Dirac live vs Acourate vs Audiolense

Jan 29, 2014
983
0
0
Cape Town South Africa
#81
Iv'e used both .. I prefer Dirac in respect of sound quality , specifically for the bass .. with my Acourate DRC setup , I could not limit the correction , it had to be full range , whereas with my DIRAC setup , I dont have to do full range correction
In dirac you dont have to use all 9 measurement points, you can do a single point measurement. all it does is make the sweet spot a bit narrower .. multipoint tends to give a more expansive soundstage at a slight expense of imaging . you can have your cake and eat it..you can have 4 different configurations so can do one with single , another with multiple ...etc

Here is a review of dirac which goes into a bit of detail of single vs multipoint measurement results
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...6-room-correction-audio-processor-review.html
 
#82
Thanks Firzcaraldo,

Can anyone comment on Acourate's approach? Do they have a multipoint option in the software comparable to Dirac?
Uli has told me that I'm free to take measurements from multiple locations and average them, but he has indicated that there's little benefit to doing so.

Also, according to Mitch, the algorithms and approach that Uli uses are fairly stable across a range of listening positions in spite of the fact that measurements are generally performed from only one location. In the example he describes in his book, he has a 2ft x 6ft couch and wanted to verify that his Acourate filters resulted in reasonably even response from all positions. Unlike Dirac (as far as I'm aware), Acourate provides a way of actually measureing the response of the system after correction (not just simulating it). So, Mitch took measurements from seven different for both channels and and overlayed all 14 response curves on the same graph. The variation across these measurements is comfortably within +/- 5dB across all 14 curves. I'll let him chime in if he wants to share his graphs...otherwise, you can buy his book and see them yourself. https://www.amazon.com/Accurate-Sound-Reproduction-Using-DSP-ebook/dp/B01FURPS40
 
#83
Iv'e used both .. I prefer Dirac in respect of sound quality...with my Acourate DRC setup , I could not limit the correction , it had to be full range
It's fairly easy to limit the range, but like most things with Acourate, it's not completely obvious. Totally cool if you prefer the sound of Dirac though. It's a good system too. I use it in our home theater.
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#84
Uli has told me that I'm free to take measurements from multiple locations and average them, but he has indicated that there's little benefit to doing so.

Also, according to Mitch, the algorithms and approach that Uli uses are fairly stable across a range of listening positions in spite of the fact that measurements are generally performed from only one location. In the example he describes in his book, he has a 2ft x 6ft couch and wanted to verify that his Acourate filters resulted in reasonably even response from all positions. Unlike Dirac (as far as I'm aware), Acourate provides a way of actually measureing the response of the system after correction (not just simulating it). So, Mitch took measurements from seven different for both channels and and overlayed all 14 response curves on the same graph. The variation across these measurements is comfortably within +/- 5dB across all 14 curves. I'll let him chime in if he wants to share his graphs...otherwise, you can buy his book and see them yourself. https://www.amazon.com/Accurate-Sound-Reproduction-Using-DSP-ebook/dp/B01FURPS40
Yes, I am quite aware of the advocacy by Uli and others for the single point approach. As I tried to suggest, multipoint averaging, as a simple grade school, arithmetic process, is not right either. It takes more sophistication when doing room acoustics, something Uli, frankly, passes the buck on.

Yes, the beauty of the single point approach is that it allows for post-EQ measurements, which are rendered much more complex or infeasible via multipoint and spatial averaging. You do not even have to move the mike with single point, post EQ, and you can use an independent tool, like REW, to view the single point results. But, one has to decide philosophically which will be more truthfully accurate or preferable sonically.

In spite of the arguments I have heard to date, I remain more convinced by advocates of the multipoint approach plus years of precedent in room acoustics measurements prior to the current PC tools for room EQ.

