# Sticky  MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL (Dirac Live): Quick Tuning Guide



## Anu2g

Hey folks,

After learning so much from various forum members, scouring through (and contributing on) many threads, and being probed by my peers (and superiors) to document the process, I have written a simple tuning guide for folks wanting to use Dirac Live via the MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL.

It is primarily composed of ideas developed/curated by DIYMA members Truthunter and oabeieo, with revision assistance from bertholomey, naiku, and squiers007.

I hope you all find it useful, and if you have any questions or feedback, please drop a reply here, and I'll amend the doc accordingly.

I'm sharing it here as a google doc, that way anyone viewing it will always be looking at the latest revision: 
*MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL (Dirac Live): Quick Tuning Guide*

Thanks, and enjoy!

PS: These two threads contain a lot of the background that went into writing this guide:
Dirac tips and tricks
MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live


----------



## bertholomey

Thank you so much Anu! Well done my friend!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bikey

Thanks


----------



## Truthunter

Anu did an excellent job on this. It is thorough and concise. It will be a big help to new users. Thanks Anu!


----------



## Slow Cruiser

Thanx a bunch


----------



## naiku

Used this guide earlier as if I was new to the MiniDSP and Dirac, it's very easy to follow and really well written. Perfect for anyone who's unsure about how to get the 8x12DL up and running. 

Excellent work @Anu2g


----------



## sapphari

Wow this is awesome! I am getting close to installing my new 8x12DL and I can't tell you how thankful I am to have this guide! Makes everything less intimidating and hopefully takes some guesswork out and will expedite the process. In the long run, I will probably tinker, but I suspect this guide will get me up and running more quickly. Massive thanks for the effort!!


----------



## lucas569

My DSP is connected but untouched. Time to read up and give this a shot


----------



## sapphari

Curious if there are any plans to share this with miniDSP


----------



## sapphari

I've read through the document, it is clearly written and seems easy to follow. I will be a good test case I suppose.

I did have one question about HPF for sub channel. As I understand it, one is never applied. There is mention not to place the left-hand curtain too far below the tuning frequency of a ported box, but as far as I understand, the curtain is not a HP filter. How is the sub protected if there is no filter applied?


----------



## Anu2g

sapphari said:


> I've read through the document, it is clearly written and seems easy to follow. I will be a good test case I suppose.
> 
> I did have one question about HPF for sub channel. As I understand it, one is never applied. There is mention not to place the left-hand curtain too far below the tuning frequency of a ported box, but as far as I understand, the curtain is not a HP filter. How is the sub protected if there is no filter applied?


Good question! You're correct that, in the example in the guide, we didn't set an HPF (or infrasonic filter) on the sub. Despite me running my 2 SQL-12s ported, I'm not pushing the subs anywhere near excursion limits, even below the tuning frequency (30Hz, in my case), so I didn't set an infrasonic filter. I just made sure not to boost down there. 

In your case, I think you would want to add a HPF onto the sub output. You _could _also cascade that HPF onto the mid-bass's output (we have an unused HPF on those outputs as well).


----------



## Anu2g

sapphari said:


> I've read through the document, it is clearly written and seems easy to follow. I will be a good test case I suppose.
> 
> I did have one question about HPF for sub channel. As I understand it, one is never applied. There is mention not to place the left-hand curtain too far below the tuning frequency of a ported box, but as far as I understand, the curtain is not a HP filter. How is the sub protected if there is no filter applied?


Actually, after talking with @Truthunter , an easier option would be to set the infrasonic filter prior to Dirac, that way you don't need to cascade it. I amended the guide accordingly. See: 4.e.iii.1


----------



## sapphari

Awesome! Thanks for doing that. I love that this is a living document.


----------



## oabeieo

This is pretty cool man, thanks for spending the time I reposted it on the Mini DSP forum , hope you don’t mind it’s really we’ll done

and seriously thank you for spending the time for us. I will be referring a lot of people to use that that’s a really good write up. Awesome contribution thank you




sapphari said:


> Curious if there are any plans to share this with miniDSP


Already did

this will help a lot of folks

I shared it here 

Minidsp thread


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> This is pretty cool man, thanks for spending the time I reposted it on the Mini DSP forum , hope you don’t mind it’s really we’ll done
> 
> and seriously thank you for spending the time for us. I will be referring a lot of people to use that that’s a really good write up. Awesome contribution thank you
> 
> 
> 
> Already did
> 
> this will help a lot of folks
> 
> I shared it here
> 
> Minidsp thread


Thanks for your contribution, Andy! Your "no crossover" approach to running Dirac was a game changer


----------



## sapphari

(this post redacted in an effort to keep this great thread on-topic!)


----------



## doeboy

above


----------



## sapphari

In the interest of not derailing this awesome thread, I deleted (edited) the post. miniDSP is helping with the remote turn on issue.


----------



## ninetysix

oabeieo said:


> ....
> Already did
> 
> this will help a lot of folks
> 
> I shared it here
> 
> Minidsp thread


maybe shoot minidsp an email, as I suspect the higher-ups aren't that interested in the forum on their site, tho devteam certainly pitches in 

This is kind of a big deal and needs to have a link to the document on the product page, possibly the manual? a link that is, live document and all 


Bravo on the guide otherwise, really clever work in there.

Also, in 6.b.ii.4.a of the guide, "do not apply a hpf" .... is that to say, bypass the hpf we set in 4.e.iii.1.b ?


----------



## 01LSi

I would like to know where people are placing their microphone in relationship to their drivers seat or relationship between passenger and driver if that’s better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

01LSi said:


> I would like to know where people are placing their microphone in relationship to their drivers seat or relationship between passenger and driver if that’s better
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The first position should be directly between your ears

The rest of them are kind of whatever start with a small box and make it bigger and find a averaging cube that you like

The smaller the box the more tight the average will be, the bigger the box the more lively the sound will be at the end because it will get more of the room

so you’re still looking for a dead accuracy go with a small box if you’re looking for overall better sound quality for yourself and everyone else go with a bigger box

That is without explaining things to technically


----------



## oabeieo

ninetysix said:


> maybe shoot minidsp an email, as I suspect the higher-ups aren't that interested in the forum on their site, tho devteam certainly pitches in
> 
> This is kind of a big deal and needs to have a link to the document on the product page, possibly the manual? a link that is, live document and all
> 
> 
> Bravo on the guide otherwise, really clever work in there.
> 
> Also, in 6.b.ii.4.a of the guide, "do not apply a hpf" .... is that to say, bypass the hpf we set in 4.e.iii.1.b ?


they watch the Fourn , and I have a connect w mini and they have reached out

they are slow to do things , but when they do they go all in …..

They also have to adhere to Dirac “recommendation” so ….. it’s more a Dirac thing actually and Dirac is developing a multi-way tune 
So that’s that I suppose


----------



## Bikey

Interesting last point you snuck in. Will be interesting to see how that works in a car, based on the assumption that it would be primarily developed for the home market.


----------



## 01LSi

oabeieo said:


> The first position should be directly between your ears
> 
> The rest of them are kind of whatever start with a small box and make it bigger and find a averaging cube that you like
> 
> The smaller the box the more tight the average will be, the bigger the box the more lively the sound will be at the end because it will get more of the room
> 
> so you’re still looking for a dead accuracy go with a small box if you’re looking for overall better sound quality for yourself and everyone else go with a bigger box
> 
> That is without explaining things to technically


Makes sense thank you. The one thing I’m confused about is I put it 2-4 measurements behind the chair a little based off the illustration because it seemed like it was saying do some behind you, it didn’t sounds good so I deleted those measurements


----------



## oabeieo

01LSi said:


> Makes sense thank you. The one thing I’m confused about is I put it 2-4 measurements behind the chair a little based off the illustration because it seemed like it was saying do some behind you, it didn’t sounds good so I deleted those measurements


Yeah the box kind of shows a 3-D looking thing where the rear ones look behind you but they should be right above your head and right at your shoulders 

I will make my rear box smaller ( head size ) in my front box about 16” , 

I like to use the couch with tightly focused

and the two side measurements I get into the passenger area for the right, and then for the left directly on the glass one low and one high


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

Greatly appreciate the guide and everybody's contributions to it.

I have a few questions:

Why the do you recommend a 1.25 x fs BW12 protective crossover. Why BW12 over LR12?

How will the protective crossover BW12 affect the tweeters phase and actual crossover if using LR24 electrically?

With an Audiofrog GB15, this puts the protective crossover at about 1480hz really close to the recommended minimum crossover of 1800hz.

Can I just use a sharper slope at one octave lower then desired crossover frequency if the measurements are not to loud?

I ask all this because it was my impression from the manual that Dirac cannot correct for phase through the crossover when using separate Dirac channels per driver vs 1 channel left drivers and 1 channel right drivers.

I figured two different crossover types BW12 and LR24 on the same driver at different frequencies would mess up phase.

Thank you.


----------



## sapphari

I just finished my first successful Dirac tune and WOW. I am impressed and excited! I didn't think it would go so well on the first try. Detail is the best I've heard in any of my systems to date, imaging is good and the stage is huge. I am hearing more resolution in songs I've listened to hundreds of times on many different stereos. Vocals sound more real. Midbass has more clarity. High hats sizzle above my head like a sonic veil (no exaggeration - it's incredible!) and it sounds like there is a kick drum inside my engine bay haha. I can't wait to continue messing with this technology!! I'm doubtful I'd ever be able to get a tune like this manually.

Side note: one thing I find weird about the 8x12DL is that the sin sweeps are fed directly from your computer to the DSP, never passing through the head unit. As such, any coloration in your system upstream of the DSP is not accounted for.

I want to give some feedback on the Guide here too. Overall I found it strikes a good balance between completeness and conciseness. 

My front stage is 2-way, just midbass and tweeters, so I adapted the guide accordingly. In the Dirac Channels Configuration step, I used "Small/Bass Managed" for the mids (step 4fii) since neither woofer nor midrange seems appropriate. Not sure how much of a difference this makes. I think it would be useful to remind users here to set unused channels to Unsued in this step since Dirac will error otherwise.

In step 5diii, it could be useful to be explicit about what meter should be monitored to hit the -20 to -25dB target. In this case I think it's the mic gain's meter.

When loading the target curve in 5gi, it would be useful to add that the target curve should be applied to All Groups.

Setting the curtains is a little subjective and some users may find some more guidance by example useful at that step. Same goes for selecting crossover points.


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> Greatly appreciate the guide and everybody's contributions to it.
> 
> I have a few questions:
> 
> Why the do you recommend a 1.25 x fs BW12 protective crossover. Why BW12 over LR12?
> 
> How will the protective crossover BW12 affect the tweeters phase and actual crossover if using LR24 electrically?
> 
> With an Audiofrog GB15, this puts the protective crossover at about 1480hz really close to the recommended minimum crossover of 1800hz.
> 
> Can I just use a sharper slope at one octave lower then desired crossover frequency if the measurements are not to loud?
> 
> I ask all this because it was my impression from the manual that Dirac cannot correct for phase through the crossover when using separate Dirac channels per driver vs 1 channel left drivers and 1 channel right drivers.
> 
> I figured two different crossover types BW12 and LR24 on the same driver at different frequencies would mess up phase.
> 
> Thank you.



I don’t think anyone is recommending a BW or a LR, I think it all depends on what your system goals and speaks and power are…

The LR12 or BW12 are fantastic Crossovers, I love both! (In a complementary setting) 

I would stick with LRs in a multi-way, except in the case of a 4 way active I would use one (ONLY ONE) BW alignment. 

Quadratic crossover s are good for highly reflective environments. You don’t want 90-180-270 tho , so keep it LRs except one . So I would use one between the midbass and midrange…. The low pass is lagging so you’ll have to accommodate for the 90deg in the sub (or the tweet depending which polarity invert you use if 2nd order) , but that’s easy peasy (it’s the lowest speaker in the chain so simple delay you can eat up the group delay of the shift of the adjacent crossover and get back to 0 (or 180) 

Or just use all LRs


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

I am just not understanding how two crossovers at two different frequencies combine to affect phase or they don't?

Wouldn't I want my protective crossover 1 octave below the desired crossover so that Dirac can correct 1 octave down?

So maybe I could try a 900hz hp LR24.

After Dirac set the 1800hz LR24.

Edit: for anybody reading this using the crossover on the amplifier works just fine.


----------



## oabeieo

Actually Andy at AF ( @GotFrogs ) has has a fantastic explanation, here is a link… his explanation is simple and eloquent… I absolutely love how he explains it here 

He doesn’t go into the GD that is in the low pass, but if you pay attention you should get it, because he does say enough to put one n one together 










Crossovers: How They Work and How to Choose Them - Audiofrog


There are lots of choices and even more opinions about which crossovers are the best. Arguments for and against the various slopes and alignments often include all kinds of crazy suppositions about the effects of phase shift, arguments that purport a gradual roll off to be better because they...




www.audiofrog.com


----------



## steelwindmachine

Any idea on whether or not this methodology would work in the home environment provided all drivers are likewise independently powered?


----------



## squiers007

steelwindmachine said:


> Any idea on whether or not this methodology would work in the home environment provided all drivers are likewise independently powered?


Are you referring to an active speaker setup or multiple in passive speakers? 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Anu2g

ninetysix said:


> maybe shoot minidsp an email, as I suspect the higher-ups aren't that interested in the forum on their site, tho devteam certainly pitches in
> 
> This is kind of a big deal and needs to have a link to the document on the product page, possibly the manual? a link that is, live document and all
> 
> 
> Bravo on the guide otherwise, really clever work in there.
> 
> Also, in 6.b.ii.4.a of the guide, "do not apply a hpf" .... is that to say, bypass the hpf we set in 4.e.iii.1.b ?


Updated 6.b.ii.4.a accordingly; you would want to leave the infrasonic filter you set in 4.e.iii.1.b in place


----------



## steelwindmachine

@squiers007 - I'd be interested to know both ways.

- Active where each driver is on it's own amp channel.

- Passive where the tweeters/mids drivers share a cabinet with integrated semi-conductor Xover and are powered together by one amp channel for each side (Left/Right), and then separate L/R powered subs

Let me know if this thread is the appropriate place to discuss this or if you have a reference to elsewhere, I'll head off to look.


----------



## Anu2g

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> Greatly appreciate the guide and everybody's contributions to it.
> 
> I have a few questions:
> 
> Why the do you recommend a 1.25 x fs BW12 protective crossover. Why BW12 over LR12?
> 
> How will the protective crossover BW12 affect the tweeters phase and actual crossover if using LR24 electrically?
> 
> With an Audiofrog GB15, this puts the protective crossover at about 1480hz really close to the recommended minimum crossover of 1800hz.
> 
> Can I just use a sharper slope at one octave lower then desired crossover frequency if the measurements are not to loud?
> 
> I ask all this because it was my impression from the manual that Dirac cannot correct for phase through the crossover when using separate Dirac channels per driver vs 1 channel left drivers and 1 channel right drivers.
> 
> I figured two different crossover types BW12 and LR24 on the same driver at different frequencies would mess up phase.
> 
> Thank you.


The protective XO guidance is simply to help you protect your tweeter from blowing during the sine sweeps. You can certainly use a different frequency or XO type/slope. It was just a basic way to come up with a reasonable protective XO, for those who might not have any idea on how to pick a protective XO. I didn't personally follow the 1.25 x Fs that I put in the guide, as I'm using a protective cap, from my last set of tweeters. The main thing is to keep it low enough that it won't impact the actual HPF that you use for your tune. Dirac won't need to correct phase through your protective XO if it is low enough


----------



## Anu2g

sapphari said:


> I just finished my first successful Dirac tune and WOW. I am impressed and excited! I didn't think it would go so well on the first try. Detail is the best I've heard in any of my systems to date, imaging is good and the stage is huge. I am hearing more resolution in songs I've listened to hundreds of times on many different stereos. Vocals sound more real. Midbass has more clarity. High hats sizzle above my head like a sonic veil (no exaggeration - it's incredible!) and it sounds like there is a kick drum inside my engine bay haha. I can't wait to continue messing with this technology!! I'm doubtful I'd ever be able to get a tune like this manually.
> 
> Side note: one thing I find weird about the 8x12DL is that the sin sweeps are fed directly from your computer to the DSP, never passing through the head unit. As such, any coloration in your system upstream of the DSP is not accounted for.
> 
> I want to give some feedback on the Guide here too. Overall I found it strikes a good balance between completeness and conciseness.
> 
> My front stage is 2-way, just midbass and tweeters, so I adapted the guide accordingly. In the Dirac Channels Configuration step, I used "Small/Bass Managed" for the mids (step 4fii) since neither woofer nor midrange seems appropriate. Not sure how much of a difference this makes. I think it would be useful to remind users here to set unused channels to Unsued in this step since Dirac will error otherwise.
> 
> In step 5diii, it could be useful to be explicit about what meter should be monitored to hit the -20 to -25dB target. In this case I think it's the mic gain's meter.
> 
> When loading the target curve in 5gi, it would be useful to add that the target curve should be applied to All Groups.
> 
> Setting the curtains is a little subjective and some users may find some more guidance by example useful at that step. Same goes for selecting crossover points.


Glad you got a great tune! 

Thanks for the feedback. I updated 4.f.iii and 5.g.i accordingly. I was trying to avoid getting into XO points in this guide; my thought process is, if this becomes a 10+ page guide, it will become too daunting for most beginners. Open to reconsidering, though.


----------



## ean611

oabeieo said:


> they watch the Fourn , and I have a connect w mini and they have reached out
> 
> they are slow to do things , but when they do they go all in …..
> 
> They also have to adhere to Dirac “recommendation” so ….. it’s more a Dirac thing actually and Dirac is developing a multi-way tune
> So that’s that I suppose


Will be interested to see where this goes.

I've tried both methods. For my setup, a 3 way tune works better. I'm using 1 channel for L, 1 for R, and 1 for Sub.

Then again, the setup I have is actually pretty flat / close to target curve with minimal EQ to start. I also have pretty good measurements for delay in the setup. 

I'm in a "whatever works" kind of mode, so if this works for the car and creates the best results? Awesome. For me following MiniDSP and getting a "pre-tune" close (timing alignment, Xovers, etc) where I want has had better results.

Would love to see more thoughts on "box" size vs results. Also, I have not tried, but would be interested to see how much using 13 or 17 points would "help". To do list never ends...


----------



## squiers007

steelwindmachine said:


> @squiers007 - I'd be interested to know both ways.
> 
> - Active where each driver is on it's own amp channel.
> 
> - Passive where the tweeters/mids drivers share a cabinet with integrated semi-conductor Xover and are powered together by one amp channel for each side (Left/Right), and then separate L/R powered subs
> 
> Let me know if this thread is the appropriate place to discuss this or if you have a reference to elsewhere, I'll head off to look.


Might be best to start the Home discussion in a new thread. 

That being said I think this could work well on an Active setup, but I would make some changes (or just follow MiniDSP's guide for a surround setup) if using passive speakers.


----------



## Anu2g

sapphari said:


> My front stage is 2-way, just midbass and tweeters, so I adapted the guide accordingly. In the Dirac Channels Configuration step, I used "Small/Bass Managed" for the mids (step 4fii) since neither woofer nor midrange seems appropriate.


Currently, Dirac doesn't do anything with that speaker size; it's going to run the full sine sweep for all channels. Maybe later on they'll use it for something.


----------



## oabeieo

ean611 said:


> Will be interested to see where this goes.
> 
> I've tried both methods. For my setup, a 3 way tune works better. I'm using 1 channel for L, 1 for R, and 1 for Sub.
> 
> Then again, the setup I have is actually pretty flat / close to target curve with minimal EQ to start. I also have pretty good measurements for delay in the setup.
> 
> I'm in a "whatever works" kind of mode, so if this works for the car and creates the best results? Awesome. For me following MiniDSP and getting a "pre-tune" close (timing alignment, Xovers, etc) where I want has had better results.
> 
> Would love to see more thoughts on "box" size vs results. Also, I have not tried, but would be interested to see how much using 13 or 17 points would "help". To do list never ends...


I’ve always thought you can’t argue with results 

If you like it , then that’s a win 

Get this , in my shop , I have some hangs with big horns and 10” midbass 

In the sweet spot it sounds great , directly under and behind the speakers they sound (to me) even better, and it’s like 120deg off axis…. So strange , but I love the response. The detail is amazing and midbass thumps…. 

The responce there shows a bump at 150 and a wide dip from 500-4Khz , idk , I like it….


----------



## ean611

oabeieo said:


> I’ve always thought you can’t argue with results
> 
> If you like it , then that’s a win
> 
> Get this , in my shop , I have some hangs with big horns and 10” midbass
> 
> In the sweet spot it sounds great , directly under and behind the speakers they sound (to me) even better, and it’s like 120deg off axis…. So strange , but I love the response. The detail is amazing and midbass thumps….
> 
> The responce there shows a bump at 150 and a wide dip from 500-4Khz , idk , I like it….


Yeah, I'm in a tiny TINY car, (NC MX-5)

So I'm running Illusion C8, XXM325 in door, and Arc RS1.0 in pods in "sail panel" area (mounted on A pillar). I have 4th order LR at 400-3000 for the mids. Works for me to do that with one Dirac channel per side. Just didn't get good results the other way. For my setup, I found the delays / gains didn't cooperate.


----------



## mumbles

Thanks to @Anu2g for the terrific how-to! *Moderators*, should this be a sticky thread either here or in the How To sub-forum?


----------



## BigAl205

So demanding...


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

Ide like to give one big thank you to everybody who contributed to this guide. 👏👏👏

Words cannot describe how beautiful the sound is emitted from the speakers. There are no more speakers. 🤩 @*oabeieo *hit the nail on the head with his spaceship comment in the older thread. 👽

If you are lazy like me or do not have time for all the pre-eq required for a 2-channel tune, this Dirac channel per driver method is for you. Blows 2 channel no pre eq out of the water.

You can do all the plugin setup at home and do the measurements somewhere quiet without having to rush.

Followed the guide to a t.

Used my amplifiers high pass filter at 12db/octave at about 1000hz to protect the tweeters.

Removed all crossovers in the plugin except the subsonic filter set on the sub output channel.

Left all drivers in one group, dragged the curtains on the sub to the roll off along with the right tweeter.

Loaded the Dirac curve to slot 2 and the Audio Frog curve to slot 1.

Left bass management at 80hz high and low pass.

Enabled all crossovers including the woofer's low pass filter on the subwoofer output (which I do not fully understand yet but believe it has to do with phase?)

Never knew a car could sound anything like this.

Great job everybody!

Eventually will try putting each pair of drivers in separate groups and report back.

Somebody had mention drawing the nulls in separate left and right curves for a 2-channel tune, but with this method I think we would need each driver in its own group to do that.

Anybody drawn in the nulls using this method with success yet?


----------



## tschyves

Many thanks @Anu2g and all people who contributed to this excellent guide. For me it's a huge improvement compared to the minidsp recommendation of pre-eqing, XO, level, delay and running DL with 2 channels only. However, I still didn't find a solution to run a 3way + Sub + differential rearfill using this "multichannel-DL" procedure. Somehow I'd need an additional DL-Channel to do so or do I miss something? Any ideas on how to implement a setup including differential rearfill?


----------



## squiers007

tschyves said:


> Many thanks @Anu2g and all people who contributed to this excellent guide. For me it's a huge improvement compared to the minidsp recommendation of pre-eqing, XO, level, delay and running DL with 2 channels only. However, I still didn't find a solution to run a 3way + Sub + differential rearfill using this "multichannel-DL" procedure. Somehow I'd need an additional DL-Channel to do so or do I miss something? Any ideas on how to implement a setup including differential rearfill?


The only way to add rear fill using this method is to not have it on a Dirac channel. You'd need to set the delays manually and EQ it using PEQ. Due to the level of the rear fill being so much lower than the front channels I don't think you'll notice it's not being corrected by Dirac so long as you get the TA correct and do some basic EQ to get your L and R to match up. There are also no xovers to worry about so phase tracking is not an issue either.


----------



## naiku

One option to use rear fill and have it on a Dirac channel, would be to combine the mids and tweeters which would then free up 2 channels for the rears. I have not tried that way (I got fed up waiting on D-pillars for my car to be in stock anywhere, so for now pulled the rear fill from their temporary location) but when I asked the same question it was suggested as an option.

I agree with @squiers007 there is no real need to have the rear fill corrected by Dirac. In my old car I never had them on a Dirac channel, neither did I when I had them in my current vehicle. By the time you have done everything else, lowered the levels etc. and coupled with the rear fill playing a sort of echo anyway, it's not worth adding them to Dirac channels.


----------



## tschyves

squiers007 said:


> The only way to add rear fill using this method is to not have it on a Dirac channel. You'd need to set the delays manually and EQ it using PEQ. Due to the level of the rear fill being so much lower than the front channels I don't think you'll notice it's not being corrected by Dirac so long as you get the TA correct and do some basic EQ to get your L and R to match up. There are also no xovers to worry about so phase tracking is not an issue either.


Many thanks for your feedback. I wouldn't want to include the rearfill in DL. But I still would need more than 1 Channel to do the rear differential. My only free channel in the routing is Dirac 8. But for implementing the rear differential I would need two channels, wouldn't I?










Another idea to do the differential rearfill is to mix Dirac 3+4 (my midrange drivers) after DL-correction to the rear speakers (using same xo as midrange 300-3500hz) and adding Delay and PEQ to the rears in the outputs. But then I would have the DL adjustments from my Midrange also on my Rears, which can't be good I guess. 











Is there another way to include a proper rearfill without destroying the stage this magic DL-setup creates for me?


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

sapphari said:


> Side note: one thing I find weird about the 8x12DL is that the sin sweeps are fed directly from your computer to the DSP, never passing through the head unit. As such, any coloration in your system upstream of the DSP is not accounted for.


Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but here is what worked for me.

If you have 2 extra inputs, Dirac channels, and outputs, you can loopback a set of outputs to unused inputs and very very carefully set up the mixing or you will get a nasty feedback loop.

Test your settings with the speakers disconnected.

Play uncorrelated pink noise with the same fft length for the viewing window and the pink noise file (you can generate it in REW) and connect a left or right output directly to REW through a calibrated sound card. 

You can then use REW auto EQ or manually create filters to flatten the stock signal.

You may need to check different volume levels as there could be volume based EQ.

Then it says somewhere to save coefficients as text and you can import that into the EQ biquad left and right output from your headunit.

I have mine set so any preset can use the signstek USB to Spdif converter or the headunit when I want to use Android auto GPS and take phone calls. 

You may also need to get your headunit output to match your phone or other sources in the plugin so that you use the minidsp volume knob only.

Another solution would be to get a kicker key LOC which might do a better job.

Hope this helps.


----------



## sapphari

@ExplsvCookie257 That sounds like it would work. In my situation, I have a digital signal through my head unit to the CDSP, so I assumed the signal from my laptop to the CDSP is similar to the upstream signal I normally use. Judging from the results I got with the tune, I think it was a reasonable assumption. I may adjust my target curve slightly, but I think the phase and time alignment and all that are 

That said, there would be a different problem if one were using a stock head unit with RCA or high level out into the CDSP. Most modern stock head units have preset EQ and some have time alignment too. So you'd have to incorporate that part of the signal chain somehow or the whole Dirac process would be worthless. 

I initially connected the headphone out from my computer to RCA in on my head unit, assuming that would be how signal would reach the CDSP. I realized I was wrong when volume did not change output level.


----------



## mumbles

BigAl205 said:


> So demanding...


Geez, what took you so long?


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> Ide like to give one big thank you to everybody who contributed to this guide. 👏👏👏
> 
> Words cannot describe how beautiful the sound is emitted from the speakers. There are no more speakers. 🤩 @*oabeieo *hit the nail on the head with his spaceship comment in the older thread. 👽
> 
> If you are lazy like me or do not have time for all the pre-eq required for a 2-channel tune, this Dirac channel per driver method is for you. Blows 2 channel no pre eq out of the water.
> 
> You can do all the plugin setup at home and do the measurements somewhere quiet without having to rush.
> 
> Followed the guide to a t.
> 
> Used my amplifiers high pass filter at 12db/octave at about 1000hz to protect the tweeters.
> 
> Removed all crossovers in the plugin except the subsonic filter set on the sub output channel.
> 
> Left all drivers in one group, dragged the curtains on the sub to the roll off along with the right tweeter.
> 
> Loaded the Dirac curve to slot 2 and the Audio Frog curve to slot 1.
> 
> Left bass management at 80hz high and low pass.
> 
> Enabled all crossovers including the woofer's low pass filter on the subwoofer output (which I do not fully understand yet but believe it has to do with phase?)
> 
> Never knew a car could sound anything like this.
> 
> Great job everybody!
> 
> Eventually will try putting each pair of drivers in separate groups and report back.
> 
> Somebody had mention drawing the nulls in separate left and right curves for a 2-channel tune, but with this method I think we would need each driver in its own group to do that.
> 
> Anybody drawn in the nulls using this method with success yet?


yes!!! You know what it is when tge tune is so dam good and everything is just so amazing….. and it’s flat out Spaceship!!! Yes!!! Hahahahaha!

if listening to your system makes you feel like if you walked out in your front yard and saw this, then it’s awesome! Gloryhole spaceship mode is my fav


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> yes!!! You know what it is when tge tune is so dam good and everything is just so amazing….. and it’s flat out Spaceship!!! Yes!!! Hahahahaha!
> 
> if listening to your system makes you feel like if you walked out in your front yard and saw this, then it’s awesome! Gloryhole spaceship mode is my fav
> 
> 
> View attachment 330071


Lol @ "gloryhole spaceship mode" as a descriptor for what's going on here


----------



## oabeieo

I was talking with @Anu2g about doing an amendum for rear fill. I think it’s a fantastic idea because there’s some things that should be added for setting it up properly most importantly doing the L minus R in the DIrac Routing (NOT THE MIXER)

and also, don’t take Dirac measurements with the L minus R in place, that must be done after all of your tuning is complete, and the fronts are exactly where you like them , then you manually work on the rear fill.

and while you’re working on the rear Fill doing things like adjusting the PEQ at the outputs of the rear channels and levels so that The minute and I mean ultra minute phase differences between front and rear get fixed even though you may be botching the response and deviating from your target. Because the use of PEQ Will make very small frequency dependent phase changes, and it will basically fine-tune like ultra fine-tune the summation between the rears and the fronts , I mean I would do the checklist like this

do anu2gs steps and for rear speakers treat them just like any other full range dirac channel,

After Dirac get fronts made perfect with your target etc etc with rears off after measurement are done and auditioning target responses.

after fronts done turn back on the rears, go to the Dirac routing tab. Implement L minus R

then go to the output PEQ and gain for rears,
Set signal delay between eight and 12 ms. Just enough to break away from the fronts spectrally.

adjust levels between left and right and find the sweet spot

and then listen to dynamic music and this is the last part but it’s the icing on the cake you have to be a good listener and listen to your music as you linked together the EQs for the rear outputs then start in the 80hz to 2.5k range and move different frequencies up and down using boost or cut and different Qs and listen for the rears to be 100% coherent with every frequency coming from the fronts! This is the fine-tuning stuff that makes the rear fill ultra bad ass. Remembering you’re not too worried about the frequency response of the rears as much as you want the timing to be corrected using PEQ to adjust phase

different spacing between the low doors in the rear or the C pillars or Ds Will require different delay settings, between eight and 12 ms.

and ideally having the speakers up high are better. if you can cut your rear fills into the roof above your head you’re a stud and that **** will be so spaceship.


