# MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live



## ErinH

Review has been moved to my website:





MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live Review


MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live




www.erinsaudiocorner.com


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Good read shankable (not a word but Erin gets it) friend.


----------



## ErinH

Melodic Acoustic said:


> Good read shankable (not a word but Erin gets it) friend.


----------



## Brian c

Great write up. Thanks for all your contributions


----------



## bertholomey

Great write up E! Juke and Jive to escape those shanks  So much mileage out of that.....and the fella on the horse 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Truthunter

Erin, Thanks for taking the time to provide us this detailed write up :thumbsup:

I have a few questions:



ErinH said:


> This gets me to #3: Equalizing the driver response. Now, to be honest, one should also take the time to pre-measure each active driver’s response and then use broad strokes to flatten out any large peaks or anomalies seen. However, I didn’t do this my first go-round because, frankly, I was too giddy at the thought of this new toy and I went straight to Step #4.... ...
> With all of this in mind, you can understand why MiniDSP encourages us to pre-correct the response of the "speaker" before we run DL, especially when used in the car environment.


It's unclear, to me, if you ever went back and did some broad stroke driver correction? 





ErinH said:


> Step #4: Set up my crossovers for each speaker driver... A portion of Step #4 includes setting time delay....


Did you go as far as to align acoustic xovers up, at the listening position, so as to minimize phase issues in the xover regions?

Did you adjust levels and apply xovers so as to maintain a flat response from 20-20khz or to loosely follow the target curve you had in mind?

Also, when running the Dirac channel per driver measurement in order to obtain the delays - Were all the xover filters engaged?





ErinH said:


> Here's the same screenshot but of only the DL targeted - modified Wisdom curve (orange) and the optimized response (green):


Would be interesting to see the actual measured response and how it aligns with the theoretical "optimized" response. Did you happen to take any after measurements?


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> Erin, Thanks for taking the time to provide us this detailed write up :thumbsup:


Thanks, Ryan. 




Truthunter said:


> It's unclear, to me, if you ever went back and did some broad stroke driver correction?
> 
> Did you go as far as to align acoustic xovers up, at the listening position, so as to minimize phase issues in the xover regions?
> 
> Did you adjust levels and apply xovers so as to maintain a flat response from 20-20khz or to loosely follow the target curve you had in mind?
> 
> Also, when running the Dirac channel per driver measurement in order to obtain the delays - Were all the xover filters engaged?
> 
> Would be interesting to see the actual measured response and how it aligns with the theoretical "optimized" response. Did you happen to take any after measurements?




I did not. But I'm glad you asked. I meant to bring that back up again in my final assessment, particularly because I did little to optimize the response before DL had it's turn. What I did do was set crossovers on my compression drivers so that the horn loading effect was flattened out, and I did add a broad filter on my midranges around 800hz (a shelf would have been more effective but I just didn't do that), and I set my T/A based on DL's result of each active speaker. I failed to mention this I believe but I also used DL's gain adjustment values from the active driver sweeps to set the levels before I re-ran DL in 2-channel stereo mode. I'll need to update my OP to add this info.

But, overall, I did little before I ran DL. I think that speaks even more to the benefit of DL's capabilties based on the results I got. 

I also should have mentioned this in the review, because I did mention it in another thread, that it would make more sense to me to not work to flatten the response too much in areas where you plan to have a curve that already mimics the natural response. For example, if you have a high frequency response that is falling, and you plan to have a target curve that is doing roughly the same, I wouldn't try to pre-correct the signal to flat; I think that would just be wasting time and DSP resources. But that's just a suggestion.





Truthunter said:


> Would be interesting to see the actual measured response and how it aligns with the theoretical "optimized" response. Did you happen to take any after measurements?



I did this really early on but didn't think to grab screenshots. The response I measured was practically perfectly matched to what DL targeted and resulted in. The higher frequencies didn't match as well but that's more a function of me using a single mic measurement when I re-measured again. I think most of us know that it's imperative to take an average of measurements over an area because even moving the mic one-quarter of an inch can alter the measured the response. This same question came up in a thread on one of the home audio forums, though, and the folks who replied with data showed that DL's corrected response was indeed what it said it was. So, I wouldn't personally spend time trying to verify if DL actually did what the software says it did. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> ... and I set my T/A based on DL's result of each active speaker.


So this means that all xovers were applied when measuring in multichannel Dirac to obtain the time delays?




ErinH said:


> I failed to mention this I believe but I also used DL's gain adjustment values from the active driver sweeps to set the levels before I re-ran DL in 2-channel stereo mode. I'll need to update my OP to add this info.


Good info but triggers another question: What target curves did you use when optimizing the multichannel Dirac setup? Just the auto-targets for each driver or something else?... I would assume this would have an effect on the levels it calculates which were used in your final 2ch Dirac config?


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> So this means that all xovers were applied when measuring in multichannel Dirac to obtain the time delay?


Yes.







Truthunter said:


> Good info but triggers another question: What target curves did you use when optimizing the multichannel Dirac setup? Just the auto-targets for each driver or something else?... I would assume this would have an effect on the levels it calculates which were used in your final 2ch Dirac config?


Oh, goodness. I honestly don't remember. This was done on the same night I was trying all sorts of things (like matching my manual tune curve, and recording the response of the different tunes with binaural mics). I *think* I was using the manual tune curve, though. I checked the DL delay values and the deltas between drivers were in family with what I had already achieved by ear. So no crazy values that one might go "oh, that's to account for the crossover delay", just in case you were wondering. Speed of sound doesn't care about crossovers. It's frequency independent. It's the same regardless of the bandwidth. Phase rotation, however, is a different story.


----------



## Sonnie

Excellent write-up Erin... appreciate your time and information.

I am sure it would be super helpful to a LOT of people to have a step by step guide on using this system from beginning to end... particular on how to setup the routing and mixing tabs.

1. Do this
2. Do this
3. Do this
etc., etc.

The manual is mind-boggling to me... way more info than is needed and let direct to the point instructions on how it is to be setup. I realize there are a lot of options, but similar to what you suggested... most people buying this product are doing a 2 or 3-way active front with a subwoofer somewhere behind them... and maybe rear fill.


----------



## tyroneshoes

great write up. Much appreciated. I always wanted there to be a great auto eq option like this. 

As of what I tried (pioneer auto-eq, JBL ms8, Alpine Audessey) the kicker key had the only auto eq results that didnt require major tweaking but its a low power amp. Super impressive and Id like this option on their larger amps. This is wayyy more flexible and tweak able.

To be clear the unit is $500, then to be able to use DL will cost about $400 more. So roughly $900 to give it a go.

I am very intrigued about using this with a 2 way in front and rears + sub. 

Is there surround sound processing of some sort or any effects for rears in this unit?


----------



## Jscoyne2

tyroneshoes said:


> great write up. Much appreciated. I always wanted there to be a great auto eq option like this.
> 
> 
> 
> As of what I tried (pioneer auto-eq, JBL ms8, Alpine Audessey) the kicker key had the only auto eq results that didnt require major tweaking but its a low power amp. Super impressive and Id like this option on their larger amps. This is wayyy more flexible and tweak able.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear the unit is $500, then to be able to use DL will cost about $400 more. So roughly $900 to give it a go.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very intrigued about using this with a 2 way in front and rears + sub.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there surround sound processing of some sort or any effects for rears in this unit?


The unit plus software is 900. I think the umik comes with it and you have to use the Umik-1 mic with it.

There's no upmixing for center or 7.1 or anything like that but it does have the ability to do rearfill.

I promise. Its worth every dime.


Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris12

EXCELLENT write up. It answered a bunch of the questions that were bouncing around in my head regarding tuning with this device/software.

Now I just need to decide if my next purchase will be new tweets/ mids or the 8x12DL


----------



## crazhorse

I have been reading the posts on here and the MiniDSP forums about the live units... and have wondered about getting the 24hd version and using it along with my helix mini dsp, I have a apl1 now which I have had since 2015 and don’t think I have used it to its full potential. Would it be worth it it, as in not using the xover, time alignment part of the MiniDSP running it after the head unit into the helix just for the eq ?


----------



## Truthunter

crazhorse said:


> I have been reading the posts on here and the MiniDSP forums about the live units... and have wondered about getting the 24hd version and using it along with my helix mini dsp, I have a apl1 now which I have had since 2015 and don’t think I have used it to its full potential. Would it be worth it it, as in not using the xover, time alignment part of the MiniDSP running it after the head unit into the helix just for the eq ?


Are you asking if you should buy a 2x4HD and put it inline before the Helix? Or are you asking if you should buy a CDSP 8x12DL and put it inline before the Helix? Regardless, the answer is no to both.

If you have an APL and Helix Mini then you basically have the same functionality as the unit that is reveiwed above albeit less channels of Dirac and an additional AD/DA conversion.


----------



## ErinH

^ that


----------



## BigAl205

tl;dr 






Excellent write-up, thanks for your time and effort. Did I understand correctly that after buying the unit, you have to pay extra for the Dirac Live?


----------



## dgage

BigAl205 said:


> tl;dr
> 
> Excellent write-up, thanks for your time and effort. Did I understand correctly that after buying the unit, you have to pay extra for the Dirac Live?


You can buy the 8x12 or the 8x12-DL straight from MiniDSP. If you have or buy the 8x12, you can pay for the Dirac upgrade.


----------



## oabeieo

Wow what an awesome review, thank you Erin for taking the time to put that together for everybody. 

I can’t think of anything you left out .


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Are you asking if you should buy a 2x4HD and put it inline before the Helix? Or are you asking if you should buy a CDSP 8x12DL and put it inline before the Helix? Regardless, the answer is no to both.
> 
> If you have an APL and Helix Mini then you basically have the same functionality as the unit that is reveiwed above albeit less channels of Dirac and an additional AD/DA conversion.


APl is a group delay removal device and a linear phase crossover (in the 1012) Not quite a automated room correction. Although with the right hands behind a APl it could do similar but it’s overall sound is quite different.



I’m using linear phase crossovers and have removed all my group delay by use of FIR banks in rephase before I use my Dirac live. Linear phase definitely is something to take a serious look at and is a massive improvement, otoh what Dirac live does is more related to the room and not the speakers. Dirac does a magnificent job at opening up the soundstage and creating a depth of sound parallel to none by making the transfer functions (IRs) match on left and right. 
Linear phase does nothing to make them match, it removes the group delay caused by crossovers and enclosures. 




crazhorse said:


> I have been reading the posts on here and the MiniDSP forums about the live units... and have wondered about getting the 24hd version and using it along with my helix mini dsp, I have a apl1 now which I have had since 2015 and don’t think I have used it to its full potential. Would it be worth it it, as in not using the xover, time alignment part of the MiniDSP running it after the head unit into the helix just for the eq ?




If you want Dirac live and want to keep a helix 

I would look at the ddrc22d 

Keep it digital all the way to helix is ideal 

If your source is analog than the ddrc24 (the 2x4hd version of Dirac) would work

Right now I’m using 3x 2x4hds and a ddrc22d upstream with excellent results
The 2x4hds as a DAC and fir crossover / linearization tool and Dirac as my eq


----------



## naiku

Thanks for writing this up Erin, mirrors my experience with the DL and also gives me a couple things I should try with mine next time I feel like messing with it.




dgage said:


> You can buy the 8x12 or the 8x12-DL straight from MiniDSP. If you have or buy the 8x12, you can pay for the Dirac upgrade.


And if you are upgrading an 8x12 to the DL, the upgrade is very simple.


----------



## adriancp

So does anyone have any videos or screenshots of using this software? Even if it doesn’t have the Dirac software? This review really peaked my interest in the minidsp but I literally can’t find anything about the software and there is nothing to download unless you purchase a unit. 

Any help would be appreciated. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Well there's a website

https://www.minidsp.com/products/car-audio-dsp/cdsp-8x12-dl

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## adriancp

Jscoyne2 said:


> Well there's a website
> 
> https://www.minidsp.com/products/car-audio-dsp/cdsp-8x12-dl
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Yeah I'm well aware of the product page. What I'm saying is, most other DSP programs you can download and try in a demo mode. With MINIDSP, I don't believe that's available. I was wondering if anyone had taken any video of them tuning, configuring, or a tutorial of sorts. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

adriancp said:


> Yeah I'm well aware of the product page. What I'm saying is, most other DSP programs you can download and try in a demo mode. With MINIDSP, I don't believe that's available. I was wondering if anyone had taken any video of them tuning, configuring, or a tutorial of sorts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Pm me ur email

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## bnae38

adriancp said:


> Yeah I'm well aware of the product page. What I'm saying is, most other DSP programs you can download and try in a demo mode. With MINIDSP, I don't believe that's available. I was wondering if anyone had taken any video of them tuning, configuring, or a tutorial of sorts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Videos of tuning process for this would be sweet.. Asking a lot though.

I'm considering getting one too, but still chewing on just how easy/or difficult the tuning process actually is.

I haven't touched my tune in about 18mo, and its fairly good (for what I'm capable of). Getting reved up to tune again would be the problem for me , I admittedly suck at it.


----------



## Jscoyne2

bnae38 said:


> Videos of tuning process for this would be sweet.. Asking a lot though.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm considering getting one too, but still chewing on just how easy/or difficult the tuning process actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't touched my tune in about 18mo, and its fairly good (for what I'm capable of). Getting reved up to tune again would be the problem for me , I admittedly suck at it.


Bruh. Its worth. Every dime. And its superrrrrr easy to tune. We were all just figuring it out before.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

adriancp said:


> Yeah I'm well aware of the product page. What I'm saying is, most other DSP programs you can download and try in a demo mode. With MINIDSP, I don't believe that's available. I was wondering if anyone had taken any video of them tuning, configuring, or a tutorial of sorts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Also its a lil tricky because the software has to both be hooked up to the internet and to the device to work properly.


----------



## bnae38

Jscoyne2 said:


> Bruh. Its worth. Every dime. And its superrrrrr easy to tune. We were all just figuring it out before.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I'm gonna see how things develop over a couple weeks on this and the other thread (and the one on the mini forum that I haven't kept up with lately)..

Also I have to sell some of my hoard before buying one .

Thinking about tuning again kinda makes me wanna  though. Lol


----------



## Jscoyne2

bnae38 said:


> I'm gonna see how things develop over a couple weeks on this and the other thread (and the one on the mini forum that I haven't kept up with lately)..
> 
> Also I have to sell some of my hoard before buying one .
> 
> Thinking about tuning again kinda makes me wanna  though. Lol


Its really easy to use. If you would like. i can write like a quick run down of how to tune it.


----------



## bnae38

Jscoyne2 said:


> Its really easy to use. If you would like. i can write like a quick run down of how to tune it.


Sure, if you don't mind. Thanks


----------



## CDT FAN

I don't know if this one is helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVQhI7fPank&t=1188s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQtE9NYfK8



bnae38 said:


> Videos of tuning process for this would be sweet.. Asking a lot though.
> 
> I'm considering getting one too, but still chewing on just how easy/or difficult the tuning process actually is.
> 
> I haven't touched my tune in about 18mo, and its fairly good (for what I'm capable of). Getting reved up to tune again would be the problem for me , I admittedly suck at it.


----------



## Jscoyne2

2.0 isn't released on this product yet.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

I upgraded my 8x12 v2 to DL in June. I've tried 4 different tunes with it and have not been fully satisfied. Up until this weekend I had only used the time delay Dirac calculated & combined that with a manual tonality tune... I could never get a full tune utilizing Dirac to sound tonally pleasing. But, I will say that just using those Dirac calculated delays (which were much different then delays by distance alone) with a manual tonality made a big improvement in cohesion between drivers.

This Saturday, I worked on a complete ground up tune fully utilizing the Dirac live correction. Like Erin, I ran it through in multichannel first to obtain delays & levels which I plugged in to the output tabs and then ran it again through a 2ch Dirac (L/R). Unlike him, I spend a couple hours pre-tuning basically doing some broad stroke EQ & adjusting xover filters on the outputs and to get all drivers roughly following individual driver target curves I had generated with Jazzi's spreadsheet. The results were glorious!

Yesterday, I competed in the MECA NE 4x with that tune. It was the first competition for which I was not in my car for 1-2hours, before being judged, waving a mic around my head to make last minute improvements because it didn't sound "just right". The full Dirac tune was that good! I placed 1st in Mod-Street (3 competitors total) & 5th out of 19 in the money round. My drivers are in stock speaker locations - midbass in doors, mid in dash corners bouncing off windshield, tweeters in sails, trunk baffle sub.

Possibly the first car utilizing Dirac Live in the competition circuit?

It eliminated the midbass nulls I had that eq wouldn't touch. Playing by themselves: Left had a deep half octave 12db null centered at 160hz; Right had a deep half octave null centered at 180hz. These nulls combined to a 10db half octave null around 170hz. They are all gone!

Now that the groundwork is laid, it's literally takes 5min to change the target curve, re-optimize and load it into a new preset. I'm in love with this thing!


----------



## naiku

Congratulations!! That's awesome. I think some of us are starting to now really tap into the potential of the DL unit's and figuring out the best way to utilize them.

Quick question for you, since if I remember correctly you have a single subwoofer. How are you assigning the sub in the Mixer / Routing tabs in order to get the L/R tune?


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> Congratulations!! That's awesome. I think some of us are starting to now really tap into the potential of the DL unit's and figuring out the best way to utilize them.
> 
> Quick question for you, since if I remember correctly you have a single subwoofer. How are you assigning the sub in the Mixer / Routing tabs in order to get the L/R tune?


Thanks Ian!

Yes, I think it's really coming together now. I'm considering writing up a little tutorial.

For the multichannel (7ch) Dirac config: Dirac7 was routed to Output 8 (Sub) in the mixer tab.

Then for the 2 channel Dirac config: Inputs 1/2 (L/R) were routed to Dirac1 & Dirac2 which were then both routed together at 0db to Output 8 (Sub) in the mixer tab.

My amps input switch is set to only use L input for the bridged channels which is coming from Output 8 on the DSP.

I did not transfer the gain (-13.5db) for the sub channel to the output tab from the results of the 7ch config optimization. I tried it with that gain but sub level was too low... so I tried again keeping it at 0db and sub level was perfect.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Truthunter said:


> Yes, I think it's really coming together now. I'm considering writing up a little tutorial.


I know a lot of people would LOVE this.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> ... First up for sale is the Helix DSP Pro MKII.


Co-incidence? :surprised:  LOL


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> Co-incidence? :surprised:  LOL


Not sure. I have been looking at the helix factory integration amp as well. I’m just trying to stock pile funds right now and sort it out after.


----------



## oabeieo

Yes learning what pre and post tuning is important with Dirac live 

And everyone’s cars will be a little different , one car may need a small level ajust on maybe a left mid turn down by a dB or two, and post tuning is mostly all just fine tuning levels never any eq work, at least for me. 


Dirac will “undo” some of the “pretune” you have and it’s all wasted coefficients and added filter ringing at that point. So knowing what needs pretune is part of the curve in learning. And So knowing what to expect after every trial it gets better. The nice thing is it’s only a few try’s and you get it. 

For anyone that’s on the fence. It takes a few go’s at it. Once you get the hang of it and know what it’s doing that only a couple times will teach hands-on your cars will be amazing. And Dirac will grow on you and quickly become something you won’t want to live without. There’s a psychological process definitely as some of your old tunings may be what your used to and like more. But that is temporary and going back to your old tuning will reveal that this really is better than what you could do on your own.


----------



## Sonnie

ErinH said:


> As previously mentioned, I tried to use DL to measure and optimize each individual driver to a specific target curve a number of ways. The truth is, it just didn’t work well for me. My best results were met by using DL in stereo mode with the subwoofer getting half of the summed signal as it was summed by combining Left+Right in the routing tab. DL suggests this and my results back this as being the best method. But, again, it might be useful for you to first run DL on each individual driver to let DL tell you the time delay and level values to set for the corresponding output channels in the MiniDSP. Then re-run DL in 2-channel mode after you’ve made those adjustments.


Erin... this somewhat confusing for me in what you are doing here. For clarification ... miniDSP/DL recommends measuring the subwoofer separate from the other speakers. The 2-way or 3-way system with the frequency response outside of the subwoofer range is what they recommend measuring as one speaker (supposedly if they are not too far apart). This is similar to the home... we measure all the full range speakers and the subwoofer separately.

Can you share your XML file.... or post a screenshot of your routing and mixer tabs?

I wouldn't mind trying what you are suggesting to see how it sounds, but it seems like it would confuse the bass management.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Sonnie said:


> Erin... this somewhat confusing for me in what you are doing here. For clarification ... miniDSP/DL recommends measuring the subwoofer separate from the other speakers. The 2-way or 3-way system with the frequency response outside of the subwoofer range is what they recommend measuring as one speaker (supposedly if they are not too far apart). This is similar to the home... we measure all the full range speakers and the subwoofer separately.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you share your XML file.... or post a screenshot of your routing and mixer tabs?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying what you are suggesting to see how it sounds, but it seems like it would confuse the bass management.


So the unit has 12 outputs. 8 of which can be used as dirac. We've found through testing that its actually best to only use 3 or those outputs in the whole system, not considering rearfill and the like.

So basically. The first time you run dirac. Use as many channels as you have speakers. 

You have a simple 6.5 and tweeter and a sub woofer? Thats 5 channels for 5 speakers. So do the 9 measurements and then send it into the box. What you're after here isn't actually a tune but the delay and levels that dirac does. You can see this via the Dirac tab in the plug in.

Now, write those down. And make a 2nd tune on the 2nd tab of the plug in. Same crossovers, same pretune eq if u choose too, but this time input the levels and delay that dirac used for tune 1 on the first tab. 

Then run Dirac once more but instead, use inly 3 channels of the 12 total.

One for left. One for right. And one for subwoofer.

Its works a lot better.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonnie

Jscoyne2 said:


> So the unit has 12 outputs. 8 of which can be used as dirac. We've found through testing that its actually best to only use 3 or those outputs in the whole system, not considering rearfill and the like.
> 
> So basically. The first time you run dirac. Use as many channels as you have speakers.
> 
> You have a simple 6.5 and tweeter and a sub woofer? Thats 5 channels for 5 speakers. So do the 9 measurements and then send it into the box. What you're after here isn't actually a tune but the delay and levels that dirac does. You can see this via the Dirac tab in the plug in.
> 
> Now, write those down. And make a 2nd tune on the 2nd tab of the plug in. Same crossovers, same pretune eq if u choose too, but this time input the levels and delay that dirac used for tune 1 on the first tab.
> 
> Then run Dirac once more but instead, use inly 3 channels of the 12 total.
> 
> One for left. One for right. And one for subwoofer.
> 
> Its works a lot better.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Yep... that's exactly what I'm doing... but it sounds like Erin is running his subs mixed in with his fronts from how he described it.

Here are my Routing and Mixer tabs... 7 channels initially, then 5 channels including the rear channels on the final run...


----------



## Jscoyne2

This is what mine looks the 2nd time around.
















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

This is the first time.

5 speakers total.
















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonnie

Looks like about the only difference in yours and mine is I use the Bass Mgt tab on the routing per the recommendation of miniDSP. But I do link my two sub channels at output in the Mixer.

You do eliminate two of your input channels on the Routing tab, but that won't make a difference as the fronts are all getting the left and right input either way. The Mixer tab will determine how they are output for Dirac measurements.


----------



## naiku

Sonnie said:


> Erin... this somewhat confusing for me in what you are doing here. For clarification ... miniDSP/DL recommends measuring the subwoofer separate from the other speakers. The 2-way or 3-way system with the frequency response outside of the subwoofer range is what they recommend measuring as one speaker (supposedly if they are not too far apart). This is similar to the home... we measure all the full range speakers and the subwoofer separately.
> 
> Can you share your XML file.... or post a screenshot of your routing and mixer tabs?
> 
> I wouldn't mind trying what you are suggesting to see how it sounds, but it seems like it would confuse the bass management.


So, I tried a tune like this with simply L/R with the subwoofer mixed in, on this tune I am not using bass management. The results are good, on previous tunes I always found the sub-bass lacking, but this way it is not lacking at all and (to my ears at least) is blending really nicely with the mid-bass and is now right up on the dash. If you have time and a spare preset it's well worth a try of just L/R.

My other favorite tune I am running has the subwoofer separate, but on this particular tune the subwoofer level is a touch too low for my preference. With almost all of my previous tunes I found the subwoofer level lower than I would like. I need to do some more back to back comparisons between the two to determine which I really prefer though.


----------



## subterFUSE

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this idea yet or not, but I was brainstorming about process flow and came up with an idea which I will be trying out when I get my next build finished (where my 8x12DL is going).


My plan is to attempt the following:


1. Set delays in the plugin using SysTune impulse response, like I always do.

2. Measure each driver individually using the 5 mic array for spacial averaging.

3. Export the measurements from SysTune and import them to REW.

4. Use REW to build EQ biquads and export those to miniDSP. This can be done to a flat target curve, or to whatever curve we want.

5. Finish plugin base tune by adding crossover points.

6. Run Dirac for 3 channels, left right and sub.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this idea yet or not, but I was brainstorming about process flow and came up with an idea which I will be trying out when I get my next build finished (where my 8x12DL is going).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is to attempt the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Set delays in the plugin using SysTune impulse response, like I always do.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Measure each driver individually using the 5 mic array for spacial averaging.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Export the measurements from SysTune and import them to REW.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Use REW to build EQ biquads and export those to miniDSP. This can be done to a flat target curve, or to whatever curve we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Finish plugin base tune by adding crossover points.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Run Dirac for 3 channels, left right and sub.


Did that but with Rew. Dirac doesn't average the measurements. So the pre eq you do is pointless

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

I had better luck combining the sub in to channels left and right and running DL in 2 channel mode; not 3 channel. But, YMMV.


----------



## Sonnie

naiku said:


> So, I tried a tune like this with simply L/R with the subwoofer mixed in, on this tune I am not using bass management. The results are good, on previous tunes I always found the sub-bass lacking, but this way it is not lacking at all and (to my ears at least) is blending really nicely with the mid-bass and is now right up on the dash. If you have time and a spare preset it's well worth a try of just L/R.
> 
> My other favorite tune I am running has the subwoofer separate, but on this particular tune the subwoofer level is a touch too low for my preference. With almost all of my previous tunes I found the subwoofer level lower than I would like. I need to do some more back to back comparisons between the two to determine which I really prefer though.





ErinH said:


> I had better luck combining the sub in to channels left and right and running DL in 2 channel mode; not 3 channel. But, YMMV.


I will definitely try it... and would not mind at all if it turned out better, because it is pretty good right now. 

This is from my drivers seat... dead center of my head... 1/6th smoothing. All of my DL measurements were right around were my head is... with the first being dead center of head.


----------



## oabeieo

Lately I’ve been doing the rear measurements 
About 6” apart top to bottom, at top my shoulders with mic pointing out from my ears and at top of my ears and directly touching my head 

The outermost forward measurements at my knees and the top ones R in passenger seat and L about 6” in front of my 1st measurement point. (Parallels)
And the 1st measurement at my nose. 

I likeee so far. 

Having the rear measurements pulled a little tighter seems to get what’s going on at my ears more true to the target and what the avg shows compared to my moving mic RTA 

So far so good, my target seems to be easier to deal with and I have nice smooth curve that sounds good


----------



## Jscoyne2

Do you think its bad to use peqs after dirac?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Also. I 2nd the wisdom curve. I like it

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Do you think its bad to use peqs after dirac?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




No, but in the interest of getting a repeatable process it is best to work on the target and eventually you should have a target that gets you what you want one the first try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

Would it hold true that if your pre-tune is decent - when you get to an event that is quite different than the area you last ran Dirac - you could simply run Dirac at the event location under a new preset? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DavidRam

Man, I gotta stop reading these Dirac threads, it's making me regret my recent switch to a Helix.


----------



## saltyone

I wonder if MECA will address Dirac Live specifically in their rules. Any DSP running it would already bump you to Street, but should this “tool” bump someone higher than Street? Maybe? It appears to be a game changer.


----------



## ErinH

bertholomey said:


> Would it hold true that if your pre-tune is decent - when you get to an event that is quite different than the area you last ran Dirac - you could simply run Dirac at the event location under a new preset?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Well, if you subscribe to the school of thought that you do need to change your setup due to different venues _*and*_ you're insistent upon a pre-tune being necessary then it would make sense to me that you would need to do the whole process over again. Including time.

However, I don't think either is necessary, and certainly not adjusting for time since it's all relative. I think the issue isn't that the system changes but that our hearing is effected (for example, I've seen many cases where the drive/flight to finals has caused issues with people's sinuses which impacts their hearing). But, let's say you subscribe to those schools of thought... at the least, you could probably "get away with" just using the 2nd step of re-running DL to correct for your any atmospheric effects.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Do you think its bad to use peqs after dirac?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


 I do it changes the way it makes the timing on everything 

Not so much in the highs as the lows .


You can hear everything in balance and add peq seems to alter the balance 

If you want to turn something up or down use the target it will have better coherency between frequency and time , although you can do whatever you want if you think it’s better and then go for it but I think it sounds better to just shake or target and get your pre-tune nailed down


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> Well, if you subscribe to the school of thought that you do need to change your setup due to different venues _*and*_ you're insistent upon a pre-tune being necessary then it would make sense to me that you would need to do the whole process over again. Including time.
> 
> However, I don't think either is necessary, and certainly not adjusting for time since it's all relative. I think the issue isn't that the system changes but that our hearing is effected (for example, I've seen many cases where the drive/flight to finals has caused issues with people's sinuses). But, let's say you subscribe to those schools of thought... at the least, you could probably "get away with" just using the 2nd step of re-running DL to correct for your any atmospheric effects.





I agree with Erin.

Although I have driven to California from Colorado and had substantially more midbass it’s was about 3db , although everything seems to change together 
And the balance wasn’t diminished in any way. But that’s a 5000ft drop in altitude. The mids and highs sounded the exact same. 


It should sound mostly the same everywhere. I don’t think it’s quite enough to do a entire retune but depends how your system reacts (to farther the above) 
If it were me I wouldn’t think it’s warranted


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

DavidRam said:


> Man, I gotta stop reading these Dirac threads, it's making me regret my recent switch to a Helix.


Put a DDRC 22D in front of the digital input of the Helix and you can have a “Master” Stereo L and R Dirac Live calibration.


----------



## DavidRam

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Put a DDRC 22D in front of the digital input of the Helix and you can have a “Master” Stereo L and R Dirac Live calibration.


I have no clue what that is or means, but Imna check it out! Ty


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

DavidRam said:


> I have no clue what that is or means, but Imna check it out! Ty


Its a miniDSP Dirac Live product that performs Stereo Dirac Live Calibration in the digital domain. In your case the Helix DSP would act as the channel XO, channel matrix, and bass management.


----------



## oabeieo

I have two cdspDL units 
And I prefer the ddrc in front of my dsps 

It’s the same thing but it’s works beautifully. 

So no worries you won’t miss anything


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> ........





Did you see your review was posted in the newsletter. 

Very cool


----------



## tonynca

You're famous Erin. Minidsp newsletter 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH




----------



## bertholomey

Has anyone experienced a 50% drop in volume once you applied Dirac to a configuration? 

Set up a configuration - pre-tune in the plug-in - @ 15/34 on the head unit gave 72 db with correlated PN. 

After Dirac with same configuration -with either Dirac Live on or off - gives 57db @ 15/34. It has to be turned up to 34/34 to get 72db. 

I just went into the Routing page and bumped the outputs to + 5db which yields 62db @ 15/34 and + 8db yields 65db @ 15/34 and 82db @ 34/34. 

It just seems like the volume is throttled at 50%. With the plug in connected - I changed the Master Volume (at top right) to 0db - it was defaulted to -47db after running Dirac.......which at 34/34 it was barely audible. 

Is there a tick box that needs to be unticked or vice versa that I'm missing somewhere? I currently don't have the wired remote connected - I'll get the cable hopefully in the next couple days to see if that has any affect. 

My pre-set #3 (mirror of config 1 just with slightly different TA for driving position) didn't have Dirac run on it, and it is very loud at 15/34.


----------



## naiku

Wait, I thought you had a Helix? 

Anyway, I am not sure if my volume dropped by 50% but yes I definitely find that Dirac can end up cutting volume. If you look in the other C-DSP thread that Andy (oabeieo) created there is some discussion about it in there. A lot of it boils down to where your chosen curve is in relation to your measurements. I usually end up doing the same as you and bumping the levels to 5dB on the routing tab, not ideal, but it at least gets me volume back to where I am happy.

Also, does this mean there will be 3 x MiniDSP Dirac powered cars at my meet next month? Going to be really cool to listen to everyone's tunes.


----------



## bertholomey

I do have the Helix - I’m evaluating the MiniDSP to see if it will work in my set up - thanks for letting me know that this was mentioned in the other thread - I’ll do a search. And to answer your question.....maybe......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku

Well worth reading through the other thread as well as one on the MiniDSP forum, they both have a good chunk of information from those of us who are trying to figure out the best way to utilize the DL version.


----------



## bertholomey

I’ve been reading that one for about a month - and I need to jump on the forum site as well - thanks for that reminder. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dgage

I seem to remember reading about more people with output or sub output issues when using more than 2 DIRAC channels. It seems like the software works better with a 2-channel tune (L/R) with the sub output getting 50%L and 50%R.


----------



## banshee28

ErinH said:


> *Foreword:*


So a few questions... I am somewhat familiar with the REW technique to measure the FR and work to get the auto-eq correction files. Normally you would setup your target response curve at or around the average and mostly cut the peaks vs booting (for the most part). 

So here with Dirac it looks like the target is much above the "average" in the low FR say 0-100Hz. If this is the case, does Dirac simply boost these fr's, or i hope it simply first boosts the gain on the channels then mostly cuts as needed as one would do using REW? 

Or do we need to be more careful and ensure the gain on each channel (i.e. SUB here) is at a good level first before running Dirac on everything?


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


>




Lol!  


free image hosting


----------



## oabeieo

banshee28 said:


> So a few questions... I am somewhat familiar with the REW technique to measure the FR and work to get the auto-eq correction files. Normally you would setup your target response curve at or around the average and mostly cut the peaks vs booting (for the most part).
> 
> So here with Dirac it looks like the target is much above the "average" in the low FR say 0-100Hz. If this is the case, does Dirac simply boost these fr's, or i hope it simply first boosts the gain on the channels then mostly cuts as needed as one would do using REW?
> 
> Or do we need to be more careful and ensure the gain on each channel (i.e. SUB here) is at a good level first before running Dirac on everything?




Good question.


So if you look at your “avg spectrum” curve you will see it’s “normalized” 

So no matter what level you take your measurements it will show the same “curve” . I want to say that it averages the spl and the sound power and comes up with what it considers boosted and cut from the “0db line” even tho that line is artificial. 

So the average spectrum response is basically it’s representation on how it will build correction and what will be boost and cuts. 

So Dirac can boost no more than 10db. 

So if your entire target has more than 10db differences it’s going to start to push things down. 

Meaning. If your target is +10db at 20hz and -15db at 20khz it’s going to lower the entire volume of everything at least 5db to make your target. So you will loose at least 5db of output gain in essence depending on where your avg spectrum is centered on the 0db like , could loose as much as 15db gain! 

Some targets may not have a 10db difference but against the response “could be more” than 10db and thus lowered output. 

So if you start to notice it’s cutting a lot of gain try getting your gains set so that it’s not having to make so much change. 
But there’s a caveat. If you do too much with gains the measurements will say “too low level” so your kinda stuck really in the +/-10db range. (But seriously who wants 20db swings in there targets , use a-bass knob if you want that much low end and measure with bass knob very very low)  

My best advice is keep your target under 10db difference for maximum gain output of Dirac and use a bass knob after Dirac to bring sub up to the level you wanted it. And that means maybe a little pre planning if your a stickler about crossover points being exacting. (I’m not if my crossover moves up 5hz I don’t care) but it’s important to some ppl. 


