Jump to content
IGNORED

Dirac: Just say no!


Recommended Posts

Get ahold of REW and possibly a different microphone and see if you reproduce the same response curve. If you do, you probably will want to do something with your room to flatten out the response (perhaps mechanical room treatments), unless you just happen to like it how it is now.

 

Thanks, I'll try it: The room is too bright on top and too boomy on the bottom--not horribly so, but enough to want to correct it. That said, I was really put off by what I heard with the Dirac-treatment. And, frankly, I'm of the less-eq-is-better-and-none-is-best school anyway (for better or worse) so mechanical room treatments might be more up my alley.

 

The Dirac sound, or whatever that was, seemed terribly over-processed.

 

FYI, the microphone I used was a CAD u37 Omnidirectional Studio Recording Microphone

Link to comment
I have to add that your initial measured response looks very odd. Can you let us know a bit more info about your system? Would be nice to know room size, system components and any sound treatments already added.

 

I'll take a picture later once I'm back at my desk. Thanks

Link to comment
You are sitting in a null. DIRAC can't correct for poor setup. Figure out where the null is coming from and move seat accordingly.

 

 

That's definitely something I'd like to learn more about, yes. I'd like to do whatever I can do correct room issues. Seems like eq should be the last resort, perhaps?

Link to comment
Thanks, I'll try it: The room is too bright on top and too boomy on the bottom--not horribly so, but enough to want to correct it.
This already calls into question the validity of the "before" curve since most of us would predict that a system with that in-room response would be horribly glarry and intolerable. This suggests that the microphone was defective or improperly used (wrong type of mic and/or the correction curve for the XTZ mic might have exacerbated the response).

 

That said, I was really put off by what I heard with the Dirac-treatment.
Based on the "before" curve, Dirac properly applied significant and increasing attentuation throughout midrange and treble as well as lots of gain in the range of the null. So, if the "before" curve is inaccurate and your real FR is flatter, the attenuation would muffle all the midrange and treble.

 

And, frankly, I'm of the less-eq-is-better-and-none-is-best school anyway (for better or worse) so mechanical room treatments might be more up my alley.
A valid approach but not relevant to your use of Dirac.

 

The Dirac sound, or whatever that was, seemed terribly over-processed.
Of course, as explained above. I have just finished several runs with Dirac and used several different target curves. I used several different mics, each with its accompanying correction curve, and one was just $75. The various results were easily distinguished from each other and from bypass but none were intolerable and most were improvements. Of course, none of my "before" curves were as wildly tilted as yours.

 

FYI, the microphone I used was a CAD u37 Omnidirectional Studio Recording Microphone
Bingo! Not a measurement microphone and using it with an unmatched calibration curve would likely make it even worse. CAD describes this as "Cardioid pick-up pattern minimizes background noise and isolates the main sound source" and "The U37 is a side-address microphone," not an omni. You would probably get better results with this mic (just as an experiment) by aiming it up at the ceiling but even that is not to be recommended.

 

If this is new to you, you might better have come here and asked for help.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

 

If this is new to you, you might better have come here and asked for help.

 

Of course this is news to me. I don't spend my life selling hi-fi equipment or, for heaven's sake, writing about it all day. This may come as a shock to an illustrious hi-fi journalist like you, but some of us are engaged in activities that don't afford us the opportunity to live and breathe audio equipment.

 

So, yeah, I didn't have a clue that this particular microphone was ill-suited to the task at hand.

 

Question: Could they explain any of this in their user guide?

 

 

"The U37 is a side-address microphone," not an omni. You would probably get better results with this mic (just as an experiment) by aiming it up at the ceiling but even that is not to be recommended.

 

Just for the record, I did that: The u37 user guide instructed proper use of side-address microphone design.

Link to comment
I have just finished several runs with Dirac and used several different target curves. I used several different mics, each with its accompanying correction curve, and one was just $75. The various results were easily distinguished from each other and from bypass but none were intolerable and most were improvements. Of course, none of my "before" curves were as wildly tilted as yours.

 

Was that is for your column? Looking forward to reading about it.