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> Lol @ "gloryhole spaceship mode" as a descriptor for what's going on here


ya know I’m pretty sure spaceships really do come out and hover over your car, especially after the very first really good Dirac calibration you’ve ever heard in your life.

It’s like the feeling when you stick your wiener in a Gloryhole (I’ve never actually done that but can relate) and then spaceships are landing all around you…. It’s like the best ever feeling, and the most confusing feeling merged together.

Lmao!! Sort of like aliens walking in on you while you’re jerking off. Hahaha


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> Sort of like aliens walking in on you while you’re jerking off. Hahaha


This is how I would describe a really bad tune


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> This is how I would describe a really bad tune


oh it was so funny I’m still laughing..
(as my head hurts from being hysterical for the last 20 minutes)

Okay okay time to be serious, I don’t want to mess up a good thread anymore

did you have a chance to think about doing a rear fill section…..

We’re asking so much. Lol , the can o worms is spilled and word is out on your manual… now we want more dammit! Lol (jk) 😁

I’ve tuned nearly 30 8x12s now and all except 2 had rears….. I really do think it would be a great add on….


----------



## changster

Sanity check question - 

This process will not work with a DDRC-22D that is hooked up before an existing DSP (like a Zapco HDSP-V or whatever) right?


----------



## oabeieo

changster said:


> Sanity check question -
> 
> This process will not work with a DDRC-22D that is hooked up before an existing DSP (like a Zapco HDSP-V or whatever) right?


nope ,

although, it’s a good idea to do a solid L and R tune using moving mic averages with crossover off using the driver eq on your helix or zapco

then sum them together (playing with levels) starting with tweet to mid and adjust levels so they sum with what will look like about a half oactave bump during overlap, then engage crossovers and should sum flat, then midbass to mid and then sub to midbass

all while thinking about your target shape

you will definitely create a bunch of decorlation between left and right (doing separate left and right eq) , Dirac will fix it in the sum and it will image good so worry not. And that is new to 2.0 and 3.0, in 1.7 it wouldn’t fix the left and right phase errors…. It only made transfers match. So I know I preach no separate L and R eq (or preach with caution as the center will surly decoralate. With a ddrc22 upstream, worry not….. make your drivers flat and stack the levels to start your target tilt. Most ppl automatically assume the midbass needs a lot more power , that is false. It entirely depends on the efficiency of your system as a whole. Just stack your flattened responses to begin your shape, not by much tho. A little goes a long way, like make the midbass 1db above the mids and mids and tweets the same level. It’s important that you keep the crossover shape mostly as they need to sum properly and have phase tracking. If you over gain the midbass, you’ll overshoot your crossover point ot is won’t sum properly (and that defeats the entire point. So just use good judgment think about what you’re doing and the end result… know your system limitations etc. ideally tho you would sum to as flat as possible and build your target into Dirac curve…. All depends on your gain and what kind of power you have. And remember, if your driver tuning measures flat and the sum of them is a mess , Dirac will fix that, you just want the overall to be flat (ish)

if you have big dips when turning crossovers on and speakers all on together, well that’s an indication you need to reverse the polarity on a set and think about your filter order. With even order butts you should expect a small bump in the crossover area. That is ok!! Leave it! Let Dirac fix the sum… on LRs and odd butts they should sum flat. Listen to your crossovers also… make sure nothings fighting….like for example, having a mid and a tweet very close by and using different time delay settings, that can cause a dip at the crossover. I would try using a common time delay for both and somewhere in between unti you have good reinforcement. Somewhere in there should be the best possible. And acoustically, they may just push on eachother. What you don’t want is using delay outside of the actual distance.

Personally I like to start with a common distance of both speakers mounted next to eachother. (Example if tweet is 28” and mid is 26” I use 27 for both) It’s sounds the most natural post Dirac, and in my oppinion and on most cars I’ve tuned. Of course some exceptions. Have both speakers interacting and having cone movement at the same time when there mounted close together is a good thing. Because remember phase is Angular! Just because a delay scheme may be fitting to your nose, it’s quite a mess at let’s say all the outside Dirac box measurement points. And that “perfect “ time delay is no longer valid.

so save yourself from trying to align impulse peaks gang. It’s a worthless effort. The average distance of two drivers mounted close together is almost always going to be better sounding. May not measure 📐 as precise at one point in space, but my head is bigger then a mic capsule. And when I drive I move my head around, lean on center consul armrest , etc etc.


----------



## steelwindmachine

just reposting my question here... will this guide need a revision due to any method changes in the newest Dirac release?


----------



## Anu2g

steelwindmachine said:


> just reposting my question here... will this guide need a revision due to any method changes in the newest Dirac release?


Yea, it would need changes to the portion about setting the target curve. The current guide _still _holds true since it has a (still applicable) step for uploading your own custom curve, so that can still be fully used.

The only change that could be made is to take advantage of the new default curve function, which would simplify the guide a bit (i.e. no need to upload your own custom curve now). I'm hoping to try out the new default curve UX this weekend, and I've already been in touch with the other contributors on the Guide, so hoping to modify the guide some time next week.


----------



## ean611

Anu2g said:


> Yea, it would need changes to the portion about setting the target curve. The current guide _still _holds true since it has a (still applicable) step for uploading your own custom curve, so that can still be fully used.
> 
> The only change that could be made is to take advantage of the new default curve function, which would simplify the guide a bit (i.e. no need to upload your own custom curve now). I'm hoping to try out the new default curve UX this weekend, and I've already been in touch with the other contributors on the Guide, so hoping to modify the guide some time next week.


So far, I've tried the new curve functions. While they're good, they still leave some issues. Using the custom curve either leaves my car with too much mid-bas, or too little sub bass. Granted, I have a tiny car (NC Miata), but I need a little bit different blend to get it to work for my car. The upper range roll off is nice.

I've still needed to use custom curves, but the "defaults" are now very usable as starting points. Given that in a home environment, you don't need the large bass boost, it makes sense how they did their curve. In a car (or at least mine), I need extra below 60Hz to compensate for cabin size, and the roll off to 200Hz has too much mid-bass.

I'd wager in a larger cabin, this is less pronounced, of an effect, but we'll have to wait until more folks try this out and report back.

EDIT:
Just looked up, so my Miata is ~5 feet wide, and definitely shorter than that in length of cabin, as trunk is completely isolated. This means my cabin gain starts around 100Hz, vs a "normal" car which has major cabin gain between 40-60Hz (8-12 ft length of cabin).


----------



## Anu2g

ean611 said:


> So far, I've tried the new curve functions. While they're good, they still leave some issues. Using the custom curve either leaves my car with too much mid-bas, or too little sub bass. Granted, I have a tiny car (NC Miata), but I need a little bit different blend to get it to work for my car. The upper range roll off is nice.
> 
> I've still needed to use custom curves, but the "defaults" are now very usable as starting points. Given that in a home environment, you don't need the large bass boost, it makes sense how they did their curve. In a car (or at least mine), I need extra below 60Hz to compensate for cabin size, and the roll off to 200Hz has too much mid-bass.
> 
> I'd wager in a larger cabin, this is less pronounced, of an effect, but we'll have to wait until more folks try this out and report back.
> 
> EDIT:
> Just looked up, so my Miata is ~5 feet wide, and definitely shorter than that in length of cabin, as trunk is completely isolated. This means my cabin gain starts around 100Hz, vs a "normal" car which has major cabin gain between 40-60Hz (8-12 ft length of cabin).


I didn't get around to testing the new default curve this past weekend, but curious to see. I have a 2dr Jeep, which has a small cabin as well. Perhaps not as small as yours, but if you couple this with my preference towards a lot of sub bass, I suspect I'll have similar issues to you. My current target curve (for daily listening, not competitions) has about an 18dB difference between highest sub bass level and lowest high end level. And the new Dirac default curve allows up to 15dB difference


----------



## oabeieo

The default target ive tried several times now
It works really well….

On my CM-10 mic it sounds so good. It sounds like it fits the room and the responce actually sounds like I would expect from the target. The CM-10 I believe gives Dirac that last bit that makes it what I believe it was always meant to be. Especially in tonality! Hands down cm-10 wins (big time)


on the umik1 it has too much midbass and is muddy imo (ever so barely I might add)

on my UMM6 same thing as umik1 except the highs are brighter a little so it makes up for what sounds muddy to me

the umik1 and UMM6 on a perfectly flat target sound proper and sound good….

I’ve tried this on 2, 8x12s, a flex, and a ddrc22
All same results, all different “rooms”
The flex is in a big room and it also shared the same attributes as the others that were in car.

ive ordered a umik2. We will see how it measures.


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> The default target ive tried several times now
> It works really well….
> 
> On my CM-10 mic it sounds so good. It sounds like it fits the room and the responce actually sounds like I would expect from the target. The CM-10 I believe gives Dirac that last bit that makes it what I believe it was always meant to be. Especially in tonality! Hands down cm-10 wins (big time)
> 
> 
> on the umik1 it has too much midbass and is muddy imo (ever so barely I might add)
> 
> on my UMM6 same thing as umik1 except the highs are brighter a little so it makes up for what sounds muddy to me
> 
> the umik1 and UMM6 on a perfectly flat target sound proper and sound good….
> 
> I’ve tried this on 2, 8x12s, a flex, and a ddrc22
> All same results, all different “rooms”
> The flex is in a big room and it also shared the same attributes as the others that were in car.
> 
> ive ordered a umik2. We will see how it measures.


Let me know how the UMIK-2 compares to the CM-10 with Dirac measurements. I've currently been using a UMIK-2.


----------



## steelwindmachine

@Anu2g - did you ever use a UMIK-1? If so, any comments on it vs. the UMIK-2 in terms of tuning results?

@oabeieo - how are you connecting the CM-10 to your PC?


----------



## Anu2g

steelwindmachine said:


> @Anu2g - did you ever use a UMIK-1? If so, any comments on it vs. the UMIK-2 in terms of tuning results?
> 
> @oabeieo - how are you connecting the CM-10 to your PC?


Yea, I started with the UMIK-1. I wouldn't be able to give you a good comparison because I had learned a lot more about how to use this DSP and tuning in general in parallel with switching mics, so it's hard for me to say whether that increased knowledge or mic change made the difference in making my tune sound better. I would lean toward the former. It wasn't a scientific comparison.


----------



## sapphari

Anu2g said:


> My current target curve (for daily listening, not competitions) has about an 18dB difference between highest sub bass level and lowest high end level.


Mind posting up your curve?


----------



## oabeieo

steelwindmachine said:


> @Anu2g - did you ever use a UMIK-1? If so, any comments on it vs. the UMIK-2 in terms of tuning results?
> 
> @oabeieo - how are you connecting the CM-10 to your PC?


with a tascam us-366
But my Roland just showed up… super excited.

i wouldn’t mess with the tascam, it’s junk imo

this is the hotness, and an earthworks mic (oh anu2g I’m so jel) 

Roland Octa Capture


----------



## Bikey

Are getting a pile of mics with that?


----------



## oabeieo

Bikey said:


> Are getting a pile of mics with that?


Nope , I bought 7 more cm10 s 

but Im also getting the jl max at the shop, that will have a pile of mics. The shop is buying that (hopefully soon)


----------



## Anu2g

sapphari said:


> Mind posting up your curve?


Again, this is just my personal listening preference / daily curve, however this isn't the same curve I'd run for demos. Also I should note that this is in a 2-dr Wrangler, i.e. my cabin is pretty tiny.


----------



## zacjones99

Anu2g said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> After learning so much from various forum members, scouring through (and contributing on) many threads, and being probed by my peers (and superiors) to document the process, I have written a simple tuning guide for folks wanting to use Dirac Live via the MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL.
> 
> It is primarily composed of ideas developed/curated by DIYMA members Truthunter and oabeieo, with revision assistance from bertholomey, naiku, and squiers007.
> 
> I hope you all find it useful, and if you have any questions or feedback, please drop a reply here, and I'll amend the doc accordingly.
> 
> I'm sharing it here as a google doc, that way anyone viewing it will always be looking at the latest revision:
> *MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL (Dirac Live): Quick Tuning Guide*
> 
> Thanks, and enjoy!
> 
> PS: These two threads contain a lot of the background that went into writing this guide:
> Dirac tips and tricks
> MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live


Wow man I can't thank all of you guys enough. Amazing!!!! I have the C-DSP 8x12DL installed and I'll absolutely be using this guide.


----------



## oabeieo

zacjones99 said:


> Wow man I can't thank all of you guys enough. Amazing!!!! I have the C-DSP 8x12DL installed and I'll absolutely be using this guide.


ive heard rumors of tonal issues with Dirac
Remember it’s false 

Once you get the hang of it and find your target you will never go back to standard dsp


----------



## zacjones99

Hmm. So if we wanted to add a second sub up front on a separate channel then would we then set bass management to feed Dirac 7 and Dirac 8, and then use Dirac 7 for the rear sub and Dirac 8 for the front sub?


----------



## squiers007

zacjones99 said:


> Hmm. So if we wanted to add a second sub up front on a separate channel then would we set bass management to feed channel 7 and channel 8, and then use channel 7 for the rear sub and channel 8 for the front sub?


No you should still have an open Dirac channel. 1/2- tweets, 3/4 - mids, 5/6 - midbass, 7/8 - 2 subs (if they need different TA settings). If you only have 1 sub or they are co-located then you only need to use a single Dirac channel (7). Hope thst helps. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## zacjones99

squiers007 said:


> No you should still have an open Dirac channel. 1/2- tweets, 3/4 - mids, 5/6 - midbass, 7/8 - 2 subs (if they need different TA settings). If you only have 1 sub or they are co-located then you only need to use a single Dirac channel (7). Hope thst helps.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


I edited my post after thinking it through a little and I think we're saying the same thing now.


----------



## oabeieo

Yeah you can do Dirac 7 and 8 on separate subs and still use BM as a source feed 

you’ll just have to use a y cord for the amps

you have 2 bass amps I presume


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> Yeah you can do Dirac 7 and 8 on separate subs and still use BM as a source feed
> 
> you’ll just have to use a y cord for the amps
> 
> you have 2 bass amps I presume


Perfect. Yes 4 channels on 2 amps each bridged to mono, so I'll need the Y cables.


----------



## oabeieo

zacjones99 said:


> Perfect. Yes 4 channels on 2 amps each bridged to mono, so I'll need the Y cables.


wait …. For subs ? 
two 4ch

so you have 4 subs ?


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> Yeah you can do Dirac 7 and 8 on separate subs and still use BM as a source feed
> 
> you’ll just have to use a y cord for the amps
> 
> you have 2 bass amps I presume
> [/QUO
> 
> 
> oabeieo said:
> 
> 
> 
> wait …. For subs ?
> two 4ch
> 
> so you have 4 subs ?
> 
> 
> 
> No just two amps and 2 subs 😬. Amps are 2 channel amps though and will be bridged.
Click to expand...

Yes 2 amps and 2 subs.


----------



## lithium

zacjones99 said:


> Hmm. So if we wanted to add a second sub up front on a separate channel then would we then set bass management to feed Dirac 7 and Dirac 8, and then use Dirac 7 for the rear sub and Dirac 8 for the front sub?


I'm running this setup right now. Seems to work well.


----------



## oabeieo

Yeah that will work awesome 

i have that on a customer truck it’s pretty dam sick


----------



## lithium

I've been playing around with this for a bit now. Only issue having is that my response post tune is quite hot on the top end (subjectively). If I do a pink noise measurement post tune I have rising response above 5khz. Pink noise vs a sweep might be responsible here, which suggests I need to use a different target curve. Any similar observations from you guys?


----------



## oabeieo

lithium said:


> I've been playing around with this for a bit now. Only issue having is that my response post tune is quite hot on the top end (subjectively). If I do a pink noise measurement post tune I have rising response above 5khz. Pink noise vs a sweep might be responsible here, which suggests I need to use a different target curve. Any similar observations from you guys?


absolutely yes

then I use a cm-10mic and it’s consistent every time… tonal issues resolved

but yes your target needs changed

what I’ve found with Dirac is you just have to find your target….

it becomes a thing where “who cares what harman says” lol

i think the inconsistencies between mics and measurements swing as much as 4db!!!

i also found Dirac with any calibrated mic to work best with a smooth curve…..

Especially above 250hz 

like a flat line (whatever tilt isn’t what I’m talking here but a flat shape). Tilt , no tilt , a tilt down then a tilt up (like I do rn) as long as there’s no abrupt changes…. No more then 1db per octave on the target above 250hz itseems to work it’s best

I have a flat response with 4 anchors to 600hz then a 1 db drop with no anchors after that to 2500…. Then a tilt back up 1db to 9k then a 2db tilt up to 20k 

makes it crisp, smooth , the 20k is not louder then 600….. it’s my curve with a cm 10

on my umik , no tilt back up , in fact a 1db tilt down and a 2db drip at 4K instead of 2500

so different mics , different curves , the generic targets all sound good initially, but sorta blow after a min

find what you like , small variants… start with all the way flat and work from there


----------



## lithium

Gotcha, I like what its doing with the stage, midbass, and sub integration. I'll just have to nail down a new target curve for this method of measurement.


----------



## oabeieo

lithium said:


> Gotcha, I like what its doing with the stage, midbass, and sub integration. I'll just have to nail down a new target curve for this method of measurement.


yeah exactly, although you’ll be able to do the method with a dead flat targets s and now do any curve you like and it should be what it is with little variations….

remember to off load upstream filters before you measure in the DL…. Should be pretty sick


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Got my minidsp DL in tonight. Slowly going through this very well put together page, getting it setup.
Let's see how good this thing is. Will report back as to if it is (or rather how much) better than I can do myself with the helix.


----------



## edouble101

I’m getting ready to start tuning, this guide and the associated threads are very helpful.

I do not have a laptop and I’m looking to buy one. Since most laptops do not come with a sound card, will I need to buy a USB sound card to tune the 8x12 DL? Or do I use a USB cable and connect the laptop directly to the 8x12DL?

Also, will I need a USB sound card to use REW?


----------



## steelwindmachine

edouble101 said:


> I’m getting ready to start tuning, this guide and the associated threads are very helpful.
> 
> I do not have a laptop and I’m looking to buy one. Since most laptops do not come with a sound card, will I need to buy a USB sound card to tune the 8x12 DL? Or do I use a USB cable and connect the laptop directly to the 8x12DL?
> 
> Also, will I need a USB sound card to use REW?


You will not need a dedicated sound card. Any laptop that meets the minimum requirements to run the MiniDSP plug-in, DiracLive and optionally REW will work fine.

You'll need two USB ports on the computer. One for the MiniDSP and the other for the UMIK1 or equivalant calibrated mic connection.


----------



## hella356

steelwindmachine is right on the money, edouble101. To me, the ideal laptop for the DSP would be a powerful, small form factor touchscreen model. However, any old laptop should do fine.

I use a cheapie Gateway laptop I got at Walmart for $200 - 11.6" touchscreen. It has a _*really *_slow 2C/2T Celeron with only 4GB of non-upgradable RAM, and dreadfully slow, non-upgradable 64GB eMMC storage. But it is compact and the touchscreen is helpful. It's a bit slow when calculating in Dirac, but it's bearable. Note that this laptop is almost unusable for typical PC usage, struggles with a lot of things, yet still works fine with the miniDSP. In fact, controlling the DSP is literally the only thing I use this laptop for, or would want to.

I also have a 15" Dell with 4C/8T i5 chip, 8GB RAM, NVMe SSD. Unlike the Gateway, this is a completely competent general-use PC, and does perform the Dirac calculations more quickly, but its larger size and lack of touchscreen make it less appealing than the Gateway for DSP usage. The Gateway's calculations take a few seconds compared to almost instantly with the Dell, but since this slowness only adds probably less than a minute to the total process, the easier physical size & touchscreen give it the edge for me in this usage.


----------



## edouble101

steelwindmachine said:


> You will not need a dedicated sound card. Any laptop that meets the minimum requirements to run the MiniDSP plug-in, DiracLive and optionally REW will work fine.
> 
> You'll need two USB ports on the computer. One for the MiniDSP and the other for the UMIK1 or equivalant calibrated mic connection.


I should have messaged you 😬. Thanks!


----------



## steelwindmachine

@edouble101 - no problem 

For public knowledge, as per the *Dirac Live User manual version June 2022, System Requirements:*
Windows
• Microsoft Windows 10
• Intel i3 or equivalent
• 2GB RAM

Mac
• macOS 10.14 Mojave, 10.15 Catalina, or newer
• Intel i3 or equivalent
• 2GB RAM


For the *MiniDSP Plug-in Software, manual version 2.7, hardware requirements:*
Windows 10 and later
USB 2.0+

MacOS 10.14 Mojave and later


----------



## hella356

Good info. I'm quite certain the Celeron N4020 + slow RAM & storage in my Gateway would be below any i3 laptop out there, and it works fine, albeit slower than ideal. The i5 laptop performs the calculations with very little wait. Not sure how much actual time would be saved with a full blown, high end rig, but there's not much room for improvement over the i5. I'd guess most any PC laptop from the last 5 years would work. Even older for higher-end laptops. Most any laptop can run the Plug-In with ease, I'd think, and AFAIK that should be true for most all DSPs. The Dirac part is where I see the actual performance difference between my laptops. 

Good thing is that this DSP doesn't require a powerhouse to run quickly, and pretty entry-level priced laptops will get the job done.


----------



## oabeieo

I also have a Walmart HP with a 10 key and win10
And it’s strictly vor dsp tuning 

Have about 25 dsp platforms installed and all work perfect 

I meter my connections so windows can’t update 
And disable all firewalls and virus protection…

Easily connects to everything and is only used to tune dsp….

Its a Pentium, not a good one, and has fixed ram and lame graphics and 3 usb slots 

Perfect as a tuning rig


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

So I got the 8x12 in and the tonality is absolutely to die for.
But I'm having an issue with the stage sounding like it's coming from the pass side (L) speaker location....any ideas gents?


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> So I got the 8x12 in and the tonality is absolutely to die for.
> But I'm having an issue with the stage sounding like it's coming from the pass side (L) speaker location....any ideas gents?


Can you attach a pic of your Dirac tab?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> Can you attach a pic of your Dirac tab?


The one on the minidsp software? Or the actual dirac software?


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> The one on the minidsp software? Or the actual dirac software?


From the C-DSP Plugin. You'll need to be connected to the DSP to get that screenshot. If it shows all zeros for the Delay then that would definitely explain the issue and, unfortunately, you'll need to remeasure. It appears to be a bug in one of the newer versions of the software.


----------



## hella356

Picassotheimpaler said:


> So I got the 8x12 in and the tonality is absolutely to die for.
> But I'm having an issue with the stage sounding like it's coming from the pass side (L) speaker location....any ideas gents?


So your initial findings has it comparing well to the Helix? I got the miniDSP to make (my noob) tuning easier and quicker, and because I thought the room correction properties could have great benefit in a car environment, but have always been curious as to how well the results stack up against the likes of a top-notch "traditional" DSP like a Helix.


----------



## oabeieo

The new helix auto tune is pretty dam good 

And fir can be done in fixed point , so I am curious if it used fir because it sure sounds like it does 

Although minidsp still kicks ass


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

hella356 said:


> So your initial findings has it comparing well to the Helix? I got the miniDSP to make (my noob) tuning easier and quicker, and because I thought the room correction properties could have great benefit in a car environment, but have always been curious as to how well the results stack up against the likes of a top-notch "traditional" DSP like a Helix.


Well, there's obviously still some things that. Working through on staging. But the tonality is superb. If I can get the staging to work, than it's going to be a pro lvl tune in 30 min


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> From the C-DSP Plugin. You'll need to be connected to the DSP to get that screenshot. If it shows all zeros for the Delay then that would definitely explain the issue and, unfortunately, you'll need to remeasure. It appears to be a bug in one of the newer versions of the software.


I'll go take a look shortly. I believe I looked at it and it was there. But it's strange in the respect that the midrange stage is SUPER focused. But it's focused right on top of the pass. midrange.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> From the C-DSP Plugin. You'll need to be connected to the DSP to get that screenshot. If it shows all zeros for the Delay then that would definitely explain the issue and, unfortunately, you'll need to remeasure. It appears to be a bug in one of the newer versions of the software.











Yep, it's all set...any other ideas?? =]


----------



## steelwindmachine

your sure all your dsp to amp channel assignments match up with their intended drivers?

this should have been apparent during the Dirac gain setting process


----------



## Anu2g

If you verify what Dan said and that's not the issue, you may want to go into the Dirac software, open up your project, go into the Filter Design step and view the actual corrected impulses to make sure it didn't flip a driver out of phase. 

You could also listen to driver pairs to see if that makes it clear what is off.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> If you verify what Dan said and that's not the issue, you may want to go into the Dirac software, open up your project, go into the Filter Design step and view the actual corrected impulses to make sure it didn't flip a driver out of phase.
> 
> You could also listen to driver pairs to see if that makes it clear what is off.


I tried flipping the midrange phase in the cdsp software and it gave that particular out of phase sound. That's they odd part, it doesn't sound out of phase. It just sounds like the time alignment made the mid stage at the speaker... Maybe I'll take the popper to my speakers and make sure they're all in phase electrically and that I didn't do something stupid there


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

_Edit_ 
Nevermind, went back and read it and I must have missed it lol.
When the guide says lean the seat back and take your first measurement at the top of your nose...are you taking it where the tip of your nose would be in your typical seating position? Or at the top of your nose while leaned back??


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> _Edit_
> Nevermind, went back and read it and I must have missed it lol.
> When the guide says lean the seat back and take your first measurement at the top of your nose...are you taking it where the tip of your nose would be in your typical seating position? Or at the top of your nose while leaned back??


lean back …. Go directly between your ears

but before you do that get a reference point where ears are

like B pillars seat belt pulley

measure between ears

the rear measurements are not behind that , there parallel with the 1st measurement

Also if you use pillar mounted mids , the top forward Left measurement get about 8” closer to the speaker compared to the right (only if that speaker turns out too loud) you can go back and edit the 1 measurement position later so no need to remeasure everything..

Also I make a note of where the master is in volume calibration. So if I do go back and edit a measurement point I can reference the same output level (not that it matters a bunch but good practice)


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> _Edit_
> Nevermind, went back and read it and I must have missed it lol.
> When the guide says lean the seat back and take your first measurement at the top of your nose...are you taking it where the tip of your nose would be in your typical seating position? Or at the top of your nose while leaned back??


Tip of the nose in typical seating position. Or between ears is what oabeieo does (in typical seating position)


----------



## oabeieo

Yeah somewhere between your head area lol 
I’m sure it’s all pretty much the same ****


----------



## oabeieo

My file names I use th3 name or date, mater volume level, and sometimes any specific info to that calibration……

like for example tonytundraLFvol47config1
TonytundraRFvol42config3


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> My file names I use th3 name or date, mater volume level, and sometimes any specific info to that calibration……
> 
> like for example tonytundraLFvol47config1
> TonytundraRFvol42config3


I do something similar, but I don't prepend the name of the person or the car for obvious reasons (they're constant). I keep a Tuning folder, with subfolders for each date that I tune, and then I have a Pre Config.xml which is my config before any Dirac measurements, and then a file for the config post measurements. For the Dirac measurements (not to be confused with Plugin Configs), I name it based on what I'm doing and any output adjustments I might have done before measuring (I.e. Windows Down - Sub minus 20db).

So a full path would look like:

/Tuning/20220627/Windows Down - Sub minus 20dB.liveproject

If I was testing, say, measuring at 0 degrees instead of 90 degrees, it would be:
/Tuning/20220627/Windows Down - Sub minus 20dB - 0 degree.liveproject

This topic might require another thread, though.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Well, I redid my measurements with a smaller box around where my head would be and it made a huge improvement.
Still some things that sound a bit off, like some areas are out of phase. But over all it's so much better. Now to figure out why the sub integration seems a bit off.


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Well, I redid my measurements with a smaller box around where my head would be and it made a huge improvement.
> Still some things that sound a bit off, like some areas are out of phase. But over all it's so much better. Now to figure out why the sub integration seems a bit off.


What's the final curve you used? And in the Dirac filter design screen, if you view the sub, did the corrected target hit your final curve? If it didn't, that could definitely explain your issue there, and is an issue I've faced before. I have some ways to mitigate that if that is in fact your issue.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> What's the final curve you used? And in the Dirac filter design screen, if you view the sub, did the corrected target hit your final curve? If it didn't, that could definitely explain your issue there, and is an issue I've faced before. I have some ways to mitigate that if that is in fact your issue.


It didn't hit the entire way, no. I had a feeling that was the issue, if the sub is around the same volume in the gain set screen, it doesn't want to.
It's a "jazzi curve" with the upper mid dip removed to flat


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> It didn't hit the entire way, no. I had a feeling that was the issue, if the sub is around the same volume in the gain set screen, it doesn't want to.
> It's a "jazzi curve" with the upper mid dip removed to flat


Cool; I can help here. 

Got a couple questions first:
1) When you say "if the sub is around the same volume in the gain set screen", what do you mean exactly? Are you level matching using your amp's gain and/or Plugin's Output tab first? Or are you adjusting volume in Dirac itself?
2) Can you post screenshots of your Dirac filter design screen with measured and corrected responses? Ideally showing sub and mid-basses (separate screenshots would be fine)


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

1) I adjusted via the routing tab I believe. It was pretty close to begin with, but it needed a few db knocked down to get it within that -20/-25 range
2) absolutely, I'll update when I get home


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> 1) I adjusted via the routing tab I believe. It was pretty close to begin with, but it needed a few db knocked down to get it within that -20/-25 range
> 2) absolutely, I'll update when I get home


Cool. And you didn't adjust that output tab again post-Dirac, right?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> Cool. And you didn't adjust that output tab again post-Dirac, right?