Edit add: And if the correction is more than 10db you’ll notice where your big dips are your target response (in yellow) will have more jagged ripple in response , because your past the 10db eq limit 

Hope that helps


----------



## oabeieo

And remember:


The target is a EQ. A different type of eq but still an eq to a point. 

And what I’m trying to say is if you have too much bass boosted in the target the highs will surly saturate a little just like it would with any eq at higher volumes 


For example , hook up a system with a stereo 1/3oactave graphic eq. 
Now boost everything under 125hz to its max and cut the highs 
And listen . At high levels the highs will saturate a little and modulate a little of the low end. 

This eq is no different. It will do the same thing if your boosting too much in the lows . 

A little bit is OK just like it would be with any Eq. Just trying to avoid Having massive amounts of bass energy in your tweeters. Yeah your crossover will “filter it” but the energy is still there. 

So where are you boosting? Is it the 0db line or at the crest of the avg spectrum. 

To better answer this and how the target behaves is look at the avg spectrum 
The parts that are above the 0db line May or May not boost if your target is between them. If the spectrum was inverted how would it ride your target is the question that answers that. 

Most of your response will just be a inverse filter. (An exact opposite of your response) some will be left alone and some will be slightly moved depending if it’s correctable. 

Minimum phase is invertable. Not everything will be minimum phase. Some of it can be corrected so it is invertable some can not. 


From a strictly SQ standpoint, I just keep my target below the “0db line” and try to stay close to the bottom of my response. That will ensure the inversion will be all cuts. Like setting rew not to boost anything. Or a max boost of maybe 2db . Or more if there’s a bigger difference between the boost and how far down the response is below 0db line.


----------



## aholland1198

Every time I start my car, output is drastically cut. I have to open Dirac and adjust the output levels every time the vehicle is cycled off then back on. I’ve tried everything I can think of. Anyone else having this issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

aholland1198 said:


> Every time I start my car, output is drastically cut. I have to open Dirac and adjust the output levels every time the vehicle is cycled off then back on. I’ve tried everything I can think of. Anyone else having this issue?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




What do you mean ajust levels when start car? 

Like the output sliders move on there own?



Check make sure jumpers internal are in place and make sure your remote power setting / switch are correct to power input . 


Idk


----------



## aholland1198

oabeieo said:


> What do you mean ajust levels when start car?
> 
> 
> 
> Like the output sliders move on there own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check make sure jumpers internal are in place and make sure your remote power setting / switch are correct to power input .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idk




Pretty much. On the export page, I’ll set the output to -5, save, turn the vehicle off. When I start the vehicle again, there will be very little output, so I open Dirac and go to the export page and the output slider will be at -25. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

aholland1198 said:


> Pretty much. On the export page, I’ll set the output to -5, save, turn the vehicle off. When I start the vehicle again, there will be very little output, so I open Dirac and go to the export page and the output slider will be at -25.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The output “master” in Dirac is also the master volume in plug in 
(At least on the ddrc24 it is I can remember about the Cdsp)

So when you connect to dsp 
In the upper right hand corner of the main dsp screen 
(Where bass management and levels and mixer) 
Anyway the upper right hand screen shows where your volume is set to 

You can change it with 1. The master at output of Dirac screen 
2. Through the volume control (if programmed at a master volume) 
3. IR remote 
4. Selecting the # and manually entering the desired volume in 10key 

So it sounds like it’s booting up with the volume down 
Which isn’t a big issue if you have a volume but nevertheless it should keep where it was at. You should turn up the master volume in plug in to max and than hit “save configuration “ to either sd or computer. 

Your saving the configuration associated with the Dirac bank you have loaded I’m sure also? If you main tune is on configuration one, when you log into Dirac to “ajust the master. Your booted into that configuration.

If you “save” the Dirac project, that may not save the volume setting. That saves the measurements and the target together. So when you load that project whatever target you have saved with that project comes back so you can pick up where you left off. You can also save targets independently from measurements as a target file.

The master output I would put to “max” and than open the plug in and save configuration. The configuration is what saves “volumes” and that kind of things.

If your using it at -5 your throwing away output gain. So keep that in mind.
The Cdsp has good amount of output gain but 5db is a lot lot of wasted gain.

If your using 5vrms input or more I would consider using the high level in setting and attenuate the signal that way instead of in the plug in. If your input is between 4-5vrms than using the -5setting can help idiot proof your system if you have ppl that drive the car that may abuse your system, but if it were my car I wouldn’t even think about using -5db at the output. (If you have upstream volume) of your using the volume control in dsp than it should be a non issue.


Hope that helps some.


Edit 

This is what I would do 

Refresh dsp and start a new configuration. It sounds like the configuration is corrupt (can happen from time to time) don’t load the saved configuration into that slot as it’s probably corrupt. Just copy all your settings into new configuration, than go to Dirac side and take new measurements with all volumes to max. 


Than save the configuration in plugin. It should not change the volume from where it was last set. 

If you have some of the output sliders on channels turned down in your Dirac outputs when taking measurements that is associated with input gain. That should save also to each configuration not globally unless you load those measurements into each bank. 

The “master” is the volume on dsp (one in the same)



When starting measurements and setting levels in Dirac it can behave kinda wierd when you get to the plug in side , when jumping from configuration to configuration. In the Dirac levels for each channel max those out! And use the master only as setting level for the measurements, after measurements are done max it out! 

If you need to turn down channels before doing measurements do it in the output on the plugin before going to Dirac, make it so you can max out all the Dirac side levels etc. that will 1.give you more gain, 2. Keep the volumes working right between configurations and also between the two platforms. 

Make any level changes beforehand of running Dirac in each output bank on each configuration before taking measurements. 

Whatever configuration your currently on when you open Dirac will be the configuration that it is using to set those levels , just make them all the same on all 4 configurations. Meaning if you have output levels changed and eq work done in one configuration than run Dirac and load that filter into other banks the other banks have to have the same dsp settings as the configuration that you were on when you took the measurements, otherwise new measurements have to be taken for each configuration 


I’ve tried using the Dirac side volumes and have had some goofy behavior between configurations.


----------



## aholland1198

I’ve reset the dsp, tried your suggestions, plus everything I can think of and the problem persists. 

I have contacted the Dev team and sent the files to them to look over. Hopefully they have an answer because I can’t take another week of this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

aholland1198 said:


> I’ve reset the dsp, tried your suggestions, plus everything I can think of and the problem persists.
> 
> I have contacted the Dev team and sent the files to them to look over. Hopefully they have an answer because I can’t take another week of this.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Okay yeah if that didn’t work something wrong. 

Don’t be discouraged they’ll get it working right


----------



## ninetysix

oabeieo said:


> I have two cdspDL units
> And I prefer the ddrc in front of my dsps
> 
> It’s the same thing but it’s works beautifully.
> 
> So no worries you won’t miss anything


Could you elaborate on the setup with a ddrc upstream of a DSP?

I'm weighing up tacking on a ddrc24 to my antique c-dsp 6x8. $400 is a lot less than $900, but disappointment is priceless.


Nice review tho, bikinpunk. I just wish I didn't read it, or ever look into what Dirac was :laugh:


----------



## oabeieo

ninetysix said:


> Could you elaborate on the setup with a ddrc upstream of a DSP?
> 
> I'm weighing up tacking on a ddrc24 to my antique c-dsp 6x8. $400 is a lot less than $900, but disappointment is priceless.
> 
> 
> Nice review tho, bikinpunk. I just wish I didn't read it, or ever look into what Dirac was :laugh:



Yeah I should make a whole new thread about it. 


Don’t want to sidetrack this. This is such a good review don’t want to cause too much confusion.

I’ll post it in the technical forums


----------



## Sonnie

naiku said:


> So, I tried a tune like this with simply L/R with the subwoofer mixed in, on this tune I am not using bass management. The results are good, on previous tunes I always found the sub-bass lacking, but this way it is not lacking at all and (to my ears at least) is blending really nicely with the mid-bass and is now right up on the dash. If you have time and a spare preset it's well worth a try of just L/R.
> 
> My other favorite tune I am running has the subwoofer separate, but on this particular tune the subwoofer level is a touch too low for my preference. With almost all of my previous tunes I found the subwoofer level lower than I would like. I need to do some more back to back comparisons between the two to determine which I really prefer though.





ErinH said:


> I had better luck combining the sub in to channels left and right and running DL in 2 channel mode; not 3 channel. But, YMMV.





dgage said:


> I seem to remember reading about more people with output or sub output issues when using more than 2 DIRAC channels. It seems like the software works better with a 2-channel tune (L/R) with the sub output getting 50%L and 50%R.


So I've been running my preset 2 with the subs combined into the front channels... only 2 front channels L+R with the rear fill L+R. I have to admit it sounds better. It's not drastic, but it's subjectively noticeable to me. I notice more output particularly in the midbass area. It no doubt does a better job of blending the sub with the midbass.

I still had to adjust the delay on my subs (using the 80Hz tone and inverting the phase) to get them sounding more up front, yet on some songs, I can still sense they are in the rear. I'm not sure if it's perception simply because I know they are back there, or what might be going on. I don't think it's localization, but it seems like it's on songs with lower bass output, which certainly shouldn't be localized. It would make more sense if it were in that 80Hz range, but kick drum in the 50-60Hz range and everything above there is up front... it's the lower notes that seem to be a bit localized. I may try a 60Hz xover, but I don't think these HAT shallow mount 6x9's can handle that much output at the 60Hz mark. This is where I almost wish I could get 8's in my front door.

Still loving the sound with the C-DSP and Dirac Live.

I can't wait to get version 2. I finally got around to using version 2 on my home audio system this past weekend and it is unbelievable. When I thought it couldn't get any better... wow! If it improves my truck like it improved my home audio... whoa Nelly!


----------



## oabeieo

Put my C back in 
Having massive toslink issues 
( waiting for all new parts cables etc etc ) 

And the Cdsp is badass .....

Got a really good tune going.


----------



## Huckleberry Sound

Thump!


----------



## Kalvins

Hi! Can anyone tell me how to do predirac individual speaker eq with rew in 2 way active Front + Sub. Do you measure drivers in car at listening position or near speaker?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonnie

I measured mine nearfield at the center of the speaker cone within a couple of inches to make sure the enclosure was not affecting the driver with any serious peaks. Nothing was abnormally bad. Then I measured from my drivers seat head area and fixed a few peaks with parametric eq. Then I ran DL.


----------



## oabeieo

So one thing I would like to bring up , and I think it’s worth mentioning in this thread,;

So if anyone has done a measurement session and end up with some parts of the stage moving around I would like to maybe consider some horn loading aspects.

Dirac should have excellent placement on staging and imaging.

If your experiencing some songs have let’s say a solid center and some songs have parts that the center is diffused of have too loud frequency content on one side try using some diffusing material or absorbing material (if possible) around the area your hearing.


Here’s a test that should help 

Find a track that the stage moves (and make sure it’s not just a cheap recording) validate it on a home system or something.

Run you DLCT and don’t change anything as far as post tuning 
Maybe just use the auto target for this also 


Step one , start muting pairs of speakers one at a time and listen for that problem to disappear. (Find the speaker pair that’s causing the issue) 

Step two leave all speakers muted except the offending pair , listen and moderate (not blasted loud) volumes to that pair 
Listen for what frequencies are moving around (my guess is a narrow high Q band somewhere between 500hz-1.6khz ) 
Listen carefully not for stage placement but listen for a reflection. Or listen for a echo that makes the sound louder like off a console or the bottom of dash (glove box area or lower underdash)

If you hear a frequency loading or horn loading or reflection on one side try getting an absorber and place it on different spots of the plastics. (It May not be where your hearing it come from as it’s angular) so try putting a towel or a foam pad on different plastics and hard surfaces.

You might find a small (meaning under 12”) could be a 4” square piece that a 2” foam pad completely fixes that issue all together, and here’s the key *from your seat* you’ll hear things different than from other spots 

There may be just one simple reflection that is ruining your stage where turning down that speaker may be ruining your calibration, but turning down that speaker seems the only way. Or adding or subtracting delay to try to move it into place (which may fix that problem but cause other issues everywhere else) 

Hope this helps someone. It helped me I was having a big reflection on my under dash plastic right under my steering wheel, I put a small piece of black acoustic foam (3”x4”) and stage is solved, for me it was at 1340hz pulling my left side to the left.


----------



## Kalvins

Thanks oabeieo for your Post! I have exactly the same Problem, except my stage tends to pull on the right side. In some songs it is spot on, on others not. I noticed that it is more diffuse on female vocals. 
I did my setup exactly as ErinH described and I also dindt do any predirac driver correction. Now i am trying to do my setup with predirac driver correction, to see if that will sort some things out. Because i find the sound that i have right now a bit harsh and too bright on the horns. Anyway tweeter und sub was easy to equalize, but i am having real trouble with woofers. 
I need some help about where to set target line and what to cut? Should i boost some dips?
Here are two images withe woofers R/L measured with rew in listeners sweet spot


I hope you can help me with some advice


----------



## Jscoyne2

Kalvins said:


> Thanks oabeieo for your Post! I have exactly the same Problem, except my stage tends to pull on the right side. In some songs it is spot on, on others not. I noticed that it is more diffuse on female vocals.
> 
> I did my setup exactly as ErinH described and I also dindt do any predirac driver correction. Now i am trying to do my setup with predirac driver correction, to see if that will sort some things out. Because i find the sound that i have right now a bit harsh and too bright on the horns. Anyway tweeter und sub was easy to equalize, but i am having real trouble with woofers.
> 
> I need some help about where to set target line and what to cut? Should i boost some dips?
> 
> Here are two images withe woofers R/L measured with rew in listeners sweet spot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you can help me with some advice


Ive never seen responses that bad before. 

You should start a separate thread cuz this will go off topic. 

Car? 
Pics of install?
Speakers you're using?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kalvins

Hi!
Car - Skoda Octavia III Combi
Speakers - Eton RSR160 are build in original speaker location (see picture)
I added a Photo of Left woofer response couple of inches from driver with crossover


----------



## Jscoyne2

Kalvins said:


> Thanks oabeieo for your Post! I have exactly the same Problem, except my stage tends to pull on the right side. In some songs it is spot on, on others not. I noticed that it is more diffuse on female vocals.
> I did my setup exactly as ErinH described and I also dindt do any predirac driver correction. Now i am trying to do my setup with predirac driver correction, to see if that will sort some things out. Because i find the sound that i have right now a bit harsh and too bright on the horns. Anyway tweeter und sub was easy to equalize, but i am having real trouble with woofers.
> I need some help about where to set target line and what to cut? Should i boost some dips?
> Here are two images withe woofers R/L measured with rew in listeners sweet spot
> 
> 
> I hope you can help me with some advice


Are those single point measurements or averaged?


----------



## oabeieo

Kalvins said:


> Thanks oabeieo for your Post! I have exactly the same Problem, except my stage tends to pull on the right side. In some songs it is spot on, on others not. I noticed that it is more diffuse on female vocals.
> I did my setup exactly as ErinH described and I also dindt do any predirac driver correction. Now i am trying to do my setup with predirac driver correction, to see if that will sort some things out. Because i find the sound that i have right now a bit harsh and too bright on the horns. Anyway tweeter und sub was easy to equalize, but i am having real trouble with woofers.
> I need some help about where to set target line and what to cut? Should i boost some dips?
> Here are two images withe woofers R/L measured with rew in listeners sweet spot
> 
> 
> I hope you can help me with some advice




Thanks kalvins! 

Jsconey2 has a good point 

Yes let’s help you here 
Definitely don’t want to clutter discussion about the platform with help/support 

Here’s a help thread 

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/foru...e-upgrade-new-release-help-8.html#post5711765


Lots of us can help out!

And that response isn’t that bad, looks like a typical comb-filter. Very workable 
You have excellent speakers , I use horns also and so does jsconey2, and have excellent results, 

Horns need a pretune, standard speakers really don’t, the only reason I pretune my horns is to fit the response in the 10db window Dirac wants in measurements 
Otherwise I would not pretune my horns.


When you pretune with eq before Dirac it can change the way Dirac looks at the room. If you eq out a room mode it won’t be able to do its best parts on room correction as well , so I would say keep your eq work above 1k and you should have fantastic results with Dirac live! 

Jump over on the help thread and we all will be happy to get you sounding great. Once you get it right for your car you’ll know it, it’s unmistakable.


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ive never seen responses that bad before.





Kalvins said:


> Car - Skoda Octavia III Combi


Interesting. My midbass response in the left door looks terrible like that, and we both have very similar cars, the Skoda is newer though, but overall they are very similar VAG cars, I wonder if the door / center console / knee bolster area all are causing the response. 

Agreed though, this should not be in the review thread but in the main C-DSP thread.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Accidentally did a rew sweep with dirac at 0db on my horns. Holy ****ing jesus ****ing owe. 

That was not a pleasant experience.

But it made me realize. I can boost nulls that aren't comb filtering on horns without worrying about excursion or not enough power. These things are like sticking your ear in a motorbike muffler at full throttle.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Accidentally did a rew sweep with dirac at 0db on my horns. Holy ****ing jesus ****ing owe.
> 
> That was not a pleasant experience.
> 
> But it made me realize. I can boost nulls that aren't comb filtering on horns without worrying about excursion or not enough power. These things are like sticking your ear in a motorbike muffler at full throttle.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




HAHAHA. got bit by the HLCD madness.

How does one do a rew sweep with Dirac (completely different platforms)
.......okay just joking we got what you meant  



But your correct , the Stevens full-size the horn loads to 1k (Minnie’s 1.25khz) 

So from 1khz and up you can do whatever you want. You have more efficiency to burn than you know. They will fry the hairs off your arms if you want them to


Diaphragms should make it through one 0db sweep but they will die if they did several in a row. The coil is held to diaphragm with jet glue (I made that up) but still it’s just glue


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> HAHAHA. got bit by the HLCD madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How does one do a rew sweep with Dirac (completely different platforms)
> 
> .......okay just joking we got what you meant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your correct , the Stevens full-size the horn loads to 1k (Minnie’s 1.25khz)
> 
> 
> 
> So from 1khz and up you can do whatever you want. You have more efficiency to burn than you know. They will fry the hairs off your arms if you want them to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diaphragms should make it through one 0db sweep but they will die if they did several in a row. The coil is held to diaphragm with jet glue (I made that up) but still it’s just glue


I think it might of actually been the test signal in DLCT. I just know i was like oh ****fbisbwgxus9wsj and started pulling wires n ****. Had to turn the car off. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Interesting. My midbass response in the left door looks terrible like that, and we both have very similar cars, the Skoda is newer though, but overall they are very similar VAG cars, I wonder if the door / center console / knee bolster area all are causing the response.
> 
> Agreed though, this should not be in the review thread but in the main C-DSP thread.


Yeah it’s pretty common in doors 

Your measurements are usually some 70deg off axis and the speaker is firing into the mouth of a big horn (footwell console underdash) on the left 

Pretty normal for that side to have deep notches 




Which brings up a good point that is thread related 

When you’re taking your measurements Pay attention to the frequency window and look at which areas have low output (Deep notches) and compare that to the right side measurements in Dirac 


As far as the 1st dip in response on (usually the left) maybe in the 55-125hz range (usually 70-80 in most cars) see if that first dip he’s only on the left side and not the right (or vice versa) if so what you can do is do your normal target that fills all that for both sides than after Dirac go to the side that has the dip and on that speaker only turn down that frequency in PEQ with a Q around 1.7 by maybe 6-10db or so , 

Turn that frequency down as far as you need to so that that speaker does not pop when you turn it up loud from being boosted In Dirac.

Just a little trick to get some more overall volume , 

You can also separate the target left and right and draw a notch on that side I just like to use plain old peq tho ( because I can adjust it without having to connect to DLCT and fine-tune that area )


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> Yeah it’s pretty common in doors
> 
> Your measurements are usually some 70deg off axis and the speaker is firing into the mouth of a big horn (footwell console underdash) on the left
> 
> Pretty normal for that side to have deep notches
> 
> Which brings up a good point that is thread related
> 
> When you’re taking your measurements Pay attention to the frequency window and look at which areas have low output (Deep notches) and compare that to the right side measurements in Dirac
> 
> As far as the 1st dip in response on (usually the left) maybe in the 55-125hz range (usually 70-80 in most cars) see if that first dip he’s only on the left side and not the right (or vice versa) if so what you can do is do your normal target that fills all that for both sides than after Dirac go to the side that has the dip and on that speaker only turn down that frequency in PEQ with a Q around 1.7 by maybe 6-10db or so ,
> 
> Turn that frequency down as far as you need to so that that speaker does not pop when you turn it up loud from being boosted In Dirac.
> 
> Just a little trick to get some more overall volume ,
> 
> You can also separate the target left and right and draw a notch on that side I just like to use plain old peq tho ( because I can adjust it without having to connect to DLCT and fine-tune that area )


Wouldn't it be better to separate the Dirac targets and draw a notch instead of using output PEQ?... so the phase in that area would match better left to right?


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Wouldn't it be better to separate the Dirac targets and draw a notch instead of using output PEQ?... so the phase in that area would match better left to right?




Yes .....it would 


I may have been unclear 
My bad , thanks for pointing that out. Definitely confusing 

I like to use peq to find the exact frequency and depth and width to the notch I create as a means of listening while making the adjustments to that one speaker 


Than go to Dirac and unlink and make the notch in that one side.
Just following the dip in the response on Dirac May or May not be what’s making it pop. For example , if you have the half the sub signal, the left mid and tweet on the left channel and the response is 10db dip at 70 and the sub starts to rolloff at 45 and your target is mildly boosting 20-44 than a cut at 45-69 than that 10db dip at 70-90 for example , how do you know for sure it’s the big dip at 70 that’s making the speaker pop, maybe it’s the boost under 45 ,(even tho it’s crossed at 70 it still gets some of that low frequency especially if there’s boost) 
So being able to listen and turn down at same time makes it faster and more precise , than go to Dirac and make the notch where you found the issue 

Sorry I forgot to add that. , but here’s the thing also 

If it’s just my driver door at 80 I use peq on just the driver door only instead of the target (all others for all other reasons I use the target) and here’s why. 
And it’s only one good reason. I don’t want it to affect only the left side and not right in target because than my sub I put is not same on left and right. Because I use summer sum l+r , in the case I use seperate Dirac channel for sub than I always use the target 


So there’s valid reasons to do it both ways , but ideally the target is the best place to do it if you want it to affect everything on that channel


----------



## Jscoyne2

Just wanted to post my Rew measurements of post Dirac.

Drivers are Eric Stevens mb8s and horns.










Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## aholland1198

What are everyone’s opinions on measuring in the seat vs not in the seated position? 

I’m sure this has been covered in one of the replies, but I’m not searching for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

aholland1198 said:


> What are everyone’s opinions on measuring in the seat vs not in the seated position?
> 
> I’m sure this has been covered in one of the replies, but I’m not searching for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Be in the seat for measuring. Your body is causing reflections that need to be taken into account.

Imo, for the first measurement. I don't sit in the seat. I think my legs causing delay that I don't want measured.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Just wanted to post my Rew measurements of post Dirac.
> 
> Drivers are Eric Stevens mb8s and horns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Lookin sexy dang brotha


----------



## oabeieo

aholland1198 said:


> What are everyone’s opinions on measuring in the seat vs not in the seated position?
> 
> I’m sure this has been covered in one of the replies, but I’m not searching for it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Done it both ways , very similar. 

Did anyone see that jig that someone made from PVC
I saw it in Erin’s build page, very innovative. 


If I was doing more cars with Dirac I would probably take the time to make a jig like his, I just sit in car , I like how it accounts for my legs 


Lately I’ve been leaning the seat way way back so my legs are in position but my torso is gone and I can get the rear measurements more where I want them to be.


Jsconey2 is right, the body absorbs a lot of acoustic energy , a big bag o’ jello perhaps (At least my belly is lol). However getting out of the way partly seems to be best for me. 

With the added measurements in 2.0 I had to get out of the way a little and it seems to be working nice. 

I would definitely experiment a little in your car. Find what works.


----------



## oabeieo

As to mic ? placements go one thing I don’t think I’ve said that maybe some 
If you guys could consider. 


The 1st measurement. Consider placing it about 2” right of center 


Here’s why, staging. 

Even when I was manually tuning to get good left right and center was just a matter of TA and levels. Although left of center and right of center were sometimes uneven. 

I often found myself in a situation that exact TA settings make my LC and C become one. If I added a tiny bit more TA the center would come in but LC would compress a lot. 

In those days I would actually do about 2” less TA than needed and just lean my right arm onto the console armrest and just lean over about 2” to get into the sweet spot.

I think there’s something to be said about that: 

Level tho Dirac can change a lot of things to make this not a problem as much, I think the axxeses on which we listen get to a point where the PLD and the car side and how far you are to one side make it to where if that one or two inches was just lessened in PLD things just work so much better. 

And not every car is like this. However, I think a lot of cars are. 
By placing the 1st measurement point about one or two inches to the right but still staying mostly center of your body and than driving and doing the ole lean to the right side thing, it helps Dirac make a even better correction. 

Driving like that is natural anyways, I usually lean on a armrest anyway most of the time. 

So definitely something to consider trying. Not every car needs this and or it’s getting into where your just picky and want the stage presented properly over sitting up straight. 

Hope this helps someone, and hope I conveyed the point and spirit in what I’m getting at properly so that it’s not to be confused and leads to improper calibration techniques. It’s a small tweak that might help or may not help. 
Only one way to find out


----------



## chewpeg

Just a question on tuning here. If there is 8 Dirac channels and I’m using 9 speakers(3 front 2 rear and sub) how do you tune with the Dirac? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

chewpeg said:


> Just a question on tuning here. If there is 8 Dirac channels and I’m using 9 speakers(3 front 2 rear and sub) how do you tune with the Dirac?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Hi chewpeg 

Ideally you would use two Dirac channels , each Dirac channel can be considered an eq , so what’s better 8eqs or two? 

Traditionally a single eq for left and right is ideal. All the phase changes within the eq become inherent on all the speakers in that channel. Now Dirac does work a little different, however we should still remember it’s also a eq. 

I would suggest running your matrix to two or 3 Dirac channels (eqs). 
Maybe put the sub on its own just till you get the hang of it, than start adding different speakers on there own eqs once you know how it operates and if you find a need to have more eqs. 


Having rear speakers on there own eq is also preferred , so maybe 4 or 5 if you have rears.



You can put all the 8 first speakers on a seperate Dirac channel only to get the time delay and level settings Dirac detects that you can convert to 2ch or 4ch 
As described by Erin in his review. 

Overall ideally you want less Dirac channels on so it can correct more things especially in the crossover areas if you are using multi-way 

If you have a center maybe share that with sub on seperate eq and pre set delays and levels accordingly.

However many Dirac channels they should all have the same target (or have a target that follows itself in sections at a minimum)


----------



## chewpeg

oabeieo said:


> Hi chewpeg
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally you would use two Dirac channels , each Dirac channel can be considered an eq , so what’s better 8eqs or two?
> 
> 
> 
> Having rear speakers on there own eq is also preferred , so maybe 4 or 5 if you have rears.
> 
> 
> You can put all the 8 first speakers on a seperate Dirac channel only to get the time delay and level settings Dirac detects that you can convert to 2ch or 4ch
> 
> As described by Erin in his review.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall ideally you want less Dirac channels on so it can correct more things especially in the crossover areas if you are using multi-way
> 
> 
> 
> However many Dirac channels they should all have the same target (or have a target that follows itself in sections at a minimum)



Thanks oabeieo, 
I totally get the 1 speaker talk now. I wasn’t understanding and not cause it wasn’t written clearly. Lol. Thanks a lot that really helped. I have this unit installed and will be tuning in Sunday. Very exciting and nervous. 
So 5 channels of Dirac it is. Lfront Rfront rrear lrear sub 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chewpeg

Wow fired this thing up live and it’s so easy to use once you learn the pattern. My first active three way and it sounds amazing. Can’t wait to get more in depth. Very fun. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JamesRC

Thanks for this write-up, Erin. I have a Helix, but dirac live has been interesting me. Just to reiterate, you recommend leveling out the response of each driver first using EQ, then using Dirac to do the left all playing together + sub, and then the right all playing together + sub?


----------



## Chris12

This c-DSP with Dirac Live is 100% definitely going to be my next car audio related purchase.


----------



## Jscoyne2

JamesRC said:


> Thanks for this write-up, Erin. I have a Helix, but dirac live has been interesting me. Just to reiterate, you recommend leveling out the response of each driver first using EQ, then using Dirac to do the left all playing together + sub, and then the right all playing together + sub?


There is a level setting menu within the software. The "window" of that level setting can't handle more than 10db difference without clipping. Basically, you just need to get the drivers to have less than a 10db difference between the top peak and the general average level. You can ignore dips. 

Imagine if you had a driver you wanted to play 150hz to 2500hz and that driver played perfectly flat from 200hz to 2000hz except one giant peak at 1000hz that was 15db high. When you were setting levels within the software, you would either always end up clipping the input level, or you'd end up 5db lower than you needed to be and losing a lot of volume. So you'd want to eq that peak down a big.

Imo, Do as little eq as you need too. Let Dirac do as much as possible. It doesn't hurt to use the 10bands of peq for crossover correction though. 

Really, the software is really intuitive once you get your hands on it.


----------



## datooff

Was thinking about Helix DSP 3. 

But as a person with no tuning skills - Dirac will be an awesome tool.
I plan to get c-DSP 8x12 and then download DL upgrade separately.


----------



## DavidRam

Chris12 said:


> This c-DSP with Dirac Live is 100% definitely going to be my next car audio related purchase.


Me too


----------



## JamesRC

Jscoyne2 said:


> There is a level setting menu within the software. The "window" of that level setting can't handle more than 10db difference without clipping. Basically, you just need to get the drivers to have less than a 10db difference between the top peak and the general average level. You can ignore dips.
> 
> Imagine if you had a driver you wanted to play 150hz to 2500hz and that driver played perfectly flat from 200hz to 2000hz except one giant peak at 1000hz that was 15db high. When you were setting levels within the software, you would either always end up clipping the input level, or you'd end up 5db lower than you needed to be and losing a lot of volume. So you'd want to eq that peak down a big.
> 
> Imo, Do as little eq as you need too. Let Dirac do as much as possible. It doesn't hurt to use the 10bands of peq for crossover correction though.
> 
> Really, the software is really intuitive once you get your hands on it.


Thanks, man. I realized I was referring to leveling out the EQ, meaning flattening the EQ response of each driver.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> There is a level setting menu within the software. The "window" of that level setting can't handle more than 10db difference without clipping. Basically, you just need to get the drivers to have less than a 10db difference between the top peak and the general average level. You can ignore dips.
> 
> Imagine if you had a driver you wanted to play 150hz to 2500hz and that driver played perfectly flat from 200hz to 2000hz except one giant peak at 1000hz that was 15db high. When you were setting levels within the software, you would either always end up clipping the input level, or you'd end up 5db lower than you needed to be and losing a lot of volume. So you'd want to eq that peak down a big.
> 
> Imo, Do as little eq as you need too. Let Dirac do as much as possible. It doesn't hurt to use the 10bands of peq for crossover correction though.
> 
> Really, the software is really intuitive once you get your hands on it.



Like a pro! 

Haven’t hear much lately as the C dsp probably because everyone’s cars sound awesome and ran out of stuff to do (Except Erin he’s having all the fun right now and hoarding it to himself ..lol )


----------



## oabeieo

JamesRC said:


> Thanks, man. I realized I was referring to leveling out the EQ, meaning flattening the EQ response of each driver.


Let Dirac do your eq work. 


Here’s why. 

Dirac does a lot with the measurements, when you add EQ to a speaker before Dirac than it would not be able to differentiate which is room issues vs driver issues as well as it would if you would have just let it do the eq work. 


I’m certain it gates the response and looks at what the speaker is doing without the room and compares the natural response of the measurements vs with the room. Than applies a correction based on what will sound the best for its relative diract vs reflected sound. You want it to see as much of the problems as possible, don’t hide those problems with eq , it would change the way it corrects things 

If you add or remove energy from the drivers natural responce it may not turn out as good , that depends on a lot of things primarily the on and off axis responses throughout the measurement points. Another words how well the speaker is behaved , 


I only use peq to get into the 10db window on frequencies above 1k and use proper levels below 1k. Example my horns with no eq have 30db variations so I have no choice but to do some pre eq and even than I use a couple wide band frequencies and only turn down enough to get me into the game and let it do the rest.


Hope that helps some. 

Also if you cut the target a little you can essentially get more than 10db by overall gain cutting. It sounds better doing that at the cost of headroom , but I never peg my volume so I’m fine with the added eq flexibility


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> Let Dirac do your eq work.
> 
> 
> Here’s why.
> 
> Dirac does a lot with the measurements, when you add EQ to a speaker before Dirac than it would not be able to differentiate which is room issues vs driver issues as well as it would if you would have just let it do the eq work.
> 
> 
> I’m certain it gates the response and looks at what the speaker is doing without the room and compares the natural response of the measurements vs with the room. Than applies a correction based on what will sound the best for its relative diract vs reflected sound. You want it to see as much of the problems as possible, don’t hide those problems with eq , it would change the way it corrects things
> 
> ...


If one is producing an impulse response, then in the time domain is always the direct path near the peak... unless those reflections are right in the same timespan.


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> If one is producing an impulse response, then in the time domain is always the direct path near the peak... unless those reflections are right in the same timespan.



Fastest way somewhere is a straight line yes I getbwhat your saying. 

Not sure how that relates to the argument tho, so yes I agree but not sure what your point is so I’ll try ,

If your reference is to when I said it “can’t differentiate as well”” 

Adding peq weather it be cuts or boost will make the responce change yes 

However it could advance or retard the timing so to speak at that frequency as a result of the peq if it’s in a non minimum phase area and only not picked up by all measurements. That could actually move the time in line with a reflection and the reflection would/could be seen as direct sound. 

It’s all about could, possibly, as well etc. so many variables. It’s best to just let the speaker play naturally under about 1k or so arguably higher as much as 2.5k 
And let Dirac determine what is direct sound and reflections based on how the speaker actually behaves on its own in the passband with minimal or no eq ideally. 

I realize it’s not always possible, and or it simply sounds better in some cars to do the opposite, but I wouldn’t arbitrarily do that without at least exploring and exhausting efforts to let Dirac do it’s thing on as much as possible


----------



## oabeieo

I think I get what your saying now.

Even if you add peq And the time is altered the physical distance would still be picked up by gating ....a resounding yes! 

But that’s not what I meant. What I’m talking is the phase of the magnitude. You have to think of how reflections and echos operate and how harmonics play into those over tones and sound power as a result of the reflection. 


If you are 10db high at 1300hz and use peq to pull back 10db of it to make it flat 
The reflect in Dirac would still see the reflection either way. *The timing difference between its harmonic and sub-harmonic would definitely be altered * 

To get the reflection to cooperate with the direct sound it requires altering the behavior of the speaker t targeted frequencies in the time and frequency domain 
You change the time at one frequency the harmonic balance of the entire spectrum could easily be detrimentally changed, exactly why you don’t just start using all pass filters without knowing what your doing (unless it just sounds better but that’s another topic). And is why I argue that peq can be just as detrimental and urge ppl to try diffrent all pass arrangements with non Dirac systems to at least take a listen and explore what can happen for better or for worse. 

