# Dirac tips and tricks



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Post up your tuning tricks that made a big difference....


here’s a few of mine for a 2ch Dirac tune with a multi way

1. If one channel seems louder then the other , your mic is simply too close or not close enough to the left side driver. (Left hand drive) If it’s too much to the right get your forward measurement points a little farther from the left speaker (you’ll know which measurement point is the offender based on your speaker locations i.e. dah or door etc high or low measurement. That should fix it it’s most likely the forward left measurement points that’s causing any volume issues to one side or other

2. if using more then one set of midbas mute one set during DLC and let Dirac only tune to one set. I have kicks and door midbass , I only use the kick location during measurements.... it sounds much better and I get a better tune

3. try a flat response.

4. tune without sub on, turn sub off and do manual peq rta TA to sub after Dirac is done. Everyone is about this “house curve thing” and I surly love a fat midbass..... but hear me on this. Especially if running two sets of midbass.(I’ll explain in a sec) .. do a ruler flat response from 120hz to 3khz then a small 1db per octave tilt down after that. If your midbass have tilt to them you could be missing out on the low midbass that blends with sub and the 150hz range can be boomy. If you run two sets of midbass , tune with one set on, draw a flat response from 120hz to 3khz then to taste Tilt, (maybe a small bump at 10k if have a 3db or more tilt) then look at the magnitude shape of measurement. Draw your target to follow that shape to -6db and match it to your crossover. If your don’t have response to your crossover then don’t do this trick. If you have response to 80 or 70 in the magnitude you could go flat all the way down and it will sound kick ass! But speakers could bottom out if a lot of power is used... so flat to 120 or wherever your magnitude starts to drop. Follow that shape or shape of crossover to -6db. Make sure you don’t go past the 10db Dirac zone 

for multiple midbass users add the 2nd set after Dirac and let that be your tilt from crossover to about 300-400hz set your crossover no higher then 400 for this as it will speak too much....
That is how to get a good sounding tilt with Dirac and multiple midbass... why? The two sets of midbass no matter how good your time alignment is at different measurement points they will have radically different responses and make your midbass net boomy and lack depth.... you’ll have to tilt them up a lot to get good response and it won’t be punchy. Just use 1set for tuning then add the second set after and manually add it and work with what was given by Dirac correction for the 1st set.... hands down better way to do this 



5. do a flat response (all the way flat) **** it sounds a lot better. Especially vocals

6. use quadratic crossovers!!! This one is huge! Ditch them LR alignments for god sakes..... do your LF sub and midbass to midrange with BWs (6 or 18 or 36) them sum to 0db and highly reflective environments like this..... serious as ****. Flat magnitude is much much much more preferable in a car.... and with Dirac it will make the sum flat even if your crossover is tuned wrong.... so LR “alignments” (which are almost always misaligned in a car) don’t make as much sense to use with Dirac , the LR should be used for HF but even then you don’t need it..... the HF crossing the LR will work fine and still be mostly preferred.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)




----------



## MF Toker (Jan 10, 2011)

What midbass do you run and how are the band passed?

I will have 4 Dayton ND140-8's in each door then another 4 under each seat, basically 2 10's per side in terms of cone area. Only plan to run them up to 250-300hz and down to 60hz at the lowest. Should give me the sensitivity and power handling of a pro audio driver but dig very deep.

Been curious how Dirac will tune them. Going to tune without it first, haven't purchased Dirac yet.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

MF Toker said:


> What midbass do you run and how are the band passed?
> 
> I will have 4 Dayton ND140-8's in each door then another 4 under each seat, basically 2 10's per side in terms of cone area. Only plan to run them up to 250-300hz and down to 60hz at the lowest. Should give me the sensitivity and power handling of a pro audio driver but dig very deep.
> 
> Been curious how Dirac will tune them. Going to tune without it first, haven't purchased Dirac yet.



So your midbass will need horns or something very hi efficient to be able to use all that midbass ..... but this is what I would do 

Take your farthest forward set and use only those to go with rest of system ????

Wait ...... what’s the rest of system , power etc ?


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Thanks so much for posting this. I have been frustrated with the sound in my car. Midbass keeps coming out very weak with every run I’ve done. My sub/midbass pairing isn’t the best but I expected a better than what I am getting right now. Just last night, I thought about trying running Dirac without the sub just to try something different and I see that this one of your tricks. Will give that a go and see what happens. 

I agree with ditching LR alignment for the speakers you've mentioned.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So like I said in first post , for some reason with a 2ch tune that blends midbass to midrange, one set of midbass..... the timing differences in the other midbass could freak out the measurement and cause tonality issues. Also could make midbass not be sharp 

One single speaker will keep up just fine with an adjacent midrange as far as response goes to make it flat , 

Once that’s done start adding the rest of midbass to the finished tune , they will all share the tune that one midbass made. So the correction should be mostly valid , your under seat ones I would run as subs and cross those with your sub and maybe play them to 150hz and let them play all the way down.... my bet is they don’t add properly and will screw up the stage and not make anything better except maybe one narrow band, and it won’t be worth it 


I would make those subs , maybe make all of them play as subs except the 1st one measured.... I would try it a few ways honestly , amd learn the room amd behavior of everything.... but to start.... do a single midbass for Dirac.... make it flat and start adding them, that will create a nice tilt 

You want the response flat from 400-3k minimum, I prefer flat to about 5k but to each there own 

Good luck let us know how it goes


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

With sub playing and everything on the sound quality is still great, but it’s playing with sums of everything a bit too much for me...... the sum sq is fantastic but there’s little transparency and punch in midbass.
The sub sometimes sounds like it’s playing into the 100s of hertz and it does something weird.... again, not paying attention to the behavior and just listening to the sum of everything it’s great! But doing it this way should bet in some cars a better result...

If your sub is up front..... keep it in the mix ..... I would bet it sounds better..... and if your doors can play flat to 50hz flat, **** go for it , i would play flat to as far down as I can go before the response starts to fall off..... 

In my pic above my response starts to fall at 120hz , even tho there’s so much more response above the mid , that’s a mind trick.... when response starts to fall it won’t like lots of power below that..... go as far down as can before your speakers bottom out at high power.... may take a few adjustments in the target to get it to go loud .....

If your using 75wch or less amps at 4ohms just play it flat to 80. That’s not enough power to bottom out a speaker


----------



## MF Toker (Jan 10, 2011)

Current plan. Like to think in octaves when planning a system. 1 watt sensitivities.
Bliesma T25A-6 (90db) LPF at 2240hz
Zaph ZA14W08 (87db) BPF from 280-2240hz
Dayton ND140-8 x8 per side (91-93db) BPF from 70-280hz
Dayton RSS390HF-4 (91db) x2 in IB LPF at 52.5hz (using Andy's .5 octave rule)
(Thinking of picking up a pair of Ultimax 18's instead)
Dayton RS100P-4 for rear fill

Per side. Will be dialed back 5db in the DSP so really more like 1/3 of those numbers.

US Acoustics Lisa on tweeters (37.5 watts) and rear fill (50 watts)
Arc CXLR 4150 bridged on mids (200 watts)
NVX VADM4 x2 1 channel per 2 midbass (440 watts)
JBL MS5001 on the subs (800ish watts)

Going over kill on the midbass for the high sensitivity and to help keep it effortless/low excursion. Don't expect to get close to using all the power I have on tap. Since the ~300hz region tends to have the highest average SPL in music along with the upwards slope of a typical house curve starting around 200hz I wanted to design a very potent midbass set up. The sub bass gets the benefit of cabin gain.

Own all of that except I'm 4 short of the ND140-8, I only have 12 right now...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Put more power on them tweets.... first and foremost.... it will sound just fine as it , but them tweets will be the limiting factor for volume on the system....

You already have it planned and bought stuff then do the instal.... I have always (always) believed you want to use the same amps and power on every single speaker in the system for the fronts. And use a minimum of 100wch at 4ohms 

What’s going to happen if your going to eq down the sensitivity on that tweeter. It’s going to have a big peak somewhere. There goes the efficiency.

Many will argue with me on this, as if turning the system on makes no sound... 
of course it will work and sound good..... it’s absurd to think differently. Otoh if one was to heed this and do it one would immediately notice a massive improvement in dynamics and overall volume... 

I pay little attention to sensitivity as far as power requirements goes.... I pay lots of attention to sensitivity as far as matching speakers to each other. 

If you look at my response in my pic your looking at , dynaudio mw172s , stevens SA6 components. The stevens are 91db and the 172s are less then 87 iirc.... all speakers have there own channel off matching alpine XA70F amps ( I have 3, 4ch amps) so I have 120wrms on each speaker, all amp gains are at “nom” the middle, and all outputs on DSP are at 0db. I’m not using any driver eq in the inband of any driver, so according to that logic my kids and tweets should be about 5db above the dyns..... not so. The 72s are way above the stevens.....there’s a plethora of reasons. My point being. Equal power is a must for a loud system.

Once you eq down the peaks it’s like turning the gain down..... my midbass “could” be turned down before Dirac.... but then they won’t get the proper power to match up to the stevens..... even tho response shows the opposite


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

270hz is a good crossover that 5” will surly play down, you might try using a BW12 or self defined 2nd order with a Q..707.... I would use real time rta and watch the response at all the Dirac measurement points on each driver playing full range PN with no crossover, where ever there is a big dip in response on all the locations on either mid or midbass, you might do a 100hz overlap on the crossover just for that side.... or move the crossover to the driver that doesn’t have the dip.... 

Using overlap on that side will allow that 5” to play low and allow the midbass to cover the hole.... 

Example , if the 5” has a big dip at 315 you could let the midbass play to 375 and the midrange play to 275 so you still get energy from the midrange down low to keep the stage symmetry, and this will surly almost always be only on the left side..... 

You are on axis and PLDs verweb same side drivers are minimized for the right ch. 
so the left is most likely where your going to have to experiment...

Btw love the Zapfs those sound killer


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> 4. tune without sub on, turn sub off and do manual peq rta TA to sub after Dirac is done. Everyone is about this “house curve thing” and I surly love a fat midbass..... but hear me on this. Especially if running two sets of midbass.(I’ll explain in a sec) .. do a ruler flat response from 120hz to 3khz then a small 1db per octave tilt down after that. If your midbass have tilt to them you could be missing out on the low midbass that blends with sub and the 150hz range can be boomy. If you run two sets of midbass , tune with one set on, draw a flat response from 120hz to 3khz then to taste Tilt, (maybe a small bump at 10k if have a 3db or more tilt) then look at the magnitude shape of measurement. Draw your target to follow that shape to -6db and match it to your crossover. If your don’t have response to your crossover then don’t do this trick. If you have response to 80 or 70 in the magnitude you could go flat all the way down and it will sound kick ass! But speakers could bottom out if a lot of power is used... so flat to 120 or wherever your magnitude starts to drop. Follow that shape or shape of crossover to -6db. Make sure you don’t go past the 10db Dirac zone


When tuning using the above approach, when you are introducing the sub back into the system, are you running that on a third Dirac channel? Or summing Dirac 1 and Dirac 2?

