# Who listens in Pure/Direct Mode?



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

I am curious to see how many here listen in Pure Direct mode and what material do you use.


----------



## juanalexei (Jul 15, 2011)

I noticed the pure mode has less latency than the other modes.

I use it when I'm playing or recording music, sound coming from a good MOTU audio interface.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

I only listened in pure direct when I was running full range towers and my CD player at the time had a great DAC. Other than that I now just use it as a quick way to disable my sub and run my bookshelves full range.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Assuming Pure/Direct means no processing or bass management, then I'd shy away from it because room correction is needed for the system to sound its best. Dirac Live is hard to abandon for bare system/room response. OTOH, better recordings transport you away from the room into the tapestry of the music and seem not to benefit near as much from correction.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I tend to use the Direct mode anytime I listen to music, for me the regular stereo mode tends to muddy up the works in my system. I really do not notice a difference using pure direct, well maybe it sounds a tad thin so direct is good for me.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I'm with Lou here. Room correction goes a long way IMO. Though I think Audyssey has failed me...
Also, being a drummer playing mic'd and acoustic,( other instruments too) , I feel like direct is like listening in my dentists office. Flat and dull. I do use direct when I'm feeling like I'm in that mood and (to me) want to hear what they heard in the booth. Mostly, I feel "stereo" or plII music more accurately conveys music as its put down.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

asere said:


> I am curious to see how many here listen in Pure Direct mode and what material do you use.


 do you?


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I don't as I like to have my subs in the equation.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

ellisr63 said:


> I don't as I like to have my subs in the equation.


 and that...


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

willis7469 said:


> do you?


I only tried it out a couple of times and thought it sounded nice with music although I missed the bass from the sub. I was wondering what some here thought since I hear most audiophiles really like and use direct mode.
Most of the time it's Stereo for me.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ellisr63 said:


> I don't as I like to have my subs in the equation.



Ahh I see why so many do not go here, this makes sense. Thanks for clearing this up for me. 
I am kind of used to running the high level in option on the subs for music and the low level for movies so this issue has never come up. I am feeling kind of DUH right about now.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

asere said:


> ....I hear most audiophiles really like and use direct mode


There's that word again - "audiophiles" ! Bad audiophiles. Bad, bad, audiophiles. Even more bad than bad. Okay well, you get the idea :R
Now before anyone draws conclusions based on my own _Audiophilia Nervosa_, please allow me to introduce myself; I am a man of stealth and claim! :sneeky: :whistling:

I used to be firmly rooted in the minimalist camp, which believes only important parts and components should be included in the signal chain. "Pure/Direct Mode" strives to help achieve that goal via bypassed processing and signal routing. Now, I'm scooching over to the DSP and PEQ camp. Not sliding past it, mind you; just scooching. Until the nice folks here at HTS helped edge-u-muh-kate me in the ways of room correction and subwoofer augmentation, I scoffed at inserting these powerful tools into my own 2ch signal chain. My Home Theater system could leverage those "crutches" to no end, but even get them in the same room as my He-Man Rig, and WATCH OUT! Blinds would shutter, Klaxons would go off, Halon would discharge... well, you get the idea!

I now look back on the advice offered by AES acoustics expert and patent holder, Richard Stroud, and tell myself: "I should have listened." Dick recommended adding digital EQ and a powered sub to help tame modes and other acoustical problems, but I would have none of it because I was... an "evil audiophile" ! I solved many of those with speaker positioning, bass traps, and absorber/diffusor panels; but that was much more expensive and didn't address overall frequency response or tune for house sound. Now, I no longer shun the idea of adding another AD-DA conversion stage to gain the benefits of say, a miniDSP Dirac Live or a Behringer FD Pro. I might be disassembling - NO DISASSEMBLE, STEFANIE! - my 2ch rig to combine it with my home theater, so I haven't decided exactly what I need.

Anyway, I'd probably listen in Pure/Direct mode now and again, just to remind myself of the difference and to try and pick a preference (if any) over processed sound.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

There ya go man, keep as cool as you can...it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave..and keep on thinking free...