If 600hz is wrong 1200, 2400 ,300,150 he won’t sound right . Etc etc. a complete loss of ambiance and *spectral balance *


You start changing the time domain in any fashion (peq or all passes) pre Dirac it will never know what true distances between reflections and source throughout the magnitude and it will calculate things differently. The less you change the more so it will know what is actually happening in the room. I would also like to suggest this could also be a cause of some crossover cancellations seen in the post Dirac, and as why their there. A linear phase crossover would a nice add on or if there was some way Dirac could take measurements of speakers in a multi-way with no crossovers turned on than with turned on. Maybe something they will add down the road, for now it’s just this way. Which is one thing the APl does as part of its calibration. But again it’s a room correction tool not a loudspeaker linearization tool. The hotness would be to have both, which is why I use rephase linear crossovers in 2x4hds and a Dirac upstream for the correction 
It works better in some regards, it’s not miles ahead but eliminates crossover cancellations and has a little better ambiance that is noticeable when doing AB comparisons.


So that said with extra emphasis on “it will calculate things differently “ Dirac will still make the correction, however you run the risk of a correction that simply doesn’t have to be there as an added issue besides the possibility of timing issues. For example, if you have two EQs in series 
And one you turn down let’s say 500hz by 10db and the next you turn up 500hz by 10db , will it sound the same as if there was no eq? I suggest it would not and would have artifacts that simply don’t need to be there as a result of processing. That’s is also another issue that can lead to not as good of a result. 


There’s also this angle , in pro audio they often have multiple eqs in series because it gives certain effects to parts of the mix. So again I can’t say what I’m saying is absolute. It’s just a precaution 


So to wrap it up a Dirac pre tune can be better, it can also suck. I would try to let Dirac do as much as possible and listen, than find what works Nd what doesn’t. If you start with multiple eqs going the rabbit hole will have too many forks in the road to lead you back to knowing what is going on what is doing what.


----------



## Holmz

Maybe it does do some gating...

You get an impulse response and you see the delayed comb of the reflections.
Say you cut them off to minimispze echos.

Then you do an inverse FFT of that response, and you get the FIR taps for Dirac.. without the reflections... phase and amplitude.
(Or maybe there is some normalisation to add in the house curve and account for the spectrum of the (pink?) noise?)

There is probably more happening, but at a kindergarten level it is close.


----------



## Chris12

*Compatible with Mac OS?*

I know initially the Dirac Live software was supposed to work with Mac OS, but when it was unveiled it only worked on PC’s.

Does anyone know if the MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live software currently works with Mac OS?


----------



## subterFUSE

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



Chris12 said:


> I know initially the Dirac Live software was supposed to work with Mac OS, but when it was unveiled it only worked on PC’s.
> 
> Does anyone know if the MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live software currently works with Mac OS?




When I tried using it, it crashed every time. I have not attempted since. It might work now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris12

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



subterFUSE said:


> When I tried using it, it crashed every time. I have not attempted since. It might work now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for the reply. Maybe I’ll confirm with miniDSP tech support before I make my purchase. I only have access to Mac laptops so it is a bit of an issue. I know I could just buy a cheap windows laptop, but it’s an additional cost nonetheless.


----------



## bertholomey

I just posted on their forum so issues I’m having on my ASUS netbook - small annoyances - Macs are my other option - hopefully we will get some feedback on whether the Max OS issues have been corrected. The other option is to use to put Windows 7 on the Mac, but that didn’t work for me last time I tried (not great with loading software )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## subterFUSE

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



Chris12 said:


> Thanks for the reply. Maybe I’ll confirm with miniDSP tech support before I make my purchase. I only have access to Mac laptops so it is a bit of an issue. I know I could just buy a cheap windows laptop, but it’s an additional cost nonetheless.


You can run Windows on a Mac. I use bootcamp on my MacBook Pro for tuning.


----------



## Chris12

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



subterFUSE said:


> You can run Windows on a Mac. I use bootcamp on my MacBook Pro for tuning.


Thanks for reminding me of this option. Do you recall what the total cost to get windows up and running on your Mac was?

I looked into this in the past and I recall being discouraged by the total cost vs. just buying a new cheap windows laptop..


----------



## DavidRam

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



Chris12 said:


> Thanks for the reply. Maybe I’ll confirm with miniDSP tech support before I make my purchase. I only have access to Mac laptops so it is a bit of an issue. I know I could just buy a cheap windows laptop, but it’s an additional cost nonetheless.


I have this laptop as a dedicated tuning laptop and I leave it in the car.
It's small, the battery lasts for hours and hours and it doesn't get hot. REW, MiniDSP and Helix programs work perfectly on it... 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07RHMBGCF/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_10?smid=A3TVJZN3NYXIXP&psc=1


----------



## Chris12

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



DavidRam said:


> I have this laptop as a dedicated tuning laptop and I leave it in the car.
> It's small, the battery lasts for hours and hours and it doesn't get hot. REW, MiniDSP and Helix programs work perfectly on it...
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07RHMBGCF/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_10?smid=A3TVJZN3NYXIXP&psc=1


Leaving it in the car is a good idea. That’d be one less hurdle when I consider having a tuning session.

I always cringe when I see a celeron processor, but less than $200 for a brand new computer makes up for it


----------



## DavidRam

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



Chris12 said:


> Leaving it in the car is a good idea. That’d be one less hurdle when I consider having a tuning session.
> 
> I always cringe when I see a celeron processor, but less than $200 for a brand new computer makes up for it


Believe me, I am with you on the Celerons... All of my other laptops have i5s or i7s, but when you consider the only thing the Celeron needs to handle are 2-3 simple programs, it should be ok! Lol


----------



## JamesRC

It only took 5-6 phone calls to my bank, but I finally have one of these on the way. The purchase triggered my bank for fraud every time. 

Now that that's out of the way, I'm really looking forward to getting things out of my tune beyond what I've been able to do on my own. 

Just to see if there's some consensus...

Are we saying pre-EQ to fix any big dips or valleys, or no pre-EQ at all (let Dirac do all the work)?

Run Dirac with sub, or no sub?


----------



## Jscoyne2

JamesRC said:


> It only took 5-6 phone calls to my bank, but I finally have one of these on the way. The purchase triggered my bank for fraud every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that that's out of the way, I'm really looking forward to getting things out of my tune beyond what I've been able to do on my own.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to see if there's some consensus...
> 
> 
> 
> Are we saying pre-EQ to fix any big dips or valleys, or no pre-EQ at all (let Dirac do all the work)?
> 
> 
> 
> Run Dirac with sub, or no sub?


There is a level setting menu within the software. The "window" of that level setting can't handle more than 10db difference without clipping. Basically, you just need to get the drivers to have less than a 10db difference between the top peak and the general average level. You can ignore dips. 

Imagine if you had a driver you wanted to play 150hz to 2500hz and that driver played perfectly flat from 200hz to 2000hz except one giant peak at 1000hz that was 15db high. When you were setting levels within the software, you would either always end up clipping the input level, or you'd end up 5db lower than you needed to be and losing a lot of volume. So you'd want to eq that peak down a big.

Imo, Do as little eq as you need too. Let Dirac do as much as possible. It doesn't hurt to use the 10bands of peq for crossover correction though. 

Use sub with dirac

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



Chris12 said:


> Thanks for reminding me of this option. Do you recall what the total cost to get windows up and running on your Mac was?
> 
> I looked into this in the past and I recall being discouraged by the total cost vs. just buying a new cheap windows laptop..




There is no cost for me to do Bootcamp because I have old Windows install CDs from years past.


If you do Parallels, there is a cost for that software. But I don't use Parallels for tuning. I just do bootcamp.


----------



## bertholomey

*Re: Compatible with Mac OS?*



subterFUSE said:


> There is no cost for me to do Bootcamp because I have old Windows install CDs from years past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do Parallels, there is a cost for that software. But I don't use Parallels for tuning. I just do bootcamp.




I used to have problems with Parallels and VM Ware when trying to connect devices to the laptop. Reason I thought boot camp would be better. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dcfis

bertholomey said:


> subterFUSE said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cost for me to do Bootcamp because I have old Windows install CDs from years past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do Parallels, there is a cost for that software. But I don't use Parallels for tuning. I just do bootcamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to have problems with Parallels and VM Ware when trying to connect devices to the laptop. Reason I thought boot camp would be better.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Vm Ware did need an dos code line added when mac updated software and disabled usb priorities on start up. It has been nails before and since then. It's easier and more fluid than bootcamp IMO.


----------



## LumbermanSVO

I use BootCamp with a legit, but unregistered, copy of Win 10 Pro. I also have VMWare set to virtualize the BootCamp partition. Most things will connect to Windows running in VMware just fine, but on occasion I'll actually need to boot into Windows.

And by "most things" I don't just mean tuning stuff, I also have to plug in professional video processors and other random programs I might need in my line of work.

I also have a VM of older MacOSes and a few Linux distros to use in a pinch.


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Maybe it does do some gating...
> 
> You get an impulse response and you see the delayed comb of the reflections.
> Say you cut them off to minimispze echos.
> 
> Then you do an inverse FFT of that response, and you get the FIR taps for Dirac.. without the reflections... phase and amplitude.
> (Or maybe there is some normalisation to add in the house curve and account for the spectrum of the (pink?) noise?)
> 
> There is probably more happening, but at a kindergarten level it is close.



Yeah kindergarten is right. I wish I was smart enough to figure all this out 


But yeah you get it, from what I have tested in my car and what I think is happening based on my own experiences and with the use of linearized crossovers and without and with pre eq and without , listening and measurements just comparing as much as I can to try to know what the algo is made up of. 

Using minimum phase eq before the calibration obviously will change the way it makes its correction. That part is a definite. I’m just suggesting it’s not limited to the frequency domain and it does in fact make a difference for better or worse.

It’s just in my own experience that changing things up using peq before the calibration changes the way the calibration sounds and it makes it sound even more processed and the calibration seems loose a sense of space in the recording. 

Being that the algo is not having us take close mic measurements and is not having us take measurements with no crossovers leads me to believe that adding any eq before the calibration would just make it more difficult for it to know what is going on in the natural space and with how the speaker is actually behaving.

When I listen to the measurements being taken the are a few spots in the measurements and it’s random that I can hear the measurement being played 
With a lot more energy compared to some of the energy from the other measurements. Seems like I can hear like two or three of the 27 sweeps come out with more energy being applied to the measurement. As if the algo has some control over the sweeps energy content. Meaning not all the sweeps come out exactly the same. 

I think it’s doing something with the power response in Some of the measurement points and it’s random or calculated based on the 1st measurement (IDK) but I definitely hear it sometimes.

It seems like it does look at a lot of different things. One thing I’ve been able to determine is I look at my own moving mic averages with plain old RTA in rew with pink or PN and the magnitude sometimes isn’t what Dirac’s magnitude shape resembles. I’ve tryed different measurement points (like moving the mic a few inches from the box maybe in or out) and have gotten the Dirac average magnitude or “avg spectrum” to better resemble what my RTA averages looked like, when I do that the EQ work that Dirac does turns out much more faithful to my target when I validate my target response with RTA


----------



## bertholomey

I took my car to a home audio dealer friend that I highly respect for his ear. I did this the day before leaving for Finals. I had a heavy PEQ tune and a tune with no PEQ and a simple Dirac curve. 

He liked the staging / imaging work Dirac did when he toggled Dirac on/off using the remote, but he was not happy with the overall tonality of the system - thin, artificial, processed. 

He said he would love to hear it without all of the PEQ, and I informed him I had a preset for that. We hit the other preset, and he said it was an improvement with no PEQ and DL on. He actually liked the tonality the best with only crossovers, TA, and levels applied - though it had some definite problem areas. 

He stated from his home experience with customers running these types of algorithms - that the software is intended to improve staging / imaging without drastically changing the tonality. He said if I could strike that balance, I’d have a very good reference car. 

On the drive home, I could hear what he was saying - particularly on a Dave Matthews track - my heavy PEQ preset - the guitar sound was only the strings, the no PEQ/DL - one could hear the strings AND the body of the guitar. 

So I have been trying various things, but I’m not ready to take it back over  He said he would love to spend a few hours with it - which would be phenomenal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo

bertholomey said:


> I took my car to a home audio dealer friend that I highly respect for his ear. I did this the day before leaving for Finals. I had a heavy PEQ tune and a tune with no PEQ and a simple Dirac curve.
> 
> He liked the staging / imaging work Dirac did when he toggled Dirac on/off using the remote, but he was not happy with the overall tonality of the system - thin, artificial, processed.
> 
> He said he would love to hear it without all of the PEQ, and I informed him I had a preset for that. We hit the other preset, and he said it was an improvement with no PEQ and DL on. He actually liked the tonality the best with only crossovers, TA, and levels applied - though it had some definite problem areas.
> 
> He stated from his home experience with customers running these types of algorithms - that the software is intended to improve staging / imaging without drastically changing the tonality. He said if I could strike that balance, I’d have a very good reference car.
> 
> On the drive home, I could hear what he was saying - particularly on a Dave Matthews track - my heavy PEQ preset - the guitar sound was only the strings, the no PEQ/DL - one could hear the strings AND the body of the guitar.
> 
> So I have been trying various things, but I’m not ready to take it back over  He said he would love to spend a few hours with it - which would be phenomenal.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Interesting, yeah it’s too bad the car adds so much to the sound that makes it so hard to get the tonality like a home system. Our speakers sound so much better than they do out of the car with no eq than in the car with even DL. 


So a post Dirac no pre eq tonality, what is it that seems wrong. 

Has anyone tried diffrent measurement points so the average matches a moving mic pink noise average? That definitely helps 


Or the other way to do it is do your calibration, than go to rew and take a moving mic 32 average (maybe 1/6th or 1/12th) and look at the shape of magnitude compared to your target , 

Whatever the deviations are use the Dirac target and compensate for the difference using your Dirac target. 

Both ways work generally the same to my ears. 

The 1st way in my car the left and right forward measurements are more directly in front of me (about 6” apart) instead of having them really far apart) 
So the two forward high measurements are almost next to each other 
That seems to get my Dirac average to match rew pink noise averages enough for me to be happy. It’s not like exact but the dips and peaks are at least in the same spots. *I think that’s what it’s really about*
I’ve had some Dirac avearges have completely different peaks and dips than using RTA with noise......


Getting the response in DL to validate against REW moving mic has made my tonality much better. 

Have you tried ?


----------



## JamesRC

I sent the MiniDSP support team an email about running Dirac Live on Mac, and they said it works perfectly fine. They actually said they run it on mac, along with about half their customer base. So that's good news.


----------



## slpery

Cool write up.
I'm a "type 1 user" and I have a MS-8 which I love, as it makes a good tune for my abilities. 
But I wish I could make more adjustments manually. I think this is the ticket.


----------



## JamesRC

More on the Mac issue:

_. . . we’re aware of a Dirac live bug with older Mac running newer OS (Catalina). You simply just run Dirac 2.2.2 (older version) and it solves the issue. Maybe that was the case here?_


----------



## Chris12

JamesRC said:


> I sent the MiniDSP support team an email about running Dirac Live on Mac, and they said it works perfectly fine. They actually said they run it on mac, along with about half their customer base. So that's good news.


Great news. Thanks for the update.


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> ...
> Using minimum phase eq before the calibration obviously will change the way it makes its correction. That part is a definite. *I’m just suggesting it’s not limited to the frequency domain and it does in fact make a difference for better or worse.*
> ...


The Dirac delta function describes the time domain response.
And most of the suggest that Dirac Live is operating in the time domain.

It sort of makes sense then that they maybe using some gating to only get the speaker corrected with Dirac, and use gating to ignore the room reflections.

Of course those room reflections may bleed in and affect the frequency response.

And the amplitude (REW) should be able to be simultaneously corrected with the FIR that is doing Dirac.




oabeieo said:


> Yeah kindergarten is right. I wish I was smart enough to figure all this out.
> ...


The fact that some people do 4+ years of college study and can find it challenging, sort of suggests that it is potentially complicated...


----------



## JamesRC

Shipped from China on Monday. Received in California on Tuesday. That's pretty intense.


----------



## subterFUSE

JamesRC said:


> Shipped from China on Monday. Received in California on Tuesday. That's pretty intense.


You didn't think they would ship it by boat, did you? :laugh:


----------



## JamesRC

subterFUSE said:


> You didn't think they would ship it by boat, did you? :laugh:



No, but I also didn’t expect next day air. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

My thought exactly - it didn’t seem like I paid for 2nd day air in the amount they charged for shipping, but I was very pleasantly surprised to get it so quickly. Bonus!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> The Dirac delta function describes the time domain response.
> And most of the suggest that Dirac Live is operating in the time domain.
> 
> It sort of makes sense then that they maybe using some gating to only get the speaker corrected with Dirac, and use gating to ignore the room reflections.
> 
> Of course those room reflections may bleed in and affect the frequency response.
> 
> And the amplitude (REW) should be able to be simultaneously corrected with the FIR that is doing Dirac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that some people do 4+ years of college study and can find it challenging, sort of suggests that it is potentially complicated...



Dirac transfer function is time and frequency. 
It’s just a transfer function, there’s other mathematical ways of generating an impulse. 

But yeah it would have to gate the responce to know the difference between a reflection and direct sound to calculate a correction curve , as it’s not having us do any close mic measurements. It is the only way to take time of flight out of a measurement that I know of. Unless there’s something I’m missing. 


*”And the amplitude (REW) should be able to be simultaneously corrected with the FIR that is doing Dirac.

“*

You lost me there , not sure what you meant sorry


----------



## oabeieo

bertholomey said:


> My thought exactly - it didn’t seem like I paid for 2nd day air in the amount they charged for shipping, but I was very pleasantly surprised to get it so quickly. Bonus!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



US distribution is in Denver


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> Dirac transfer function is time and frequency.
> It’s just a transfer function, there’s other mathematical ways of generating an impulse.
> 
> But yeah it would have to gate the responce to know the difference between a reflection and direct sound to calculate a correction curve , as it’s not having us do any close mic measurements. It is the only way to take time of flight out of a measurement that I know of. Unless there’s something I’m missing.
> 
> 
> *”And the amplitude (REW) should be able to be simultaneously corrected with the FIR that is doing Dirac.
> 
> “*
> 
> You lost me there , not sure what you meant sorry


Basically... The FIR filter corrects both REW and phase.

I don't think that the gating would work... the reflections are just too close in time.


----------



## ckirocz28

JamesRC said:


> Shipped from China on Monday. Received in California on Tuesday. That's pretty intense.


Don't forget the International Date Line was crossed.


----------



## datooff

Guys, they ship from HK, right?

Can you recommend c-dsp 8x12 with or without Dirac over helix dsp3 ?

Especially in the tuning aspect.
Thank you.


----------



## dgage

datooff said:


> Guys, they ship from HK, right?
> 
> Can you recommend c-dsp 8x12 with or without Dirac over helix dsp3 ?
> 
> Especially in the tuning aspect.
> Thank you.


I’d say the Helix Pro DSP and C-DSP 8x12 are similar though it seems most give a slight edge to the Helix DSP on software though I’ve been using the MiniDSP software for 4+ years now and think it is very good with solid support. The Helix has the advantage of add-in modules like the Bluetooth module. But really you can’t make a bad choice between either of them. 

Where the C-DSP 8x12 separates itself from the Helix is the option of Dirac, which is a very high quality tuning “easy” (once you learn it) button. Essentially the results you get from Dirac are better than most amateur and even pro tuners in the business. Now there are definitely some true expert tuners that could provide better results than Dirac but that would take hours of tuning and expert tuners are few and far between.


----------



## datooff

This is what I wanted to hear.
I'm 99% sure that I won't be able to tune the 3 way properly. No matter how many hours I will spend on it.

And with constant gear testing and DIY install - it's too expensive to hire pro tuners for this job continuously. 

If Dirac can help with that and minidsp/helix sound almost identical - then it's worth it. You can "hire" Dirac many times and then even re-sell the licence.




dgage said:


> Where the C-DSP 8x12 separates itself from the Helix is the option of Dirac, which is a very high quality tuning “easy” (once you learn it) button. Essentially the results you get from Dirac are better than most amateur and even pro tuners in the business. Now there are definitely some true expert tuners that could provide better results than Dirac but that would take hours of tuning and expert tuners are few and far between.


----------



## datooff

Did you buy on the official minidsp website?




JamesRC said:


> Shipped from China on Monday. Received in California on Tuesday. That's pretty intense.


----------



## Chris12

JamesRC said:


> Shipped from China on Monday. Received in California on Tuesday. That's pretty intense.


I’m not a Trump supporter but:

“ According to the US Postal Service, it would cost around US$20 to mail a small parcel of 2kg (4.4lbs) from one US state to another, but mailing the same package from China would only cost US$5.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sc...144/chinas-cheap-shipping-advantage-explained

We all pay to get things shipped from China cheap and fast..


----------



## datooff

The shipping for C-DSP costs 22$.



Chris12 said:


> I’m not a Trump supporter but:
> 
> “ According to the US Postal Service, it would cost around US$20 to mail a small parcel of 2kg (4.4lbs) from one US state to another, but mailing the same package from China would only cost US$5.”
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sc...144/chinas-cheap-shipping-advantage-explained
> 
> We all pay to get things shipped from China cheap and fast..


----------



## naiku

datooff said:


> Guys, they ship from HK, right?
> 
> Can you recommend c-dsp 8x12 with or without Dirac over helix dsp3 ?
> 
> Especially in the tuning aspect.
> Thank you.


Comparing the C-DSP 8x12 with the Helix DSP.3 the C-DSP is a better choice (IMO). I previously owned a Helix DSP and while I will admit I preferred the software of the Helix, the C-DSP offers a much better value (12 vs 8 channels being the biggest difference though). 

The Helix is a solid DSP and you will find _a lot_ of support for it here. The Dirac enabled C-DSP is a game changer though, you will find many people here selling Helix DSP's to pick up the Dirac enabled C-DSP. 

The C-DSP has it's quirks, but if you are using a Dirac version you save so much time in tuning that even having to deal with quirks is quicker than manually tuning. The biggest thing for me has been finding the ideal microphone positions that work in my car, but that does not take all that long. The cool thing is, if tomorrow I decided to throw out all my equipment and replace it with something different, I can get a baseline tune set up and sounding good within 10-15 minutes. If you are not great at manually tuning, or simply don't care to spend that time tweaking and adjusting for hours on end, get the C-DSP with Dirac.


----------



## SkizeR

datooff said:


> This is what I wanted to hear.
> I'm 99% sure that I won't be able to tune the 3 way properly. No matter how many hours I will spend on it.


good thing the Helix does have an Auto EQ feature.. works pretty well too. Its just not FIR like Dirac.


----------



## Jscoyne2

SkizeR said:


> good thing the Helix does have an Auto EQ feature.. works pretty well too. Its just not FIR like Dirac.


Im not going to argue this with you in any length but the Dirac software is light years above anything Helix has to offer right now. I know you love Helix and you're a dealer but you Really need to try this thing.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im not going to argue this with you in any length but the Dirac software is light years above anything Helix has to offer right now. I know you love Helix and you're a dealer but you Really need to try this thing.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I've seen it. I've talked to people who are even better tuners than I am who have it in their car. General consensus is that it is indeed good, but not what you see people making it out to be. That said, it also requires so expertise in using, no? Meaning, not any average joe can install it and run dirac to make it work. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

SkizeR said:


> I've seen it. I've talked to people who are even better tuners than I am who have it in their car. General consensus is that it is indeed good, but not what you see people making it out to be. That said, it also requires so expertise in using, no? Meaning, not any average joe can install it and run dirac to make it work. Am I wrong in thinking that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Unless you're running something like horns, then its pretty plug and play. The software is very step by step. You don't need to do any real pre-eq. It helps to understand some basic things like crossovers but that can be said for the Helix as well. 

The only real tricky thing is getting a target curve where you want it. Its not that big of a deal, just a small nuance. 

I'd say the learning curve for a Helix is far beyond what you do with Dirac. You really don't need to learn Rew at all. 

Also we've learned that it's better to run each side as one. So 1 left channel with all left drivers playing. 1 right channel with all right playing. Ect. So that eliminated the complicated special crossover making per driver.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

naiku said:


> ...
> ... though, you will find many people here selling Helix DSP's to pick up the Dirac enabled C-DSP.
> ...


I do not use what a herd is doing as proof that it is better, wiser, etc.

Even though it may be good people doing fads does not form an epistemology.


----------



## ckirocz28

Holmz said:


> I do not use what a herd is doing as proof that it is better, wiser, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it may be good people doing fads does not form an epistemology.


I've seen herds run off a cliff to their deaths, so yeah.
Although, neither one of us is saying that using a Helix dsp is even remotely that bad a decision.


----------



## Holmz

ckirocz28 said:


> I've seen herds run off a cliff to their deaths, so yeah.
> Although, neither one of us is saying that using a Helix dsp is even remotely that bad a decision.


Or a forum-boner.

It probably is good.
I was very close to getting one myself.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Holmz said:


> Or a forum-boner.
> 
> 
> 
> It probably is good.
> 
> I was very close to getting one myself.


Think of Dirac as an ms8 without the 1200 page help thread. It works and it can do a better job than you can tuning. Period.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

Jscoyne2 said:


> Think of Dirac as an ms8 without the 1200 page help thread. It works and it can do a better job than you can tuning. Period.


Got it.

But ^That^ is a way different arguement than "everyone has one, so it must be good".


----------



## naiku

Holmz said:


> I do not use what a herd is doing as proof that it is better, wiser, etc.
> 
> Even though it may be good people doing fads does not form an epistemology.


Agreed entirely, maybe I was not clear enough. I should have said that owners of Helix DSPs have listened to cars running a C-DSP or tried a C-DSP themselves and are impressed enough that they are making the switch.

I'd say the C-DSP is far from a "forum boner" a number of us running the Dirac version already had the 8x12 and simply upgraded the firmware.


----------



## Holmz

naiku said:


> Agreed entirely, maybe I was not clear enough. I should have said that owners of Helix DSPs have listened to cars running a C-DSP or tried a C-DSP themselves and are impressed enough that they are making the switch.
> 
> I'd say the C-DSP is far from a "forum boner" a number of us running the Dirac version already had the 8x12 and simply upgraded the firmware.


What did they find that impressed them?
I read somewhere that the Helix was just as good in the hands of a good tuner. (Maybe it was a Skizer post?)

Faster tune?.
More of X?


I talked a friend in NoVa to try one for his home subs.
He sent some REW phase plots, but I don'ttghink he is using the Dirac yet.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Holmz said:


> What did they find that impressed them?
> 
> I read somewhere that the Helix was just as good in the hands of a good tuner. (Maybe it was a Skizer post?)
> 
> 
> 
> Faster tune?.
> 
> More of X?


Without Dirac. The Helix is worlds above any Mini out there. 

Helix has input eq and alot of cool voltage control and modular expansions and is just amazing all around. 

The Dirac Mini gets results faster and easier when it comes to UI and Eq/ t/a

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

Jscoyne2 said:


> Without Dirac. The Helix is worlds above any Mini out there.
> 
> Helix has input eq and alot of cool voltage control and modular expansions and is just amazing all around.
> 
> The Dirac Mini gets results faster and easier when it comes to UI and Eq/ t/a


Ok let's disregard the non-Dirac version...
It sounds like the Helix is not "worlds above" the Mini-w/Dirac.

Not if people hear them and are drawn to Dirac like rats/lemmings are drawn to the pied piper.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Holmz said:


> Ok let's disregard the non-Dirac version...
> 
> It sounds like the Helix is not "worlds above" the Mini-w/Dirac.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if people hear them and are drawn to Dirac like rats are drawn to the pied piper.


Its for 1 reason. Dirac does it better faster. I can spend 2 days in a car. Listening and tuning and Dirac can literally give me a tune 10x better in 20 minutes

It basically does FIR super accurate eq across the whole spectrum and does all pass filters and phase adjustment and time alignment in 20 minutes. Its stupid good.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

Jscoyne2 said:


> Its for 1 reason. Dirac does it better faster. I can spend 2 days in a car. Listening and tuning and Dirac can literally give me a tune 10x better in 20 minutes


"Better & faster" is 3dB better than 1-reason. 

But can the Helix sound just as good? (With the fullness of time)
or...
is the Dirac always superior?


----------



## dgage

Holmz said:


> "Better & faster" is 3dB better than 1-reason.
> 
> But can the Helix sound just as good? (With the fullness of time)
> or...
> is the Dirac always superior?


The MiniDSP or Helix could sound better than Dirac in the hands of an EXPERT tuner but we're talking very few true experts. And it will take a lot longer to get the tune. 

You asked about the home theater of which I have more experience. Audyssey, Dirac, Anthem Room Correction, and Trinnov are the main automatic room correction algorithms. Trinnov is the best and is amazing but is also $20,000+ for a 16-channel unit and over $30,000 for a 32-ch unit (speakers, Atmos speakers, subs). Audyssey is on the majority of receivers and gives decent but not great results. Anthem Room Correction is noticeably better than Audyssey and was better than Dirac 1.0 but Dirac 2.0 is now back on top. As a matter of fact, JBL used to license Trinnov for their top processors but they recently announced that they were using Dirac 2.0 for their top processors.

Oh, and most of the talk in this thread is using Dirac 1.0 but Dirac 2.0 is being rolled out to the MiniDSP units, with the DDRC stereo units getting it first. 2.0 should be available for the C-DSP 8x12 DL soon.


----------



## naiku

Holmz said:


> But can the Helix sound just as good? (With the fullness of time)
> or...
> is the Dirac always superior?


IMO the Helix can absolutely sound as good, you just have to be prepared to spend a lot of time to get there.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Imo. The Helix could sound just as good but only with some other programs like TDA and Arta and others to get all the info needed and then you'd need to do all the phase adjustments frequency by frequency. And on and on and on.

But with Dirac. You can tell it what you want your curve to look like, then it eqs both amplitude and phase to get there. If there is a peaky response anywhere that you can still hear. You can bring it down in the Dirac curve without worrying about how its gonna affect phase. 

Eqing in Helix or any IIR based processor is all a balance of adjust magnitude then fix phase then fix magnitude then fix phase. Ect.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam

naiku said:


> IMO the Helix can absolutely sound as good, you just have to be prepared to spend a lot of time to get there.


Time for sure, and a certain level of understanding and experience. I would add, a little aptitude for programs like it would be good, too.


----------



## Truthunter

IDK, there is the sharpening of the impulse response Dirac Live does which, AFAIK, no other 12v product except maybe the APL units can do.


----------



## Holmz

Truthunter said:


> IDK, there is the sharpening of the impulse response Dirac Live does which, AFAIK, no other 12v product except maybe the APL units can do.


^Good point^


(APL) the French Waveflex, and any other FIR based unit should be able to do it using something like the FIR designer S/W.

As I recall with the MiniDSP at least a year ago, or more... one is nit able to get the FiR taps out of the unit.

One would need to be able to load the taps into the DSP to impliment their own version of a Dirac filter.


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> Think of Dirac as an ms8 without the 1200 page help thread. It works and it can do a better job than you can tuning. Period.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


You should send that comment to MiniDSP and Dirac to use in an ad, it's hilarious.


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> Its for 1 reason. Dirac does it better faster. I can spend 2 days in a car. Listening and tuning and Dirac can literally give me a tune 10x better in 20 minutes
> 
> It basically does FIR super accurate eq across the whole spectrum and does all pass filters and phase adjustment and time alignment in 20 minutes. Its stupid good.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Maybe you should just get a marketing job with those guys, you've almost convinced me to upgrade my 8x12.


----------



## Jscoyne2

ckirocz28 said:


> Maybe you should just get a marketing job with those guys, you've almost convinced me to upgrade my 8x12.


It was Oab's spaceship comment that convinced me to buy it. 

It also helps to be a single childless guy with *whispers* disposable income.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidRam

ckirocz28 said:


> Maybe you should just get a marketing job with those guys, you've almost convinced me to upgrade my 8x12.


Right?! If I wasn't sold before, I sure as hell am now... :laugh:


----------



## rockinridgeline

I would be very hesitant to say that the mini DSP with Dirac can give "anyone" an expert quality tune in 15 or 20 minutes. It isn't quite sophisticated enough to fix problems in the subwoofer and midbass overlap without some knowledge of fixing it yourself before you run Dirac. It also doesn't set your crossovers for you. Give it to someone with little tuning experience and the results would be unpredictable. 

That being said, it will give pinpoint imaging and sound stage depth that is very difficult to get by even expert tuners if set up correctly. And it will do that without the ton of EQ work that woukd normally be required. 

I would also disclose that in my own experience that the unit I installed was very buggy in the beginning. It gave me fits for a couple of weeks until I did a hard reset. 

I like it well enough that I just recieved a second one for my other car. 

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

rockinridgeline said:


> I would be very hesitant to say that the mini DSP with Dirac can give "anyone" an expert quality tune in 15 or 20 minutes. It isn't quite sophisticated enough to fix problems in the subwoofer and midbass overlap without some knowledge of fixing it yourself before you run Dirac. It also doesn't set your crossovers for you. Give it to someone with little tuning experience and the results would be unpredictable.
> 
> That being said, it will give pinpoint imaging and sound stage depth that is very difficult to get by even expert tuners if set up correctly. And it will do that without the ton of EQ work that woukd normally be required.
> 
> I would also disclose that in my own experience that the unit I installed was very buggy in the beginning. It gave me fits for a couple of weeks until I did a hard reset.
> 
> I like it well enough that I just recieved a second one for my other car.
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


Well the initial discussion was how it compared to the Helix and in that department in install knowledge needed. The Mini Dl, i believe, has a far lower ceiling. 

It definitely helps to use the 10 band along with Rew to keep electrical and acoustic crossovers the same and to fix crossover roll off to match each other. 

It also helps to use Rew to see any issues in over/under lap of crossovers. You can still get excellent results without doing those things. I'd consider those intermediate skills that can be learned fairly easily quickly. Call it the "tips" of Dirac.

I do agree with the glitchiness. I needed to do a firmware and hard reset and i have had some issues with All my Mini units ( 6x8 as well) with them not saving Eq or having Eq on even when it turned it off...which is highly annoying. 



Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR

naiku said:


> IMO the Helix can absolutely sound as good, you just have to be prepared to spend a lot of time to get there.


I banged out a tune at finals on a friends helix in 45 minutes that placed 3rd in his class... 

Tuned my car tonight in 15 minutes flat, and i'd be confident to compete with it right now. The auto eq feature in the helix software is to a T spot on with REW and takes minutes to do a full Left/Right EQ tune


----------



## SkizeR

Truthunter said:


> IDK, there is the sharpening of the impulse response Dirac Live does which, AFAIK, no other 12v product except maybe the APL units can do.


what is sharpening of the impulse response?


----------



## tonynca

Haha I'm sure you know what he meant Nick. Sharper transients. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

SkizeR said:


> what is sharpening of the impulse response?


In a perfect world it is the Dirac delta function... named after Paul Dirac.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function


----------



## SkizeR

tonynca said:


> Haha I'm sure you know what he meant Nick. Sharper transients.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I really didnt. Trying to understand what it does a bit better and thought that may have been a coined term

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

SkizeR said:


> No I really didnt. Trying to understand what it does a bit better and thought that may have been a coined term


No they just used a known concept and applied it.


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Basically... The FIR filter corrects both REW and phase.
> 
> I don't think that the gating would work... the reflections are just too close in time.



If you have a piece of paper 3 feet long , and there’s a line drawn extending from foot 2 to foot 3 of the paper. You than take a pair of scissors and cut off the first foot of paper. How much of the line is left? And how much of the line did you cut off? (Rhetorical) 


How does a FIR filter correct a RTA program? 


Rhetoric aside, I’ll try n dig up some reading material for ya ;-)


----------



## Truthunter

SkizeR said:


> No I really didnt. Trying to understand what it does a bit better and thought that may have been a coined term


Not sure if you've visited their website to investigate but this is from Dirac's website:


----------



## Truthunter

And here are some before/after decay spectrographs from the gearslutz forum:


Before Dirac:











After Dirac:


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> It was Oab's spaceship comment that convinced me to buy it.
> 
> It also helps to be a single childless guy with *whispers* disposable income.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Yeah who doesn’t like the thought of a mystical flying machine that can telepathically communicate with your brain. The intimate audio experience is sound being beamed Directly into your brain with no speakers. 