I'm asking because, when I run Dirac on my 2 channels, it ends up putting a slight delay on one of the channels. So, if I sum Dirac 1 and Dirac 2 for the sub, I would expect to sound a bit...funny.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> 6. use quadratic crossovers!!! This one is huge! Ditch them LR alignments for god sakes..... do your LF sub and midbass to midrange with BWs (6 or 18 or 36) them sum to 0db and highly reflective environments like this..... serious as ****. Flat magnitude is much much much more preferable in a car.... and with Dirac it will make the sum flat even if your crossover is tuned wrong.... so LR “alignments” (which are almost always misaligned in a car) don’t make as much sense to use with Dirac , the LR should be used for HF but even then you don’t need it..... the HF crossing the LR will work fine and still be mostly preferred.


Could you elaborate on this a bit? I've been using LR24 throughout, and just added SI M3 mids, but something isn't quite right - in some ways the tune (such as it is, I'm a novice) sounds better with DL turned off.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Specifically, diminished punch in bass & crack of snare drum, "congested" upper mids, less sharp center image. Sounds good, but should be better.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

hella356 said:


> Specifically, diminished punch in bass & crack of snare drum, "congested" upper mids, less sharp center image. Sounds good, but should be better.


You’re basically describing how my system sounds.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

dmparker5725 said:


> You’re basically describing how my system sounds.


I suppose it's encouraging that neither of us is the only one experiencing this. I'm going to play around using BW. I'm not sure exactly what oabeieo is suggesting - seems like BW for sub, midbass, maybe midranges, & LR for tweeters?


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

hella356 said:


> I suppose it's encouraging that neither of us is the only one experiencing this. I'm going to play around using BW. I'm not sure exactly what oabeieo is suggesting - seems like BW for sub, midbass, maybe midranges, & LR for tweeters?


Right. Use BW (6, 18 or 36dB) definitely for sub and midbass. Should go with the same for higher freqs but can use LR. 

I think my problem is also due to my sub being possibly underpowered. I hate to do another amp swap but it just might be unavoidable. I am kicking myself in the butt right now for selling my MMATS amp awhile back. 

Also, I just don’t think class D for the front stage is doing it for me. I still have my old Eclipse amp sitting around. I am thinking about swapping that amp back in but going hold off while I play around with Dirac so more.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

dmparker5725 said:


> Right. Use BW (6, 18 or 36dB) definitely for sub and midbass. Should go with the same for higher freqs but can use LR.
> 
> I think my problem is also due to my sub being possibly underpowered. I hate to do another amp swap but it just might be unavoidable. I am kicking myself in the butt right now for selling my MMATS amp awhile back.
> 
> Also, I just don’t think class D for the front stage is doing it for me. I still have my old Eclipse amp sitting around. I am thinking about swapping that amp back in but going hold off while I play around with Dirac so more.


Thanks. Is there a reason to use 6, 18, or 36db vs 12 or 12db Butterworth?


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

I’m not sure. Mine is set to BW 18dB for all. I have played around with other settings including LR24. 18dB seems to sound best. 

Btw, I started from scratch again. Did another set of Dirac runs. First, one measurement to just get T/A and levels so that I can enter those numbers in the output tabs on the minidsp. Then ran the full set Dirac measurements as required. This time, I went back to including the sub rather than leaving it out as the OP had suggested. But I set my target curve to flat as he recommended at 0db. In the past, I would leave it with that downward slope.
System sounds so much better. Whew!


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

dmparker5725 said:


> I’m not sure. Mine is set to BW 18dB for all. I have played around with other settings including LR24. 18dB seems to sound best.
> 
> Btw, I started from scratch again. Did another set of Dirac runs. First, one measurement to just get T/A and levels so that I can enter those numbers in the output tabs on the minidsp. Then ran the full set Dirac measurements as required. This time, I went back to including the sub rather than leaving it out as the OP had suggested. But I set my target curve to flat as he recommended at 0db. In the past, I would leave it with that downward slope.
> System sounds so much better. Whew!


That's good to hear! Did you just run this through today?


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

hella356 said:


> That's good to hear! Did you just run this through today?


Yes.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Excellent. I'm going to give it a go now.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

hella356 said:


> Excellent. I'm going to give it a go now.


Cool. Just sent you a pm.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Not wanting to tax my ears too much, and it being too hot in my garage to go further today, I'm stopping for now, but I changed all the crossovers to 18db Butterworth and re-ran DL. This has definitely moved things in the right direction! Still have more tweaking to do with levels and crossovers for sure, as I didn't have good results doing the more flat arrangement, but this is encouraging. I imagine there is a lot of variance due to install & the car itself.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Just use 1 BW somewhere in the system 
I would recommend the midbass to midrange.... the rest can be LR , but do whatever sounds best , Dirac will change the sum of the phase and if something is 90 out it won’t be after Dirac 

The thing is , the butts have maximally flat magnitude, you want that over the peaking that will happen with a LR.... especially in the midrange to midbass... if you have the ability to do add a 2nd order APF and invert the input (or invert the APF so it plays backwards) that will make the sum a simple all pass..... but it’s not necessary..... Dirac will smooth all that...

The problem is with LR the response is rounded in the magnitude, it’s like one big giant peak filter where the magnitude always has attenuation in the magnitude because of the short bandwidth..... 

So it’s phase for one is always changing , and the response is being pulled one way or other..... the BW will allow flat power response through the magnitude.... it will sound better most of the time in a 4way 

As far as tonality , do a 3 ch Dirac do all the front on 2ch and make response flat , all the way flat ! Listen for a bit and slowly change it till the tonality is right .... these “house curves” sometimes are not an answer , especially where you have proper constructive interference or destructive interference.... go flat for a while so you can actually judge what’s wrong step by step


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thanks for the tips! I clearly have more to try, but thrilled at the improvement thus far. I didn't think the crossovers would have much of an effect, happy to know I was mistaken! Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms, but such is this hobby.


----------



## tittysprinkles888 (Jun 25, 2015)

I have what you might call a stupid question. There’s a very detailed guide here and on a few other forums from the guy with the Dodge truck explaining how he tuned his MiniDSP with Dirac but he uses coaxials rather than components so one little thing wasn’t explained. I’ve got mids and tweeters in the kicks, so almost a coax speaker but I’m not sure if I should assign one Dirac channel to each speaker or one to each side. I’ve got them set up now with one on each side and tonight I got the best sound I’ve ever heard in my own car. Should I assign a channel to each driver or stick with 2 channel Dirac for all 4 speakers. I’m slowly learning the theory of tuning after years with an MS-8 just doing it all for me


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

tittysprinkles888 said:


> I have what you might call a stupid question. There’s a very detailed guide here and on a few other forums from the guy with the Dodge truck explaining how he tuned his MiniDSP with Dirac but he uses coaxials rather than components so one little thing wasn’t explained. I’ve got mids and tweeters in the kicks, so almost a coax speaker but I’m not sure if I should assign one Dirac channel to each speaker or one to each side. I’ve got them set up now with one on each side and tonight I got the best sound I’ve ever heard in my own car. Should I assign a channel to each driver or stick with 2 channel Dirac for all 4 speakers. I’m slowly learning the theory of tuning after years with an MS-8 just doing it all for me


It’s one of those minor things that can make your system kick ass a little bit more

Like my mid range for example
Because of the filters it used to look like one big hump like a semi circle for the response

So it got most of its power at like 800 Hz and that frequency was just hard to tame I would use EQ and turn it down but then the power response was wrong it it didn’t sound right and didn’t equalize properly

Now it’s smooth, real real smooth. I simply have a butt at 300hz, everything else is still Lr

2 Dirac channels for fronts absolutely! 

You can use multiple Dirac channels on each driver for driver tuning, but you negate the phase correction for the crossover... and that is most of the correction honestly as far as phase goes, 

Kicks sound excellent with Dirac. My Dirac only detects .4ms for the kicks TA value , so I would used to run a Multichannel Dirac only to get the TA values and gain offsets to plug into a 2ch tune 

I don’t like having the sub on that tune tho 
I like to adjust my sub independently! In the 8x12dl you’ll keep the phase shift for the crossover for sub to highs . however with bass management, you turn off the HPF for the midbass in output and only use bass management filters and all the highs will inherit that shift making behave like a 2way (when it’s actually a 3 or 4 way)


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Could you explain a bit more on the sub setup? I have been using 2 Dirac channels, and the sub uses a left/right sum, but Dirac delays one of the two channels, which seems like it would mess up my sub-bass, since it's outputting a sum of a delayed left channel plus a non-delayed right channel.

How are you bypassing the Dirac delays for the sub?

Thank you. Working on optimizing this today.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Just use one Dirac for sub and in the mixer turn on two outputs for the two channels .... do it sums at the Dirac mix

that way only one sweep but Get output of left and right for both left and right

yeah I heard of ppl having the same issue
I’m not sure what’s going on there


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> Just use one Dirac for sub and in the mixer turn on two outputs for the two channels .... do it sums at the Dirac mix
> 
> that way only one sweep but Get output of left and right for both left and right
> 
> ...


Thank you; this seems obvious, in hindsight.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Can anyone tell me what “studio” tuning does ?

I still haven’t upgraded to 3.0 , I’m still running 2.0 beta (lol) am I missing anything?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Here’s a good one with the 8x12DL 

set your multi-way as a multi way in the Dirac channels dialogue box.

if your all active, set every speaker as channel for channel . Not a 2ch Dirac tune
Rather do a multi-way tune 

I saw in Dirac 3.1.1 I can go to Dirac channels in minidsp app, (not Dirac app) and set up a multi-way. So I did. I did a tundra that has all hi end focals , 8s in doors , 3” and 1” in pillars stock locations and cut in tweets in a pillar, and a sub in back , fully active and so I was getting ready to tune it and trying something hoping to save time because my customer was waiting at my store all day amd I was almost off work amd started running 1hr before I’m off. (And I finished on time)

What happened was astonishing. I didn’t have time to discover why, but my hunch paid off....

i made a 2ch Dirac tune across all 7 channels and it was good.
I wanted to make a 8/7ch Dirac tune. I figured being I was short on time I tried using the summing of a crossover to help me finish quickly. Relying on the summing of the crossovers to work the way they should. 

