesting that the mic placement guidelines vary slightly, depending on whether you are looking at Dirac's recommendations, Emotiva's recommendations, or MiniDSP's recommendations. I think all agree that the order of the placements is not critical, and I believe Dirac and MiniDSP agree that "narrow" for a single chair is a 1M-diameter circle, and that varying height is important.
> 
> It's always interesting to hear the experiences of others, which is what makes this forum valuable.


Hi Jerry. I have been a lurker on this forum for longer than I can recall, but can't remember ever having posted before (no special reason - I am trying to keep my forum activity under some sort of control that's all). I'd add to this great discussion that I too have found that I get a stunning DL calibration when I take great care over the first mic position but then more or less randomly place the mic for the remaining 8 positions. This started because I cannot follow the user manual properly here: if I put the mic 12 inches below the first position, it is so low that the seat backs obscure its line of sight to the surround speakers. Clearly, that is not going to give a good result, so what I did was take the initial position, then use 4 positions about 8-10 inches higher, more or less as per the manual, with the remaining 4 positions just 'dotted' about the area around the chair. This way, every position gave a good line of sight to every speaker.

I am not saying this is the best way, or the only way, just adding another data point to the discussion and confirming that one does not need to slavishly follow the diagram in the user manual (or on screen). The next time I calibrate I will try using 8 very random positions and see what, if any, difference I get. The good news seems to be that a good cal results every time and there is no need to be as slavishly subservient to the demands of mic positions as seems to be the case with Audyssey, where, as you know, I tried to replicate the 'known good' mic positions to the millimetre for each cal. I am immensely relieved to be free of such strictures!


----------



## Lumen

AudiocRaver said:


> ...I see no harm in following the pattern suggested in the documentation, only suggesting for the sanity and enjoyment of the user through the setup process - and for the richer and more varied data set that will result - that the tape measure and laser distance finder be set aside after that first critical point and placement be done quickly and with eyeball estimates, rather than with painstaking spacing measurements that many are used to.


I've gravitated toward this method, and oh what a relief it is!



AustinJerry said:


> Thanks for the response, Wayne. And I certainly appreciate the effort you have spent in your analysis. I think it is interesting that the mic placement guidelines vary slightly, depending on whether you are looking at Dirac's recommendations, Emotiva's recommendations, or MiniDSP's recommendations. I think all agree that the order of the placements is not critical, and I believe Dirac and MiniDSP agree that "narrow" for a single chair is a 1M-diameter circle, and that varying height is important.
> 
> It's always interesting to hear the experiences of others, which is what makes this forum valuable.


Better said than I !


----------



## Lumen

kbarnes70 said:


> ....I too have found that I get a stunning DL calibration when I take great care over the first mic position but then more or less randomly place the mic for the remaining 8 positions. This started because I cannot follow the user manual properly here: if I put the mic 12 inches below the first position, it is so low that the seat backs obscure its line of sight to the surround speakers. Clearly, that is not going to give a good result, so what I did was take the initial position, then use 4 positions about 8-10 inches higher, more or less as per the manual, with the remaining 4 positions just 'dotted' about the area around the chair. This way, every position gave a good line of sight to every speaker.


Also better said than I. Aside from measured vs free mic locations and aside from broad vs. tight mic spacings, I've not experimented with above vs. below the seat back. Dirac has done an very good job at improving my surround experience, but I think it can get better using your method. I'm anxious to try your above-the-seatback pattern for better line-of-sight to my highly compromised surround speaker positions. It will be interesting to see if Dirac can improve the surround effects while retaining SS&I. I realize there's only so much DSP can do, so starting with the best relative speaker positions is important, but not all of us can position our speakers in prime locations (sigh).