The 8x12DL comes to mind when I think of such phenomenon. So it’s fitting 
:laugh:


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> If you have a piece of paper 3 feet long , and there’s a line drawn extending from foot 2 to foot 3 of the paper. You than take a pair of scissors and cut off the first foot of paper. How much of the line is left? And how much of the line did you cut off? (Rhetorical)
> 
> 
> How does a FIR filter correct a RTA program?
> 
> 
> Rhetoric aside, I’ll try n dig up some reading material for ya ;-)


Thanks!


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Thanks!


https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easure-phase-properly-at-home-using-rew.7273/


Here’s one that move gets the idea 
I skimmed a little through it, looks fairly decent


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easure-phase-properly-at-home-using-rew.7273/
> 
> 
> Here’s one that move gets the idea
> I skimmed a little through it, looks fairly decent


Thanks!

If the sound is bouncing around the room, then the gating for sample-set(N) will still pick up reflections from an earlier sample-set (N-1, or N-2...)
I think?

There is some chin scratching...

An autocorrelation should show a comb if the reflections are high.
Then the inverse of that comb could be used to remove them if the mic was fixed.
Obviously it seems like a problem with a moving mic as well as frequency geting shifted around.
[/STROKESBEARD]


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Thanks!
> 
> If the sound is bouncing around the room, then the gating for sample-set(N) will still pick up reflections from an earlier sample-set (N-1, or N-2...)
> I think?
> 
> There is some chin scratching...
> 
> An autocorrelation should show a comb if the reflections are high.
> Then the inverse of that comb could be used to remove them if the mic was fixed.
> Obviously it seems like a problem with a moving mic as well as frequency geting shifted around.
> [/STROKESBEARD]


So yes and no.... so a FDW is only valuable at frequencies worth using it on. Even close mic measurements are only good up so high as the speaker shape will interfere..etc 

In the midrange and lower ish (arguably where we want the best phase response) a FDW works in the regards as a comparison. Adding FDW isn’t going to show us a whole lot unless we have something to compare it against. You compare it to the un-gated responce to see the differences. Those differences will suggest what is or is not behaving in a minimum phase manner. You have to think of it like the line analogy I gave 

1. The closes distance to you and the sound is the direct path. 

So if you cut off the time span you will begin to see what’s happening. It’s showing more of the direct sound vs reflected sound. 

If your FDW cuts off 75% (let’s just say for argument) of the reflections you can see comparing it to the ungated version what is doing what. You can make a good correction based off those comparisons. Than you add the envelopment time and GD and Extract the minimum phase and remove all excess phase 
You can really nail down what is happening. 

Of course a close mic measurement will be faster and take far less mathematical formulae. However the algorithm Dirac seems to be using I don’t think gets “that” far into it. If you can correct the big issues and get all the phase within even 22.5 degrees your ears are going to love it. You can’t hear small tiny changes.

The “sound” will bounce around no matter what. That is always going to happen. A filter can’t stop a reflection. It will always be there. When it comes to what sounds better , pulling the phase back so that reflections that hang around too long are now at least *more in time * with the rest of the spectrum, it can lend to better overall sound quality. How that reflection is addressed is where a lot of debate is. This is the brilliance of Dirac live and how it address different reflections. It doesn’t try to fix everything. It’s goal is to have the transfer functions on left and right match. It may leave the reflection it may not. Whatever promotes a symmetry I think is what it’s main goal is. 

But originally I said, more than likely it uses FDW as a part of its information gathering to give us a correction filter as it’s not having us do any close mic measurements. Some type of FDW would have to be employed to come to any conclusion about the room given its measurement taking process. I would also assume it uses many more tools to come to any conclusion. 

When I was saying about the line and paper , the answer is all the line is left and none of the line was cut off. Using a FDW work basically the same way, if there’s some artifact of a previous cycle reflection in that it’s anplit would be much smaller and maybe not affect it very much. It depends of the windowing you apply. It’s a bunch a math and you can get a FDW that works well for target frequency and distance from direct sound. You can get tho a pretty dang good idea what is happening in the room using a FDW. Good enough to make a sober correction that is meaningful




Edit: and no one is moving the mic . It should be stationary at each measurement point. 

I was speaking of the average responce of all the measurements matching the peaks and dips of a moving mic pink noise average with plain old rta.
Again comparing . Compare your DL avg response with a manual moving mic pink noise average and see if dips and peaks in same general spot. 
Find the mic positions that reflect the same peaks and dips in the averages to match. Than the calibration will have a more better tonality, and better overall FR. Better meaning more accurate.


----------



## JamesRC

Hi guys. We just finished a move, so I haven't installed or setup my new unit yet. I'm hoping to do it next weekend. Before I do, I wanted to ask a preliminary question about the equipment setup. 

Do I need to have an audio out from my Macbook in order to play test tones from Dirac? It sounds like Dirac plays it's own test towns in order to set itself up. Hooking up a USB mic is no problem. If I have to also set up an audio out... how are you going about doing it? Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if my Sony head unit has a line in.


----------



## Jscoyne2

JamesRC said:


> Hi guys. We just finished a move, so I haven't installed or setup my new unit yet. I'm hoping to do it next weekend. Before I do, I wanted to ask a preliminary question about the equipment setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to have an audio out from my Macbook in order to play test tones from Dirac? It sounds like Dirac plays it's own test towns in order to set itself up. Hooking up a USB mic is no problem. If I have to also set up an audio out... how are you going about doing it? Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure if my Sony head unit has a line in.


The Dirac bix sends its own signal out. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## JamesRC

Jscoyne2 said:


> The Dirac bix sends its own signal out.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Excellent. Thank you! That takes a surprising amount of stress off, LOL.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Any word on 2.0?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## datooff

Just got my Minidsp 8x12. Purchased Dirac. Will be installing.
It will be playing from the new Fiio M11 via coax.


----------



## Truthunter

Jscoyne2 said:


> Any word on 2.0?


Patiently waiting for this too.... Would be a nice Christmas present from Mini


----------



## Jscoyne2

datooff said:


> Just got my Minidsp 8x12. Purchased Dirac. Will be installing.
> 
> It will be playing from the new Fiio M11 via coax.


You're gonna be stoked

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## hella356

Jscoyne2 said:


> Any word on 2.0?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


 My unit should arrive Friday, curious about this, as well.


----------



## zacjones99

datooff said:


> Just got my Minidsp 8x12. Purchased Dirac. Will be installing.
> It will be playing from the new Fiio M11 via coax.


I'm going with the same setup!


----------



## JamesRC

Update on running the Dirac plug-in on Mac: it crashes. 

I have a support ticket in and will update you guys. My wife let me use her Windows work laptop tonight, but now we're back to asking her if I can use it any time I want to try something. The DSP also erased itself when I connected to her laptop after originally configuring it on my Mac. It doesn't take long to configure, but that was a little disappointing. 

I did my sweeps with the chair setting, sub off, and time-alignment off (I didn't remember the time-alignment settings since they'd been erased). The image is really good! I wonder if it's even worth setting time-alignment individually for each driver? 

Also did full-range sweeps. Aside from muting the subs, I did the sweep with the mid-bass, mid, and tweet all playing together.


----------



## jtrosky

Personally, I would just buy a cheap Chinese $200 touch-screen 2-in-1 Windows 10 device and just use it for tuning. Even though I have faster Windows laptops with bigger screens, I love the portability of an 11.6" Chuwi 2-in-1 Windows 10 device that I had sitting around. I use it for REW and will use it for my Helix DSP.3 after I get it installed. I also used it for HPTuners on my other car. For the price, it's a nice-to-have - especially if you don't have any other Windows 10 devices. 

I'm not sure what Chuwi is still making (I bought mine a few years ago), but for the price, they are very nice devices. Definitely not speed demons, but they have an all aluminum case, detachable keyboard, etc.... I have a few different versions Chuwi Hi10 Pro, Chuwi Hi10 Plus, Chuwi Hi12, Onda Obook 11 Plus, etc (I have quite a few as it was kind of a hobby of mine). Even something like an Asus T100TA - you can get them used on Ebay for like $75.... It's all plastic, but it'll probably do the job (I'm not sure how resource intensive the Dirac Live software is).


----------



## datooff

jtrosky said:


> Personally, I would just buy a cheap Chinese $200 touch-screen 2-in-1 Windows 10 device and just use it for tuning. Even though I have faster Windows laptops with bigger screens, I love the portability of an 11.6" Chuwi 2-in-1 Windows 10 device that I had sitting around. I use it for REW and will use it for my Helix DSP.3 after I get it installed. I also used it for HPTuners on my other car. For the price, it's a nice-to-have - especially if you don't have any other Windows 10 devices.
> 
> I'm not sure what Chuwi is still making (I bought mine a few years ago), but for the price, they are very nice devices. Definitely not speed demons, but they have an all aluminum case, detachable keyboard, etc.... I have a few different versions Chuwi Hi10 Pro, Chuwi Hi10 Plus, Chuwi Hi12, Onda Obook 11 Plus, etc (I have quite a few as it was kind of a hobby of mine). Even something like an Asus T100TA - you can get them used on Ebay for like $75.... It's all plastic, but it'll probably do the job (I'm not sure how resource intensive the Dirac Live software is).


Why did you give me this idea? WHY?


----------



## subterFUSE

This is just a post to explain for everybody how the config saving works on the miniDSP 8x12DL.


When you save a config to your computer from the Plugin, it creates a file which contains all of the Plugin settings from the current Config slot which you are in. So, if you are on Config 1, then you will get all of the Bass Management, Dirac Inputs, Mixer Routing, Gains, Delays, Polarities, PEQ and Xover settings for Config slot 1.

At the same time, your computer gets "registered" with the 8x12DL box so that the next time you connect that same computer to the 8x12 it will be recognized.

When you connect the same computer to the 8x12, open the Plugin and click on Connect, the 8x12 will recognize your computer and open the Config without needing to Synchronize or Restore.



If, however, you decide to use a different computer to connect next time, the 8x12 box will not recognize it and you MUST Sync or Restore the config file or else the DSP will wipe itself to factory defaults.

Therefore, if you want to use multiple computers with your miniDSP 8x12, you will need to make sure that your saved config files are available to both computers. I personally do this by saving my config files in Dropbox which is shared between all of my computers.

Here is the procedure for opening the Plugin with a new computer so that you do not erase your DSP:


1. Make sure you have saved your DSP Config file using the computer that tuned it.

2. Close the plugin and disconnect the computer.

3. On the new computer, connect the USB, open the plugin but DO NOT click on Connect yet.

4. In the plugin, load the Config file from the saved file. Once the config is loaded you can press the Connect button.

5. When the window prompt appears, click on Synchronize config. This will push the config from your Plugin to the DSP.




I know this process is stupid and annoying, but this is just how the miniDSP works. I already wrote a tech support ticket to them and told them this is not how a DSP should work. The DSP memory should stay the same regardless of which computer connects to it, and the config should push to the computer when we click on Connect. Tech support replied that this was not possible with the 8x12 because of "too much data." I frankly think this is a BS answer, but it's what they said.


I also recommend that people keep a saved file of the Dirac config in a folder with their Plugin config file. This is what I do:


I will make a folder named "Config 1"

Inside that folder I will save the Plugin config file, and also save the Dirac file after I have clicked the Optimize button.

By doing this, I know that I can always have my Plugin and Dirac configs together in a safe place in case they need to be restored.


----------



## bertholomey

Thanks brother! This was huge for me when you told me about it. Currently switching from the Mac to work with the Plugin, and then the ASUS for Dirac is now workable by using Dropbox and the process of structuring the folders as you suggested. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jtrosky

datooff said:


> Why did you give me this idea? WHY?


Because I *love* spending other people money! ;-) 

If you have issues finding a suitable device for the right amount of $$, let me know. Like I said, I have quite a few of them laying around and I'd be glad to let one go to another forum member for a great price. Most of the ones I have actually dual-boot Windows 10 and Android 5.1, which is kind of cool too. Unfortunately, Android is not upgradable, so they're stuck on Android 5.1, but it's still nice to have if you have some app that you need to use Android for instead of Windows. That way, you can have one device for everything....

The only "unknown" is if they are powerful enough to handle DiracLive. I've never used it, so I have no idea what kind of processing power it requires. While Windows 10 actually runs really well on these devices, they are slow compared to more expensive laptops.


----------



## oabeieo

So one important thing to say about how Dirac handles things as a new old discovery that I think I can speak to a little better.

So in a 2ch Dirac calibration we all know it will fix the impulse to better match the Dirac impulse.

I’ve been measuring some strange delays in my impulses that I know were not there with driver measurements. (I miss the old forum look this is already hard)

Basically the impulse has been stretched or smeared and time has been added to my midbass speakers the most and the phase is wrapping as if there’s delay in the measurement. A group delay that I couldn’t quite figure out till today I finally see what’s going on.

So on a impulse responce if the phase is wrapping out of the 180deg boundary’s and heading upwards of over 1000deg in some frequencies has had me wondering what has been the exact reason.

SO a two channel Dirac tune will add delay between left and right for all speakers on that channel. What if you had a stereo pair of tweetes in the center channel location right next to each other.

What would happen is it would only add like .03ms to the left channel and convolve the impulse and stretch the impulse to add delay as a constant group delay or an all pass and shape it just just right to add delay to the left and right so that the impulses matched for the 1st mic position. That way the left channel gets its 1.xxms delay but without raw delay. In fact , it changes the entirety of left and right so the shape matches. That’s the wierd part. It’s an equivalent to raw delay on the left side but it dosent behave as such.
(I did that exact experiment have two tweets in center and midbass on a 2ch Dirac) and this explains why after Dirac if you add delay to the left channel the stage moves right! The actual placement of phase angle could be whatever. Probably what takes the least processing and nets the most symmetry as far as an impulse.

So what does this mean. It means if it will stretch the impulse and add a group delay where needed or take time out of a measurement from unequal path lengths it can cause some unusual crossover alignment artifacts between left and right only because of unequal path lengths.

If the impulses match so what. It’s not that important. But for stage shaping it can be a bit of a problem if one side crossover region now has a completely different summing scheme. Not saying this is a problem for most speakers but for a mid to midrange or a horn to mid it could make the stage sound like one speaker is playing more than the other compared to the boundaries of the room.

It’s almost worth either using extremely high order crossovers so the spot where the stretching starts is right at the speaker that needs it and doesn’t carry over to the adjacent driver. Or use low order filters so the phase between the drivers phase is much more “fuzzy” and diffuse.

On the contrary because of this effect if you will and in a car cabin to maintain the stage symmetry it seems (at least to me) in the modal range (200-1k) there should be any time delay used on those drivers as the crossovers will reach up or down into the harmonics and if stretched out you would want them to have the same timing coming out.

What I mean by that is , for example the left mid and midbass if they have a pathway difference to the first measurement point to not try to do any “pre delays” so that the two speakers originate at the same time.
The will ensure that the low frequency harmonics stay in phase between the same side components. Again a tweeter crossed up above 2.5k where the wavelength is less than one cycle of the path length differences between the components it won’t make any difference. So a pre delay on a tweeter to the mid to the mic location will actually lessen the amount of all pass impulse stretching. Where a mid to midbass or to sub you do the opposite and don’t worry about doing any pre delays at all. It’s going to convolve it no matter what, might as well keep the LFE intact. It very much could make it a lot better......

In my experiments this has proved to keep better stage symmetry and keep low frequencie harmonics in phase across components.

Dirac will solve any timing differences in its all pass or convolution. So it’s better to know what it’s doing for your situation to help keep stage symmetry.

So awhile back I said something to the effect that a 12db crossover on mids and highs nets a better more open sounding ambient deep stage. I finally know why this seems to be a fact in my situation. It’s definitely worth exploring. Your situation could benefit (maybe not) but definitely worth exploring


----------



## Truthunter

> ...
> ...
> What I mean by that is , for example the left mid and midbass if they have a pathway difference to the first measurement point to not try to do any “pre delays” so that the two speakers originate at the same time.
> The will ensure that the low frequency harmonics stay in phase between the same side components. Again a tweeter crossed up above 2.5k where the wavelength is less than one cycle of the path length differences between the components it won’t make any difference. So a pre delay on a tweeter to the mid to the mic location will actually lessen the amount of all pass impulse stretching. Where a mid to midbass or to sub you do the opposite and don’t worry about doing any pre delays at all. It’s going to convolve it no matter what, might as well keep the LFE intact. It very much could make it a lot better......


Interesting. I will experiment with this. Thanks


----------



## banshee28

oabeieo said:


> What I mean by that is , for example the left mid and midbass if they have a pathway difference to the first measurement point to not try to do any “pre delays” so that the two speakers originate at the same time.
> The will ensure that the low frequency harmonics stay in phase between the same side components. Again a tweeter crossed up above 2.5k where the wavelength is less than one cycle of the path length differences between the components it won’t make any difference. So a pre delay on a tweeter to the mid to the mic location will actually lessen the amount of all pass impulse stretching. Where a mid to midbass or to sub you do the opposite and don’t worry about doing any pre delays at all. It’s going to convolve it no matter what, might as well keep the LFE intact. It very much could make it a lot better......
> 
> In my experiments this has proved to keep better stage symmetry and keep low frequencie harmonics in phase across components.
> 
> Dirac will solve any timing differences in its all pass or convolution. So it’s better to know what it’s doing for your situation to help keep stage symmetry.
> 
> So awhile back I said something to the effect that a 12db crossover on mids and highs nets a better more open sounding ambient deep stage. I finally know why this seems to be a fact in my situation. It’s definitely worth exploring. Your situation could benefit (maybe not) but definitely worth exploring


So if I am understanding this correctly, 2 things.

1) The pre-tune I recently did using Dirac to get TA mostly correct maybe is not the best route when using Dirac for a 2-Ch tune? Perhaps we should leave TA alone and let Dirac deal with it?
2) I usually use 24db slopes to try to help with any phase issues. Are you suggesting 12db slopes if Dirac is going to "clean things up" with the final tune?


----------



## oabeieo

banshee28 said:


> So if I am understanding this correctly, 2 things.
> 
> 1) The pre-tune I recently did using Dirac to get TA mostly correct maybe is not the best route when using Dirac for a 2-Ch tune? Perhaps we should leave TA alone and let Dirac deal with it?
> 2) I usually use 24db slopes to try to help with any phase issues. Are you suggesting 12db slopes if Dirac is going to "clean things up" with the final tune?



Yeah sorta 

I think I’m mostly implying try it both ways
Try it a few different ways , see what sounds more correct. 

It’s looking at the sum no matter what in a 2ch tune, if your pre tune sets things up to where the after causes any cancellations in the crossovers especially. 

If your pre tune has the minimum phase regions only with pre eq that should’ve fine 
The problem with that is how many comb notches there are in the mid and highs makes that somewhat difficult without smoothing and or the use of high Q eq.

At that point it’s not even worth it and it needs to be made invertible at least in wider sections that left and right are both doing the same thing. 

So with that in mind, and the fact that Dirac will do what it wants to do to get a end result no matter how it gets there: so to blindly just eq the amplitude or set delays the way you want it may or may not be counterproductive and cause more processes for Dirac to achieve its end game. 
So I am of the mind , let it do it. But definitely try it a few different ways and see if one has better ambiance and clarity or better staging. I definitely wouldn’t spend any considerable amount of time doing any pre tuning. Maybe set some pre delays only if needed because the end result isn’t as good. Let Dirac see the room and the speakers the way they actually are. That is something I would do first and than try other pre setups and try to beat that. 

I usually look for 3 big criteria 

Stage placement is number 1 (not necessary just center placement that might be remedied usually post Dirac (depends). but actual placement across the stage and depth and symmetry between LandR) 

Than ambiance. 
Is it transient and have a good sense of space. 


Than problems in the crossovers , listen for a crossover to be fighting another channel up/down starting with the midrange


----------



## DavidRam

My Helix is for sale. I will soon be joining the DL crowd...


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Maybe set some pre delays only if needed because the end result isn’t as good. Let Dirac see the room and the speakers the way they actually are. That is something I would do first and than try other pre setups and try to beat that.


Pre-delay (having Dirac give me the delays) is about all I do as far as a "pre-tune" goes and so far that seems to have given me the best results. I have tried with doing nothing before Dirac, doing some EQ before Dirac and now just pre-delay. With doing nothing or pre-eq the stage for me would seem just not quite right. Typically it would be that the left side seemed to be, for lack of a better word, compressed or missing something, with pre-delay it seems to be much more open on the left than without. 

It's certainly been good enough that I have not touched it in months now. 




DavidRam said:


> My Helix is for sale. I will soon be joining the DL crowd...


Another Helix user making the change.... coming from a Helix, I personally prefer the layout and some of the features of the Helix software, but those I mostly noticed when manually tuning using the 8x12, since upgrading the firmware to Dirac those features are pretty much negated.


----------



## banshee28

I still have my Helix P Six and love it! However, I think it would be "end-game" if someone came out with an all-in-one DSP/AMP/Dirac unit! Something like the P Six WITH Dirac, or MiniDSP 8x12 with an amp! I would then be ready to upgrade my setup to this, as I am sure many others would also. I am sure in time these will come out. I will be ready to buy once they are!


----------



## oabeieo

If it can do the delays between same side drivers as part of the convolution, it makes sense to let it do it as such in the low frequency.

To better articulate

Let’s say your using a LR4 and you have a PLD of .2ms between the midrange and midbass , and a 1ms between the midbass and sub for the left channel

For the right channel let’s say the mid to midrange is .1ms and .8ms to the sub

So .2ms can be easily made up in convolution, so can .8

If the lr4 in the stopband can affect the phase of the lower driver into its inband by adding a delay would disrupt the two drivers
From coupling at the lower frequency.

It might be a PLD to one spot in space but the two drivers would be out of phase with each other as far as wavelengths go. The added delay in the stop band could be viewed as an excess phase, which in turn might try to be corrected for as a sum thus throwing the crossovers out of phase

Here’s a good analogy

If you have two subs in a box and there 20” apart from each other and you add delay to one of them , it’s almost certain they will fight each other. You wouldn’t try to delay subs to a single location, the wavelength is too long and adding delay would move one too far out of phase and cause a group delay that is destructive.

So the same thing going on between mids midbass and subs in the stop bands and the sum of the phase between them.

If Dirac corrects the sum , it can move the timing as well on same side drivers , if you leave them all at the same timing (except a tweeter perhaps) it’s more likely to have better overall phase


If any cone from any speaker is vibrating even the tiniest amount in the lowest area of its crossover stop band , it will greatly affect the ajacent band. By Haas depending on its timing/phase it may reinforce or cancel or take over the imaging cues if it’s ahead of the other driver of its first. So ideally , having the same timing avoids any strange behaviors.


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Pre-delay (having Dirac give me the delays) is about all I do as far as a "pre-tune" goes and so far that seems to have given me the best results. I have tried with doing nothing before Dirac, doing some EQ before Dirac and now just pre-delay. With doing nothing or pre-eq the stage for me would seem just not quite right. Typically it would be that the left side seemed to be, for lack of a better word, compressed or missing something, with pre-delay it seems to be much more open on the left than without.
> 
> It's certainly been good enough that I have not touched it in months now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Helix user making the change.... coming from a Helix, I personally prefer the layout and some of the features of the Helix software, but those I mostly noticed when manually tuning using the 8x12, since upgrading the firmware to Dirac those features are pretty much negated.



What’s up buddy! 

Yeah if the delays Dirac suggests is a excellent proven good way....although not always necessary. Again. Do what works! Yes definitely 


For anyone that wants to wrap there brain around what I’m saying. Think of this 

Go take a close mic measurement and look at phase , now add 13.5” (1ms) and remeasure. The phase will have a constant delay and wrap. 

So Dirac can simply do “wraps” at targeted frequencies with a shape that matches the rolloff of each speaker and there actual distance to compliment each other perfectly. Adding the delay appropriately and not changing crossover interactions. 

Phase is angular and so is path lengths. 
A path length difference of 1ms is 180deg at 1k or 90deg at 500 or 22.5deg at 125hz or 11.25deg at 63hz or 5.125deg at 31.

All it has to do is shape the phase at a very minor amount and shape it into the next driver in a multi-way. 

With a 23ms window I don’t think a .5ms PLd is going to use up much fir , and it’s going to be dealing with other groups of delay simultaneously.


----------



## banshee28

oabeieo said:


> What’s up buddy!
> 
> Yeah if the delays Dirac suggests is a excellent proven good way....although not always necessary. Again. Do what works! Yes definitely
> 
> 
> For anyone that wants to wrap there brain around what I’m saying. Think of this
> 
> Go take a close mic measurement and look at phase , now add 13.5” (1ms) and remeasure. The phase will have a constant delay and wrap.
> 
> So Dirac can simply do “wraps” at targeted frequencies with a shape that matches the rolloff of each speaker and there actual distance to compliment each other perfectly. Adding the delay appropriately and not changing crossover interactions.
> 
> Phase is angular and so is path lengths.
> A path length difference of 1ms is 180deg at 1k or 90deg at 500 or 22.5deg at 125hz or 11.25deg at 63hz or 5.125deg at 31.
> 
> All it has to do is shape the phase at a very minor amount and shape it into the next driver in a multi-way.
> 
> With a 23ms window I don’t think a .5ms PLd is going to use up much fir , and it’s going to be dealing with other groups of delay simultaneously.


When I get time, here is what I would like to A/B test compared to my current pre-tune of "Dirac TA" configuration:

24db XO tweeter TA only
24db XO no TA
12db XO tweeter TA only
12db XO no TA

If anyone thinks this is a good idea and can test as well, please reply back and let us know how it worked. I will do the same once I can test.


----------



## oabeieo

banshee28 said:


> When I get time, here is what I would like to A/B test compared to my current pre-tune of "Dirac TA" configuration:
> 
> 24db XO tweeter TA only
> 24db XO no TA
> 12db XO tweeter TA only
> 12db XO no TA
> 
> If anyone thinks this is a good idea and can test as well, please reply back and let us know how it worked. I will do the same once I can test.



Love it.....

And the listen. As soon as you turn it on you can’t immediately say it’s better or worce based only how strong the center is. 
(I did that for a long time before ever giving it a chance to find the best parts of Dirac)

Some tracks may have a perfect center and some may be a little diffu’se , listen for overall ambiance, spectral balance, center , stage depth, placement, and system linearity. 

I would throw a 48db test in there also at least between mids and tweets and mids and midbass, especially if tweets close to the mid) 
I love it ! I’m very curious what anyone down for the test thinks. And the test should have 1,2days listening time and a first impression critique. 

Again, this might not be the best test for the guy/gal that really only wants a defined center that’s boundry is inside the car. The soundfield may or may not be like that, I think that depends a lot on your locations and speaker size and dispersion characteristics etc..... may be surprised none the less


----------



## K-pop sucks

I'll have to implement Dirac into my car One of these days. It works wonders in my listening room at home.


----------



## viking1

I hope too many people don’t mind if I ask a quick noob question: Does anyone what the most elegant way to integrate this unit into a BMW M240i system would be?

Under ordinary circumstances I’d get a Helix UP7 amplifier that is plug and play and integrates 5 channels for center and RLFR + 2 sub channels along with an 8 channel DSP.

That would be the most elegant. But then I wouldn’t have Dirac, and I need Dirac after experiencing it at home. Any advice on what the most elegant way to get Dirac on 5 channels + 2 subs in a BMW system would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Im curious if turning off XOs for the first measurement would be a good idea. Less phase anomalies from crossovers when it's looking for timing ques. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama

Picked up one of these 8x12 DL units for Christmas. It is replacing an aging Zapco Z8. Looking forward to seeing what it can do. I did to the individual speaker measurements to get the TA numbers and I did it a couple of times to see how consistent the number are. I also fiddled a bit with the mic input sensitivity and it seems that that calibration is very important. Following the recommendation in the Dirac app to calibrate the input to be slightly below -24dB seems to yield best results, meaning, the numbers looks close to what I had arrived at using HOLMImpulse when doing it by hand. Just wanted to mention that.

Also, the Dirac app on OSX Mojave does not work. First, it does not request microphone access which prevents you from calibrating the input gain on the mic. MiniDSP needs to update the app to make the API call to request the access from the user (OSX security feature). I got around that issue by starting the app from CLI which triggers an access request from Terminal app which wraps the Dirac app. But, once you start running the sweeps, the app crashes. So, Dirac app is a no-go on OSX Mojave right now. I reported this on MiniDSP forum. I will probably just get a USB adapter for my surface tablet and use that for calibration.

FYI, using the TOSLINK input with Clarion HU using 96kHz sampling rate. The clarity from high-res FLAC files on this setup is kind of blowing my mind. Can't wait to hear it once I have a tune working.


----------



## bertholomey

Ziggyrama said:


> Picked up one of these 8x12 DL units for Christmas. It is replacing an aging Zapco Z8. Looking forward to seeing what it can do. I did to the individual speaker measurements to get the TA numbers and I did it a couple of times to see how consistent the number are. I also fiddled a bit with the mic input sensitivity and it seems that that calibration is very important. Following the recommendation in the Dirac app to calibrate the input to be slightly below -24dB seems to yield best results, meaning, the numbers looks close to what I had arrived at using HOLMImpulse when doing it by hand. Just wanted to mention that.
> 
> Also, the Dirac app on OSX Mojave does not work. First, it does not request microphone access which prevents you from calibrating the input gain on the mic. MiniDSP needs to update the app to make the API call to request the access from the user (OSX security feature). I got around that issue by starting the app from CLI which triggers an access request from Terminal app which wraps the Dirac app. But, once you start running the sweeps, the app crashes. So, Dirac app is a no-go on OSX Mojave right now. I reported this on MiniDSP forum. I will probably just get a USB adapter for my surface tablet and use that for calibration.
> 
> FYI, using the TOSLINK input with Clarion HU using 96kHz sampling rate. The clarity from high-res FLAC files on this setup is kind of blowing my mind. Can't wait to hear it once I have a tune working.


Glad to have you here and on the MiniDSP forum Ziggy! Thanks for your input!


----------



## Ziggyrama

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im curious if turning off XOs for the first measurement would be a good idea. Less phase anomalies from crossovers when it's looking for timing ques.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


You can try it but curious how you're going to protect your tweeters from playing super low frequencies? Also, I imagine you'd get all sorts of gain from drivers that would be getting frequencies that they usually don't play. Your sub would still be playing above 200hz and your mids would be bleeding into tweeter territory. I suppose you could EQ each driver to cut them but my understanding is that you actually want the xovers in play to have Dirac correct phase in those areas.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Got a first pass at the tune done and it is already sounding better than what I did before by hand with my Zapco. The imaging is so precise, it's exceeding my expectations. This is what it looks like right now. I don't care much for that 26Hz dip. Not much is going on that low in the genres that I listen to. Any idea on that 60Hz 4dB dip?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ziggyrama said:


> You can try it but curious how you're going to protect your tweeters from playing super low frequencies? Also, I imagine you'd get all sorts of gain from drivers that would be getting frequencies that they usually don't play. Your sub would still be playing above 200hz and your mids would be bleeding into tweeter territory. I suppose you could EQ each driver to cut them but my understanding is that you actually want the xovers in play to have Dirac correct phase in those areas.


Well yes you would put a hpf on the tweeter. I feel like i remember that hogh frequencies are easier to get time alignment info from. The MInidsp does one driver sweep at a time so you wouldn't have conflicting sonic information between drivers. 

And im only talking about the very first Center measurement that it asks for. Id have the Plugin up and re-enable everything for the rest of the measurements.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ziggyrama said:


> Got a first pass at the tune done and it is already sounding better than what I did before by hand with my Zapco. The imaging is so precise, it's exceeding my expectations. This is what it looks like right now. I don't care much for that 26Hz dip. Not much is going on that low in the genres that I listen to. Any idea on that 60Hz 4dB dip?
> View attachment 259781


Whats the before look like? Looks like comb filtering between midbass sub maybe. It won't fix more than 10 db.

Do it with just the midbass mid tweet on. See if the dips are there.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama

Good idea. I recall I had to cut the mid bass a lot in the lower frequencies due to major gain so it is likely some of that could be interacting with a sub. I will measure without the sub and see what happens. Thanks!

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## itlnstln

Hi, I just picked up one of these units and I'm excited to get it installed this weekend. I really wish this were available about a year ago when I installed all this; I was looking for this exact solution. I have a simple; and by no stretch of the imagination, a competition; setup:

Front: Pioneer Z Components (passive XO)
Rear: Pioneer Z Coax (rear fill)
Sub: custom Dayton 10"
H/U: Stock Toyota Prius (I know, I know)
DSP/Amp: JL FiX86 to JL VX700/5i

Note: I run the fronts, rears, and sub from the amp

I plan on putting the C-DSP either between the FiX86 and the amp or simply replacing the FiX86, and in both scenarios, defeating the DSP on the VX700/5i. The conundrum I have is that the manual doesn't seem to make clear is how to address the front and rear channels for what I'd like to do. I'd like to keep the rear fill and tune it with the front (and also keep the fader function on the H/U), but I know they're not truly discrete channels. What would be a good approach to handling this when tuning using DL (I'm also only interested in tuning for the driver's seat, just for reference)? I'm thinking I would have to tune the fronts and rears separately by using the fader to isolate each and later handling bass management either in the C-DSP or in the VX700/5i. Does it seem like I'm on the right path in my thinking? TIA


----------



## Lee.moore

Have you tried this on the passive crossover set up yet ? I would like to know how that turns out.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Lee.moore said:


> Have you tried this on the passive crossover set up yet ? I would like to know how that turns out.


Would work with passives just fine.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## itlnstln

Lee.moore said:


> Have you tried this on the passive crossover set up yet ? I would like to know how that turns out.


I’ll be tuning later today; I’ll let you know how it goes.

Also, on my question of how to tune the fronts and rears, I’m a dolt and forgot the unit generates the sweeps so it’s a non issue. For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that the test tones would be coming from the head unit.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Let us know how it goes. I gave up on rear fill because I could not do L-R with what I had. C-DSP provides this capability now so I will likely be attempting rear fill at some point. Make sure to take measurements with you in the car, except for the very first one.


----------



## Lee.moore

itlnstln said:


> I’ll be tuning later today; I’ll let you know how it goes.
> 
> Also, on my question of how to tune the fronts and rears, I’m a dolt and forgot the unit generates the sweeps so it’s a non issue. For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that the test tones would be coming from the head unit.


Cool thank you!


----------



## itlnstln

Ziggyrama said:


> Let us know how it goes. I gave up on rear fill because I could not do L-R with what I had. C-DSP provides this capability now so I will likely be attempting rear fill at some point. Make sure to take measurements with you in the car, except for the very first one.


Good to know. I didn’t think about being in the car during the tuning.

Are there any recommendations on level-setting between the CDSP and the amp? I didn’t see anything in the user’s manual. I figure it should be pretty straightforward.


----------



## itlnstln

Got shutdown by Mac (Catalina) incompatibilities (saw your posts on the MiniDSP boards, Ziggyrama). I got the mic to work, but the app kept crashing. Took me a little while to fumble through the MiniDSP plugin to get everything setup, but once I figured it out it was fine. I decided to take out the JL FiX 86 for now due to space and complexity (that, and the H/U is pretty flat, anyway). I played with the C-DSP to get my outputs, XOs, etc. somewhat nailed down and reloaded a modified version of my tune profile on the amp. I'm pretty close to where I was with the old setup, but I'm bummed I couldn't get it tuned properly today. Hopefully, MiniDSP figures out the Mac issues soon.


