Digital correction: Why is there resistance?

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
As a recent convert to Dirac's EQ/Impulse Response correction software, I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts regarding the audiophile world's slow adoption of digital correction strategies. As an old analog-purist guy, I had severe trouble at first with the concept. It took some pushing from some good folks to get me to try it out, and to spend the $329 (!!!) on the Dirac software that accompanies the Amarra Symphony music player software.

First, my thoughts wandered to why so many folks have negative thoughts of this process.

In our listening rooms, we are used to hearing ALL sounds (not just our music playback) colored by the room acoustics. In the same manner, we become very familiar with the sound of music playback in that environment. When we suddenly hear sounds in our room that are obviously different because they don't have the colorations attached, they sound foreign. There is an immediate stress imposed upon us, as we are being presented with a new stimulus that is uncomfortably different than that to which we have become accustomed. I now believe that there is a "re-learning" of hearing in our room that occurs as a result of a "corrected" signal. For those of us with expensive systems, it can be hard to hear something quite different than usual and proclaim it "great".

Dirac changes the listening experience in ways similar to listening to great headphones. While headphones don't produce that "you are there in front of the band" illusion, there can be no denial that listening through headphones removes many layers of distortion, both room-borne and system-induced. Imagine having that "headphone clarity" coming from your loudspeaker system, with greatly increased "see-through" quality. Percussive elements just jump out of the speakers and can startle you with their reality. Voices carry a clarity and openness that draws you into the performance. This kind of improvement is what makes you want to listen to your whole collection over again.

While I don't have the mega-$$$ system like some of our members here, my system is close to six figures and nowhere else could I have spent the "ridiculous" sum of $329 (to add this capability to my Amarra Symphony player) and gotten anywhere near this level of gain. I'd say that spending 10 times that amount on gear, etc. wouldn't have netted me an equivalent improvement.

So, for those of you sitting on the fence, I'd recommend giving Dirac a try. Hell, many of you spend more than that on one AC outlet! I'm hoping to save for a full-fledged multi-channel Dirac setup, so that I can run my home theater soundtracks through it.

I have no affiliation with Dirac or Sonic Solutions (Amarra), beyond being a satisfied paying customer.

Lee
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,007
515
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
First, my thoughts wandered to why so many folks have negative thoughts of this process.
Lee

Because anytime you make a conversion, you degrade the sound. A copy can never be better than the original.....
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
I think the "do no harm" to the digital signal is the rule that Bruce and many others repetitiously advance in opposition to any DSP/Room Correction. I understand that perspective and I know that nobody wants a 1 step forward, 2 steps backward "improvement" to their system.

The problem is that the room, that all of us listen in, leaves a sonic signature that will far exceed any digital signal processing artifacts. When folks tryout DSP, those that aren't satisfied with the result seem to blame the software conversions for the sound they don't like. (I've made the same mistake) There's much more to it than software. IME, the measurement is the key for success with regard to DSP; GIGA is the rule of thumb on this. If the DSP doesn't take an accurate (more like what we hear) measurement, then the "correction" filter will never sound correct, for good reason. I think this is where DIRAC is different than all of the other DSPs I've tried. The measurement protocol is way more sophisticated than anything else, IME. Ultimately, the filters generate music that is right and most enjoyable. I really don't think it's possible to replicate what DIRAC can do in any other way, regardless of money spent on the room or the gear.

Michael.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Because anytime you make a conversion, you degrade the sound. A copy can never be better than the original.....

You are saying this in jest or do you actually hold that position?

The amount of "degradation" that virtually all rooms imposes on what comes of the already (severely, order of magnitude) degraded output of the speakers is several order of magnitude larger than this digital conversion. My next system (thankfully at the building phase) will have that.
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,007
515
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
You are saying this in jest or do you actually hold that position?

The amount of "degradation" that virtually all rooms imposes on what comes of the already (severely, order of magnitude) degraded output of the speakers is several order of magnitude larger than this digital conversion. My next system (thankfully at the building phase) will have that.

No sarcasm face here. It's a proven fact that a copy can never be better than the original.

So why add another layer of degradation?? You can do other things like moving the speaker/listening position, that don't even cost money, and get better results.

And Michael, not only to the digital signal, but what if you're playing LP's or tapes? You'll then have to go through an A/D - D/A conversion. That's bad mojo....
 

jiannone

New Member
Dec 4, 2013
22
0
0
One of the more interesting anti-correction arguments that I've heard is that any signal the system pulls out is filled in by modes, a form of distortion.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
As a recent convert to Dirac's EQ/Impulse Response correction software, (...)
Lee

Lee,
Could you point me a link to the DIRAC software and opinions on it? Thanks.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Bruce,
DIRAC is not a simple parametric EQ. It is able to correct both FR and the time domain. I am not a mastering engineer. I listen for enjoyment. I would never listen to an analog source for precisely this reason. As you point out, I would have to convert to digital anyway so that I can get the most enjoyment out of my system. In this way, analog sources are 20th century technology which can never sound better than digital in my room.