Link to comment
Of course this is news to me. I don't spend my life selling hi-fi equipment or, for heaven's sake, writing about it all day. This may come as a shock to an illustrious hi-fi journalist like you, but some of us are engaged in activities--in my case, cancer research--that don't afford us the opportunity to live and breathe audio equipment.

 

Why would anyone want to help you with that attitude? I think you really just came here for an argument.

Link to comment
Why would anyone want to help you with that attitude? I think you really just came here for an argument.

 

Really not. Most everybody has been lovely, and I've expressed appreciation for that. Two "insiders"--one a salesman, another...well, whatever a hi-fi journalist is--have come packing an attitude, and I've called them on it. That's all.

Link to comment
That's definitely something I'd like to learn more about, yes. I'd like to do whatever I can do correct room issues. Seems like eq should be the last resort, perhaps?

 

Jim Smith's book and DVDs are reviewed somewhere here on this site. He has a very good discussion about the room and how to deal with it, and regards it as the most important single thing.

Link to comment
That's definitely something I'd like to learn more about, yes. I'd like to do whatever I can do correct room issues. Seems like eq should be the last resort, perhaps?

Skipper,

If you are sitting in a null, there is NO DSP that will fix that. Nulls are non-minimum phase and cannot be corrected. If you do a search, there's a formula that will help you identify the path length differences so you can identify the offending boundary. I would start off with REW. The only thing that makes me think there may be some other issue or a combination of nulls is the wide Q loss of energy. I had a measurement that looked like that once when I mistakenly set my speaker subs out of phase from my main R/L.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

Link to comment
Really, though, isn't this just adding another layer of processing "overhead' to the sound?

Not really sure of the point you are trying to make. Of course Dirac adds processing, but the idea is that the result is a sound that removes room colorations from what you are hearing. You've gotten several good suggestions here about how to fix your problem, you should try them - starting with a proper measurement microphone - and see what happens.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Really not. Most everybody has been lovely, and I've expressed appreciation for that. Two "insiders"--one a salesman, another...well, whatever a hi-fi journalist is--have come packing an attitude, and I've called them on it. That's all.
The tone was set in your original post but the offer to help remains.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
This statement, airily dismissive as it is, make no sense. At least to a layperson like me. Isn't Dirac EQ? If it isn't, what is it?

 

No Kal's statement makes perfect sense and isn't dismissive. Physical room correction and DRC are two approaches to the same problem. If done properly they complement each other. But your OP came asking about a specific problem with Dirac and Kal took the time to give you a considered, detailed, and helpful response.

 

Your later and additional comment about a preference for mechanical room correction is opening up a whole different topic and isn't directly relevant to your OP. So Kal was just making a logical response, not being dismissive, and trying to stay on topic. People here are trying to help you, try not to be so sensitive and argumentative, as some of your responses have been.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
Skipper,

If you are sitting in a null, there is NO DSP that will fix that. Nulls are non-minimum phase and cannot be corrected. If you do a search, there's a formula that will help you identify the path length differences so you can identify the offending boundary. I would start off with REW. The only thing that makes me think there may be some other issue or a combination of nulls is the wide Q loss of energy. I had a measurement that looked like that once when I mistakenly set my speaker subs out of phase from my main R/L.

Thanks. I'm looking into REW now. Copious supporting material, which is nice.

 

Gotta do something. Listening to Clara Haskil play Scarlatti: The sound is so harsh, all I want to do is claw out my eardrums.

Link to comment
No Kal's statement makes perfect sense and isn't dismissive. Physical room correction and DRC are two approaches to the same problem. If done properly they complement each other. But your OP came asking about a specific problem with Dirac and Kal took the time to give you a considered, detailed, and helpful response.

 

Your later and additional comment about a preference for mechanical room correction is opening up a whole different topic and isn't directly relevant to your OP. So Kal was just making a logical response, not being dismissive, and trying to stay on topic. People here are trying to help you, try not to be so sensitive and argumentative, as some of your responses have been.

 

It makes sense to you because you know what he's talking about. It doesn't make sense to me because I don't know what he's talking about. Which is what I said (cf,. "layperson like me"). So we're each giving voice to the truth as we perceive it. Isn't diversity grand?