As I tried to say before, life is greatly simplified, if only one could truly believe in a sense of comprehensiveness about single point measurements. But, I do not think that convenient expediency makes single point truer or better in dealing with the complexities of room acoustics.
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
2,723
5
38
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
#85
Iv'e used both .. I prefer Dirac in respect of sound quality , specifically for the bass .. with my Acourate DRC setup , I could not limit the correction , it had to be full range , whereas with my DIRAC setup , I dont have to do full range correction
In dirac you dont have to use all 9 measurement points, you can do a single point measurement. all it does is make the sweet spot a bit narrower .. multipoint tends to give a more expansive soundstage at a slight expense of imaging . you can have your cake and eat it..you can have 4 different configurations so can do one with single , another with multiple ...etc

Here is a review of dirac which goes into a bit of detail of single vs multipoint measurement results
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...6-room-correction-audio-processor-review.html
I have not tried Dirac using only a single point but I have with the 9 measurements REALLY close together. In my room and with my system, that does not sound as good as utilizing multiple points spread further apart. Specifically, there was some occasional upper midrange harshness that might show up with the very close measurements and that has not occurred with the further apart measurements. Furthermore, for reasons that make no sense to me, the resultant sound stage was better with the measurements further apart.
 
#86
Yes, I am quite aware of the advocacy by Uli and others for the single point approach....In spite of the arguments I have heard to date, I remain more convinced by advocates of the multipoint approach plus years of precedent in room acoustics measurements prior to the current PC tools for room EQ.

As I tried to say before, life is greatly simplified, if only one could truly believe in a sense of comprehensiveness about single point measurements. But, I do not think that convenient expediency makes single point truer or better in dealing with the complexities of room acoustics.
The measurements that Mitch has presented in his book look convincing to me.

While it's true that, "we build systems that support our beliefs", in my experience, Acourate generally works well regardless of the beliefs held by the peope who try it (suggesting that, while perhaps not comprehensive, the algorithms used are sufficient to improve sound quality in common audiophile listening rooms).

Have you given Acourate a try in your system? If so, what did you think?
 
Last edited:
#87
It looks like Uli provided some answers in the Acourate group on Yahoo. I'll paste them here for the benfit of WTB members:

Yes, there are basic differences between Dirac and Acourate.

Acourate mainly uses the measurement at the listening position. This results in the best correction at thee sweet spot. But. because Acourate applies a different approach in the calculations the result is not only valid for a single position. So you can walk around and you will notice that the sound at other positions is not getting bad. The Acourate calculation avoids over-boosts by principle..

Dirac, Audyssee, Lyngdorf use different calculations by averaging multiple frequency responses. They need to do this to to also avoid over-boosts.

Despite the typical single point measurement Acourate allows you to do multiple measurements and to combine them by functions like
- averaging the frequency responses
- calculating the max. envelope for a bundle of frequency responses
- averaging multiple pulse responses

The last method produces very good results for the beamforming. method. This method is a good approach to get quasi anechoic results.

It is possible for you to test Acourate. See http://www.audiovero.de/en/acourate-test-for-free--.php. So you can do a single point measurement and then listen to the result at the sweet spot but also by walking around in your room.

- Uli
and a bit later...

I like to add a further remark to the topic:

We have now learnt for a long time that the frequency response is an important indicator for the quality of a system. And indeed it is.
Now we learn that at different positions the frequency response is different, there will be even big differences.

So it is time to learn more: even with a corrected system all these frequency responses are different, maybe even very different. Despite the correction !
And more important: it does not matter if the filter is made by a single point measurement or by multi-point measurements. The applied filter will improve, hopefully, the playback. But at different positions the frequency responses will be different.

So the challenge is to find a filter which produces a good result. And the filter shall not create a very bad result at a room position.
In the meantime everyone should know that correcting deep dips in the frequency response causes an overboost and this directly leads to bad results. So in any way an overboost must be avoided.

But there is another important point:
we must relax a bit more and we must not only focus on the frequency response !

A frequency response describes a steady-state behaviour. There is good example to get an understanding. take a nice music track (you love it because it is so nice) and calculate the frequency response of the track. Now reverse the track and calculate another frequency response. Both frequency responses are fully identical! But of course the track played backwards sounds somehow different [by magic? :) ] and usually it does not sound very pleasant.
This example tells us, that music is not steady-state. Time is a very important factor in the game.

Acourate uses algorithms which also analyse the time behaviour of the speakers. Thus a single-point measurement is sufficient in normal listening environments.
The success of Acourate now for more than 10 years can IMHO be considered as a good indicator. Otherwise a multi-point measurement procedure would have been implemented. The underlying maths is not mystic.

- Uli
 
Dec 12, 2013
935
0
16
NYC , USA
#88
I have a question
Hiw does it sound for playback of dsd.
Any dsp I have heard hurts it but I have not heard one the us CPU based rehab USB to the dac. Even ina goldmund system I could tell dsd was not its best showing.
Honest advice please. Planning on trying one the dsp systems in this thread
 
#89
I have a question
Hiw does it sound for playback of dsd.
Any dsp I have heard hurts it but I have not heard one the us CPU based rehab USB to the dac. Even ina goldmund system I could tell dsd was not its best showing.
Honest advice please. Planning on trying one the dsp systems in this thread
I have not encountered a DSP system that works purely in the DSD domain, so to apply room correction, DSD is generally must be converted to PCM. Roon handles this automatically. You can optionally convert the corrected stream back to DSD before routing to the DAC if want, but unless you have a DSD-only DAC or your DAC sounds much better with DSD, I doubt there would be much benefit. Also, two DSD conversions and convolution requires a fairly fast processor for Roon Server.

I only have a dozen or so DSD files, so I have not done much listening; however, the files that I tested sound fine. My Roon Server is not powerful enough to convert back to DSD after convolution, so the path looked something like this:

DSD_Convolution_web.png

I don't notice any loss from this approach, but I don't have a great way to compare.

-- David
 
Dec 12, 2013
935
0
16
NYC , USA
#90
I am not a purest in the sense that I would sacrifice if the benifit would be great
I own a Deqx HDP4 and even in bypass it takes a way from pcm and dsd
It's enough that using my Msb stack is not much better than the HDP4 USB inside
Fed from my Cust server.
What it seems to do is as follows
It thins out the nite hangtime
This does give a bit more details but sounds now seem a bit Brite and EQ up a bit.
In pcm this is not too bad but in dsd converting it to pcm looses the dsd analog quality
I may sound odd in my comments but if you were in my room you would agree
My setup is a Msb plat 4 plus with new USB card and firmware
Amp are Aragon's 8008BB
speakers are IRS v with updated electronics designed by Psaudio and arty of infinity
 
#91
Yikes! Your system is almost certainly a lot more resolving than mine, so without the benefit of spending a few hours (days?) in your listening room, I can't really advise you further. :)

It might be interesting to connect a small device like the Raspberry Pi 3 Model B directly to your DAC via USB (possibly with an iFi micro iUSB3.0 inserted between the Pi and the DAC). As I have described, I'd run Roon Bridge on the Pi and Roon Server on a different PC. Have Roon Server perform the convolution using Acourate filters and route the stream to the Pi running Roon Bridge. I've written a blog post that describes the setup. Here's a link:

http://blog.dsnyder.ws-e.com/index.php/2017/03/19/raspberry-pi-3-for-roon-bridge/
 
Dec 12, 2013
935
0
16
NYC , USA
#92
Thanks. I will read it. I was hoping not to need room just diract or some other dsp loaded on my server. One sound I need to curb is the bass. Below 300 hertz to 100 hertz it glows up about 10 DB or so. A bass bump and I need to sit back about 18 feet from them to get it better.
EQ in j river helps but the loss in bass articulation is still not clean. Now if I go back about 16/18 feet and go one side past the tower towards the side walls it's fantastic lol.
But doing room sweeps I notice I have far more than a bass bump going on lol.
 
Nov 3, 2014
405
0
0
#93
The measurements that Mitch has presented in his book look convincing to me.

While it's true that, "we build systems that support our beliefs", in my experience, Acourate generally works well regardless of the beliefs held by the peope who try it (suggesting that, while perhaps not comprehensive, the algorithms used are sufficient to improve sound quality in common audiophile listening rooms).

Have you given Acourate a try in your system? If so, what did you think?
I am not disputing that Acourate or other single point systems "work" effectively vs. no EQ. I have no doubt they do. The question is which concept works MOST effectively, single- or multi-point. Agreed, the theoretical, quasi-theoretical, spin, marketing or propaganda arguments could go on ad infinitum. So it comes down to a question of belief.

I am sorry to say that, though I have followed numerous online tutorials, discussions, debates, etc, I do not find any convincing reason that I should invest the considerable time necessary in evaluating Acourate.
 