----------



## kbarnes70

BlueRockinLou said:


> Also better said than I. Aside from measured vs free mic locations and aside from broad vs. tight mic spacings, I've not experimented with above vs. below the seat back. Dirac has done an very good job at improving my surround experience, but I think it can get better using your method. I'm anxious to try your above-the-seatback pattern for better line-of-sight to my highly compromised surround speaker positions. It will be interesting to see if Dirac can improve the surround effects while retaining SS&I. I realize there's only so much DSP can do, so starting with the best relative speaker positions is important, but not all of us can position our speakers in prime locations (sigh).


Agree totally with your last observation there. I just started from what seemed obvious to me - that if the mic doesn't have a really uninterrupted line of sight to every speaker, then the result is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. After all, my ears have a clear line of sight to every speaker  In my room, with my high-back cinema chairs, this requires me to raise the mic quite a bit over and above the initial mic position (which is with the tip of the mic just above the MLP seat back - not quite where my ears go, but again, required if clear line of sight is a priority). Then, as I say, I completed the final 4 measurements 'randomly' around the seating area, but always making sure that the mic can 'see' all the speakers. It may be a compromised method, but then my HT is a set of compromises anyway, as many are. The bottom line is that I have better sound right now than I have ever done before.

As I am a newbie here, perhaps I should say that I am a very experienced user of Audyssey and Audyssey Pro and my current system is an Atmos 5.2.4 setup. Main speakers are M&K S150, surrounds are Tannoy Di6 DC (chosen for their good nearfield characteristics and coherent phase - my room is very small and the surrounds are closer than I'd ideally like) and the overhead speakers are Tannoy Di5 DC (chosen for their very wide dispersion - as per Dolby recommendations - and their power handling capabilities for my -5dB below cinema reference movie listening). Subs are dual Seaton Submersives in a Master/Slave arrangement. Amplification is 'adequate' for my purpose


----------



## NBPk402

kbarnes70 said:


> Agree totally with your last observation there. I just started from what seemed obvious to me - that if the mic doesn't have a really uninterrupted line of sight to every speaker, then the result is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. After all, my ears have a clear line of sight to every speaker  In my room, with my high-back cinema chairs, this requires me to raise the mic quite a bit over and above the initial mic position (which is with the tip of the mic just above the MLP seat back - not quite where my ears go, but again, required if clear line of sight is a priority). Then, as I say, I completed the final 4 measurements 'randomly' around the seating area, but always making sure that the mic can 'see' all the speakers. It may be a compromised method, but then my HT is a set of compromises anyway, as many are. The bottom line is that I have better sound right now than I have ever done before.
> 
> As I am a newbie here, perhaps I should say that I am a very experienced user of Audyssey and Audyssey Pro and my current system is an Atmos 5.2.4 setup. Main speakers are M&K S150, surrounds are Tannoy Di6 DC (chosen for their good nearfield characteristics and coherent phase - my room is very small and the surrounds are closer than I'd ideally like) and the overhead speakers are Tannoy Di5 DC (chosen for their very wide dispersion - as per Dolby recommendations - and their power handling capabilities for my -5dB below cinema reference movie listening). Subs are dual Seaton Submersives in a Master/Slave arrangement. Amplification is 'adequate' for my purpose


Makes perfect sense to me too (mic positions). I am looking forward to moving to Dirac, and see what it can do for me. 

I have read your other forum posts (about Audyssey), and very much agree with you.:T:T


----------



## AudiocRaver

For those interested, I just updated the thread titled Data Supporting a Single Setup Mic Position for Audyssey or Dirac Live. It no longer applies to Dirac Live. And there are new recommendations for Audyssey.

As stated in the nanoAVR DL review, following the recommendations of Dirac Research and miniDSP is the right way to go, with the added advice to "randomize" positions after the initial measurement at the center of the LP (LPC). I will add the suggestion that LPC always be used for the first position, even if it does not have line of sight to all the surrounds (for both Audyssey and Dirac Live). The information at that point is so critical for the best SS&I for the front main speakers, that I believe it should always be used. For all remaining measures, line of sight to the surrounds is certainly important.