 

Insofar as I can tell: DSP, at least in this instance, is an extremely granular EQ. It's Riemann Sum EQ, if you will, but it's EQ. (Or isn't it? If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to know; I'm sure others would as well. But there's got to be more to the argument that DSP isn't EQ than just to say, more or less, "oh, pshaw!")

 

Now, EQ is hardly a war crime. I just like to avoid it when I can. The horribly "over-processed" Dirac sound reminded me why.

 

An aside: I am a reasonably methodical person. I believe I followed Dirac's instructions to letter. I also think it's plausible that the spectrum chart is whacked: Garbage in, garbage out. In that case, I'm willing to assume the likely culprit to be the microphone.

 

That said, Dirac's documentation, copious in areas I shouldn't think would require such attention (like how to install the software), is oddly fuzzy about some critical microphone matters (talk about sitting in a null!). When pressed on this, the Dirac salesman (or whatever he is) tried to clump several microphone "issues" into one mudslide of innuendo (the implication being that I didn't follow directions). Then, when I tried to separate these elements for individual consideration, he got slippery. At least to my ears. (Or, in this case, eyes.)

 

Here's the point, you see: I'm a layperson, yes, but I'm an attentive layperson. And when an attentive layperson like me has his afternoon (and $50) wasted because of poor technical writing...and then finds himself confronted by a company salesperson (I'm laughing as I write this) brandishing a $300-$800 hunk of software code and some fuzzy post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that it's all my fault, well, egad!

 

No doubt, that which eluded me is knee-slappingly self-evident to hi-fi journalists and other initiates in the audio temple. But, a word of warning to fellow laypeople (and we are legion):

 

Save your time and money. Stay away from Dirac.

Link to comment
Save your time and money. Stay away from Dirac.

 

That is probably good advice if you are not prepared to invest the time and effort to learn how to use it properly. Especially if you are going to ask for help, argue when it is offered and attempt to justify ignoring the advice by complaining about your ignorance.

 

Your criticism of Kal is totally off base.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Gotta do something. Listening to Clara Haskil play Scarlatti: The sound is so harsh, all I want to do is claw out my eardrums.

 

Correcting harsh recordings is a completely separate issue from correcting the frequency response of your loudspeaker/room combination.

 

For the former, I strongly recommend a parametric EQ plugin for whatever music player software you use. (OS X has one built in.) A good starting point is a 3 dB notch centered at 4 KHz, with bandwidth or Q = 1. With practice you'll get the hang of which recordings benefit from raising or lowering the center frequency of the notch. Simply experiment with the frequency and dB parameters while listening.

HQPlayer (on 3.8 GHz 8-core i7 iMac 2020) > NAA (on 2012 Mac Mini i7) > RME ADI-2 v2 > Benchmark AHB-2 > Thiel 3.7

Link to comment

The rising response problem from 1KHz to 7KHz is never a room issue if it's that huge, and will not be solved with treatment. That's a severe issue, room high-end issues are mostly fairly subtle, except for slaps and long reverb times. The description of the room indicates that likely it isn't a reverb time problem. The fact that the OP complains of harsh sound tends to support the general trend of the measurement, though without a real calibrated mic, it's certainly an area for potential error.

 

The controls of the A7X have not been mentioned. There are two controls that affect the high end, a shelf at +/- 6dB and a tweeter control at +/-4dB If both were all the way up you might get response like this. Might be worth a check to see they are centered, at least to start with, though because the rise starts below the crossover frequency, it's not too likely the problem is simple control mis-adjustment.

 

The 100Hz null - could be the room, but nulls at 100Hz are fairly unusual. Move the microphone 5 feet and try again, if the null significantly changes, it's a room issue.

 

The problem looks suspiciously like an electronic issue, like non-acoustic. I'd probably make sure there isn't some problem with interfacing the Benchmark to the speakers, some odd connector issue, cable problem, etc. The reason I'm suspicious is the extreme high end slope is quite regular, doesn't look like a tweeter-ish rolloff, especially for speakers with specs that claim response out to 50KHz. And the low end rolls down into the 100Hz dip, doesn't just dip at a frequency like a room-mode null. So I'd double check the electronic parts too. And it never hurts to make sure there isn't some strange EQ thing going on in the computer.