----------



## Ziggyrama

From what MiniDSP said, Mac support will not be fixed on the current version with Dirac 1.x due to Dirac EOLing Dirac 1.x. MiniDSP cannot rebuild their side on new OSX because of this. There is a silver lining to this. They are working on integrating Dirac 2.0 which is supposedly significantly better than 1.x and it sounds like we will see the update on C-DSP for this which is pretty exciting. That is when they will fix OSX issues. For now, we just have to sit tight and wait for 2.0 drop.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Ziggyrama said:


> I gave up on rear fill because I could not do L-R with what I had. C-DSP provides this capability now so I will likely be attempting rear fill at some point.


Couple of rear fill tips from my experience with it.... put the rear speakers as far back as you possibly can. I initially used stock rear door locations, the speakers essentially firing across the back of the front seats and down low. Doing that the effect of rear fill was minimal at best, eventually I tried relocating them further back (I have a wagon) and mounting rear speakers at the side of the trunk and higher up. In that new location the difference and effect were considerably improved, night and day difference between the 2 locations. That was also going from a pair of 6.5" coaxials to a pair of CDT-ES02, the location has a lot of impact on how rear fill will sound.

Second, don't be afraid to experiment with the levels, delay, EQ etc. for the rears. It took me a lot of trial and error to get them just right. 

I am hoping I can implement some rear fill in my new car, for now though just hoping to get the front speakers installed.


----------



## itlnstln

I fired up VirtualBox and created a Windows VM to do the tuning. Everything appears to be working, but I keep getting TIMEDISTCORRECTION_MAXCORR_PEAK_INDISTINCT errors. I'm doing a custom setup with 5 channels (FR, FL, RR, RL, Sub). I tried doing a simple Stereo tune as well, but got the same error. It seems to be related to mic/speaker position or something. I also saw a really old (2014) Emotiva thread where someone was having issues tuning with Dirac on a Mac via VirtualBox, and for them, the solution was to use VMWare (Boot Camp apparently works, too). I might give VMWare a shot; I'm really trying to avoid Boot Camp as I'm on a work laptop


----------



## itlnstln

VMware Fusion worked like a champ (it's WAY better than VirtualBox). I had no problems tuning this time around. I did a quick tune just using my mic stand (I'll tune with myself inside the car tomorrow, probably), and the results were pretty remarkable. The imaging was a little off to the right, but I'm sure that was because I was just using the mic stand instead of being in the car making sure the mic was exactly were it should have been. At any rate, using the default curve, the results were FAR beyond my REW tune I did about a year or so ago. I was able to use the presets on my amp to A/B the two. The fronts and rears blend great although I use the fader on the H/U to front-bias the sound. All-in-all, it was a great purchase.


----------



## itlnstln

I wanted to come back and post a few thoughts in reference to Erin's comment in the OP:



> I don’t have a passive system. I’d be curious to see how well DL works with a system using stock passive crossovers in the front stage, especially when the midrange and tweeter are separated by more than an inch or two.


My front stage are Pioneer Z Components using the passive crossover and the woofer and tweeter in the Prius stock locations (woofer in the door, tweeter in the dash by the windshield). Obviously, my setup is not optimal for imaging, and as such, it was very difficult to get a good image with DL (the EQ adjustments were great, though). The DL calculated delays kept pulling the image to the right of the driver's seat, and as best as I can figure, it's due to the woofers and tweeters being far apart. After dozens of tunes and banging my head against the wall, here is what worked for me in terms leveraging DL in "upgraded stock" system (4 speakers, stock locations):


Use a custom 3-speaker tune (L/R/LFE) assuming your rears are just fill. If you try to tune all four speakers, DL assumes you want them all at the same level and adjust delays and gains accordingly and the front stage results don't sound as good and you're either heavily using the fader or making adjustments "in post" in the C-DSP plugin. In my specific case, the stock Prius H/U has reduced output on the rears, so DL will try to compensate for that.
Pick a good "sweet spot," but be resigned to the fact that you will probably need to tweak delays and gains afterwards in the plugin
Do measurements 2-9 in the way that gives you the results you like, set your curve, optimize, and export
Go to the output tab in the plugin and adjust the delays and gains as necessary to align the image. For me, it meant adding delay and lowering the gain slightly on the FR speaker to bring the image back to in front of the driver's seat
Add delay to the rears as necessary to account for the front tune, any DL lag, and preserving the image


----------



## Ziggyrama

itlnstln said:


> I wanted to come back and post a few thoughts in reference to Erin's comment in the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> My front stage are Pioneer Z Components using the passive crossover and the woofer and tweeter in the Prius stock locations (woofer in the door, tweeter in the dash by the windshield). Obviously, my setup is not optimal for imaging, and as such, it was very difficult to get a good image with DL (the EQ adjustments were great, though). The DL calculated delays kept pulling the image to the right of the driver's seat, and as best as I can figure, it's due to the woofers and tweeters being far apart. After dozens of tunes and banging my head against the wall, here is what worked for me in terms leveraging DL in "upgraded stock" system (4 speakers, stock locations):
> 
> 
> Use a custom 3-speaker tune (L/R/LFE) assuming your rears are just fill. If you try to tune all four speakers, DL assumes you want them all at the same level and adjust delays and gains accordingly and the front stage results don't sound as good and you're either heavily using the fader or making adjustments "in post" in the C-DSP plugin. In my specific case, the stock Prius H/U has reduced output on the rears, so DL will try to compensate for that.
> Pick a good "sweet spot," but be resigned to the fact that you will probably need to tweak delays and gains afterwards in the plugin
> Do measurements 2-9 in the way that gives you the results you like, set your curve, optimize, and export
> Go to the output tab in the plugin and adjust the delays and gains as necessary to align the image. For me, it meant adding delay and lowering the gain slightly on the FR speaker to bring the image back to in front of the driver's seat
> Add delay to the rears as necessary to account for the front tune, any DL lag, and preserving the image


How are you setting up your levels for the mic and each channel in Dirac? I found that following the instructions on the right wrt the mic level is very important. Make sure the mic level is right below -29 and match each channel level to be in the center of the green zone or slightly to the right of it. That yielded best results for me and produced rock solid TA numbers. When I tried lower mic level, that really messed up TA and levels were off. 

My setup is 2way active, woofers in doors and tweeters in sail panels. Imaging is spot on despite them being far apart. My results sound very different than yours.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

itlnstln said:


> My front stage are Pioneer Z Components using the passive crossover and the woofer and tweeter in the Prius stock locations (woofer in the door, tweeter in the dash by the windshield). Obviously, my setup is not optimal for imaging, and as such, it was very difficult to get a good image with DL (the EQ adjustments were great, though). The DL calculated delays kept pulling the image to the right of the driver's seat, and as best as I can figure, it's due to the woofers and tweeters being far apart. After dozens of tunes and banging my head against the wall, here is what worked for me in terms leveraging DL in "upgraded stock" system (4 speakers, stock locations):


I replied to your post on the minidsp support forum also. Looks like your expectation of a center image location is directly in front of you.

The goal is to have the center stage image at the center of the stage - equally between the far left & right boundaries of the stage. This is usually right in the center of the dash. If the center image were in front of you (centered over the steering wheel) the left side of the stage would be compressed compared the right.


----------



## itlnstln

Ziggyrama said:


> How are you setting up your levels for the mic and each channel in Dirac? I found that following the instructions on the right wrt the mic level is very important. Make sure the mic level is right below -29 and match each channel level to be in the center of the green zone or slightly to the right of it. That yielded best results for me and produced rock solid TA numbers. When I tried lower mic level, that really messed up TA and levels were off.
> 
> My setup is 2way active, woofers in doors and tweeters in sail panels. Imaging is spot on despite them being far apart. My results sound very different than yours.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


It did it two different ways. The manual says to set it up the way you describe. In the app, the notes on the right say to adjust the Output Level at the top so the first speaker's level is in the middle of the green zone and only adjust down if one of the other speakers exceeds the green zone. For subwoofers, use the Channel Volume to bring it in line. Both methods yield the same result.

Also what Truthunter just mentioned that it's most likely my expectation that is off, not the software. I think my next task is to leave it alone and start readjusting my expectations 

The only thing that's still bugging me is that in my latest attempts, my sub has a 3ms delay. Not sure why, it's way back in the trunk


----------



## jonmartin

Sorry but I'm kind of a newb to Car audio but I have a 17' Tacoma with the following:

Pioneer NEX-4201 HU
Bit One HD
Voce 5.1K HD( Front Channels + Subs)
Hertz Mille Legend Tweeters 280.3 (Active)
Voce AV 6.5 Mids up front (Active)
Voce AV X65 (Rear fill)
2 - 12" Alpine SWR-T12
Old Fosgate T400-2 (rears only)

Since I've had this Its been OK at best the shop I bought the Audison gear from was clueless about the gear and shouldn't be selling it IMO but Long story I've done alot work to get my system to this point and I still think It can be better. So my question is how would I implement this Dirac DSP in my system properly? Would this take the place of the BitOne HD entirely or would it work inline somewhere?


----------



## naiku

It would take the place of your BitOne HD entirely, but, before you do that, where are you located? Maybe someone local can help get more out of your current set up without having to buy a new DSP.

I previously had a BitOne.1 there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get your system sounding great using the BitOne HD. It might just take some time and someone experienced to get there.


----------



## jonmartin

naiku said:


> It would take the place of your BitOne HD entirely, but, before you do that, where are you located? Maybe someone local can help get more out of your current set up without having to buy a new DSP.
> 
> I previously had a BitOne.1 there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get your system sounding great using the BitOne HD. It might just take some time and someone experienced to get there.


I'm in LA, I agree that the BitOneHD should be able to handle it but I haven't been able to really find anyone familiar with the product enough to trust they'll get it done right unfortunately. And since I don't have access to a BitTune I'm kind of just doing what I can by ear. At least this MiniDSP product seems more DIY and I'm familiar with Dirac from the Home AV stuff I work on.


----------



## naiku

Do you have REW and a USB microphone? Both of those will go a long way to improving your current tune. 

I'm surprised you're having a hard time finding someone knowledgeable to help given your location. Shame Simplicity in Sound are not closer to you.

The MiniDSP is an excellent unit, there's still a learning curve, but if you could sell the BitOne for a decent amount, then maybe swapping is worthwhile if there's no one around you.


----------



## itlnstln

I retuned this morning and got a rock solid image over the center of the dash. I got the best results when doing a 3-channel (L/R/Sub) tune and using the pop-filter on the UMIK. For some reason, when I would use the UMIK without the pop filter, I would get some odd results on gains and delays. I don't really think DL is really set up to do a front stage and rear fill as it EQs the levels between the front and rear and the imaging always seems off.

The last problem (?) I seem to have is that every time I run a tune, DL adds a 3 ms delay on the sub. It would seem that maybe it's compensating for the sub being out of phase or something. Would anybody have any ideas on why that would be?


----------



## subterFUSE

itlnstln said:


> The last problem (?) I seem to have is that every time I run a tune, DL adds a 3 ms delay on the sub. It would seem that maybe it's compensating for the sub being out of phase or something. Would anybody have any ideas on why that would be?


Yes it is correcting for phase. Subwoofers cannot be time aligned by measuring tape. It just doesn’t work once crossovers are involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## itlnstln

subterFUSE said:


> Yes it is correcting for phase. Subwoofers cannot be time aligned by measuring tape. It just doesn’t work once crossovers are involved.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks, subterFUSE. Is it something I should be concerned about? It sounds OK, maybe some of the lower bass pulls to the rear a little.


----------



## Truthunter

[


itlnstln said:


> ... and using the pop-filter on the UMIK. For some reason, when I would use the UMIK without the pop filter, I would get some odd results on gains and delays.


Pop-filter?


----------



## itlnstln

Truthunter said:


> [
> 
> Pop-filter?


Sorry, meant windscreen. The little foam cover


----------



## jonmartin

naiku said:


> Do you have REW and a USB microphone? Both of those will go a long way to improving your current tune.
> 
> I'm surprised you're having a hard time finding someone knowledgeable to help given your location. Shame Simplicity in Sound are not closer to you.
> 
> The MiniDSP is an excellent unit, there's still a learning curve, but if you could sell the BitOne for a decent amount, then maybe swapping is worthwhile if there's no one around you.



I don't have either but I'm reading about the Audiofrog and the mic kit and the one from Mini DSP I'll probably try one of those options as a last effort before selling the BitOne as I guess I didn't really understand that I can use one of those options for tuning, before I thought I was pretty much married to BitTune only given its an Audison DSP. Which Mic is best or does it matter?


----------



## Truthunter

jonmartin said:


> I don't have either but I'm reading about the Audiofrog and the mic kit and the one from Mini DSP I'll probably try one of those options as a last effort before selling the BitOne as I guess I didn't really understand that I can use one of those options for tuning, before I thought I was pretty much married to BitTune only given its an Audison DSP. Which Mic is best or does it matter?


Both mics perform the same function and just have a different physical geometry. The MiniDSP mic is a better value and will be required if you do decide to upgrade to the MiniDSP DL in the future.


----------



## jtrosky

I also use the MiniDSP UMIK-1 (with a Helix DSP) and it works great. You can use any MIC - you don't have to use the BitTune. I'm not very familiar with Audison DSP devices, but I'm sure they do the exact same things that every other DSP does - basically levels, EQ and time-alignment. With the UMIK-1 and Room EQ Wizard (aka REW), I'm sure you can get great results from the DSP that you already have. However, you WILL have to invest a significant amount of time into learning _how_ to tune. It's not something that you pick up overnight... It could take you months before you get to a point where you are happy with the tune.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Just to clarify, if you do go with MiniDSP Dirac, UMIK-1 will be required. Dirac only works with UMIK-1. So, UMIK-1 is a better choice from that standpoint.


----------



## itlnstln

I'm really struggling to integrate my sub with DL; it's not blending well and seems out of phase. I think where I'm struggling is what to do with my crossovers and when. I've used this guide in the past with REW: Time Alignment Part 5: Putting it all together. The upshot is I'm looking for basically a flat response with a boost starting about 100 Hz. Per the guide, I set the HP for 80 and LP for 60 and everything sounds great in the tune (sub bass in the front, good midbass, etc.).

I'm not getting that good transition with DL. I've tried leaving the auto target flat and just crossing everything over at 80 for simplicity, but that doesn't seem to work (plus there's not enough bass). I've tried modifying the target to what I want and crossing the sub at 60, and that sucks, too.

One thing I've noticed in DL is that the subwoofer response adheres to the LP XO frequency but the HP does not. The FR graph in DL shows flat response down to ~70 Hz and then it falls off a cliff where the subwoofer has a nice smooth drop off starting around 60 Hz (XO at 80 Hz). In my setup the XO is done at the inputs and fed to Dirac per the manual and I'm doing a 3-channel tune (F/R/Sub). Does anyone have any suggestions on what else I can try? I've re-read every page of this thread and some others, and I'm at a loss.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Post your target curve. Are you attempting asymmetrical crossovers?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

I still need to take some individual driver phase plots before and after Dirac to verify what’s going on.

My bet is that after Dirac runs we might benefit from redoing the sub delay manually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## itlnstln

Here's all my plots. Man, my memory is crappy. The L/R channels are flat(ish) down to 40 Hz and the sub plummets after 60 Hz. In this tune, both the L/R channels and the sub are crossed over at 80 Hz and I'm just doing Auto Target; no adjustments. I wonder if there's some bleed to the sub during the sweeps and it's hosing the sub delay and blending at the XO.

Here were my delays when measured by hand:
FL: 2.39 ms
FR: 1.36 ms
Sub: 0 ms

Dirac measured the relative delay between the right and left channel well, but the Sub seems way off (it's the farthest speaker from MLP, so there should be no delay). This would lead me to believe that it's doing something for phase, but it's making it worse. I might try a tune with the sub output inverted and see if that helps.

For reference, I'm only tuning the front 2 channels and the sub (Dirac 1, 2, and 5). I'm not worried about the rear channels for now


----------



## Ziggyrama

Few observations based on your post:

your delays seem very small unless the sub is sitting in your back seat. What is the car and where is the sub located? If you set your delays using tape measure, they are likely way off. You should align your drivers acoustically. For reference, I have a hatch STI where the sub is in the back of the trunk, about 8' behind me. I have to delay my front left woofer (in the bottom of the door) by 4.33ms. Originally, I aligned the drivers acoustically by hand when I had my Zapco DSP. Dirac came up with numbers that were very close to what I did by hand. I am pretty confident the values are accurate. If you haven't done this yet, align them acoustically. Odds are that will fix a lot of your issues.
once you get your TA right, I bet you will find that tuning your sub with your driver will yield best results.
your target curve for left and right channels suggests you expect them to play over your sub? Shouldn't they slope gradually towards your crossover point such that they sum correctly with your sub and not interfere with it?
I am willing to bet your target curve will not sound very good. Flat curve will sound very light on bass, but you can tweak that later.
Dirac can acoustically align your drivers if you assign each Dirac channel, take the measurements, dial in the TA numbers from Dirac tab in Output tab, then combine the sub with the drivers, remeasure and odds are your results will be much better.

Clear as mud??


----------



## Ziggyrama

For reference, this is my curve. Note the 6dB boost in the low frequencies. It sounds punchy but not boomy or bloated. I found that starts to happen around 8dB boost. I also cut substantially at the top as I am running Focal tweeters. They are super clean but tend to ring a bit more so they need more taming.


----------



## itlnstln

Ziggyrama said:


> your delays seem very small unless the sub is sitting in your back seat. What is the car and where is the sub located? If you set your delays using tape measure, they are likely way off. You should align your drivers acoustically. For reference, I have a hatch STI where the sub is in the back of the trunk, about 8' behind me. I have to delay my front left woofer (in the bottom of the door) by 4.33ms. Originally, I aligned the drivers acoustically by hand when I had my Zapco DSP. Dirac came up with numbers that were very close to what I did by hand. I am pretty confident the values are accurate. If you haven't done this yet, align them acoustically. Odds are that will fix a lot of your issues


I have a 2016 Prius and the sub is in the trunk about 64" away. You're exactly right on the TA. The values I listed from my hand measurement were a little off. From there, I tweaked them acoustically to get the right values and, to your point, I had to increase the delay a bit to align with the sub. Dirac is OK between the right and left driver but it's pulling the Sub delay out of its rear. Not sure why it chose to delay the sub and not the front stage



Ziggyrama said:


> your target curve for left and right channels suggests you expect them to play over your sub? Shouldn't they slope gradually towards your crossover point such that they sum correctly with your sub and not interfere with it?


I think this is my main question. Shouldn't me setting the XO in the plugin be reflected in the FR? It seems to be for the sub but not the mains. My assumption is that because I set the XO in the inputs, when Dirac does the sweep, it would reflect the HP slope in the results, that doesn't seem to be happening. Either my assumption is wrong (probably) or I have real crappy cabin gain issues screwing up my XO point (I doubt it; it was good before)



Ziggyrama said:


> I am willing to bet your target curve will not sound very good. Flat curve will sound very light on bass, but you can tweak that later.


Yeah, it sounds like ass. I was trying to get the basics down before I start playing with the targets. I'm planning on using the "JBL Andy" house curve from the Jazzi Tuning companion.

Quick question on using Jazzi's curves with Dirac. The XOs are built into the curves (I'm using the sub curve and a modified Midbass curve with the tweeters included). Would I need to run the speakers in full range in Dirac as to not double up on the crossover? I was playing with it in Dirac and figured that might be a problem


----------



## itlnstln

Just for S&Gs, I re-optimized the tune above to the JBL Andy curve, and the delays set by Dirac are a heck of a lot better. I'm thinking that overlap in the targets was causing an issue. The sub feels a little heavy but better integrated (not perfect, still need to play with the TA). Once I dial in the TA, I'll take proper measurement and re-optimize.


----------



## tonny

Ziggyrama said:


> For reference, this is my curve. Note the 6dB boost in the low frequencies. It sounds punchy but not boomy or bloated. I found that starts to happen around 8dB boost. I also cut substantially at the top as I am running Focal tweeters. They are super clean but tend to ring a bit more so they need more taming.
> View attachment 260384


Looks still that where the sub s dropping off around 60hz that there is a phase cancelation.... I think you need to cut the front off the same way as you do the sub so to get a good crossover. 

And get the low end response in one line ths kind off curve will not give the best results to my experience! Get a straigt line from 20 hz to about 200 hz dropping about 10db to start with, also the topend is very light so to see...


----------



## bertholomey

Regarding the highs, Ziggy did mention that he had tried a few different curve settings on the top end, and because of his metal dome tweeters, the attenuation on the top end of his curve worked best for him. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## itlnstln

I figured out what I was doing that was causing DL to produce bizarre delays. This was how my process went when adjusting to target:


Load/adjust target for fronts
Click "Optimize"
Load/adjust target for sub
Click "Optimize"
My guess is that it was optimizing for incomplete adjustment and simply f'ed it up. When I optimize with this process, I get great results


Load/adjust target for fronts
Load/adjust target for sub
Click "Optimize"


----------



## datooff

Guys, just installed my new c-dsp 8x12 and upgraded it to DL. 
Getting used to C-DSP software.

I connected fiio M11 via spdif to C-DSP, but not getting any signal on channels 7 and 8 (digital). 

Everything works when using one low level input.

The cable is neotech NEI-5001. 3.5-RCA.

What can be the problem? Thank you!


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Ziggyrama said:


> Just to clarify, if you do go with MiniDSP Dirac, UMIK-1 will be required. Dirac only works with UMIK-1. So, UMIK-1 is a better choice from that standpoint.


Not sure if its dependent on the Dirac Live version 1.0 vs 2.0. 

But on Dirac Live 2.0 on the DDRC-22, I am able to select and use my OmniMic v2 with its own calibration file.


----------



## Iamsecond

A bit off topic but is it possible to get the house curve you guys are using. I think the wisdom curve that’s in the minidsp. It looks intriguing or can someone replicate it to input the data in jazzi spread sheet.


----------



## Truthunter

Iamsecond said:


> A bit off topic but is it possible to get the house curve you guys are using. I think the wisdom curve that’s in the minidsp. It looks intriguing or can someone replicate it to input the data in jazzi spread sheet.


Talk about timing.... I literally just did this today to experiment with it. I flattened out the slight roll-offs below 40hz and above 10khz.

Enjoy!

20 4
25 4
31 4
40 4
50 4
63 3.7
80 3.6
100 3
125 2.5
160 1.9
200 1.4
250 1
315 0.8
400 0.6
500 0.5
630 0.4
800 0.2
1000 0
1200 -0.2
1600 -0.6
2000 -0.8
2500 -1
3100 -1.3
4000 -1.5
5000 -1.6
6300 -1.8
8000 -1.9
10000 -2
12000 -2.1
16000 -2.1
20000 -2.1


----------



## Iamsecond

And........


----------



## Truthunter

And... I attached the text file but then thought maybe some could not see it so I edited the post with the values


----------



## Iamsecond

oh sorry, I was wondering what happened with your experiment and how did it sound?


----------



## Truthunter

Iamsecond said:


> oh sorry, I was wondering what happened with your experiment and how did it sound?


Still in progress....

Though, at least 2 other people I know have tried it and liked it.

I believe the auto targets DLCT suggest on the filter design screen are based on this.... but that should be confirmed by someone else too.


----------



## Iamsecond

awesome, thanks. I want to get this dsp but looks like Im stuck with my cdsp 6X8 for a while. I like it but I wish it had dirac live. LOL.


----------



## oabeieo

itlnstln said:


> I retuned this morning and got a rock solid image over the center of the dash. I got the best results when doing a 3-channel (L/R/Sub) tune and using the pop-filter on the UMIK. For some reason, when I would use the UMIK without the pop filter, I would get some odd results on gains and delays. I don't really think DL is really set up to do a front stage and rear fill as it EQs the levels between the front and rear and the imaging always seems off.
> 
> The last problem (?) I seem to have is that every time I run a tune, DL adds a 3 ms delay on the sub. It would seem that maybe it's compensating for the sub being out of phase or something. Would anybody have any ideas on why that would be?



1st run seperate Dirac channels to rear speakers. 

So you should have 5 Dirac channels 

The rears post Dirac attenuate till the front imaging is correct. 

The fronts should be set and good to go


----------



## Fish Chris 2

I'd buy one if I could find someone to use it on my system for me...... and they would have to have a laptop, because I dont.


----------



## oabeieo

I’m back on DL for now 

Using the C and the 22D 

I read in a Dirac paper doing it this way was the best , and it is 

Use 8ch dL on a 4 way active than go over it again after the 8ch calibration with a 2ch calibration. Things like the tweeters get super defined and crossover regions work the way they should (especially LR2) for instance , an LR2 in a car almost never “sounds” like it needs a polarity flip on a driver right off the bat, the crossover and responce needs to be tuned and gained right for that to work right and sound like it’s in phase again. Using DL on 8ch and just run it, after run it flip the polarity than on the 2ch dL run it and the stage is excellent. 

Gang, LR4 behavior is slow and losses transient responce. Rise time is too slow and it’s just not an ideal filter with DL. Without the aid of DL or rephase, a LR4 performs easy to get right because the HP is one cycle out of phase so it’s easy to get them to sound good and sound correct. 
LR2 on the other hand is much more transient, it’s only 180deg out of phase and with the polarity flip it’s 0deg (yes that’s zero f****ing degrees) out) if the steep slope isn’t needed, LR2 and DL is almost a garuntee to sound better. 

Just my opinion and exp. not at all fact for any subjective listener


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Any links to that paper??

Also why flip the polarity before running the 2 channel DL?




oabeieo said:


> Using DL on 8ch and just run it, after run it flip the polarity than on the 2ch dL run it and the stage is excellent.


----------



## oabeieo

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Any links to that paper??
> 
> Also why flip the polarity before running the 2 channel DL?


I will try and find it tonight , I’m at work right now.

But yeah , run all channels with normal polarity , than flip , than run the 2ch 

Because each individual dL channel doesn’t look at other channels, it only calibrates that channel (or linked set)) the filter dictates the phase , if I flip the polarity before running the 8ch dL May try to flip it for me and leave me confused , it dosent know what filters I have on other DL channels . 

It’s the filters phase in relation to the HP or LP in a 3 way , in a 2way the woofer gets flipped to be at zero degrees, in a 3 way it’s the midrange. 

A lot of folks say flip the tweeter. But in actuality, doing that would move everything -180 , it’s the LP that needs flipped , the amplitude and FR has to match the HP or it won’t sound in phase. Which suggests why a lot may just flip the polarity on the tweeter because it’s easier only because the tweeter won’t show the out of phase characteristics as much as a mid. 

DL does such a good job at the responce , post 8ch calibtion using LR2 one of them sounds out of phase. So after studying this from the DL, it made sense to flip the mid after calibration, to get the relative polarity and electrical polarity correct, I wanted the 2ch Dirac to see a properly aligned system. 

It works so amazingly well. The SQ from 2nd order should be something to at least be considered, I know it’s verr common to arbitrarily say LR4 is best. The the LR2 sums much better and dosent have that lag. Just phase movement that DL can solve because the LP and HP share the exact same rotation angle


----------



## oabeieo

Its in here, look at multichannel compensation, the entire thing is worth the read , but when it says single channel compensator vs multichannel compensator it’s talking about Dirac channels (clearly) 




https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/faac/9d619123c532938a514c77f966df10f03e91.pdf


----------



## oabeieo

In the section where it talks about multi channel, it says single channel will require extra tuning I think that that’s exactly what I’m trying to say also with the crossovers , 
And if you read the whole thing and watch and pay attention to all of the graphs and study them and really get understand what they’re saying it all makes sense 

Such an awesome device man I wish this thing was out 20 years ago


----------



## oabeieo

Here’s my favorite quote from that white paper

_“ where N loudspeaker outputs in a car audio system [21]. It can be used to give the listener the experience to be in another listening space, with different room acoustics and differently placed loudspeakers, as compared to the physical listening space [21].”_

This is what happens with proper crossovers
And 8ch dL on a 4way with a 2ch in front of it. I’m not saying “hey everyone ditch the LR4 and only use LR2” I’m simply saying get the crossovers to work right and if the speakers allow (especially mid to tweet) dang they do work nice. But I can see how some speaker axises won’t like a 2nd order. Especially if very far off axis like a low door with nothing on axis, but with 4way systems most of us have something that is at least partially on axis or in the beam of the speakers direct radiation. We sit way too close to calculate the forward lobe on most midbass frequencies, but up high you can and it’s a little bit of magic. 

Page has been crickets all day did anyone read it yet ?


----------



## DavidRam

Does anyone have any experience using the Mini IR remote with the 8x12? My 8x12 remote will be my main volume AND bass knob, so I am trying to decide if I should mount it prominently, or set it up to work off of the IR control...


----------



## Truthunter

Yes, a few of us have the IR remote. It's the only way to switch Dirac on/off without connecting a PC... Rarely need to do that though.


----------



## DavidRam

Truthunter said:


> Yes, a few of us have the IR remote. It's the only way to switch Dirac on/off without connecting a PC... Rarely need to do that though.


Cool, thanks!

Does the wired remote have to be visible to the wireless to work? How does one use it as a bass knob?


----------



## oabeieo

DavidRam said:


> Cool, thanks!
> 
> Does the wired remote have to be visible to the wireless to work? How does one use it as a bass knob?


Program the sub channels in the menu under subwoofer menu next to file menu and help menu at top


----------



## aholland1198

Any word on Dirac Live 2.0 upgrade for the C DSP series? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

So a big problem with 2.0 on multichannel right now that I can see, and this is just my own speculation.

The way 2.0 creates filters has a anti-comb-filtering addition which could make the multichannel quite the endeavor programming wise.


In 1.0 all of the left and the right channels calibrate to the same input. So all channels will sound good together and more importantly in time with each other.

In 2.0 it was designed as a 2.0 channel or possibly a 2.1 channel processor because it will make alterations in individual L and R channels to compensate for the comb-filtering caused by signal delays for better head related things IiRC.

So a 2.0 multichannel version would logically have to be made so each channel works together as one. By using shared time domain related issues across channels would cause problems on other channels at different distances. So it seems they would have quite the task to get a algorithm to be able to look past the changes beyond a certain point like it would have to know what and where the speakers are so you would probably have to define it in the matrix and it would have to know what the matrix is doing specifically. So not sure how that would work or how they would implement it into the CDsP.

I would say grab a ddrc or a shd and use both.

1.0 doesn’t care what eq is L or R it’s not important. In 2.0 it’s imperative to know what’s left and right and rear and front or center or sub. It would have to know at least L or R for non 5.1 would be my logical guess


----------



## Truthunter

DavidRam said:


> Cool, thanks!
> 
> Does the wired remote have to be visible to the wireless to work? How does one use it as a bass knob?


Yes the ir receiving eye is on the face of the wired remote - so there needs to be line of sight axis to it from the wireless remote.
AFAIK, the wireless remote can not be used as a bass knob (sub-channel only adjustment). Only the wired remote provides that function which is explained in the manual.


----------



## oabeieo

That’s correct wireless learning has no options for sub volume learn 

^^^^ was he asking for wireless (oops)


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Yes the ir receiving eye is on the face of the wired remote - so there needs to be line of sight axis to it from the wireless remote.


I was afraid of that, was thinking of picking up a remote to use in the Volvo as there is nowhere simple to place the wired remote. Looks like instead I need to see if I can find a spot for the wired remote, not that I use it often, but am looking at a similar set up to Jason in the S4 (OEM head unit and a DAP into the 8x12) and from what I understand switching inputs from the wired remote is not so simple.


----------



## subterFUSE

So what you’re saying is that the best results thus far have been with a 2 channel Dirac processor in front of a multichannel Dirac? With the multi channel running independent corrections per driver, and then the 2 channel Dirac in front doing a Left/Right correction?

Which product would you use for the 2 channel processor? I see the OpenDRC but that one is digital in/out only. My head unit is analog out, since I’m running an RME DAC as my source.

Would a mini 2x4HD suffice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> So what you’re saying is that the best results thus far have been with a 2 channel Dirac processor in front of a multichannel Dirac? With the multi channel running independent corrections per driver, and then the 2 channel Dirac in front doing a Left/Right correction?
> 
> Which product would you use for the 2 channel processor? I see the OpenDRC but that one is digital in/out only. My head unit is analog out, since I’m running an RME DAC as my source.
> 
> Would a mini 2x4HD suffice?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes and yes! (Kinda)

I’m using a ddrc22d in front of a 8x12DL optical cable , for analog you could use a ddrc24 in front of a 8x12DL, however the amount of digital to analog and back conversions might not be ideal and not be worth it. I can’t soeak to it too much tho I haven’t done it like that before, so just my gut feeling.

But yeah, I have a ddrc22d 2ch Dirac live going digital in and out to a 8x12DL.

I run an 8ch calibration on the 8x12DL and simply make all my passbands flat. I put my first and last anchor at the frequency the electronic crossover starts to attituate by going into my crossover in 8x12DL and putting up crosshairs on slope. For example a 300hz LR2 HPF may start to make movement in its slope at 450-500hz or about so I put my first anchor there and the last anchor at the LP side or it at all on sub or tweets. The reason I do that is because I don’t want Dirac to use acoustical output past the electronic crossover a part of its correction. The 2ch will take care of acoustic slopes I’m only concerned with the full power inband the electronic crossover has as its passband before any rolloffs start. I just make responce ruler flat at all passbnds and don’t even try to get them at the same level. I use my target curve and stay right under the responce so it doesn’t cut gain from any of the speakers. I use the curtain and curtain off the responce so the two linked channels share the same attenuation shape by pulling the curtains and moving them around to a spot where is about half oactave down or abouts. And run Dirac.

Post Dirac I don’t touch eq or TA or independent left or right gain. All I do is pull out rew and use live RTA with periodic noise and a rectangular window and use 32 avgs and keep the mic moving in the Dirac pattern box. Setting only output gains no eq work. I’ll reset the averaging after every change and validate , than use the output gains in pairs and set the responce to flat as possible. I run noise on left and right together and set responce to as flat as possible by using output gains on channels. If the midrange is too high I turn them down together the same amount. I only look at the sum of all left and all right together I don’t do left and right seperate. That would ruin the Dirac calibration I just performed. Whatever needs to go up or down is done in pairs. That’s it nothing else. If all outputs are flat the crossovers will behave themselfs proper and have the correct phase against each other as the crossovers are downstream of the Dirac DLP in the 8x12DL. So the crossover becomes part of the correction but Dirac live in multichannel setup like this requires the user to know to make any crossover required polarity flips after Dirac is ran. If it’s done beforehand it may try to undo it. It just sees the signal at the mic and makes everything in phase with respect to the input signal. It has no idea what crossover topology is being used or what is on other linked channels.

After that is done things should be sounding very good, but flat yes but still good. Than run the upstream Dirac 2ch and than set the target curve to what I want. The 2nd pass will do the crossover linearization and match the phase responce to speakers that may be mounted farther apart than optimal. After the 2nd pass I can change the target to whatever I want and there’s no funny sounding tone issues and the stage is super deep. The speaker locations seem to fully disappear and the stage placement is not diminished due to summing errors. The 8ch calibration will time align each pair in a 4way and set the passband gains properly so the 2ch calibration won’t have any errors as far as timing and levels go. The only time related errors the 2ch Dirac should Be correcting now is crossover induced group delay. You can now keep the bass management and get it linearized with the HP side of the bass management which can’t be done in the 8x12DL as bass management runs before Dirac. So that also works very nicely. 

I have a bunch of dsps I use, I have a sharc I use in my ddrc box as a opendrc or a ddrc22d. I can do both on mine by swapping out the sharc pcb. I also have 3 2x4hd processors I have but this is not installed with this 8x12DL.