And Michael, not only to the digital signal, but what if you're playing LP's or tapes? You'll then have to go through an A/D - D/A conversion. That's bad mojo....
 

Scott W

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
338
165
1,600
Texas
www.suprahifi.com
Bruce,
In this way, analog sources are 20th century technology which can never sound better than digital in my room.

It is a good thing you said "in my room" at the end of that sentence or their would have been a shitstorm coming your way brother :eek:
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
I have nothing per se against DSP/Room Correction however I will never think seriously about using it if the people who think great things about it do not persuade me to try it. But in order to do so they must write reviews, and create credibility with their opinions and reviews. Since he have digital we have been promised of miraculous DSP solutions that would surpass any high-end system with an expense of ten times less and I have never had the pleasure of reading about it or listening to it.

BTW, I would separate full range DSP/Room correction from the use of DSP in bass management, where I see it can be a very positive thing.

Anyway I thank those who from time to time remember us of its existence.
 

Scott W

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
338
165
1,600
Texas
www.suprahifi.com

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I have yet to hear a digital room correction system that does not degrade the sound. Until I hear one that deliver's on it's promise, I will continue to resist it.

I agree with Bruce. Digital conversion is not transparent enough yet.
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,961
319
1,670
Monument, CO
I suspect a lot of people simply associate "digital" with "bad sound" and won't budge from that position. All the hype has not helped, but for consumers digital processing offers a lot. However, IMO based upon fairly limited exposure, I think there's room for improvement in room correction for the masses.

There have been processors that attempt to replicate a more "analog" sound but AFAIK they have not been real successful -- people who want analog, buy analog. I remember an experiment years ago when I added a fair amount of noise and rolled off the high end from a DAC so that it more closely approached a friend's record player. It became almost impossible to tell if the record or CD was playing, but all it really did was prove how much preference dominates over raw performance. That is not a bad thing, just a thing to consider.

In the recording phase, again IMO with limited (and dated) experience, I think "do no harm" is much more important given all the inputs and all the steps along the way. That is also where I see significantly higher resolution and sampling rates making a significant difference. Hopefully Bruce agrees with that even if he disagrees with me on the consumer (playback) side of things. I could well be wrong, of course, again...
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,007
515
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
analog sources are 20th century technology which can never sound better than digital in my room.

Analog sources may be 20th century, but if it was the original source, it can never sound better converted to digital.

Yes Don, if I were Joe consumer, that can't do anything with my room because of the wife, AND had only digital files to rely on, then this would be a viable option.
 

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
The Amarra/Dirac software is for digital music files only. I have no experience with Dirac in other applications. Since the digital file is not D/A > A/D > D/A converted, I don't believe we can make the same generalizations about additional conversions and degradation.

As for reviews, I expect that more will be popping up soon. Computer Audiophile has some folks who've used this software and there are discussions over there. I just wasted a half hour reading an Australian forum's discussion of IRC, where the main objectors hadn't heard Dirac, while other detractors didn't load the microphone's calibration file nor measure properly. I, too, welcome a presentation with clearly-depicted listening position response graphs with a true before/after comparison.

For now, my ears tell me that I've gotten a great improvement. Others may say what they will, but have no legitimate voice without some experience with this software on their files.

Lee
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,007
515
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
I don't believe we can make the same generalizations about additional conversions and degradation.
Lee

yes we can. Anytime you change a digital file, it can not be any better than the original.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
For now, my ears tell me that I've gotten a great improvement. Others may say what they will, but have no legitimate voice without some experience with this software on their files.

Lee

Lee,

Sorry for my ignorance, but the Dirac software just modifies the stereo files entering your Krell S1200 processor/preamplifier? Can you explain us briefly how it works?
 

Ethan Winer

Banned
Jul 8, 2010
1,231
3
0
75
New Milford, CT
The problem is that the room, that all of us listen in, leaves a sonic signature that will far exceed any digital signal processing artifacts.

I certainly agree with that. Most rooms skew the response by a staggering 30 dB or more - not just once, but half a dozen times with peaks and nulls and more peaks and more nulls. I'll glad trade that for 0.01 percent distortion, which is too soft to hear.

My objection to room EQ is that it can reduce peaks only, and does nothing for nulls or ringing which are just as damaging. Further, whatever improvement it offers applies to a very small area. Move even an inch or two and the response might well be worse. This is true whether a device is a simple EQ or claims to do more. If the sound ultimately emanates from the same two or five loudspeakers, then any "correction" is highly positional. I'm sure I've linked this before, but here it is again:

Audyssey Report

Note that I was very careful in this article to explain what EQ can do, and why it gives a subjectively better sound in some rooms.

--Ethan
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing