Room EQ Comparison

[Eric SVL]

Would there be interest in an objective and subjective analysis of Audyssey XT32 and Dirac Live?

Target curves would be made identical. Measurements would be taken before and after.

Goal is to see which achieves smoother results and which gets closest to the desired target.

Then, instant switching to determine if the differences are audible and to relate them to the graphs.

Equipment diagram attached as I currently see it.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

I think it would be cool to compare them head to head. I've compared them subjectively, but not with instant switching.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Since you are probably using two different AVRs, you need first to A/B them in a blind test to see if their differences are, effectively, null.

 

[Eric SVL]

Since you are probably using two different AVRs, you need first to A/B them in a blind test to see if their differences are, effectively, null.

We'd be talking about differences in preamps and DACs then. I suppose I could do that before applying the corrections, though I don't expect there to be obvious differences. I could always be surprised.

But keep in mind the overarching theme here: Room EQ. These differences should disappear once filters are applied, because the microphone is going to hear those differences and factor them into the results.

 

[Eric SVL]

What about a comparison of vendor provided EQ (Audyssy, Dirac, ARC, etc) vs. Accucal AV calibration?
The accucal system uses a calibrated microphone, a PC, True RTA software, and a test blueray.

https://www.accucalav.com/wp-content/uploads/Remote-Audio-Calibration-Requirements.pdf

If someone foots the bill, sure.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

We'd be talking about differences in preamps and DACs then. I suppose I could do that before applying the corrections, though I don't expect there to be obvious differences. I could always be surprised.

But keep in mind the overarching theme here: Room EQ. These differences should disappear once filters are applied, because the microphone is going to hear those differences and factor them into the results.

All the more reason to know what you are working with before the EQ.

 

[DanDan]

An impossible task IMO. Different systems sample different locations, end of.

 

[AustinJerry]

I have a Marantz AVR connected to a MiniDSP 88A. The Marantz has XT32, while the 88A is now running Dirac Live 3.0 (without DLBC). a comparison would use the same speakers in the same room, and the comparison could be based on a one-position calibration for each, without moving the mic. REW comparison measurements could then be taken at the MLP, again without moving the mic. Turn on Audyssey in the Marantz while the 88A is in bypass mode, then turn off Audyssey and turn on Dirac Live in the 88A.

The only thing that alludes me would be how to set target curves for both room correction systems that match. No clue how this would be done on my Marantz 8802a, which does not support the new Audyssey app. Even if this could be done, I am not sure I would be interested enough in the results to expend the time to make the comparison. There is no way I will ever be going back to Audyssey.

 

[CHFels]

I have a Marantz AVR connected to a MiniDSP 88A. The Marantz has XT32, while the 88A is now running Dirac Live 3.0 (without DLBC). a comparison would use the same speakers in the same room, and the comparison could be based on a one-position calibration for each, without moving the mic. REW comparison measurements could then be taken at the MLP, again without moving the mic. Turn on Audyssey in the Marantz while the 88A is in bypass mode, then turn off Audyssey and turn on Dirac Live in the 88A.

The only think that alludes me would be how to set target curves for both room correction systems that match. No clue how this would be done on my Marantz 8802a, which does not support the new Audyssey app. Even if this could be done, I am not sure I would be interested enough in the results to expend the time to make the comparison. There is no way I will ever be going back to Audyssey.

AustinJerry is getting closer to what would be required, but the protocol is still not quite what one would want (IMHO). Neither Dirac nor Audyssey tell users to use just one calibration location, so if you do that you are just comparing wrongly-implemented Dirac vs. wrongly-implemented Audyssey. It has to be: calibrate according to the company's recommendations, then do two types of post-calibration measurement. First, single-point measurement at the main listening position. Then, in addition, a weighted sum of post-calibration measurements taken at various (reasonable) listener locations. A further wrinkle would be deciding whether to use the more focused "chair" configuration for Dirac or the wider "Sofa" configuration. Or just do both.

The Dirac signal could be processed on a laptop or in a MiniDSP box capable of 24/96, then sent to the digital input of the AV amp. As long as the AV amp is decent quality and doesn't do any unexpected processing of digital signals (e.g. downsampling or truncating), the resulting test should be very indicative. Or would be, except ...:

Room variance. The tests would have to be done in a number of different listening rooms, otherwise the results would be potentially idiosyncratic and non-indicative. Ideally, also with a number of different types of loudspeaker, at various different positioning locations.

So yeah, DanDan is kind of right: it would be a huge task to do this properly. But I for one would be very interested in seeing the results.

CHFels

 

[AustinJerry]

Of course you would be interested since it wouldn’t be you doing the work. Personally, I have little interest in the results of such testing. As I said previously, having had considerable experience with both Audyssey and Dirac, Dirac is the clear winner in my listening tests. Proving this by conducting exhaustive tests would be a waste of time, IMO.

 

[AustinJerry]

I like Audyssey and am going to try a calibration by Accucal. You use an atmos blueray, a calibrated mic, and TrueRTA software. I like the ability to be free of relying on the manufacturer's selection:

I suspect this will be a frequency-domain calibration, and will not give you the time-domain corrections that you would get from an automated solution like Dirac Live. While you may be satisfied with the results, you are likely to be able to do better.

 

[AustinJerry]

In the quest for better audio, one must be prepared to purchase the equipment needed to achieve your goals. While I see nothing wrong with attempting to get the best performance out of the gear you have, there is also nothing wrong with wanting to take it up another level, which you may not be able to accomplish with what you have.

 

[Daniel Suran]

And

I think it would be cool to compare them head to head. I've compared them subjectively, but not with instant switching.

And what’s your subjective thoughts? Which one is superior?

 

[Ethan Winer]

I've measured there different room EQ systems, and written extensively about what they can and can't do. This final article I wrote about Dirac includes links to the earlier two articles, and includes quite a bit of data. For some reason I had to add some spaces in the link to get this post through, so remove them:

http:// ethanwiner. com/dirac/dirac.htm

 

[Ethan Winer]

Thanks WD. This delves further into bass traps, and dispels a number of misconceptions:

Bass Trap Myths

This article busts several myths about bass traps and low frequency behavior in small rooms.

ethanwiner.com

 

[CHFels]

Ethan, very interesting test and article, thanks for posting it here. It does not surprise me that in a room with already-extensive treatment, Dirac can do more harm than good at places other than the sweet spot. I use Dirac myself, in a small and non-ideal room with the speakers too close to walls and corners, mainly for the purpose you say that EQ systems can be useful for: taming bass peaks. But I let it work full range, because I also find the high frequencies to be improved overall in my system.