Jump to content

dallasjustice

Members
  • Content Count

    1016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dallasjustice

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes. That’s what I do. But you need to make sure the propagation delay through your R/L DAC is exactly the same every time. This is a big problem with many DACs. You should check with the manufacturer. Many DACs have goofy jitter attenuation that creates a variable propagation delay. These DACs will never work with this setup. My Benchmark DAC works perfectly. You can check the group delay in REW loopback. You need to take multiple measurements to make sure the R/L DAC isn’t drifting. That’s the only way to make sure.
  2. Understood. Acourate can measure and apply correction to more than one sub. I described this above with regard to the “source/sink” array. I don’t believe that is a weakness in most cases. Audiolense and Acourate will accurately predict the result. It’s easy to test with loopback measurements. The only time this wouldn’t be the case is in the source/sink setup I described. Otherwise there’s no need to measure subs at the same time. Dirac Unicorn has been discussed for many years now and still nothing in reality. I understand the approach. I’ve only heard it in Volvos. I think it sounds wonderful.
  3. What do you mean by that? I agree that Dirac does a poor job of integrating subwoofers with stereo playback. However, Acourate and Audiolense can accommodate just about any configuration you want. MSO is very useful for getting smooth bass frequency response across a wide listening area. Some people believe that is all one needs for optimal results. IMO, time domain matters too. I agree with Mitch that linear phase crossovers and time aligned drivers are needed for best results. Either Acourate or Audiolense can accomplish almost anything you need. There are pros and cons between Acourate and Audiolense. I’ve extensively used both for multiple sub integration. There are are many different subwoofer setup techniques. I think there are 2 categories: 1. Mono/summed arrays. 2. Stereo sub arrays. However, there are variations within each category. For example, some mono sub arrays are simply time aligned to seated position. Either Acourate or Audiolense can handle these arrays. All stereo sub arrays should be time aligned to listening position. When I say time aligned, I mean flat group delay throughout the crossover region. As you can see from Mitch’s plots, it’s just about impossible to get flat group delay down to 20hz. It really doesn’t matter that much as long as both subs are consistent and the group delay is consistent throughout the crossover. Stereo subs can get a little more complex though. I personally use a 4 stereo sub array (cascaded subs). I believe Mitch linked to another thread which shows how and why I do that. Finally, there are the non time aligned subwoofer arrays. These are mono/summed sub arrays. Some folks advocate the use of non-time aligned mono subs. I personally don’t see the advantage of using those types of setups. These include Welti. That’s a different topic. However, there is a very effective mono sub array which is not time aligned. It is called “source/sink.” It’s mostly done using only two mono subs. The frontwall/midwall sub is the “plane wave.” It is time aligned with R/L speaker. The rearwall/midwall sub is set to opposite electrical polarity from front sub. It is also delayed so that the plane wave and the rearsub wave meet each other behind seated position. The phase rotation of the rear sub needs to be adjusted using RTA function in REW while both subs are playing a LF pink noise. The phase rotation is carefully dialed in until all the room length modes are eliminated. Source/sink has two huge advantages for those with rectangular rooms who have nasty length modes. 1. When properly setup, it can mostly eliminate all length modes, without any DSP using only two subs. 2. It will eliminate any rearwall boundary interference at listening position. Most people in rectangular rooms sit behind the room length midpoint. In these cases, the rearwall will likely destructively interfere at a specific frequency based on its distance from listening position in relation to the front wave source distance to listening position. This is called the “Allison effect”. Others call it SBIR. Still others call it a “null.” They are all the same thing. It is NOT a room mode. Because it is non-minimum phase, DSP can’t fix it. Only speaker placement can overcome this issue. Of course a rearwall sub setup in a “source/sink” array will eliminate this boundary interference. Back to your question about Acourate vs. Audiolense. The only sub array I know about that Acourate can do which Audiolense cannot do is this “source/sink” array. The reason is that Acourate Convolver can be setup to simultaneously measure two mono subs with delay added to rear sub. OTOH, Audiolense can not measure in this way. Audiolense can only measure one channel at a time. I’ve tried just about every subwoofer array I’ve described, except MSO. In my room I’d rank the 4 stereo cascaded sub array first. Second place goes to “source/sink.” Other rooms are different. There is no ideal or perfect setup. You have to tryout different arrays in your room, measure them and see what measures (frequency and decay) best. Subwoofery done right can be a very iterative process. This is true for most any array. Because there may be a lot of move-and-measure, it’s important to have an easy/fast method to loopback measure each array. This is where Audiolense beats Acourate. From the time one setups up a speaker array with crossovers to the time the .cfg files and FIR impulses are in a folder for Jriver/Roon, it may take 5-10 minutes when you get the hang of it. Acourate won’t go that fast. You’ll need to create your own .cfg files, crossovers and the speaker setups in Acourate Convolver will take some serious practice to get really fast. I know Uli can do it very fast. But my brain works much slower. I think both Acourate and Audiolense are outstanding. I’d say buy both. That’s what I did. I still use both of them; best audio money ever spent. Michael.
  4. I use the JBL M2 speaker. The Benchmark DAC3 channels go to the horns. The M2 horns are crossed over at 800hz and play beyond 20khz.
  5. I need 8 channels in my setup. So I use 6 Hilo analog out plus Hilo AES to Benchmark DAC3. It’s works perfectly. There’s no problem with synchronization. I tried other DACs like the MOLA MOLA and it didn’t work. The MOLA has a goofy jitter attenuation scheme that results in variable propagation delay. As long as you pick a well engineered AES/spdif DAC which exhibits consistent propagation delay, you are good to use an external DAC with the Hilo for digital crossovers.
