Room Correction for 2 Channel?

[audioguy]

software which was designed with someone with very little experience in how people discover operation of a program.

You are being incredibly kind.

The SigTech software WAS designed for use by a trained technician, but the Tact software was allegedly designed for the "typical" end user. Even understanding (somewhat) room acoustics, room correction philosophy and computers, I had GREAT difficulty in getting my arms around the software. I understand there are now some user groups that can help navigate some but it is still clumsy.

That said, once you get outside of the bounds of something like Audyssey, I am not familiar with any systems (time based room correction and not frequency based correction) that ARE end user friendly, but I don't pretend to know everything that is out there.

One of the original founders of Tact split off and started another company that uses similar technology but that system (as I understand it) provides no user "diddling".

[kach22i]

A 2 channel Tact (2.0), for example, cost less than $6K if I recall and will do wonders in 98+% of all rooms.

My whole 2-channel system costs about 10k, and I bet that's in the middle for the hobby, placing it in between the mass market and the Hi-End.

How many people want to spend more on room correction and treatments than what their whole system costs?

You are talking about nearly doubling costs here.

[audioguy]

My whole 2-channel system costs about 10k, and I bet that's in the middle for the hobby, placing it in between the mass market and the Hi-End.

How many people want to spend more on room correction and treatments than what their whole system costs?

You are talking about nearly doubling costs here.

Reasonable concern. And certainly a Tact solution is not for everyone. The issue, however, is that most 2 channel listeners who have systems that cost many multiples of what yours costs and can easily afford the money will instead spend it on exotic cables, power cords, etc that, even if they do anything positive ( I won't go there), the easily discernible benefits of room correction are orders of magnitude larger.

[kach22i]

most 2 channel listeners who have systems that cost many multiples of what yours costs and can easily afford the money will instead spend it on..........

I'll let them speak for themselves, I'm sure it's an issue you have spent a lot of time with before.

Maybe you can ask them about those $7,000 treadmills in the exercise thread too.

[rblnr]

I use a TacT Mini (the XP w/o analog ins and rotary dial) in a difficult room that I can't treat. Put a lot of good preamps, VTL etc., in front of some ATC 20-2 actives and a REL sub -- nothing sounded good until the TacT. It's not user friendly as noted, and I have to relearn the program everytime I go back to it, BUT, in the right situation it's invaluable and a great value. OTOH, in my treated main room, my system sounds better w/o Audyssey via an Onkyo 9.8.

As for audiophiles rejecting RC, it's like everything else -- the point is to be pragmatic not dogmatic. Hard to find in these polarized times.

[audioguy]

As for audiophiles rejecting RC, it's like everything else -- the point is to be pragmatic not dogmatic. Hard to find in these polarized times.

I'm not sure I see the problem with adoption in the 2 channel market as a function of "polarized times". Somehow, the high end 2 channel guy has become convinced that "less is more" as it relates to things in the signal path. While in an ideal world that may be true (apparently like your HT), that is not always true in the real world.

When I was installing SigTechs, there were more than a few potential customers who came to the dance yelling and screaming UNTIL they heard their system sounding the way that it could. Which is why our close rate was probably 95%.

If more dealers were willing to do in-home demos, I believe the adoption rate would increase. The problem is (a) not enough dealers (b) not enough knowledgeable dealers (c) not enough commitment as to the real benefits of the technology (d) not enough margin for the effort involved. As we learned, it is a LOT easier for a dealer to loan a prospective client some $5000 cables or a $4000 preamp or whatever, but not a lot of fun (or potentially profit) to do in home demos. I remember one of our dealers told me that he would try to get the customer to upgrade EVERYTHING else and when there was nothing else to sell him, he might go for room correction!

[rblnr]

was the reluctance of the high-end 2 channel guy to "put anything between the source and the speakers".

I was talking about this attitude, and it's a dogma that can get in the way of reality. Wasn't saying that lack of adoption was because of polarized times, just emblematic of the thinking that yields them.

I see way too many expensive speakers stuck in places that they can't possibly perform well.

My whole 2-channel system costs about 10k, and I bet that's in the middle for the hobby, placing it in between the mass market and the Hi-End.

How many people want to spend more on room correction and treatments than what their whole system costs?

You are talking about nearly doubling costs here.

Not doubling at all. The TacT mini lists at 3.5K is a full function digital preamp. Some room treatment is probably cheaper than what most 10K systems have in cables, and far more beneficial IMO.

[kach22i]

Somehow, the high end 2 channel guy has become convinced that "less is more" as it relates to things in the signal path. While in an ideal world that may be true (apparently like your HT), that is not always true in the real world.

Some things are ridiculous like the ultra expensive preamps without a balance knob. If you can't sell balance controls and tone knobs I can see how active room correction would be an even larger hurdle.

[Dimfer]

I have an irregular shaped room, and a big aquarium nearby. I use Copland DRC 205 with good result (I think). My wife won't let me put bass traps and other passive treatments (except for diffusors) in the room and since I don't have a dedicated room, I have to compromise. I am not that techie, and judge by how I like the sound with or without. I like it better with the digital room correction on. The DRC 205 has a bypass mode, it's very easy to compare. The main difference is in bass resolution.

[Mike Lavigne]

i'm one of those 2-channel guys who are not about to 'dumb down' their analog signal by applying PCM to it.

in a pro mastering studio i've heard what various formats and resolutions of digital audio do to an analog signal. all the way from redbook to 2XDSD. every PCM level of resolution strips significant ambience and body from the signal. you may have something left which may be easily manipulated and then work better in the room subjectively; but it is clearly dimished from a content perspective. who's to say which 'end product' one might prefer?

i've heard rooms which likely would benefit from DSP of some sort. but most of the better rooms/systems i have heard would not. whether you are applying DSP to analog sources or digital sources you are still going thru an additional ADC and DAC.....and that cannot be good even if the room response is better. i know there are products which apply the DSP combined with a DAC and in theory that could be better for PCM sources.

anyway; the theory of DSP is a good one and i'm open to hearing one with a high quality analog source where i percieve no penalty for the digitization. as of yet i've not heard one.

Joe Cohen has a new very expensive speaker which uses DSP in the bass. it's wonderful but something is amiss someplace. there is no free lunch when a signal path is involved. mess with it and our ears can typically hear it.