Dirac: Just say no!

[ckpiv]

You're 100% correct. Shortly after I wrote that I thought it was a dumb thing to have written.

 

Irony. They're German, right? EU-types frequently accuse U.S. companies of this behavior, employing the same half-assed rhetoric I used. So I take it back.

 

That said, the "magical mystery meat" aspect of Dirac's offerings, playing to the aforementioned confirmation bias running riot in the mind of the well-heeled consumer, most likely empowers the company to price its offerings at the highest possible price point.

 

That's not a crime. It's just capitalism.

 

They are based in Sweden

[skipperdude]

They are based in Sweden

 

Ah, well, in that case, it makes sense. (Speaking as a Swede, btw.)

[Johan]

I said yes and I am glad I did.

[Kal Rubinson]

Oh I almost bought that but then I decided to go with the Dirac recommendation to minimize odds of further equipment buffoonery...

 

Can you point out, in their documentation, exactly what the "Dirac recommendation" is?

 

As discussed in post #53, this is the microphone the Dirac salesman promoted:

 

From their website: Dirac Online Store. UMIK-1 USB Measurement Microphone

 

Cf. post #9 for salesman's original recommendation.

OK. Mebbe I am confused but it seems that you chose not to go with their recommendation and, instead, bought the CAD microphone. FWIW, the inexpensive mic I used was the same unit but directly from the manufacturer: UMIK-1 | MiniDSP

[skipperdude]

OK. Mebbe I am confused but it seems that you chose not to go with their recommendation and, instead, bought the CAD microphone. FWIW, the inexpensive mic I used was the same unit but directly from the manufacturer: UMIK-1 | MiniDSP

 

No, actually, looks like I got confused. It appears that the salesman's recommendation of the UMIK-1, which is also offered for sale on the Dirac website, is not the "Dirac recommendation"...which is, instead, something else entirely.

 

So does this mean more faulty readings which Dirac can then blame on microphone issues?

[Kal Rubinson]

In fact, I'm getting more and more curious...

 

I asked, rhetorically, how Dirac would "correct" the acoustics of Boston's Symphony Hall. Unfortunately, I can't put that one to the test. But I might be able to finagle something in a much smaller hall, one which is also among the most acoustically perfect spaces in North America. Now THAT might be entertaining. Hmmm....

Although an interesting idea, I believe that this is not a useful direction because performance spaces contribute their acoustics to the production of music and, thereby, become an inherent component of the sounds that we want to reproduce in our homes. Therefore, it is logical to minimize our local acoustical influence on the reproduction of the recording while illogical to minimize/eliminate the acoustics of the performance space.

[skipperdude]

Although an interesting idea, I believe that this is not a useful direction because performance spaces contribute their acoustics to the production of music and, thereby, become an inherent component of the sounds that we want to reproduce in our homes. Therefore, it is logical to minimize our local acoustical influence on the reproduction of the recording while illogical to minimize/eliminate the acoustics of the performance space.

 

Ok, that makes sense. Elegantly stated, too. Damn, I thought I was going to have some fun.

[Kal Rubinson]

No, actually, looks like I got confused. It appears that the salesman's recommendation of the UMIK-1, which is also offered for sale on the Dirac website, is not the "Dirac recommendation"...which is, instead, something else entirely.

 

So does this mean more faulty readings which Dirac can then blame on microphone issues?

I think you are still being a little testy about this. Their recommendation is a reasonable one but they readily allow for and acknowledge the use of any microphone of the type designed for measurement and those, typically, come with their own correction file. I see this discussed in the associated manual. You chose a microphone designed for voice/recordings, not omnidirectional, and lacking any correction data. Making such a choice was an unfortunate mistake on your part. If you had come here and asked for recommendations, we could have offered a selection of options.

 

I do not want to discuss the price of Dirac as they are entitled to follow their business model and we are all entitled to decide what is of reasonable value for ourselves. There are less expensive or, even, free alternatives to Dirac but I have not (yet) tried any of them so I cannot say whether they are friendlier or as effective. See Acourate - AudioVero and Juice HiFi. There are, also, hardware solutions which are often much easier to implement but, aside from miniDSP, these are even more expensive.

[skipperdude]

I think you are still being a little testy about this. Their recommendation is a reasonable one but they readily allow for and acknowledge the use of any microphone of the type designed for measurement and those, typically, come with their own correction file. I see this discussed in the associated manual. You chose a microphone designed for voice/recordings, not omnidirectional, and lacking any correction data. Making such a choice was an unfortunate mistake on your part. If you had come here and asked for recommendations, we could have offered a selection of options.

 

I do not want to discuss the price of Dirac as they are entitled to follow their business model and we are all entitled to decide what is of reasonable value for ourselves. There are less expensive or, even, free alternatives to Dirac but I have not (yet) tried any of them so I cannot say whether they are friendlier or as effective. See Acourate - AudioVero and Juice HiFi. There are, also, hardware solutions which are often much easier to implement but, aside from miniDSP, these are even more expensive.

 

Lol. Y'think?! Bad copy writing drives me up the wall.

 

As for the price issue, yes--interesting from the standpoint of marketing psychology but, probably irrelevant to the issues at hand.

 

Unless it really is the emperor's clothes.

[VandyMan]

You are correct that confirmation bias could play a role in a persons preference of one correction curve vs uncorrected or vs a different correction curve. However, unlike audio cables, a different waveform is produced, so we know that a real change has happened. It can easily be measured. Also, since research has established what shape curve people prefer, we have a fairly good idea of what the final corrected curve should look like.

[dc2bluelight]

Regarding the mic issue, the response excursions in the OP's post are way beyond what an omnidirectional microphone, even an uncalibrated studio type, could cause.

 

Mic cal files correct for relatively tiny response issues, on the order of a fraction of a dB to a couple dB at the extremes.

 

The cause of the OP's response will be somewhere between the mic and the speaker input connectors.

 

You could also consider the software plugin version of Audyssey XT32, by 1K Media called ARC 2. It's sort of targeted to the home recording monitoring market, it it's $200 with a calibrated measurement mic. Audyssey is far easier to deal with than Dirac, and will prevent the head-explosion caused by REW. The only two cautions: it flies I the face of the idea that things worth doing are hard to learn, and they do insist that they correct acoustics, w when what's realllly going knis correcting for some of the effects of acoustics, but most cal systems make that same claim.

[skipperdude]

You are correct that confirmation bias could play a role in a persons preference of one correction curve vs uncorrected or vs a different correction curve. However, unlike audio cables, a different waveform is produced, so we know that a real change has happened. It can easily be measured. Also, since research has established what shape curve people prefer, we have a fairly good idea of what the final corrected curve should look like.

 

Good point.

[skipperdude]

Regarding the mic issue, the response excursions in the OP's post are way beyond what an omnidirectional microphone, even an uncalibrated studio type, could cause.

 

Mic cal files correct for relatively tiny response issues, on the order of a fraction of a dB to a couple dB at the extremes.

 

The cause of the OP's response will be somewhere between the mic and the speaker input connectors.

 

You could also consider the software plugin version of Audyssey XT32, by 1K Media called ARC 2. It's sort of targeted to the home recording monitoring market, it it's $200 with a calibrated measurement mic. Audyssey is far easier to deal with than Dirac, and will prevent the head-explosion caused by REW. The only two cautions: it flies I the face of the idea that things worth doing are hard to learn, and they do insist that they correct acoustics, w when what's realllly going knis correcting for some of the effects of acoustics, but most cal systems make that same claim.

 

I'll check it out. Thanks.

 

My God, this really is hobby, isn't it?

[Kal Rubinson]

Regarding the mic issue, the response excursions in the OP's post are way beyond what an omnidirectional microphone, even an uncalibrated studio type, could cause.

Agreed.

 

You could also consider the software plugin version of Audyssey XT32, by 1K Media called ARC 2. It's sort of targeted to the home recording monitoring market, it it's $200 with a calibrated measurement mic. Audyssey is far easier to deal with than Dirac, and will prevent the head-explosion caused by REW. The only two cautions: it flies I the face of the idea that things worth doing are hard to learn, and they do insist that they correct acoustics, w when what's realllly going knis correcting for some of the effects of acoustics, but most cal systems make that same claim.

One other limitation of the 1K/ARC2 is that it is restricted to stereo operation and will not accommodate multichannel.

[dc2bluelight]

 

One other limitation of the 1K/ARC2 is that it is restricted to stereo operation and will not accommodate multichannel.

That's true out of the box, but I asked them about multichannel as I have a client who mixes 5.1 and was interested, there's a work around.

 

Wasn't the OP's system stereo? Perhaps I misread.

[flak]

I just want to thank the CA forumers for their comments that are so different from the OP's ones.

 

They are heartwarming

Flavio

[WINDIANRECORDS]

That's true out of the box, but I asked them about multichannel as I have a client who mixes 5.1 and was interested, there's a work around.

 

Wasn't the OP's system stereo? Perhaps I misread.

 

If you have software (like Logic) that can buss channels to separate outputs from your DAC, you could put an instance of ARC on each stereo channel and choose the different measurements, i suppose... ARC acts as an AU, and I've had it work quite well for my mixing/mastering purposes and integration with JRiver on Windows (no present AU integration in JRiver OS X, I believe). I have not used Dirac so I cannot compare the two, so sorry ahead of time.

[Kal Rubinson]

That's true out of the box, but I asked them about multichannel as I have a client who mixes 5.1 and was interested, there's a work around.

Interesting. I had not heard of that before, so I wonder about how intricate that work around would be.

 

Wasn't the OP's system stereo? Perhaps I misread.

Dunno.

 

If you have software (like Logic) that can buss channels to separate outputs from your DAC, you could put an instance of ARC on each stereo channel and choose the different measurements, i suppose... ARC acts as an AU, and I've had it work quite well for my mixing/mastering purposes and integration with JRiver on Windows (no present AU integration in JRiver OS X, I believe). I have not used Dirac so I cannot compare the two, so sorry ahead of time.

Can you reinterpret what you are saying for me? I grasp what you are saying about using multiple instances of ARC on each channel pair in jRiver but are you referring to software that can buss analog channels to separate outputs?

[speavler]

If you're worried about wasting an afternoon, why are you getting into REW? Buy a dspeaker dual core and be done with it. comes with its own mic.

[firedog]

There is also the imminent release (supposed to be by the end of the month) Minidsp unit with mic included and dirac on board. Basically plug and play (slight exaggeration) as far as measuring your room and producing a correction curve, and outputting a corrected digital signal for your DAC. Supposedly will be reasonably priced, b/c unlike similar one box solutions, it only does the digital and correction end, and doesn't have a DAC inside for analog output.

[dc2bluelight]

Interesting. I had not heard of that before, so I wonder about how intricate that work around would be.

 

Dunno.

 

Can you reinterpret what you are saying for me? I grasp what you are saying about using multiple instances of ARC on each channel pair in jRiver but are you referring to software that can buss analog channels to separate outputs?

 

If I recall, the work-around is exactly that, you have multiple instances of the two channel plugin running. The trick is, you have to have each instance licensed separately, so you actually buy three license keys, and get three two channel ARC2 plugins running. The glitch was, again if I recall, there's no handy way to differentiate which is which, so you have to be a little careful, perhaps rename something (sorry the details got erased last time I shook the Etch-a-Sketch brain).

 

Recording and production software can operate as a virtual console with multiple input channel strips, and mixing busses. Systems like Logic can have as many inputs and busses as your hardware can support. Each input has insertion points for virtual processors in the form of plugins built with VST, RTAS, AAX or Audio Units (1K Multimedia provides a version of ARC2 with in each plugin style, presumably to be compatible with as many DAWs as possible). So, to use the ARC2 plugin for multi-channel computer audio, you'd need to be using a Digital Audio Workstation application to host the plugins, or a player app that can host stereo pairs of plugins. The multi-license key solution is known to work, but not exactly a standard implementation. From the conversation I had with 1K Multimedia a few months ago, it works, but you have to fiddle a bit.

 

Frankly, it's far less trouble to get Audyssey XT32 in a consumer AVR, use included mic or the Pro Cal kit, and just provide a bitstream from the computer to the AVR over HDMI , coax, or optical. Probably cheaper, easier, and just better. Better AVRs provide pre-outs so the Adam powered speakers could still work.

[dc2bluelight]

 

My God, this really is hobby, isn't it?

 

Well, for some of us it's a profession too.

[Kal Rubinson]

If I recall, the work-around is exactly that, you have multiple instances of the two channel plugin running. The trick is, you have to have each instance licensed separately, so you actually buy three license keys, and get three two channel ARC2 plugins running. The glitch was, again if I recall, there's no handy way to differentiate which is which, so you have to be a little careful, perhaps rename something (sorry the details got erased last time I shook the Etch-a-Sketch brain). .............

............................................................................................................................................................................

The multi-license key solution is known to work, but not exactly a standard implementation. From the conversation I had with 1K Multimedia a few months ago, it works, but you have to fiddle a bit.

 

Frankly, it's far less trouble to get Audyssey XT32 in a consumer AVR, use included mic or the Pro Cal kit, and just provide a bitstream from the computer to the AVR over HDMI , coax, or optical. Probably cheaper, easier, and just better. Better AVRs provide pre-outs so the Adam powered speakers could still work.

So I figured.

[Youreye]

Skipperdude, there is a lot's of misunderstanding here. Your USB mic will work with Dirac for sure. In the calibration tool you can use the calibration file for you mic. That should be provided by the manufacturer of the microphone not by DIRAC! Dirac is providing only the clalibration file for the XTZ one they are selling as said for convinience.

So, here is my personal experience with Dirac. First I have achieved a decent measurment with a AV Receiver "puck" microphone that was even without calibration file let's say a 95% exact in the response curve opposed to the calibrated minidsp Umik-1 I bought after. The Umik-1 came with a calibration file that I've downloaded from minidsp's web!

 

Use it right and you won't be dissapointed. If you will still see this kind of freq. response like you have measured before then the setup is wrong and you might consider to move thing around in your place;)

 

Good luck!

[Boris75]

I just want to thank the CA forumers for their comments that are so different from the OP's ones.

 

They are heartwarming

Flavio

 

Many thanks for your contributions and, if I may say, I admire and praise your calm in the face of some quite harsh comments.

 

I am tempted to experiment with Dirac, but the one thing that stops me is that I feel confused about which microphone to get: could you please advise me on this question?

 

I am aware that you have a webpage addressing this question on your website (Dirac Online Store) but I must say that this webpage did not leave me with a clear message about what to do. I have to add that I am prepared to buy a good-quality microphone but would prefer to buy something less expensive than an Earthworks M23.

 

I am posting this on the forum rather than through PM as I feel that others may be interested as well.