Or...

Try listening in all the different ways and see what makes your toes shoot up in your boot. I can truly see the need for some adjustment in your home theater cause things are kinda complex in there using some computerized standards to work your speakers and the sub seems a very good idea.
However, your main he man speakers are totally full range and I am not sure how much a subwoofer for music would get you. As such, using the processor in the home theater mode with the big dudes could most probably help fill in the lowest of the low without causing issues in the upper bass and mid bass. 

But then what do I know....I'm magnetic ink


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Savjac said:


> ...your main he man speakers are totally full range and I am not sure how much a subwoofer for music would get you.
> But then what do I know....I'm magnetic ink


Back in the day, my answering machine preserved my voice on polymer-backed magnetic media (i.e. cassette tape). So there, HAH! 

I partially rejected Dick's recommendation thinking that the sub's SQ couldn't possibly match that of the Salon's bass drivers. Why, even prestigious reviewers had claimed the Salon's bass performance surpassed even the best subwoofers they had heard. And we all know if a reviewer said it, then it MUST be true, right? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now I realize I missed the point. ... the purpose of the sub was not to extend mains response, but to reinforce reflected waves so they wouldn't totally cancel direct waves. Worked like magic. _We employ the same principle when we include multiple subs in our HT's._ 

Sorry for the off-topic. Now back to you, OP.


----------



## Audiofan1 (Aug 16, 2013)

I use Pure Direct daily for 2/ch and there are times I add an eq'd sub into 2/ch, my room is treated and speakers placed well and I'm still an Audiophile:unbelievable: well perhaps better said! an Audiophile with options as its never to me meant 2/ch and no subs or any processing just the pursuit of the highest obtainable (for me ) *Fidelity*:T


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I never use anything that takes out the subs or the EQ.
That's not to say that I don't try it every once and awhile to remind myself why.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Lumen said:


> Sorry for the off-topic. Now back to you, OP.


Have you thought of maybe kinda starting a new thread about blending subs with the mains. ??


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

asere said:


> ...I hear most audiophiles really like and use direct mode...


I could be wrong, but I believe that is becoming less and less true as the quality of DSP has improved (bass management, room correction).


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Audiofan1 said:


> ....I'm still an Audiophile:unbelievable: well perhaps better said! an Audiophile with options as its never to me meant 2/ch and no subs or any processing just the pursuit of the highest obtainable (for me ) *Fidelity*:T





AudiocRaver said:


> I could be wrong, but I believe that is becoming less and less true as the quality of DSP has improved (bass management, room correction).


This Pure/Direct topic has the makings of a new experiment! :nerd:
For various reasons, my HT system doesn't have anywhere near the holographic SS&I (soundstage and imaging) as my 2ch rig. It may get there someday, but not in the current room. So experimenting with Dirac Live vs. Pure/Direct in the "better" system should more easily reveal a preference where small differences are concerned. I predict most differences would be huge, and favor the use of Dirac/DSP. Now if only I can overcome the inconvenience of dislodging my processor from its moorings in the HT system (and the 2ch preamp as well)!


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Hmmm, is it ok to start a sentence with hmmmm ??

I think you are on track with your thoughts about your HT room Lumen, there may not be enough space for a fully fleshed in holographic image to appear, with your present equipment in there. If the equipment was downsized, then oh yeah it would work. 

Personally I dont think differences will be huge if you move to the big room but I could be way off base. I think I will jog over to my room and try these things and see what happens.


----------



## Dwight Angus (Dec 17, 2007)

Recently I have started to listen to 2 channel music without EQ & subs in pure direct mode. I can't explain it but man it sounds great. I have integrated my room for both HT & 2 channel music. I use EQ & subs for movies.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Lumen said:


> This Pure/Direct topic has the makings of a new experiment! :nerd:
> For various reasons, my HT system doesn't have anywhere near the holographic SS&I (soundstage and imaging) as my 2ch rig. It may get there someday, but not in the current room. So experimenting with Dirac Live vs. Pure/Direct in the "better" system should more easily reveal a preference where small differences are concerned. I predict most differences would be huge, and favor the use of Dirac/DSP. Now if only I can overcome the inconvenience of dislodging my processor from its moorings in the HT system (and the 2ch preamp as well)!