I setup the multi-way in Dirac channels , sending tweets to Dirac 1,2 ,and mids to Dirac 3.4 and midbass to 5,6 and sub to 7

here’s what made it all come together.... I saw online Dirac now has multiple subs and will automatically change the crossovers on Dirac. I wasn’t sure if it did for a multi-way but being out of time I tried it . So I turned off all crossovers on outputs..... I repeat....... I turned off all of the crossovers on all the outputs (except for bass management). I set each channel to respective speaker type in Dirac channels .

Next, turn off any delays to outputs so Dirac does all the delays, make all channels have same output levels. I just left every channel at 0db.

Next i ran Dirac with a low ish output volume (low enough so the tweeters won’t blow if it’s not band limited calibration sweeps for that channel) I ran my mic gain high , and made sure it’s quiet as far as ambient noise. Ran through the calibration..

After the calibration (measurements stage) I grouped all my measurements into a multi-way. Ungrouped the tweets,mids,midbas and sub into 4 stereo blocks. So Dirac 1&2 are grouped to both tweets, 3$4 to mids, 5$6 to midbass and 7 to sub. So the target will affect each pair separately.

next I drew a flat line. No target curves just flat. I compared each group, amd noticed if I put every channel at -5.5db my target would be at the bottom of the magnitude for each channel (except the dips were about halfway). I made the line flat and extended the line (target line) all the way through the entire magnitude of each channel, even if the speaker measured way past the intended crossover, I just made my target flat all the way through the magnitude.

I curtain off at the knee of the natural roll off.... (that’s an important step) so the magnitude is the only thing being corrected.

I set only the sub with a tilt. 20hz was 5.5db above everything else. I tilted sub from oddball at 20hz and to match my intended crossover to be -3db down from flat. Flat would be -5.5db on my graphs, spa BW filter i planned to use would be -3db at crossover. So my tilt went from 0db at 20hz and -5.5at 80hz, my intended crossover.

ran it, dropped the filter in, saved the file, went to output vol, turned up master output to 0db And exited Dirac.

Next I log back into the 8x12 app. Go to each output and turned back on a full blown BW crossover for all the outputs.
Anticipating a polarity flip on midrange as it’s the LP on a 12db complimentary crossover between the mid and tweet. I reversed the polarity on the 3” outputs because my filter should behave like that.. 

All outputs crossovers polarity must be according to text book behavior for your multi-way amd crossover scheme.

put on some music amd was blows fvcking away... like seriously blown the fvck away. It worked. In a complete rush, tested my experience on DL and what this feature might do amd was totally enthralled by its results.

all the crossovers had all pass behavior and it was inherit. You simply could not hear any phase shift from crossovers. It was summing so so so so so so so so so so so good..... like very dam good. I couldn’t believe I could dial in a textbook crossover and have it work perfectly 1st try..... flat out amazing.

The 8x12 DL truly, is the best car audio dsp there is. It’s absolutely laughable to try to make any other dsp for a car on the market to be able to do what this can do.

this is one hell of a tip and trick... go get to it gang, go run some measurements and get it.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And btw, 

I wasn’t sure if the tweeter was a band limited sweep... I set it for tweeter and did not have time to validate the measurements behavior.... be careful on the tweeter....

untill we know, maybe just put your intended crossover only on tweeter. Don’t run on crossover to like 200hz, 200hz would move the phase in the magnitude too much to change it to a proper tweeter crossover, perhaps 3500hz. Just for now maybe do a 3500hz crossover for only the tweet. Once we (us) can determine if the tweeter settings in Dirac outputs is band limited we can turn off the tweeter crossover for calibration.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I think I'm generally following what you're saying, but not totally sure. Any chance you could augment this with screenshots of your setup? Sounds fascinating.

Also, after reading up on the subject, I'll be placing in-line high pass protection caps on my tweeters & mids. (Need to buy for tweeters, Morel mids came with caps.) That seem sufficient for trying your approach? Or still use high pass in miniDSP for tweeters, maybe mids, too?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> I think I'm generally following what you're saying, but not totally sure. Any chance you could augment this with screenshots of your setup? Sounds fascinating.
> 
> Also, after reading up on the subject, I'll be placing in-line high pass protection caps on my tweeters & mids. (Need to buy for tweeters, Morel mids came with caps.) That seem sufficient for trying your approach? Or still use high pass in miniDSP for tweeters, maybe mids, too?


those will do just fine

yeah I’ll do some screenshots today


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Here’s a good one with the 8x12DL
> 
> set your multi-way as a multi way in the Dirac channels dialogue box.
> ....
> ...


I've been experimenting with multi channel for a while. And applying the xover filters after Dirac correction is something I've been planning to try.

The only problem I see with this is grouping the stereo pairs in separate groups in the filter design screen. In my experience, no matter the relative level difference between the groups, Dirac will level out to the default curve (that first shows) killing the low freq rise. It even shows that way when switching between the measurement and filter design screens.

Here is the Dirac measurements from a pretune done in the plug in. In this case I did not defeat the sub LP as directed in the manual. Notice the relative levels between the sub/midbass and a xover point of 70hz:











Then when continuing to the filter design screen - notice the relative levels have now "normalized" to follow what is the default target in Dirac and xover has now moved to 50hz:











Here is a shot of the measured, optimized, and curtains used for each stereo group. Notice the grouping on the right side. Target files were created with Jazzi's spreadsheet, modified with extra data required and loaded into Dirac. Also notice the optimized targets relative to each other accounting of for typical LF rise & xover at the planned 70hz.










So one would think that this would measure somewhat like the targets were set at with their levels relative with each other intact but it does not. I do not have a screen shot proving it on my work computer but the measured corrected response basically follows the default curve that initially loads on the filter design screen.

I have plans to experiment with keeping the Sub & midbass in the same group. Hopefully that will prove a remedy to this issue.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

I’m looking forward to this too. Staging for me doesn’t seem quite there and sub bass has no low end.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

dmparker5725 said:


> I’m looking forward to this too. Staging for me doesn’t seem quite there and sub bass has no low end.


For the sub bass, I had the best luck using 2 channels for the front stage, in Dirac, and then using a 3rd channel for the sub, but not using Dirac for that (just REW). This was per OP's suggestion. The reason putting the sub into the 2 channel Dirac didn't work for me (I think), is because Dirac was introducing some delay on one of the two channels...so when channels 1 and 2 mixed to the sub, it would be little funky with that extra delay on one half of the signal. I think it would also work if you used a third channel for the sub and ran that through Dirac, and draw your target (similar to Truthunter's approach).

I'm surprised Truthunter's 7-channel method didn't work as he expected it to. I would expect Dirac to match whatever curves he drew, especially knowing that they were achievable curves.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> I'm surprised Truthunter's 7-channel method didn't work as he expected it to. I would expect Dirac to match whatever curves he drew, especially knowing that they were achievable curves.


The individual drivers post Dirac measurements did match the Dirac targets very closely but the relative levels between them did not match the relative levels between the targets set in the filter design screen. It set the sub level (as viewed in the Dirac tab in the plug in) to -12db or so... Which killed the sub level and messed up the xover point / phase relationship between it and the midbass.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

its this
I don't have an 8x12 to connect to right now to get more screen shots... but its in this menu


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Truthunter said:


> The individual drivers post Dirac measurements did match the Dirac targets very closely but the relative levels between them did not match the relative levels between the targets set in the filter design screen. It set the sub level (as viewed in the Dirac tab in the plug in) to -12db or so... Which killed the sub level and messed up the xover point / phase relationship between it and the midbass.


Ah, I see. I suppose you could go adjust up the gains in the DSP (or at the amp) after Diract. I know you already know this , and it's obviously not desirable.

I've noticed that the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP software shows what gains it introduced on each channel, and those can't be modified. It's pretty annoying because, even if you turn Dirac off, those gains are _still in effect_, which seems odd to me. It's documented in the manual that way as well (I.e. the expectation is that Dirac gain adjustments are in effect _irrespective _of whether you have Dirac on).

That actually forced me to start a tune over again once, once I realized it was doing that.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I've been experimenting with multi channel for a while. And applying the xover filters after Dirac correction is something I've been planning to try.
> 
> The only problem I see with this is grouping the stereo pairs in separate groups in the filter design screen. In my experience, no matter the relative level difference between the groups, Dirac will level out to the default curve (that first shows) killing the low freq rise. It even shows that way when switching between the measurement and filter design screens.
> 
> ...



What I did is different. I had ALLof the crossovers OFF during the calibration... yes A cap for the tweeter would be great, youll want to leave it on because it will become part of the measurement. and make sure its a hi-volt polypropeylne cap that rolls off way out of band. Like a 20-50mfd would be good


yeah I get your rise thing, With this youll want to make everything flat so the crossoverws will sum perfectly. If you add tilt to the target I am not sure how they'll sum. All I know is this is what I did and it sounded killer....Had plenty O midbass and the sub I had at -20db before dirac so plenty of gain from sub to ajust after. 

youll have to try it but put tilt in your targets.... I would imagine as long as both speakers in a crossover have the same tilt it should work....maybe... idk...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Ah, I see. I suppose you could go adjust up the gains in the DSP (or at the amp) after Diract. I know you already know this , and it's obviously not desirable.
> 
> I've noticed that the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP software shows what gains it introduced on each channel, and those can't be modified. It's pretty annoying because, even if you turn Dirac off, those gains are _still in effect_, which seems odd to me. It's documented in the manual that way as well (I.e. the expectation is that Dirac gain adjustments are in effect _irrespective _of whether you have Dirac on).
> 
> That actually forced me to start a tune over again once, once I realized it was doing that.


Yeah it lowers everything to the lowest measured source.... like if the rears measure an average of 7db less then fronts... guess what.....lol

so what I do is pre dirac in that case would just add back the 7db as a output boost to the rears, run dirac, then lower them back after,


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Ah, I see. I suppose you could go adjust up the gains in the DSP (or at the amp) after Diract. I know you already know this , and it's obviously not desirable.
> 
> I've noticed that the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP software shows what gains it introduced on each channel, and those can't be modified. It's pretty annoying because, even if you turn Dirac off, those gains are _still in effect_, which seems odd to me. It's documented in the manual that way as well (I.e. the expectation is that Dirac gain adjustments are in effect _irrespective _of whether you have Dirac on).
> 
> That actually forced me to start a tune over again once, once I realized it was doing that.


in Dirac 3.1.1 you can offload filters now. There’s an x next to the filter in Dirac app. 
once a filter is loaded the TA and gains are always on weather Dirac is on or off.... makes things very hard for us that use upstream Dirac boxes and doing a pre Dirac setup.....