I basically have two separate 12ch dsps and two separate 2ch dsps I swap out every now and then if I feel like doing it manually or using Dirac. So I apologize for any confusion. In this instance im just talking about Dirac dsps so I have my 8x12DL installed with my ddrc22d upstream.

An opendrc or 2x4hd won’t work for what the Dirac paper is talking about unless you do it manually maybe with rephase or something. A ddrc24 would work as it’s the Dirac enabled version of the 2x4hd

Going all digital I don’t hear any dsp errors or dsp gain issues or funny pops or snaps at all, just pure clean music.

So if your analog a ddrc24 would work minus the added ADC errors.
Hope that helps some


----------



## Iamsecond

In other words, after reading this entire thread the understanding is that the minidsp 8x12 dL is not good enough to set up a vehicle unless you add in a secondary unit? That’s crazy.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Iamsecond said:


> In other words, after reading this entire thread the understanding is that the minidsp 8x12 dL is not good enough to set up a vehicle unless you add in a secondary unit? That’s crazy.


You got it 100% wrong. It is actually quite good. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iamsecond

Read the post by oabeieo just before my last post. Others seems to be having lots of problems getting things set up or being happy with their tunes. At the beginning of the thread people were talking about how great things were but then it turned into a dog chasing its tail perse. Maybe that’s just chasing sonic perfection but it never seems right until you start adding other units into the mix. Just an observation. I want one of these units but.........
It would be good for people to chime in that are happy and how they got there.


----------



## naiku

Iamsecond said:


> It would be good for people to chime in that are happy and how they got there.


Very happy with mine, or should say I was, which I only say because I no longer have the car it was installed in and have not yet installed it in my new car. I did not run 2 units, just the 8x12DL and absolutely loved the sound from it. For me the steps I followed were essentially... 

Set up the plug in using 7 channels of Dirac (3-way front + sub) - Preset 1.
Run Dirac on those 7 channels to get TA and levels.
Setup the plug in using 2 channels of Dirac - Preset 2.
Enter those TA and level values from the 7 channel Dirac onto the Preset 2.
Run Dirac as a 2 channel.
Optimize to target curve.
Done. 

Now in my case I additionally ran rear fill so also utilized Dirac on those channels, but did some manual manipulation to get them sounding how I wanted. Outside of that, I did no pre-EQ work, nothing, just let Dirac do it's thing. The OEM stereo in my new vehicle actually does not sound bad at all and honestly, I think I could live with it. But, since I already have all the equipment from my old vehicle, I can't wait to get the MiniDSP back installed. 

For me, the biggest hurdle was finding microphone placements that worked well in my car. For me a larger measurement box seemed to work much better than the smaller box, but others I know have better results with a smaller box. YMMV and the only way to determine which works best is trial and error. But, once you have 9 decent microphone measurements taken, you can save and re-use those.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Iamsecond said:


> Read the post by oabeieo just before my last post. Others seems to be having lots of problems getting things set up or being happy with their tunes. At the beginning of the thread people were talking about how great things were but then it turned into a dog chasing its tail perse. Maybe that’s just chasing sonic perfection but it never seems right until you start adding other units into the mix. Just an observation. I want one of these units but.........
> It would be good for people to chime in that are happy and how they got there.


I set my STI up with it, 2 way active system, sub in the trunk. Perhaps my puny ears are not as sophisticated as others but this DSP is superior in every way to my previous Zapco which was pretty good. I don't have golden ears but I can hear 1db adjustments in certain ranges so I am not a total disaster It is important to keep the context in mind. I was able to achieve better results with this unit in 1 hour than days of tuning with a "traditional" unit like Zapco. What makes it great is the speed with which I can iterate over different curves, xover slopes and xover points to find the most optimal setup. Others may disagree but even Dirac 1.0 produced outcomes that are superior to what most people can do with other DSPs.

The post above is a great explanation of how one can tune in a very detailed way. That being said, that setup is on a far end of what most people would do. My advice, try it and hear for yourself. Few may find some things about it they don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't sufficient for you. I don't buy cars with less than 300HP. I like my cars fast and I always run summer rubber. Does this mean any car below 300HP with all seasons is worthless and needs an engine swap? . I hope you get my point.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iamsecond

Thanks guys. I can assure you that others that have read through this have felt like I have but it’s great to hear people are happy and getting great results.


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> In other words, after reading this entire thread the understanding is that the minidsp 8x12 dL is not good enough to set up a vehicle unless you add in a secondary unit? That’s crazy.



No , in other words , a 2ch calibration is the ideal. What you do to prep for that 2ch calibration is up to you! Me personally, I like to let the software do almost everything. 
And use an extra unit to get there


----------



## oabeieo

And remember, the Dirac that is embedded in the 8x12DL is not a “car version “ it works extremely well in a car as to why they made it. 

If someone was not using a 4 way and had a set of components and a sub I honestly don’t see the need for the 2nd processing


----------



## Iamsecond

Thanks guys. I was hoping you would all chime in and let people know these things.


----------



## Ziggyrama

oabeieo said:


> And remember, the Dirac that is embedded in the 8x12DL is not a “car version “ it works extremely well in a car as to why they made it.
> 
> If someone was not using a 4 way and had a set of components and a sub I honestly don’t see the need for the 2nd processing


Excellent point. I am doing 2 channels only. I will eventually introduce differential rear fill which will extend 2 channels which I guess will be 4 channels to Dirac, that is if I decide to even process rear fill with Dirac.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

It’s adding that midrange in a 4 way where the phase responce goes to crap if not handled just oh so delicately right.

And in that , the midrange intrudes on a very critical spot for phase to be right. Add that with the mounting distance from let’s say a door to an apillar and the axis in which there mounted to get a truly good phase responce
Adding the 2nd processor really does a nice job and someone can fly right through it

A normal 2ch calibration will net a good result. It’s the crossover behavior that is hit and miss. 

Some cars with certain crossovers have cancellations caused by Dirac in the crossover region due to this being an issue 

So this is a workaround that works by adding a 2nd Dirac.

The 1st Dirac will change the inband phase to match the input and set it in the right axis 
The 2nd Dirac in 2ch will mesh all the sums together perfectly.


----------



## jtrosky

I have to say - reading through this thread makes it sound like you need an engineering degree to use DiracLive properly!  I thought that the whole point was that it basically does the setup for you? I feel like I'd have to do research for days on end just to figure out how to use the damn thing properly. Everyone keeps saying how easy it is, but I just don't get that impression when reading this thread! Makes tuning my Helix "manually" sound easy. 

Maybe I got the wrong impression, but it sounds like I'm not the only one.


----------



## oabeieo

jtrosky said:


> I have to say - reading through this thread makes it sound like you need an engineering degree to use DiracLive properly!  I thought that the whole point was that it basically does the setup for you? I feel like I'd have to do research for days on end just to figure out how to use the damn thing properly. Everyone keeps saying how easy it is, but I just don't get that impression when reading this thread! Makes tuning my Helix "manually" sound easy.
> 
> Maybe I got the wrong impression, but it sounds like I'm not the only one.


It’s easy , it’s not complicated 

We just talking about some of the more technical things about it, believe me, just an 8x12DL by itself will do wonders. 

I’m talking about the last 5% in a multi-way and only the tiniest of issues that most ppl would not even detect as an issue.


----------



## subterFUSE

A friend of mine said that if we open up a mini 2x4HD to access the PCB, we should be able to grab the I2S signal before it passes through the DAC. So we could get digital output that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

It's definitely easy, oabeieo is doing things more complex than most of us are doing with the 8x12DL. Nothing wrong with that, but don't let it distract from what is an easy unit to use. What I think half the problem is, is that most of us spent a bunch of time trying to figure out the most repeatable set up process, but it has not really been documented anywhere. Something that would be idea is a post similar to the JBL MS8 Tips and Tricks, where basic set up and any issues that someone might run into are all documented in a simple post. 

Let's not forget, there is a larger thread in the General forum, this was the Review that has sort of morphed into a discussion thread. I think a lot of set up questions and answers are in that other thread located here.... Minidsp CDSP-DL 8x12 Dirac live upgrade or new release help


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> A friend of mine said that if we open up a mini 2x4HD to access the PCB, we should be able to grab the I2S signal before it passes through the DAC. So we could get digital output that way.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh for real , that’s awesome. I thought i2s wasn’t enabled , if there’s a workaround than yes that would work. It would have to be converted to a ddrc24 to have Dirac , but that’s an easy firmware upgrade. 

Do you know if he has a write up anywhere on how to do it. One could potentially use the MCLK off the 8x12DL which is kinda cool.


----------



## bertholomey

I have a similar experience - coming from the Helix Pro mkii - I could get a ‘tune’ with it, but nothing I or anyone else wanted to hear. I chose to drive 8 hours round trip to get my friend to tune with it. 

I purchased the MiniDSP 8x12DL, and I have developed the confidence to actually tune.....again, others may not like what I produce with this tool, but I have been very impressed with what it has helped me achieve in terms of good sound quality. 

On a surface level, one can get a good sounding tune fairly quickly by using the tool at a base level (crossovers/TA/levels let DL do EQ). For one user, in their vehicle, with their install / equipment - they may achieve a sound that is better than they have ever had with any other sophisticated DSP. 

What has been enjoyable for me (sometimes a little frustrating if I’m honest), is learning what the variables are, and then manipulating them to create what could be rubbish or brilliance! And.....sharing this learning with others in the same boat. Honestly, though I have a new (to me) car and install - with some new equipment - this processor has breathed fresh air and enthusiasm into this hobby (passion). 

I think what can be taken from the above posts is that using the tool can be enjoyable and effective in the shallow end of the pool or in the deep end of the pool (this is an excellent place to make a spiritual reference to the Word of God, but I’ll stay on subject). 

I’m looking forward to a good friend locally getting his car finished, and working with him to demonstrate what I have done, and using those techniques in his car. And.....if John gets the 2 channel working in front of the 8x12, I’ll be prodded to attempt to follow him - to see if some of that awesomeness that Oabeieo has been playing with 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## captainobvious

This thread has a whirlwind of other craziness going on, but I'm going to pose a question regarding using this unit as a 2 channel solution as most here seem to be doing...

Isn't the point (and advantage) of a multichannel Dirac solution so that we can very accurately optimize the crossover region in a multi-way system? I understand that using the piece in a simple L/R configuration might be easier to get a good result quickly, but is that not defeating the purpose of the multichannel tool? It would seem that one _should_ be able to get a better result this way. Or am I not fully understanding the capability of this unit? This is what attracted me to the idea of the APL1012...It would correct the specific passband relative to the crossovers used for each driver in the system. (Essentially trying to get perfect acoustic slopes between drivers). When doing a 2 channel correction, you cannot properly fix the response issues on a driver level (specifically in xover regions), only on a channel level. Doesn't this become even more of a problem with drivers mounted far apart?


----------



## oabeieo

Those are great questions Steve , and in some ways the APl does things in a automated way that works very good. 

So each respective Dirac channel will time align to the 1st measurement point. And each channel will remove any group delay and linked channels will share a target and it will make the impulse match for each linked channel. The channels that are not linked will get there own correction but will still be set to the 1st measurement as far as timing goes. For each individual channel like for example two sets of linked pairs. Let’s use that as an example.

Okay let’s say we’re using 4 Dirac channels on some door midbass and tweeters in dash. Let’s assume no sub or other channels for now. 

So you link the responce to the 6.5s and the tweeters so you have two shared (but seperate) targets. One is for the woofers one left and one right. And one left and one right for the tweeters. 

Being that they are seperate Dirac channels and just linked, they will have there own unique time alignment delays and gains that is determined by Dirac to create an offset for the single allpass that will be applied to each channel. 

When you link a pair of speakers it will mathematically choose as filterset that makes the impulses match each other.
Both of those linked channels may have completely different FR and phase corrections applied but at the 1st measurement position they will match each other. So you create a target for the midbass and tweets and send them to the processor. 

So when you are making your targets you can’t boost more than 10db, so in your let’s say tweeter rolloff to mid let’s say it acoustically rolls off at 3k and generally follows the shape of your filter topology.
So you can’t extend the target to 2k or you will be boosting more than 10db so your forced to curtain off the stop band. So it’s only logical to make the target only cover the inband. And use the curtains in the rolloff somewhere. Dirac will correct the phase and frequency for that linked pair. But won’t correct anything past the curtain. 

So when you play all 4 Dirac channels there all time aligned to each other and the impulse is corrected for the passband. The crossover region is not compensated for because the woofer is in the door and the tweeter is in the dash and it doesn’t correct past the curtain. So the rolloffs not matched to each other. Even tho there time alignment to a single point. The angular nature of the two sources there sums will be all over the car cabin and in space to you. 
There not going to sum exactly at the 1st measurement point.

They may sum great and sound great, they may sum a little off because of the distance isn’t optimal for the frequency at which the crossover is at vs how far they are apart. And the crossover topology delays on top of that. 

So using the seperate Dirac channel on each driver will get a more accurate center because the inband sums should all be very very close to perfect. The out of band (out of target) crossover regions will need sometimes a little bit more. That’s where the 2ch run comes in. It will linearize the crossovers wherever they sum based on the same set of parameters the inband was used because it’s the same algorithm and same measurement points.

Using only a 2ch Dirac on all the drivers will net a similar result except it will shape the impulse on all the sums of each side. So it might take some pre delays and levels to get the stage right after and is by no means a bad way at all. Just takes some engineering beforehand.

If your a stickler like me , and want all the drivers to play acoustically flat and not just a flat responce of the sums of drivers on tat channel adding the two channel to a multi-way Dirac 8ch in a 4 way sure makes getting a extremely real sounding stage with pinpoint performance on stage placement and do it relatively quickly with minimal measurements and tuning time this is a excellent way to go.

If your stage and center especially are all good with just a 2ch calibration by let’s say writing down the gain and TA values from the 8ch version and adopt them to the 2ch calibration on your output controls,and your stage is right and didn’t have noticeable crossover cancellations as a result of the 2ch calibration and everything is good and your drivers play fairly flat in the passband then adding the 2ch will do very very very little for you. 

For me it’s about automation and consistent linear phase behavior with a multi-way in a car. The Dirac seems the best for this. Start to finish both machines 30min and it’s very good. 

The 2ch machine at that point would be the only thing you need to shape the responce for taste. All other drivers are calibrated flat and phase corrected so any changes in magnitude Dirac should be able to predict and it should behave textbook and not have any unusual characteristics.


----------



## Truthunter

captainobvious said:


> Isn't the point (and advantage) of a multichannel Dirac solution so that we can very accurately optimize the crossover region in a multi-way system? I understand that using the piece in a simple L/R configuration might be easier to get a good result quickly, but is that not defeating the purpose of the multichannel tool? It would seem that one _should_ be able to get a better result this way. Or am I not fully understanding the capability of this unit? This is what attracted me to the idea of the APL1012...It would correct the specific passband relative to the crossovers used for each driver in the system. (Essentially trying to get perfect acoustic slopes between drivers). When doing a 2 channel correction, you cannot properly fix the response issues on a driver level (specifically in xover regions), only on a channel level. Doesn't this become even more of a problem with drivers mounted far apart?


Steve,
I've tried it both way numerous times. I have been able to get very good results using it multi-channel (7 in my case)... Better than just trying to do it the traditional (Non-Dirac) way. But, IME, the results setting it up with just 2ch (L/R) seems to provide more stage width and improved space/ambience compared to a multi-channel. Not sure why but that is my experience and ears.

Below are some photos of one of the quick multi-channels I performed. There was nominal pre-tuning: set LR4 xovers, matching shelf filters on both mids and a single notch on the sub and one tweeter. Blue is average measured response and green is Dirac's calculated corrected response (it's actually pretty close when measured too).


----------



## ErinH

You guys are actually making me want to give mine another round. I set it up before finals and haven't bothered to mess with it since then (even though I know there are glaring problems that needed to be worked out pre-DL). But it's good to hear that you have had good success with the multi-channel tune, Ryan. I may give that another go before Jason's meet.


----------



## dgage

oabeieo said:


> The 2ch machine at that point would be the only thing you need to shape the responce for taste. All other drivers are calibrated flat and phase corrected so any changes in magnitude Dirac should be able to predict and it should behave textbook and not have any unusual characteristics.


First, thanks for continuing to share what you’ve learned and for your determination to figure things out to the nth degree! Bravo!

It will be interesting to see if you still feel the need for the MiniDSP 2-ch Dirac behind the 8x12 Dirac once the 8x12 gets Dirac 2.0. But you make a compelling argument for both units...dammit!


----------



## naiku

ErinH said:


> But it's good to hear that you have had good success with the multi-channel tune, Ryan


I've had decent results with multi channel as well, in fact, I think it was only after reading your review that I tried the 2 channel instead. Both worked well for me, the last and best one was the 2 channel though (but with delays and levels set using a 7 channel measurement initially).

If I get time this weekend and everyone's healthy (literally, everyone in the family has been sick with the flu this week, myself included) I'm hoping to make some headway in the Volvo install. I'll likely try multi and 2 channel again once things are up and running.


----------



## oabeieo

Thanks guys, 

The only thing really I’ve noticed that is something I didn’t like about doing it like that, which was fairly easy to figure out what was wrong was, 

If I had too many Dirac channels in the multi-way setup it still sounded good but almost too good. It would sound too precise and you could tell there’s a lot of dsp playing. 
Especially in the HF. 

So this is what I did to remedy it.

All speakers in clusters or mounted very close together got a Dirac channel. 
So my dash 6s and tweets and 3s got 1 stereo pair so 2 Dirac channels (for 6 speakers) my doors got there own and my kicks got there own and last two was put on sub. And the sub I turned Dirac 7&8 on both channels.

I did no pre delays on anything. The dash speakers are all mounted close together and sum correctly so keeping all of them on a single set of channels helped a ton in keeping it sounding musical and lively. 

The doors and kicks have substantial PLDs especially between each other, and there different brand and size drivers and there all playing the same passband. So I chose to use the same exact crossover on the doors and kicks but use seperate Dirac channels on each, so each individual speaker was corrected separately, and I can attenuate the driver side door dip independently as the kick dosent have that same problem (it’s problem is somewhere else) and vice versa of the kick. 

My multiple midbass drivers all crossing the same was a big key into sq and getting all those speakers to work together. 

So using the Dirac channels on locations is better than just using seperate channels just because there available. 

So my hunch is most of us that run a 4way have the mid and tweet close together. Those should definitely be on a shared Dirac channel. Weather it be custom apillars , to factory dash mid locations and sail tweets or cut in tweets or dash pods or whatever. 

so What I would do with a apillar 3,tweet and door midbass and sub is 

A mid and tweet share a Dirac channel
Door gets its own 
Sub gets its own 
Than use 2ch over all of it. 

That will leave 2 Dirac channels for rears or unused.


----------



## oabeieo

Another tip , real quick while I’m thinking about it.

After all this I was using none of my peq. It wasn’t needed and sounded better.

I found a reason to use peq on something, it was one small adjustment, so I made the same peq adjustment over all 12channels.

That kept any movement in the time domain coherent across channels. For example, for awhile I was turning down 73hz on the left door because post Dirac the door speaker would **** the bed if played really loud as it added a lot of something to fill that deep hole.

So I turned down 73hz same Q and gain on all the left speakers and the sub and everything sounded good again. Spacious and full and real sounding. And than stated adding to the right channel and took the FR hit till it sounded good and real again. 
So left was -6db at 73hz Q-1.8 and right was -3db 73hz Q-1.8 


Adding peq any other way seems to diminish how real things would sound and change the time domain too much.
Taking 6db out of 73hz with a Q of 1.8 would move a lot of the time over and caused a big group delay. If all other channels on that side inherited the same shift it didn’t seem to have that problem


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

oabeieo said:


> Its in here, look at multichannel compensation, the entire thing is worth the read , but when it says single channel compensator vs multichannel compensator it’s talking about Dirac channels (clearly)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/faac/9d619123c532938a514c77f966df10f03e91.pdf


Good stuff! Thanks for the nugget. It is indeed the Dirac approach to ultimately perform a stereo R/L correction on top of individual Dirac channels. This is essentially Dirac Unison (listed on their website under automotive). Really makes me curious about running another Dirac correction on top of that but instead of R/L the last Dirac is Front/Rear for rear fill alignment... maybe approaching Dirac Panorama...




> It would be desirable to extend the single-channel precompensator design to be able to simultaneously optimize the whole multichannel system. This has been done in [2] for the case of robust mixed-phase multipoint design. The cautious, pre-ringing constrained solution of [1] has here been extended to the compensation of MIMO* systems. Loudspeaker correction is performed using the same target as in the single-channel method, but all available loudspeakers are used to come closer to the target. *As a result, the spatial variations are reduced, and crossover/driver alignment is to a greater extent automatized.* For example, if we have two speaker elements that work in different frequency ranges and are also at different positions, then *the resulting design will contain an optimized crossover filter. The use of a criterion of pairwise similarity between left and right stereo channels further helps to improve sound stage imaging* [19]. Furthermore, a *MIMO design can form the basis of a unified solution to the problems of equalizer design, crossover design, delay and level calibration, sum-response optimization and up-mixing (i.e. routing 2-channel or 5.1 channel source material) to N loudspeaker outputs in a car audio system *[21]. It can be used to give the listener the experience to be in another listening space, with different room acoustics and differently placed loudspeakers, as compared to the physical listening space [21].


-page 14 | *MIMO = multiple-input multiple-output



oabeieo said:


> So a big problem with 2.0 on multichannel right now that I can see, and this is just my own speculation.
> 
> The way 2.0 creates filters has a anti-comb-filtering addition which could make the multichannel quite the endeavor programming wise.
> 
> 
> In 1.0 all of the left and the right channels calibrate to the same input. So all channels will sound good together and more importantly in time with each other.
> In 2.0 it was designed as a 2.0 channel or possibly a 2.1 channel processor because it will make alterations in individual L and R channels to compensate for the comb-filtering caused by signal delays for better head related things IiRC.
> 
> So a 2.0 multichannel version would logically have to be made so each channel works together as one. By using shared time domain related issues across channels would cause problems on other channels at different distances. So it seems they would have quite the task to get a algorithm to be able to look past the changes beyond a certain point like it would have to know what and where the speakers are so you would probably have to define it in the matrix and it would have to know what the matrix is doing specifically. So not sure how that would work or how they would implement it into the CDsP.
> 
> I would say grab a ddrc or a shd and use both.
> 
> 1.0 doesn’t care what eq is L or R it’s not important. In 2.0 it’s imperative to know what’s left and right and rear and front or center or sub. It would have to know at least L or R for non 5.1 would be my logical guess



I think a multichannel 2.0 is doable. Dirac on top of Dirac or Dirac within Dirac. To get it inside a single unit, miniDSP|Dirac would need to take a page from Helix’s virtual channel architecture and design the software to allow individual Dirac channels to be run within a stereo R/L Dirac Correction.The same DDRC22 with 2.0 + C-DSP 8x12DL in one software package plus the processing hardware to run it. Would be a pricey but awesome DSP.


Essentially breaks down to miniDSP paying for the Dirac Unison licensing fees and Dirac releasesing a Dirac Unison Calibration Tool for consumers. Same way they rolled out Dirac Live.



oabeieo said:


> I found a reason to use peq on something, it was one small adjustment, so I made the same peq adjustment over all 12channels.


Thanks for this tidbit! Helps a lot for those running a DDRC22/DDRC24 to calibrate atop a non Dirac DSP.


----------



## subterFUSE

I removed the MiniDSP from the Audi to install it in the Mercedes. Put a Helix Ultra in the Audi to test it.

All I can say is..... fuuuuuuck that. 

Now that I have had the MiniDSP Dirac, doing a manual tune is a pain.

Dirac FTW. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

subterFUSE said:


> I removed the MiniDSP from the Audi to install it in the Mercedes. Put a Helix Ultra in the Audi to test it.
> 
> All I can say is..... fuuuuuuck that.
> 
> Now that I have had the MiniDSP Dirac, doing a manual tune is a pain.
> 
> Dirac FTW.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Unfortunately....that reminded me of a Korn song.....Ya’ll want a single.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

subterFUSE said:


> All I can say is..... fuuuuuuck that.


Lol as they say... Once you go Dirac... there’s no going back...


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I removed the MiniDSP from the Audi to install it in the Mercedes. Put a Helix Ultra in the Audi to test it.
> 
> All I can say is..... fuuuuuuck that.
> 
> Now that I have had the MiniDSP Dirac, doing a manual tune is a pain.
> 
> Dirac FTW.


Dang!

Do you still plan to take some post Dirac phase measurements? Interested in seeing the results.


----------



## subterFUSE

I won’t have anything to measure until the Mercedes is finished. We are shooting for May.

The Audi is getting sold in the next 2 weeks or so. I have a 2020 M5 at the port currently, just unloaded from the boat 2 days ago. Picking that up on March 13.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

The ultra....that’s a dam nice dsp! I wish I had the $ to try one of those.


----------



## oabeieo

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Lol as they say... Once you go Dirac... there’s no going back...


There really isn’t, 
As much as we love trying new gear, and changing stuff , tuning sucks. So much has to be put in to get a good sounding car. 

I remember I did love having a p99rs, man I could fly through the menus with the IR remote so fast and tune while driving and get a really good sound. Easily trying every possible crossover option and eq combo in a matter of a few drives to work and back. 
But it never had a layered soundstage it was just loud and forward. The stage depth was something I had to listen for as it was lost in all this added loudness or out of control frequencies that I used to think was “dynamics” ...... 

The Dirac tune some days rarely will trick me into thinking it’s lacking liveliness or sounds sterile or some crazy mood I’m in just to put myself through the “I will do it better this time ” routine just to end up back on the 8x12DL and my ddrcs. 

I prefer the forced frequency responce sound from Dirac over being able to squeak every drop of gain in some ways. Someways not, but I keep going back. It’s just better and makes it fun again. 

My rephase correction was starting to get really good. But the midrange and midbass was just not the same. There something to be said about having a computer crunch the hard numbers. Digging into rew and goimg through almost every feature in rew to try to extract enough data to get a good correction, than once making those fir corrections, it’s so easy to have a filter sound bad, and the degree of sensitivity of changes in the time domain is so incredibly easy to get wrong. Even just using 1peq can ruin the coherence let alone one or two all pass filters and sometimes 10phase eq bands and all these controls. The bass , it’s easy , slam dunk with fir. Getting the left and right midrange practically takes an act of Congress to get right just to end up with what Dirac can do better in 10min. That’s frustrating.


----------



## dgage

oabeieo said:


> Getting the left and right midrange practically takes an act of Congress to get right just to end up with what Dirac can do better in 10min. That’s frustrating.


Your problem was expecting Congress to do anything good for the people. I think you should keep this one in your own hands. Lol! 

Thanks for that as I did wonder what happenEd to your more complex regimen, you know, your more complex, complex method of using Dirac and Sharc, etc.  Makes sense why you seem to be gravitating back to Dirac but I’m sure you learned a ton pushing the hard button.


----------



## dgage

subterFUSE said:


> Now that I have had the MiniDSP Dirac, doing a manual tune is a pain.


I thought Helix had an auto tune capability as well. Did you try using it?


----------



## piyush7243

dgage said:


> I thought Helix had an auto tune capability as well. Did you try using it?


Just RTA capability not autotune

Sent from my Mi 9T Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

dgage said:


> I thought Helix had an auto tune capability as well.





piyush7243 said:


> Just RTA capability not autotune


Yep.

Helix RTA will focus its resources purely on EQing the frequency domain of the system.

Dirac is a multi-prong approach towards calibration in various domains.

Various domains?

Peep the abstract that neatly sums up the Dirac concept:



> Dirac Live® for single-channel compensation and Dirac Unison for joint multi-channel compensation. A first main aim is to control not only the frequency domain properties of the system but also the time domain properties: The impulse responses as measured at different listening positions. In particular, we strive to reduce the “pre-ringings” (pre-echoes) that would otherwise result in an un-natural sound experience. Secondly, we use dynamic models of the sound system that are based on measurements at multiple listening positions. This is important for obtaining a robust design that works over an extended region to provide a large spatial area with good sound quality. Third, we may jointly optimize multiple loudspeakers to better control the sound pressures at different listening positions. This is done by precise phase control of the individual loudspeaker transfer functions at low frequencies. Joint optimization of a set of loudspeakers results in more distinct bass performance, better robustness of the compensation and better control of the impulse responses at different listening positions.


Interesting.. sounds cool. But autotunes always claim to solve everything. What’s so great about this one?



> Our aim is to counteract acoustic problems by model-based digital compensation, within the physical limits that are set by the sound reproduction system. We perform sound field control for audio reproduction by high-performance robust room correction algorithms. A compensation system in the form of a set of digital filters is placed between the sound source and the loudspeakers. These discrete time filters are to be designed and adjusted to reduce undesired effects. First, we have to obtain measurements of the acoustic properties of the sound reproduction system at a set of measurement positions in a desired listening space. We then construct a mathematical model of the reproduction system, based on the measured acoustic properties. The filters of the compensation system are then adjusted, based on the model, so that they provide an improved audio performance.


So advanced filters that correct the output based on measured response? I’m wary of filtering a signal. What exactly are we talking about? What’s getting calibrated by Dirac?



> It is far from obvious how such compensation filters should be adjusted. What can realistically be done, and what should be done? At least three aspects have to be taken into account: Properties of the set of frequency responses (coloring of the sound) at the measurement positions, properties of the corresponding time-domain impulse responses (pre-ringings and echoes) and the variations of the perceived sound with respect to the spatial location.


So the filters correct:
1) frequency domain
2) time-domain
and
3) perceived sound with respect to the spatial location?

This is starting to sound too good to be true. How exactly is Dirac attempting to use these 3 domains of correction to provide an optimum listening experience?



> An ideally adjusted compensation system would give the sound reproduction system perfect frequency-domain and time-domain properties: All frequencies would be amplified according to a desired target frequency response, and this would be accomplished at all specified listening positions in the room. Furthermore, all delayed echoes would be precisely compensated so that they would arrive with equal delay. The impulse response of the compensated system would then become a Dirac Delta function (or Kronecker Delta function in discrete time), at all listening positions.


Dirac Delta function huh? Hmmm.. Yea you know what.. I guess I want that for my system. But really Dirac. How exactly are you pulling this off?



> We have developed design algorithms over the last decade that use a polynomial equations approach to feedforward controller design, tailored for audio systems [1],[2]. They represent a systematic way to design control algorithms, where physical and acoustical insight can be built into the models, and where both time- and frequency domain aspects are taken into account. The designs are based on extensive previous research on robust control and robust estimation and their properties can briefly be summarized as follows:
> 
>  We use linear mixed-phase filters that are designed to invert the dynamics of the sound reproduction system in a controlled and safe way. Specifically, they minimize weighted mean square errors at a specified set of listening positions (also referred to as control points or measurement points), under several constraints.
> 
>  The spatial distribution, extent and number of control points is a design aspect that may vary between different use cases. For example, they can be placed in a small region, a larger region or in several separated regions, forming one or multiple extended “sweet spots”.
> 
>  The properties of transfer functions in-between measurement points are taken into account in a statistical sense. This increases the robustness of the design and prevents over-compensation.
> 
>  The desired system (the target system) is specified as a set of impulse responses at the measurement positions. We thus strive to control the time-domain properties of the compensated system. This is important as precise time-domain control is crucial for a good spatial sound stage in stereo and other multi-channel reproduction.
> 
>  For a given target system defined at the measurement positions, the mean square errors to be minimized are obtained as squared differences between the target system and the actual system. The design can be performed under constraints of causality of the controller, constraints on loudspeaker signal amplifications, and constraints on the stability of the compensation filters. These filters may have arbitrarily long impulse responses and may be implemented as infinite impulse response (IIR) filters. The use of long impulse responses is important for obtaining good low-frequency properties.
> 
>  The design is also performed under constraints on the magnitudes of the impulse response coefficients before the main impulse (the “pre-ringings” of the impulse responses of the compensated system, see Section 3.1), at all listening positions [1]. Large pre-ringings might otherwise generate quite severe audible distortions.
> 
>  The multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) transfer functions from multiple loudspeakers to multiple listening positions can be pre-compensated jointly by a filter bank. In such a joint design, the signals from different loudspeakers can be made to add in phase at the listening positions at low frequencies. This significantly reduces the variability of the compensated response over the listening regions, as compared to compensating each loudspeaker separately [2].
> 
> * A MIMO design can also optimally up-mix stereo or 5.1 coded material to the loudspeaker setting used, for arbitrary loudspeaker numbers and positions.* For example, for each channel, one loudspeaker may act as main speaker, while all the others act as support loudspeakers [2]. See the right-hand part of Figure 1.
> 
>  The MIMO design can be used for many applications such as *car audio systems*, beamforming, design of multiple acoustic zones and active noise control [3].












Need to see more measurements and data and nitty gritty details about what is going on under the hood?

Read that in depth paper oabeieo posted earlier in this thread.

Dirac Live vs Helix Auto RTA is not a true comparison.


----------



## dgage

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Dirac Live vs Helix Auto RTA is not a true comparison.


I’ve always thought that since I’ve read quite a bit about Dirac and have experienced it in multiple home theaters. But I’ve seen Helix’s Auto RTA being conveyed as almost/just as good as MoniDSP Dirac and I wasn’t really buying it but I didn’t know enough about Helix’s offering. So thanks for that. Frequency only isn’t even close to the frequency, phase, and time manipulations of Dirac.


----------



## DavidRam

DL does time alignment, too??


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

DavidRam said:


> DL does time alignment, too??


Each individual Dirac channel will perform time alignment via impulse response.

If multiple drivers are within a single Dirac Channel, then it’s up to the user to decide between:

1) Pre time aligning the drivers so that all drivers present themselves as close to one loudspeaker for Dirac Live to calibrate as a single L or R channel.

*This can be done via tape measure or whatever time alignment tool you prefer and a any non Dirac Live DSP. But if using the C-DSP 8x12DL or DDRC88 then naiku posted an extremely smart way to obtain the pre T/A:



naiku said:


> Set up the plug in using 7 channels of Dirac (3-way front + sub) - Preset 1.
> Run Dirac on those 7 channels to get TA and levels.
> Setup the plug in using 2 channels of Dirac - Preset 2.
> Enter those TA and level values from the 7 channel Dirac onto the Preset 2.
> Run Dirac as a 2 channel.
> Optimize to target curve.
> Done.


or

2) if you decide to not use pre time alignment you can instead use the strategy oabeieo suggested of placing drivers physically close to each other or applying less steep 6-12dB crossovers between drivers within a single Dirac Live Channel to also help the drivers present as one loudspeaker for DL to correct.

3) If using a more than 2 channel capable Dirac Live product (C-DSP 8x12DL or DDRC88) and you have a multichannel up mixed signal, you can also try simply using individual Dirac channels for each individual driver.

Somebody is bound to try a JBL MS-8 | miniDSP C-DSP8x12DL combo one day?

*If no upmixer is present then a Stereo product (DDRC22, SHD Studio, DDRC24) can be placed ‘over’ those individual DL calibrated channels for stereo calibration. Essentially Dirac Unison.

If one had all the needed hardware, the Dirac software is guided enough so that one will most likely be able to try all 3 methods to see which sounds best in their application well within the time it takes the average person to perform a single manual tune that addresses T/A, EQ, and Phase.