FWIW, while I have been extremely happy with the sound quality of Dirac Live via the miniDSP nanoAVR DL, I also have Dirac Live full version - courtesy of Flac at Dirac Research - on my media PC, and when i use it, I find the soundstage more 3-dimensional. More processor power, more complex filter generation, something like that. Interestingly, a previous vintage of the nanoAVR DL PC control program just happened to be file compatible with the full PC version of DL, so the very same set of measurements taken with the nanoAVR DL were used to generate filters on the media PC, and the comparison between the two versions (nanoAVR DL vs DL Full) is true apples to apples. Since then, an update to the nanoAVR DL sw messed up that compatibility, which, it turns out, is not a priority for either company. [I am considering installing the older-vintage nanoAVR DL sw on an old laptop just to keep it around and be able to make that comparison again should it be useful. As if life isn't already complicated enough!:coocoo:]

Realizing that even among extremely critical listeners - the posts on this thread seem to represent a pretty picky bunch - we seem to have different sensitivities [Savjac can hear the diff between Stereo and Direct on his AVR, I doubt I could - yet - but I can pick out pretty fine differences in soundstage and imaging (SS&I) that a lot of others seem to miss], for me, the improvement in SS&I with Dirac Live over my _very best_ careful speaker setup and hand-tuned minimalist EQ efforts is dramatic enough that I am a absolutely stuck on using Dirac Live. It may be that there is a microscopic degree of degradation or distortion from the DSP, but it is nothing I can hear, or at least nothing near significant enough to negate the improvement in SS&I that I hold so dear (now I am starting to get mushy - yuck!).:dumbcrazy:


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Mushy is good Craver, means you have heart and soul.

In reading your thoughts on the stereo vs direct mode using Dirac and a few other things that I am not in possession of such as the miniDSP nanoAVR DL, I feel a bit intimidated. Not for lack of the additional items so much as I dont really know what they do. :dontknow:

I use the Audyssee built into my Denon AVR and with that in mind the differences between the stereo and direct settings is so readily apparent that I never use the stereo option. Keeping this in mind, coupled with the massive amounts of respect I have for Lumen and Craver, I must now run to the room and do some experiments. I am wondering if I have something set wrong in the Denon. I am not sure what to look for but I will search it out. I generally run my music from the computer via JRiver, to my external dac and then into the AVR so maybe there is something there. I must seek out what I am missing. Be back in awhile.


----------



## Dwight Angus (Dec 17, 2007)

I fell upon a huge improvement in pure mode when I disconnected my Onkyo 5508 processor & connected Oppo 105d directly to amp. SS&I is much more focused. Very pleased with result but surprised that bypassing the Onkyo & audyssey xt32 would improve 2 channel so much. It requires more testing but so far very pleased.

Sent from my iPad using HTShack


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I've used both modes. I listen to a lot of jazz and feel that missing the low end of the sub is noticeable in pure direct. Both stereo and direct sound so close it's often hard to hear a difference. Maybe it's my speakers and room combination but stereo is my usual choice so that the sub is working.

I know that imaging can suffer if the auto room EQ messes with the filters to much above 400hz and applies different filters to the left and right channels. I bet som people who hear a dramatic difference between stereo and direct have had these different EQ filters applied to much to each channel differently.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Tony,

That is a warning you speak of often, and with good reason. And, as I am sure you are well aware, part of the magic of Dirac Live is its ability to apply its filtering while doing all the right things to not only preserve soundstage and imaging but improve upon it.

In my early days of fiddling with EQ, I experienced plenty of exactly what you are talking about. It was quite frustrating, but also quite an education.

In line with your excellent advice, my approach to hand tuning speaker and room EQ is to first set up speakers for the best sound stage and imaging possible, which I am happy to say does not take more than an hour or so, having done it dozens of times now, then use a stereo EQ plugin to apply just a few bands of the same filtering to left and right channels equally.