I didn't adjust after, no.
I only got the sub, I can get the midbass as well when the computer charges.








The midbass are both matched extremely close to matched with the curve down to roughly 30hz on both sides.
I'm summing the sub channel from the L&R through bass managment. Bass managment is at 24/LR 80hz on both hp and lp. Both of those filters are also applied to the midbass and sub output channels respectively.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Picassotheimpaler said:


> I didn't adjust after, no.
> I only got the sub, I can get the midbass as well when the computer charges.
> View attachment 338435
> 
> The midbass are both matched extremely close to matched with the curve down to roughly 30hz on both sides.
> I'm summing the sub channel from the L&R through bass managment. Bass managment is at 24/LR 80hz on both hp and lp. Both of those filters are also applied to the midbass and sub output channels respectively.


I do have a sub out channel as well, but I wasn't sure if I should do the low frequency content through or from the extracted signal from bass managment.


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> I do have a sub out channel as well, but I wasn't sure if I should do the low frequency content through or from the extracted signal from bass managment.


extracted ….. that is how bass management operates

that way your sub and highs have a separate crossover and good summation and separate targets. And the sub and the HP in BM is not a part of the DLCT

muse no LPF on sub output , do it in BM

use No HPF on midbass do it in Bm


----------



## hella356

I initially had BM crossovers set, and also between the sub/midbass. When I removed the redundant sub/midbass crossover and just used BM, my low end improved a lot.


----------



## oabeieo

hella356 said:


> I initially had BM crossovers set, and also between the sub/midbass. When I removed the redundant sub/midbass crossover and just used BM, my low end improved a lot.


yeah that cascade would have doubled your slope and would have crosssed at -12db (instead of -6 LR) which is not -180 and would have had a very narrow dip right at crossover (if all things being equal )


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> yeah that cascade would have doubled your slope and would have crosssed at -12db (instead of -6 LR) which is not -180 and would have had a very narrow dip right at crossover (if all things being equal )


Okay, I thought that was the case. But the way I read the guide here, but it sounds like you should be using both... Is that amount of reached target in my picture enough that it should be summing properly?


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Okay, I thought that was the case. But the way I read the guide here, but it sounds like you should be using both... Is that amount of reached target in my picture enough that it should be summing properly?


nope…. Don’t use both
Let BM handle the filters

I’m not sure what Anu s guide is saying exactly
As Ryan and him have there own way of doing the sub and midbass (I think even there midbass and sub on same Dirac channel would demand only using output XOs and not using BM at all

I wouldn’t…… not worth the trade off of the cascade on other drivers 

that way I have nothing against, I’ve tried it and it does sound good….. just not how I do ‘em is all


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> nope…. Don’t use both
> Let BM handle the filters
> 
> I’m not sure what Anu s guide is saying exactly
> As Ryan and him have there own way of doing the sub and midbass (I think even there midbass and sub on same Dirac channel would demand only using output XOs and not using BM at all
> 
> I wouldn’t…… not worth the trade off of the cascade on other drivers
> 
> that way I have nothing against, I’ve tried it and it does sound good….. just not how I do ‘em is all


That was going to be my next question. If you are pulling the LF from the full range signal of 1 and 2, why use BM at all? Why not send full range from L+R to the sub for dirac to take care of, then filter appropriatly?
You say this isn't your way of handling the sub in Dirac, how do you take care of the LF signal? I believe I've seen you take care of it manually via PEQ, then sum it back in? If that's the case, don't you loose out on some things like the impulse response correction on the sub? I took a look at the impulse correction on the sub, and it looked like it had the most apparent improvement out of all the drivers.


----------



## Anu2g

To be clear, Andy (oabeieo) and Ryan (Truthunter) and myself all suggest using BM to handle LPF duties on the sub and HPF duties on the mid-bass as such, you don't want to extraneously apply the bove two XOs on the Outputs tab (solely rely on BM for those).

I think you already have that set correctly but can you confirm?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> To be clear, Andy (oabeieo) and Ryan (Truthunter) and myself all suggest using BM to handle LPF duties on the sub and HPF duties on the mid-bass as such, you don't want to extraneously apply the bove two XOs on the Outputs tab (solely rely on BM for those).
> 
> I think you already have that set correctly but can you confirm?


Oh, I was speaking out of pocket, I appologize. Maybe that was from an old thread a while ago or something.
But I was using both. I actually tried removing those this afternoon before getting this particular response. It did help somewhat, but it still seems like the amount of lower bass coming from the front speakers is fairly low in comparison to the sub output (when muting drivers to compare). I'm going to play around a bit more tomorrow and see what happens.


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> To be clear, Andy (oabeieo) and Ryan (Truthunter) and myself all suggest using BM to handle LPF duties on the sub and HPF duties on the mid-bass as such, you don't want to extraneously apply the bove two XOs on the Outputs tab (solely rely on BM for those).
> 
> I think you already have that set correctly but can you confirm?


i was mistaken my apologies. Sincerely.

I remember now, you guys were just sharing a target in Dirac…. Which is completely fine

sorry again….

you do know my dumbass did it wrong and had to later fix it and discover it sounded awesome…. I think that’s why I remembered it wrong (bang head)


----------



## Anu2g

Lol, nothing to apologize for, guys!

I'm not seeing anything wrong in the corrected sub response. Curious to see the midbass response.

Also, do you know for sure the Andy curve is enough sub bass for you?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> Lol, nothing to apologize for, guys!
> 
> I'm not seeing anything wrong in the corrected sub response. Curious to see the midbass response.
> 
> Also, do you know for sure the Andy curve is enough sub bass for you?


Def enough bass with the midbass tilt I added. I actually kick the knob down a touch. It's more the "up front" nature of the bass that I'm missing it feels more drawn to the back than my manual helix tune


----------



## steelwindmachine

just following @Picassotheimpaler experiences and and to clarify from @Anu2g, the guide at the head of this thread if followed precisely does have the sub signal's Low Pass Filter controlled via Bass Management and High Pass Filtering on the mid-bass?

I believe this setup methodology is outlined in the guide's section 4.a.ii-iv and 4.b.iii-v


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

steelwindmachine said:


> just following @Picassotheimpaler experiences and and to clarify from @Anu2g, the guide at the head of this thread if followed precisely does have the sub signal's Low Pass Filter controlled via Bass Management and High Pass Filtering on the mid-bass?
> 
> I believe this setup methodology is outlined in the guide's section 4.a.ii-iv and 4.b.iii-v


That's why I figured I would post it here instead of PM. Thought it may help someone else as well! It seemed to me that the guide asked you to cascade the output XO with the BM XO.
But that being said, I actually did some listening this morning and it is MUCH better with the XO for the Midbass HP and the subs LP turned off in the output stage. Only controlled by the BM instead. I'm still getting some trunk bass feel, but it is leagues better than before.


----------



## steelwindmachine

@Picassotheimpaler - what actual XO point is implemented for the Sub LPF and the Midbass HP?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

steelwindmachine said:


> @Picassotheimpaler - what actual XO point is implemented for the Sub LPF and the Midbass HP?


On the output side, I left them completely bypassed. But on the BM/input side both the HP/LP are 80hz.
Just by the way bass managment extracts the bass info, it's already putting a HP on the MB and only extracting the of the BM tab LP and below for the subwoofer. So those filters are already in effect at that point


----------



## steelwindmachine

based on the DIRAC measurements, does 80Hz still seem like a optimal XO point between the sub and mid-bass?

I'm hypothesizing here, but maybe moving that point might influence the bass-up-front?

Forgive me if you already said, but did you have bass-up-front with your Helix tune? If so, then I wouldn't suspect a physical install idiosyncrasy like how the sub is aimed.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

steelwindmachine said:


> based on the DIRAC measurements, does 80Hz still seem like a optimal XO point between the sub and mid-bass?
> 
> I'm hypothesizing here, but maybe moving that point might influence the bass-up-front?
> 
> Forgive me if you already said, but did you have bass-up-front with your Helix tune? If so, then I wouldn't suspect a physical install idiosyncrasy like how the sub is aimed.


Yeah, it was solidly on the dash throughout the range. Right now the midbass region is upfront but the subbass region starts to draw back. 
This has me wondering, is the signal that the minidsp sends to Dirac for the sub also full range that also gets corrected in the same way? Or is it already LP before it hits Dirac?
I ask because it looks like the signal that Dirac receives for the MB from my in. channel 1 is full range. Yet the signal that is being corrected for the sub looks like it already has a LP on it.


----------



## oabeieo

steelwindmachine said:


> based on the DIRAC measurements, does 80Hz still seem like a optimal XO point between the sub and mid-bass?
> 
> I'm hypothesizing here, but maybe moving that point might influence the bass-up-front?
> 
> Forgive me if you already said, but did you have bass-up-front with your Helix tune? If so, then I wouldn't suspect a physical install idiosyncrasy like how the sub is aimed.


i look at the responce…. I prefer an octave of responce under/above the crossover. If I’m lighting up a crossover on top of a dip,I’ll actually use a crossover that’s lower then the lowest point on dip, and a steeper slope and use a crossover topology that is cyclical. Then I’ll use the acoustic slope to match up the crossover.

and that’s just to start….

I’ve also used butt6 over a dip because it’s so much easier on phase and it’s a winch to align with midbass….

so overall , no real go to…..unless I have at least an uninterrupted octave above/under , in that case LR4 pretty much always… for sub to midbass


----------



## Anu2g

steelwindmachine said:


> just following @Picassotheimpaler experiences and and to clarify from @Anu2g, the guide at the head of this thread if followed precisely does have the sub signal's Low Pass Filter controlled via Bass Management and High Pass Filtering on the mid-bass?
> 
> I believe this setup methodology is outlined in the guide's section 4.a.ii-iv and 4.b.iii-v


The main distinction I was trying to explain, which it appears @Picassotheimpaler understands now, is that you should use BM but _not also _add XOs on the Output tab. You should _only_ use BM, which is what Picasso is doing now. Obviously, if you also add XOs on the same channels via the outputs tab you're going to be doubling up the XOs.


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Yeah, it was solidly on the dash throughout the range. Right now the midbass region is upfront but the subbass region starts to draw back.
> This has me wondering, is the signal that the minidsp sends to Dirac for the sub also full range that also gets corrected in the same way? Or is it already LP before it hits Dirac?
> I ask because it looks like the signal that Dirac receives for the MB from my in. channel 1 is full range. Yet the signal that is being corrected for the sub looks like it already has a LP on it.


Dirac sine waves are being created and sent out directly from the DSP, not going through any input channels. BM is applied to inputs only, hence why BM has no impact on the Dirac measurements themselves.


----------



## Anu2g

What does your inputs tab look like? Are you using the same input for your mid-basses and your sub? Or are you using a separate input for sub (I.e. a sub out from your HU)?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Anu2g said:


> What does your inputs tab look like? Are you using the same input for your mid-basses and your sub? Or are you using a separate input for sub (I.e. a sub out from your HU)?


Sub is summed off of the BM from ch 1&2


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Sub is summed off of the BM from ch 1&2


Cool; then you should be good as far as a full-range signal making it through to the sub's Dirac measurements. That top-end roll off you're seeing is probably just normal for that sub/enclosure/environment.

Are you able to measure using REW? You might consider measuring your sub's output (with your current tune) to see how the XO you put on it is behaving. Perhaps it isn't behaving the way we expected.

Same thing for the mid-basses.

And then same thing for mid-basses plus sub.

The above analysis is kind of inline with what oabeieo was implying in that you might not _always _want to stick with a symmetrical 80Hz on the sub LPF and mid-bass HPF. Now that it appears we've ruled out all the Dirac-specific stuff, it's probably worthwhile to do this more nitty-gritty debugging/tuning.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Something that I noticed today with the output Midbass HP off, they get MOVING. I'm assuming it's from the boost getting the entire driver to match the curve. But wow.
I was listening to something with near subsonics today and could hear my driver's speaker giving up. Popped the grill and when it gets to those ~22hz notes, these GB60s on the drivers side look like they're moving nearly 3/4in.
I'm wondering if it's because of some setting I bunged up. But holy cow, I didn't know these things had so much throw lol


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Something that I noticed today with the output Midbass HP off, they get MOVING. I'm assuming it's from the boost getting the entire driver to match the curve. But wow.
> I was listening to something with near subsonics today and could hear my driver's speaker giving up. Popped the grill and when it gets to those ~22hz notes, these GB60s on the drivers side look like they're moving nearly 3/4in.
> I'm wondering if it's because of some setting I bunged up. But holy cow, I didn't know these things had so much throw lol


Can you share screenshots of how you set up the HPF in BM? This does not sound right


----------



## Truthunter

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Something that I noticed today with the output Midbass HP off, they get MOVING. I'm assuming it's from the boost getting the entire driver to match the curve. But wow.
> I was listening to something with near subsonics today and could hear my driver's speaker giving up. Popped the grill and when it gets to those ~22hz notes, these GB60s on the drivers side look like they're moving nearly 3/4in.
> I'm wondering if it's because of some setting I bunged up. But holy cow, I didn't know these things had so much throw lol


Are you sure the HPF on the Input/BM tab is properly set up?


----------



## SNCTMPL

Anu2g said:


> To be clear, Andy (oabeieo) and Ryan (Truthunter) and myself all suggest using BM to handle LPF duties on the sub and HPF duties on the mid-bass as such, you don't want to extraneously apply the bove two XOs on the Outputs tab (solely rely on BM for those).
> 
> I think you already have that set correctly but can you confirm?


Well I had them both on in BM and output, so I thought to myself what else did I not pay attention to in this guide?
So I did all new measurements and followed the directions this time. I used the Dirac default curve from +12db to -3db. I had my subsonic filter when I ran Dirac.
BM is set to 70 lpf and hpf. MB to 300, MR 300-3000, twt 3000>.
I love this method it sounds fantastic, and the low end is much better. Thank You Guys.


----------



## squiers007

SNCTMPL said:


> Well I had them both on in BM and output, so I thought to myself what else did I not pay attention to in this guide?
> So I did all new measurements and followed the directions this time. I used the Dirac default curve from +12db to -3db. I had my subsonic filter when I ran Dirac.
> BM is set to 70 lpf and hpf. MB to 300, MR 300-3000, twt 3000>.
> I love this method it sounds fantastic, and the low end is much better. Thank You Guys.


Heck yea! Glad it worked for you. Enjoy the sonic bliss! 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## ryyo

Has anyone had any bad noise issues with this DSP? I switched from an Alpine PXA-H800 to another DSP that I won't name, and had pretty bad alternator whine. Due to some other issues, I just switched back to the Alpine. It is dead silent. I know there's potential to end up with noise in any system, but I'm just wondering how this particular DSP handles it in general. I don't want to spend another grand just to be disappointed.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

ryyo said:


> Has anyone had any bad noise issues with this DSP? I switched from an Alpine PXA-H800 to another DSP that I won't name, and had pretty bad alternator whine. Due to some other issues, I just switched back to the Alpine. It is dead silent. I know there's potential to end up with noise in any system, but I'm just wondering how this particular DSP handles it in general. I don't want to spend another grand just to be disappointed.


I have some alt whine after switching from a helix. But I also had that helix in isolated ground mode because I was too lazy to reground my headunit to the ground block along with the amps. Plan on doing that tomorrow to fix the issue.


----------



## ckirocz28

ryyo said:


> Has anyone had any bad noise issues with this DSP? I switched from an Alpine PXA-H800 to another DSP that I won't name, and had pretty bad alternator whine. Due to some other issues, I just switched back to the Alpine. It is dead silent. I know there's potential to end up with noise in any system, but I'm just wondering how this particular DSP handles it in general. I don't want to spend another grand just to be disappointed.


I have the non-Dirac model and it is silent, except for an issue I had running JL Audio XD amps with Wolfram amps. Running regular coaxial rca's to all amps produced a whine (not ignition or alternator). Running twisted pair cables to the Wolfram amps fixed the issue. I think the "balanced inputs" on the JL's combined with the unbalanced inputs on the Wolfram's caused some sort of feedback in the dsp. I'd blame the Wolfram's for creating the noise.


----------



## Iamsecond

oabeieo said:


> extracted ….. that is how bass management operates
> 
> that way your sub and highs have a separate crossover and good summation and separate targets. And the sub and the HP in BM is not a part of the DLCT
> 
> muse no LPF on sub output , do it in BM
> 
> use No HPF on midbass do it in Bm


From this post #122 throughout the rest of the thread needs to be sticky by itself. THIS IS HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These threads need to be broken up. Little but VERY important details are scattered throughout these threads. I started a thread about lack of bass which didn't get a lot of attention but got me on the right path. I actually got to chat with some great enthusiasts from that thread (sorry I digress) 

Anywho, I was reading through this while sitting on the throne this morning and the answer to my issue just showed up

I have been messaging with ANU and between his steps and reading this section (which he and oabeieo gave lost of info throughout) cured all my issues. I had the BM set at 80 AS WELL as the crossovers on the outputs. Thus my bass was terrible. Cascading crossovers. I am a general contractor who builds houses, not a cascading crossover connoisseur. LOL

I jumped up from my throne and went down to the truck and changed this and voila, everything was right in my sound world. I noticed something was off but couldn't put my finger on it.

Dire Straights is my go to music for systems as I know all of this music very well and how it should sound. Private Investigations is a key song for midbass and sub stage (for me at least) and it didn't sound right until I made this change and its the best I have ever heard. 

ANU, the sheet you posted simply says to go set crossovers after running DL. I'm sure I am not the only thuddle head that made this mistake and is frustrated by the final outcome. 
I know you guys all know these things but there are people like me who don't and didn't pick up on your knowledge about the purpose and way the BM works.

I understand now but a lot of confusion could be by passed if these nuggets of knowledge were separated out to different threads. 
I know it may be a bit of of a process up front but it would stop a lot of frustration from people like me trying to dig and figure out why things are not working right.

Anyway, thank you all for your help. My sub remote volume is now at 2 with plenty of bass instead of 12 and still lacking.


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> From this post #122 throughout the rest of the thread needs to be sticky by itself. THIS IS HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> These threads need to be broken up. Little but VERY important details are scattered throughout these threads. I started a thread about lack of bass which didn't get a lot of attention but got me on the right path. I actually got to chat with some great enthusiasts from that thread (sorry I digress)
> 
> Anywho, I was reading through this while sitting on the throne this morning and the answer to my issue just showed up
> 
> I have been messaging with ANU and between his steps and reading this section (which he and oabeieo gave lost of info throughout) cured all my issues. I had the BM set at 80 AS WELL as the crossovers on the outputs. Thus my bass was terrible. Cascading crossovers. I am a general contractor who builds houses, not a cascading crossover connoisseur. LOL
> 
> I jumped up from my throne and went down to the truck and changed this and voila, everything was right in my sound world. I noticed something was off but couldn't put my finger on it.
> 
> Dire Straights is my go to music for systems as I know all of this music very well and how it should sound. Private Investigations is a key song for midbass and sub stage (for me at least) and it didn't sound right until I made this change and its the best I have ever heard.
> 
> ANU, the sheet you posted simply says to go set crossovers after running DL. I'm sure I am not the only thuddle head that made this mistake and is frustrated by the final outcome.
> I know you guys all know these things but there are people like me who don't and didn't pick up on your knowledge about the purpose and way the BM works.
> 
> I understand now but a lot of confusion could be by passed if these nuggets of knowledge were separated out to different threads.
> I know it may be a bit of of a process up front but it would stop a lot of frustration from people like me trying to dig and figure out why things are not working right.
> 
> Anyway, thank you all for your help. My sub remote volume is now at 2 with plenty of bass instead of 12 and still lacking.



This is the guide thread, 

Dirac tips n tricks is all about new things to do with Dirac and make it sound good.

And there more ppl to thank, like Truthunter for helping validate all of this. 

Validation is important. What works and measures good on one system may not on others. 

We all play a part in providing accurate data for Dirac….. it’s been a big group effort honestly. And we’re all glad to help 

Check out tips n tricks for a more chatty talk about Dirac. This thread is more about the manual and procedure. And it gets updated, Anu definitely got his work cut out. 

I’m already hearing buzz about future improvements on Dirac…. 

We’ll see…. 

(And we don’t want to muck up a sticky)


----------



## Anu2g

Iamsecond said:


> From this post #122 throughout the rest of the thread needs to be sticky by itself. THIS IS HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> These threads need to be broken up. Little but VERY important details are scattered throughout these threads. I started a thread about lack of bass which didn't get a lot of attention but got me on the right path. I actually got to chat with some great enthusiasts from that thread (sorry I digress)
> 
> Anywho, I was reading through this while sitting on the throne this morning and the answer to my issue just showed up
> 
> I have been messaging with ANU and between his steps and reading this section (which he and oabeieo gave lost of info throughout) cured all my issues. I had the BM set at 80 AS WELL as the crossovers on the outputs. Thus my bass was terrible. Cascading crossovers. I am a general contractor who builds houses, not a cascading crossover connoisseur. LOL
> 
> I jumped up from my throne and went down to the truck and changed this and voila, everything was right in my sound world. I noticed something was off but couldn't put my finger on it.
> 
> Dire Straights is my go to music for systems as I know all of this music very well and how it should sound. Private Investigations is a key song for midbass and sub stage (for me at least) and it didn't sound right until I made this change and its the best I have ever heard.
> 
> ANU, the sheet you posted simply says to go set crossovers after running DL. I'm sure I am not the only thuddle head that made this mistake and is frustrated by the final outcome.
> I know you guys all know these things but there are people like me who don't and didn't pick up on your knowledge about the purpose and way the BM works.
> 
> I understand now but a lot of confusion could be by passed if these nuggets of knowledge were separated out to different threads.
> I know it may be a bit of of a process up front but it would stop a lot of frustration from people like me trying to dig and figure out why things are not working right.
> 
> Anyway, thank you all for your help. My sub remote volume is now at 2 with plenty of bass instead of 12 and still lacking.


FYI, I've made edits to the guide to make the usage of BM (and how to set XOs) a bit clearer. It's not quite teaching_ what_ BM is, but rather instructing _how_ to use it, so that XOs don't get doubly applied.

This should help any new folks running through the guide, and also the minor doc format edits to XO section helps set the doc up for future updates re: APFs (coming soon).

Note: for those who have already tuned, there's nothing new/worthwhile in the doc to review; it just clarifies a bit better re: not setting 2 HPFs on the mid-bass.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

I feel like this is good info to put here.
I got a new umik-1 calibrated by CSL to replace the Audiofrog mic I had been using a couple days ago, and just got to finish my first measurement session that I could take my time on.
Holy smokes. It's a whole different animal now. Same crossover points, same everything. Just a different mic and it absolutely rips now. I get the whole "spaceship" vibe finally hahah.
Moral of the story, a good mic coupled with taking your time with the measurements are key to the Dirac software.
If I had to complain a bit, the drivers side is a TOUCH hot compared to pass. But that can be fixed. Everything else is dang near perfect


----------



## naiku

Anu2g said:


> FYI, I've made edits to the guide to make the usage of BM (and how to set XOs) a bit clearer.


I've said it before, but thank you for taking the time to not only put the guide together, but keeping it as an evolving document. I've written some guides before, they take time, so again, thank you for this one. It can't be understated just how useful it is, even for those of us who've been running Dirac for some time.


----------



## LinkyPwns

I just got done with my first initial run of Dirac. Wow it did a damn good job. Thanks for everyone that contributed towards the guide. The front stage is blending together so well. What I’ve been trying my best at for years is solved in about 2 hours of work with some config and measurements….crazy.

My stage is shifted right some but I will try calibrating it again. Something is strange with my sub response. Too much boom at the 60hz region. I think I need to re-adjust the sub curtain. It is a ported box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

LinkyPwns said:


> I just got done with my first initial run of Dirac. Wow it did a damn good job. Thanks for everyone that contributed towards the guide. The front stage is blending together so well. What I’ve been trying my best at for years is solved in about 2 hours of work with some config and measurements….crazy.
> 
> My stage is shifted right some but I will try calibrating it again. Something is strange with my sub response. Too much boom at the 60hz region. I think I need to re-adjust the sub curtain. It is a ported box.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


vocal should be center of car , not in front of you

common mistake

vocal should appear ideally dead center of car far forward


----------



## oabeieo

If anyone vocal is slightly left of the dead center of car , and it’s a small car (not a wide truck) 

try doing top forward left measurement about 10” closer to dash speakers

that should take cate of ot


----------



## LinkyPwns

oabeieo said:


> If anyone vocal is slightly left of the dead center of car , and it’s a small car (not a wide truck)
> 
> try doing top forward left measurement about 10” closer to dash speakers
> 
> that should take cate of ot











Red marker is where the center currently is and green is where I want it to be. Reading the instructions I want to offset my mic positions to the right. Then it should bring it to the left?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anu2g

LinkyPwns said:


> Red marker is where the center currently is and green is where I want it to be. Reading the instructions I want to offset my mic positions to the right. Then it should bring it to the left?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Try moving your initial/first measurement back a few inches


----------



## Anu2g

LinkyPwns said:


> I just got done with my first initial run of Dirac. Wow it did a damn good job. Thanks for everyone that contributed towards the guide. The front stage is blending together so well. What I’ve been trying my best at for years is solved in about 2 hours of work with some config and measurements….crazy.
> 
> My stage is shifted right some but I will try calibrating it again. Something is strange with my sub response. Too much boom at the 60hz region. I think I need to re-adjust the sub curtain. It is a ported box.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Re: sub response, you may find it worthwhile to try 9.c in the guide


----------



## hella356

Anu2g said:


> Re: sub response, you may find it worthwhile to try 9.c in the guide


I saw in your build log that you had implemented the APF method, with a few other tweaks to the overall approach. How have you been liking the results?


----------



## Anu2g

hella356 said:


> I saw in your build log that you had implemented the APF method, with a few other tweaks to the overall approach. How have you been liking the results?


Really awesome. I left a comment in the guide with high-level language on how to do it. I just need to flesh out the specific language to make it a permanent part of the doc. Likely won't get time till next week. Here's the comment if interested: MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL: Quick Tuning Guide


----------



## Anu2g

Just realized that only the editors of the guide have access to view the comments. I copied and pasted it here:


Finalize language for:

1) Once you've finalized your XO points, save the config, then load to the next plugin preset
2) bypass all XOs and add the following APFs (Q=.7 if using LR4):
-Sub @ Sub-to-MB XO
-Midbass @ Sub-to-MB XO and MB-to-Mid XO
-Mid @ Sub-to-MB XO, MB-to-Mid XO, and Mid to Tweet XO
-Tweet @ Sub-to-MB XO and Mid to Tweet XO
3) Run Dirac measurements
4) Bypass APFs and un-bypass XOs
Note: no more cascading the mid-bass LPF to the sub


----------



## steelwindmachine

i realize this might be looking a gift horse in the face, but any chance anyone might make a how-to video on these processes?


----------



## hella356

Excellent. Does using the APF method mean not using Bass Management? Or is the idea to bypass BM for Dirac setup, add APF for sub in output tab, then (after running Dirac) remove the APF, and un-bypass the BM?


----------



## Anu2g

hella356 said:


> Excellent. Does using the APF method mean not using Bass Management? Or is the idea to bypass BM for Dirac setup, add APF for sub in output tab, then (after running Dirac) remove the APF, and un-bypass the BM?


The latter (use BM).

Whether or not you bypass/un-bypass BM for Dirac measurements is irrelevant. BM is processed at the input stage, and Dirac sine sweeps don't use any of the DSP's inputs (and, as such, BM does not impact Dirac measurements).


----------



## hella356

Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## oabeieo

steelwindmachine said:


> i realize this might be looking a gift horse in the face, but any chance anyone might make a how-to video on these processes?


maybe….. ….. (feels nerdy exposing yourself)
a remote tuning one on one seems more in step then broadcasting your mug lol


----------



## steelwindmachine

i'm sure your mugs are great  a few jiggers of vodka into them and you'll be right as rain for an instructional video


----------



## oabeieo

steelwindmachine said:


> i'm sure your mugs are great  a few jiggers of vodka into them and you'll be right as rain for an instructional video


okay! Except I’ll have whisky n coke with lot of ice…. And yes very high quality whisky mixed with coke….

yea I’m one of those….Mixing Jack n coke tastes like chugging maple syrup right out of the bottle (Gross) and always seems to give me a headache.

edit: just kidding I wouldn’t do such an abomination (no mad face Anu)

Anyway pm me private and we can go over something if interested


----------



## teh_squirrel

In 4aii and 4aiii I'm confused as to if the filters you are putting in there are on (especially because the picture that goes with the section shows the filter on), but the text in the guide says bypassed. My initial impressions are really good but my volume was low so I increased gains like it says and plan to rerun in a few.


----------



## Anu2g

teh_squirrel said:


> In 4aii and 4aiii I'm confused as to if the filters you are putting in there are on (especially because the picture that goes with the section shows the filter on), but the text in the guide says bypassed. My initial impressions are really good but my volume was low so I increased gains like it says and plan to rerun in a few.


The screenshot is out of date; per the instructions, it should be bypassed. The reality is that it doesn't matter whether it's bypassed or not, as BM _does not _impact Dirac measurements. I altered the language to say to leave it off because there were many people getting confused such that they were setting XOs on the mid-basses twice, so I I was trying to minimize points of confusion. Seems like, no matter what, BM will be a source of confusion, unfortunately.


----------



## oabeieo

Yeah BM you can bypass or leave alone 

you can see in diagram Dirac is after BM so the filters in BM won’t be applied to the measurements

after the measurements obviously that stuff matters because your music is the source
It’s just a matter of thinking out where were applying the all passes and the net result…


----------



## hella356

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Got my minidsp DL in tonight. Slowly going through this very well put together page, getting it setup.
> Let's see how good this thing is. Will report back as to if it is (or rather how much) better than I can do myself with the helix.


Any thoughts on how the results of the minidsp compares to the Helix?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

hella356 said:


> Any thoughts on how the results of the minidsp compares to the Helix?