Flak

New Member
Nov 16, 2013
49
0
0
#94
Uli has told me that I'm free to take measurements from multiple locations and average them, but he has indicated that there's little benefit to doing so.
.............
He's correct but...
Dirac Live averages the graphs for display purposes only.
Dirac Live does NOT simplistically average the measurements for filter creation purposes, from those nine measurements we infer which time-domain and frequency-domain properties are common to all measurements and can consequently be robustly compensated (and those that are not)

Mathias Johansson explains it here: http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/dirac-room-correction-interview
while a detailed document by Lars Johan Brännmark and Mikael Sternad is available here: http://diracdocs.com/ISEAT15_Brannmark_Sternad.pdf

:) Flavio
 

EVOLVIST

New Member
Apr 20, 2017
23
0
0
#95
First post... And boy I would love to amalgamate Dirac with Roon somehow and point it to my microRendu for output to my DAC, but I've yet to find away to do it (at least not bit-perfect). That really sucks. So, I guess I'll give it a go with Acourate.

(I didn't sign up just to type that.)
 
Last edited:

Flak

New Member
Nov 16, 2013
49
0
0
#96
First post... And boy I would love to amalgate Dirac with Roon somehow and point it to my microRendu for output to my DAC, but I've yet to find away to do it (at least not bit-perfect). That really sucks. So, I guess I'll give it a go with Acourate.

(I didn't sign up just to type that.)
May be you can evaluate a standalone Dirac enabled DSP processor, i.e.:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24
You'd still need initially a PC or Mac for measurements and filters creation but those filters will be uploaded to the DSP and the computer can be disconnected.
Also the unit has D/A conversion already so that a DAC is redundant.

Flavio

P.S. A more expensive approach could be using an all digital DDRC-22D:
https://www.minidsp.com/dirac-series/ddrc-22d
together with a USBStreamer:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/usbstreamer-box
In that case your current DAC could be digitally connected to the DDRC-22D I think.
 
Last edited:

hvbias

New Member
Jun 22, 2012
524
0
0
New England
#97
It looks like Uli provided some answers in the Acourate group on Yahoo. I'll paste them here for the benfit of WTB members:



and a bit later...
In my opinion the benefit of doing multiple measurements in Acourate is if you're using it to do crossovers above Schroeder, which is one of my intended applications.
 
#98
First post... And boy I would love to amalgate Dirac with Roon somehow and point it to my microRendu for output to my DAC, but I've yet to find away to do it (at least not bit-perfect). That really sucks. So, I guess I'll give it a go with Acourate.

(I didn't sign up just to type that.)
Let me know how things go with Acourate. Just be aware that convolution is inherently not a bit-perfect process--you will be intentionally manipulating the bits to achieve corrections in response.
 

EVOLVIST

New Member
Apr 20, 2017
23
0
0
#99
May be you can evaluate a standalone Dirac enabled DSP processor, i.e.:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24
You'd still need initially a PC or Mac for measurements and filters creation but those filters will be uploaded to the DSP and the computer can be disconnected.
Also the unit has D/A conversion already so that a DAC is redundant.

Flavio

P.S. A more expensive approach could be using an all digital DDRC-22D:
https://www.minidsp.com/dirac-series/ddrc-22d
together with a USBStreamer:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/usb-audio-interface/usbstreamer-box
In that case your current DAC could be digitally connected to the DDRC-22D I think.
Thank you for the suggestions. Yes, I've actually looked at all of the model from miniDSP; however, there are two problems.

1.) The boxes internally process all signals below 24/192, like at 96kHz no matter what the incoming signal.

2.) I cannot see giving up my Chord DAVE and Lampizator Golden Gate for these internal DACs.

Actually, if I were going to go that route, the DAC inside the Emotiva AV receivers are no chumps. These come equipped with Dirac, as well, and I can get 24/192. I could always save some money and put the leftover change toward some Icon 300B monoblocks. Heh.
 

EVOLVIST

New Member
Apr 20, 2017
23
0
0
Let me know how things go with Acourate. Just be aware that convolution is inherently not a bit-perfect process--you will be intentionally manipulating the bits to achieve corrections in response.
You're right. I shouldn't have said bit-perfect, but you know, whether the convolution degrades the original audio signal is highly debatable... At least not to the human ear. Maybe my bats could hear it. By the time you run the signal into a great DAC, I still think we're golden.

Yeah, I'll speak with Uli some more. The thing is, I'm fairly computer savvy; still, I'm scared to death that I'll screw this up! Haha!