Dirac Live - First Impressions

[Deleted member 108165]

sorry mate I didnt mean to offend you buddy - I am talking relative to what it does - and what skill level and experience you need to do it manually.

there is no engineer - sorry all you have got is me - I give all my time and help out to you lot for free

You didn't offend me Ellis, it's just financial facts of life, no worries mate. Dirac Live is at a price point where I would need to see qualitative gains and the two week trial period is not sufficient time to play with it, plus I want to see the software dealing with all my perceived issues and not prompting me to spend even more cash on room treatment.

I quite like the sound of my system but am only too aware that it can be improved upon.

 

[insider9]

sorry mate I didnt mean to offend you buddy - I am talking relative to what it does - and what skill level and experience you need to do it manually.

there is no engineer - sorry all you have got is me - I give all my time and help out to you lot for free 

 

You didn't offend me Ellis, it's just financial facts of life, no worries mate. Dirac Live is at a price point where I would need to see qualitative gains and the two week trial period is not sufficient time to play with it, plus I want to see the software dealing with all my perceived issues and not prompting me to spend even more cash on room treatment.

I quite like the sound of my system but am only too aware that it can be improved upon. 

Doug if you're not too far from Sheffield I'd be happy to help set up DSP at yours.

If you fancy seeing DSP in action on my system first that's also fine.

 

[Deleted member 108165]

That's awfully kind of you Insider, thank you, but Essex... Sheffield... hmmm *shok*

Absolutely no worries, as I've said I'm resonably content with what I have, SQ wise. Maybe one day I'll bite the bullet... when I have the time.

 

[insider9]

That would be difficult however many residents that way so easier to meet up.

 

[JMac]

@ellisdj - Thanks, I'll try out your suggestion in the morning and let you know (watching the fight at the mo).

I didnt realise until earlier that you can edit the filters via the text file rather than in the configurator which makes setting specific +/- at particular frequencies much more accurate.

It is expensive but when you consider what some other (non audio) software can cost its not silly money but still appreciate its a sizeable invenstment. Its not going to work miracles but it can help signficiantly and its relatively straight forward to use.

What I will say though is that when you get past a certain point with amplification the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the difference between say a Classe and a Bryston isnt as big a difference as the Dirac can make. And when you consider cables, which can cost way more than £300 then it starts to look 'cheap' given it actually makes a clearly discernable difference in sound. The key is getting it to work how you want otherwise, as I've found when just playing with curves, the standard system CAN sound better across the full spectrum.

I still dont understand why Mac gets a 1 month trial whilst windows only gets two weeks though.

The other thing that I'm personally struggling with is the mentality of it. I've always been of the mindset that you want as 'pure' a sound as possible with as little interefernce from box's and software in between. A straight from source to speaker playback if you like. I cant help but think that using something like Dirac is akin to pressing the 'loud curve' button on old school equipment or using a graphic equaliser to tune the sound. Now, I suppose there's nothing wrong with that if in the opinion of the listener it sounds better but it does take somthing away from the purity factor.

That said, we're not all blessed with perfect rooms and have the ability to apply copious amounts of absorbancy material which could be argued are 'cheats' by other means I suppose.

You pays your money and takes your choice...

 

[insider9]

If you write to Dirac that you read about a month trial and only realised it's two weeks for Windows they will extend it for you. All you need is to ask

 

[JMac]

Thats great but why have the difference to begin with?

 

[insider9]

Wouldn't know. I too didn't like this and that's how I know they wouldn't have a problem extending it for you. I don't use Dirac Live but can see its appeal.

 

[ellisdj]

don't take this the wrong way but certain HiFi mentalities need to look in the mirror.

a pure sound can't be a pure sound if you have 25db swings in freq, doesn't matter what you put before it that level of error is never going to be pure audio.
getting a good freq response setup doesn't guarantee audio nirvana but it corrects for that error and will allow you to build the next level of performance from the system.
otherwise it will always and forever be a hindrance / limiting factor.

BTW I am Essex based

dirac is not the loudness button you had actually set that up yourself with your speaker positioning without you knowing buddy. My room is the same in fact it's worse I have one one the worst rooms going hence my passion for the subject

 

[ellisdj]

Thats great but why have the difference to begin with?