Haven't used the helix aco based auto tune as of yet (I have a pro mk2). But after a bit of a learning curve, the dirac software made a better tune than my novice tuner ear could do with the helix. Im gonna play with the dirac a bit more before I sell my helix, but I think sticking with the mini (even though I have a smidge of alt noise with it that won't go away)


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Haven't used the helix aco based auto tune as of yet (I have a pro mk2). But after a bit of a learning curve, the dirac software made a better tune than my novice tuner ear could do with the helix. Im gonna play with the dirac a bit more before I sell my helix, but I think sticking with the mini (even though I have a smidge of alt noise with it that won't go away)


mini DSP is fully isolated

if it has noise it’s absolutely coming upstream (analog???) 

It should be dead silent….. 

Or it’s a ground loop and your amps input scheme won’t accept isolated pseudo balanced 

that is rare but can happen… I don’t remember if the Mini DSP has jumpers inside to pull it off of isolation and go to 200 ohms or something


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> mini DSP is fully isolated
> 
> if it has noise it’s absolutely coming upstream (analog???)
> 
> It should be dead silent…..
> 
> Or it’s a ground loop and your amps input scheme won’t accept isolated pseudo balanced
> 
> that is rare but can happen… I don’t remember if the Mini DSP has jumpers inside to pull it off of isolation and go to 200 ohms or something


Headunit has a designated ground line to my star point along with the DSP and the amps. Amps are mosconi zeros, so they take diff balanced. I'm also stumped.
When I had my helix set to iso, there wasn't any noise. So I'm at a loss. Pretty sure I pulled the headunit ground before it got split off to the maestro, but that may have its own ground point currently.


----------



## sapphari

steelwindmachine said:


> i realize this might be looking a gift horse in the face, but any chance anyone might make a how-to video on these processes?


I vote miniDSP or DL does it. This community already handed them a magic workflow. No joke, it was only once I saw this guide that I decided to go through with the purchase. The whole EQ-every-driver workflow sounds awful.


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Headunit has a designated ground line to my star point along with the DSP and the amps. Amps are mosconi zeros, so they take diff balanced. I'm also stumped.
> When I had my helix set to iso, there wasn't any noise. So I'm at a loss. Pretty sure I pulled the headunit ground before it got split off to the maestro, but that may have its own ground point currently.


so , possibly gain structure

if you turn down amp gain does noise go away?

that is the 1st thing I would check

mosconi pro amps work well, I would go for dsp direct absolutely.. that is unity and then it should be no noise

if it’s noise …… something is wrong

And you can still have a ground loop even if grounded together…

remember , power flows backwards as far as direction goes

it’s a positive charge system…. That means the battery charges and takes power in the positive side , that must mean power leaves thebatter through the negative side….. and so it is

so you can have a ground loop effect through the positive side as well…… but will fully isolated…. It makes it impossible……

so I would do this , dsp power and ground run to deck harness and use the deck harness to supply all powers and grounds…. To dsp and deck

that way any upstream resistance diffrances are not causing a power imbalance thus creating noise (probably from the deck)

the deck gets power in 2 ways , and grounds through 5 ways

Switch and contestant

and

ground wire
Antenna wire
Chassis
Rcas
Lights wire

all are potential grounds for a deck

whichever has the lowest resistance to its input! Not where other things are grounded

Grounding things in one place Is a good idea sure , but only if they’re being said power from the same place otherwise it really is kind of useless….. back in the day people would run a drain wire just for that reason

so I would get some primary wire and run your remote power and ground from DSP to the deck harness …. And ground the deck and dsp through the ground wire on deck harness…..

.

but I still think it’s a gain structure issue, and not a power noise problem


----------



## teh_squirrel

Even after boosting the gain on my set that are the quietest in the dirac tab (the GB25's) my main volume is still a good bit lower than before. Even with a pretty aggressive curve the midbass is not as punchy as it could/should be unless I boost it afterward on the headunit (bad, I know...). The low bass sounds great, I had to work so hard to get the bass to sound good when I tuned with REW. The high end sounds really good, but the midrange and midbass aren't as good as I'd like. I also feel like dirac moves the image a little to the left, even though the delays and gain differences between the channels are a lot less than what I had before (hard for me to understand). I'm using LR24 throughout, based on my guesses on dirac measurements I put my crossovers at 75, 500, 3700. I'm running 2x ported 12's, TM65's, GB25's, GB10's. My GB25's are firing at the windshield from the stock dash location, GB10's are in pods firing at the opposite B pillars, TM65's in the doors.

I tried a few different curves (just used dirac to load them into different profiles), and I liked an edited version of the custom best where I boosted the midbass a little (but its still not enough). I did run the 2nd time with the APF's in place with disabling the Xovers and then disabling the APF and re-enabling Xovers before testing it out.

When you guys are taking measurements, what has worked best? I first tried closer to the middle of the car (in between my nose and the center console) but it really overworked the left midrange, so I ran starting in front of my nose and it was more balanced. I'm thinking to try a smaller box, my box corners were probably ~8-10" from the start point.


----------



## Anu2g

teh_squirrel said:


> Even after boosting the gain on my set that are the quietest in the dirac tab (the GB25's) my main volume is still a good bit lower than before. Even with a pretty aggressive curve the midbass is not as punchy as it could/should be unless I boost it afterward on the headunit (bad, I know...). The low bass sounds great, I had to work so hard to get the bass to sound good when I tuned with REW. The high end sounds really good, but the midrange and midbass aren't as good as I'd like. I also feel like dirac moves the image a little to the left, even though the delays and gain differences between the channels are a lot less than what I had before (hard for me to understand). I'm using LR24 throughout, based on my guesses on dirac measurements I put my crossovers at 75, 500, 3700. I'm running 2x ported 12's, TM65's, GB25's, GB10's. My GB25's are firing at the windshield from the stock dash location, GB10's are in pods firing at the opposite B pillars, TM65's in the doors.
> 
> I tried a few different curves (just used dirac to load them into different profiles), and I liked an edited version of the custom best where I boosted the midbass a little (but its still not enough). I did run the 2nd time with the APF's in place with disabling the Xovers and then disabling the APF and re-enabling Xovers before testing it out.
> 
> When you guys are taking measurements, what has worked best? I first tried closer to the middle of the car (in between my nose and the center console) but it really overworked the left midrange, so I ran starting in front of my nose and it was more balanced. I'm thinking to try a smaller box, my box corners were probably ~8-10" from the start point.


Re: centering your stage: the first Dirac measurement is the one that sets the timing. When you take your Dirac measurements, note what Master Volume you use on the Volume Calibration screen. Then, if you want, you can go back in in the future and re-do just the first measurement (just make sure to set the Master Volume to the same that you used on your prior measurement). When my center is too far left, I have had good results by moving my first measurement further forward (towards windshield). I've never made my first measurement be further left (or right) of nose, and I wouldn't recommend doing that.

Conceptually, the closer you measure to the left speakers, the further right Dirac will pull your stage. This makes sense because, the closer you measure to your left speakers, the louder the left speakers will be (and the quicker the left sound will arrive), so Dirac will decrease left gain and increase left delay.

I hope that helps!


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> so , possibly gain structure
> 
> if you turn down amp gain does noise go away?
> 
> that is the 1st thing I would check
> 
> mosconi pro amps work well, I would go for dsp direct absolutely.. that is unity and then it should be no noise
> 
> if it’s noise …… something is wrong
> 
> And you can still have a ground loop even if grounded together…
> 
> remember , power flows backwards as far as direction goes
> 
> it’s a positive charge system…. That means the battery charges and takes power in the positive side , that must mean power leaves thebatter through the negative side….. and so it is
> 
> so you can have a ground loop effect through the positive side as well…… but will fully isolated…. It makes it impossible……
> 
> so I would do this , dsp power and ground run to deck harness and use the deck harness to supply all powers and grounds…. To dsp and deck
> 
> that way any upstream resistance diffrances are not causing a power imbalance thus creating noise (probably from the deck)
> 
> the deck gets power in 2 ways , and grounds through 5 ways
> 
> Switch and contestant
> 
> and
> 
> ground wire
> Antenna wire
> Chassis
> Rcas
> Lights wire
> 
> all are potential grounds for a deck
> 
> whichever has the lowest resistance to its input! Not where other things are grounded
> 
> Grounding things in one place Is a good idea sure , but only if they’re being said power from the same place otherwise it really is kind of useless….. back in the day people would run a drain wire just for that reason
> 
> so I would get some primary wire and run your remote power and ground from DSP to the deck harness …. And ground the deck and dsp through the ground wire on deck harness…..
> 
> .
> 
> but I still think it’s a gain structure issue, and not a power noise problem


I don't think it's gain structure, cause it's alt noise not noise general noise floor. Plus those TBMs are insanely sensitive, so the gains are pulled WAY back compared to the rest of the drivers (even though the mids and MB have twice the power). When I ran a dedicated ground to the headunit it did cut down some of the alt noise, but still present when the helix didn't need it at all for some reason.
But I can muck up a different thread with this stuff.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

teh_squirrel said:


> Even after boosting the gain on my set that are the quietest in the dirac tab (the GB25's) my main volume is still a good bit lower than before. Even with a pretty aggressive curve the midbass is not as punchy as it could/should be unless I boost it afterward on the headunit (bad, I know...). The low bass sounds great, I had to work so hard to get the bass to sound good when I tuned with REW. The high end sounds really good, but the midrange and midbass aren't as good as I'd like. I also feel like dirac moves the image a little to the left, even though the delays and gain differences between the channels are a lot less than what I had before (hard for me to understand). I'm using LR24 throughout, based on my guesses on dirac measurements I put my crossovers at 75, 500, 3700. I'm running 2x ported 12's, TM65's, GB25's, GB10's. My GB25's are firing at the windshield from the stock dash location, GB10's are in pods firing at the opposite B pillars, TM65's in the doors.
> 
> I tried a few different curves (just used dirac to load them into different profiles), and I liked an edited version of the custom best where I boosted the midbass a little (but its still not enough). I did run the 2nd time with the APF's in place with disabling the Xovers and then disabling the APF and re-enabling Xovers before testing it out.
> 
> When you guys are taking measurements, what has worked best? I first tried closer to the middle of the car (in between my nose and the center console) but it really overworked the left midrange, so I ran starting in front of my nose and it was more balanced. I'm thinking to try a smaller box, my box corners were probably ~8-10" from the start point.


Try a small box, roughly 6 inches out from the center in each direction. Get the first measure smack dab in the center of where your ears would be. I used my first as a distance guide from center personally.
That's what worked for me at this point.
As far as punchy midbass, play with your crossovers. After some playing around, I found a 12db LP on the sub and a 24db on the midbass both at 80hz to give me tons of impact with MUCH better up front bass than both sub and MB at 80/24lr


----------



## oabeieo

Yes alt noise is a gain issue or ground loop


----------



## oabeieo

1st are you amps in dsp direct ?

2 where are output gains on dsp ?

3. is dsp getting power and ground from deck harness along with deck as I described


Alt whine is usually a gain that’s too high with modern gear….. it just is , it’s been eons since I’ve seen engine noise with isolated dsp and every single time , gains too high on amp or deck is the source of noise because of “dirty fuse box power” which shouldn’t be an issue with a high quality source…

dirty fuse box power is simply resistance inside the fuse box…. Another words let’s say your switched or constant to deck harness power has a few ohms of resistance….. that resistance picks up noise inside the fuse box because of all the different current paths….

again….. I can’t stress enough…. It’s fixable and it’s not dsp ….. something is not right install related (not meaning bad workmanship) meaning something isn’t doing what is expected


----------



## hella356

Anu2g said:


> Re


Decided to ask here rather than in your Jeep build thread. You said (I shortened it): *subtract 8dB from all points for the sub's target curve; then I add 8dB on the Outputs tab*. If I understand correctly, doing this lowers the overall level of the correction Dirac calculates for the sub, which is then compensated for by raising levels in the plug-in. Did you load a separate target curve file (with the sub points lowered manually within the text file) for the sub group? Or would those lowered points be present in a single target curve that is used by all groups?

I am currently using LR24. For the APFs (using the crossover point examples in the latest Guide) it looks like I'd set a Q=.7 APF at 4K for tweeters. For the mids, would I set one at both 4K *and *300Hz? Midbass at 70 *and *300? And by cascading, this means adding an additional 70Hz APF to each of the mids and tweets? Then run all the DL parts, go back to plug-in and remove all APFs and set crossovers? The APF thing is new to me, so I want to make sure I grasp it correctly. Very interested to try it though!


----------



## oabeieo

hella356 said:


> Decided to ask here rather than in your Jeep build thread. You said (I shortened it): *subtract 8dB from all points for the sub's target curve; then I add 8dB on the Outputs tab*. If I understand correctly, doing this lowers the overall level of the correction Dirac calculates for the sub, which is then compensated for by raising levels in the plug-in. Did you load a separate target curve file (with the sub points lowered manually within the text file) for the sub group? Or would those lowered points be present in a single target curve that is used by all groups?
> 
> I am currently using LR24. For the APFs (using the crossover point examples in the latest Guide) it looks like I'd set a Q=.7 APF at 4K for tweeters. For the mids, would I set one at both 4K *and *300Hz? Midbass at 70 *and *300? And by cascading, this means adding an additional 70Hz APF to each of the mids and tweets? Then run all the DL parts, go back to plug-in and remove all APFs and set crossovers? The APF thing is new to me, so I want to make sure I grasp it correctly. Very interested to try it though!


yes exactly

use an APF for every crossover the signal will pass through to each driver…..

so a 70hz APF for all speaker

and then each crossover in output gets it’s appropriate APF for the crossovers used on top of the 70hz one

so example the midrange should have 3 APFs


----------



## hella356

Great, thanks! Going to give this a try today.


----------



## Anu2g

hella356 said:


> Decided to ask here rather than in your Jeep build thread. You said (I shortened it): *subtract 8dB from all points for the sub's target curve; then I add 8dB on the Outputs tab*. If I understand correctly, doing this lowers the overall level of the correction Dirac calculates for the sub, which is then compensated for by raising levels in the plug-in. Did you load a separate target curve file (with the sub points lowered manually within the text file) for the sub group? Or would those lowered points be present in a single target curve that is used by all groups?


Yep, I use a separate target for the sub group (in my case, Group 4).



hella356 said:


> I am currently using LR24. For the APFs (using the crossover point examples in the latest Guide) it looks like I'd set a Q=.7 APF at 4K for tweeters. For the mids, would I set one at both 4K *and *300Hz? Midbass at 70 *and *300? And by cascading, this means adding an additional 70Hz APF to each of the mids and tweets? Then run all the DL parts, go back to plug-in and remove all APFs and set crossovers? The APF thing is new to me, so I want to make sure I grasp it correctly. Very interested to try it though!


Sub: APF @ 70Hz
MB: APF @ 70Hz and 300Hz
Mid: APF @ 70Hz, 300Hz, and 4KHz (the 70Hz one is because we want to simulate the phase shift that BM will add)
Tweet: APF @ 70Hz and 4KHz (the 70Hz one is because we want to simulate the phase shift that BM will add, though it won't have much, if any, effect here; I add it anyways)


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> 1st are you amps in dsp direct ?
> 
> 2 where are output gains on dsp ?
> 
> 3. is dsp getting power and ground from deck harness along with deck as I described
> 
> 
> Alt whine is usually a gain that’s too high with modern gear….. it just is , it’s been eons since I’ve seen engine noise with isolated dsp and every single time , gains too high on amp or deck is the source of noise because of “dirty fuse box power” which shouldn’t be an issue with a high quality source…
> 
> dirty fuse box power is simply resistance inside the fuse box…. Another words let’s say your switched or constant to deck harness power has a few ohms of resistance….. that resistance picks up noise inside the fuse box because of all the different current paths….
> 
> again….. I can’t stress enough…. It’s fixable and it’s not dsp ….. something is not right install related (not meaning bad workmanship) meaning something isn’t doing what is expected


1) they're Zeros, so no dsp-direct 
2)output gains are untouched, so +0
3)no everything is still run from the star point for ground, power is run from the same distro block for everything except HU. HU power is still coming from harness to maintain the fuse.
The reason I say I don't believe it's amp gain is because the gains are turned back from max output power since the amps can supply more than double the speakers max rated.


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> 1) they're Zeros, so no dsp-direct
> 2)output gains are untouched, so +0
> 3)no everything is still run from the star point for ground, power is run from the same distro block for everything except HU. HU power is still coming from harness to maintain the fuse.
> The reason I say I don't believe it's amp gain is because the gains are turned back from max output power since the amps can supply more than double the speakers max rated.


turn gains down more

you want to be able to pretty much max your deck out and get just the desired volume , no more!!!

if you find yourself listening to your music at the volume at like halfway on the radio your games are definitely too high

turn the gains down until max on deck is where the loudest you listen …….

we do not want a maximized gain structure…
We do want the highest signal to noise ratio!

The more signal coming out of the deck the less noise..

Try that and then private message me so that we’re not mucking up this thread with unrelated troubleshooting


----------



## LinkyPwns

Anu2g said:


> Re: sub response, you may find it worthwhile to try 9.c in the guide


I got a chance to redo my Dirac tune. I got the image more centered. I scooted by seat back some more and measured in where the center of my ears would be.

I found that I had “Enable Audio Enhancements” checked in my Windows MIC settings. That’s why my bass was so loud, it wasn’t measuring it right and overcompensating. Now that I am measuring down to 20 Hz and seeing it in the freq response I know I’m good there.

After my tuning sessions I fired up some pink noise and measured in REW. I was disappointed. I was trying for JBL curve and got a whonky whitledge type curve. The bass sounds non-existent. 










Based on reviewing my response my crossovers are:
Sub: 27 Hz LR48 HPF (Box is tuned to 32 Hz). 80 Hz LR24 LPF
Midbass: 80 Hz / 300 Hz LR24
Midrange: 300 / 3500 LR24
Tweeter: 3500 LR24

I am wondering how to get a better response with Dirac. I assume that I am not doing something correctly. Here are my thoughts so far.

1. Volume calibration
I was a bit confused about gain settings here. I set the UMIK to 100%. My master volume had to be -45db or lower - otherwise it would say my sub was clipping and would abort measurements. The gains on my midrange is higher than my other speakers so I lowered them by 2 db in the volume calibration on just those two mid channels. I also lowered the subwoofer by 3.5 db to help further prevent clipping.

Question - is it ok to use the volume adjustment on a per channel basis? There is no mention of using it in the guide. I should be shooting for about -20 to -25 db of output for each speaker - but what if one is overpowering (ex. at -15db)? Dirac will just adjust the gain right?


2. Measurement Positions
I wonder if I messed up my "rear" measurements. During the first one on the nose and the front 4 I had my seat in position "A." Then when it came time to measure the rear area, I moved my seat back a little more to max and then reclined some. Now my seat is in a different spot - I assume that could throw of the measurements some? I should probably get the seat and my body in a position where it will be the same for the whole duration? Anyone try hanging a piece of string from their ceiling as a reference point for center?


----------



## oabeieo

LinkyPwns said:


> I got a chance to redo my Dirac tune. I got the image more centered. I scooted by seat back some where and measured in where the center of my ears would be.
> 
> I found that I had “Audio Enhancements” checked in my Windows MIC settings. That’s why my bass was so loud, it wasn’t measuring it right. Now that I am measuring down to 20 Hz and seeing it in the freq response I know I’m good there.
> 
> After my tuning sessions I fired up some pink noise and measured in REW. I was disappointed. I was trying for JBL curve and got a whonky whitledge type curve with no bass.
> 
> I got some questions that I’m going to put in another post.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


pink noise will show a different result

you have to remember that acoustical averaging adds more content

Time averaging removes content

dirac uses space and time averages

if you use a frequency dependent window and measure in the same exact spot it will be spot on

this is a more advanced way

your pink noise will show differently it’ll show peaks and dips… Trust me on this this way with Dirac is better

If you run to peq the try to “fix” it you’ll surely break it….

the result won’t sound as good and it will loose ambiance and intelligibility


----------



## steelwindmachine

@oabeieo - when would REW be useful in the context of a DIRAC install?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> I got a chance to redo my Dirac tune. I got the image more centered. I scooted by seat back some more and measured in where the center of my ears would be.
> 
> I found that I had “Enable Audio Enhancements” checked in my Windows MIC settings. That’s why my bass was so loud, it wasn’t measuring it right and overcompensating. Now that I am measuring down to 20 Hz and seeing it in the freq response I know I’m good there.
> 
> After my tuning sessions I fired up some pink noise and measured in REW. I was disappointed. I was trying for JBL curve and got a whonky whitledge type curve. The bass sounds non-existent.
> View attachment 340956
> 
> 
> 
> Based on reviewing my response my crossovers are:
> Sub: 27 Hz LR48 HPF (Box is tuned to 32 Hz). 80 Hz LR24 LPF
> Midbass: 80 Hz / 300 Hz LR24
> Midrange: 300 / 3500 LR24
> Tweeter: 3500 LR24
> 
> I am wondering how to get a better response with Dirac. I assume that I am not doing something correctly. Here are my thoughts so far.
> 
> 1. Volume calibration
> I was a bit confused about gain settings here. I set the UMIK to 100%. My master volume had to be -45db or lower - otherwise it would say my sub was clipping and would abort measurements. The gains on my midrange is higher than my other speakers so I lowered them by 2 db in the volume calibration on just those two mid channels. I also lowered the subwoofer by 3.5 db to help further prevent clipping.
> 
> Question - is it ok to use the volume adjustment on a per channel basis? There is no mention of using it in the guide. I should be shooting for about -20 to -25 db of output for each speaker - but what if one is overpowering (ex. at -15db)? Dirac will just adjust the gain right?
> 
> 
> 2. Measurement Positions
> I wonder if I messed up my "rear" measurements. During the first one on the nose and the front 4 I had my seat in position "A." Then when it came time to measure the rear area, I moved my seat back a little more to max and then reclined some. Now my seat is in a different spot - I assume that could throw of the measurements some? I should probably get the seat and my body in a position where it will be the same for the whole duration? Anyone try hanging a piece of string from their ceiling as a reference point for center?


Question is, how does it sound??
To me, that looks like you have spectrum mode active in your REW though


----------



## oabeieo

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - when would REW be useful in the context of a DIRAC install?


yes absolutely…. Now for a Multichannel Dirac like the 8x12 , it’s simply not needed…

for a two channel Dirac , absolutely

example I put a DDRC 22 in a Honda Civic this morning and he has an Aerospace 12 channel DSP downstream….

i used output peq and REW and flattened the response of every driver with a Crossovers off…

turned back on the crossovers and run Dirac

absolutely amazing results

But if someone wanted validation from REW , you have to use REW in the same context as Dirac so see it properly….


----------



## LinkyPwns

oabeieo said:


> pink noise will show a different result
> 
> you have to remember that acoustical averaging adds more content
> 
> Time averaging removes content
> 
> dirac uses space and time averages
> 
> if you use a frequency dependent window and measure in the same exact spot it will be spot on
> 
> this is a more advanced way
> 
> your pink noise will show differently it’ll show peaks and dips… Trust me on this this way with Dirac is better
> 
> If you run to peq the try to “fix” it you’ll surely break it….
> 
> the result won’t sound as good and it will loose ambiance and intelligibility


Ok, that is good to know. I was thinking I could measure to see how it did but maybe it's more complicated than it's worth. 




Picassotheimpaler said:


> Question is, how does it sound??
> To me, that looks like you have spectrum mode active in your REW though


****...yep I had that on. Gopd eye. The mids and highs sound good. The midbass and subbass is lacking. Maybe I should just try a different target curve like whitledge.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> Ok, that is good to know. I was thinking I could measure to see how it did but maybe it's more complicated than it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****...yep I had that on. Gopd eye. The mids and highs sound good. The midbass and subbass is lacking. Maybe I should just try a different target curve like whitledge.


Try using your bass knob to add back in the bass.
But like I said before, my sub in the trunk doesn't have enough response above 80hz to have a textbook crossover slope when using a 24db slope on it. It ends up being closer to a 36db slope. But the midbass has enough response below 80 to have a perfect 24db roll off with the 24db slope. So I use a 12db LR instead of a 24db on the sub low pass, and it has response like a near perfect 24db slope that blends with the 24db slope on the MB quite well. May not be your fix, but worth a look into


----------



## oabeieo

LinkyPwns said:


> Ok, that is good to know. I was thinking I could measure to see how it did but maybe it's more complicated than it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ****...yep I had that on. Gopd eye. The mids and highs sound good. The midbass and subbass is lacking. Maybe I should just try a different target curve like whitledge.


so midbass will sound “lacking” but actually it’s not ……..

have you tried a bump at 200

a lot of people (a lot) want a thick heavy sound in the 100-250 range ….

mid your using a calibrated mic even a Harman target is fairly flat……

how much power we working with do u have a build thread ?


----------



## LinkyPwns

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Try using your bass knob to add back in the bass.
> But like I said before, my sub in the trunk doesn't have enough response above 80hz to have a textbook crossover slope when using a 24db slope on it. It ends up being closer to a 36db slope. But the midbass has enough response below 80 to have a perfect 24db roll off with the 24db slope. So I use a 12db LR instead of a 24db on the sub low pass, and it has response like a near perfect 24db slope that blends with the 24db slope on the MB quite well. May not be your fix, but worth a look into


Thanks, my sub is in the trunk of a sedan to. I will review my frequency response of the sub again. Maybe I can try different slopes.




oabeieo said:


> so midbass will sound “lacking” but actually it’s not ……..
> 
> have you tried a bump at 200
> 
> a lot of people (a lot) want a thick heavy sound in the 100-250 range ….
> 
> mid your using a calibrated mic even a Harman target is fairly flat……
> 
> how much power we working with do u have a build thread ?


I will try some other curve and/or bump it up in the 100-250 range. I don’t think the JBL is for me?


Here are some links to the closest thing I have to a build thread:

 https://shoforum.com/threads/2018-bypass-sony-amp.139990/
 https://www.diymobileaudio.com/threads/upgrade-from-2-way-to-3-way.444636/#post-5997545

My signature has my current equipment. 
HD600/4 is hooked up to midbass and mids. (Midbass is rated for 75W but could take more)
Kenwood to the tweeters
Boston to sub (sub is rated for 600w)


----------



## oabeieo

LinkyPwns said:


> Thanks, my sub is in the trunk of a sedan to. I will review my frequency response of the sub again. Maybe I can try different slopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try some other curve and/or bump it up in the 100-250 range. I don’t think the JBL is for me?
> 
> 
> Here are some links to the closest thing I have to a build thread:
> 
> 2018 Bypass Sony Amp
> Upgrade from 2-way to 3-way
> 
> My signature has my current equipment.
> HD600/4 is hooked up to midbass and mids. (Midbass is rated for 75W but could take more)
> Kenwood to the tweeters
> Boston to sub (sub is rated for 600w)


OK I looked at that yeah

your equipment is fairly decent man you should be getting it to sound pretty good


----------



## LinkyPwns

oabeieo said:


> OK I looked at that yeah
> 
> your equipment is fairly decent man you should be getting it to sound pretty good


Thanks for looking. So I took some time today and loaded a full whitledge target curve. It started sounding better on the low end. I am still trying to figure out the best sound for crossovers from sub to midbass. Im currently at 60hz LR24 on midbass and 60hz LR12 on the sub. I can’t say that’s were I’m going to keep it but I ran out of time for now.

I did notice something on my subwoofers measured response. It seemed very peaky - I guess that's part of having a ported sub? Does that roll off seem normal for ported? It couldn't seem to match the curve of the JBL. Once I changed to Whitledge, that crazy roll-off seemed to fit the sub better. I didn't grab a screenshot of that unfortunately.


----------



## oabeieo

You gonna wanna pull your curtains over so that it’s not trying to boost more than a couple DB

The peak is yes the port end of the cabin gain

That kind of downward tilt at 60 is pretty common you’re probably not gonna be able to get your doors to play that low because it looks like a big room dip the right side doors you will probably be able to get some response but the left probably won’t go


----------



## DS-21

Is anybody else having trouble getting through volume calibration on the 8x12DL with Dirac live 3.3? The calibration signal is output but the mike doesn't pick it up - the level bars don't register anything. It also doesn't register measurement tones if you skip volume cal. This happens using Dirac in both MacOS Monterrey and windows 10, with two different mikes - a UMIK-1 and an analog mike on a USB interface. The Mac is my normal computer. The windows laptop is something I only keep for audio software that is not available on Mac, such as VituixCAD or Xsim. 

I was able to take measurements of each sub-channel (with appropriate manipulation on the Dirac Mixing tab) in REW through the C-DSP with Dirac off on both computers. I was also able to use both mikes on a miniDSP SHD processor about a month ago. (I had to use the windows laptop - there are some weird timing bugs with the MacOS version of Dirac right now)

I'm not a novice Dirac user - I started with 1.x ca. 2016, and have used every version subsequent through Dirac Live Bass Control (which should come to the C-DSP, but I digress...). Nor am I a novice miniDSP user - I think I picked up my first 2x4 unbalanced in 2010 or 2011, and have also used their 2x4 balanced, 10x10HD, 2x4HD, PWR-ICE plate amps, DDRC-22D, DDRC-24, and SHD. Point is the workflow and UI for both Dirac and miniDSP is reasonably familiar. So I _think_ I have the CDSP configured correctly. With Dirac off, channel routing is correct, at least. Here's the current simple 2.2 channel configuration, which I'm using to get my feet wet with the quirks of this processor before jumping into a more complex system setup.

Inputs:









Routing







:

Mixer:









Dirac channel config drop down:









Before I open up simultaneous tickets with Dirac and miniDSP: did I make a dumb mistake? Or are others having the same problem?


----------



## teh_squirrel

DS-21 said:


> Is anybody else having trouble getting through volume calibration on the 8x12DL with Dirac live 3.3? The calibration signal is output but the mike doesn't pick it up - the level bars don't register anything. It also doesn't register measurement tones if you skip volume cal. This happens using Dirac in both MacOS Monterrey and windows 10, with two different mikes - a UMIK-1 and an analog mike on a USB interface. The Mac is my normal computer. The windows laptop is something I only keep for audio software that is not available on Mac, such as VituixCAD or Xsim.
> 
> I was able to take measurements of each sub-channel (with appropriate manipulation on the Dirac Mixing tab) in REW through the C-DSP with Dirac off on both computers. I was also able to use both mikes on a miniDSP SHD processor about a month ago. (I had to use the windows laptop - there are some weird timing bugs with the MacOS version of Dirac right now)
> 
> I'm not a novice Dirac user - I started with 1.x ca. 2016, and have used every version subsequent through Dirac Live Bass Control (which should come to the C-DSP, but I digress...). Nor am I a novice miniDSP user - I think I picked up my first 2x4 unbalanced in 2010 or 2011, and have also used their 2x4 balanced, 10x10HD, 2x4HD, PWR-ICE plate amps, DDRC-22D, DDRC-24, and SHD. Point is the workflow and UI for both Dirac and miniDSP is reasonably familiar. So I _think_ I have the CDSP configured correctly. With Dirac off, channel routing is correct, at least. Here's the current simple 2.2 channel configuration, which I'm using to get my feet wet with the quirks of this processor before jumping into a more complex system setup.
> 
> Before I open up simultaneous tickets with Dirac and miniDSP: did I make a dumb mistake? Or are others having the same problem?