As always, let your ears and your experience be your own best guide.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Given the thread topic, it is worth noting here that in this latest work with mic calibration patterns, more listening comparison was done between the best SS&I performance of Dirac Live vs. Audyssey XT. While Audyssey did a very good job, the SS&I performance of Dirac Live was sharper and more precise. XT32 _might_ have done a better job, although this can not be automatically assumed. See THIS POST for details.


----------



## kbarnes70

AudiocRaver said:


> For those interested, I just updated the thread titled Data Supporting a Single Setup Mic Position for Audyssey or Dirac Live. It no longer applies to Dirac Live. And there are new recommendations for Audyssey.
> 
> As stated in the nanoAVR DL review, following the recommendations of Dirac Research and miniDSP is the right way to go, with the added advice to "randomize" positions after the initial measurement at the center of the LP (LPC). I will add the suggestion that LPC always be used for the first position, even if it does not have line of sight to all the surrounds (for both Audyssey and Dirac Live). The information at that point is so critical for the best SS&I for the front main speakers, that I believe it should always be used. For all remaining measures, line of sight to the surrounds is certainly important.
> 
> As always, let your ears and your experience be your own best guide.


Yes - I should have made that clear in my post too. Although I am very keen to ensure line of sight for all subsequent measuring positions, for the first position it is recommended to place the mic where one's head would be. If my ears were at a lower listening level, I would do as you suggest and ignore line of sight to the surrounds for the first position, since it is the mains which will most impact SS&I and the surrounds aren’t so relevant there. But for subsequent mic positions I think it is important that the mic can see the surrounds - not for SS&I but to better align the timbre/tonal characteristics of all the speakers in the system.

For the remaining position, a more randomised arrangements seems to work well, and it is a relief to not have to obsess over mic positions to the extent that Audyssey always seemed to require if one was to get consistent results. Audyssey seems to be much more sensitive to mic position during the measuring phase than Dirac Live is. I get a great DL calibration every time, regardless of the precise positioning of the mic (other than the first position of course).


----------



## Dwight Angus

I have XT32 & I have high back chairs so I am going to try the right triangle setup with 8 measurements at my mlp. My goal is to improvement SS&I. I will report back once I evaluate the results.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Dwight Angus said:


> I have XT32 & I have high back chairs so I am going to try the right triangle setup with 8 measurements at my mlp. My goal is to improvement SS&I. I will report back once I evaluate the results.


Super! I would love to get your feedback!


----------



## Dwight Angus

Just to be clear I am tall & my ears are about 2 inches below the high seat back in a seated position. In the right triangle setup measurement #1 is at centre of head ear height. Where is the 2nd measurement? Is it 2 inches higher at the seat back height or should I go higher given my ear height. My concern is measurements 3 through 8 as the #8th position has to end up at an equal height equal to postion #1


----------



## AudiocRaver

Go higher.

Higher is better, go up 8 to 10 inches for point # 2.


----------



## Lumen

kbarnes70 said:


> Agree totally with your last observation there. I just started from what seemed obvious to me - that if the mic doesn't have a really uninterrupted line of sight to every speaker, then the result is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. After all, my ears have a clear line of sight to every speaker  In my room, with my high-back cinema chairs, this requires me to raise the mic quite a bit over and above the initial mic position (which is with the tip of the mic just above the MLP seat back - not quite where my ears go, but again, required if clear line of sight is a priority). Then, as I say, I completed the final 4 measurements 'randomly' around the seating area, but always making sure that the mic can 'see' all the speakers. It may be a compromised method, but then my HT is a set of compromises anyway, as many are. The bottom line is that I have better sound right now than I have ever done before.