And as happy as I was with that kind of result for a long time - we could even say that I thought that was the best it could possibly get - those boys and girls at Dirac Research went and came up with something that was a full notch or two better, and, unlike that other auto EQ program, made it easy to get great results almost every time. Some people would leave the word "almost" out of that last sentence. I would not argue with them.

Still being just a bit of a perfectionist, although I'm sure you never would have guessed it, I always insist upon doing the speaker setup as carefully as possible even when planning to apply Dirac Live for finishing touches. While I have no evidence to support it, it seems logical that giving DL a good starting point and only asking it to do the polishing work might give a more satisfying result than having it try to handle major corrections with a sloppier set up.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Dwight Angus said:


> I fell upon a huge improvement in pure mode when I disconnected my Onkyo 5508 processor & connected Oppo 105d directly to amp. SS&I is much more focused. Very pleased with result but surprised that bypassing the Onkyo & audyssey xt32 would improve 2 channel so much. It requires more testing but so far very pleased.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using HTShack


I used to assume that people were imagining the kind of differences you are talking about. However, in the last year I have started to hear differences like that myself in unexpected places, especially using super clean headphones like the PM-1 from Oppo. I guess the lesson is to never stop experimenting, assume nothing, keep an open mind, and always verify.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Ok, i did some serious listening over the last couple of hours again using the computer to dac to avr. 
I think you gents are correct in that Audyssey may be adding some unwanted changes in the upper mid frequencies as well as bumping up the bottom end. I re ran audyssey a couple hours ago just to make sure all was right with it and then went to town listening. I agree with Tony that direct and pure direct are very close in sound to the point wherein I would with some material be hard pressed to hear a difference. However, when I then move to Stereo, the sound becomes smeared and I do not really know how to explain, but subtle cues are gone and to use a visual analogy, the sonic space appears to have a coating of a semi transparent goo over all the instruments. 
Tom Jones' voice on the song Run On sounds about 3' wide and covered with reverberation. The Roaches cut, Hallelujah Chorus, looses the space between their voices. I use this cut because there are no instruments to confuse the matter. Dire Straits cut Money From Nothing looses that attack from the guitar as well as the drums. It almost sounds like Pick Withers is using a small mop to heat his drums....ok well not that bad but you get the idea. 

Obviously I need to look into Dirac as I seem to either be missing a good thing or my avr is broken. I would vote for the latter being the culprit.:blink:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

That is exactly what happens if the imaging of each channel is tampered with EQ filters added to each channel on different frequencies.. Dirac really sounds like the cats meow! My 805 has served me so well but in the next year I am thinking it will be time to replace it. Maybe something with DL?


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> ....Maybe something with DL?


You GO, brother!!!


----------



## Yad (Oct 19, 2009)

I do ))) I dont use any attenuations exept "Vol"


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I continue to play a bit with the system and choice of inputs and stand behind or beside what I wrote above, however, in trying to pin down what sounds best, I have gotten a headache and started playing records again. 

This hobby, like most I would guess, is somewhat overwhelming when one attempts changes and submits to hours and hours of critical listening before sitting down to just be part of the music. There are times when all these options are a good thing and yet.....I do miss a good two channel pre amp, amplifier and 2 speakers. Maybe I need to take over another room in the house and use the big rig for movies and concert discs and use the secondary room for music. Hmmmmm:dontknow:


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Nothing is different. Just play the music. Fiddle with the options only when motivated. Otherwise, you let the technology get in the way.