  6. https://community.roonlabs.com/t/audiolense-convolution-filters-in-roon/35603 Roon acknowledged the issue but I haven’t heard anything from them in weeks. I don’t think it’s fixed. I’d try Roon convolver is you already have it. Maybe it will work. But for the routing setup I use, Roon’s convolver is broken. You coukd also use HQplayer’s convolver with Roon. I know HQP convolver works. I prefer to use Jriver tho.
  7. The LT-Dante does not auto switch sample rate. IOW, the user must manually change the sample rate before switching to a new sample rate. I also couldn’t connect Dante ASIO to Jriver ASIO line in while also connected to Jriver ASIO output. So maybe it’s not really multi-client or maybe the ASIO isn’t really Steinberg compliant. IME, the best USB implementations are far superior to the best AES67 in terms of flexibility. They sound the same.
  8. I prefer digital volume control. I could never find a decent multi channel pre amp and I’m happy with digital volume control. Do you have a multi channel analog preamp?
  9. I just returned my LT-Dante card. Dante/Audinate is truly a joke. I’d stick with USB. I have four channel setup; stereo setup with a pair of cascaded mono subs. I document the setup in the link below. It’s the best step response I’ve ever been able to achieve; never heard before bass! https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/cascaded-multi-driver-subwoofers.1341/
  10. WRT Roon’s convolver and Audiolense filters, my experience is that Roon’s convolver does not work properly. I started a thread on Roon forum about the problems. Roon hasn’t fixed the issue I’ve experienced but acknowledged they’ve reproduced it using my Audiolense filters. Of course, I’m super disappointed Roon’s convolver does work right. But I am hopeful they will fix it. IMO, Jriver’s convolver is great because you can just drop the file in the Jriver convolver and you are set. There’s no need for zip files or relative file paths, etc. I can also trust Jriver because Jriver has an ASIO line in. The first thing I do after I create the filters is to send a sweep out REW into Jriver’s convolver and record the result in REW. This can be done well with a Hilo because it’s driver is multi client (handles two apps at once). OTOH, the Hapi uses Ravenna ASIO. It is explicitly not multi client. So it cannot work off two apps at once. There is a (maybe) work around using the steinberg multi client server app. I’ve used it with a prism Titan and it works. When I had the Hapi, I didn’t get that far. I sent the Hapi back. Things may be better now with the Hapi. I know of some reports on Acourate forum where users have used Hapi for recording log sweeps. So maybe it would work. Personally, I own a NADAC, Prism Titan and Lynx Hilo. Overall, the Hilo is the most versatile of the bunch. I’m in midst of resetting things up and I may just stick with the Hilo from now on. It’s just so much simpler and more flexible. I think the Hilo sounds killer too. Michael.
  11. Mitch, The delay values are automatically generated by AL5? Is this a new AL feature? I don’t remember the old AL showing the delays calculated. Is it possible to manually adjust the delays? Do the delay values correspond to the delays you may have already manually calculated using Acourate? I’m just curious to know how accurate you think the delay values are. Thanks again, Michael.
  12. I think it's a tough call between the two. I haven't upgraded to AL 5.0, so Mitch may be in a better position than me to answer questions about sound quality differences. My best guess is that they are very similar. For now, I prefer to use Acourate due to the flexibility it offers and some of the other tools which can be helpful for better speaker positioning. For example, the IACC tool can be used to optimize speaker position if you mostly care about higher frequencies. This works for me since I can totally control the low frequencies with two subs and a little EQ. I really like how easy AL is to use and to experiment with. I don't remember ever needing any help from Bernt. It's very simple to use. OTOH, Acourate can get a little complicated. But if you are just using Acourate with two channel passive speakers, its also very easy to use. I'd give the nod to Acourate just because its a little more flexible. But you can try both of them out your self. I forgot how Bernt does his trial, but you should be able to get some sort of trial first. I know Uli offer a trial well. Comparing the older version of AL to Acourate, I would say the sound quality is very similar. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims one sounds significantly "better" than the other. The differences are more to do with usability and flexibility. I think Uli and Bernt are both great guys with awesome products. I think you will get your money's worth either way you go. OTOH, you could dump a bunch of money in a new DAC just because it does MQA. Maybe you could buy some bitcoin and then sell it in a day or so. You'd prolly have enough money to buy both.
  13. Awesome job Mitch! WRT using a pair of time aligned subs in AL: You can individually time align each sub in AL. You can also use them as either mono or stereo subs. However, AL cannot measure a pair of mono subs at the same time. The only situation this sort of measurement would be needed is when the subs are used on opposing walls in opposite electrical polarity and time aligned for axial mode cancellation. I’ve talked to Bernt about measuring subs at the same time and it doesn’t appear that he wants to include this feature in 5.0. It’s the only thing holding me back from getting it. In your room, you probably would not need/want to set up your subs in this way. Ive been using the flat to 1khz filter now for two years and haven’t wanted to change it. It’s very versatile for all types of music, especially electronic bass heavy music. I do love how easy AL is for transferring filters to Jriver.
  14. Oh. I read the wrong link. It all looks promising.
  15. Flavio, So is this missive intended to suggest that Unison will remain a unicorn to home audiophiles? IME, active room mode cancellation is a fundamental leap forward for multichannel DSP. It produces the best results with room modes. Perception Modal Control | Bruno Fazenda - Academia.edu To what extent can Unicorn actively destroy modes using multiple opposing speakers/subwoofers? Will Unity/Unison be united with audiophiles? Michael.
×
×
  • Create New...