AudiocRaver said:


> ...I will add the suggestion that LPC always be used for the first position, even if it does not have line of sight to all the surrounds (for both Audyssey and Dirac Live). The information at that point is so critical for the best SS&I for the front main speakers, that I believe it should always be used. For all remaining measures, line of sight to the surrounds is certainly important.
> 
> As always, let your ears and your experience be your own best guide.





kbarnes70 said:


> Yes - I should have made that clear in my post too. Although I am very keen to ensure line of sight for all subsequent measuring positions, for the first position it is recommended to place the mic where one's head would be. If my ears were at a lower listening level, I would do as you suggest and ignore line of sight to the surrounds for the first position, since it is the mains which will most impact SS&I and the surrounds aren’t so relevant there. But for subsequent mic positions I think it is important that the mic can see the surrounds - not for SS&I but to better align the timbre/tonal characteristics of all the speakers in the system.





AudiocRaver said:


> Go higher.
> Higher is better, go up 8 to 10 inches for point # 2.


I might need to return to a random yet repeatable mic location scheme to eliminate the unpredictability of midrange distortion some of my Dirac sessions have produced. Lately I've resorted to:
First measurement at LPC
Next four psuedo-randomized at or below seat height to left and right of LPC
Final four psuedo-randomized above seat height to left and right of LPC

I say "psuedo-randomized" because I located the mic in the same horizontal plane (i.e. parallel to the floor). While that pattern consistently yields good SS&I and engaging surround effects, bass is still a bit anemic and mids seem to carry an underlying distortion not unlike that of a over-driven guitar amp. I've so far been unable to establish a correlation between my measurement procedure and/or mic locations and the compromised performance. But some trials have yielded successful results. I plan on trying the Triangle Method next, and would like to add myself to the list of people reporting back with their findings.


----------



## Lumen

I'm kinda confused. I thought this thread was closed to Dirac trials so I posted all my experimentation and results over here:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...737-best-audyssey-test-single-mic-test-4.html

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## AudiocRaver

*Further Conclusions Regarding the Comparison of Audible Results Between Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live*

After quite a bit of additional work with Dirac Live and much listening to the results, an additional comment is in order.

When this initial exercise was done, we were using our best knowledge of both products to put them on an equal footing for the listening test. Since then, further experience with Dirac Live has led me to conclude that while our approach allowed us to get the best possible results from Audyssey XT32, that approach was actually holding Dirac Live back from giving its best results. Using the mic setup patterns suggested by Dirac Research give results which are significantly better than the single mic setup pattern which was used for this test, target curve capabilities and other operational factors aside.

My conclusion is that Dirac Live as implemented in the miniDSP nanoAVR DL is capable of sonically superior results when compared to Audyssey XT32, in terms of frequency response improvement and in terms of soundstage and imaging results.


----------



## kbarnes70

AudiocRaver said:


> My conclusion is that Dirac Live as implemented in the miniDSP nanoAVR DL is capable of sonically superior results when compared to Audyssey XT32, in terms of frequency response improvement and in terms of soundstage and imaging results.


Certainly what I found here, and I was an Audyssey XT32 and Audyssey Pro user for years. No going back once I heard my first Dirac Live calibration.


----------



## AustinJerry

AudiocRaver said:


> *Further Conclusions Regarding the Comparison of Audible Results Between Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live*
> 
> After quite a bit of additional work with Dirac Live and much listening to the results, an additional comment is in order.
> 
> When this initial exercise was done, we were using our best knowledge of both products to put them on an equal footing for the listening test. Since then, further experience with Dirac Live has led me to conclude that while our approach allowed us to get the best possible results from Audyssey XT32, that approach was actually holding Dirac Live back from giving its best results. Using the mic setup patterns suggested by Dirac Research give results which are significantly better than the single mic setup pattern which was used for this test, target curve capabilities and other operational factors aside.
> 
> My conclusion is that Dirac Live as implemented in the miniDSP nanoAVR DL is capable of sonically superior results when compared to Audyssey XT32, in terms of frequency response improvement and in terms of soundstage and imaging results.


I'm very pleased that you came to this conclusion. In my experience, using all nine positions following the general mic position guidelines has produced consistently excellent results. I have concluded since my implementation of Dirac Live approximately six months ago that the sonic results are more pleasing than what I had been used to with XT32/Pro. I have never regretted my decision and have never looked back.