I've run it on windows 10 about 4 or 5 times in the last couple of days on the newest version using a umik-1 and everything was pretty smooth, you should smash that ticket button if you haven't already!


----------



## bertholomey

DS-21 said:


> Is anybody else having trouble getting through volume calibration on the 8x12DL with Dirac live 3.3? The calibration signal is output but the mike doesn't pick it up - the level bars don't register anything. It also doesn't register measurement tones if you skip volume cal. This happens using Dirac in both MacOS Monterrey and windows 10, with two different mikes - a UMIK-1 and an analog mike on a USB interface. The Mac is my normal computer. The windows laptop is something I only keep for audio software that is not available on Mac, such as VituixCAD or Xsim.
> 
> I was able to take measurements of each sub-channel (with appropriate manipulation on the Dirac Mixing tab) in REW through the C-DSP with Dirac off on both computers. I was also able to use both mikes on a miniDSP SHD processor about a month ago. (I had to use the windows laptop - there are some weird timing bugs with the MacOS version of Dirac right now)
> 
> I'm not a novice Dirac user - I started with 1.x ca. 2016, and have used every version subsequent through Dirac Live Bass Control (which should come to the C-DSP, but I digress...). Nor am I a novice miniDSP user - I think I picked up my first 2x4 unbalanced in 2010 or 2011, and have also used their 2x4 balanced, 10x10HD, 2x4HD, PWR-ICE plate amps, DDRC-22D, DDRC-24, and SHD. Point is the workflow and UI for both Dirac and miniDSP is reasonably familiar. So I _think_ I have the CDSP configured correctly. With Dirac off, channel routing is correct, at least. Here's the current simple 2.2 channel configuration, which I'm using to get my feet wet with the quirks of this processor before jumping into a more complex system setup.
> 
> Inputs:
> View attachment 341467
> 
> 
> Routing
> View attachment 341469
> :
> 
> Mixer:
> View attachment 341466
> 
> 
> Dirac channel config drop down:
> View attachment 341468
> 
> 
> Before I open up simultaneous tickets with Dirac and miniDSP: did I make a dumb mistake? Or are others having the same problem?


Hey DS-21 - I was trying to remember your name - you were a very active poster on EMSQ, so you have been doing this for a very long time. It is good context as well that you have used several of their products - especially in the home. 

I'm using a Mac as well with the UMIK-2 - Version 3.3.3 - I'm actually in the middle of a new Dirac run currently. All is well - I have a pre-EQ tune in the plug-in - knocking down some peaks - nothing too drastic. All Pass Filters engaged, no crossovers engaged, launch Dirac for a 7 channel tune - hit the play icon on the left tweeter (Dirac1 in my case), move the master volume up to to 40.0 on my OLED remote, and then subsequently hit the play icons on each of the other channels - then go to the next screen. So, sending in a ticket might be the best thing. 

BTW - if my addled memory holds true - were you located near DC? If so, hooking up with Anu would be an awesome time. Do you still have the Miata (I think that is what you had at one point)?


----------



## Anu2g

Very odd. You have adjusted the Master Volume (left-most bar) on the Volume Calibration screen up, right? If you're hearing test tones at reasonable volumes but the mic isn't registering it, that's kind of odd. Makes me wonder if the Dirac software is properly recognizing your mic. I have had scenarios where the Dirac software switched to my laptop's mic, which does not register properly. Back when I had that issue, I realized the mic's USB cord had a kink in it; swapping USB cords helped fix the issue.

If you are in fact in the DC area, I'd be glad to meet up with you some time to debug.


----------



## hella356

Grasping at straws here, but a couple years ago I was having glitchy behavior, and a factory reset/factory default fixed it. I don't recall the details. I did have to abandon my saved configs and start over in the plug-in, but that was no big deal, and it fixed the issues I was having. I would first ensure that the USB mic is the _*only *_active mic in the OS settings (I've only used Windows with the DSP), re-install the software (both miniDSP and Dirac), set to factory default, and use it like it was new, not re-using any saved presets. It's likely that meeting up with Anu2g and his fully functioning setup would result in either finding the issue or determining if the DSP is faulty. If Anu2g's known working laptop & mic combo works fine, that suggests the issue is likely within your laptop/mic/cord; if his rig results in the same issue, you're probably looking at the ticketing process. Good luck!


----------



## DS-21

bertholomey said:


> Hey DS-21 - I was trying to remember your name - you were a very active poster on EMSQ, so you have been doing this for a very long time.


Yeah, too long probably. 



bertholomey said:


> I'm using a Mac as well with the UMIK-2 - Version 3.3.3 - I'm actually in the middle of a new Dirac run currently.


Interesting that the timing bug doesn’t hit everyone. It happens with my general purpose Intel MBP as well as an M1 mini that had no non-factory software other than DL. I was getting order-of-magnitude ridiculously long delays (home use - Monolith HTP-1 with DLBC) but the windows version worked fine. I opened a ticket and Anton showed me the corrupt measurements. Last month I tried again on Mac (SHD - different home system) had kept getting low volume errors despite running at I-wear-earplug levels. Windows version worked without issue.



bertholomey said:


> BTW - if my addled memory holds true - were you located near DC? If so, hooking up with Anu would be an awesome time. Do you still have the Miata (I think that is what you had at one point)?


Good memory! I was in DC; now Chicago. I also had a Miata. Still own it but it’s in a different state. Current “car” is a kid hauling minivan (Model Y).



Anu2g said:


> If you are in fact in the DC area, I'd be glad to meet up with you some time to debug.


That’s very generous, thanks! Alas it would be hard to move our house across several states! Incidentally I’m using this CDSP in a home system. I wanted a controller with multichannel Dirac and digital inputs for an active multi-way+subs project, and it’s the only thing on the market. (DDRC-88BM is analog only.)



hella356 said:


> Grasping at straws here, but a couple years ago I was having glitchy behavior, and a factory reset/factory default fixed it.


Good call. I’ll try that as well as confirming I don’t currently have a volume cal issue with the same computers/mikes into the SHD, and revert here if it works. Or open tickets if it doesn’t.


----------



## bertholomey

DS-21 said:


> Yeah, too long probably.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the timing bug doesn’t hit everyone. It happens with my general purpose Intel MBP as well as an M1 mini that had no non-factory software other than DL. I was getting order-of-magnitude ridiculously long delays (home use - Monolith HTP-1 with DLBC) but the windows version worked fine. I opened a ticket and Anton showed me the corrupt measurements. Last month I tried again on Mac (SHD - different home system) had kept getting low volume errors despite running at I-wear-earplug levels. Windows version worked without issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Good memory! I was in DC; now Chicago. I also had a Miata. Still own it but it’s in a different state. Current “car” is a kid hauling minivan (Model Y).
> 
> 
> 
> That’s very generous, thanks! Alas it would be hard to move our house across several states! Incidentally I’m using this CDSP in a home system. I wanted a controller with multichannel Dirac and digital inputs for an active multi-way+subs project, and it’s the only thing on the market. (DDRC-88BM is analog only.)
> 
> 
> 
> Good call. I’ll try that as well as confirming I don’t currently have a volume cal issue with the same computers/mikes into the SHD, and revert here if it works. Or open tickets if it doesn’t.


Well, you added a lot of helpful content on that forum, so that is why I remembered some details 

I do hope you get this sorted. I’m sure you have also seen the FLEX from MiniDSP - Anu is using it in his car on top of the 8x12DL - that might be a good piece for the 2 channel unless I’m blatantly overlooking a detail that makes that piece not fit in your system design at home. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DS-21

bertholomey said:


> I do hope you get this sorted. I’m sure you have also seen the FLEX from MiniDSP - Anu is using it in his car on top of the 8x12DL - that might be a good piece for the 2 channel unless I’m blatantly overlooking a detail that makes that piece not fit in your system design at home.


Channel count and redundancy with current gear. The ultimate plan is active 3-way + 2 subs, so I need 8 channels. The C-DSP replaced an SHD Studio connected by AES digital to a 10x10HD. The Flex looks like a really nice upgrade over the 2x4HD for sure.


----------



## Bikey

It looks like the DDRC-88BM plug in will work with either the DDRC-88A or DDRC-88D (digital ins/outs). Is that not the case?


----------



## oabeieo

Bikey said:


> It looks like the DDRC-88BM plug in will work with either the DDRC-88A or DDRC-88D (digital ins/outs). Is that not the case?


yes It will work…. The ddrc 88 is a plug in for both

and bm is a add on

although the D has an auto switch that the A obviously doesn’t have


----------



## Bikey

The 88D appears to have the most capable hardware but is there a reasonable way to convert 7 or 8 digital outputs and control the volume?


----------



## oabeieo

Bikey said:


> The 88D appears to have the most capable hardware but is there a reasonable way to convert 7 or 8 digital outputs and control the volume?


control volume upstream or from remote or front panel

and these 4 total at each output and 1 for input with toslink, if have coax them need nothing

Amazon.com: Whizzotech Coaxial to Toslink Optical Digital Audio Converter 24bit/192K HD Sampling : Electronics


This is how I’m doing my 88d

and the 8x12 is more powerful then the 88s

the 88ds are nice for downstream dsps , and the only good reason to use one downstream vs the 8x12 dsp and that is fir filtered crossovers……


----------



## LinkyPwns

oabeieo said:


> You gonna wanna pull your curtains over so that it’s not trying to boost more than a couple DB
> 
> The peak is yes the port end of the cabin gain
> 
> That kind of downward tilt at 60 is pretty common you’re probably not gonna be able to get your doors to play that low because it looks like a big room dip the right side doors you will probably be able to get some response but the left probably won’t go


figured it out. I reread this thread and saw that I had BM and output Xover set. It’s better now and going back to JBL curve.


----------



## DS-21

One more question - has anyone characterized the "subwoofer" output from the bass management tab? I noticed as I was playing around with the software that one can bypass the LPF and HPF. So that "Bass Management" channel can be deployed as a summed mono channel (with some level adjustment?).

For example, if you have an input signal panned 100% left and bypass all the filters, what comes out of the managed channel? Left channel? Left channel 3dB down? Left channel 6dB down? Left channel xdB down and LP filtered at some frequency?


----------



## oabeieo

DS-21 said:


> One more question - has anyone characterized the "subwoofer" output from the bass management tab? I noticed as I was playing around with the software that one can bypass the LPF and HPF. So that "Bass Management" channel can be deployed as a summed mono channel (with some level adjustment?).
> 
> For example, if you have an input signal panned 100% left and bypass all the filters, what comes out of the managed channel? Left channel? Left channel 3dB down? Left channel 6dB down? Left channel xdB down and LP filtered at some frequency?


the left channel normal and whatever percentage the bass channel depending how many channels are summed to BM


----------



## LinkyPwns

LinkyPwns said:


> figured it out. I reread this thread and saw that I had BM and output Xover set. It’s better now and going back to JBL curve.


I was trying another tuning session today and noticed that my midbasses needed to be inverted!! Argh that was another reason why I thought my bass was lacking.

I played a 50 hz tone with just the sub playing. Then I turned on the left mid bass along with the sub and didn’t notice much difference in output. Then I tried the invert just for the hell of it and I thought it got louder. So I tried muting the midbass again and then unmuted it while inverted and my output was louder. I couldn’t believe it. I did the same procedure on my right side and it was inverted also.

I loaded Hansu’s house curve and got to listen to 1 or 2 songs before the kids woke up from their naps. I think I might be even happier now with my setup. Time will tell


----------



## oabeieo

LinkyPwns said:


> I was trying another tuning session today and noticed that my midbasses needed to be inverted!! Argh that was another reason why I thought my bass was lacking.
> 
> I played a 50 hz tone with just the sub playing. Then I turned on the left mid bass along with the sub and didn’t notice much difference in output. Then I tried the invert just for the hell of it and I thought it got louder. So I tried muting the midbass again and then unmuted it while inverted and my output was louder. I couldn’t believe it. I did the same procedure on my right side and it was inverted also.
> 
> I loaded Hansu’s house curve and got to listen to 1 or 2 songs before the kids woke up from their naps. I think I might be even happier now with my setup. Time will tell


if you’re using second order filters you absolutely need to invert after running Dirac , invert the low pass side

otherwise you shouldn’t need to…,

it might be goofy with the levels in the tilt and they may be at like more then -6db at crossover which would lead to some funky phase issues in a small portion of the crossover interaction

If you can post up screenshots of all of your drivers groups I would be curious to see it


----------



## LinkyPwns

Dirac 1 = Left Tweeter
Dirac 2 = Right Tweeter
Dirac 3 = Left Mid
Dirac 4 = Right Mid
Dirac 5 = Left Midbass
Dirac 6 = Right Midbass
Dirac 7 = Subwoofer

Crossovers: All are LR 24. Crossover points are 27 Hz / 80 Hz / 450 Hz / 3800 Hz

Left side raw response (plus sub)









Right side raw response (plus sub)









Dirac tab (not sure why sub get's knocked down -23 db but has a crazy gain in the target curve correction).









Individual responses below along with target curve correction (missing LHM screenshot)






































I got to listen a little more and it is great. It really feels like the midbass was the missing link. I would like to try my 12w6v3 in a sealed box maybe to hit those low notes a little harder. The imaging with everything is phenomenal. 

Also I attached the Hansu house curve that I used for my tune.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> Dirac 1 = Left Tweeter
> Dirac 2 = Right Tweeter
> Dirac 3 = Left Mid
> Dirac 4 = Right Mid
> Dirac 5 = Left Midbass
> Dirac 6 = Right Midbass
> Dirac 7 = Subwoofer
> 
> Crossovers: All are LR 24. Crossover points are 27 Hz / 80 Hz / 450 Hz / 3800 Hz
> 
> Left side raw response (plus sub)
> View attachment 343493
> 
> 
> Right side raw response (plus sub)
> View attachment 343495
> 
> 
> Dirac tab (not sure why sub get's knocked down -23 db but has a crazy gain in the target curve correction).
> View attachment 343487
> 
> 
> Individual responses below along with target curve correction (missing LHM screenshot)
> View attachment 343488
> View attachment 343489
> View attachment 343490
> View attachment 343491
> View attachment 343494
> View attachment 343492
> 
> 
> I got to listen a little more and it is great. It really feels like the midbass was the missing link. I would like to try my 12w6v3 in a sealed box maybe to hit those low notes a little harder. The imaging with everything is phenomenal.
> 
> Also I attached the Hansu house curve that I used for my tune.


When youre in the level matching page in the Dirac software, what does that look like?
Is your sub at the same level as all of your other drivers?


----------



## LinkyPwns

Picassotheimpaler said:


> When youre in the level matching page in the Dirac software, what does that look like?
> Is your sub at the same level as all of your other drivers?


I have to lower the sub by -6 db in Dirac or it stops saying I’m clipping the sub. The sub sounds fine (I think). Maybe it’s the mic clipping. I also lower the sub by-12db in the plug-in prior to calibrating with Dirac.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> I have to lower the sub by -6 db in Dirac or it stops saying I’m clipping the sub. The sub sounds fine (I think). Maybe it’s the mic clipping. I also lower the sub by-12db in the plug-in prior to calibrating with Dirac.


So on the page in dirac where you voice each speaker and set your mic sens, they're all at what volume level?


----------



## LinkyPwns

Picassotheimpaler said:


> So on the page in dirac where you voice each speaker and set your mic sens, they're all at what volume level?
> View attachment 343530


Very similar to your screenshot. My main volume is about -45 db and my tweeters are about 25/28 db, mids around 16/18 db, midbass about 25, sub will measure about 20 but that’s after moving the slider bar down (at this specific screen) 6db so it doesn’t clip. Mic is at 100% (Umik-1).


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> Very similar to your screenshot. My main volume is about -45 db and my tweeters are about 25/28 db, mids around 16/18 db, midbass about 25, sub will measure about 20 but that’s after moving the slider bar down (at this specific screen) 6db so it doesn’t clip. Mic is at 100% (Umik-1).


Try bringing your mids down closer in volume to the tweets and midbass in the amp gains if you can. Also leave the sub with some headroom over the others to make up for your LF rise.
Right now you're playing the sub only 5db louder than the rest of the speakers, but asking it to play 20db louder than the rest of the speakers via the curve you are setting.
When you say you don't want your sub to clip, are you talking about your amp clipping because it's playing so loudly during the sweeps?


----------



## LinkyPwns

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Try bringing your mids down closer in volume to the tweets and midbass in the amp gains if you can. Also leave the sub with some headroom over the others to make up for your LF rise.
> Right now you're playing the sub only 5db louder than the rest of the speakers, but asking it to play 20db louder than the rest of the speakers via the curve you are setting.
> When you say you don't want your sub to clip, are you talking about your amp clipping because it's playing so loudly during the sweeps?


Yeah I can bring the amp gain down on the mids. This all makes sense, I thought maybe Dirac would have automatically adjusted all the gains (lower gain on all speakers but sub to keep it louder). Maybe there are some limitations to it.

Dirac will stop the sweep when it is measuring the sub. It says it has detected clipping. That’s when I started lowering the subwoofer output by -6db in Dirac. Then I can get through the measurements.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> Yeah I can bring the amp gain down on the mids. This all makes sense, I thought maybe Dirac would have automatically adjusted all the gains (lower gain on all speakers but sub to keep it louder). Maybe there are some limitations to it.
> 
> Dirac will stop the sweep when it is measuring the sub. It says it has detected clipping. That’s when I started lowering the subwoofer output by -6db in Dirac. Then I can get through the measurements.


Did you go through and make sure to turn off Dirac channel 8 in the minidsp software where you label the channels by speaker type? I was having that issue before and that fixed it. Maybe not in your case though.
I believe it does do that with the sub as well, but maybe only by so much? I keep my sub level 7db or so higher than the rest of the channels via amp gain. After doing that it put the sub within the range of correction so it actually can line up.
I'm still experimenting with the sub, that's the part I've had the hardest time getting to line up with the target. Next experiment is bringing down the cabin resonance peak before running Dirac in EQ. In theory it should bring it closer to the target line in the crossover region, allowing it to match the curve past 80hz. Right now I need a 12db LP on the sub to match the roll off with a 24db crossover because it can't boost enough to match my target with the peak there. May or may not work. Hopefully will see tomorrow.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> Yeah I can bring the amp gain down on the mids. This all makes sense, I thought maybe Dirac would have automatically adjusted all the gains (lower gain on all speakers but sub to keep it louder). Maybe there are some limitations to it.
> 
> Dirac will stop the sweep when it is measuring the sub. It says it has detected clipping. That’s when I started lowering the subwoofer output by -6db in Dirac. Then I can get through the measurements.


Oh, and how loud to the ear are your sweeps? They shouldn't be all that loud, that may be what is causing the clipping. You may need to increase the mic gain in windows if you're at 100% in dirac and your sweeps are quite loud.


----------



## LinkyPwns

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Oh, and how loud to the ear are your sweeps? They shouldn't be all that loud, that may be what is causing the clipping. You may need to increase the mic gain in windows if you're at 100% in dirac and your sweeps are quite loud.


They are at a moderate to high level. Like I wouldn't want to listen to them all day but I don't need hearing protection. I will check the Mic settings. I thought last time I checked it was at 100% in windows but I had caught it before at like 63% or something like that.

Part of me wonders if there is a slight rattle during the subwoofer sweep. I'm not sure where it is located but maybe that rattle could cause Dirac to think there is a clipping issue? I'll have to try a sweep while having the truck open and listening for clipping.

So overall if my target curve has a subwoofer targer of +20 db, would I want to shoot for that +20 db over the other speakers in the volume calibration as well? Is it ok to use the Dirac volume slider bars? I'm not sure how that works versus the actual Dirac gain versus the plugin gain.

Thanks for the advice


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> They are at a moderate to high level. Like I wouldn't want to listen to them all day but I don't need hearing protection. I will check the Mic settings. I thought last time I checked it was at 100% in windows but I had caught it before at like 63% or something like that.
> 
> Part of me wonders if there is a slight rattle during the subwoofer sweep. I'm not sure where it is located but maybe that rattle could cause Dirac to think there is a clipping issue? I'll have to try a sweep while having the truck open and listening for clipping.
> 
> So overall if my target curve has a subwoofer targer of +20 db, would I want to shoot for that +20 db over the other speakers in the volume calibration as well? Is it ok to use the Dirac volume slider bars? I'm not sure how that works versus the actual Dirac gain versus the plugin gain.
> 
> Thanks for the advice


I wouldn't go that far with 20db, cause other cuts and boosts are going to be made. Dirac will also boost up to 10db I believe to match target. I think I have my sub about 9db higher than my quietest driver. A la (25db Twt and 16db sub.
Yeah I would check your mic gains in windows. When I have my mic at 100%, I can just barely hear the sweep. I actually am worried about my breathing effecting it haha. So I played with the mic gains so that it is about speaking volume when the mic is at 100% in Dirac and master is at -45db.
As far as I know, it's okay to use the slider bars, but I have shyed away from it until recently. It didn't seem to make a negative difference, and possibly a positive one but still to be determined (brought one of my midbass down a bit so it ends up overlaying the target better). I have had an issue with dirac freaking out when moving the sub knob while Dirac is open though. So I use the sub control in the controller to get my sub output to where I want it for tuning before opening the Dirac software.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

LinkyPwns said:


> They are at a moderate to high level. Like I wouldn't want to listen to them all day but I don't need hearing protection. I will check the Mic settings. I thought last time I checked it was at 100% in windows but I had caught it before at like 63% or something like that.
> 
> Part of me wonders if there is a slight rattle during the subwoofer sweep. I'm not sure where it is located but maybe that rattle could cause Dirac to think there is a clipping issue? I'll have to try a sweep while having the truck open and listening for clipping.
> 
> So overall if my target curve has a subwoofer targer of +20 db, would I want to shoot for that +20 db over the other speakers in the volume calibration as well? Is it ok to use the Dirac volume slider bars? I'm not sure how that works versus the actual Dirac gain versus the plugin gain.
> 
> Thanks for the advice


Also, I'm still learning this software with help from many others who have much more experience than I.
So take what I say with a grain of salt. It's what has worked for me, based on their knowledge.


----------



## LinkyPwns

I got a new idea to try. Read something online about offsetting the target curve so that the base isn’t 20 db but maybe 10 db. Then everything else drops. Will hopefully get a chance to try soon


----------



## teh_squirrel

LinkyPwns said:


> I got a new idea to try. Read something online about offsetting the target curve so that the base isn’t 20 db but maybe 10 db. Then everything else drops. Will hopefully get a chance to try soon


I've improved my system volume by offsetting some of the curves that go really low into the negative DB. 

I made a spreadsheet for offsetting, modifying, visualizing, and comparing curves if anybody wants to try it out. Basically you paste the curve into the sheet, it splits the frequency and db value and then there is a column to offset the value, modify after offset, and then another offset to build your subwoofer curve (so you can run your sub at negative db and then boost it after). You can copy the columns for file output and then just paste it into a text file and it will work. This saves me time building/adjusting curves and gives you a visual of the difference between them. I just make a copy of the first tab before I start making changes. Because not all curve files have the same number of points there will be some empty or error spots at the bottom of the spreadsheet.









Target Curve


Import Text File Copy (copy below and paste into txt file),Subwoofer curve Text File Copy (copy below and paste into txt file) NAME,NAME Put a number here to adjust the whole curve,Unnamed,Final Offset,for sub adjust,Unnamed Offset,0,DEVICENAME,-6,DEVICENAME Import file here, copy and paste from...




docs.google.com


----------



## datooff

I have the same issue - I'm matching the main speakers to the same level via amp gains, but my sub's amp gain is at minimum and the volume in the volume calibration is higher than other speakers. If I'm running the measurements this way - I get the error message "clipping detected". I lower the sub volume in the calibration screen. Is this ok?


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> I have the same issue - I'm matching the main speakers to the same level via amp gains, but my sub's amp gain is at minimum and the volume in the volume calibration is higher than other speakers. If I'm running the measurements this way - I get the error message "clipping detected". I lower the sub volume in the calibration screen. Is this ok?


I would lower the sub volume on the MiniDSP Plugin's output tab. Or better yet, in the Plugin, assign the Subwoofer volume to that output, and lower the subwoofer volume in the plugin (or via your remote). That also gives you more subwoofer volume "headroom" if you ever feel the need to increase it while listening.


----------



## datooff

But what's the difference between lowering it in the dirac calibration stage and lowering in plugin? If I then increase the volume back after dirac - won't it affect anything?


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> But what's the difference between lowering it in the dirac calibration stage and lowering in plugin? If I then increase the volume back after dirac - won't it affect anything?


I guess that would work, too. I generally prefer to keep inputs as high as possible (Dirac is an input, after the Plugin's input change, and before the DSP's output stage) and lower outputs. Basically lower it as late in the signal chain as possible.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

datooff said:


> I have the same issue - I'm matching the main speakers to the same level via amp gains, but my sub's amp gain is at minimum and the volume in the volume calibration is higher than other speakers. If I'm running the measurements this way - I get the error message "clipping detected". I lower the sub volume in the calibration screen. Is this ok?


How loud is the sweep? And are you using all 8 channels of Dirac, and if your not have you turned the others off?


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> I would lower the sub volume on the MiniDSP Plugin's output tab. Or better yet, in the Plugin, assign the Subwoofer volume to that output, and lower the subwoofer volume in the plugin (or via your remote). That also gives you more subwoofer volume "headroom" if you ever feel the need to increase it while listening.


ive been saying it for years

utilize the bass knob!!!

there’s so much phase if someone overshooting the crossover it will still sum just fine.

try listening to , mmmmm let’s say , the smiths , the queen is dead album and tell me you don’t need at least 18db of boost available!
Lol , the album sounds fantastic with bass , without the gain it’s literally non existent!

and , when listening to some modern nursery rhymes (rap) need to turn it down as the engineer may have only wanted bass in the track and nothing else


----------



## datooff

Picassotheimpaler said:


> How loud is the sweep? And are you using all 8 channels of Dirac, and if your not have you turned the others off?


I'm using all channels, when I don't use some of them - I turn them off.
The volume for all channels is approx. in the middle, the sub is ~6db higher than others. If I don't lower it - I won't be able to do the measurement.


----------



## JI808

When I set up my 8x12 I had the sub at -20dB via the controller with master volume at 0dB and went through the measurement process. I adjusted the output channels and mic gain so that I could run sweeps without Dirac getting upset because the output levels were too high (clipped mic signal).

When the process was over I had plenty of sub-bass available to play with.


----------



## oabeieo

JI808 said:


> When I set up my 8x12 I had the sub at -20dB via the controller with master volume at 0dB and went through the measurement process. I adjusted the output channels and mic gain so that I could run sweeps without Dirac getting upset because the output levels were too high (clipped mic signal).
> 
> When the process was over I had plenty of sub-bass available to play with.


that is exactly right! That is the way to do it

now when you listen to a old rock recording like the cars or whatnot , you have some gain and it isn’t clipped

that’s fantastic!


----------



## Soudnoob

What is the best way to add a rear fill.I went minidsp to make my life easy, being a noon, wnated something just plug and play. But I am not able to figure out from the guides here how to add the rear speakers. Minidsp guide tells differently but then I read here that's not the best option. 

Also can someone show me some screenshots of crossover values I get from the Dirac tune? I mean where should I look?


----------



## teh_squirrel

Soudnoob said:


> What is the best way to add a rear fill.I went minidsp to make my life easy, being a noon, wnated something just plug and play. But I am not able to figure out from the guides here how to add the rear speakers. Minidsp guide tells differently but then I read here that's not the best option.
> 
> Also can someone show me some screenshots of crossover values I get from the Dirac tune? I mean where should I look?


I, too, am interested to hear what people say about rear fill. 

For the crossovers you run through the guide with no crossovers so you can see what the response of each speaker is. After you take measurements you will see all of your 'dirac groups' on the right which are the individual drivers along with a frequency response graph. You have to look at the speaker response and decide (subjectively) what a good crossover point might be. I try to come up with a range of possible values and have been waffling back and forth around a couple of the points. Part of the first phase of tuning is deciding the crossover points and in some systems that is really easy but some it is not. In my system the midrange plays off the windshield and the tweeters are in the a pillar so in order to help the midranges I like to try to bring down the mid to tweet crossover but then when I use REW to look my tweets are just playing too low so I ended up settling on 3.9khz. I pass off to the midbass at 420hz because that's where the natural dip is for the GB25's and the TM65's. I keep going back and forth between 70hz and 80 for the mb to sub, it is funny because when I first swapped to 70hz I felt like it improved my midbass but each time I look at the frequency responses the 80hz makes so much more sense.


----------



## oabeieo

Rear filll 

what a great question

I answered it somewhere but I know it’s hard to find… 

so do your rears off there own Dirac 2ch

tune them like normal seat of speakers !

then after Dirac, go to the ROUTER not the mixer

and turn on the opposite channel to each speaker and invert the polarity on it!

that was it gets a L-R BEFORE Dirac processing in router

then go to outputs for rears and add between 8-12ms (NOT 28ms like minidsp manual says that’s wrong)

listen between eight and 12 ms to where it is reinforcing the fronts and have a good sound somewhere in there it will hit a harmonic in the lower mid range like 200 to 600 Hz and will reinforce instead of cancel and will sound better that’s what you’re listening for

then turn down the rears somewhere between three and 10 DB! so there not as loud

whollah rear fill


you do not want it to completely decorlate from the fronts, 28 ms will add a artificial echo that is not very good it will never sound right and it will always sound like trash

Do you want to use between six and 8 ms so that it correlates to high frequency but barely starts to pull away in the Midbass area

and then in the loaffrequency is still correlated

Best of luck


----------



## Soudnoob

oabeieo said:


> so do your rears off there own Dirac 2ch


Tune with the subwoofers included?



oabeieo said:


> and turn on the opposite channel to each speaker and invert the polarity on it!