 

Speaking of the computer, you should check how you are bringing the mic into the computer for measurement. I couldn't get more info on this from the Dirac site, but the typical sound card mic input is simply horrible, as you know, and can include several types of EQ meant for voice recognition. Those things have wicked curves, you'll need to at least bypass them. Or, you need some sort of good, flat mic pre to make this all work.

Link to comment

I do not have, nor have I tried, Dirac, so I cannot add anything that would be technically helpful. My purpose for posting is to commend all of you on this thread for continuing to respond with such patience to Skipperdude and for continuing to try to help him despite his attitude.

 

To Skipperdude:

 

I think I see what the source of your obvious irritation is. You feel that the Dirac instructions are lacking and misleading. As I said, I have not tried Dirac, so I don't know, but if this is true, then your irritation would certainly be justified. But the step that you go to next... that of accusing Dirac of being INTENTIONALLY misleading because they just want to profit off you by making you buy their microphone and only their microphone, is not only unjustified (because you have no proof of that) it is not even logical. Not logical because by using such trickery to get us to buy their microphone - trickery which would make their whole system seem not to work - they would be cutting their own throats... especially if somewhere in the instructions there were not at least an OBVIOUS hint that one should buy their mic and they left it up to the consumer to figure it out for himself. It seems obvious to me that if it were all left up to the potential customer to discover this, then the outcome would be that anyone trying Dirac and, by happenstance, choosing the wrong mic would just assume (as you did) that the problem is with Dirac and give up. How would such an eventually in any way serve Dirac?

 

Ok, while I can understand your irritation with Dirac's instructions, what I don't understand is why you are so angry with the people on this forum who are obviously only trying to help you. I hear your defensive arguments and I understand their content, but they are totally unjustified. Go back and read all the posts that were written in response to your difficulty. No one has accused you of anything (except perhaps of being irritated (which you admit you are).

 

The first person you get angry at is flak. But he starts out his post with this comment:

 

Hello Skipperdude,

 

everything I'm going to say is based on the assumption that no major mistakes have been done in the measurement process and that an omnidirectional calibrated measurement microphone has been used in a position in accordance with the calibration file... but the measurement is so unusual that I'm inclined to believe that something is grossly wrong.

 

He is not accusing you of anything. On the contrary, he is assuming that you DID do it all correctly. The fact that he feels there is a gross error does not mean that you were in error. He talks about an original room anomaly (which Dirac measured). He tries to explain how, if you have this anomaly, it could lead you to perceive the corrected sound as muddy. He talks about potential microphone error. But he does not talk about... YOU!

But you are angry at him.

I am sure you are capable of understanding that if Dirac was not specific in its instructions about the mic, this is not flak's fault. So why are you angry at him, when he is only trying to be helpful?

 

The next person you get irritated with is Karl. I see no accusations in his attempt to help you and he did not write ''if this is newS to you.'' He wrote if this is ''new to you'' which just might have a different connotation than the one you ascribe to it.

My guess is that your irritation led you not only to misread it but also to misinterpret his intentions. However despite your obviously caustic reply, Karl kindly expresses that he still wishes to help you.

 

Well, at the end of it all, I am left with the following conclusions:

 

1) Your attempt to discredit Dirac and deter others from trying it is not justified.

2) Your attempt to discredit Dirac is a disservice to others (like myself) who might otherwise try it and get a lot of benefit from it.

3) You are also doing yourself a disservice because if you calmed down, read the helpful posts in this thread again and follow the advice given... especially that of trying a truly appropriate microphone... you might find that it really does work for you before you start down the long and arduous road of doing a lot of acoustic room corrections, which, by the way, has the potential of ending up very costly due to the trial-and-error nature of the undertaking. Have you seen how much bass traps can cost?

 

I use FabFilter ProQ in my setup in a room that was originally very live (I live in Italy where everything is made of stone and plaster) and in which I have done no room treatments other than bookshelves strategically placed, a persian rug on the floor, tall CD towers in the corners behind the speakers, heavy drapes covering a 6'x6' picture window, a sofa and an armchair. And in this non-hifi (no wall panels, no bass traps) treated room ProQ works fabulously well.

 

I have been considering trying Dirac. This post and the kindness and advice (I have learned a lot) of the posters who have only treated you with respect have now served to convince me that I am definitely going to try it.

