Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 23, 2015 Volunteer Posted June 23, 2015 A few days ago, a couple of mates and I spent an extremely informative evening listening to and comparing various digital room correction. DRC, Accourate and Dirac. What was interesting was firstly, the significant and obvious improvement that they all made over the uncorrected system. Secondly, as we were using different target curves (we only had time to compare 'house' curves), the difference between the various room correction softwares So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same (assuming they all do time-alignment and DEQ)?
hochopeper Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 A few days ago, a couple of mates and I spent an extremely informative evening listening to and comparing various digital room correction. DRC, Accourate and Dirac. What was interesting was firstly, the significant and obvious improvement that they all made over the uncorrected system. Secondly, as we were using different target curves (we only had time to compare 'house' curves), the difference between the various room correction softwares So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same (assuming they all do time-alignment and DEQ)? Maybe. Depends within what tolerance they meet the target curve.
Happy Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 This is an interesting Q but I don't get the second part. What was your impression on the SQ difference between the softwares/DRC gear? Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk 2
frankn Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Maybe. Depends within what tolerance they meet the target curve.And presumably the performance of the DAC in each unit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Luc Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Curve balls, always be wary of them. Edit: I just remembered you've got one of those deqqxxxzzqxxeee thingys. doesn't that do it all for you once you've set it up the right way? Edited June 23, 2015 by Luc
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 23, 2015 Author Volunteer Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) This is an interesting Q but I don't get the second part. What was your impression on the SQ difference between the softwares/DRC gear? Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk 2 They were all good, but they all had different target curves so I have no way of saying which if any, was better. In other words, I liked one of the target curves more than the others but if all of them had the same target curve, would I have been able to tell them apart. Would one have done it better? Edited June 23, 2015 by Sir Sanders Zingmore
Sir Rab of Everest Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same (assuming they all do time-alignment and DEQ)? Sounds like the intro to an episode of Sex and the City... but for audiophiles. 2
Jone5y Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Great question sir, I reckon this could be an interesting thread despite its potential to degenerate into a "measure vs listen" debate. For what it's worth I'd say yes, if they meet the target curve exactly they should sound the same. I should add that I've never heard any room correction more sophisticated than the audyssey in my avr
Sir Rab of Everest Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 In other words, I liked one of the target curves more than the others but if all of them had the same target curve, would I have been able to tell them apart. Would one have done it better? Please do round 2and tell us!
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 23, 2015 Author Volunteer Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Curve balls, always be wary of them. Edit: I just remembered you've got one of those deqqxxxzzqxxeee thingys. doesn't that do it all for you once you've set it up the right way? I have a behringer DEQ but it doesn't do time-alignment. That's why I've been mucking around with Dirac. Also, the behringer is really fiddly to use, the Dirac is far more idiot-proof Edited June 23, 2015 by Sir Sanders Zingmore
BradC Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 I think you would find that even with the same target curve, each of the different options would produce a different correction curve. They all use different algorithms.
astr0b0y Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Man I hope you're right. It's a great question and would certainly make buying easier. I love what Audyssey does in my system and really want to try something where I can edit the curve like Dirac. Best way I can see to do that would be to replace my X4000 with an Emotiva unit as I want all in one with surround capabilities.
Guest scumbag Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Sir Singmore, can you elaborate on your comment about the DEQ2496 not doing time alignment? Not trying to start a flame war here - just curious what the context was...... Anyway, I think another factor here is what type equalisation the unit has and the resolution of the equalisation is. The DEQ2496 for example has pre-set frequency points (finite) but is parametric so it can create very accurate equalisation - with a bit of work. Other units may use the more traditional "graphic equiliser" method which does not allow as much flexibility and may be less accurate. I'm not familiar with the other systems mentioned but I just thought I'd chime in as this may be a factor in situations where the differing hardware produces different results in the same room. Personally I wouldn't be happy with any system that provides me with it's suggestions but doesn't allow me to tweak it which is why I went the (admittedly) more clumsy interface on the DEQ2496.
Guest scumbag Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 P.S. REW (freeware) can measure your room and create parametric corrective curves. You can use the curves in a variety of hardware. Alternatively if you had squeezebox you can install the EQ plugin and recreate the curve, or use Jplayer and do the same if you are running a media centre out to your DAC. Again, just some alternatives and this case, free (except for the measurement mic).
betty boop Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Man I hope you're right. It's a great question and would certainly make buying easier. I love what Audyssey does in my system and really want to try something where I can edit the curve like Dirac. Best way I can see to do that would be to replace my X4000 with an Emotiva unit as I want all in one with surround capabilities. if you like audyssey, and whats not to like ! have you considered audyssey pro ? there is the Target curve editor, curve designer, ref page 29. this is the guide for audyssey's own unit, however there are similar guides for denon/nad units etc... http://installer.audyssey.com/files/Audyssey%20MultEQ%20Pro%20User%20Guide%20for%20Audyssey%20Sound%20Equalizer.pdf if talking target curve this is worth reading and chris from audyssey has some good points on the topic. https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/94162-MultEQ-Target-Curves myself I don't utilise the target curve editor for audyssey, the audyssey reference curve for movies is quite excellent I find apart from removing mid range compensation which my speaker set don't need. for 2ch i just utilise the velodyne sms eq system. the real benefit of it I think is it measures using a RTA, calibrated mic and gives you full control either fully auto or full manual ability to achieve any curve your heart desires. the benefit is you see the actual measured result real time as opposed to some target curve that you are not sure how the eq system got to and whether it even got there ! for 2ch my own experience mirrors chris from audysseys advice to not go for a "room curve" and pretty close to flat has been to my taste…wasted way too much time and effort trying to follow advice I once got that I should have a room curve ! if you don't have much bass capability perhaps it is needed to give that impression. but its not something I found I needed and just made sound unnatural. I would be very carefull with use of EQ and frequencies beyond the bass/subwoofer range i.e. over 80hz. also I do think many perhaps over use/mis use EQ see it as a fix all..when it is just a band aid and where things like position(speakers and listening) and treatments and making best use of the room are far more important and what should be done first…leaving just a minor miracle for the EQ system to perform.