To do this do I not need two channels?

So are you saying tune the rears separately. But how do I add the channels after the tune, if I am using 3 way active, that's already 6 channels(dirac1-6), two subwoofers one channel(dirac 7)? So I am left with one more channel(dirac 8), I don't understand the routing. Can someone share a screen shot with rear fill please.



teh_squirrel said:


> For the crossovers you run through the guide with no crossovers so you can see what the response of each speaker is. After you take measurements you will see all of your 'dirac groups' on the right which are the individual drivers along with a frequency response graph. You have to look at the speaker response and decide (subjectively) what a good crossover point might be.


Something like this? 
Setting crossovers in an AVR/pre-pro with Dirac Live room correction


----------



## oabeieo

Soudnoob said:


> Tune with the subwoofers included?
> 
> 
> To do this do I not need two channels?
> 
> So are you saying tune the rears separately. But how do I add the channels after the tune, if I am using 3 way active, that's already 6 channels(dirac1-6), two subwoofers one channel(dirac 7)? So I am left with one more channel(dirac 8), I don't understand the routing. Can someone share a screen shot with rear fill please.
> 
> 
> Something like this?
> Setting crossovers in an AVR/pre-pro with Dirac Live room correction


adding sub is up to u not relevant to rears

to do a L-R properly it needs to be done in router
Before Dirac process. Because Dirac will change the timing , it will mess up the signal if done in mixer

so yes you have to have the rears on there own Dirac channels to do it right…..

After your done with Dirac tune normally
Go to router , and turn on the other channel on each rear speaker then right click and hit the invert button

so left gets right inverted and right gets left inverted. So each rear get signal for both L and R , one is inverted the other isn’t


----------



## Soudnoob

I am sorry, I am not understanding. Ok lets say I did a 2channel tune with just rear. And then I do the front three way active tune. How do I enable both together after?

Where do I add my rear after
Step 1: Do a Dirac with only rear.


















Step 2: Do a Dirac with only front

















Step 3: How do I combine both now? The front and rear?


----------



## oabeieo

I’m not talking about anything but rears however you can figure your system is however you can configure your system….

min your second pic , yu ha e the L-R turned on in mixer

that’s the wrong place to do it you have to do it in the router!!!!!!!!!!

that is after Dirac processing, it won’t work properly it Hass to be done before in the router

And then the rest is up to you however you wanna set it up around that you can do a two channel Dirac , 4,6 whatever 

The only thing that’s important is the readers have their own separate channels in the router and then in the mixer obviously because you’re going to be inverting pre-Dirac

So work your system around that one thing that has to be and is a fixed value and it will work


----------



## oabeieo

So pretty much plan on two of the Dirac channels being for rears …. And work everything else around that 

if you don’t have enough channel then don’tdo rears , or some sum some fronts together 😎


----------



## oabeieo

Soudnoob said:


> I am sorry, I am not understanding. Ok lets say I did a 2channel tune with just rear. And then I do the front three way active tune. How do I enable both together after?
> 
> Where do I add my rear after
> Step 1: Do a Dirac with only rear.
> View attachment 345180
> 
> View attachment 345181
> 
> 
> 
> Step 2: Do a Dirac with only front
> View attachment 345182
> 
> View attachment 345183
> 
> 
> Step 3: How do I combine both now? The front and rear?


Logan helps me understand

sorry

So yeah , you can run both rears off a single Dirac channel and sum them together, then separately time align them after , maybe do Dirac on only the right and add delay to left manually after 

then you can do your sub

Or just not have L-R


----------



## Soudnoob

Or is it a better option to combine tweeter and midrange into one Dirac channel and do the tune.
Dirac 1: LT and LMid
Dirac 2: RT and RMid
Dirac 3: Lwoofer
Dirac 4: Rwoofer
Dirac 5: RL
Dirac 6: RR
Dirac 7: Sub


----------



## oabeieo

Soudnoob said:


> Or is it a better option to combine tweeter and midrange into one Dirac channel and do the tune.
> Dirac 1: LT and LMid
> Dirac 2: RT and RMid
> Dirac 3: Lwoofer
> Dirac 4: Rwoofer
> Dirac 5: RL
> Dirac 6: RR
> Dirac 7: Sub


yes that is absolutely better , only if mid n tweet are very close together!! 😎😎


----------



## Soudnoob

oabeieo said:


> yes that is absolutely better , only if mid n tweet are very close together!! 😎😎


Thank you, I will try it and see how it sounds. The tweeter n mid are close to each other in the A-pillar.


----------



## oabeieo

And sorry if in sounded like a grump 

I had a extraordinarily bad week. An unreal amount of stresss

it’s over.. (for now) 😎🤫🫣


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> yes that is absolutely better , only if mid n tweet are very close together!! 😎😎


If you're going to put both speakers into a single group, you would just input your crossovers and whatever amount of delay in before Dirac, then run as usual?


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> If you're going to put both speakers into a single group, you would just input your crossovers and whatever amount of delay in before Dirac, then run as usual?


I would run only the right channel ,

then after Dirac (because of the timing difference) add the left and add delay…..

why the right? Because the room dip won’t be on the right. So Dirac won’t try n over correct. You’ll net more precious midbass and the L-R sounds best with lots o midbass (unless your car doesn’t have a big left side biased dip ) so whichever side has the least dips 

And then you can simply add delay to
Left and remove some level to left after

So after Dirac on right rear , turn on
Left rear to thatbsingle group , sum the left signal into it , add let’s say 10ms to right and 11ms to left

and invert in router by adding the L with invert (R-L)


----------



## Soudnoob

So before Dirac don't do anything, but as below?

















After Dirac do the crossovers, time delays, invert polarity L-R, etc?

If I am doing the above setup What do I sect in Dirac channel configuration as I am combining Tweeter and midrange?










To create my custom curves as mentioned in the document, Do I need to do it after finding my crossovers from the first Dirac tune, to know what values should I change in the sheet? Or Do I just select one of the hose curves like JBLAndy or Jazzi?


----------



## oabeieo

Soudnoob said:


> So before Dirac don't do anything, but as below?
> View attachment 345440
> 
> View attachment 345442
> 
> 
> After Dirac do the crossovers, time delays, invert polarity L-R, etc?
> 
> If I am doing the above setup What do I sect in Dirac channel configuration as I am combining Tweeter and midrange?
> View attachment 345444
> 
> 
> 
> To create my custom curves as mentioned in the document, Do I need to do it after finding my crossovers from the first Dirac tune, to know what values should I change in the sheet? Or Do I just select one of the hose curves like JBLAndy or Jazzi?
> View attachment 345446


Are you kidding ? Read above it’s answered 

use Dirac 8 !
You need to tune 1 of the rear speakers with Dirac 8


----------



## Anu2g

Picassotheimpaler said:


> If you're going to put both speakers into a single group, you would just input your crossovers and whatever amount of delay in before Dirac, then run as usual?


That's right. I would only do the XO between those two speakers, i.e. the LPF on the mid and HPF on the tweet (not the HPF on the mid). The HPF on the mid would be applied after Dirac.


----------



## Soudnoob

oabeieo said:


> Are you kidding ? Read above it’s answered
> 
> use Dirac 8 !
> You need to tune 1 of the rear speakers with Dirac 8


Sorry, I have Dirac 5 and Dirac 6 for rear channel. I have combined Dirac 1 and Dirac 2 for tweet and midrange. Am I missing something?


----------



## oabeieo

Soudnoob said:


> Sorry, I have Dirac 5 and Dirac 6 for rear channel. I have combined Dirac 1 and Dirac 2 for tweet and midrange. Am I missing something?


oh I didn’t see that it didn’t say full range, if it’s only woofers , then as you were if it’s full range rears , I would make it say full range only because I’m a stickler (even tho it won’t matter) 

yeah your good !


----------



## JI808

Soudnoob said:


> To create my custom curves as mentioned in the document, Do I need to do it after finding my crossovers from the first Dirac tune, to know what values should I change in the sheet? Or Do I just select one of the hose curves like JBLAndy or Jazzi?
> View attachment 345446


Honestly, just make a measurement and when you get to the filters page draw your curve with the mouse. 

Don't over-think it.

Any curve you apply to the vehicle you're going to tweak anyway. Let the software apply the standard Dirac "curve" and draw your own. 

You'll find yourself making adjustments that way (adjust the curve with the mouse and apply filters) anyway.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

@oabeieo 
When you have a driver (like the subwoofer) that only matches the target curve up to a certain point, what does it do with the phase outside of the region of it matching?
Does it flatten the phase of the entire response of the driver? Or just the region in which it matches curve?


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> @oabeieo
> When you have a driver (like the subwoofer) that only matches the target curve up to a certain point, what does it do with the phase outside of the region of it matching?
> Does it flatten the phase of the entire response of the driver? Or just the region in which it matches curve?




By fixing the response, phase is also fixed

if response is left alone , the phase will also and that is proper

Dirac makes areas that are non minimum phase, and makes it minimum phase , which restores the marriage of FR and phase via the hilbert-transform

nothing else


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> By fixing the response, phase is also fixed
> 
> if response is left alone , the phase will also and that is proper


Cool, that's what I assumed to be the case. I've found that a 12db xo on the sub and a 24 on the midbass seems to work best for me. Makes sense if Dirac doesn't tailor phase outside of the effected region.
That also means that when using the APF method, even though I am shooting for a 24db/Oct slope on the sub, I would want to use a 1st order APF to match the 12db xo I am actually using. The roll off of the sub should do the rest, yeah?


----------



## Theslaking

So my son wants to use the DL in his new ride but he doesn't want to pay the $300+. I have a V2 with DL already but I have never used it as my car has been apart for a year. So I'm not sure how the DL part works. He came up with the idea of using mine in his car to get the measurements then just plugging in the values to his 8x12. Would this work?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Theslaking said:


> So my son wants to use the DL in his new ride but he doesn't want to pay the $300+. I have a V2 with DL already but I have never used it as my car has been apart for a year. So I'm not sure how the DL part works. He came up with the idea of using mine in his car to get the measurements then just plugging in the values to his 8x12. Would this work?


Not quite. It will give you delay values and apl adjustments. But those aren't really any good in a vacuum.
The Dirac portion runs on top of the rest of the DSP adjustments. So any EQ applied by Dirac is basically inside of a black box.
If your car is still apart, lend him the DL version for a bit. He will be ready to pony up the $300 very quickly lol


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Cool, that's what I assumed to be the case. I've found that a 12db xo on the sub and a 24 on the midbass seems to work best for me. Makes sense if Dirac doesn't tailor phase outside of the effected region.
> That also means that when using the APF method, even though I am shooting for a 24db/Oct slope on the sub, I would want to use a 1st order APF to match the 12db xo I am actually using. The roll off of the sub should do the rest, yeah?


I wouldn’t use any APF on a 1st order

it’s shift is so gradual, it’s almost non existent
and The phase shifts to 45 way way way out of band 

I would definitely use no APF to sum anything…

but you could do some sub measurements in REW and generate the excess phase and see how much the twist is

because there so much phase you could easily read the phase with no loop back or timing reference. Just a plain single measurement would reveal everything

if it looks like it needs additional maybe go for it

but keep in mind as responce goes down phase goes up so don’t over correct


----------



## Soudnoob

oabeieo said:


> oh I didn’t see that it didn’t say full range, if it’s only woofers , then as you were if it’s full range rears , I would make it say full range only because I’m a stickler (even tho it won’t matter)
> 
> yeah your good !


Sorry I confused you with the screen shot. It was from the guide as I dint have access to the car and plugged in to the dsp. So my question was when combining tweeter and midrange should I leave it as small range(I don't know the options as I am not connected now) and for the rear I will leave it at full range.

For the tune I plan to do two config 1 with Dirac default curve and maybe config 2 with a custom curve and play around a bit.

Thanks again.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

oabeieo said:


> I wouldn’t use any APF on a 1st order
> 
> it’s shift is so gradual, it’s almost non existent
> and The phase shifts to 45 way way way out of band
> 
> I would definitely use no APF to sum anything…
> 
> but you could do some sub measurements in REW and generate the excess phase and see how much the twist is
> 
> because there so much phase you could easily read the phase with no loop back or timing reference. Just a plain single measurement would reveal everything
> 
> if it looks like it needs additional maybe go for it
> 
> but keep in mind as responce goes down phase goes up so don’t over correct


The reason I'm curious is because I tried to use a first order APF along with the phase shift of the natural roll off of the sub to match with the second order apf on the midbass HPF of 24db/oct. It made a noticable improvement, but around 40hz seems to suffer a bit even though the rest is quite a bit better.
So I'm trying to figure out if there is a better way to do this in my particular case.


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> The reason I'm curious is because I tried to use a first order APF along with the phase shift of the natural roll off of the sub to match with the second order apf on the midbass HPF of 24db/oct. It made a noticable improvement, but around 40hz seems to suffer a bit even though the rest is quite a bit better.
> So I'm trying to figure out if there is a better way to do this in my particular case.


Yeah I would definitely measure the excess phase and take a gander 

export it as text into rephase and run the sim on a LR2 or a 1st order AP in compensate mode and see


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Picassotheimpaler said:


> The reason I'm curious is because I tried to use a first order APF along with the phase shift of the natural roll off of the sub to match with the second order apf on the midbass HPF of 24db/oct. It made a noticable improvement, but around 40hz seems to suffer a bit even though the rest is quite a bit better.
> So I'm trying to figure out if there is a better way to do this in my particular case.


Since the roll off on the high end of the sub isn't a perfect 12/db alignment, might it be better to make a "house curve" file that corresponds to the rest of the curve I use with a perfect 12db LPF? That way Dirac can do it's magic and the response can hit the target perfectly. That way when I do Dirac measurements with a 1st order all pass along with the 12db LPF target, it should adjust the phase as if it had a 2nd order all pass on a flat response.
Or am I thinking about this incorrectly and It would need a 36db corresponding APF to give the same effect?
Edit: rephrase is software I'm unfamiliar with using. So I'll give it some research and loop back.


----------



## oabeieo

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Since the roll off on the high end of the sub isn't a perfect 12/db alignment, might it be better to make a "house curve" file that corresponds to the rest of the curve I use with a perfect 12db LPF? That way Dirac can do it's magic and the response can hit the target perfectly. That way when I do Dirac measurements with a 1st order all pass along with the 12db LPF target, it should adjust the phase as if it had a 2nd order all pass on a flat response.
> Or am I thinking about this incorrectly and It would need a 36db corresponding APF to give the same effect?
> Edit: rephrase is software I'm unfamiliar with using. So I'll give it some research and loop back.


It’s a easy measurement, and a easy export

just take a sweep measurement

calculate excess phase by generating minimum phase

check box only excess phase and the FR measurement

export as text

import measurement

then try a compensate (reversed) 2nd order all pass , or a LR2 linearizarion and see if it takes the wrap out

and remember as your responses dropping it should naturally rise in phase

you don’t want to remove that !

only what the crossover is doing

so maybe you could take one with a crossover off and one with the crossover on and compare them


----------



## SNCTMPL

I tried to keep up with you guys on the rear differential, but I just couldn’t find a way to configure it that I thought would work right.

I was running it before I started using Dirac and I liked the ambiance of it. But since Dirac I have had it shut off. So I’m going to try it again with a MiniDsp 2x4 with the rear/center plug-in. We’ll see how that works.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

SNCTMPL said:


> I tried to keep up with you guys on the rear differential, but I just couldn’t find a way to configure it that I thought would work right.
> 
> I was running it before I started using Dirac and I liked the ambiance of it. But since Dirac I have had it shut off. So I’m going to try it again with a MiniDsp 2x4 with the rear/center plug-in. We’ll see how that works.


What have you tried? This is going to sound stupid, but have you just tried taking a measurement of the front stage L&R, and matching that curve on the rear drivers without Dirac involved at all?
If you're using them as differential rear fill, then they aren't going to be in phase really anyway. So even though I haven't tried yet, I see no reason that using rear fill as usual wouldn't work.


----------



## SNCTMPL

It’s not that so much, it’s that I like using anu’s method in the guide 1 Dirac channel per driver, and that only leaves 1 Dirac channel. We need more Dirac channels, it’s got 12 output channels, so maybe at least 10 Dirac channels would be nice. 

And like you said, it’s not really in phase anyways. So I don’t think it’s as crucial to have the rears on the same dsp and I can have true differential rear fill that I can turn on and off when needed.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

SNCTMPL said:


> It’s not that so much, it’s that I like using anu’s method in the guide 1 Dirac channel per driver, and that only leaves 1 Dirac channel. We need more Dirac channels, it’s got 12 output channels, so maybe at least 10 Dirac channels would be nice.
> 
> And like you said, it’s not really in phase anyways. So I don’t think it’s as crucial to have the rears on the same dsp and I can have true differential rear fill that I can turn on and off when needed.


Just don't use the Dirac channels for the rears. Use 2 of the other 4 open channels on the DSP and tune like you did before Dirac.
It doesn't turn into a 8x8 because you turned on Dirac. You still have 4 free channels to play with.


----------



## SNCTMPL

Your supposed to set up the rears in the routing tab not the mixer tab. There are only 8 Dirac channels in the routing screen, the 12 channels are on the mixer screen.


----------



## oabeieo

SNCTMPL said:


> I tried to keep up with you guys on the rear differential, but I just couldn’t find a way to configure it that I thought would work right.
> 
> I was running it before I started using Dirac and I liked the ambiance of it. But since Dirac I have had it shut off. So I’m going to try it again with a MiniDsp 2x4 with the rear/center plug-in. We’ll see how that works.


I agree with Picasso

of course the Impaler

A regular 2 x 4 is only .9 V you’re more than likely going to have some sort of noise when trying to match that up with an 4 V DSP

I would imagine your gains Will be up way too much on the rears just to get it to blend right

You can do it in the 8 x 12


----------



## SNCTMPL

oabeieo said:


> I agree with Picasso
> 
> of course the Impaler
> 
> A regular 2 x 4 is only .9 V you’re more than likely going to have some sort of noise when trying to match that up with an 4 V DSP
> 
> I would imagine your gains Will be up way too much on the rears just to get it to blend right
> 
> You can do it in the 8 x 12


The .9v is a bit of a concern, but for $100 I’m going to experiment and see if I can get it to work.
It will only work when I have my phone plugged into the truck for daily driving and everything is going through the Pac amppro. When I plug into the Topping for a listening session, the rears won’t come on.


----------



## DS-21

DS-21 said:


> Is anybody else having trouble getting through volume calibration on the 8x12DL with Dirac live 3.3? The calibration signal is output but the mike doesn't pick it up - the level bars don't register anything. It also doesn't register measurement tones if you skip volume cal.
> <...> [quoted for reference]





hella356 said:


> Grasping at straws here, but a couple years ago I was having glitchy behavior, and a factory reset/factory default fixed it. I don't recall the details. I did have to abandon my saved configs and start over in the plug-in, but that was no big deal, and it fixed the issues I was having. I would first ensure that the USB mic is the _*only *_active mic in the OS settings (I've only used Windows with the DSP), re-install the software (both miniDSP and Dirac), set to factory default, and use it like it was new, not re-using any saved presets. It's likely that meeting up with Anu2g and his fully functioning setup would result in either finding the issue or determining if the DSP is faulty. If Anu2g's known working laptop & mic combo works fine, that suggests the issue is likely within your laptop/mic/cord; if his rig results in the same issue, you're probably looking at the ticketing process. Good luck!


To follow up on this, yesterday I finally had time to attempt some troubleshooting. The C-DSP 8x12DL still doesn't register volume. However, I'm reasonably certain I was able to rule out my microphone or computer. Using the same instance of DL and same measurement gear I was able to get volume to register on the calibration screen both on the miniDSP SHD Studio and on the Monolith HTP-1. So I'm reasonably confident either I did something bone-headed in setting up the C-DSP 8x12DL or there's an issue with the interface between Dirac and the C-DSP. So I submitted tickets to both companies.

A dumb question: how do you do a complete reset of the C-DSP 8x12DL? I didn't see anything in the manual or a search for their forum on how to do a complete reset, only info on how to clear the presets.


----------



## oabeieo

DS-21 said:


> To follow up on this, yesterday I finally had time to attempt some troubleshooting. The C-DSP 8x12DL still doesn't register volume. However, I'm reasonably certain I was able to rule out my microphone or computer. Using the same instance of DL and same measurement gear I was able to get volume to register on the calibration screen both on the miniDSP SHD Studio and on the Monolith HTP-1. So I'm reasonably confident either I did something bone-headed in setting up the C-DSP 8x12DL or there's an issue with the interface between Dirac and the C-DSP. So I submitted tickets to both companies.
> 
> A dumb question: how do you do a complete reset of the C-DSP 8x12DL? I didn't see anything in the manual or a search for their forum on how to do a complete reset, only info on how to clear the presets.


re load the FW….

stick the FW on the sd card and not in a folder , and stuck it in dsp and power up for 30 sec , then turn offf, take sd out and turn back on and try again

Is ds 21 a run on ds18 ? Like the new and improved lol (kidding)


----------



## datooff

I've been getting consistent results lately. 

The question I was thinking about:* is it good that dirac is pulling up/boosting the dips in response? *
For example - midbass dips at ~125hz and 350-400hz. They are quite large and I'm not sure if it's doing any good. 
Also - my front sub has a peak at ~100-100hz that has to be pulled down to follow the curve, I'm pretty sure it's boosting the lowend too (~40-50hz), is that bad? Manually, I wouldn't do it, I would cut the peaks and adjust the amp gain. 
Same thing for the mids in the dash that have a dip at ~1500hz.


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> I've been getting consistent results lately.
> 
> The question I was thinking about:* is it good that dirac is pulling up/boosting the dips in response? *
> For example - midbass dips at ~125hz and 350-400hz. They are quite large and I'm not sure if it's doing any good.
> Also - my front sub has a peak at ~100-100hz that has to be pulled down to follow the curve, I'm pretty sure it's boosting the lowend too (~40-50hz), is that bad? Manually, I wouldn't do it, I would cut the peaks and adjust the amp gain.
> Same thing for the mids in the dash that have a dip at ~1500hz.


You could cut the peaks and adjust amp gain beforehand, if you like. Some of us are cutting peaks and/or boosting nulls before the Dirac measurements (using PEQ and/or amp gains [especially when using shelves]), and seeing good results out of that. Me, personally, I am doing some PEQ before the Dirac measurements. Cutting the peaks can help you save a lot of volume, as Dirac sets gains based on the highest peak of any driver's measurements (even outside of the pass band, unfortunately)


----------



## datooff

Anu2g said:


> You could cut the peaks and adjust amp gain beforehand, if you like.


This is exactly what I was thinking, cutting the peaks beforehand at least . I just didn't see this mentioned frequently. For example - if we keep the same volume for all drivers at volume calibration stage and one of the drivers has a huge peak and that's most of what you hear - is that volume calibration right? Because Dirac may leave most of that peak and boost other frequencies for example. 

But what about dips? What to do with them?


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> This is exactly what I was thinking, cutting the peaks beforehand at least . I just didn't see this mentioned frequently. For example - if we keep the same volume for all drivers at volume calibration stage and one of the drivers has a huge peak and that's most of what you hear - is that volume calibration right? Because Dirac may leave most of that peak and boost other frequencies for example.
> 
> But what about dips? What to do with them?


You can also take a look at what I did here: '21 2dr Wrangler - Build Log v2 - MiniDSPx2...

If you clean up the peaks before Dirac measurements, then your volume calibration should be fine.


----------



## oabeieo

Just use a little eq as possible, and don’t boost a dip 

leave it , because it might not actually be there for one and for two it’s most likely a room issue that can’t be fixed and a boost will make things dramatically worse

Dirac can charge timing a little to fix some of it , stuff under 200hz I usually set my curtains to so it can’t or draw the dip in target so it can’t if I want to listen loud

most of that is why I have 4 sets of midbas


----------



## datooff

oabeieo said:


> Just use a little eq as possible, and don’t boost a dip


I don't boost manually with peq prior to Dirac, but if I will leave the house curve straight without outlining the dip- Dirac will boost them , right?


----------



## oabeieo

datooff said:


> I don't boost manually with peq prior to Dirac, but if I will leave the house curve straight without outlining the dip- Dirac will boost them , right?


sometimes it does , sometimes it doesn’t…

it looks to see if the dip is in all the measurements or if it’s location dependent

what sucks is under 200hz we all have a dip on one side and not the other because of the room size and width of car….

your right measurements will not show a dip but the left will , so Dirac may** try and boost into that one dip , that could be fatigue ing on the left midbass ,

The others ot depends and it’s okay if it does boost into the other dips It will determine if it can take a boost or not. The dips are areas that are not minimal phase , it will make it minimum phase so it can be boosted. (Change timing)


----------



## DS-21

oabeieo said:


> re load the FW….
> 
> stick the FW on the sd card and not in a folder , and stuck it in dsp and power up for 30 sec , then turn offf, take sd out and turn back on and try again
> 
> Is ds 21 a run on ds18 ? Like the new and improved lol (kidding)


Fortunately unnecessary. I finally opened a ticket. After some reasonable questions to rule out configuration issues, miniDSP recompiled the software, and resolved the issue. So anyone having the same issue should download the Oct 2022 update


----------



## hella356

DS-21 said:


> Fortunately unnecessary. I finally opened a ticket. After some reasonable questions to rule out configuration issues, miniDSP recompiled the software, and resolved the issue. So anyone having the same issue should download the Oct 2022 update


It looks like the update applies to Apple devices only. Are you using a Mac? The last few updates all seem to be Mac only, so I haven't bothered with them.


----------



## stmblaster

I have a question about Bass Management: Why use it?

I can't find any info on what it does better than simple Output crossovers and I've read through most Dirac Live threads here and searched miniDSP website too, but can't really grasp it.

Another thing I randomly discovered is you can use Gladen Mosconi DSP software (offline, without a DSP) to calculate AllPass filters for aligning phase at crossovers ("PhaseShift" is what they call it).


----------



## Anu2g

stmblaster said:


> I have a question about Bass Management: Why use it?
> 
> I can't find any info on what it does better than simple Output crossovers and I've read through most Dirac Live threads here and searched miniDSP website too, but can't really grasp it.
> 
> Another thing I randomly discovered is you can use Gladen Mosconi DSP software (offline, without a DSP) to calculate AllPass filters for aligning phase at crossovers ("PhaseShift" is what they call it).


The advantage to Bass Management (BM) is that is the HPF you apply there will apply to all the non-BM channels; i.e. cascaded crossovers to your tweets, mids, and mid-basses. Might not matter if you're using the APF filters already, though


----------



## DS-21

hella356 said:


> It looks like the update applies to Apple devices only. Are you using a Mac? The last few updates all seem to be Mac only, so I haven't bothered with them.


Yes, Mac household here.


----------



## hella356

DS-21 said:


> Yes, Mac household here.


Thanks. I figured I'd update if you were using a Windows device, but now it makes sense why you found an improvement.


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> The advantage to Bass Management (BM) is that is the HPF you apply there will apply to all the non-BM channels; i.e. cascaded crossovers to your tweets, mids, and mid-basses. Might not matter if you're using the APF filters already, though


that’s a good point I haven’t thought of.

it would change the APF layout , only on the midrange and tweeter.

when I measured the results it was with BM on.

had to bring an 8x12 into the house and measurements were made at the speaker to test for linear phase crossovers and it worked pretty good

At listening position I had to center the impulse at t=o (the peak) and use a 6cy window, and make sure nyquist phase was at 0.
All checked out good….

as I pulled away the window,I could see the reflections Coming into the measurements.

so in car, the linear phase attributes would be only valid at that one seat, unlike a true linear phase crossover which would be valid everywhere…

it didn’t appear that Dirac was getting the first wave, I am not entirely sure if it could in a car, even at a 1cy window the reflections were showing there uglyface a little bit, like a funky pseudo baffle step from various surfaces maybe… would have to look farther into it 

although that method should still be better then minimum phase crossovers, again, at that seat only.


----------



## stmblaster

I had my subwoofer set at -15dB (prior to measurement) and input signal is -10dB for all speakers.

How can I get my subwoofer response to be about +12dB? Considering the optimal Dirac auto target is right now around +2,5dB, I would need to increase subwoofer output by 9,5dB.

Also the same thing goes for midbass, which when lifting the auto target to +12dB gets some wild 11-12dB boost at some frequencies. Midbass would need about 7dB of more power before boosting with Dirac from what I can tell.

Do I just decrease midrange/tweeters from the Output tab or is there some other way? Or it doesn't matter at all if the signal is lowered by 10dB anyway? I can lower it to -20dB and still have enough volume (for my preference).

It's the only thing I can't really figure out from the guide, everything else + the APF substitution of crossovers during measurement ended in superb results. Thank you!


----------



## Anu2g

stmblaster said:


> I had my subwoofer set at -15dB (prior to measurement) and input signal is -10dB for all speakers.
> 
> How can I get my subwoofer response to be about +12dB? Considering the optimal Dirac auto target is right now around +2,5dB, I would need to increase subwoofer output by 9,5dB.
> 
> Also the same thing goes for midbass, which when lifting the auto target to +12dB gets some wild 11-12dB boost at some frequencies. Midbass would need about 7dB of more power before boosting with Dirac from what I can tell.
> 
> Do I just decrease midrange/tweeters from the Output tab or is there some other way? Or it doesn't matter at all if the signal is lowered by 10dB anyway? I can lower it to -20dB and still have enough volume (for my preference).
> 
> It's the only thing I can't really figure out from the guide, everything else + the APF substitution of crossovers during measurement ended in superb results. Thank you!
> 
> View attachment 350359
> 
> 
> View attachment 350360


Unfortunately, Dirac is always going to "normalize" the gain between all your drivers, so it will be hard to get the sub where you want it to be before Dirac without having Dirac cut it (since it sets gains based on Dirac's own curve) and then subsequently boost it (to match your curve). Take a look at how I handled this in my build thread here. Feel free to DM me if you have any questions on that.


----------



## Truthunter

Looking at those screenshots: Wouldn't adjusting the curtains so they are only approx 1 octave outside of the intended passbands eliminate the requirement for Dirac to boost more than 10db?


----------



## datooff

EQ and level match everything below 100hz manually and use curtain to not touch that region?


----------



## Truthunter

datooff said:


> EQ and level match everything below 100hz manually and use curtain to not touch that region?