Jmac if you decide to buy dirac could you please use one of my product links to it. It would really help me out with my You Tube channel especially as I go above and beyond to help people with dirac. I have made multiple video guides and more. thanks very much. It doenst cost anymore sadly I can't get you a discount either

 

[lindsayt]

Yes, but doesn't it depend what you have to do to the signal to get a good frequency response?

What if, for example, you have an OK frequency response - not good, but acceptably close to good, in a minimalistic system where the dynamics, clarity, low level detail are all good?

In that case, if there are trade-offs in the clarity or dynamics or low level detail in elevating the system to a good frequency response, then it wouldn't be for me.

A less than good frequency response, for me, would be less of a limiting factor than a system without good dynamics. As I hate systems that make Stravinsky or Stranglers soporific to listen to. Whilst I can accept systems that push some instruments to the fore of the mix and others towards the rear - as long as they don't filter anything out too much. And as long as they're not sibilant.

 

[ellisdj]

that's personal choice Lindsay mate of course

Less is more in most cases and a pure audio approach is likely always better. I wasn't saying the opposite.

Reason I said look in the mirror is because it's an approach we might want to take but if the reality is we have 25db swings or even 15db swings it's a hell of a lot when you think about it.

if you have a 15db swing in the freq range of the violin you mentioned how can you really hear which one it is because that's a coloration to both mate when you think about it. That's what I am getting at.

if you don't need it don't use it but in most small rooms there will be issues in one form or another.
In JMac case we can clearly see where he can benefit. My room needs it as well but its a very small room as you know.

 

[ellisdj]

just noticed the photobucket photos are now blocked sorry about that they were working ok last night. Does anyone need to see them again and I will post them again on a different service??

 

[newlash09]

Publish their speakers frequency response curves ( ideally in anechoic chamber if available ). Then the buyer can see the voicing intended by the designer , and the reason why they loved their speakers during audition. Now anything apart from that in the listening room is pure room interaction. And should be adjusted by Dirac to match the designed frequency curve of the speakers. This would be the ideal approach in my opinion. But don't know if possible.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Thats quite possible, I used the curve suggested by Dirac to 'optimise' and it dialled most of the bass down to near flat. The problem is, that whilst numerically correct, that probably isnt how the music is meant ot sound. Most of what I listen to has been mastered to be played in clubs via DJ's over large multi speaker systems. I know it may not be pure hifi in the truest sense of the work but those bass humps are necessary to a degree. A pure flat frequency response may be perfect from a theory perspective but it probably isnt how the artist intended it to be listended to back in the real world. If that makes sense.

Maybe, but I think this is unlikely. It is certainly possible for an artist or mastering engineer to make such assumptions, but based on the little I know about about music production, this would be unusual. Another possibility is that there is low frequency content in the recording which is actually rolled off in your speaker's native response, but which has previously been reinforced by the room.

 

[JMac]

just noticed the photobucket photos are now blocked sorry about that they were working ok last night. Does anyone need to see them again and I will post them again on a different service??

I could do with them. You can email them if you prefer and I'll host them via imgur. If I go ahead with the purchase I'll be sure to use one of your links,

 

[Gazzip]

Thats quite possible, I used the curve suggested by Dirac to 'optimise' and it dialled most of the bass down to near flat. The problem is, that whilst numerically correct, that probably isnt how the music is meant ot sound. Most of what I listen to has been mastered to be played in clubs via DJ's over large multi speaker systems. I know it may not be pure hifi in the truest sense of the work but those bass humps are necessary to a degree. A pure flat frequency response may be perfect from a theory perspective but it probably isnt how the artist intended it to be listended to back in the real world. If that makes sense.

Maybe, but I think this is unlikely. It is certainly possible for an artist or mastering engineer to make such assumptions, but based on the little I know about about music production, this would be unusual. Another possibility is that there is low frequency content in the recording which is actually rolled off in your speaker's native response, but which has previously been reinforced by the room.

Hmmm... I think that is pretty much EXACTLY what they do. Most mainstream music gets the grotbox and earbud treatment before release, so it is entirely plausible that dance music produced for nightclub use is mastered in a certain way.