Now you can offload the filters and then it will be a raw signal only in that slot/configuration


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> in Dirac 3.1.1 you can offload filters now. There’s an x next to the filter in Dirac app.
> once a filter is loaded the TA and gains are always on weather Dirac is on or off.... makes things very hard for us that use upstream Dirac boxes and doing a pre Dirac setup.....
> 
> Now you can offload the filters and then it will be a raw signal only in that slot/configuration


You're saying there are X buttons in the last step of the Dirac app (where you pick which presets to output to)? And if you X that out, it will clear the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP for that specific slot? Hoping your answer is yes.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Anu2g said:


> For the sub bass, I had the best luck using 2 channels for the front stage, in Dirac, and then using a 3rd channel for the sub, but not using Dirac for that (just REW). This was per OP's suggestion. The reason putting the sub into the 2 channel Dirac didn't work for me (I think), is because Dirac was introducing some delay on one of the two channels...so when channels 1 and 2 mixed to the sub, it would be little funky with that extra delay on one half of the signal. I think it would also work if you used a third channel for the sub and ran that through Dirac, and draw your target (similar to Truthunter's approach).
> 
> I'm surprised Truthunter's 7-channel method didn't work as he expected it to. I would expect Dirac to match whatever curves he drew, especially knowing that they were achievable curves.


Thanks! All of this info is really helpful. I wish I had better knowledge on tuning.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Anu2g said:


> You're saying there are X buttons in the last step of the Dirac app (where you pick which presets to output to)? And if you X that out, it will clear the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP for that specific slot? Hoping your answer is yes.


This is the way I understand it to work, though I've not tried it myself.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

I've thought about trying this method too, but I run a pretty good tilt to my target curve so I'm not sure how that would work EQ'ing everything flat.

One concern I had was that doing it this way eliminates the benefits of having Dirac adjust phase through the xover region. True, if you get things perfectly flat you don't need any phase correction, but would you rather have Dirac just doing simple EQ (granted its using FIR filters instead of IIR), or use it to help with phase? Not sure one way is better than another, but something to consider. The other option would be to use the EQ in the Mini to achieve a flat response and then have Dirac match that to your target curves from Jazzi for the multi-way.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> You're saying there are X buttons in the last step of the Dirac app (where you pick which presets to output to)? And if you X that out, it will clear the Dirac tab in the MiniDSP for that specific slot? Hoping your answer is yes.


Yes
You can now delete Dirac filters and have Dirac truly disabled for a real pre Dirac tune


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> I've thought about trying this method too, but I run a pretty good tilt to my target curve so I'm not sure how that would work EQ'ing everything flat.
> 
> One concern I had was that doing it this way eliminates the benefits of having Dirac adjust phase through the xover region. True, if you get things perfectly flat you don't need any phase correction, but would you rather have Dirac just doing simple EQ (granted its using FIR filters instead of IIR), or use it to help with phase? Not sure one way is better than another, but something to consider. The other option would be to use the EQ in the Mini to achieve a flat response and then have Dirac match that to your target curves from Jazzi for the multi-way.


Yeah , the 2ch Dirac will fix the step, and subsequently correct for crossover phase in the sum...

this method is for a multi-way tune with Dirac, knowing there will still be crossover phase shift...

The thing is , if they sum textbook it’s just an allpass.... it’s like turning on an allpass filter on a point source. It’s the minimal amount of phase shift, but more importantly they sum to be in phase. So your ear can not detect the phase change. 
so it sounds (dam near) linear phase... but it’s not. It’s actually an allpass.

in a car it’s very difficult to get good phase behavior from crossovers.. like really good is what I’m talking about.. this method, while I was in a rush and didn’t have time to really test any of it , it sounded very good.. I was blown away how well things were summing and how coherent the left and right and all the speakers were playing with each other.

this would definitely be the way to do it if someone had a ddrc22 upstream of a 8x12


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I've been experimenting with multi channel for a while. And applying the xover filters after Dirac correction is something I've been planning to try.
> 
> The only problem I see with this is grouping the stereo pairs in separate groups in the filter design screen. In my experience, no matter the relative level difference between the groups, Dirac will level out to the default curve (that first shows) killing the low freq rise. It even shows that way when switching between the measurement and filter design screens.
> 
> ...


so Truthunter ,
Each Dirac EQ is it’s own separate Dirac calibration and doesn’t take any of the other EQs (Dirac channels) into consideration unless there linked to the same group...

So in a multi-way like yours, it’s not going to match your targets across groups, it’s only going to match levels in the normalized view.

so what I noticed was more of a look at where each magnitude shape is the lowest and average of them all.

For getting your response to match each group , starting with the 0db line draw your targets the way you want not to exceed 10db window of correction per group. Get the shape right and maximize your gain in the target, lest you’ll be stuck with a lowered output across all channels.

you build your rise out of your groups after Dirac using only levels. You’ve at this point maximized your gains during calibration. So now go to the 8x12 app and start dropping levels on HF, mids , or whatever you want the shape to be....

the problem you’ll never be able to overcome doing this is you will have crossovers that won’t sum properly, and more then likely have crossover cancellations killing your reinforcement , you’ll be rolling the dice.

it’s apparent, to me , to do a multi-way in Dirac using groups to control the multi-way like this, you have to use a ruler flat target so the crossovers will sum properly, and turn off your crossovers before calibration.... it just is the way this need to be...

so start over and do it this way....with flat targets and no crossovers and draw targets as far out as the natural response allows.
then after your done do this

go to the output PEQ on every channel and make a shelving filter that draws your desired target and make the same exact shelving filter on ALL of the outputs so they all inherit the same phase shift that the shelving filter imposes...

that is the only way I can see it working properly... you’ll have good summation, crossovers will work properly, and you’ll achieve your target with no real losses to gain


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I think also you can use multiple shelving filters to make a target..... just make it do what you want.... Q= .5 and use a few of need be....maybe spaced an octave apart


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Yes
> You can now delete Dirac filters and have Dirac truly disabled for a real pre Dirac tune


I need to try this out... This is the one thing that everyone talks about needing a solution for!




oabeieo said:


> so Truthunter ,
> Each Dirac EQ is it’s own separate Dirac calibration and doesn’t take any of the other EQs (Dirac channels) into consideration unless there linked to the same group...
> 
> So in a multi-way like yours, it’s not going to match your targets across groups, it’s only going to match levels in the normalized view.
> ...


I'll be experimenting with all of this soon and some other ideas I have. I found getting repeatable good results has been achieved with a pretune to the "default" Dirac curve (which is not ruler flat by the way) followed by a 2ch Optimization on top of it to follow a final target curve. But I think there is something to applying xover filters after that may be beneficial which you have confirmed. And the fact that xover filters can be cascaded or virtually cascaded with this unit makes for even more fun experimentation. Thanks for sharing on here Andy!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I need to try this out... This is the one thing that everyone talks about needing a solution for!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no problem...
Yes fun indeed.

the thing with crossovers, and Dirac , if theres not setup to sum properly before a tilt is applied, the tilt and the phase changes made by Dirac can (often times does) cause crossover cancellations. Where the two speakers being crossed over are fighting and canceling.

yeah the default target has a tilt, but the default target was not meant to tune crossovers in a multi-way.

if it’s to be used as such, the target needs to be flat with Crossovers off. the crossovers are meant to sum to the textbook using flat magnitude. Not a tilt. Any other way would be your own alignment and not a LR or BW or whatever your doing.... when the alignment is proper it’s magic 

a tilt can be made after with shelving filters successfully....it will be exact and have the exact shape desired. Applied to every output so it’s a global change.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Gave this a go this evening after swapping subs. Whoa! Very nice 😊 Staging and overall sound are so much better. Only minor gripe is that the system volume is noticeably lower compared to my previous tune. Will play around with this some more when I have time.


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

Noob question, but can you share screen shots of how many Direc channels you are using and the matrix. 

Just got DL and trying to figure it all out. 

I’m going to run digital on a 2 way front end and single sub channel. So do I use Dirac 1 for the left side mid and tweeter and sub and Dirac 2 for the right side mid and tweeter and sub? Or I Dirac channel for each driver?

If you do a base Dirac tune, is that another Dirac channel and the multi-way are additional channels?

Sorry I work best with visuals 

Also, is there a screen in the 8x12 software to show all channels and their crossovers like the Helix main screen?

For the Dirac tune is it correct that no crossovers should be set? If so, guess a tweeter protection cap should be used?

I’ll be moving from a Helix DSP Mini to 8x12DL once I sort out the install to make space for the 8x12


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

dmparker5725 said:


> Gave this a go this evening after swapping subs. Whoa! Very nice 😊 Staging and overall sound are so much better. Only minor gripe is that the system volume is noticeably lower compared to my previous tune. Will play around with this some more when I have time.


yeah I about shyt myself when I first heard that tundra.... I was like , why in the F*** haven’t I done this before ...


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> yeah I about shyt myself when I first heard that tundra.... I was like , why in the F*** haven’t I done this before ...


Did a little more tweaking this afternoon to correct a couple of mistakes I made. I didn’t read your post carefully enough probably because I had a super long day. I didn’t curtain off the target line at the roll off plus I set them too low. Sounding even better now. I cannot believe how enveloping the sound is.

Now, I have to either repair or replace my sub amp. eBay fail (smh).


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

I need to go back and re-read your original post because I still feel like I'm missing something. It's not clear to me how you get to the house curve you want without either setting the xovers first or having Dirac eq to the curve for each driver.... 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm also rather confused by all this. I realize it's a big ask, but would anybody who has given this technique a try be willing to take some screenshots to illustrate exactly what you're doing?


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

hella356 said:


> I'm also rather confused by all this. I realize it's a big ask, but would anybody who has given this technique a try be willing to take some screenshots to illustrate exactly what you're doing?


I was thinking about doing that. I am going to conduct another run maybe Sunday evening since I didn’t have a totally quiet environment during my last couple of measurements thanks to the cooling fan for the instrument cluster display kicking on (smh). 

If by chance you are confused about what the OP meant by ungrouping target curves in the DL software like I was, the manual explains exactly how to do this. I searched ‘group’ in the pdf file and I think it is the 2nd entry that takes you to the right spot. Once I got through that step, I was able to follow the rest of OP’s instructions.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

dmparker5725 said:


> I was thinking about doing that. I am going to conduct another run maybe Sunday evening since I didn’t have a totally quiet environment during my last couple of measurements thanks to the cooling fan for the instrument cluster display kicking on (smh).
> 
> If by chance you are confused about what the OP meant by ungrouping target curves in the DL software like I was, the manual explains exactly how to do this. I searched ‘group’ in the pdf file and I think it is the 2nd entry that takes you to the right spot. Once I got through that step, I was able to follow the rest of OP’s instructions.


Thanks for the offer and the pointer on finding it in the manual!


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

I tried OP's method just now. It's definitely very quick and efficient.