 

My thanks to everyone on this thread... even to you, Skipperdude for getting this tread started.

Link to comment
I do not have, nor have I tried, Dirac, so I cannot add anything that would be technically helpful. My purpose for posting is to commend all of you on this thread for continuing to respond with such patience to Skipperdude and for continuing to try to help him despite his attitude.

 

To Skipperdude:

 

I think I see what the source of your obvious irritation is. You feel that the Dirac instructions are lacking and misleading. As I said, I have not tried Dirac, so I don't know, but if this is true, then your irritation would certainly be justified. But the step that you go to next... that of accusing Dirac of being INTENTIONALLY misleading because they just want to profit off you by making you buy their microphone and only their microphone, is not only unjustified (because you have no proof of that) it is not even logical. Not logical because by using such trickery to get us to buy their microphone - trickery which would make their whole system seem not to work - they would be cutting their own throats... especially if somewhere in the instructions there were not at least an OBVIOUS hint that one should buy their mic and they left it up to the consumer to figure it out for himself. It seems obvious to me that if it were all left up to the potential customer to discover this, then the outcome would be that anyone trying Dirac and, by happenstance, choosing the wrong mic would just assume (as you did) that the problem is with Dirac and give up. How would such an eventually in any way serve Dirac?

 

Ok, while I can understand your irritation with Dirac's instructions, what I don't understand is why you are so angry with the people on this forum who are obviously only trying to help you. I hear your defensive arguments and I understand their content, but they are totally unjustified. Go back and read all the posts that were written in response to your difficulty. No one has accused you of anything (except perhaps of being irritated (which you admit you are).

 

The first person you get angry at is flak. But he starts out his post with this comment:

 

Hello Skipperdude,

 

everything I'm going to say is based on the assumption that no major mistakes have been done in the measurement process and that an omnidirectional calibrated measurement microphone has been used in a position in accordance with the calibration file... but the measurement is so unusual that I'm inclined to believe that something is grossly wrong.

 

He is not accusing you of anything. On the contrary, he is assuming that you DID do it all correctly. The fact that he feels there is a gross error does not mean that you were in error. He talks about an original room anomaly (which Dirac measured). He tries to explain how, if you have this anomaly, it could lead you to perceive the corrected sound as muddy. He talks about potential microphone error. But he does not talk about... YOU!

But you are angry at him.

I am sure you are capable of understanding that if Dirac was not specific in its instructions about the mic, this is not flak's fault. So why are you angry at him, when he is only trying to be helpful?

 

The next person you get irritated with is Karl. I see no accusations in his attempt to help you and he did not write ''if this is newS to you.'' He wrote if this is ''new to you'' which just might have a different connotation than the one you ascribe to it.

My guess is that your irritation led you not only to misread it but also to misinterpret his intentions. However despite your obviously caustic reply, Karl kindly expresses that he still wishes to help you.

 

Well, at the end of it all, I am left with the following conclusions:

 

1) Your attempt to discredit Dirac and deter others from trying it is not justified.

2) Your attempt to discredit Dirac is a disservice to others (like myself) who might otherwise try it and get a lot of benefit from it.

3) You are also doing yourself a disservice because if you calmed down, read the helpful posts in this thread again and follow the advice given... especially that of trying a truly appropriate microphone... you might find that it really does work for you before you start down the long and arduous road of doing a lot of acoustic room corrections, which, by the way, has the potential of ending up very costly due to the trial-and-error nature of the undertaking. Have you seen how much bass traps can cost?

 

I use FabFilter ProQ in my setup in a room that was originally very live (I live in Italy where everything is made of stone and plaster) and in which I have done no room treatments other than bookshelves strategically placed, a persian rug on the floor, tall CD towers in the corners behind the speakers, heavy drapes covering a 6'x6' picture window, a sofa and an armchair. And in this non-hifi (no wall panels, no bass traps) treated room ProQ works fabulously well.

 

I have been considering trying Dirac. This post and the kindness and advice (I have learned a lot) of the posters who have only treated you with respect have now served to convince me that I am definitely going to try it.

 

My thanks to everyone on this thread... even to you, Skipperdude for getting this tread started.

 

Um, ok!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...