Dirac Live is a great product but it cannot correct bad/deliberately skewed mastering.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Thats quite possible, I used the curve suggested by Dirac to 'optimise' and it dialled most of the bass down to near flat. The problem is, that whilst numerically correct, that probably isnt how the music is meant ot sound. Most of what I listen to has been mastered to be played in clubs via DJ's over large multi speaker systems. I know it may not be pure hifi in the truest sense of the work but those bass humps are necessary to a degree. A pure flat frequency response may be perfect from a theory perspective but it probably isnt how the artist intended it to be listended to back in the real world. If that makes sense.

Maybe, but I think this is unlikely. It is certainly possible for an artist or mastering engineer to make such assumptions, but based on the little I know about about music production, this would be unusual. Another possibility is that there is low frequency content in the recording which is actually rolled off in your speaker's native response, but which has previously been reinforced by the room.

Hmmm... I think that is pretty much EXACTLY what they do. Most mainstream music gets the grotbox and earbud treatment before release, so it is entirely plausible that dance music produced for nightclub use is mastered in a certain way.

Dirac Live is a great product but it cannot correct bad/deliberately skewed mastering.

I am not saying that mastering engineers do not adjust their mixes to suit certain markets or playback equipment, or that they do not make mistakes. I just meant that an engineer is unlikely to assume that every playback system has the kind of aggressive hump shown in the OP's measurements. A closer look at and listen to an example track on a full range system would quickly reveal what is actually going on.

 

[ellisdj]

just noticed the photobucket photos are now blocked sorry about that they were working ok last night. Does anyone need to see them again and I will post them again on a different service??

I could do with them. You can email them if you prefer and I'll host them via imgur. If I go ahead with the purchase I'll be sure to use one of your links,

If you email me I will send them over to you no probs - my email is at the bottom of the page of the website if you can email me initially I can then reply - easiest way

 

[andyjm]

Thats quite possible, I used the curve suggested by Dirac to 'optimise' and it dialled most of the bass down to near flat. The problem is, that whilst numerically correct, that probably isnt how the music is meant ot sound. Most of what I listen to has been mastered to be played in clubs via DJ's over large multi speaker systems. I know it may not be pure hifi in the truest sense of the work but those bass humps are necessary to a degree. A pure flat frequency response may be perfect from a theory perspective but it probably isnt how the artist intended it to be listended to back in the real world. If that makes sense.

Maybe, but I think this is unlikely. It is certainly possible for an artist or mastering engineer to make such assumptions, but based on the little I know about about music production, this would be unusual. Another possibility is that there is low frequency content in the recording which is actually rolled off in your speaker's native response, but which has previously been reinforced by the room.

Hmmm... I think that is pretty much EXACTLY what they do. Most mainstream music gets the grotbox and earbud treatment before release, so it is entirely plausible that dance music produced for nightclub use is mastered in a certain way.

Dirac Live is a great product but it cannot correct bad/deliberately skewed mastering.

Back in my BBC days, radio studios would have decent stereo monitoring speakers (usually LS5/9) as well as a relatively small / poor mono speaker. From time to time the output programme material was switched to the small speaker to see how it would sound at home on a cheapo receiver or on a car radio. Output levels / frequency response was adjusted to ensure that listeners on poorer quality equipment could still enjoy the Archers.

In the same way, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume the engineers master dance music according to their intended target.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Back in my BBC days, radio studios would have decent stereo monitoring speakers (usually LS5/9) as well as a relatively small / poor mono speaker. From time to time the output programme material was switched to the small speaker to see how it would sound at home on a cheapo receiver or on a car radio. Output levels / frequency response was adjusted to ensure that listeners on poorer quality equipment could still enjoy the Archers.

In the same way, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume the engineers master dance music according to their intended target.

I understand, but if your intended target had been a nightclub, where you can be reasonably confident that the sound system can reproduce low bass properly and is probably actually set up to boost the bass, would you have felt the need boost it further?

Fortunately for the OP, Dirac Live can easily dial back in his (or the mastering engineer's) house curve to restore some flavour.