My results are mixed. The crossovers all seem clean, though I haven't measured yet.

Flat is a bit bright for me; tried applying a -5dB high shelf across the board (Q=1, F=4000), which helped. Not sure that I like this better than the usual 2ch tune, but I haven't played with it a whole lot.

Note: I have a capacitor inline with my tweeters. I would have been too nervous to do this approach without a cap. I think OP had done his approach on TBMs, which supposedly are very hard to blow.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Spent some time tonight experimenting with this new method. But I did a couple things different.

First off I don't have caps on the tweets so instead of risking blown tweeters I set a 800hz BW2 HP & filpped polarity before Dirac. And I kept this HPF applied after so as not to mess with how Dirac corrects for it. To apply my typical 3500hz LR4 HPF after - I used the advanced xover function to add biquads.

Second, I used the Bass Management function to apply the Subs LPF and Midbass HPF. These filters aren't seen by Dirac as they are before where the test signal is injected into the signal path within the DSP. This also allow the midbass HPF to cascade to the mids & tweets.

Third, again using the advanced xover function I added biquads I added a LPF to the Sub output to match the midbass LPF which virtually cascades that filter down to the sub. [EDIT: Actually didn't have to use the advanced function here because the standard sub LPF was set in the Input/BM screen so the sub output tab xover was free to apply this filter.] Why do this "cascading"? This explains the theory: Linkwitzlab - 4 Way topology issues & cascading

Forth, I kept the Sub & both Midbass in the same group. My thinking is assigning channels to a single group instructs Dirac to match phase so why not keep those three in the same group.

The only setting in the output tabs I changed before Dirac was reducing the level of the sub by 4.5db to prevent clipping while measuring in Dirac. All other levels, eq, delay were zero'd out.

I also left the "Default" Dirac curve in for all groups instead of loading a flat curve.

Here are some screen shots:

Sub/Midbass:










Mids:









Tweets:









My first impression is YES the xover regions do sound more cohesive. Some quick measuring shows almost textbook summing between the sub & midbass. And the acoustic xover (73hz) was very close to the electronic (70hz).... it was for all the xovers points actually.











And look at the match on the L/R midbass above. I've never been able to get measurements that good with other methods. Notice the typical ~80hz null is gone from the L midbass too. It doesn't measure like that when doing a 2ch Dirac tune - The null is still there and I believe that's what causes a phase misalignment with the sub.

I did add a 100hz, 15db, 0.8Q low shelf to all output eq's in order with get some more low end which worked great but was a bit too much for my tastes. Tonality still needs some massaging but this newly discovered method to implement Dirac definitely has some major potential. I attempted to use AutoEQ in REW to shape to my desired final curve but I couldn't get it to boost the areas that needed it.... need to read up on why.

Here is before & after adding the shelf filter:


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Thanks Ryan. I'm going to give that a go today. Seems to me like you custom designed that curve for me (15db bass boost). 

Do you think using Dirac default curve versus flat matters? I used flat yesterday. My main takeaways from your post were to group MBs/Sub together, use bass mgmt (plus an additional LPF on the subs to match the MBs), and use biquads instead of gain to get a proper tilt on the bass region.

To get my downward tilt, I had done something like a high shelf @ 370Hz, -2dB, q=.5, and 3000Hz, -3dB, q=.7


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Do you think using Dirac default curve versus flat matters? I used flat yesterday.


I do think so only because, in my observations over some time now, Dirac will always adjust the relative levels between Dirac channels to the "Default" curve. This is the curve that always shows up upon opening the filter design screen. It has a slight downward slope.. like only 4-5db from 20-20k.




Anu2g said:


> My main takeaways from your post were to group MBs/Sub together, use bass mgmt (plus an additional LPF on the subs to match the MBs), and use biquads instead of gain to get a proper tilt on the bass region.


All that is right except the last part. In this attempt I only used biquads to add xover filters where more than 1 was of the same type needed on the same channel (the tweeters in my case). But yeah - definately don't use gain/level to make the tilt because that will throw off the xover region phase coherence.
Though - eq biquads can be generated with REW AutoEQ to shape the final response which I attempted but couldn't get it to boost where needed under 100hz & above 3khz as shown here:


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Makes sense to me; thanks for the edit on your post. So I ran Truthunter's process, and it sounds fantastic. I did not try to run Auto EQ afterward; instead I applied a high shelf (2500Hz, -4dB, Q=.7) to get closer to my target. I measured afterward, with seat leaned back and waving mic (red is everything, blue is sub only, green is front stage without sub):









Couple questions:

1) On the Inputs/Bass Mgmt tab, I have the LPF outputs at 0dB each; am I supposed to attenuate those at all to account for 2 channels being summed? Or does dirac take care of that already? I'm asking partially because it's a tad bass heavy for me, and trying to figure out the most appropriate way to attenuate. I suppose I could adjust the low shelf a bit.
2) Are you putting any gap between the electrical crossovers in Bass Mgmt? Currently I have both the HPF and LPF at 90

Thanks!


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

On my own recent tune. Inside a 2 channel. However, I was struggling with the idea of just having parametric EQ shape my entire roll off.

For instance, I have horns and I was like okay. I can electronically set them to have a 2000hz hpf with a 6db shallow electronic slope and no lpf. That way my actually wanted acoustic hpf of 1200hz could be shaped via parametric and jazzis spreadsheet to a perfect 1200hz, 24 db crossover slope. 

That way I had protection below driver excursion frequencies and I had an exact textbook 24db acoustic slope on my horns.

Rinse and repeat on all drivers to give them a perfect acoustic roll off. 

Run Dirac sweeps. Everything sums EXACTLY. 

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Makes sense to me; thanks for the edit on your post. So I ran Truthunter's process, and it sounds fantastic. I did not try to run Auto EQ afterward; instead I applied a high shelf (2500Hz, -4dB, Q=.7) to get closer to my target. I measured afterward, with seat leaned back and waving mic (red is everything, blue is sub only, green is front stage without sub):
> 
> Couple questions:
> 
> ...


I'm glad you had success! Thanks for posting your experience here. The more people that try it and report back... the more we can confirm this is a good/bad idea 🙂

1) That is an issue when using a single Dirac channel for sub(s) and having two outputs feeding a sub amp for a single sub. In your case: On the mixer tab, set the two sub channels to -3db.

2) No gap needed in the xover because the raw response is being corrected to the default curve on all channels. That makes for the acoustic slopes lining up very close to or precisely where the electronic filters are set. Just don't adjust relative driver levels after and the acoustic xover won't change. That is also why it's important to apply any post Dirac EQ filters to all channels so the phase changes they create applies to all drivers and relative phase between them remain intact.

Hope that all makes sense.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Truthunter said:


> I'm glad you had success! Thanks for posting your experience here. The more people that try it and report back... the more we can confirm this is a good/bad idea 🙂
> 
> 1) That is an issue when using a single Dirac channel for sub(s) and having two outputs feeding a sub amp for a single sub. In your case: On the mixer tab, set the two sub channels to -3db.
> 
> ...


Yep, that all makes sense, thanks! I had each sub output set to -6dB on the mixer tab, prior to running Dirac. Now, I don't think I can change that without running Dirac again. In theory, I think, it shouldn't even matter how I set it on the Mixer tab since that would have been accounted for in any Dirac measurements, and therefore Dirac would have adjusted gain accordingly. That's kind of why I was asking specifically about the Inputs / Bass Mgmt section, since that would all be _outside _of Dirac's measurements.

Hope that made sense


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I've never used bass management, but I'll give it a go. So, set crossover there without a gap, then lower both sub channels -3dB in mixer. I assume if I experiment with BM crossover point, I'll need to run a new complete Dirac run each time I make a change? Installing mid & tweeter protection caps today, before making any attempts at this new way of Dirac.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

hella356 said:


> I've never used bass management, but I'll give it a go. So, set crossover there without a gap, then lower both sub channels -3dB in mixer. I assume if I experiment with BM crossover point, I'll need to run a new complete Dirac run each time I make a change? Installing mid & tweeter protection caps today, before making any attempts at this new way of Dirac.


The LP/HP filter in BM can be changed after Dirac with out issue as long as both are changed to the same frequency... they should still sum correctly... again as long as relative levels between drivers is untouched.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I had a lot of reading to catch up on 

well this is really fantastic!!!

i’m loving all the feedback.... good and bad. I wish I had more time to mess with it myself I was up against the clock on that install

Yes I did use base management between the sub and highs also , we wanted that filter to be inherent.

keep it up it sounds like we’re are on to something really good. I remember on his truck I was able to cross the 3” at 200 Hz we’re before 200 was getting way too much power, and it was interacting with the door very very good..

I couldn’t believe how much better the crossovers were interacting

This is really good, I remember someone on the mini DSP forum telling me something about octave spacing using shelving filters with a q.5

so that’s not an PEQ, as someone mentioned.... it’s a shelving filter....it’s sorta the same except it’s not.

but it makes sense that it would have to be a global change and it can’t be a change that doesn’t affect all other channels equally otherwise it will simply mess up the crossover alignment...
So that makes using levels to make your target sheet not an option.... idk , we’re gonna have to try I really like how truth Hunter is taking a good approach.
Although I can’t see your screenshots


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> I've never used bass management, but I'll give it a go. So, set crossover there without a gap, then lower both sub channels -3dB in mixer. I assume if I experiment with BM crossover point, I'll need to run a new complete Dirac run each time I make a change? Installing mid & tweeter protection caps today, before making any attempts at this new way of Dirac.


you definitely want BM! Absolutely!
Keep your HP crossover on your mid base turned off... use only the crossover in BM

that will make an inherent shift across all of the drivers so they’ll pick up and inherit that phase ****, they also have a hi pass that is way out of band, but it will allow you to cross your mid range lower because it will have two filters, end it will have the exact same phase fingerprint if you will on all channels


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> I've never used bass management, but I'll give it a go. So, set crossover there without a gap, then lower both sub channels -3dB in mixer. I assume if I experiment with BM crossover point, I'll need to run a new complete Dirac run each time I make a change? Installing mid & tweeter protection caps today, before making any attempts at this new way of Dirac.


you definitely want BM! Absolutely!
Keep your HP crossover on your mid base turned off... use only the crossover in BM




Truthunter said:


> I'm glad you had success! Thanks for posting your experience here. The more people that try it and report back... the more we can confirm this is a good/bad idea 🙂
> 
> 1) That is an issue when using a single Dirac channel for sub(s) and having two outputs feeding a sub amp for a single sub. In your case: On the mixer tab, set the two sub channels to -3db.
> 
> ...


you got it ! That’s perfect...

this is so awesome , I think I want an 8x12 again now

I think it’s just one of many ways to use the 8x12 and another preset to make out of the many different styles of tuning

although for me , it’s wouldn’t be a choice, it would be the only way for a 7ch Dirac tune, if I was using an 8x12 ......