Glad to see that Keith agrees as well, even though he is trying to remain incognito by dropping the "1" in his screen name. :bigsmile:


----------



## kbarnes70

AustinJerry said:


> I'm very pleased that you came to this conclusion. In my experience, using all nine positions following the general mic position guidelines has produced consistently excellent results. I have concluded since my implementation of Dirac Live approximately six months ago that the sonic results are more pleasing than what I had been used to with XT32/Pro. I have never regretted my decision and have never looked back.


+1 to all that, Jerry. For anyone who has a spare $1,000, I can't recommend the miniDSP DDRC-88A highly enough. And even if it looks expensive at that price, one has to recall that it will last through numerous iterations of AVR or AVP, as well as potentially making the choice of the AVR/P cheaper in the first place since one no longer needs the inbuilt REQ, the best of which is usually found only in the higher end units.



AustinJerry said:


> Glad to see that Keith agrees as well, even though he is trying to remain incognito by dropping the "1" in his screen name. :bigsmile:


 I had not even realised that! I must have forgotten to add it when I initially registered here. lddude:


----------



## AudiocRaver

AustinJerry said:


> I'm very pleased that you came to this conclusion. In my experience, using all nine positions following the general mic position guidelines has produced consistently excellent results. I have concluded since my implementation of Dirac Live approximately six months ago that the sonic results are more pleasing than what I had been used to with XT32/Pro. I have never regretted my decision and have never looked back.
> 
> Glad to see that Keith agrees as well, even though he is trying to remain incognito by dropping the "1" in his screen name. :bigsmile:


If I am not mistaken, I believe you mentioned in an earlier post that you had not had a bad Dirac calibration. I can say that I have, but it has only been when I was NOT following Dirac recommendations.

I think it is great that Dirac has come up with a product that is almost foolproof as far as getting good results if you just do what they say to do, no jumping through hoops. Of course my way of going about things is I had to learn that the hard way by trying pretty much everything else under the sun, so I can now enthusiastically add my voice to yours that the Dirac method simply works, and sounds fantastic!

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## kbarnes70

AudiocRaver said:


> If I am not mistaken, I believe you mentioned in an earlier post that you had not had a bad Dirac calibration. I can say that I have, but it has only been when I was NOT following Dirac recommendations.
> 
> I think it is great that Dirac has come up with a product that is almost foolproof as far as getting good results if you just do what they say to do, no jumping through hoops. Of course my way of going about things is I had to learn that the hard way by trying pretty much everything else under the sun, so I can now enthusiastically add my voice to yours that the Dirac method simply works, and sounds fantastic!
> 
> Thanks for your comments.


Same here - I have never had a bad Dirac calibration either. Not being as experimentally inclined as you and Jerry, I just followed the instructions as closely as possible and bingo! My first ever calibration was brilliant, right out of the box. Since then I have made new calibrations just following the SOP and the result is always never less than excellent.

I think this is a testimony to the inner workings of Dirac Live. When I was using Audyssey I was always trying new calibrations, with slightly different mic positions or different techniques etc, in pursuit of a better result. This seems to be SOP with Audyssey too, judging from the experiences related in dedicated threads elsewhere. On reflection, I think that all of this effort with Audyssey was an attempt to compensate for less than perfect calibrations to begin with - chasing the dream if you will. It never sounded 'quite right' so there was always the feeling that, with some additional user input, the result could be better. With Dirac Live, it sounds like it does in my imagination and I feel no need to constantly revisit the calibration in the vain pursuit of something better.

All of the above refers to using the auto-target curve. One of the joys of Dirac Live is the ease with which one can shape the target curve to one's preferences and I have experimented with that, with mixed results. The auto curve gives such a great result it is difficult for me to improve on it, but I welcome the fact that I can trym and that it is so easy.