No, that not what I meant. I meant just adjust the high curtain on the subwoofer down to ~120-150hz... For the midbass pull the low curtain up to ~35hz and the high curtain down to about an octave above where you plan to apply LPF.


----------



## stmblaster

Anu2g said:


> Unfortunately, Dirac is always going to "normalize" the gain between all your drivers, so it will be hard to get the sub where you want it to be before Dirac without having Dirac cut it (since it sets gains based on Dirac's own curve) and then subsequently boost it (to match your curve). Take a look at how I handled this in my build thread here. Feel free to DM me if you have any questions on that.


Ok so I changed the target curve for the subwoofer (8dB subtracted from all values of the target curve used for the rest of the speakers) and boosted the subwoofer from -15dB to -7dB and…subwoofer blends nicely, finally!

I tried measuring the speakers without crossovers or Dirac applied, to do some EQing before Dirac measurements like you mentioned, but my UMIk-1 microphone shows VERY different measurements in REW compared to Dirac measurements - peaks are louder, some weird roll-off happens after 4KHz in mids and after 5 KHz in tweeters for no reason, etc.

I have a UMI-1 from AudioFrog thst I can try with.



Truthunter said:


> Looking at those screenshots: Wouldn't adjusting the curtains so they are only approx 1 octave outside of the intended passbands eliminate the requirement for Dirac to boost more than 10db?


The image I uploaded is misleading, sorry. I do draw the curtains to the natural roll-off points of speakers or 1 octave away from crossover points.


----------



## Anu2g

stmblaster said:


> Ok so I changed the target curve for the subwoofer (8dB subtracted from all values of the target curve used for the rest of the speakers) and boosted the subwoofer from -15dB to -7dB and…subwoofer blends nicely, finally!
> 
> I tried measuring the speakers without crossovers or Dirac applied, to do some EQing before Dirac measurements like you mentioned, but my UMIk-1 microphone shows VERY different measurements in REW compared to Dirac measurements - peaks are louder, some weird roll-off happens after 4KHz in mids and after 5 KHz in tweeters for no reason, etc.
> 
> I have a UMI-1 from AudioFrog thst I can try with.
> 
> 
> 
> The image I uploaded is misleading, sorry. I do draw the curtains to the natural roll-off points of speakers or 1 octave away from crossover points.


Glad to hear that my subwoofer method worked for you. Re: applying PEQ, in my own build, I took a set of Dirac measurements and then applied PEQ based on what the set of Dirac measurements originally measured (I.e. I did not use pink noise / REW at all). Then I retook Dirac measurements with the PEQ applied.


----------



## datooff

Truthunter said:


> No, that not what I meant. I meant just adjust the high curtain on the subwoofer down to ~120-150hz... For the midbass pull the low curtain up to ~35hz and the high curtain down to about an octave above where you plan to apply LPF.


This is another option.
why not doing the way I mentioned. Curtains will affect only rta, not phase/impulse correction.


----------



## stmblaster

Anu2g said:


> Glad to hear that my subwoofer method worked for you. Re: applying PEQ, in my own build, I took a set of Dirac measurements and then applied PEQ based on what the set of Dirac measurements originally measured (I.e. I did not use pink noise / REW at all). Then I retook Dirac measurements with the PEQ applied.


Ah, I see. I just need to go through some trial and error then. Also, why 8dB drop on the subwoofer target? How did you end up at that?


----------



## Anu2g

stmblaster said:


> Ah, I see. I just need to go through some trial and error then. Also, why 8dB drop on the subwoofer target? How did you end up at that?


That seemed like the right balance for me, as far as only using Dirac to properly EQ to fit my curve (and not using it to boost the entire sub region)


----------



## datooff

Or another option - lowering the sub prior in cdsp plugin, using the same target curve for all speakers, just not heavy on the low end. ~ few db increasement. And then adjusting the gain of the sub in cdsp back again.


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> Or another option - lowering the sub prior in cdsp plugin, using the same target curve for all speakers, just not heavy on the low end. ~ few db increasement. And then adjusting the gain of the sub in cdsp back again.


You could do that. However you might find that your sub-to-midbass XO isn't going to sum exactly how you want it to, which could pull the bass to the back. Mainly because you'd be increasing your sub volume without increasing the bottom end of your mid-bass.


----------



## stmblaster

Anu2g said:


> That seemed like the right balance for me, as far as only using Dirac to properly EQ to fit my curve (and not using it to boost the entire sub region)


That makes sense, now even more trial and error to do 



Anu2g said:


> You could do that. However you might find that your sub-to-midbass XO isn't going to sum exactly how you want it to, which could pull the bass to the back. Mainly because you'd be increasing your sub volume without increasing the bottom end of your mid-bass.


This is what I tried, didn't work precisely because of that.


----------



## datooff

I unde


Anu2g said:


> You could do that. However you might find that your sub-to-midbass XO isn't going to sum exactly how you want it to, which could pull the bass to the back. Mainly because you'd be increasing your sub volume without increasing the bottom end of your mid-bass.


I understand that, midbass shouln't be flat, but with any method that plays with the sub level itself, if it will be too much - it will localize the sub.
stmblaster is trying to avoild dirac boosting the sub? My sub for example is at ~+10db usually in dirac.


----------



## oabeieo

stmblaster said:


> I had my subwoofer set at -15dB (prior to measurement) and input signal is -10dB for all speakers.
> 
> How can I get my subwoofer response to be about +12dB? Considering the optimal Dirac auto target is right now around +2,5dB, I would need to increase subwoofer output by 9,5dB.
> 
> Also the same thing goes for midbass, which when lifting the auto target to +12dB gets some wild 11-12dB boost at some frequencies. Midbass would need about 7dB of more power before boosting with Dirac from what I can tell.
> 
> Do I just decrease midrange/tweeters from the Output tab or is there some other way? Or it doesn't matter at all if the signal is lowered by 10dB anyway? I can lower it to -20dB and still have enough volume (for my preference).
> 
> It's the only thing I can't really figure out from the guide, everything else + the APF substitution of crossovers during measurement ended in superb results. Thank you!
> 
> View attachment 350359
> 
> 
> View attachment 350360


I would try moving your sub level up in target first 

I usually tune Dirac sub at -15 -20db also

with the APF method as long as your curtains are about an octave past your crossover (like @Truthunter said) there’s no need to worry about the gain

after Dirac crank it up on the bass knob

dirac will linearize the crossovers in the APF method and so there will be no “phase tracking” needed to sum properly

you can set the level that suits you at that point t with no I’ll effects other then over shooting the crossover,

but that’s no big deal when it’s linear phase!

have at it!

So a post Dirac sub bass may end up being at -7db or so for that added gain and still not break away from SQ or put the bass all the way to the rear

Here is some reading about phase tracking and how it’s fine to overshoot the crossover… when it’s summing proper…. When it’s made linear , the GD from the crossover doesn’t exist … so you can turn up the sub as much as you want and it will always sum properly as the crossover increases

Obviously, if you go too much precedents will take over and it will localize…. But it will still sum….



Woofer crossover & offset


----------



## stmblaster

I tried just letting Dirac do its thing like you suggested, post Dirac sub bass ending up at being a few decibels lower than expected.

I increased the sub output (left 10dB headroom in my latest measurements) and indeed I can't say I hear a difference versus lowering the sub target curve like Anug2 suggested. I guess both work just as good? (considering the end result; theoretically lowering the sub target would yield a more correct result)


----------



## oabeieo

stmblaster said:


> I tried just letting Dirac do its thing like you suggested, post Dirac sub bass ending up at being a few decibels lower than expected.
> 
> I increased the sub output (left 10dB headroom in my latest measurements) and indeed I can't say I hear a difference versus lowering the sub target curve like Anug2 suggested. I guess both work just as good? (considering the end result; theoretically lowering the sub target would yield a more correct result)


not necessarily either way will net the same result.

no matter where the gain is at, it will still follow the target that you put… so all the eq work and phase work is done the same ….

when matching it to the midbass, if you want it to follow your target exactly then don’t adjust anything after Dirac ….and to do it in your target..

Me personally I don’t listen like I’m at sound quality competition as a daily , I like way more bass!! So I set my bass knob to about -15db (ish) 
so that my sub level is relative the same as the rest of the speakers when it’s doing measurements… 

then I make my target that follows the entire response of the system

and then after Dirac, take a listen leaving everything the same and it will sound really good but it won’t have tons and tons of bass.. it’s not supposed to because it’s following a Target..

that’s when I crank up the bass knob for it daily enjoying

then when I do want to compete , I set the bass knob back to -15 db (ish) again and I know where it’s at…

but let’s say when I designed my target I wanted three or four more db then I defined in the target, well that’s easy just turn the bass knob up three or four more DB… if you over shoot the crossover by three or four hz , no big deal!!
it stays completely in the sound quality coherent area…

does that make sense….

Ultimately you should define the target the way you want it to sound… but if your like me and like wayyy more bass then what’s reasonable to define , just use the bass knob… 

if you are breaking more than 10 DB away from the highs, then the idea of a SQ car isn’t even a thing , it’s more a SQL car at that point

And I dare to suggest that’s how most of us probably listen on a daily driving kind of situation


----------



## stmblaster

That makes a lot of sense, thank you for explaining. The thing is after using Dirac the subwoofer/subbass volume seems too low, so much that muting the subwoofer doesn't change the sound much.

I compared it to Burmester OEM system in several Porsche and Mercedes-Benz and headphones tuned to Harman Target Curve which both sound similar in tonality in the bass region so I expected the Dirac +9-12dB bass to sound about the same. Is this a correct expectation?

I have never heard a custom SQ car before so there is nothing to compare to except OEM systems.


----------



## oabeieo

stmblaster said:


> That makes a lot of sense, thank you for explaining. The thing is after using Dirac the subwoofer/subbass volume seems too low, so much that muting the subwoofer doesn't change the sound much.
> 
> I compared it to Burmester OEM system in several Porsche and Mercedes-Benz and headphones tuned to Harman Target Curve which both sound similar in tonality in the bass region so I expected the Dirac +9-12dB bass to sound about the same. Is this a correct expectation?
> 
> I have never heard a custom SQ car before so there is nothing to compare to except OEM systems.


mit should definitely have a lot more sub bass if your box is capable even if target is +10db on the bass section….

but flat with everything else it’s about the same as a stock system , which in the SQ world is amazing (makes me pull my hair out I can’t hear any bass!!) so diffrent strikes for different folks I suppose

I like a lot of old recordings that just need 30db of bass boost to even hear it

I don’t like bumping down the road that’s ridiculous, I just like to hear the base nothing more….

i’ve been to a couple SQ shows now, it’s crazy the cars that when have no audible bass, and what little bass there is , it’s like they try to make it sound like it’s coming from the front and that’s the only thing that they care about… so yeah, I guess I mean a little bit different group of what I think of as SQ

when I go to a concert I hear way more bass then some of these cars are producing….


----------



## Iamsecond

I’m still lost about getting the right amount of bass. I update the software last night and have the auto curve now. However it drives me crazy knowing Dirac cuts out 18db of bass and then we have to devise a plan to get it back. Can someone please make a video about dealing with this. I am a visual learner. I have tried to follow all the written gymnastics about lowering here and adding there. I kinda get it but a quick video would do everyone a world of wonder.
Also with the new auto target feature do you need all the different groups or can you just leave them in a single group and adjust the target curve? 
I plagued with it some last night and have a decent tune but fighting low bass again. 
I actually set thesun level at -20 before adjusting but I have to put it back on +10 after adding back in 10db on the output. 
this can’t be the way it works in a ht environment by totally wiping out the bass.


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> I’m still lost about getting the right amount of bass. I update the software last night and have the auto curve now. However it drives me crazy knowing Dirac cuts out 18db of bass and then we have to devise a plan to get it back. Can someone please make a video about dealing with this. I am a visual learner. I have tried to follow all the written gymnastics about lowering here and adding there. I kinda get it but a quick video would do everyone a world of wonder.
> Also with the new auto target feature do you need all the different groups or can you just leave them in a single group and adjust the target curve?
> I plagued with it some last night and have a decent tune but fighting low bass again.
> I actually set thesun level at -20 before adjusting but I have to put it back on +10 after adding back in 10db on the output.
> this can’t be the way it works in a ht environment by totally wiping out the bass.



No video necessary, set your bass knob to -18db before you measure ….. 

After done , set it how u like


----------



## Iamsecond

oabeieo said:


> No video necessary, set your bass knob to -18db before you measure …..
> 
> After done , set it how u like


I set it to -20 before I measured. And then set the sun shelf on the target curve +12 and then after exporting I then added +10 on the output. And still do not have enough. 
mom apparently still not doing something right but thanks anyway.


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> I set it to -20 before I measured. And then set the sun shelf on the target curve +12 and then after exporting I then added +10 on the output. And still do not have enough.
> mom apparently still not doing something right but thanks anyway.


Are you doing a Multichannel tune ?

Or a two channel tune ?

If your midbass and sub are on same Dirac channels they could interfere and will cancel in the correction (I’ve seen it)

Also , are you setting up your “Dirac channels” and setting the sub as a sub ?


----------



## Iamsecond

oabeieo said:


> Are you doing a Multichannel tune ?
> 
> Or a two channel tune ?
> 
> If your midbass and sub are on same Dirac channels they could interfere and will cancel in the correction (I’ve seen it)
> 
> Also , are you setting up your “Dirac channels” and setting the sub as a sub ?


I’m setting it up exactly how the guide says to that was posted by anu.

I have done the measurement and put them in different groups like the guide says. This is what I am saying.
Last night I did a new tune in about 10-15 minutes or so. Decent tune but like always it sucks out the bass.


----------



## LinkyPwns

Iamsecond said:


> I’m setting it up exactly how the guide says to that was posted by anu.
> 
> I have done the measurement and put them in different groups like the guide says. This is what I am saying.
> Last night I did a new tune in about 10-15 minutes or so. Decent tune but like always it sucks out the bass.


where are you lowering you sub gain? Try keeping the channel(s) at 0db but use the remote to turn the sub level down - same setting next to master volume if your using the GUI


----------



## Iamsecond

LinkyPwns said:


> where are you lowering you sub gain? Try keeping the channel(s) at 0db but use the remote to turn the sub level down - same setting next to master volume if your using the GUI


I lowered it by typing in -20 on the small box labeled sub that is beside the box master volume in the gui.
I also tried lowering it with the remote. Is there a difference?

I thought the remote didn’t work when in use setting it up. Maybe that was the older version.


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> I’m setting it up exactly how the guide says to that was posted by anu.
> 
> I have done the measurement and put them in different groups like the guide says. This is what I am saying.
> Last night I did a new tune in about 10-15 minutes or so. Decent tune but like always it sucks out the bass.



Try downgrading tondirac 3.1.1


----------



## LinkyPwns

Iamsecond said:


> I lowered it by typing in -20 on the small box labeled sub that is beside the box master volume in the gui.
> I also tried lowering it with the remote. Is there a difference?
> 
> I thought the remote didn’t work when in use setting it up. Maybe that was the older version.


As long as you have your remote configured for the sub channel(s) it is the same thing. Earlier I was having troubles and I was lowering my volume at the speaker gain instead of the overall subwoofer gain. I honestly didn't think it would make a difference but it seemed to be better going the subwoofer volume instead of speaker gain.

The autotune did not give me enough bass either. I needed a bass heavy curve.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Set your sub to zone 2. Do your front stage tune. Get it right. Then go to zone 2. Run it thru dirac. And then all you gotta do is figure out the delay


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

Iamsecond said:


> I’m still lost about getting the right amount of bass. I update the software last night and have the auto curve now. However it drives me crazy knowing Dirac cuts out 18db of bass and then we have to devise a plan to get it back. Can someone please make a video about dealing with this. I am a visual learner. I have tried to follow all the written gymnastics about lowering here and adding there. I kinda get it but a quick video would do everyone a world of wonder.
> Also with the new auto target feature do you need all the different groups or can you just leave them in a single group and adjust the target curve?
> I plagued with it some last night and have a decent tune but fighting low bass again.
> I actually set thesun level at -20 before adjusting but I have to put it back on +10 after adding back in 10db on the output.
> this can’t be the way it works in a ht environment by totally wiping out the bass.


Just to be clear, your gains are set where you have enough output normally? 
Reset one of your presets to factory. Re enter all of your info into the preset. Leave the sub volume at 0 in the mixer and routing tabs. Use the sub knob and lower the sub volume in the preset you are using to -20 or -30. Run Dirac. 
I've had a ton of trouble with getting ta values as well as things like bass output to be consistent between runs of Dirac. By resetting the preset to factory default before running Dirac, it hasn't been an issue any more.


----------



## oabeieo

Thanks guys for the ideas 

think tho , he said he’s tuning at -18db … and it’s still suckin everything out , even after adding 18db plus 12db plus 10 more db

he should have plenty ….. sounds like a Dirac issue , he’s in 2ch and his midbass play too low or he need rool back software and make sure his Dirac channels are setup right


----------



## ean611

oabeieo said:


> Thanks guys for the ideas
> 
> think tho , he said he’s tuning at -18db … and it’s still suckin everything out , even after adding 18db plus 12db plus 10 more db
> 
> he should have plenty ….. sounds like a Dirac issue , he’s in 2ch and his midbass play too low or he need rool back software and make sure his Dirac channels are setup right


If you're in 2CH mode and seeing this, also check phase and target curve.

Make sure speakers are as time aligned as you can get, then phase. Next, check the target curve, and it's possible you need to modify that.


----------



## Iamsecond

Oh wow. Thanks guys. I’ll go back and check these things. I may do a complete reset and start over. The tune I have now is pretty great but with bass issues. It will get figured out.

I also need to figure out these all pass filters
But one thing at a time.

it’s got to be something I’m doing that I don’t realize.

so, when you run Dirac and get everything set do you disconnect the lap top before you listen or do you keep the laptop connected.

the bass does some funny things if you touch anything after the tune before it’s disconnected.

this thread is so deep it’s hard to find stuff that I remember has been discussed.

again, thanks forall the suggestions. I’ll post back


----------



## Iamsecond

LinkyPwns said:


> As long as you have your remote configured for the sub channel(s) it is the same thing. Earlier I was having troubles and I was lowering my volume at the speaker gain instead of the overall subwoofer gain. I honestly didn't think it would make a difference but it seemed to be better going the subwoofer volume instead of speaker gain.
> 
> The autotune did not give me enough bass either. I needed a bass heavy curve.


So what curve did you wind up using?


----------



## oabeieo

Don’t disconnect laptop

just go to volume tab and max the output

then you can listen and fine tune

all the sliders should be maxed before tuning except master

After tuning max the master so you can listen


----------



## Iamsecond

oabeieo said:


> Don’t disconnect laptop
> 
> just go to volume tab and max the output
> 
> then you can listen and fine tune
> 
> all the sliders should be maxed before tuning except master
> 
> After tuning max the master so you can listen


when you say all the sliders should be maxed which ones are you referring to?


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> when you say all the sliders should be maxed which ones are you referring to?


all of them (except the master, for tuning, after tuning it too gets maxed)


----------



## Iamsecond

oabeieo said:


> all of them (except the master, for tuning, after tuning it too gets maxed)


Are you saying all the sliders in the volume calibration screen where you have the master, mic and each speaker. 
oh, I keep them maxed and use the volume control to lower the levels to mid 20s.


----------



## sapphari

Time alignment and phase are easy to test. Just mute the mids and see if you suddenly get a lot more response back. I feel like that's unlikely the problem though.

I initially had trouble with bass output as well and eventually learned that the output levels for each channel (including the sub) are at least in part determined by the levels of each channel when you do the volume calibration in Dirac. When I lowered the volume of my sub (using the sub amp's remote gain), then took new Dirac sweep measurements, Dirac responded by increasing the gain of the sub channel. It made an 11db difference (initially -17dB, then -6dB after the change), while the other channels didn't change by more than 1dB.

For context, I followed Anu's guide. This single change is what unlocked bass issue for me.

Now when I want to hit the curve I set for Dirac, I simply adjust the gain knob to where is was when I took the measurements. Then I can go up or down from there to taste, which is what oabeieo has been describing.


----------



## Iamsecond

sapphari said:


> Time alignment and phase are easy to test. Just mute the mids and see if you suddenly get a lot more response back. I feel like that's unlikely the problem though.
> 
> I initially had trouble with bass output as well and eventually learned that the output levels for each channel (including the sub) are at least in part determined by the levels of each channel when you do the volume calibration in Dirac. When I lowered the volume of my sub (using the sub amp's remote gain), then took new Dirac sweep measurements, Dirac responded by increasing the gain of the sub channel. It made an 11db difference (initially -17dB, then -6dB after the change), while the other channels didn't change by more than 1dB.
> 
> For context, I followed Anu's guide. This single change is what unlocked bass issue for me.
> 
> Now when I want to hit the curve I set for Dirac, I simply adjust the gain knob to where is was when I took the measurements. Then I can go up or down from there to taste, which is what oabeieo has been describing.


Interesting. I never thought about doing that. I’ll try it. So maybe lowering the sun volume to -30 or so


----------



## oabeieo

Iamsecond said:


> Are you saying all the sliders in the volume calibration screen where you have the master, mic and each speaker.
> oh, I keep them maxed and use the volume control to lower the levels to mid 20s.


Okay good , yes if all the levels are maxed , use the outputs in the minidsp app (not Dirac app) to lower levels so they all same relative level 

Yes the master in Dirac app should be between -30-40db for measurements, then maxed afyer measurements and mic gain set so noise is about -12db ISH on all outs


----------



## oabeieo

As requested, it’s not complete but should help someone


----------



## Iamsecond

Sweet. That helps a lot.
BUT…. Lol. So I have a few more questions.
1. how did you get that to run all the speakers in a single sweep. That was cool if it’s what it looked like.
2. looks like you did a single sweep without all the other 8 sweeps in different locations. Am I seeing that correctly.
3. Thanks for showing the curtains. I guess each set of speakers needs to have the curtains taken to the vertical dash line.


----------



## oabeieo

That was the end of all the measurements, 
I wouldn’t boar everyone doing 9 measurements in a video ….. 

You could see there were other measurements, sorry I thought that would’ve been noticed


----------



## adamj.life

Very informative thread on Dirac. I am weighing up getting a C-DSP 8x12 DL because i need 12 channels, currently running a helix DSP3. But from what i can see your limited to 8 channels with Dirac. Is this correct? If so it is a bit odd given it is a 12 channel DSP.

More to the point I have a 5 way system. 2xTweets, 2xMids, 2xMidbass, 2x 10inch Subs (In seperate boxes in either rear quarter panel) and a rear 18 sub in IB.
Can Dirac deal with this setup?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

adamj.life said:


> Very informative thread on Dirac. I am weighing up getting a C-DSP 8x12 DL because i need 12 channels, currently running a helix DSP3. But from what i can see your limited to 8 channels with Dirac. Is this correct? If so it is a bit odd given it is a 12 channel DSP.
> 
> More to the point I have a 5 way system. 2xTweets, 2xMids, 2xMidbass, 2x 10inch Subs (In seperate boxes in either rear quarter panel) and a rear 18 sub in IB.
> Can Dirac deal with this setup?


Yes. What are the crossovers between the midbass and rear 10s?


----------



## oabeieo

adamj.life said:


> Very informative thread on Dirac. I am weighing up getting a C-DSP 8x12 DL because i need 12 channels, currently running a helix DSP3. But from what i can see your limited to 8 channels with Dirac. Is this correct? If so it is a bit odd given it is a 12 channel DSP.
> 
> More to the point I have a 5 way system. 2xTweets, 2xMids, 2xMidbass, 2x 10inch Subs (In seperate boxes in either rear quarter panel) and a rear 18 sub in IB.
> Can Dirac deal with this setup?


yes but I wouldn’t do a 5 way in minimum phase

Keep your 10s and 18 playing the same thing and your midbases also playing same frequencies and you’ll be good


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

^^^ what he said.


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

Has anybody encountered an issue where Dirac doesn't enter the gain and delay into the CDSP but does apply the curve and frequency corrections?

I will try factory resetting and then reload each slot and reload Dirac and see what happens.

I am on the newest CDSP and Dirac software.

Thanks for everyone's contributions.


----------



## teh_squirrel

There's a setting in dirac to disable gain and delay. I would check that first! It's in one of the drop down menus.


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

Thanks for the reply. I tried the above disabled and then enabled with no luck.

So after factory reset, I re measured the center position and then re uploaded and got the gains and delay to show up.

I wanted to re measure the rest of the positions so I did and then lost the gains and delay 😢.

Going to try downgrading Dirac to the older 3.3.3 version.


----------



## oabeieo

You have to read measure and start over 

there’s a glitch in 3.3, it sometimes misses gains and delays after measurements…

you can downgrade to 3.1 and it will work flawlessly, or just start over and re measureme


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

I tried that with no luck. It won't allow me to re measure center position because it says a different mic is plugged in so reopening a project is pointless other then to change the curve in all versions above 3.1

Factory resetting the cdsp and downgrading to 3.1 made no difference other then allowing me to remeasure when opening a project. 

I'm thinking it's a windows 11 thing or having upgraded the minidsp program.

I'll update if I figure it out.

Edit: I believe it has something to do with Windows 11, I used my older windows 10 laptop with Dirac 3.3.1 and it worked the first try.


----------



## ean611

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> I tried that with no luck. It won't allow me to re measure center position because it says a different mic is plugged in so reopening a project is pointless other then to change the curve in all versions above 3.1
> 
> Factory resetting the cdsp and downgrading to 3.1 made no difference other then allowing me to remeasure when opening a project.
> 
> I'm thinking it's a windows 11 thing or having upgraded the minidsp program.
> 
> I'll update if I figure it out.
> 
> Edit: I believe it has something to do with Windows 11, I used my older windows 10 laptop with Dirac 3.3.1 and it worked the first try.


I've never seen this problem on my Win11 Laptop. Only issue I've seen is I think I'm having my initial measurement off a little, as the delay between my mids is the same. Other drivers are fine.


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> I tried that with no luck. It won't allow me to re measure center position because it says a different mic is plugged in so reopening a project is pointless other then to change the curve in all versions above 3.1
> 
> Factory resetting the cdsp and downgrading to 3.1 made no difference other then allowing me to remeasure when opening a project.
> 
> I'm thinking it's a windows 11 thing or having upgraded the minidsp program.
> 
> I'll update if I figure it out.
> 
> Edit: I believe it has something to do with Windows 11, I used my older windows 10 laptop with Dirac 3.3.1 and it worked the first try.


You can’t reopen a project and remeasure, the project is corrupt

you have to start a brand new session a new project

all new measurements

it doesn’t do that very often , it’s a pain when it does

sorry your having issues , that’s an annoying one to say the least


----------



## ean611

Not sure why, but 3.4.4 autosave error's every time.


----------



## oabeieo

ean611 said:


> Not sure why, but 3.4.4 autosave error's every time.


I didn’t know 3.4 was out 
I was still on 3.3


----------



## ean611

oabeieo said:


> I didn’t know 3.4 was out
> I was still on 3.3


Found one of my issues. I swapped to Arc Audio CXLR limited edition amps. They are most definitely NOT balanced inputs. They have massive cross talk if used as balanced. Had to get RDL TX-A2 balanced line converters to swap MiniDSP Harmony from Balanced to Unbalanced. I expect it'll work better with no cross talk on measurement.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

ean611 said:


> Found one of my issues. I swapped to Arc Audio CXLR limited edition amps. They are most definitely NOT balanced inputs. They have massive cross talk if used as balanced. Had to get RDL TX-A2 balanced line converters to swap MiniDSP Harmony from Balanced to Unbalanced. I expect it'll work better with no cross talk on measurement.


The 8x12 doesn't output differential (balanced via RCA)


----------



## ean611

Picassotheimpaler said:


> The 8x12 doesn't output differential (balanced via RCA)


The MiniDSP Harmony does.


----------



## squiers007

ean611 said:


> The MiniDSP Harmony does.


They both use the same SHARC chipset... Are you sure? The Harmony is essentially an 8x12 with a built in amp isn't it? 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

ean611 said:


> The MiniDSP Harmony does.


Duh should have read closer lol. Oh, so you're using the amp outputs connected to RCA ends to go to individual amps?
Why use the harmony then? Cause youre getting an amplified version of a 8x12 for nearly the same price?
Oh, and how many Dirac outs does the harmony have? Assuming the same 8 as the 8x12 since it uses the same chip, but it doesn't specify on the website


----------



## ean611

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Duh should have read closer lol. Oh, so you're using the amp outputs connected to RCA ends to go to individual amps?
> Why use the harmony then? Cause youre getting an amplified version of a 8x12 for nearly the same price?
> Oh, and how many Dirac outs does the harmony have? Assuming the same 8 as the 8x12 since it uses the same chip, but it doesn't specify on the website


The Harmony is hte same as hte 8x12, just no analog inputs, and it has the 12x40w output, but each of those can be set to "line level", but it's balanced output, not single ended. So interfacing with Class AB amps is an issue.

EDIT: To confirm, it's the same DIRAC wise, 8 channels. The Harmony uses the same DIRAC plug in program to control it as the 8x12 DL. Only difference is you can swap channels from BTL, PBTL (amp) to Line

I got the Harmony because I was only using the digital input, and I was using the amp channels for tweeters. Also came in handy when I had to swap an amp, so I could run most of the car (except sub) off of the Harmony. That 40w*12 worked far better than expected. Frankly, I ran out of room at high volume, but up until then, it's very solid. Even driving some L8Se dust caps. Also midrange was TB 1364SA (so 8 ohm, so even less efficient). If one has more efficient midrange / woofers? The Harmony can handle enough to make many folks happy.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler

ean611 said:


> The Harmony is hte same as hte 8x12, just no analog inputs, and it has the 12x40w output, but each of those can be set to "line level", but it's balanced output, not single ended. So interfacing with Class AB amps is an issue.
> 
> EDIT: To confirm, it's the same DIRAC wise, 8 channels. The Harmony uses the same DIRAC plug in program to control it as the 8x12 DL. Only difference is you can swap channels from BTL, PBTL (amp) to Line
> 
> I got the Harmony because I was only using the digital input, and I was using the amp channels for tweeters. Also came in handy when I had to swap an amp, so I could run most of the car (except sub) off of the Harmony. That 40w*12 worked far better than expected. Frankly, I ran out of room at high volume, but up until then, it's very solid. Even driving some L8Se dust caps. Also midrange was TB 1364SA (so 8 ohm, so even less efficient). If one has more efficient midrange / woofers? The Harmony can handle enough to make many folks happy.