**** I want one again ...... I miss that dsp


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> you definitely want BM! Absolutely!
> Keep your HP crossover on your mid base turned off... use only the crossover in BM
> 
> that will make an inherent shift across all of the drivers so they’ll pick up and inherit that phase ****, they also have a hi pass that is way out of band, but it will allow you to cross your mid range lower because it will have two filters, end it will have the exact same phase fingerprint if you will on all channels


With this in mind, would we also want to apply the midrange's HPF to the tweeter? I'm guessing that tweeter is far enough out of band that it wouldn't make a meaningful difference, but since the last several posts are basically all about keeping phase correct on all drivers, I thought it would be worth asking.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Anu2g said:


> 1) On the Inputs/Bass Mgmt tab, I have the LPF outputs at 0dB each; am I supposed to attenuate those at all to account for 2 channels being summed? Or does dirac take care of that already? I'm asking partially because it's a tad bass heavy for me, and trying to figure out the most appropriate way to attenuate. I suppose I could adjust the low shelf a bit.


Interestingly when I tried using the Input/Bass Mgmt tab with it enabled I had no low end at all. I ended up disabling the bass management and then adding a low shelf filter to get any kind of output. I might re-enable it and with the low shelf in place see how that sounds, still trying to feel my way around this method.

I need to measure again though, I kept the crossover on my tweeters (no caps, did not want to blow them) and ended up with a bump right at that crossover where if I turn the volume up it starts to sound really harsh. Lower levels it is fine, but with the volume up.... ooofff.

Edit: Looked at it again and realized my error with regards to Bass Management... on the routing tab, I left my subwoofer on inputs 7/8 (TOSLINK) instead of moving it to the Bass Management line at the bottom. I updated that, enabled Bass Management again and have a really solid low end. It's sounding pretty great already, wish I had time today to run a new set of sweeps with a safe crossover point, but my regular crossover disabled, on the tweeters.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

naiku said:


> Interestingly when I tried using the Input/Bass Mgmt tab with it enabled I had no low end at all. I ended up disabling the bass management and then adding a low shelf filter to get any kind of output. I might re-enable it and with the low shelf in place see how that sounds, still trying to feel my way around this method.
> 
> I need to measure again though, I kept the crossover on my tweeters (no caps, did not want to blow them) and ended up with a bump right at that crossover where if I turn the volume up it starts to sound really harsh. Lower levels it is fine, but with the volume up.... ooofff.
> 
> Edit: Looked at it again and realized my error with regards to Bass Management... on the routing tab, I left my subwoofer on inputs 7/8 (TOSLINK) instead of moving it to the Bass Management line at the bottom. I updated that, enabled Bass Management again and have a really solid low end. It's sounding pretty great already, wish I had time today to run a new set of sweeps with a safe crossover point, but my regular crossover disabled, on the tweeters.


I've made that same mistake before. Glad your bass is solid now. There's nothing quite like that feeling


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Interestingly when I tried using the Input/Bass Mgmt tab with it enabled I had no low end at all. I ended up disabling the bass management and then adding a low shelf filter to get any kind of output. I might re-enable it and with the low shelf in place see how that sounds, still trying to feel my way around this method.
> 
> I need to measure again though, I kept the crossover on my tweeters (no caps, did not want to blow them) and ended up with a bump right at that crossover where if I turn the volume up it starts to sound really harsh. Lower levels it is fine, but with the volume up.... ooofff.
> 
> Edit: Looked at it again and realized my error with regards to Bass Management... on the routing tab, I left my subwoofer on inputs 7/8 (TOSLINK) instead of moving it to the Bass Management line at the bottom. I updated that, enabled Bass Management again and have a really solid low end. It's sounding pretty great already, wish I had time today to run a new set of sweeps with a safe crossover point, but my regular crossover disabled, on the tweeters.


hey what’s up mang !!!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> With this in mind, would we also want to apply the midrange's HPF to the tweeter? I'm guessing that tweeter is far enough out of band that it wouldn't make a meaningful difference, but since the last several posts are basically all about keeping phase correct on all drivers, I thought it would be worth asking.


I did that in a mosconi aerospace, it didn’t do a lot actually, although it did do some.
It’s the 10 some odd ms group delay/ phase shift that’s the big issue with the 70-80hz crossover .... a 400hz crossover is almost 4ms exactly..... and Dirac can make up for that without any smear.....

Minidsp did it right, they only put in what we need , the 2nd cascade honestly is not important.....

Edit , and another thing , even if something is out of band.... the shift is still there , and adds the delay to the entire magnitude... like example , you can go to rephase and sim this, let’s say you have a tweeter, crossover is at 3000hz , now go and add a minimum phase peq anywhere in the tweeter magnitude (the lower the frequencie the more the shift) you’ll see the minimum phase peq make a small ripple in the flat phase response.
then add a 2nd HPF at 80hz and watch that ripple in phase at the peq band move quite a bit.

the 1st HPF at 3000hz would make that 80hz HP way way way out of band... but it still affects all the phase all the way to nyquist.

so the tweeter and midrange get the phase shift from the bass management crossover.... it really pulls everything into place


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Anu2g said:


> I've made that same mistake before. Glad your bass is solid now. There's nothing quite like that feeling


Yep, at the moment the bass is right up on the dash. I'm pretty confident that once I measure again with everything set properly it should improve a little more. 



oabeieo said:


> hey what’s up mang !!!


Hey, hope all is good with you! Everyone good here, getting over the flu which sucked. Hoping to build a workshop in the back yard soon, then I can have all kinds of projects on the go!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Yep, at the moment the bass is right up on the dash. I'm pretty confident that once I measure again with everything set properly it should improve a little more.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, hope all is good with you! Everyone good here, getting over the flu which sucked. Hoping to build a workshop in the back yard soon, then I can have all kinds of projects on the go!


My whole family is home with Covid rn 

But mild symptoms.... were all good 
I have the week off to play with the car so that’s a plus 

glad your okay


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

Reading these posts and then the manual makes be really want to try DL but I can’t get a definitive process clear in my head. 

I am a 2 way front end + sub. 

Can someone in simple words explain the process and routing table and Dirac channel setup please. 

I’ll get some tweeter caps first 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

I did another ground up tune using this new method last night trying some different measurement positions. Again, I grouped the Sub & Midbass in Dirac and "cascaded" the xover filters. The results are repeatable so far: Cohesive sound all the way through the spectrum. Attack/Decay of kick drums is fast & location is defined & up front on the dash.

I would like to note that I've tried many 7ch tunes in the past and they have always seamed less "spacious" and natural sounding than a typical 2ch tune. Well that is not happening with this method - the spaciousness/naturalness on both of these tunes rival some of the best 2ch results I've achieved.

It is a little tricky working with REW AutoEQ to shape to the final curve... a mix of AutoEQ peak filters and manual shelf filters has been needed to achieve what I'm after. And last nights tune left me wanting for more than 10 EQ filters so I split them up into Sub/MBass & Mid/Tweets groups to gain more filters. I made sure any shelfs were on both groups but the peak filters I split between them. For example: if there is a peak filter at 32hz - I would only apply that to the Sub/Midbass group because it's phase effect doesn't reach up into the midrange passband... And vice versa. Some filters are shared between the groups like say a peak filter within 1.5-2 octaves of the xover point between the midbass & midrange so it's phase effect will apply to both groups. It's not a cut & dry process - need to be smart about it. So one drawback is the ability to simply manipulate the target in Dirac to adjust tonality.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

SiW80 said:


> I am a 2 way front end + sub.
> 
> Can someone in simple words explain the process and routing table and Dirac channel setup please.


It's fairly simple to set up, the Dirac channel selection is in the Display menu, if using a multi channel like being discussed lately, enable 5 Dirac channels and assign them all to Zone 1, then select the type of speaker assigned to them, Tweeter, Full Range, Subwoofer are likely going to be what you would use in a 2 way + sub. Then on the Routing Tab, again if you were doing a multi channel you would assign (assuming your RCA input is on Input 1 and Input 2):

Dirac 1 - Input 1 
Dirac 2 - Input 2
Dirac 3 - Input 1
Dirac 4 - Input 2
Dirac 5 - Bass Mgt 

Essentially the odd Dirac channels will be your Left, the even channels the Right. If you are not using Bass Mgt then you would have your sub on Dirac 5 with both Input 1 and Input 2 enabled.

Then on the Mixer tab, you have the outputs along the top (you can rename them). 

So enable the following:

Output 1 (L Tweeter) - Dirac 1
Output 2 (R Tweeter) - Dirac 2
Output 3 (L Mid / MidBass) - Dirac 3
Output 4 (R Mid / MidBass) - Dirac 4
Output 5 (Subwoofer) - Dirac 5

At that point you can start Dirac Live from the menu option at the top and take your measurements. You'll then need to go back to the MiniDSP plug in and enable your crossovers. If you get stuck, lots of really knowledgeable people here so you'll get answers and help (sometimes even via TeamViewer) fairly quickly.




Truthunter said:


> I did another ground up tune using this new method last night trying some different measurement positions. Again, I grouped the Sub & Midbass in Dirac and "cascaded" the xover filters. The results are repeatable so far: Cohesive sound all the way through the spectrum. Attack/Decay of kick drums is fast & location is defined & up front on the dash.


Did a similar thing this morning, I was in a bit of a rush so think I messed up a little on the tweeter crossovers / biquads so I ended up just enabling my normal crossover (even though I used a 1KHz one for the Dirac sweeps). After a very brief, as in literally 2 minutes demo, it is definitely a repeatable and fairly quick process to get set up. I've not used REW to measure the response of the drivers at this point, nor have I used any AutoEQ, instead I just applied a quick low shelf and high shelf filter. I'll listen like that for a few days and then decide whether to try and change anything, or just leave it for November.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Truthunter said:


> I did another ground up tune using this new method last night trying some different measurement positions. Again, I grouped the Sub & Midbass in Dirac and "cascaded" the xover filters. The results are repeatable so far: Cohesive sound all the way through the spectrum. Attack/Decay of kick drums is fast & location is defined & up front on the dash.
> 
> I would like to note that I've tried many 7ch tunes in the past and they have always seamed less "spacious" and natural sounding than a typical 2ch tune. Well that is not happening with this method - the spaciousness/naturalness on both of these tunes rival some of the best 2ch results I've achieved.
> 
> It is a little tricky working with REW AutoEQ to shape to the final curve... a mix of AutoEQ peak filters and manual shelf filters has been needed to achieve what I'm after. And last nights tune left me wanting for more than 10 EQ filters so I split them up into Sub/MBass & Mid/Tweets groups to gain more filters. I made sure any shelfs were on both groups but the peak filters I split between them. For example: if there is a peak filter at 32hz - I would only apply that to the Sub/Midbass group because it's phase effect doesn't reach up into the midrange passband... And vice versa. Some filters are shared between the groups like say a peak filter within 1.5-2 octaves of the xover point between the midbass & midrange so it's phase effect will apply to both groups. It's not a cut & dry process - need to be smart about it. So one drawback is the ability to simply manipulate the target in Dirac to adjust tonality.