----------



## Talley

I've only ran one Dirac test... Dirac SE. It sounds fantastic out of the box but I only did a one mic test. I need to do multiple spots and see how it works out.

I also waiting for my full license so I can adjust the curve to my liking.


----------



## Lumen

I would like to add that I, too, have had impressive results with Dirac's recommended mic pattern--most of the time. Several calibration results produced less than optimal HF/MF response to these ears, but I have yet to discover a correlation which renders them repeatable. So I must resign myself to accepting that the "distortion" results from human error.

At risk of being admonished for rocking the boat: I stick by my findings as they are valid for my system, room, and subjective taste. So I'd like to go on record stating that I consistently prefer one of my custom patterns over that of Dirac's standard. I've tried all manner of standard randomness, only to return to my own Trial #4: 1 loc @LP, 4 locs along hypotenuse, and 1 loc at each ear. Except for a post-Dirac phase adjustment required to lift a dip through the crossover region, those calibrations synch all 5.1 channels together like a well-oiled machine! It's the one calibration I've tried that infuses movies with the sense of foundation, envelopment, and immersion usually found only in magazines.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Lou:

What a great thread for sharing info like that. With our different rooms, speakers, amps, furniture, treatments, it is no wonder we do not all get identical results. For me the key has been to think BIGGER. The more spread out the pattern, the more consistent the results I have gotten - the opposite of the way it would work with Audyssey, and counter-intuitive in a way, AND a testament to a robust, resilient, well-engineered correction algorithm.

But that is in MY situation. The more we share this info, the more resilient our combined experience base becomes. Kudos.


----------



## kbarnes70

Lumen said:


> So I'd like to go on record stating that I consistently prefer one of my custom patterns over that of Dirac's standard.


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.


----------



## Lumen

kbarnes70 said:


> 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

Lumen said:


> 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

kbarnes70 said:


> 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

Lumen said:


> 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

kbarnes70 said:


> 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

kbarnes70 said:


> 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

kbarnes70 said:


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





AudiocRaver said:


> 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

AudiocRaver said:


> 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

grandpixel said:


> "SS&I are not directly measurable.


For now. 



grandpixel said:


> 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. 



grandpixel said:


> 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. 



grandpixel said:


> 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

grandpixel said:


> "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

AudiocRaver said:


> 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

bkeeler10 said:


> 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 !?


----------



## Audioguy

Interesting article. I set up a blind comparison between Dirac and Audyssey and got significantly different results.

You can read all of the details HERE. Summary: We did not use the same SSP platform but the levels were IDENTICALLY matched. We built a switching device out of commercially available products that could handle up to 8 channels. We compared both 2.1 and 7.1. The switcher and person operating it was in another room so it was blind. A VERY important observation that was noted in this blind comparison as well as some sighted testing on another system: Trying to exactly match the Audyssey Target curve (in Audyssey Pro) to the Dirac curve made Audyssey sound very unnatural. The reverse (trying to match the Dirac target to the standard Audyssey target) was a serious compromise to Dirac. We also tried to develop targets to match the two corrected FR's as close as possible. 

When letting both systems use their recommended targets, it was not even close: every part of the Dirac based solution was far superior to the Audyssey based comparion. We previously did a blind compare of Dirac Live from a PC music server through the same platform (Integra) running Audyssey. We switched off Audyssey when Dirac was running and switched of Dirac when Audyssey was running. Same results: Dirac was far superior.

Clearly, YMMV !!


----------



## AudiocRaver

Our more recent results, which echo your own, are kinda buried in this thread. See post #51. We came to the same conclusion you did.


----------



## mtbdudex

Time to revive an old thread....

With the Audyssey app has anyone re-did the comparisons?
https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/upgrades/audysseymulteqeditorapp

View the speaker detection results, to check correct installation.
View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems.
Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit your tastes.
Adjust the EQ frequency adjustment range for each channel pair.
Switch between 2 high frequency rolloff target curves.
Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the vocal region brighter or smoother.
Save and load calibration results.