----------



## DavidRam

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Each individual Dirac channel will perform time alignment via impulse response.
> 
> If multiple drivers are within a single Dirac Channel, then it’s up to the user to decide between:
> 
> 1) Pre time aligning the drivers so that all drivers present themselves as close to one loudspeaker for Dirac Live to calibrate as a single channel.
> 
> *This can be done via tape measure or whatever time alignment tool you prefer. If using the C-DSP 8x12DL or DDRC88 then naiku posted an extremely smart way to obtain the pre T/A:
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 2) if you decide to not use pre time alignment you can instead use the strategy oabeieo suggested of placing drivers physically close to each other or applying less steep 6-12dB crossovers between drivers within a single Dirac Live Channel to also help the drivers present as one loudspeaker for DL to correct.
> 
> 3) If using a more than 2 channel capable Dirac Live product (C-DSP 8x12DL or DDRC88) and you have a multichannel up mixed signal, you can also try simply using individual Dirac channels for each individual driver.
> 
> Somebody is bound to try a JBL MS-8 | miniDSP C-DSP8x12DL combo one day?
> 
> *If no upmixer is present then a Stereo product (DDRC22, SHD Studio, DDRC24) can be placed ‘over’ those individual DL calibrated channels for stereo calibration. Essentially Dirac Unison.
> 
> If one had all the needed hardware, the Dirac software is guided enough so that one will most likely be able to try all 3 methods to see which sounds best in their application well within the time it takes the average person to perform a single manual tune that addresses T/A, EQ, and Phase.


Damn! Thanks for that awesome, comprehensive response!! I'll read it a few times to fully understand it...


----------



## captainobvious

bertholomey said:


> Unfortunately....that reminded me of a Korn song.....Ya’ll want a single.....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


 LOL, same for me! I said the exact same words "Y'all want a single" hahah


----------



## bertholomey

captainobvious said:


> LOL, same for me! I said the exact same words "Y'all want a single" hahah


I heard someone say just yesterday, be careful what you listen to, it will come back to memory......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Truthunter

For those of you using a multi-channel DL run to obtain time delay values - pay attention to polarity flips on the IR plots too. I realized this recently.

In my application, Dirac flips polarity of all drivers except the sub. I can tell from the first slope on calculated IR is going in the opposite direction of the measured IR. I had to zoom in on the tweeter IR plot to see this but it's apparent on the rest of the drivers without zooming in.

Sub:









Midbass:









Mids:









Tweeters:










So, when I transfer the delays to the output tabs of the plug-in before running a 2ch Dirac run, I also flip polarity of all drivers except the sub. I hadn't been doing this and the results were still very good but I feel the resolution in the sub/midbass transition area is a bit better after doing this.


----------



## subterFUSE

It is highly common for people to get speakers wired in reverse polarity. Never trust the labeling in a speaker or amp. ALWAYS verify with measurements.

An impulse response plot per driver will show you whether it’s in normal or reverse. If the first ruse is up, you’re normal. If firm, it’s reversed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

John, all my driver IR plots go down first when measured in DLCT. Makes sense since I'm using all LR4 slopes - which from what (I think) I understand rotate phase 180 from the source?


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> John, all my driver IR plots go down first when measured in DLCT. Makes sense since I'm using all LR4 slopes - which from what (I think) I understand rotate phase 180 from the source?


It only flips phase at the corner frequency. The extreme high and low ends will still be normal.

I always check IR polarity before setting crossovers to avoid confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> It is highly common for people to get speakers wired in reverse polarity. Never trust the labeling in a speaker or amp. ALWAYS verify with measurements.
> 
> An impulse response plot per driver will show you whether it’s in normal or reverse. If the first ruse is up, you’re normal. If firm, it’s reversed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Inverting amps....yes true agree have seen it also (it’s been awhile tho but still)


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> John, all my driver IR plots go down first when measured in DLCT. Makes sense since I'm using all LR4 slopes - which from what (I think) I understand rotate phase 180 from the source?


The high pass side passband is 180 out of phase, the rotation starts in the stop band attenuation. As far as - or + degrees, positivities arrive first, negatives are delays

The low pass passband is 0deg and true phase, the 180deg rotation is in the stop band attenuation.

The two 180deg shifts is equal to one cycle and 360deg of phase being they go in opposite directions

A band pass has both


----------



## oabeieo

Uugh I could have that backwards
( I think I do) high pass leads.

I’ll confirm tonight


EDIT: I had it right ...... sorry been a long day. 


The low pass filter, as far as time in concerned, the 1st thing to arrive at the output is the stopband 

A high pass the 1st thing to arrive is the inband 

The highpass is leading. Yes that’s is right 

Sorry have sick kids got only few hrs sleep had to think about it ;-)


----------



## subterFUSE

oabeieo said:


> Uugh I could have that backwards
> ( I think I do) high pass leads.
> 
> I’ll confirm tonight


High pass rotates forward. Low pass backward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

I found these vector diagrams helpful:










According to this diagram - IR will show reverse polarity on the outputs of an LR4 filter compared to the inputs just like what is observed in the measurements above.


----------



## ErinH

That's interesting. So, are you saying that based on that, what you thought was initially out of phase (evidenced by the initial negative dip) was really in-phase?

Do you have a link for that?


Also, I didn't notice before but just went back to look at your picture and noticed the initial dip you're referencing is indeed lower than the peak that comes after for the tweeters and mids. But with the midbass, the dip is followed by a stronger peak. And that has me a bit perplexed. Typically you have a peak or dip of the first sound because it's the strongest and anything after is a reflection. So, the only sense I can make of the midbass plots is either 1) there is some high-order crossover pre-ringing effects (the first dips) which aren't actually part of the real response of the speaker itself or 2) the dip is indeed the first instance and the following peak is a modal issue. I guess to vet the second guess would be to look at the time: if we assume the IR actually begins at 9ms and that's our "0" point, then the peak is about 2-3ms away which would mean you have a modal issue roughly in the neighborhood of 300-500hz. Does that even make sense, based on what you're seeing/hearing in your frequency response? I'm not saying I'm right. I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're showing us and seeing if there's something to be learned from the data.


----------



## subterFUSE

Do not check polarity with crossovers on. This should be done at the beginning of tuning. If crossovers are off, there is no confusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> That's interesting. So, are you saying that based on that, what you thought was initially out of phase (evidenced by the initial negative dip) was really in-phase?
> 
> Do you have a link for that?


Initially, I thought all my drivers were connected reverse polarity because the first peak on the IR goes down on all of them. Then I read that though HP/LP LR4 filters sum in phase with each other, the output of an LR4 filter is opposite polarity (180) of the input... And the vector diagram seems to show that too. So I figured that is why the IR first peak goes down - because it's measuring through the LR4 filters set in the output tabs of the plug-in.










From Page 10 & 11 of the following PDF:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/898e/188534644a7e20129ec38329a434f3304952.pdf




ErinH said:


> Also, I didn't notice before but just went back to look at your picture and noticed the initial dip you're referencing is indeed lower than the peak that comes after for the tweeters and mids. But with the midbass, the dip is followed by a stronger peak. And that has me a bit perplexed. Typically you have a peak or dip of the first sound because it's the strongest and anything after is a reflection. So, the only sense I can make of the midbass plots is either 1) there is some high-order crossover pre-ringing effects (the first dips) which aren't actually part of the real response of the speaker itself or 2) the dip is indeed the first instance and the following peak is a modal issue. I guess to vet the second guess would be to look at the time: if we assume the IR actually begins at 9ms and that's our "0" point, then the peak is about 2-3ms away which would mean you have a modal issue roughly in the neighborhood of 300-500hz. Does that even make sense, based on what you're seeing/hearing in your frequency response? I'm not saying I'm right. I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're showing us and seeing if there's something to be learned from the data.


TBH, I can't say for sure... or if I really understand what your asking here LOL. Would be interesting to see others IR plots to compare. … Actually looking at a text my friend Jason sent me of his midbass & sub IR plots - they are similar where the first peak is lower then the second too. And, also like mine, the measured first peak goes down on his drivers also.


----------



## oabeieo

This is very interesting. , 

I’ve measured some differences also between my dash and kicks and assumed it was the room mode at 300hz. The dash and kicks/doors being out by 1/2cycle. I figured it was a case of stored energy down in the footwell and released late as any group delay would behave. 

Do you have a link to that page or more info on it? 
I would love to read more about that also ;-)


----------



## subterFUSE

Also, if you put the mic right up to the speaker and take an IR, it will be much cleaner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Read the whole thing ,love how it’s written 
It’s a gem. Easily understood for my pea brain.

So this get me thinkin. I could be wrong about a few things ....I need to look into something first. It seems that the polarity flip I was referencing may actually be something else. Although what I said it still technically right, a LR2 should be flipped on the lowpas 
On the contrary, I was under the impression Dirac was fixing things making the crossover actually work and sound in correct phase.

Apparently I have overlooked a few things.
Dirac completely takes over and changes the entirety of the phase at will , regardless of crossover topology. If this is the case then BW filters might not have that obvious 
90deg sound to them. (Which is why BW has criticism in some reguards and in some circles) and I agree , give me a filter that’s in intervals of 180. A lot easier to get right especially in a car. 

I have never had a LR2 “sound” like one side is out of phase in a car, in the house it’s easy! 

The car seems to add so much more problems in early reflecting and loading and functions. And Dirac takes care of all of it in one easy go at it. 

So for now, I retract that, it seems the downstream crossover doesn’t matter at all. 
And I was experiencing something else to be determined


----------



## oabeieo

So did some testing. 

So Dirac does in fact do whatever it pleases
And I was wrong (but right) but mostly wrong. Lol 

So with my new direct radiator setup it’s so much easier to get good measurements. The horns although I love them definitely made some hard to read measurements. 

So the new setup I used LR2 on everything except the bass management crossover is a [email protected] 

Initially I ran Dirac with crossovers enabled and did the polarity flip on the midrange (Stevens 6” on apillar) after Dirac. My measurements showed a fairly clean 180° difference from the door 6 (SI-MK1) and kick (MW-172) so I was like , oh okay the LR2 is actually performing the way it should, requiring a polarity flip. And it sounds bad ass like that. So I posted and told y’all about LR2 awesomeness. (Which it is I still stand by that) 

After looking at truthhunters IRs I knew right away I overlooked something. I had to go see for myself if my car was doing the same thing. He was clearly using Dirac with crossovers on on his screenshots, as was I. 

So I disengaged the filter to bypass on the ddrc22d so I am just listening to the 8ch Dirac tune. And sure enough I could hear the polarity flip did in fact put the lower and upper speakers in proper polarity with each other, crossover is at 300hz, and around 400,500,600hz I could hear a blurring in the responce, a gradual blurring. So I measured it. And it needed a 1st order APF on the top dash mid right above crossover, and the blurring was gone and everything back in phase and measured good again. 
So obviously the ddrc22d was doing that allpass (or a more accurate version of it) thus doing what it should. 

So I ran Dirac 8ch with crossovers off (except the tweeter I had muted and not on in matrix for this test). Turned on the crossovers after Dirac and the phase did change a little as expected but didn’t quite work like the last way. The polarity flip still needed but wasn’t the same. Ran the ddrc22d over top of that this time and it still worked and sounded good and measured good, but not as good as leaving the crossovers on during Dirac. Very similar IRs as well. So the mounting locations played much more of a problem with the room and speaker distances than just the crossovers. 
And the LR2 again did not “sound” like it should all the way through it’s passband with the polarity flip. 

So either of them the ddrc22d was able to get to sound good. Very similar. Running the 8x12DL with crossovers was better IMO. 

I noticed in my measurements the dash speakers with no crossovers (Stevens 6s) had a big deep highQ dip at 315hz where the doors had a milder dip in same place but kicks had no dip at 315. The kicks were not canceling at 315 where the dash and doors were the dash being the worst. I think my choosing the 300hz crossover was just luck and just so happened to be right where I would want to cross based on the dips, the filter behavior, and the sums of all the speakers playing with the midrange inverted. 

Going back this time and doing the 8ch tune again, this time doing the LR2 inversion beforehand, this only caused me to have to re-invert it after Dirac. The sound was the same either way. One has the invert switch on after Dirac one didn’t. 
So Dirac does what it wants. Period. 

So what do we do to get a good 8x12DL tune and use a ddrc upstream; I would do this. 

Do your 8x12DL tune with crossovers on. 
After Dirac listen, if there is a obvious polarity issue where a pair of speaker need to be inverted to get proper reinforcement between pairs. Go ahead and do the polarity invert to maximize reinforcement at that point. Than run the upstream ddrc. It will make the correction perfectly in the allpass to get proper phasing for the spectrum. 

That’s how I ended up doing it. It’s sick AF, measures awesome, and works extraordinarily good.


----------



## oabeieo

?? ??


----------



## oabeieo

One of many comments on that paper , in figures 7a 7b it shows the LR behavior if time alignment is done and how the dispersion radiates evenly and forward.

The one that shows no time alignment (or improper (or should I say slightly possibly purposefully misaligned) time alignment, the radiation goes up. 

Something to ponder on raising a stage in a car to get floor speakers to image high. We have don’t that a lot , and I don’t think it’s always bad. It’s a perfect example of what I’ve said in other threads about adding small amounts of delay intentionally across pairs in a multi-way to raise the stage, even at the cost of some accuracy or other staging or imaging. Some compromises may be worth it than others is all I think I meant.

Anyway , I thought that was interesting part of that.


----------



## dgage

Oabeieo,

I was thinking about your 2ch Dirac in front of the 8ch Dirac and how the 2ch shows a (slight) improvement. Is it the overlay processing or is it V2.0 of Dirac that is causing the extra improvement? Can you run Dirac 1.0 on your 2ch MiniDSP and see if there is any improvement over the 8ch Dirac. Was just thinking that if the 8ch ever gets 2.0, it may not need the extra 2ch box in front. Just a thought.


----------



## oabeieo

dgage said:


> Oabeieo,
> 
> I was thinking about your 2ch Dirac in front of the 8ch Dirac and how the 2ch shows a (slight) improvement. Is it the overlay processing or is it V2.0 of Dirac that is causing the extra improvement? Can you run Dirac 1.0 on your 2ch MiniDSP and see if there is any improvement over the 8ch Dirac. Was just thinking that if the 8ch ever gets 2.0, it may not need the extra 2ch box in front. Just a thought.


2ch brings everything together really nice, with or without an 8ch tune. 2ch is what makes things very nice regardless, however. 

The 2ch over the 8ch honestly sounds almost the exact same as using the 8ch TA and gain settings on a 2ch tune except the stage is much easier to get it extremely well balanced, only because all the speakers are playing acoustically flat before the 2ch tune. 

Someone could use peq and get all the speakers to play flat, than run there 2ch Dirac and get a very similar result. Except with 8ch Dirac before , Diracs eq works a little different because it essentially removes any time domain issues that would be the result of using peq. Technically, if your using peq on a part of the responce that is minimum phase than it would not add any distortions to the space time continuum. (Lmao sorry I had to say it). If the area your adding peq to is not minimum phase than it would cause a slight problem in the time domain. The Dirac 2ch would remove that problem, but what if that problem is in a crossover area. Than it’s only partially solving it. It fixes the sum of all left and all right in 2ch. 

A good two channel tune with a proper pretune would also be extremely good. 
Doing it this way sure takes the guesswork out and makes it extremely good fairly easy.

So I’m not sure that v2 is what is making it better, maybe slightly, having used both. I think it’s more about all the speakers playing flat and having the GD removed from each driver beforehand. Like I says, weather it be from a result of peq or any other of the so many many variables that would cause issues.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

dgage said:


> Is it the overlay processing or is it V2.0 of Dirac that is causing the extra improvement?



It is the overlay processing. It’s the principle that the 1st round sets crossovers and EQ’s for the individual drivers giving each driver an ‘ideal’ response. Then the final additional 2 channel Dirac on top aligns all those tuned drivers into single L and R loudspeakers for proper stereo alignment.

To my understanding the main differences between 1.0 and 2.0 is how the algorithm addresses comb filtering.


----------



## dgage

Since you have a shop, the 2ch and 8ch MiniDSP DL is easier/quicker/cheaper to do for your customers and I’m sure also more consistently repeatable. While not exactly cheap, you could sell your customers on a consistent tune without a huge time/money outlay. I like it!


----------



## oabeieo

dgage said:


> Since you have a shop, the 2ch and 8ch MiniDSP DL is easier/quicker/cheaper to do for your customers and I’m sure also more consistently repeatable. While not exactly cheap, you could sell your customers on a consistent tune without a huge time/money outlay. I like it!



Exactly,

Every car turn out completely bad ass or to it’s absolute potential in just a few minutes is so essential. Customers don’t like to pay for tuning time. Most have no clue that you have to move heaven and earth to tune a car properly. Even after through consultation it’s something that gets the least attention.

And the worst part is, after spending weeks on a build in fab , the anticipation to get done is high and almost always under budget. Custom work takes a ton of time to do nice, and when your on the clock the tuning is usually done for free. 

When I tune cars , I have a process, it works excellent, it’s fast, and to the point. But by no means do I ever have time to do the super fine tuning. This opens up a lot of opportunity.


----------



## Bizarroterl

I'm planning a install revision and will be using the MiniDSP 8x12 w/Dirac. For the front tweeters/mids I have the C3CX using their crossovers. Would there be any advantage to drop the crossover and go full active?


----------



## craigbru

Bizarroterl said:


> I'm planning a install revision and will be using the MiniDSP 8x12 w/Dirac. For the front tweeters/mids I have the C3CX using their crossovers. Would there be any advantage to drop the crossover and go full active?


I'm actually curious about this as well. I'm currently running a full active 3-way with budget speakers. I just bought a set of Dynaudio 362's that will require more power than I currently have. Moving to more powerful SQ oriented amps will require more budget than I want to put out short term. 

Since we can take advantage of the DL tuning, would it make sense to use the passive crossovers with a higher powered single amp? Wouldn't most of the passive crossover disadvantages be solved by DL? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

When people ask where to cross speakers, you will get a range and then we’ll tell you to play with the crossover point, crossover slope, and gap/overlap to see what sounds best in your install and vehicle.

What most people don’t realize is how much the room affects how a speaker sounds. I’ve heard some of the most accurate studio speakers on the market in the $20,000 a pair (with amp and special DSP) JBL M2 studio monitors in a treated room and in an untreated room. The speakers sounded hugely different. I now tell people that I’ll take a decent speaker in a treated room over the best speaker in an untreated room.

So with a passive crossover, you won’t get to play with the interface between the tweeter and midrange. So you may not get as much out of the DSP with the passive and you may not get the most out of your system. But you’ll probably be able to get pretty close and likely good enough. You could always start with the passives, enjoy your system, and maybe upgrade later if you want.


----------



## Bizarroterl

Thanks. With the C3CXs being essentially a coaxial there's even less optimization for the MiniDSP to do. That said, I think I will go separates. Room is tight and the amps are smaller than the crossovers.


----------



## ErinH

FWIW, I just saw that PE is now selling this. Remember, if you buy this to also buy the USB mic if you don't already have one.

Link to minidsp

Link to microphone


----------



## Truthunter

$60 more than buying direct and a UMIK-1 is NOT included?


----------



## ErinH

I didn't check the going rate on miniDSP. I figure PE was charging a little premium for convenience of having it ready to go here in the US. But, I guess it's a bit more than I thought...


----------



## naiku

Any of you know if the DSP has signal sensing on the high level inputs? I have to tap off the stock amp in my Volvo for a signal and there is no switched 12V available. Trying to figure out if there is signal sensing on the inputs, but can't find any information. All I can find is the info on the remote switch positions.


----------



## itlnstln

naiku said:


> Any of you know if the DSP has signal sensing on the high level inputs? I have to tap off the stock amp in my Volvo for a signal and there is no switched 12V available. Trying to figure out if there is signal sensing on the inputs, but can't find any information. All I can find is the info on the remote switch positions.


No, you need the 12V. I was hoping this was the case, too.


----------



## itlnstln

Bizarroterl said:


> I'm planning a install revision and will be using the MiniDSP 8x12 w/Dirac. For the front tweeters/mids I have the C3CX using their crossovers. Would there be any advantage to drop the crossover and go full active?


There's some fine-tuning benefits to running active w/DL, to be sure, but I run passive and haven't had any problems. I have some harshness above the XO point (~3-6kHz), but that has more to do with the tweeters being up by the windshield in the stock location than anything DL is doing. I just cut those frequencies a bit to tame sibilants and snare attacks


----------



## naiku

itlnstln said:


> No, you need the 12V. I was hoping this was the case, too.


Thanks, figured as much. I think I've located a switched 12V that I can use, just one more wire to run.


----------



## Burrito78

Truthunter said:


> $60 more than buying direct and a UMIK-1 is NOT included?


I noticed the jacked up price at partsexpress as well. Just out of curiosity, can anyone who has recently purchased a high value item from minidsp directly comment on whether or not they got hit with a tariff/tax bill? I've seen some people reported getting hit with a tax bill of 1.5% percent and a $7 processing fee back in 2015. On the flip side, if there is a problem, it's very easy to get things sorted through partsexpress if you happen to be in the US. Trying to decide where to buy it from and weighing it all out. 

TIA


----------



## subterFUSE

I bought a DDRC-22D 2 weeks ago and no tariff on my invoice.

$650 approx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

For me when I’ve purchased a couple things overseas, the tariff came a week or two later.


----------



## Burrito78

dgage said:


> For me when I’ve purchased a couple things overseas, the tariff came a week or two later.


If you don't mind, about how much was the purchase and how much was the tariff? Or if you remember the rates and fees that would be great as well.


----------



## dgage

It has been too long but with my latest MiniDSP 8x12DL purchase, I didn’t receive a tariff. So I don’t know if something changed or if there is a threshold for tariff charges.


----------



## Burrito78

dgage said:


> It has been too long but with my latest MiniDSP 8x12DL purchase, I didn’t receive a tariff. So I don’t know if something changed or if there is a threshold for tariff charges.


Good to hear, about how long ago did you get your last 8x12DL? Also, did you get the mic with it? I only ask in case package size plays into who delivers it. I assume that your last one was delivered by USPS?


----------



## dgage

Looked up my order from 6/6/2019 and it says it shipped “EMS/FedexEMS/USPS - Small items/ Fedex - Large items”but for some reason I thought it came DHL, which also means USPS I think. I already had a Umik-1 so only the 8x12DL.


----------



## Burrito78

dgage said:


> Looked up my order from 6/6/2019 and it says it shipped “EMS/FedexEMS/USPS - Small items/ Fedex - Large items”but for some reason I thought it came DHL, which also means USPS I think. I already had a Umik-1 so only the 8x12DL.


Cool, thanks for all of your help.


----------



## subterFUSE

I got a DDRC-22D to try out in front of my CDSP8x12DL, but I can’t get any of my computers to connect to the 22D.

Tried Win7, Win10, OSX High Sierra, Mojave, plug-in and Dirac Live 1 and 2.

Nothing will connect. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

subterFUSE said:


> I got a DDRC-22D to try out in front of my CDSP8x12DL, but I can’t get any of my computers to connect to the 22D.
> 
> Tried Win7, Win10, OSX High Sierra, Mojave, plug-in and Dirac Live 1 and 2.
> 
> Nothing will connect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow! That is surprising!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

subterFUSE said:


> I got a DDRC-22D to try out in front of my CDSP8x12DL, but I can’t get any of my computers to connect to the 22D.
> 
> Tried Win7, Win10, OSX High Sierra, Mojave, plug-in and Dirac Live 1 and 2.
> 
> Nothing will connect.


Noooo! Well that’s highly unusual.

Hopefully nothing wrong with the unit. Only trying to connect to one DSP at a time right?


----------



## naiku

Any of you know if there is a setting when using speaker level vs RCA into the DSP? Powered mine up in the V60 today and it's incredibly quiet, yet there is crackling from the speakers. 

I can't see any settings to tell it I'm using speaker level vs line level, but figured that would be a good place to start. 

Thanks.


----------



## banshee28

There has been ALOT of good tips and ideas here, many trials and errors, do's and don'ts, etc.... I think it would be great for those that had a successful tune using these latest methods to post a quick summary. Maybe even add this to the first post. 
Here is what I gathered as "best practice":

1) Set XO and levels - Using REW set to best sounding and measuring
2) Polarity: Normally I have all polarity normal, but in my current build I inverted pass midrange and it measured and sounded much better. So not sure if I had the cables wrong or not. Should I leave this set this way before Dirac?
3) Set TA based on TM or some Dirac DSP (is this still optimal?)
4) NO EQ/PEQ since it messes with the time domain
5) Possibly use 12db slopes vs 24 for better integration. On all speakers or maybe only tweets?

I actually did just this and had TA and the rest sounding pretty good, then ran Dirac. Well tonality was ok, but Center was WAY to the Left and was terrible! Not sure if my pre-tune TA messed with this but again it was centered pre-tune so not sure. I also flipped some polarity post-install and it was a bit better but still way to the Left.

Any ideas?


----------



## banshee28

Any ideas how to get my Center back post-Dirac? Before Dirac both center and TA were pretty good. Ran Dirac as advised but Center seems rather far left each time. I do the Chair setup starting with the mic right under the headrest and recently aimed up a little, then measured about 12" to each side of that like a 24" square box. So I think thats the correct way.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

It is very hard to assign an exact method that will work for every setup and vehicle. But you pretty much touched on all the variable points to try and experiment. Make different tune presets to compare what sounds best.

So far I’ve been setting my R/L channel gain levels to measure at the same level (@ listening position) before running Dirac. You can try doing that or not to see how it changes things.

The initial measurement is the anchor measurement. Be sure to have the mic dead middle of the listening position. I have been placing the mic in same consistent orientation for each position. If it facing up for center anchor measurement, then its facing up the same way for all the other measurement points.









* I also take each measurement position 2 or 3 times. Each time I am observing that the measurements are consistent and that I’m not capturing an outlier/anomaly measurement.


Try different sizes of the Measuring box of the chair configuration you explained. Instead of 12” try 6” inches to each side from the center.
You can also try using T/A before running Dirac and the compare to not using any pre T/A.
Post Dirac you can alter L / R output levels to bring everything closer to center
You can try using a different measuring schemes like sofa (focused) if using Dirac 2.0


----------



## naiku

@banshee28 are you running Dirac in 7 channel (assuming 3 way plus sub) to get initial TA and levels, then running Dirac again in 2 or 3 channel to get your final tune?

I've experienced the center being way off a couple times, it almost always came down to microphone placement. Usually just the first sweet spot measurement is a Coulee inches too far forward. Try experimenting a little with the first measurement, assuming you saved the project, you can simple load that in DLCT and retake that first one.


----------



## banshee28

Thanks guys! Sounds like some good things to try! As far as MIC placement, I actually had the MIC facing forward for all measurements! I thought that was correct for Dirac. Traditionally with REW type stuff I used the MIC facing up. I will try this facing UP and also try it more in the center like in the pic above. I did save the project so maybe I can get lucky with just changing the center measurement!

As far as which Dirac I have its a 2-ch DDRC24, going into my Helix P Six via 2-ch Inputs, the P Six has RCA sub outs (linked) to the single SUB. 

So SUB gets measured during each LR test it seems.


----------



## dgage

If you’re interested in how you’re using the mic, don’t forget to take a look at this gem from Erin.









How-To: Build a MMM rig for RTA purposes


This is my second video and I'm learning. It isn't perfect (I need better garage lighting and a better mic) but it's the journey, right?... Anyway, in this video I'll teach you how to DIY your own Moving Microphone Measurement (MMM) setup to use with an RTA system to EQ your stereo system's...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

banshee28 said:


> I actually had the MIC facing forward for all measurements! I thought that was correct for Dirac.


Yea, there is conflicting information about mic orientation for Dirac Live calibration. I think Dirac themselves suggest 0 degree orientation and miniDSP suggests 90 degree (or vice versa).

I would try to keep it consistent for all measuring points.


----------



## banshee28

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Yea, there is conflicting information about mic orientation for Dirac Live calibration. I think Dirac themselves suggest 0 degree orientation and miniDSP suggests 90 degree (or vice vests).
> 
> I would try to keep it consistent for all measuring points.


Yea I think I remember reading that a while back. I will do a few more measurements today and see if I get it better.


----------



## Truthunter

Anyone noticed or using the latest DL firmware (2.7) released in Jan 2020? I'm still using 2.6 and don't see the need to update based on the description of what it fixes.










I find it interesting that the DL upgrade is now available for V1 boards... and that they were able to address the noise floor issue many were experiencing with the V1 board with just a firmware bug fix... especially when they spent tons of $$$ designing, manufacturing, and replacing V1 boards free of charge 🤔


----------



## banshee28

Well not good news but here is what I got... 

I started from scratch. I set basic levels L/R the same, then used dirac to set TA. Basically SUB stayed at 0 and everything else delayed from there. 
Once set, center was still not right just yet, but changing levels mostly turning down drivers side speakers, I got it very good. Tweets/mid/mb, SUB al seems to blend nicely and centered, up front and its really good! I say 8.5/10 with NO EQ. I used tracks as well as centered pn tracks at specific feq's (60/80/100/200/1k/2k/4k/etc..... All were pretty much centered nicely!!

I then used Dirac to try to improve from this very good pre-tune!

Well after anticipating this would FINALLY net a good tune, not only was I disappointed, it was the worst tune ever, nearly like no levels or TA set at all! My A/B comparison from no Dirac to Dirac was going from a pretty solid focused center, to sound coming directly in the doors. I never had that before even with other Dirac tunes! I then thought ok maybe a simple polarity tweak will fix this, so I swapped it on several speakers and it was worse so that was not the issue. 

I noticed 4.x ms delay on one side which is even more than a NO TA Pre-Tune. Now maybe this is due to the way I did the pre-tune starting with the SUB at zero and TA'g everything else from there. Maybe Dirac does not pay nicely with these values even though it helped calculate them.

Pretty sure I am doing this right, Dirac is even at the latest update as of a few days back.

For now I will stick to my pre-tune, may go back and do some REW work, but this should work better!! 🥴


----------



## ckirocz28

subterFUSE said:


> I got a DDRC-22D to try out in front of my CDSP8x12DL, but I can’t get any of my computers to connect to the 22D.
> 
> Tried Win7, Win10, OSX High Sierra, Mojave, plug-in and Dirac Live 1 and 2.
> 
> Nothing will connect.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I had this problem after inadvertently wiping my latop and having to reinstall Windows 10, my issue was a missing version of Visual C++ (vcredist 2010).


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

banshee28 said:


> I noticed 4.x ms delay on one side which is even more than a NO TA Pre-Tune. Now maybe this is due to the way I did the pre-tune starting with the SUB at zero and TA'g everything else from there. Maybe Dirac does not pay nicely with these values even though it helped calculate them.


Did you try measuring speaker distances and using ErinH’s calculator (or any delay calculator)? Do this to see if your getting similar time delay values. If your not then there might be something going on with the positioning or orientation of the mic that is not giving Dirac an accurate read of the center of the listing position.

If the T/A values are similar, then yea its kind of frustrating. But hang in there a little bit longer. Try it a couple more times. Small things like mic sensitivity level or the output speaker level the measurements are performed at will change things too.

Lastly it’s an algorithm and nothing is perfect. I performed it several times before finding one that sealed the deal.


----------



## DavidRam

Is anyone using a tablet for tuning with the Mini?? I have been using an 11.6" laptop, but I have been thinking about getting a Windows tablet for that purpose...
However, if Dirac is going to need much less work than traditional tuning methods with REW, maybe I shouldn't bother... Any thoughts on that?


----------



## jtrosky

DavidRam said:


> Is anyone using a tablet for tuning with the Mini?? I have been using an 11.6" laptop, but I have been thinking about getting a Windows tablet for that purpose...
> However, if Dirac is going to need much less work than traditional tuning methods with REW, maybe I shouldn't bother... Any thoughts on that?


If you are interested, I have a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro that I have no use for (I ended up winning both a Yoga 2 Pro and a Yoga 3 on Ebay that I stupidly bid on at the same time). I'm using the Yoga 3 for my Helix tuning (so mainly use if for the Helix app and REW) and I absolutely LOVE it. The Yoga 2 Pro has a nice big 13.3" screen, very high resolution (3200x1800), backlit keyboard and, of course, the screen folds back over the keyboard so that you can use it as a tablet or a laptop. It is actually one of the higher-end models of the Yoga 2 Pro, with a core i7 processor, 8gb of RAM and SSD drive (can't remember the size - probably 128gb or 256gb - but may even be a 512gb). It's 100% functional and the screen is perfect. There is some wear on the keyboard/trackpad (you know how they get "shiny" with use) and some significant scratches on the case. Definitely not a "cosmetically perfect" device, but it's a "functionally perfect" device - especially for audio tuning use.  And cheap. I'd actually give it to you for less than I paid for it. I _think_ I paid $250 for it (I'd have to check). We can discuss price if interested (PM me - don't want to go off-topic here more than I already have).

I basically just fold the device over and use it as a tablet while in the car (the Yoga 3 I use) - and it is just _so_ much nicer that using a regular-style laptop in the car...


----------



## DavidRam

jtrosky said:


> If you are interested, I have a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro that I have no use for (I ended up winning both a Yoga 2 Pro and a Yoga 3 on Ebay that I stupidly bid on at the same time). I'm using the Yoga 3 for my Helix tuning (so mainly use if for the Helix app and REW) and I absolutely LOVE it. The Yoga 2 Pro has a nice big 13.3" screen, very high resolution (3200x1800), backlit keyboard and, of course, the screen folds back over the keyboard so that you can use it as a tablet or a laptop. It is actually one of the higher-end models of the Yoga 2 Pro, with a core i7 processor, 8gb of RAM and SSD drive (can't remember the size - probably 128gb or 256gb - but may even be a 512gb). It's 100% functional and the screen is perfect. There is some wear on the keyboard/trackpad (you know how they get "shiny" with use) and some significant scratches on the case. Definitely not a "cosmetically perfect" device, but it's a "functionally perfect" device - especially for audio tuning use.  And cheap. I'd actually give it to you for less than I paid for it. I _think_ I paid $250 for it (I'd have to check). We can discuss price if interested (PM me - don't want to go off-topic here more than I already have).
> 
> I basically just fold the device over and use it as a tablet while in the car (the Yoga 3 I use) - and it is just _so_ much nicer that using a regular-style laptop in the car...


Innnnnnteresting... Could you plz pm me pics and price? Ty


----------



## banshee28

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Did you try measuring speaker distances and using ErinH’s calculator (or any delay calculator)? Do this to see if your getting similar time delay values. If your not then there might be something going on with the positioning or orientation of the mic that is not giving Dirac an accurate read of the center of the listing position.
> 
> If the T/A values are similar, then yea its kind of frustrating. But hang in there a little bit longer. Try it a couple more times. Small things like mic sensitivity level or the output speaker level the measurements are performed at will change things too.
> 
> Lastly it’s an algorithm and nothing is perfect. I performed it several times before finding one that sealed the deal.


So great question... Here are the details.
So I did not use the tape measure method for a few reasons. First is that I figured using Dirac for TA would be the most accurate. In fact, I think I read somewhere that Erin actually did the same for his tune, possibly in this same thread? Also I am not sure how accurate the Tape method would be using SUB's as it gets tricky there.

However... Maybe the way i used Dirac to get my TA is not right??

I started with the SUB and left them at 0ms TA. My single SUB is setup 50/50 L/R so it gets played on both channels at the same time. I think this is also optimal from what I understand.

So my method for TA was:
Sub stays a 0ms, and TA each Midbass to sub.
Then MB to Mid, then mid to tweet. 
Basically all the front is delayed except for the SUB. Pre-tune it sounds great but maybe this is impacting things?

Also my L/R levels are NOT the same since I needed to adjust them to get center. 

Should I leave the levels basically the same L/R before starting Dirac? I did this to get center as close as possible pre-Dirac thinking it would be best.

Maybe levels should simply be the same regardless of center and let Dirac work on the Center part?

Is the above TA method a good starting point or would this be a issue??


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

I mention the tape measure to double check what Dirac is giving you.