Cool, I didn't know you could switch it to line level! If I would have known that I would have went with the harmony to have the diff out! Still may end up getting one to run the system in the girlfriends car at some point. Crazy it's only like $100 difference in price.


----------



## ean611

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Cool, I didn't know you could switch it to line level! If I would have known that I would have went with the harmony to have the diff out! Still may end up getting one to run the system in the girlfriends car at some point. Crazy it's only like $100 difference in price.


The amp in it is phenomenal. The limitation is that it's "only" 40w. For a midrange driver, most will be ok with this. For a woofer, a sensitive one (or 2 ohm run at 80w) will also be ok. May have a slightly lower max volume than a big 150w amp.

Subs? Nah, you'll probably need an amp.


----------



## hella356

ean611 said:


> The amp in it is phenomenal. The limitation is that it's "only" 40w. For a midrange driver, most will be ok with this. For a woofer, a sensitive one (or 2 ohm run at 80w) will also be ok. May have a slightly lower max volume than a big 150w amp.
> 
> Subs? Nah, you'll probably need an amp.


The specs say:
12 x 40 W RMS (4 Ω load, BTL mode)
6 x 80 W RMS (2 Ω load, PBTL mode) 

That seems a strange setup. Usually bridging increases power, but raises the lowest Ohm load allowable. Like amp specs reading something like:

100W x 2 at 2Ω / 50W x 2 at 4Ω
100W x 1 at 4Ω

If your speakers are 4Ω, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to bridging the Harmony. Am I understanding this correctly?


----------



## Impossible Bill

It's not a typical amp it will only increase power on a channel at 2ohm load. Bridging 2 ch does nothing more at 4 ohms except use another channel. Not being able to bridge kind of sucked for me with 5 channels. Tweeters are >100db / 1w so they got the 5w they need but 40W not great on 6,5's. I put 80W to sub @ 2ohms at least.

At SVR a judge actually pulled out the DB meter to make sure it was loud enough. Just made the 105db high linearity mark with everything maxed out. Still had very little sub bass.
I don't think there are many system layouts where 12x40W is ideal but for the little extra $$ and simplicity it was perfect to get what we needed. I'm still glad I bought it, I can add rear speakers for the kids or play with other ideas pretty easily.

I do hate the flying leads for speaker wires it comes with. I added barrier strips to terminate so I can switch things up easily. If I had an amp fail i can put the Harmony amp back in action. When I did driver measurements the remunerations were all in one place.


----------



## doitor

Huge thanks to everyone that made this guide possible.
Thanks to it I did my first Dirac tune last night and the results are pretty impressive.
Theres definitely a learning curve, but this guide makes it a smooth sailing experience.

J.


----------



## bertholomey

doitor said:


> Huge thanks to everyone that made this guide possible.
> Thanks to it I did my first Dirac tune last night and the results are pretty impressive.
> Theres definitely a learning curve, but this guide makes it a smooth sailing experience.
> 
> J.


Just found your ‘new’ thread this morning - I’m looking forward to going through it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ean611

hella356 said:


> The specs say:
> 12 x 40 W RMS (4 Ω load, BTL mode)
> 6 x 80 W RMS (2 Ω load, PBTL mode)
> 
> That seems a strange setup. Usually bridging increases power, but raises the lowest Ohm load allowable. Like amp specs reading something like:
> 
> 100W x 2 at 2Ω / 50W x 2 at 4Ω
> 100W x 1 at 4Ω
> 
> If your speakers are 4Ω, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to bridging the Harmony. Am I understanding this correctly?


They have current limiters on the output stage. There is no benefit to bridging a 4 ohm driver.


----------



## doitor

bertholomey said:


> Just found your ‘new’ thread this morning - I’m looking forward to going through it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Might want to take a new look.
Its done. Woot, woot.

J


----------



## hella356

ean611 said:


> They have current limiters on the output stage. There is no benefit to bridging a 4 ohm driver.


It's an odd config. Something like 20Wx2 + 60Wx2 + 160Wx2 (480W total) would be pretty ideal for a 3-way. Oh well.


----------



## hella356

Anu2g said:


> Yep, I use a separate target for the sub group (in my case, Group 4).


Would you happen to have your two target files handy? I downloaded your target curve file (I realize this won't necessarily be the ideal curve in my car, but is probably a good starting point) from the guide, but that covers the full range. Does your sub target only have frequencies appropriate to the intended range of the sub? Does your main target not include the points for the sub target?


----------



## Anu2g

hella356 said:


> Would you happen to have your two target files handy? I downloaded your target curve file (I realize this won't necessarily be the ideal curve in my car, but is probably a good starting point) from the guide, but that covers the full range. Does your sub target only have frequencies appropriate to the intended range of the sub? Does your main target not include the points for the sub target?


See attached! Both curves are the same, just one has 8dB subtracted from all points. Of course I adjust the Dirac curtains accordingly.


----------



## hella356

Anu2g said:


> See attached! Both curves are the same, just one has 8dB subtracted from all points. Of course I adjust the Dirac curtains accordingly.


Awesome! Thank you.


----------



## oabeieo

ean611 said:


> Found one of my issues. I swapped to Arc Audio CXLR limited edition amps. They are most definitely NOT balanced inputs. They have massive cross talk if used as balanced. Had to get RDL TX-A2 balanced line converters to swap MiniDSP Harmony from Balanced to Unbalanced. I expect it'll work better with no cross talk on measurement.


it’s not differential balanced. It’s pseudo balanced (very very similar) it uses common mode rejection on minidsps input rcas the outputs are plain old single ended RCA and I want to say there 200 ohm or ground (can’t remember)


----------



## oabeieo

ean611 said:


> The Harmony is hte same as hte 8x12, just no analog inputs, and it has the 12x40w output, but each of those can be set to "line level", but it's balanced output, not single ended. So interfacing with Class AB amps is an issue.
> 
> EDIT: To confirm, it's the same DIRAC wise, 8 channels. The Harmony uses the same DIRAC plug in program to control it as the 8x12 DL. Only difference is you can swap channels from BTL, PBTL (amp) to Line
> 
> I got the Harmony because I was only using the digital input, and I was using the amp channels for tweeters. Also came in handy when I had to swap an amp, so I could run most of the car (except sub) off of the Harmony. That 40w*12 worked far better than expected. Frankly, I ran out of room at high volume, but up until then, it's very solid. Even driving some L8Se dust caps. Also midrange was TB 1364SA (so 8 ohm, so even less efficient). If one has more efficient midrange / woofers? The Harmony can handle enough to make many folks happy.


that I didn’t know ,

however mini DSP balanced has always used Phoenix typ connectors for there balanced

if they are using positive or negative speaker leads , where is the -sig coming from for balanced

balanced requires 3 terminals to work , + and a - and a gnd which is a return

so I’m not exactly sure how that works

do u have a pic of the terminals


----------



## Impossible Bill

Harmony has flying leads with speaker wires.


----------



## oabeieo

Impossible Bill said:


> Harmony has flying leads with speaker wires.


flying ? Huh ?????


----------



## Impossible Bill

There are 2 molex plugs on the Harmony with 6 speaker wires 6" long to connect to on each of the 2 connectors ( ch 1-6 and ch 7-12)


----------



## oabeieo

so it is balanced ! you need a transformer to change it to single ended as it has no return

so what I would do is get a balanced line adapter from somewhere, or use a transformer (GLI ground loop isolator)

looks like they recommended a transformer, so a ground loop isolator should do the trick


----------



## MaximumEnnui

Well I finally tried the new quick tune to install my (new to me) 3 way front stage.

It works great! After reading @Anu2g 's writeup of @oabeieo 's method, and reading @Anu2g 's tip on the mic needing to be further from the left speakers if the stage is pulling right my stage is NAILED to the dash.

I have to admit I didn't fully trust the methodology at first because of his candor, but @oabeieo is a mad scientist, and the other members here have worked off of his ideas to make it repeatable and digestible.

Strengths of this method:
1) Fantastic results: tonality, imaging, and sub placement
2) No need to extensively gain match and auto eq speakers in REW
3) works much better with the Dirac software workflow. My first tune with it took about 30 minutes which was about 1/5th the time it took making a 2 channel Dirac setup
4) the majority of the fine tuning will take place in the Dirac software through adjusting curtains or target curves
5) lets you play with crossovers without needing any additional work than changing them in the MiniDSP plugin (great if you have problems with midbass or bass localizations)

Things that still bug me:
1) unlike the HD 2X4 there isn't a way to apply PEQ to the input channels for fine tuning in the MiniDSP plugin, or to link for instance _all_ left channels, etc
2) I seem to lose a lot of gain. I put this back in the output tab but that's probably not ideal
3) It seems like a waste to use so many DSP taps on stuff that's completely outside of the passband. I wish there were a way to set curtains individually for each driver within the groups
4) the back and forth between the minidsp plugin and dirac software, even though much better with this workflow, is a pain in the ass. For instance, if load a tune preset into a slot i still need to open dirac and save the filter export to that slot.

Questions:
1) Have more people experimented with how well having multiple dirac groups works? Is there more clarification on what's best practice when using this method?
2) Is there a simple way to apply the same PEQ to all outputs for fine tuning bass response?
3) Is there a way to play pink noise or sweeps to the minidsp 8x12? My car stereo doesn't recognize WAV files or a computer as a USB input, so my only way of validating is through apps on my phone which I don't necessarily trust.

Here's the L/R RTA results from my first effort. I don't put a too much stock into it since when i was trying to EQ down peaks my results got worse (stage started to wander), but the results definitely summed together properly and there aren't any glaring channel matching or nodal issues besides for the left null at 100 hz.


----------



## squiers007

A lot of people are using 3 or 4 groups in Dirac, essentially 1 group for each set of drivers like you mentioned. When doing 3 groups put the sub and midbass together. I prefer this method and set my curtains 1 octave below and above my xovers. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

MaximumEnnui said:


> Well I finally tried the new quick tune to install my (new to me) 3 way front stage.
> 
> It works great! After reading @Anu2g 's tip on the mic needing to be further from the left speakers if the stage is pulling right my stage is NAILED to the dash.
> 
> I have to admit I didn't fully trust the methodology at first because of his candor, but @oabeieo is a mad scientist, and the other members here have worked off of his ideas to make this work.
> 
> Strengths of this method:
> 1) Fantastic results: tonality, imaging, and sub placement
> 2) No need to extensively gain match and auto eq speakers in REW
> 3) works much better with the Dirac software workflow. My first tune with it took about 30 minutes which was about 1/5th the time it took making a 2 channel Dirac setup
> 4) the majority of the fine tuning will take place in the Dirac software through adjusting curtains or target curves
> 5) lets you play with crossovers without needing any additional work than changing them in the MiniDSP plugin (great if you have problems with midbass or bass localizations)
> 
> Things that still bug me:
> 1) unlike the HD 2X4 there isn't a way to apply PEQ to the input channels for fine tuning in the MiniDSP plugin, or to link for instance _all_ left channels, etc
> 2) I seem to lose a lot of gain. I put this back in the output tab but that's probably not ideal
> 3) It seems like a waste to use so many DSP taps on stuff that's completely outside of the passband. I wish there were a way to set curtains individually for each driver within the groups
> 4) the back and forth between the minidsp plugin and dirac software, even though much better with this workflow, is a pain in the ass. For instance, if load a tune preset into a slot i still need to open dirac and save the filter export to that slot.
> 
> Questions:
> 1) Have more people experimented with how well having multiple dirac groups works? Is there more clarification on what's best practice when using this method?
> 2) Is there a simple way to apply the same PEQ to all outputs for fine tuning bass response?
> 3) Is there a way to play pink noise or sweeps to the minidsp 8x12? My car stereo doesn't recognize WAV files or a computer as a USB input, so my only way of validating is through apps on my phone which I don't necessarily trust.
> 
> Here's the L/R RTA results from my first effort. I don't put a too much stock into it since when i was trying to EQ down peaks my results got worse (stage started to wander), but the results definitely summed together properly and there aren't any glaring channel matching or nodal issues besides for the left null at 100 hz.
> 
> View attachment 359886



It was actually my tip lol , but me and Anu are both caught up so it’s the same thing lol…. 


I’m glad you were getting it to work response looks nice


And yeah I’ve tried doing three groups or four groups as well and Logan is actually correct it can be quite good, especially if your measured response is already pretty decent from the beginning


And it’s not a waste to use DSP outside the pass band, that is the area that is area I believe the most important, the summing , that is critical area to get right and exactly where you wanna focus your fir power…

Inside the passband regular minimum phase eq is really all you should use, that will fix phase there…. 

As long as your drivers are geometrically aligned in time, eq fixes the rest of the phase , it’s the crossover area that needs group delay removed and the crossover itself where the low and hi sides are not in tune with eachother 

Mix that with a poor stop banned response and it won’t sum right, you’ll be able to look like speaker locations easier and you’re much more prone to crossover cancellation in the stop band


----------



## MaximumEnnui

oabeieo said:


> It was actually my tip lol , but me and Anu are both caught up so it’s the same thing lol….
> 
> "Jargon"


Yes I recognize it was your (brilliant) idea. Sorry if the post didn't make it clear. No offense--you are clearly a nonlinear thinker with a ton of expertise--I just can't understand the cut of your jib in a lot of your posts. It's just beyond my comprehension. Anu and others put it into a user guide that a dummy like me could understand that had clear enough reasoning I decided to try it.

As far as the separate groups: should i use one target curve for all Dirac groups and adjust the windows for an octave past the crossovers? Or is there some other step i need to perform? Also, can I split up groups working from a Dirac project i've already performed measurements for? I've found that a good set of measurements with solid imaging and tonality is pretty fundamental, and I would prefer to not remeasure anything so that A/Bing has one fewer major variable.

And as far as crossover summation: hearing the results and seeing the summation I agree completely and agree with the operating principal. Driver integration is completely seamless with almost 0 work. However, surely filters are being wasted when it's correcting response more than an octave below the crossover frequency?


----------



## Anu2g

oabeieo said:


> It was actually my tip lol , but me and Anu are both caught up so it’s the same thing lol….


Lol. I'd be the last person trying to steal credit for anything. I think the first or second line in the guide shouts all the people who's ideas got translated into the guide.


----------



## MaximumEnnui

Anu2g said:


> Lol. I'd be the last person trying to steal credit for anything. I think the first or second line in the guide shouts all the people who's ideas got translated into the guide.


alright alright edited my post for clarity

I really appreciate how easy your guide is to follow


----------



## Anu2g

MaximumEnnui said:


> alright alright edited my post for clarity
> 
> I really appreciate how easy your guide is to follow


Lol; I was just poking fun at @oabeieo


----------



## oabeieo

Anu2g said:


> Lol; I was just poking fun at @oabeieo



Yeah Anu stepped up and helped a lot lol , i have 5 kids and a cra cra wife so me write a manual …. Hahahahahaha , yeah not gonna happen…. 

Meantime Anu becomes super knowledgeable, I love it when learning and finding out why things tick happens (I wish my installers would do more of it) lol 

10 more years my youngest will be grown….. I’ll write a novel by then I promise 🥳🥳


----------



## oabeieo

MaximumEnnui said:


> Yes I recognize it was your (brilliant) idea. Sorry if the post didn't make it clear. No offense--you are clearly a nonlinear thinker with a ton of expertise--I just can't understand the cut of your jib in a lot of your posts. It's just beyond my comprehension. Anu and others put it into a user guide that a dummy like me could understand that had clear enough reasoning I decided to try it.
> 
> As far as the separate groups: should i use one target curve for all Dirac groups and adjust the windows for an octave past the crossovers? Or is there some other step i need to perform? Also, can I split up groups working from a Dirac project i've already performed measurements for? I've found that a good set of measurements with solid imaging and tonality is pretty fundamental, and I would prefer to not remeasure anything so that A/Bing has one fewer major variable.
> 
> And as far as crossover summation: hearing the results and seeing the summation I agree completely and agree with the operating principal. Driver integration is completely seamless with almost 0 work. However, surely filters are being wasted when it's correcting response more than an octave below the crossover frequency?



Oh most of my job erish is actually just that … jibberish 🥳


So , yeah , remember as frequency decreases, wavelength increases, which means a longer time period to complete one cycle. 

So the effect of stop band interaction really becomes more and more important as frequencies drop….

But on the other side of the same token, as frequencies decrease, attenuation increases.
Example, a BW6 has just about the same amount of attenuation at 30hz as a LR4has at 300hz (and that is just spit balling numbers) 

So you have two different things reacting on each other but there still is the need for stop band coherence… we notice and can hear about -17db down, but the tiny tiny air movements deep in the stop band of drivers still influence other drivers and more importantly influence the pass band of itself…

Everything is harmonics… if 200 is out of time and 400,800,1600,3200,6400,12,200, 24,000 are all in perfect time that 200hz timing error will be noticed about 3X up… so 400,800,1600 would be noticeable difference…. And 100,50 and 25 

That’s one example of one frequency, now think reality , with comb filtering , and all the other things that could cause a time change , the whole dam spectrum is riddled with timing per frequency errors…. Excess GD you could measure it and excess phase 


If you ever notice , excess phase and measured phase look almost the same in a car…. That tells us a ton of what we hear is mixed phase. A mix of reflected and direct sound….. so much so it’s almost safe to say there is no direct sound in a car. 

So I wouldn’t think about how far the speaker is attenuated as much as what is happening between the speaker while it’s being attenuated and comparing the timing of it with the other speakers and reflections in the system. Then all of a sudden the stop band is hyper critical to get right , because in a 4 way it’s not just one speaker it’s rolling off against, its 2… because there surly will be about speaker deep in its attenuation in the crossover zone of two other speakers… 

So yeah , I would suggest about 3 octaves up and down of the crossover frequency frequency and time of each driver is hyper critical to get right, or it will push and pull on other drivers in the system…. Even a little bit is too much

A phase change by itself is no big deal, when summing with 1 or more other things even a small phase change can wreak havoc , and that is what summing is in its essence


Mute all your speakers except sub , then play a 300hz tone and a 1 k tone through the sun with its crossover turned on 

You’ll be quite surprised how loud you can hear those tones….


----------



## oabeieo

The maker of rephase pos I believe stated once and don’t quote me something to the effect of phase being important all the way into the noise floor…… my noise floor is usually at 30db if I measure at 100, that’s -60db of gain. That’s way way way down into the stop band….


----------



## ean611

oabeieo said:


> so it is balanced ! you need a transformer to change it to single ended as it has no return
> 
> so what I would do is get a balanced line adapter from somewhere, or use a transformer (GLI ground loop isolator)
> 
> looks like they recommended a transformer, so a ground loop isolator should do the trick
> View attachment 356907


I gave up on this honestly. If I want to run Class D amps, this works fine, but after trying isolation transformers, and full balanced to unbalanced items (RDL etc), got a 8x12DL instead. 

The Harmony is great if you want to run class D amps. If one goes to Biketronics Inc and contacts them for their Hypex NC500 based amp, you'd have an amazing setup. If I wanted to use the Arc X2 1200.6 more? It'd also be fine. Balanced inputs on Arc SE or Zapco amp? Also fine. 

Since I want to use some Class AB amps, ended up with the 8x12 DL. Guess Harmony may end up in for sale forum at some point. Honestly, it's great with the limitation that connecting to unbalanced input on a Class AB is a problem.


----------



## squiers007

MaximumEnnui said:


> As far as the separate groups: should i use one target curve for all Dirac groups and adjust the windows for an octave past the crossovers? Or is there some other step i need to perform? Also, can I split up groups working from a Dirac project i've already performed measurements for? I've found that a good set of measurements with solid imaging and tonality is pretty fundamental, and I would prefer to not remeasure anything so that A/Bing has one fewer major variable.
> 
> And as far as crossover summation: hearing the results and seeing the summation I agree completely and agree with the operating principal. Driver integration is completely seamless with almost 0 work. However, surely filters are being wasted when it's correcting response more than an octave below the crossover frequency?


You can change groups and alter curves on saved projects. No issues here. The only reason you'd need to take new measurements is if you are using the APF method and change xover frequencies.


----------



## MaximumEnnui

squiers007 said:


> You can change groups and alter curves on saved projects. No issues here. The only reason you'd need to take new measurements is if you are using the APF method and change xover frequencies.


Thanks!

I might put in an apf to account for my protective caps and remeasure (since those will definitely affect the XO passband), otherwise i'm not yet convinced the juice is worth the squeeze for how much extra complexity it adds to the tuning method


----------



## squiers007

MaximumEnnui said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I might put in an apf to account for my protective caps and remeasure (since those will definitely affect the XO passband), otherwise i'm not yet convinced the juice is worth the squeeze for how much extra complexity it adds to the tuning method


You do not need an APF since the protective filter is already there when you take the measurements. You only need APFs (or rather if you choose to use APFs), when you are taking measurements with xovers disabled because they mimic the phase shift that will occur once you enable the xovers.


----------



## MaximumEnnui

squiers007 said:


> You do not need an APF since the protective filter is already there when you take the measurements. You only need APFs (or rather if you choose to use APFs), when you are taking measurements with xovers disabled because they mimic the phase shift that will occur once you enable the xovers.


I guess part of my understanding why the quick method works so well was that Dirac couldn't account for the phase shift of the crossovers. If I don't need an APF for the protective cap why not then why does dirac not work well with individual target curves for each driver after the crossover has been set? I'm just trying to understand the reasoning in the method so i can hopefully contribute.


----------



## MaximumEnnui

squiers007 said:


> You do not need an APF since the protective filter is already there when you take the measurements. You only need APFs (or rather if you choose to use APFs), when you are taking measurements with xovers disabled because they mimic the phase shift that will occur once you enable the xovers.


I guess what I'm wondering is that if Dirac can linearize the phase associated with a protective crossover, why not set targets using Jazzi's sheet and use crossovers in the minidsp plugin, but before or after measuring in dirac apply APFs that have an inverse phase relationship with the set crossovers? I guess that would be the same result as the "no apf" method but in that way you aren't wasting taps on equalizing and linearizing the response outside of the bandpass.


----------



## squiers007

MaximumEnnui said:


> I guess what I'm wondering is that if Dirac can linearize the phase associated with a protective crossover, why not set targets using Jazzi's sheet and use crossovers in the minidsp plugin, but before or after measuring in dirac apply APFs that have an inverse phase relationship with the set crossovers? I guess that would be the same result as the "no apf" method but in that way you aren't wasting taps on equalizing and linearizing the response outside of the bandpass.


@oabeieo @Truthunter thoughts? My brain quite on my today. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

MaximumEnnui said:


> I guess what I'm wondering is that if Dirac can linearize the phase associated with a protective crossover, why not set targets using Jazzi's sheet and use crossovers in the minidsp plugin, but before or after measuring in dirac apply APFs that have an inverse phase relationship with the set crossovers? I guess that would be the same result as the "no apf" method but in that way you aren't wasting taps on equalizing and linearizing the response outside of the bandpass.


The APFs only apply the same phase change as the crossovers... not inverse. That's why we apply the APF pre-Dirac and then remove them and activate xovers after. Dirac corrects for the phase change without seeing the amplitude change.
Also, prior to this new method, some of us experimented with using driver specific targets generated with Jazzi's spreadsheet. It didn't work well because Dirac uses the default target to level match between channels instead of using the level differences between the actual loaded targets. So basically 20hz was always only ~5db higher than 20khz regardless of the individual targets loaded.


----------



## MaximumEnnui

Truthunter said:


> The APFs only apply the same phase change as the crossovers... not inverse.
> 
> Also, prior to this new method, some of us experimented with using driver specific targets generated with Jazzi's spreadsheet. It didn't work well because Dirac uses the default target to level match between channels instead of using the level differences between the actual loaded targets. So basically 20hz was always only ~5db higher than 20khz regardless of the individual targets loaded.


Since an APF can make the same phase change as a HPF or LPF while keeping unity gain, couldn't it also introduce the opposite phase change? I've tried educate myself a bit on this but my experience with fourier transforms etc ended in school 10 years ago.



Truthunter said:


> Also, prior to this new method, some of us experimented with using driver specific targets generated with Jazzi's spreadsheet. It didn't work well because Dirac uses the default target to level match between channels instead of using the level differences between the actual loaded targets. So basically 20hz was always only ~5db higher than 20khz regardless of the individual targets loaded.


Is this the primary reason it's recommended to have the midbasses and subs in the same group? Also that's a bummer since it seems like that would be something easy for the Dirac developers to implement (not that they would spend the time to do it--they seem mostly interested in landing OEM contracts)


----------



## oabeieo

MaximumEnnui said:


> Since an APF can make the same phase change as a HPF or LPF while keeping unity gain, couldn't it also introduce the opposite phase change? I've tried educate myself a bit on this but my experience with fourier transforms etc ended in school 10 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the primary reason it's recommended to have the midbasses and subs in the same group? Also that's a bummer since it seems like that would be something easy for the Dirac developers to implement (not that they would spend the time to do it--they seem mostly interested in landing OEM contracts)



No , opposite would require an fir filter….

That’s exactly what Dirac uses to correct the phase shift from the crossover/APF….

A minimum phase filter only goes in one direction, it requires an fir filter to run the filter again backwards to remove the phase shift 

Download rephase and do some simulations 
You’ll see , you can simulate both filters very easy and seeing makes it very simple


----------



## Impossible Bill

Truthunter said:


> Also, prior to this new method, some of us experimented with using driver specific targets generated with Jazzi's spreadsheet. It didn't work well because Dirac uses the default target to level match between channels instead of using the level differences between the actual loaded targets. So basically 20hz was always only ~5db higher than 20khz regardless of the individual targets loaded.


I really would like to hear these results and discuss them further. I went the individual target route by experimenting with xovers which required delay and phase settings in the plug in. I had the mindset that Dirac would handle phase and I should focus on time and amplitude. 
My xovers were all biquads so I've been lazy about all the cut and paste after APF / Dirac measurement and just ran Dirac with the xovers in place. I've been tuning and though I hate the delay in actually hearing changes; the phase correction and resolution make up for that. I haven't run into amplitude or level matching issues. My total deviation is probably ~9db in Dirac targets, no idea what RTA would show. 
I can't help but wonder if I wasted 6 months getting to this point. My guess is the path is took has already been tried.


----------



## Truthunter

Impossible Bill said:


> I really would like to hear these results and discuss them further. I went the individual target route by experimenting with xovers which required delay and phase settings in the plug in. I had the mindset that Dirac would handle phase and I should focus on time and amplitude.
> My xovers were all biquads so I've been lazy about all the cut and paste after APF / Dirac measurement and just ran Dirac with the xovers in place. I've been tuning and though I hate the delay in actually hearing changes; the phase correction and resolution make up for that. I haven't run into amplitude or level matching issues. My total deviation is probably ~9db in Dirac targets, no idea what RTA would show.
> I can't help but wonder if I wasted 6 months getting to this point. My guess is the path is took has already been tried.


To verify what I think your stating: Are you assigning a Dirac channel per driver (multi-channel) and loading custom targets per driver group in the Dirac filter design screen? I ask because I thought from discussing with you at the Ian's meet in the fall that you had only been trying 2ch Dirac tunes?


----------



## Impossible Bill

Yes. Since I just got the amps installed I didn't mess with Dirac measurement I just tweaked the target curves. I finally got to a quiet place over thanksgiving and did a 5ch tune (1 ch per driver) . I left all plug in settings (levels, time, phase, xover) active. I use the target curves to adjust frequency response. 
I didn't want to have replace all the xover biquads so I didn't do the apf method. My logic was the magnitude change wouldn't matter with separate targets since my xovers blended very well. It's a very different car since Ian's and I'm curious if I should try to remeasure with APF. 
It seems like what I've done has already been tried and the APF method is superior. Am I missing something? I guess the next meetup is the best chance to have people who've done both to listen and advise.


----------



## Truthunter

Impossible Bill said:


> Yes. Since I just got the amps installed I didn't mess with Dirac measurement I just tweaked the target curves. I finally got to a quiet place over thanksgiving and did a 5ch tune (1 ch per driver) . I left all plug in settings (levels, time, phase, xover) active. I use the target curves to adjust frequency response.
> I didn't want to have replace all the xover biquads so I didn't do the apf method. My logic was the magnitude change wouldn't matter with separate targets since my xovers blended very well. It's a very different car since Ian's and I'm curious if I should try to remeasure with APF.
> It seems like what I've done has already been tried and the APF method is superior. Am I missing something? I guess the next meetup is the best chance to have people who've done both to listen and advise.


It would be interesting to see the filter design screen from this tune showing the targets/curtains for each group all a once. Also would be interesting to see how it would RTA compared to the overall planned target.


----------



## Impossible Bill

I haven't done an RTA measurement since before SVR but I'm liking the results I've gotten so far by ear. The best way to describe my targets is a bit lumpy. I really like the zoom feature. I set control points as sort of anchors then move a center point to work in a specific area in small increments. Dirac is my 30 band parametric. Last change I made was .1 DB over maybe half an octave and i can hear a clear difference.


----------



## Truthunter

Here's an example on a tune I tried over a year ago.
These are the "predicted" corrected responses.
Looks pretty and acoustic xovers look like they will land exactly as planned
Notice 20hz shows ~10db above 100hz.
Well when measured with RTA - 20hz was only 1.5-2db above 100hz and the sub/mb xover ended up around 45hz


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Here's an example on a tune I tried over a year ago.
> These are the "predicted" corrected responses.
> Looks pretty and acoustic xovers look like they will land exactly as planned
> Notice 20hz shows ~10db above 100hz.
> Well when measured with RTA - 20hz was only 1.5-2db above 100hz and the sub/mb xover ended up around 45hz
> 
> 
> View attachment 360270



It’s crazy how much better crossover behave when the stop band is made flat beforehand…

Yeah I remember doing that also , and crossover cancellations like crazy also


----------



## Impossible Bill

Truthunter said:


> Here's an example on a tune I tried over a year ago.
> These are the "predicted" corrected responses.
> Looks pretty and acoustic xovers look like they will land exactly as planned
> Notice 20hz shows ~10db above 100hz.
> Well when measured with RTA - 20hz was only 1.5-2db above 100hz and the sub/mb xover ended up around 45hz


I've brought sub bass down to +2-2.5db in my target and I don't feel like it's lacking. Sort of opposite of what you had. Must be the air in Jersey


----------