I need someone like you nearby to help me tune my car.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

dmparker5725 said:


> I need someone like you nearby to help me tune my car.


Where are you located? 

But, what problems are you having? The 8x12 DL is pretty simple to get a decent sounding tune right off the bat. For example mine has no pre-EQ, with the multi channel that is currently being tried I did not set levels or TA. I just set up the Routing and Mixer tabs, ran Dirac, took the default curve, back into the plug in and enabled crossovers then set a low shelf and a high shelf filter. Done. 

I'll probably try using REW and AutoEQ to tailor it to a particular curve at some point, but I'm not even sure I need to do that yet as it sounds good with the default curve and the low / high shelf filters applied.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

dmparker5725 said:


> I need someone like you nearby to help me tune my car.


Profile states your in Ashland VA. A bunch of us with be fairly nearby in November :
2021 Mid Atlantic Meet | 5th - 6th November 2021 | Near...

It's always a good time and we will be happy to help out if you can make it!


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Truthunter said:


> Profile states your in Ashland VA. A bunch of us with be fairly nearby in November :
> 2021 Mid Atlantic Meet | 5th - 6th November 2021 | Near...
> 
> It's always a good time and we will be happy to help out if you can make it!


Thanks! I will definitely keep that event in mind.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

naiku said:


> Where are you located?
> 
> But, what problems are you having? The 8x12 DL is pretty simple to get a decent sounding tune right off the bat. For example mine has no pre-EQ, with the multi channel that is currently being tried I did not set levels or TA. I just set up the Routing and Mixer tabs, ran Dirac, took the default curve, back into the plug in and enabled crossovers then set a low shelf and a high shelf filter. Done.
> 
> I'll probably try using REW and AutoEQ to tailor it to a particular curve at some point, but I'm not even sure I need to do that yet as it sounds good with the default curve and the low / high shelf filters applied.


Agree that MiniDSP is easy and straight forward. No problems there and getting really good sound. My issue fine tuning my system. 
I have been rereading the manuals, realizing mistakes I’ve made and following this thread picking up tips along the way. I am at a standstill right until I replace my sub amp. Once I knock that out (hopefully tonight), I am going to give it a another go.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

dmparker5725 said:


> Thanks! I will definitely keep that event in mind.


If you can make it out it would be well worth it, it's about 3 hours from you (I'm about 2 hours North from where you are) and is always an excellent time. The park the meet is at we have been to a few times now, it's a great location for a meet right off the highway. 

What will be really beneficial to you... I believe there will be at least 4 people there running the same DSP, possibly more. Hope you can make it down, or in your case, across.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Hey anyone heard of the 8x12 OLED going out ? Then working , then not working ..... ?

a fix ?


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Hey anyone heard of the 8x12 OLED going out ? Then working , then not working ..... ?
> 
> a fix ?


Haven't had that issue occur. Firmware updated?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> Haven't had that issue occur. Firmware updated?


Yeah new unit , fresh update, 

so maybe a support ticket


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Here's the latest measured response after I re-ran a multi channel yesterday, I've not had much time to listen but so far so good. This is the default Dirac curve, then a low shelf filter at 100hz / +7dB / 0.7 and a high shelf at 3.5KHz / -1dB / 0.7. 










I'm going to drive around for a bit with this and try at various volume levels, typically I only experience harshness at the louder volume levels. I'm also debating putting rear fill back in, but am still unable to find any Volvo D-pillars, so am reluctant to have PVC cups attached with velcro in the trunk again. 

But, the results of the multi channel method are repeatable and very quick to set up.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Here's the latest measured response after I re-ran a multi channel yesterday, I've not had much time to listen but so far so good. This is the default Dirac curve, then a low shelf filter at 100hz / +7dB / 0.7 and a high shelf at 3.5KHz / -1dB / 0.7.
> 
> View attachment 313621
> 
> ...


Dood, that looks frikking good AF ....
That sir is a hella smooth response... dammm


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So there’s two people here that have mentioned something about harshness...

I have not experienced harshness at all whatsoever when I had an 8 x 12 or with my rig right now

do you think it could be maybe from analog input and the input is saturating?
A DC overloads sound like saturation or harshness in the high frequency, but you would hear it in the low frequency before the high frequency, although that all depends on the gain structure.

someone is experiencing harshness but using digital or analog input please let me know because it should not be harsh at all it should be really really smooth all the way through the volume

I’m curious what input is and what input voltages are being used if analog

one of the ppl I know use a heigh10 with optical. So it’s not that.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Mine is using optical as well, I have had some time to listen to that tune posted above and so far it sounds excellent. I've not noticed any harshness (yet) but we'll see. Looking closely there is a rise about 1.75KHz through 3KHz, going to try using REW AutoEQ to bring that down either today or tomorrow.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

naiku said:


> Mine is using optical as well, I have had some time to listen to that tune posted above and so far it sounds excellent. I've not noticed any harshness (yet) but we'll see. Looking closely there is a rise about 1.75KHz through 3KHz, going to try using REW AutoEQ to bring that down either today or tomorrow.


What's your xover frequency for mid/twt? 

One thing that's concerned me about this method is that unless you are using a completely flat target curve your acoustic xover frequency is not going to match the electrical because of the tilt. The lower frequency will always be at a somewhat higher level which will result in your acoustic xover being somewhat higher than the electrical, which then means you are not getting a true LR4 alignment where you are net zero at the xover frequency which could lead to a hump in the xover region. Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong(probably), but I thought one of the main benefits behind this method was to get as close to a textbook LR4 alignment as possible so you have perfect summation and phase relationships? Note, I have not actually tried this yet and am only referring to the theory.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

squiers007 said:


> What's your xover frequency for mid/twt?


3,500Hz.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

naiku said:


> 3,500Hz.


I'm wondering if you're seeing what i described above due to the tilt in the target curve? Basically you've got more mid below 3500 than you would normally have with a flat curve. I'd be interested to see your whole system response curve overlaid with the individual driver responses. 

I was also curious if your measurements were from a single point sweep, single point rta, or moving mic rta?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

I live in Washington, DC, if that's helpful. I'm not as experienced as some of these folks, but I've defini


squiers007 said:


> What's your xover frequency for mid/twt?
> 
> One thing that's concerned me about this method is that unless you are using a completely flat target curve your acoustic xover frequency is not going to match the electrical because of the tilt. The lower frequency will always be at a somewhat higher level which will result in your acoustic xover being somewhat higher than the electrical, which then means you are not getting a true LR4 alignment where you are net zero at the xover frequency which could lead to a hump in the xover region. Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong(probably), but I thought one of the main benefits behind this method was to get as close to a textbook LR4 alignment as possible so you have perfect summation and phase relationships? Note, I have not actually tried this yet and am only referring to the theory.


I thought about this too; this is probably why @oabeieo draws the curve flat. But @Truthunter likes to use the Dirac curve because he suspects Dirac's gain matching will always follow their curve. One thing that could be worthwhile to try is Oabeieo's approach (flat curve) with Truthunter's grouping approach (grouping subs with mid-basses). Maybe I'll give that a go this weekend.

This is kind of fun, especially given how quick this new approach is.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

squiers007 said:


> I'm wondering if you're seeing what i described above due to the tilt in the target curve? Basically you've got more mid below 3500 than you would normally have with a flat curve. I'd be interested to see your whole system response curve overlaid with the individual driver responses.
> 
> I was also curious if your measurements were from a single point sweep, single point rta, or moving mic rta?












Here is the overall response, with the individual drivers over the top it's really difficult to see the overall response. It follows the individual measurements pretty closely though, and is likely only different due to the way I measured it. 

Which will answer your question, it was a moving average RTA. 

Honestly, no idea about the tilt, but that's because it's over my head. If I find time tomorrow, I may try a flat curve, we'll see.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

naiku said:


> View attachment 313685
> 
> 
> Here is the overall response, with the individual drivers over the top it's really difficult to see the overall response. It follows the individual measurements pretty closely though, and is likely only different due to the way I measured it.
> ...


Yea, it would be a lot easier to see if each measurement where taken from a single point with a sweep. The moving mic will more closely represent that, but you can also extract phase from a sweep which I'd be interested in seeing as well. 

It looks to me that the peak at 2k is more due to something going on with your mid vs. what I suspected earlier. 

On a somewhat related note, I'm trying to convince the wife to let me head down to the meetup in November, so maybe we'll be able to compare and work through some of these different approaches then.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> What's your xover frequency for mid/twt?
> 
> One thing that's concerned me about this method is that unless you are using a completely flat target curve your acoustic xover frequency is not going to match the electrical because of the tilt. The lower frequency will always be at a somewhat higher level which will result in your acoustic xover being somewhat higher than the electrical, which then means you are not getting a true LR4 alignment where you are net zero at the xover frequency which could lead to a hump in the xover region. Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong(probably), but I thought one of the main benefits behind this method was to get as close to a textbook LR4 alignment as possible so you have perfect summation and phase relationships? Note, I have not actually tried this yet and am only referring to the theory.


this is why you USE bass management!
Do this for all and setup your sub for an alignment for critical listening, do your Dirac sweeps with sub at like -20db , tune it ... 

Then when you want to bump or are playing let’s say , the cars or some record that has no bass , you have a fat 20db till 0db and another +12db of boost 

so when you’re listening who cares what the crossover is, acoustically as long as it sounds good.... for critical listening then yes it absolutely matters and you know on your display just dial back to -20 and you’re there

that’s just how I do things I don’t bicker about perfect alignment to midbass , that is what makes bass management so awesome..... the highs will always maintain perfect sq , and we all know we all like to have a little extra bass then flat....