For the testing purposes leave the sub out of equation. Just focus on front stage speakers for now. Measure distance to each driver and use any time delay calculator and take note of the values. Then perform Dirac T/A method you described for the front speakers (still no sub). Compare those time delay values to the ones from the calculator. They may not be exactly the same but they should be in the same ballpark. If not then I feel there is something going at the measurement level. As in the mic position, mic sensitivity level, or volume at which you are performing the calibration is not giving Dirac an accurate read of the mic being at the center of your listening position.

Also seems like using the Dirac T/A method best applies to car audio when using a more than 2 channel miniDSP model like the DDRC88 or C8x12DL. The way your doing it with the DDRC24 sounds like it should work in theory but I can’t speak from experience on that one. Reach out to user Oabeieabout that.
Or maybe others performing T/A that way with a DDRC24 can chime in.

As Naiku mentioned when using the 8x12DL you can perform Dirac calibration in multichannel mode where a single calibration will give you time delay values for up to 8 channels. That’s also the same method ErinH used in his write up. 

As for the Right and Left Levels, I have success getting them to measure the same using a mic in the same center position that is used for the Dirac Calibration. Others have success leaving levels as is (R and L are the same).

But before you are even running the calibration, how are you setting up the microphone sensitivity? In my build I have better success getting the test noise to measure just into the green zone (below the midway point of the green zone).

My mic sensitivity is set around 80% and I turn up the speaker volume until the noise level just turns green. Then perform test at that volume.


----------



## JamesRC

Bnlcmbcar said:


> . . . when using the 8x12DL you can perform Dirac calibration in multichannel mode where a single calibration will give you time delay values for up to 8 channels.


I'd like to fine-tune my DL tune and have a quick question about setting it up to get time alignment values from Dirac. This screenshot is how my mixer panel is setup now. What do I need to change in order to get time alignment values from Dirac? I haven't played with this in a while and feel a bit rusty. 

I imagine each driver needs it's own Dirac channel? So Mid L, for example, would go to Dirac 3? Mid R to Dirac 4, etc.


----------



## Truthunter

JamesRC said:


> This screenshot is how my mixer panel is setup now. What do I need to change in order to get time alignment values from Dirac? I haven't played with this in a while and feel a bit rusty.
> 
> I imagine each driver needs it's own Dirac channel? So Mid L, for example, would go to Dirac 3? Mid R to Dirac 4, etc.


Yes, you got it.... each driver get's it's own Dirac channel.


----------



## dgage

Truthunter said:


> Yes, you got it.... each driver get's it's own Dirac channel.


That’s one way to do it but Oabaeio seemed to like 1-ch for left and 1-ch for right. May want to look back at some of his posts where he discussed his testing and findings.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

dgage said:


> That’s one way to do it but Oabaeio seemed to like 1-ch for left and 1-ch for right. May want to look back at some of his posts where he discussed his testing and findings.


Truthunter is referring to obtaining T/A values for all your drivers from Dirac (or at least up to 8 of them). These T/A values can then be entered for each driver before performing a 2 channel (L and R) Dirac calibration.



> naiku said:
> 1) Set up the plug in using 7 channels of Dirac (3-way front + sub) - Preset 1.
> 
> 2) Run Dirac on those 7 channels to get TA and levels.
> 
> 3) Setup the plug in using 2 channels of Dirac - Preset 2.
> 
> 4) Enter those TA and level values from the 7 channel Dirac onto the Preset 2.
> 
> 5) Run Dirac as a 2 channel.
> 
> 6) Optimize to target curve.
> 
> 7) Done.


----------



## Truthunter

dgage said:


> That’s one way to do it but Oabaeio seemed to like 1-ch for left and 1-ch for right. May want to look back at some of his posts where he discussed his testing and findings.


Yes, that is what I do also... But he was asking how to use a multi-channel run to obtain delays which then can be entered into the plug in's output tabs prior to running a 2ch (L/R). This as apposed to just entering delays by distance.


----------



## JamesRC

Thank you, guys!

Yes, that’s exactly it. My actual tune will be a left and a right, and maybe a third channel for the sub since they evidently recommend tuning it separately. But right now I’m just wondering how to set it up for TA values. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JamesRC

Guys, I might be the official dumb guy of the forum . . .

I did new measurements with one channel assigned to each driver, then calculated the optimizations, but I can't figure out where to find the time alignment values. Is there a tutorial somewhere online? I remember someone posted a YouTube video showing us how to set this thing up, but I can't seem to find it now.


----------



## Truthunter

JamesRC said:


> Guys, I might be the official dumb guy of the forum . . .
> 
> I did new measurements with one channel assigned to each driver, then calculated the optimizations, but I can't figure out where to find the time alignment values. Is there a tutorial somewhere online? I remember someone posted a YouTube video showing us how to set this thing up, but I can't seem to find it now.


You'll need to load that optimized Dirac file into one of the configuration presets. Then close out of the Dirac app and open the plugin... Connect to the processor and view the Dirac tab on the preset that you loaded the file onto. It will now have values in the delay and levels fields. Those are the delays you're looking for.


----------



## JamesRC

Ha! There they are. Thank you. 

I went back to my 2-channel tune and punched the new values for each respective driver in my output tab. Then I went to the Dirac tab to zero out the delay there. It won’t let me. Can someone tell me now how to zero it out?

Thank you for the handholding. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

JamesRC said:


> Ha! There they are. Thank you.
> 
> I went back to my 2-channel tune and punched the new values for each respective driver in my output tab. Then I went to the Dirac tab to zero out the delay there. It won’t let me. Can someone tell me now how to zero it out?
> 
> Thank you for the handholding.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You'll need to go back to the Dirac app, load any saved file, then just jump to the export screen. On the export screen you'll take the file that's in the preset you want to clear and drag it to the trash bin in the upper right corner. That will clear all Dirac delays, levels, and EQ from that preset. You can confirm by going back into the plugin and viewing the Dirac tab for that preset... Everything should be zeroed out.


----------



## JamesRC

EDIT: never mind, LOL. Once you go back with DIRAC, levels and TA shouldn’t be an issue because they’ve already been manually adjusted. 

_Once I delete them, is there a way to generate EQ in DIRAC without the levels and TA? 

The real question is how are people getting their EQ from DIRAC while manually entering TA? _


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JamesRC

After adjusting the levels and TA in the miniDSP software, I recorded new sweeps in chair and adjusted to the Wisdom curve. I did all left channels on Dirac 1, right on Dirac 2, and subs on Dirac 3. 

I’m literally giddy right now. I feel like I’m finally hearing the potential of my setup! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JamesRC

What interests me is that Dirac doesn’t seem to like subs. I adjusted my levels at the amp until they were all approx equal in the mic gain dialogue, but after doing sweeps and optimizing everything, it cut my subs by 18 dB. 

I really like the EQ results on my subs (they definitely sound more full), and I brought the level back up manually to taste, but they were non-existent in the optimized results. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

Glad to hear your happy with the results. If you go back through this thread (and others), you'll find the positive reaction of many once they got it set up right. Giddy is a good word for it  

Note on the sub levels: Many of us had the same issue with the sub level being too low when it was assigned it's own Dirac channel. That is why most are using just a final 2ch (L/R) because it keeps the level of the sub(s) proportional to the rest of the drivers to achieve the overall target curve without having to do post optimization level adjustments.


----------



## DavidRam

Am I an idiot or did MiniDSP make it hard to find where/how to download the software?? Could someone post a link, please, for the 8x12 w/dl?


----------



## Truthunter

DavidRam said:


> Am I an idiot or did MiniDSP make it hard to find where/how to download the software?? Could someone post a link, please, for the 8x12 w/dl?


You'll need to log into your MiniDSP account. Click on dropdown arrow next to username in upper right corner and select "user downloads" then scroll down to "C-DSP Plug-Ins"


----------



## DavidRam

Truthunter said:


> You'll need to log into your MiniDSP account. Click on dropdown arrow next to username in upper right corner and select "user downloads" then scroll down to "C-DSP Plug-Ins"


Thank you!

Edit: Got it!


----------



## DavidRam

I would like to pay someone with an 8x12 to set up all my configs and send me the file. Anyone???

I just don't have the time and patience right now...


----------



## Truthunter

I could help out but not until the weekend.


----------



## DavidRam

Truthunter said:


> I could help out but not until the weekend.


PM sent

Thank you!


----------



## 01LSi

DavidRam said:


> Am I an idiot or did MiniDSP make it hard to find where/how to download the software?? Could someone post a link, please, for the 8x12 w/dl?


No you’re not, it’s not obvious at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

DavidRam said:


> I would like to pay someone with an 8x12 to set up all my configs and send me the file. Anyone???
> 
> I just don't have the time and patience right now...


Do you just need the mixer tab, crossovers etc completed? If you don't want to wait until the weekend for Ryan to take a look at it, shoot me a PM with the details and I can set up the file later today.



01LSi said:


> No you’re not, it’s not obvious at all.


Yup, it's not the simplest thing to find in the world.


----------



## DavidRam

naiku said:


> Do you just need the mixer tab, crossovers etc completed? If you don't want to wait until the weekend for Ryan to take a look at it, shoot me a PM with the details and I can set up the file later today.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, it's not the simplest thing to find in the world.


Thank you! I'm in no hurry...


----------



## JamesRC

Once I realized how to integrate DL, it was really easy. Figuring out how to integrate DL... Not so much. It would be great if MiniDSP would put together a 15 minute YouTube tutorial walking through the process. 

This is by far the best my car has ever sounded. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

So I did some tuning the other week and discovered something that the rest of you may already know....or I may be completely wrong about. In the Plug-In, I have crossovers and TA applied (the TA was gotten from the 7 channel run). I did not apply any PEQ bands in the Plug-In, and I did not apply my normal levels (LT-15, RT-5, LMR-4, RMR-3). I completed a 2 channel Dirac run, and then muted all but mid range drivers......image was centered, then the tweeters without mid range......centered, same with mid bass. 

So the algorithm measured and compensated for relative speaker levels. I know, duh! But wait, when I was running the 2 channel with my levels set, what was the software doing to 'compensate' for that.....or was it? Doing it this way, I have a lot more volume.....duh! With no EQ applied in the Plug-In, the overall sound (to me) is much more natural - truer to my 2 channel and headphones vs when I had a lot of EQ in the Plug-In, and then dirac to get to a set curve. 

I'm hoping to get over to my home audio guy soon to have him take a listen - his critique the last time he listened was that it was seemingly over-processed....muted, veiled......sounded more natural without dirac applied and without all the PEQ applied. Do I have COVID-19 of the brain or is what I'm hearing legit......my friend Jacob kind of liked what he heard. It is a bit 'shiny' with 'shiny' recordings (Godsmack, Breaking Benjamin, even Mumford & Sons).....extremely detailed though.


----------



## naiku

I don't believe you.... 

Actually, after talking to Jason on the phone yesterday I tried a similar tune today. Previously I did the 7 channel, took those levels and TA values and plugged them into the 2 channel and then ran a Dirac in 2 channel. While I was happy with the sound, I felt like it was a little quiet overall considering that I have plenty of power from the PDX amps. Earlier today, I took an extended coffee break from work, plugged in the TA values into a spare preset, zeroed out all the levels and then ran 2 channel Dirac with nothing set except those TA values. 

Same as his experience, a whole lot more volume and it also sounds as it should. Center is right up where it should be, nothing sounds fatiguing to me (the Kappa 20MX can be real harsh). I had to force myself to go back to work and not just drain the car battery listening to music in the garage.

Interestingly, when I initially upgraded to Dirac I was manually updating L / R levels based upon REW measurements and not entering anything for TA, based on what I am hearing today it seems to be a bit of a waste of time entering levels. I might have to make an excuse to go for a drive tomorrow, can't go anywhere today as my wife is working and while I am happy to turn up the volume, I don't want to damage my children's hearing


----------



## Truthunter

Looks like I'll be staying up late tonight to try this out ☺


----------



## JamesRC

Other than staying with my 3-channel tune (because it just sounds so good to me), this is how I did it. I didn’t apply any PEQ, just Dirac all the way. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 01LSi

sigh. This is where awiki feature would be great ... What's the procedural step by step concensus here if someone only owns a single 8x12DL (if there is any)? 

I've run DL a couple times on the test bench indoors it seems with good result.

In the car are we preferring Sofa tune? One seat tune? If sofa, what space is considered the "sofa" is it still the driver's seat?



My "CDSP" Software Plugin Steps (prep before launching Dirac) ...

Only prep work I did was channel routing and crossover points
I _would_ do TA prior but the speakers are already equidistant from listening position
I _did not touch levels_ bc I believe that DL software was going to adjust and take care of that for me, I think that's the point of the 2 posts above right?


Dirac Live app steps...

sofa or seat? I chose sofa in the house as it was more obvious
play the noise generator for each speaker and adjust level to the max of the green range
let Dirac run it's measurements
link all left channels and non aggressively adjust them at the same time to the target curve (link sub?)
link all right channels and adjust them non aggressively at the same time to the target curve (link sub?)
^^ it sounds like at this point you guys are delinking all the channels and linking left and right mids and adjusting to target. Then linking left and right tweeters together and adjusting to target. Etc ?


----------



## naiku

01LSi said:


> ^^ it sounds like at this point you guys are delinking all the channels and linking left and right mids and adjusting to target. Then linking left and right tweeters together and adjusting to target. Etc ?


Here is what I do, hopefully this helps clear it up.. 

1) Use the mixer tab to set each speaker to a Dirac channel, so for a 3 way set up + subwoofer, I use 7 channels. - Preset 1
2) Run Dirac on a custom 7 channel set up (I just take a single measurement in the "sweet spot"), apply the results to Slot 1. 
3) Open the plug in, turn Dirac on in Preset 1 and make a note of the TA values from the Dirac tab.
4) Switch to preset 2 and enter those TA values (previously I had also taken the levels from the Dirac tab) into each speaker. 
5) On the mixer tab, set each Left speaker to Dirac 1, each right speaker to Dirac 2, I also add the subwoofer to both Dirac 1 and Dirac 2 (note, you can set the subwoofer on Dirac 3, YMMV on if this is better than including it with the L / R speakers or not).
6) Run Dirac this time as a stereo set up, taking all 9 measurements. 
7) Load my target curve, Left and Right response are linked, make any adjustments as necessary, click Optimize and apply the results to Slot 2. 
8) Back to the plug in, update the Master Volume as required.
9) Done. 

In your case, since you wrote: 



01LSi said:


> Only prep work I did was channel routing and crossover points
> I _would_ do TA prior but the speakers are already equidistant from listening position
> I _did not touch levels_ bc I believe that DL software was going to adjust and take care of that for me, I think that's the point of the 2 posts above right?


So you don't really need to do steps 1 through 4 above, although I am assuming once you are running this in your vehicle, you will need to do that. No need to touch levels as you correctly assumed, it appears Dirac does that for you anyway. So, yep, much like you, the only prep work I did is channel routing and crossovers (until I then entered the TA values given from steps 1-4 above). 

In the car I use the Chair setting, I believe that is what most of us are using. One thing I have found is that microphone placement can vary even for the chair setting, for the 9 positions I make a fairly large sized box, but I know others keep the measurements all within a fairly small box shape around the ears. My rear measurements for example are just behind my shoulder while the forward measurements are almost out to my knees. Lower measurements at the bottom of my rib cage in height, upper measurements with the base of the microphone on my shoulder. This works well for me, but may not for you.


----------



## Ziggyrama

FWIW, I follow the procedure that naiku just described with my sub included in 2 channels. You really want that in there for Dirac to correct xover region phase shifts that may or may not occur and since phase is critical in low end frequencies, this makes it even more important. My results are pretty amazing.

I am surprised that there is very little talk about the importance of settings the mic sensitivity and each channel levels in the initial setup and making sure you are measuring with minimal background noise. I found that has THE largest impact on the outcome. In cases where I set the sensitivity too high or too low, the tune wasn't very good. Follow the instructions on that page that outline how to get the mic level right or you will likely be underwhelmed and make sure you don't have someone blaring music next to you while you're measuring.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## banshee28

Ziggyrama said:


> I am surprised that there is very little talk about the importance of settings the mic sensitivity and each channel levels in the initial setup and making sure you are measuring with minimal background noise. I found that has THE largest impact on the outcome. In cases where I set the sensitivity too high or too low, the tune wasn't very good. Follow the instructions on that page that outline how to get the mic level right or you will likely be underwhelmed and make sure you don't have someone blaring music next to you while you're measuring.


 Interesting... So I briefy remember hearing about the mic sensitivity suggestions but I normally set mine at "full" volume and master vol at -32db (max). Perhaps this has been causing sub optimal results? Where is that thread if you dont mind describing this?


----------



## banshee28

So I made some progress I THINK.... I prob need to fine tune the mic sensitivity as mentioned above but for now here are the latest results.
I used the TA vaues from the DDRC24 but without the SUB. With these values alone things sounded pretty good. I then set levels based on what Dirac mic tests were showing and set each pair the same. Then I did a single mesurement and went to the end to see the charts and adjusted L/R the same for each pair. This seemed to work good and allowed Dirac to make fewer changes in the end. Most TA and Volume changes were minimal once done.
Now I was using a modified curve as shown below, and I would like to get some feedback on the results and any tips to further improve! Once Dirac was done, center image was still to the left. Basically i can describe it as halfway beween right in front of the driver and center of dash (left of Center, lol) . I then adjusted levels to move things over and it seemed to work good. Not sure if this much manual post-tweaking is hurting the Dirac results but I feel it needed to move to the right!

Here is my L/R measurements from Dirac. Please let me know how these look. To me, I think next round I will want to try to reduce SUB ~2db and maybe increase tweet 1db, but maybe there are better options?
Left:


http://imgur.com/wyg6rmF


Right:


http://imgur.com/Z3gPex6


----------



## Ziggyrama

banshee28 said:


> Interesting... So I briefy remember hearing about the mic sensitivity suggestions but I normally set mine at "full" volume and master vol at -32db (max). Perhaps this has been causing sub optimal results? Where is that thread if you dont mind describing this?


Sorry, I should have explained better. The page I was referring to is the Dirac wizard page where you set the microphone sensitivity. On the right side, there is a paragraph that explains the level you should be aiming at. You want that level to be just at or below the green zone. Then adjust each channel such that when you play the tone, it also hits the same level. Try to get them to be as close as possible to each other. I found that this produces best results for me.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

banshee28 said:


> Once Dirac was done, center image was still to the left. Basically i can describe it as halfway beween right in front of the driver and center of dash (left of Center, lol) .


Try moving the initial microphone measurement forward slightly, when the center is not centered, I have found that I either have the microphone too far forward (if center is to the right) or too far back (if center is too far left). Usually only needs a couple inches change in either direction to fix things.


----------



## 01LSi

naiku said:


> Here is what I do, hopefully this helps clear it up..


Thank you for taking the time to clear that up, super appreciate it  Using DL to determine TA values then? Thats smart haha.

I think I'm unclear on one of your points, but I'll hold on that question until I have it installed outside my house and fire it up in the actual vehicle application


----------



## 01LSi

Ziggyrama said:


> Sorry, I should have explained better. The page I was referring to is the Dirac wizard page where you set the microphone sensitivity. On the right side, there is a paragraph that explains the level you should be aiming at. You want that level to be just at or below the green zone. Then adjust each channel such that when you play the tone, it also hits the same level. Try to get them to be as close as possible to each other. I found that this produces best results for me.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


I can't remember which way produced which result as its been a minute ... but I think when I did the mic sensitivity page to the max of the green zone rather than the minimum of the green zone gave me a _louder_ end result.

IIRC - Doing minimum mic sensitivity on the green zone netted me a quieter output at max volume.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

01LSi said:


> IIRC - Doing minimum mic sensitivity on the green zone netted me a quieter output at max volume.


Best results at that level for me too (On the DDRC22D).


----------



## Ziggyrama

01LSi said:


> I can't remember which way produced which result as its been a minute ... but I think when I did the mic sensitivity page to the max of the green zone rather than the minimum of the green zone gave me a _louder_ end result.
> 
> IIRC - Doing minimum mic sensitivity on the green zone netted me a quieter output at max volume.


I won't dispute that and I believe you. Increasing sensitivity yield higher output given same input so what you said makes sense. That being said, if your noise floor is high, higher sensitivity will pick up more of it and will be taken into account by Dirac, for better or for worse. Basically, imagine a bird chirping in the distance being adjusted for in your measurements because your mic is now picking it up. Maybe you want that, that is up to you. It is important not to mix perceived volume with accuracy. They are obviously not the same and I think most people here get that. Interestingly enough, I found middle of the green zone to yield best results. Full disclosure, I do not pay much attention whether my system can achieve max volume with respect to my volume dial. I want the max of my dial to be slightly higher than the max of my listening range. That makes best use of the input signal and is a lot more resistant to noise. Honestly, do what works for you, just sharing how I do this so perhaps someone finds it helpful.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## 01LSi

^^ Appreciate the constructive feedback.

I had mentioned that only as an observation for discussion. I had not developed conclusions yet on why it was better to do one way or the other bc i just dont know. 

edit: deleting to avoid confusion


----------



## 01LSi

delete


----------



## oabeieo

Anyone doing anything good and new ?


----------



## Naptownsoldier14

Truthunter said:


> Steve,
> I've tried it both way numerous times. I have been able to get very good results using it multi-channel (7 in my case)... Better than just trying to do it the traditional (Non-Dirac) way. But, IME, the results setting it up with just 2ch (L/R) seems to provide more stage width and improved space/ambience compared to a multi-channel. Not sure why but that is my experience and ears.
> 
> Below are some photos of one of the quick multi-channels I performed. There was nominal pre-tuning: set LR4 xovers, matching shelf filters on both mids and a single notch on the sub and one tweeter. Blue is average measured response and green is Dirac's calculated corrected response (it's actually pretty close when measured too).
> 
> View attachment 262069
> View attachment 262070
> View attachment 262071
> View attachment 262072


When running dirac in 8 channel how did u get the slopes in like that did u just pull the curtains over to your crossover? Allso did u link all left side and right speakers I have the 8to12dl right now and I just ordered the shd to run infront so I can do usb in and run 2 way in to the 8 channel just trying to get a better idea how u got dirac u match the slopes of the speakers crossover like in rew.


----------



## Truthunter

Naptownsoldier14 said:


> When running dirac in 8 channel how did u get the slopes in like that did u just pull the curtains over to your crossover? Allso did u link all left side and right speakers I have the 8to12dl right now and I just ordered the shd to run infront so I can do usb in and run 2 way in to the 8 channel just trying to get a better idea how u got dirac u match the slopes of the speakers crossover like in rew.


That was done using custom driver targets created by the Jazzi Spreadsheet and then loaded into the Dirac app. Note that they wont just load directly into Dirac 3.X like they did in Dirac 1.X - There is some extra information that needs to be added to the text file for standard text file targets to load. Yes, L/R drivers were linked/grouped together.

An example of it done in 3.x where, unlike 1.x, all channels can be displayed at the same time:


----------



## datooff

Guys, how would you setup the sub with 1 RCA / 1 output in a 2 way(left/right) Dirac setup?

Duplicate it 2 times (left/right) in the mixer tab? Is that right?


----------



## Truthunter

datooff said:


> Guys, how would you setup the sub with 1 RCA / 1 output in a 2 way(left/right) Dirac setup?
> 
> Duplicate it 2 times (left/right) in the mixer tab? Is that right?


Yes, that is how I've done it.


----------



## datooff

Truthunter said:


> Yes, that is how I've done it.


Thank you.


----------



## squiers007

Truthunter said:


> That was done using custom driver targets created by the Jazzi Spreadsheet and then loaded into the Dirac app. Note that they wont just load directly into Dirac 3.X like they did in Dirac 1.X - There is some extra information that needs to be added to the text file for standard text file targets to load. Yes, L/R drivers were linked/grouped together.
> 
> An example of it done in 3.x where, unlike 1.x, all channels can be displayed at the same time:
> View attachment 298082


Have you found this method to work better or worse then a 2 channel tune with a single curve? What are the pro's and con's. Thanks.


----------



## Truthunter

squiers007 said:


> Have you found this method to work better or worse then a 2 channel tune with a single curve? What are the pro's and con's. Thanks.


A multi-channel does work very good but I still find a 2ch (L/R) when properly set-up results in a wider/deeper stage... just more perceived space overall to my ears.

One con of a multichannel configuration is that the target curves for each driver type group needs to be adjusted to adjust the overall tonality whereas only the overall target needs to be adjusted in a 2ch config.

I know two Dirac users that have a 2ch Dirac DSP in front of the 8x12DL. So the 8x12DL handles the individual drivers to a flat overall curve and then the 2ch Dirac DSP does the overall target to tie it all together. Neither of these two people have reported if they have tried that type of config or if it works well.


----------



## DavidRam

Has anyone figured out how to fix the issue where Dirac turns the volume down after measurements?


----------



## Truthunter

DavidRam said:


> Has anyone figured out how to fix the issue where Dirac turns the volume down after measurements?


I'm thinking that is just a built in safety feature... so it's not at a startling loud volume when you go to play music...?


----------



## DavidRam

Truthunter said:


> I'm thinking that is just a built in safety feature... so it's not at a startling loud volume when you go to play music...?


Not sure if we are talking about the same thing... Remember when Dirac reduced the volume right after we took measurements, and we couldn't figure out how to make it stop?


----------



## Truthunter

DavidRam said:


> Not sure if we are talking about the same thing... Remember when Dirac reduced the volume right after we took measurements, and we couldn't figure out how to make it stop?


Ah yes, I thought you meant that the volume was low after loading a Dirac correction file, closing Dirac App, and then listening to music.

But your referencing the master volume level apparently resetting to -95db once proceeding from the levels screen. So, I've done several tunes in my own car since and found that it's not an issue that effects the measurement signal levels. The measurement sweep levels were fine. It seems that the master volume resets to -95db any time the levels screen is entered as a safety so as to avoid damaging speakers with level test signals or measurement signals.


----------



## DavidRam

Truthunter said:


> Ah yes, I thought you meant that the volume was low after loading a Dirac correction file, closing Dirac App, and then listening to music.
> 
> But your referencing the master volume level apparently resetting to -95db once proceeding from the levels screen. So, I've done several tunes in my own car since and found that it's not an issue that effects the measurement signal levels. The measurement sweep levels were fine. It seems that the master volume resets to -95db any time the levels screen is entered as a safety so as to avoid damaging speakers with level test signals or measurement signals.


Oh, I see... I'll text you...


----------



## oabeieo

datooff said:


> Guys, how would you setup the sub with 1 RCA / 1 output in a 2 way(left/right) Dirac setup?
> 
> Duplicate it 2 times (left/right) in the mixer tab? Is that right?


Yes exactly 
Replicate it twice 

Otoh ... that’s only if you plan on left and right sharing the same eq curves 

Chances are ((99.999999999% sure) the left with habe a dip around 65-110hz where the right does not, in that instance, just use the right channel for sub...... that will allow you to use blend the sub with the midbass better because you will want to draw the dip in the target for the left because Dirac will want to over boost the left too much......

If the dip is below the crossover for the midbass , then maybe not go left and right, but I would personally use a separate sub channel for sub and use bass management, I would also use odd order butts and put a 2nd order APF on both low and hi pass with a Q=1 will have 90+ and 90- which 180-90 is still 90 , ..... not LRs , absolutely... flat magnitude is king !


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> That was done using custom driver targets created by the Jazzi Spreadsheet and then loaded into the Dirac app. Note that they wont just load directly into Dirac 3.X like they did in Dirac 1.X - There is some extra information that needs to be added to the text file for standard text file targets to load. Yes, L/R drivers were linked/grouped together.
> 
> An example of it done in 3.x where, unlike 1.x, all channels can be displayed at the same time:
> View attachment 298082



Looks nice ....... sound ????

I would do that with acoustic filters , and do a 2/3ch Dirac , your going to have phase tracking issues with running a multi-way like that in Dirac.


And that after all looks like a disaster..... (no offense) 
I would go for a 2ch or 3ch Dirac and do that same thing with peq and acoustic filters ...... the filters will not behave properly. Especially in a car with axis and lobing issues associated with such design, all we see is a graph with some lines. We don’t see on /off axis behavior and or any off axis lobes especially when dominant off axis behavior would be +/- 3db 

It’s not a true LR ..... very misleading........ very! 

Personally, I would go for some butts and LRs and a 2ch or 3ch Dirac ........... you don’t have access to linear phase crossovers so I wouldn’t even try. Let Dirac fix the sum , it will be better .... every time


----------



## Naptownsoldier14

Truthunter said:


> That was done using custom driver targets created by the Jazzi Spreadsheet and then loaded into the Dirac app. Note that they wont just load directly into Dirac 3.X like they did in Dirac 1.X - There is some extra information that needs to be added to the text file for standard text file targets to load. Yes, L/R drivers were linked/grouped together.
> 
> An example of it done in 3.x where, unlike 1.x, all channels can be displayed at the same time:
> View attachment 298082


Any way u could send me them would be awesome added the minidsp shd infront of my 8to12dl so I can do Dirac on every channel than run all left and all right through the shd


----------



## Naptownsoldier14

oabeieo said:


> Looks nice ....... sound ????
> 
> I would do that with acoustic filters , and do a 2/3ch Dirac , your going to have phase tracking issues with running a multi-way like that in Dirac.
> 
> 
> And that after all looks like a disaster..... (no offense)
> I would go for a 2ch or 3ch Dirac and do that same thing with peq and acoustic filters ...... the filters will not behave properly. Especially in a car with axis and lobing issues associated with such design, all we see is a graph with some lines. We don’t see on /off axis behavior and or any off axis lobes especially when dominant off axis behavior would be +/- 3db
> 
> It’s not a true LR ..... very misleading........ very!
> 
> Personally, I would go for some butts and LRs and a 2ch or 3ch Dirac ........... you don’t have access to linear phase crossovers so I wouldn’t even try. Let Dirac fix the sum , it will be better .... every time


I'm running the minidsp shd in front of the 8to12dl so that I can have my cake an eat it 2 lol or something like that


----------



## oabeieo

Naptownsoldier14 said:


> I'm running the minidsp shd in front of the 8to12dl so that I can have my cake an eat it 2 lol or something like that



Very nice :-$ 

That’s a very good way to do it , I liked that combination a lot.... was very accurate and soundstage placement was exact

Although the inherent tracking issues sometimes made things .... difficult, I ended up using LR2s except sub to midbass was LR8 

That would allow the proper polarity flips to get the tracking problems to go away (after Dirac Multi-way) because once the flip on proper drive is done , the phase shift on the low and hi pass are identical and in the same direction (not inverse opposites) then the 2ch and it all came together very nice.... 

Using Lr4s had too many tracking issues , (in a 4way) a 3way would have been fine, that why I would use one butt somewhere in the multi-way, for one , an odd order butt will sum to 0db (instead of +3db) and both sides are 90 out 180-90 is still 90  a polarity flip on one will determine the +3db lobe 

That would allow better magnitude and less tracking as it’s sum is a all pass.... then use a Lr2 everywhere else ...

The Lr48 on the sub and midbass will not let the sub and mid be phase locked so much and allow Dirac to use proper eq on midbass and sub separately, otherwise you may end up with the sub trying to play the 120hz range a lot louder then you want (still sounds good) just won’t allow a bass knob for party mode bumpin 

Phase tracking works a lot like Hass Effects, because the time domain between drivers in there crossover can steer the image and cause certain frequencies to lock to either left or right or have a peak in one of the same side drivers. Which will make a tune that sounds like you have to turn one side down like Dirac made the one side too loud (usuall the left as it’s closest) depending which driver is the lead and which one is the tail..... it can also cause straight up cancellations between like a mid and midbass on same side , or mid and tweet .... even if delays are right.... it doesn’t look at other channels in multi-way Dirac.... that was a higher problem for me.... it caused a lot of acoustic energy to be lost.... the LR2s solved that issue as well .....again, phase changes were in same direction so it wouldn’t happen with LR2s


----------



## oabeieo

Getting a good crossover framework for your system will net a Dirac tune that needs nothing , amd sounds absolutely killer with no separation between left and right targets, and not a bunch of peaks drawn in target rather (up or down peaks) except the driver side 70-90hz or whatever dip... that will never get better..... 

But what I mean is you should not have to run to your levels to get left and right to sound even, or do a bunch of things after the 2ch Dirac , it should just work right and be consistent every time you run the 2ch Dirac ...


Although sometimes you do just get a shyttie set of measurements..... you know when that happens , I’m not taking about those


----------



## oabeieo

To do the butt just do a butt18 on one of the LP and HP in the multi-way where tracking is an issue, then add a inverse APF 2nd order Q1, you can reverse the polarity on the input so the all pass is inverse, in your mixer switch to -180... then add the same APF to both low and hi centered at XO and you. Will shift only 90deg and it will be the same exact shape on the low and hi pass ...... they will sum linear.... keep LRs on everything else as you’ll just make more tracking issues then you had in the first place as a Lr is one cycle out..... the have phase tracking so as they shift they will stay in phase which is great , although an out of band driver will lock to its phase on its sum... and cause those types of issues I described earlier...which is why a door mounted woofer will “appear” to come from the same spot as a tweeter that’s mounted up high... 
There’s negative sides to that effect....


----------



## Truthunter

Naptownsoldier14 said:


> Any way u could send me them would be awesome added the minidsp shd infront of my 8to12dl so I can do Dirac on every channel than run all left and all right through the shd


I attached a text file that contains the additional text info needed for targets to be loaded into Dirac 3.x. Just cut and paste the text above the freq/level text of your target file and it should load.


----------



## Jscoyne2

I am trying to use the wired remote and i can't get it to turn on at all. I've also been trying to update the firmware on it and that keeps sending me 
"Failed to receive upgrade response " and "failed to send upgrade response."
Both in the Sd card based firmware method and the software based update method


----------



## squiers007

Jscoyne2 said:


> I am trying to use the wired remote and i can't get it to turn on at all. I've also been trying to update the firmware on it and that keeps sending me
> "Failed to receive upgrade response " and "failed to send upgrade response."
> Both in the Sd card based firmware method and the software based update method


Is this the new OLED remote?

I'm not much help since I haven't installed mine yet, but I have had quick responses from there support people in the past. Might be worth sending a quick email. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iamsecond

I just upgraded mine and realized when I copied the files to the sd card it put them in a folder instead of just on the drive. When I changed that it immediately went through.


----------



## Jscoyne2

I think it's gotta be hardware related because both the SD firmware method and the software version of firmware method both give me the same exact error. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Iamsecond

You probably have, but have you tried a hard reset of the mini?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Iamsecond said:


> You probably have, but have you tried a hard reset of the mini?


Def have

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

So i finally got 3.0 to work. The plug in for the minidsp software is flawless. However, the dirac software is a ****ing nightmare. If you have a lapse in connection, if you use the minidsp Remote instead of the software to adjust master volume. It'll start throwing errors. I had an issue where it started playing the pink noise for level settings and then...wouldnt stop. Even with everything unplugged. 

Plus a ton of other issues. 

However, i did get it to work after some angry yelling. 

And 

OH. MY. GOD. IT SOUNDS SO. GOOD. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So i finally got 3.0 to work. The plug in for the minidsp software is flawless. However, the dirac software is a ****ing nightmare. If you have a lapse in connection, if you use the minidsp Remote instead of the software to adjust master volume. It'll start throwing errors. I had an issue where it started playing the pink noise for level settings and then...wouldnt stop. Even with everything unplugged.
> 
> Plus a ton of other issues.
> 
> However, i did get it to work after some angry yelling.
> 
> And
> 
> OH. MY. GOD. IT SOUNDS SO. GOOD.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk





i just put 3.1.10 on the ddrc and it’s missing “studio” mode ..... the 8x12dl’s I’ve been installinghas studio mode .....

anyone know why ? I was excited to try the studio mode .... I guess I don’t get to

has anyone tried The studio one how does it compare to the tightly focused does anyone know what the algorithm is supposed to do


----------