----------



## Marksas (Sep 11, 2012)

Savjac said:


> I continue to play a bit with the system and choice of inputs and stand behind or beside what I wrote above, however, in trying to pin down what sounds best, I have gotten a headache and started playing records again.  This hobby, like most I would guess, is somewhat overwhelming when one attempts changes and submits to hours and hours of critical listening before sitting down to just be part of the music. There are times when all these options are a good thing and yet.....I do miss a good two channel pre amp, amplifier and 2 speakers. Maybe I need to take over another room in the house and use the big rig for movies and concert discs and use the secondary room for music. Hmmmmm:dontknow:


I've feel the same way, I fuss over every little minute detail in my main system doing double duty for music/HT and was at the point also in trying to take over a room in the house for a small 2 ch system but it never happened. 
At times I enjoy my music more on my small office setup than my big rig. It consists of small DIY bookshelf speakers, a DAC and a little T amp. I think it's partly the near field listening that makes it feel more involving. I've also used the the same setup with a 1970's silver face Kenwood integrated amp which has an endearing quality about it.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Pure/Direct is about accuracy. Some say there are excellent preamps which are better in the signal chain than out of it. My 2ch tubed preamp is not one of them, as it's subjectively voiced toward the warm side of neutral. Sort of like a hardware-implemented house curve. So by subjective design, my main rig in the 1st room can be considered pure direct (no processing inserted in the signal chain). But because the room is open to the rest of the house, the family would need to leave for awhile so I could conduct meaningful listening experiments targeted at swapping the preamp in and out of the system. _Of course, all acoustic treatments would need to be reinstalled to reveal the bass definition and sonic detail Jack was deprived of during his visit._ 

As for the 2nd room with my HT gear and ...ahem... borrowed acoustic treatments, Dirac Live in the signal chain trounces Pure/Direct mode. But that's just my opinion. Maybe Jack will have a chance to compare them in this room sometime soon. In any case, I have little doubt Dirac would also win if implemented in the main room. Moving and redesigning the HT in there would be nothing short of a major improvement (not to mention a major effort)!


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Kal is correct, set it and listen.
I am not quite as confident in my opinions and have to fiddle a bit and therein lies the road to frustration now and for many a year. However, taking Kal's insight into my sphere, I will listen as I feel proper, Direct or Pure Direct and voila, that will be the best I can do. 

I wonder exactly what Audyssey sets the system to...in other words what is its main goal ? Is it to set to what my limitations and gifts are or is it set to what the manufacturer believes to be true. Lets say I have some issues in the 500hz - 800hz range, I am thinking that the software will not know that, obviously, so it may actually make matters worse for each individual. Before I get to the next point am I making sense here ??


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

With a pretty specific goal in mind, some experimentation can be fun. But it can get old in a hurry, too.

Let inspiration by your guide. I remember the day when a slightly (I thought!) elevated noise floor finally got to bugging me too much, and I took the time to set up an optical link to my AVR from my media server. I was just hoping to drop that noise level down a bit. What I ended up with totally blew me away.

The sense of sheer open space between individual sound images was enthralling. Needless to say, that was a change that stayed in place.


----------



## Bretcoe (Dec 22, 2015)

My room isn't very big, and has a staircase leading away from it so two things:

I only have bookshelf speakers for fronts. (Focal 807v's with x2 sunfire hrs12's)

And, I need room correction. 

The pure/direct button constantly begs me to get a pair of proper towers.


----------



## Talley (Dec 8, 2010)

Since the XMC and then later doing my room treatments I find that "Reference Stereo" which is an absolute pure mode that bypasses anything and turns video circuitry off too is best for me for music.

For multichannel movies.... Dirac is excellent.

The end.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

My memory is short so I am really not sure if I mentioned this or not but for me, the 7.1 channel input is the cleanest and most direct input when wanting nothing but audio. As I understand it after speaking to the folks at Emotiva, almost all pre/pros or AVR's involve the computer in these systems to deal with the signal in some way. This was before the XMC was released so that may not have this issue. 

Never the less, if you cannot use the 7.1 ext inputs then the direct setting on the other inputs is the next best thing. Pure direct is kind of what Tally is speaking about. I would like to get back to Lumen's room to be exposed to Dirac vs. any other processing program, that would be exciting.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

asere said:


> I am curious to see how many here listen in Pure Direct mode and what material do you use.


I run Pure Direct mode when listening to two channel music running my towers full range. I prefer to hear the speakers as they are with out room correction employed. I bought my speakers based on their 2 channel capabilities. Its a personal quirk.


----------