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 23, 2015 Author Volunteer Posted June 23, 2015 Sir Singmore, can you elaborate on your comment about the DEQ2496 not doing time alignment? Not trying to start a flame war here - just curious what the context was...... Anyway, I think another factor here is what type equalisation the unit has and the resolution of the equalisation is. The DEQ2496 for example has pre-set frequency points (finite) but is parametric so it can create very accurate equalisation - with a bit of work. Other units may use the more traditional "graphic equiliser" method which does not allow as much flexibility and may be less accurate. I'm not familiar with the other systems mentioned but I just thought I'd chime in as this may be a factor in situations where the differing hardware produces different results in the same room. Personally I wouldn't be happy with any system that provides me with it's suggestions but doesn't allow me to tweak it which is why I went the (admittedly) more clumsy interface on the DEQ2496. I'm probably getting terms incorrect here but Dirac says things like: mpulse response correction The impulse response of a loudspeaker affects clarity, tightness and all spatial aspects of the sound, such as location and distinctness. Dirac Live is unique in actually correcting the impulse response in a large listening area, not just a single point. By focusing on consistent problems across the measurement positions, and correcting only these, a faster decay time is achieved. Typically, the power ratio between the direct wave and the tail is improved by 6 dB or more, representing a vastly tighter sound. Frequency response correction Why is it that the same frequency response can sound so different in different rooms? The answer lies to a large extent in the time-domain aspects of the measured frequency response and to some part by differences in the spatial (angular) domain. By addressing time-domain problems as such, and not as minimum-phase spectral problems, our frequency response correction also becomes more effective. We treat the spectral coloration in a room after we have performed a time-domain correction. We also make sure not to overcompensate. This is done by paying attention to the variations across different measurement positions, not just the average. I'm not actually 100% sure I understand what that means, but as far as I know DEQ2496 just addresses frequency response.
Guest scumbag Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Multiple readings at various points is good. There also seems to be some algorithm to adjust the way the sound wave propagates over time rather than simply looking at the modes in the room. Not that I understand it that well myself but this looks like an interesting product.
davewantsmoore Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same (assuming they all do time-alignment and DEQ)? Without trying to be too Captain Obvious about it .... if they have the same target, and meet that target within the tolerances of audibility, then yes.
davewantsmoore Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 And presumably the performance of the DAC in each unit Yes.... the DACs may have an effect under certain circumstances ...... but, the tolerances to which the devices they meet the target curve would normally be orders of magnitude larger than the differences in the DACs performance.
Newman Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 A few days ago, a couple of mates and I spent an extremely informative evening listening to and comparing various digital room correction. DRC, Accourate and Dirac. What was interesting was firstly, the significant and obvious improvement that they all made over the uncorrected system. Secondly, as we were using different target curves (we only had time to compare 'house' curves), the difference between the various room correction softwares So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same (assuming they all do time-alignment and DEQ)? Firstly, were you all sitting in the exact microphone position when making your assessments? If No => Invalid. Secondly, no, they all sound wildly different. Sean Olive conducted listening tests of a few proprietary products and a couple of HK developmental products, under controlled listening conditions, with music. One was even worse than nothing! (Audyssey) One was no better than nothing. (while not being 'the same as') Most were significantly better sounding than nothing. [source: Sean Olive] 1
davewantsmoore Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Secondly, no, they all sound wildly different. Indeed. He found: When each correction system was using it's own (ie. all different) target - they sounded wildly different Most preferred systems we the ones which had a target which matched closest to what is known to be the most desirable in-room response Biggest differences between the systems ability to achieve their own target were in the regions where there were significant in-room acoustic effects, such as imperfect crossover summing, and below the Schroeder frequency There shouldn't be any surprise to these findings. The target response (and the ability of the system to hit the target) dictates the result. So the question is, given the same target curve do all digital room corrections sound the same ? The biggest issue with this is that common systems don't have the same target curve.... and a secondary issue is that under certain circumstances they won't meet their own target curve.
davewantsmoore Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Sean Olive: the main differences among the room corrections was related to choice of LF cutoff and target curve
davewantsmoore Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Is there a link to the tests available? Here 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 24, 2015 Author Volunteer Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) Firstly, were you all sitting in the exact microphone position when making your assessments? If No => Invalid. Secondly, no, they all sound wildly different. Sean Olive conducted listening tests of a few proprietary products and a couple of HK developmental products, under controlled listening conditions, with music. One was even worse than nothing! (Audyssey) One was no better than nothing. (while not being 'the same as') Most were significantly better sounding than nothing. I'm not sure I understand your microphone comment... what exactly is invalid here? I wasn't doing a test. But in any event, are you surprised that different target curves sounded different? (EDIT: as an aside there is no "exact" microphone position for many of these DRC systems anyway, as they often don't use a single measurement) As for Sean Olive's test, as Dave points out (and saved me having to ask), the target curves were different Edited June 24, 2015 by Sir Sanders Zingmore
Recommended Posts