----------



## MarkyM

mtbdudex said:


> Time to revive an old thread....
> 
> With the Audyssey app has anyone re-did the comparisons?
> https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/upgrades/audysseymulteqeditorapp
> 
> View the speaker detection results, to check correct installation.
> View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems.
> Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit your tastes.
> Adjust the EQ frequency adjustment range for each channel pair.
> Switch between 2 high frequency rolloff target curves.
> Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the vocal region brighter or smoother.
> Save and load calibration results.


I would be interested in this as well. That app needs work but it gives you some control. Editing of the target curve though is virtually impossible as it is limited to awkward, imprecise finger moves on a coarse graph. This needs to be completely re-done.

Also, FYI...Dirac is now available in a reasonably priced AVR from NAD! The T758 v3. Lists for only $1300! wish I would have known about it before I bought my Denon X3400H! (which I am generally happy with nonetheless)


----------



## Nick

I am hoping for a little advice on how I should get started with a Dirac Live product. I am a 2 channel listener without a sub. I have dipole speakers with on outboard crossover that requires a multi-channel amp that powers each driver individually. I mostly like to access my music via a sonos controller (I also have a squeezebox but switched to the Sonos because I have a second Sonos system outside my main listening room and Sonos allows me to switch back and forth between systems). I most often listens to music streamed via the Sonos app from Deezer, Spotify or Pandora. I have a headless Mac Mini and Amarra with my music collection also, but I rarely access this way because the Sonos controller is so much easier to use. My Classe CP-800 has a DAC with a 192 sample rate and 5 EQ filters per channel for what it’s worth.

I would like a solution that I can attach my various sources to that doesn’t require playback to come only from my computer. It looks like the 2 channel miniDSP is a good way to go, but I wanted to know if there were other choices anyone might recommend, please?

Thank you.


----------



## SHNEE

I don't know about Dirac as I haven't tried it yet, but I found that with XT32, in some cases you can improve the dips a lot by playing with the crossover point. For example, in one case, Audyssey set the XO to 60 Hz. After some trial an error, I found it much better at 110 Hz for 0-120 Hz, but 100 Hz got me the best overall result. The editor seems promising but I have not tried editing yet. In my first couple of trails, I got better result running it directly from the AVR.


----------



## NBPk402

Wow, that NAD is a steal... could easily be used as a preamp for a little more than a Dirac 88, plus does more channels!


----------



## Kal Rubinson

ellisr63 said:


> Wow, that NAD is a steal... could easily be used as a preamp for a little more than a Dirac 88, plus does more channels!


Yowza! 
DiracLive plus.............................
7.1-channel preamp outputs
7.1-channel preamp inputs
7 speaker outputs(Front L/R, Center, Surround L/R, Surround Back L/R)
All for $1300!


----------



## Doug Byrum

I can not see the images for the mic set up pattern. ?


----------



## bkeeler10

Kal Rubinson said:


> Yowza!
> DiracLive plus.............................
> 7.1-channel preamp outputs
> 7.1-channel preamp inputs
> 7 speaker outputs(Front L/R, Center, Surround L/R, Surround Back L/R)
> All for $1300!


Actually, 11.1 channel preamp out (for 7.1.4 Atmos), and Dirac on all 12 channels. Pretty amazing deal really.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

bkeeler10 said:


> Actually, 11.1 channel preamp out (for 7.1.4 Atmos), and Dirac on all 12 channels. Pretty amazing deal really.


Yeah but those items are not important to me.


----------



## bkeeler10

^^ Sure, fair enough. Just pointing it out for the benefit of all, since I myself was under the impression for some time that this unit only had 8-channel processing.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

bkeeler10 said:


> ^^ Sure, fair enough. Just pointing it out for the benefit of all, since I myself was under the impression for some time that this unit only had 8-channel processing.


OK with me, to be sure.


----------



## shkumar4963

Thanks. Great review.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------