And as far as tilt goes , put your tilt in your target for the sub like I describe in my original post, but tilt only the sub 

you’re not connected really to the rest of the system because -bass management is it’s own measurement and setting


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

Does any one have any left and right after Dirac rew results. 
I've notice even if I make everything flat before running Dirac(this isn't how I have my bast results just a test) using the moving mic method around my head. After Dirac it's a bit all over the place +-5db between left and right more through the midrange. But it sounds great and has a solid image so I'm sure it knows best lol. 
BTW Dirac has changed my life. I feel like I could tune for ever but never could I make it sound like this. My best results have been two channel not including sub, I can never make it integrate the sub like I can manually. I have tried this multiway method and it looks promising, it summed really nice after adding the crossovers in but I still couldn't get it as open and free sounding as my best two channel tune.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Mine is using optical as well, I have had some time to listen to that tune posted above and so far it sounds excellent. I've not noticed any harshness (yet) but we'll see. Looking closely there is a rise about 1.75KHz through 3KHz, going to try using REW AutoEQ to bring that down either today or tomorrow.


just make sure you apply your EQs to all the outputs and your good

that looks nice man...... I’m jealous of your midbass response


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> just make sure you apply your EQs to all the outputs and your good


This is something I wasn't sure about.... say I use REW to generate the EQ to simply tame the bump at 2KHz, do I load that biquad to an eq block for every driver? Not just to the mids.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Here’s a vid my wife made w her new cam.
It’s dorky ..... sound goes down at 1:45


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Removed


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

naiku said:


> This is something I wasn't sure about.... say I use REW to generate the EQ to simply tame the bump at 2KHz, do I load that biquad to an eq block for every driver? Not just to the mids.


If no more than a total of 10 filters are needed then just apply them to all the drivers. As a general rule, if the biquad peak filters affect frequencies within an octave of a xover point then apply that biquad to the driver it's crossed to also. But any shelf filters should be applied to all drivers.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> One thing that's concerned me about this method is that unless you are using a completely flat target curve your acoustic xover frequency is not going to match the electrical because of the tilt. The lower frequency will always be at a somewhat higher level which will result in your acoustic xover being somewhat higher than the electrical, which then means you are not getting a true LR4 alignment where you are net zero at the xover frequency which could lead to a hump in the xover region. Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong(probably), but I thought one of the main benefits behind this method was to get as close to a textbook LR4 alignment as possible so you have perfect summation and phase relationships? Note, I have not actually tried this yet and am only referring to the theory.


What I've found is if the drivers are all eq'd to the same target curve (regardless of tilt) to at least an octave beyond the planned passband > then apply xover filters > the acoustic xovers will be very close to if not right on where the electronic xovers are set and the alignments will be correct.

The idea of gapping xovers because of tilt is for the traditional way of applying xover filters first and then eq'g after.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> But @Truthunter likes to use the Dirac curve because he suspects Dirac's gain matching will always follow their curve.


Yes, my experience has been regardless of the level differences between target curves in different groups, Dirac will always level them out to the overall default curve which has a ~5db tilt down from 20hz to 20khz. Easy way to test this is load flat (0db) curves in all groups, load the correction file, then apply xovers, then measure with REW and I'm willing to bet the overall measurement will show that ~5db tilt found in the default curve instead of flat.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> Yes, my experience has been regardless of the level differences between target curves in different groups, Dirac will always level them out to the overall default curve which has a ~5db tilt down from 20hz to 20khz. Easy way to test this is load flat (0db) curves in all groups, load the correction file, then apply xovers, then measure with REW and I'm willing to bet the overall measurement will show that ~5db tilt found in the default curve instead of flat.


Precisely


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Did anyone validate if the Dirac channels is set to tweeter if it’s band limited?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Did anyone validate if the Dirac channels is set to tweeter if it’s band limited?


like , maybe if someone can , set a midrange to tweeter and start running and see how far it plays down ....

you can tell by just taking the 1st measurement and negate the rest , go right to filter creation and look at that channels response


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

oabeieo said:


> Hey anyone heard of the 8x12 OLED going out ? Then working , then not working ..... ?
> 
> a fix ?


I had to replace my cable, but mine just quit, no intermittent stuff.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> like , maybe if someone can , set a midrange to tweeter and start running and see how far it plays down ....
> 
> you can tell by just taking the 1st measurement and negate the rest , go right to filter creation and look at that channels response


I might be able to test this later.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Did anyone validate if the Dirac channels is set to tweeter if it’s band limited?


It is not, matter of fact my understanding is it doesn't matter what kind of speaker type is picked in the channel assignment screen - at this time it doesn't change a thing. My understanding is those "types" are there for possible future expandability for something like Bass Control. The manual actually states something similar:


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

That saves me trying that out later.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Truthunter said:


> It is not, matter of fact my understanding is it doesn't matter what kind of speaker type is picked in the channel assignment screen - at this time it doesn't change a thing. My understanding is those "types" are there for possible future expandability for something like Bass Control. The manual actually states something similar:
> View attachment 313770


I sort of suspected this because, for my tweeters (which now have caps on them specifically because I wanted to try this process), there was a delay in it starting the sweep...which I figured wasn't actually a delay, it was just trying to play frequencies below what the cap would allow.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> It is not, matter of fact my understanding is it doesn't matter what kind of speaker type is picked in the channel assignment screen - at this time it doesn't change a thing. My understanding is those "types" are there for possible future expandability for something like Bass Control. The manual actually states something similar:
> View attachment 313770


well the little icon on the speaker during the levels setup in Dirac , changes depending what speaker type , when set to tweeter it shows a horn... so it must do something.... maybe how it measures , I know if sub is not selected for a sub it measures the sub funky .....

but good to know otherwise.... thank you


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> well the little icon on the speaker during the levels setup in Dirac , changes depending what speaker type , when set to tweeter it shows a horn... so it must do something.... maybe how it measures , I know if sub is not selected for a sub it measures the sub funky .....
> 
> but good to know otherwise.... thank you


You mentioned having trouble seeing my attachments/photos so not sure you can see the screen shot of the manual I provided. Here's the wording from the Dirac Live User Manual Addendum - "The speaker type is currently provided for user information only. It affects items such as the icons displayed for each channel in the DiracLive app. However, it’s still recommended that this be set correctly for your system in order to allow for future enhancements."


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> You mentioned having trouble seeing my attachments/photos so not sure you can see the screen shot of the manual I provided. Here's the wording from the Dirac Live User Manual Addendum - "The speaker type is currently provided for user information only. It affects items such as the icons displayed for each channel in the DiracLive app. However, it’s still recommended that this be set correctly for your system in order to allow for future enhancements."


 thank you !

yeah I couldn’t see those...... so then that’s that


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Truthunter said:


> If no more than a total of 10 filters are needed then just apply them to all the drivers. As a general rule, if the biquad peak filters affect frequencies within an octave of a xover point then apply that biquad to the driver it's crossed to also. But any shelf filters should be applied to all drivers.


Thank you, just got done updating this to see if I can smooth out that one small bump. It threw me a couple times as I would load the biquad generated from REW, only needed 2 filters, it would wipe out my high and low shelf that I had already applied. 

Took a minute for me to realize that biquad 1 and biquad 2 were first being used by that REW file so overwriting the shelf filters, a quick modification of the text file moving those to biquad 3 and biquad 4, copying the shelf biquads into the file and then importing that worked. 

So far, so good. Sounds excellent. I'll maybe measure the response later, got about an hour drive coming up soon so will be a good chance to play a bunch of stuff.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

naiku said:


> Thank you, just got done updating this to see if I can smooth out that one small bump. It threw me a couple times as I would load the biquad generated from REW, only needed 2 filters, it would wipe out my high and low shelf that I had already applied.
> 
> Took a minute for me to realize that biquad 1 and biquad 2 were first being used by that REW file so overwriting the shelf filters, a quick modification of the text file moving those to biquad 3 and biquad 4, copying the shelf biquads into the file and then importing that worked.
> 
> So far, so good. Sounds excellent. I'll maybe measure the response later, got about an hour drive coming up soon so will be a good chance to play a bunch of stuff.


Glad you figured it out and it's sounding good... can get a little tricky moving biquads around.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Can’t you go into the REW filters and lock two of them and make them your shelf and pre-defined it so that you can export it all as one

Edit I just saw that it only used two PEQs , You’re good you’re up and running that’s awesome let us know how it sounds


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> awesome let us know how it sounds


F**king awesome is how it sounds. 

Those 2 PEQs seem to have removed any harshness, so I can turn the volume up as much as I'm comfortable with. Previous tunes certain subwoofer frequencies would pull to the trunk, that's gone, it stays locked up front. Playing Foo Fighters - White Limo, you can feel the bass drum hit (I could feel it moving my hair 🤣😂) overall it's got that "feel it in your chest" kick that we're all after. The overall sense of stage size reminds me of the effect running rear fill gives, just that increased stage width. Debating putting my rear fill back in, just to see (hear) if it makes the stage overall larger. 

Driving around earlier I threw everything at it.... Adele, Metallica, Odesza, Bassnectar, Foo Fighters, Fleetwood Mac, Fiona Apple, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Mozart... every single track I played sounded equally as good as the last. 

I'm looking forward to the meet next month and getting some opinions from others on it, from my perspective it's very likely the best I've heard in my car.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Dope AF .... sick.....

Yeah the ambiance effect I know exactly what your talking about 
Music has a realism and ambiance and a sense of realism that comes through as totally transparent.... love dirac.... 

Once the tonality issues debugged and crossovers are happy omg it’s absolutely stellar sq.... 

And yes the impact..... that’s the best part of everything


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

naiku said:


> F**king awesome is how it sounds.
> 
> Those 2 PEQs seem to have removed any harshness, so I can turn the volume up as much as I'm comfortable with. Previous tunes certain subwoofer frequencies would pull to the trunk, that's gone, it stays locked up front. Playing Foo Fighters - White Limo, you can feel the bass drum hit (I could feel it moving my hair ) overall it's got that "feel it in your chest" kick that we're all after. The overall sense of stage size reminds me of the effect running rear fill gives, just that increased stage width. Debating putting my rear fill back in, just to see (hear) if it makes the stage overall larger.
> 
> ...


What frequency were the PEQs at?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

I've just spent most of my day re going over this multiway method and this is by far the best way using the 8x12dl! 
My system sounds best flat from about 250-300hz up so I've used a shelf filter at 300hz - 8db and .5 gain. I've included this filter in my rew auto tune that is then applied to every output channel(this was just to make it a bit more flat) . I've used bw 18db filters everywhere but sub to midbass and noticed two things. I needed to flip the midrange polarity so they summed with the tweeters and mid bass and also the shelf filter must do something with the midbass to midrange crossover as I needed to drop the midbass crossover down about 40hz for it to sum correctly or else it had a big peak there. 

What's great with this method is you can play all you want with crossovers ect..... As all Dirac was doing was correcting every speaker(and speaker pair) once that is done there is so many cool things you can do to change the sound to suit. 
In comparison to the best two channel tune I have this multiway has a much more stable image, a more open, detailed and relaxing sound. It's better everywhere. 

What I find amazing is how each speaker tests in rew after this and how perfect the crossover shapes are and how well they sum, it means we can try different crossovers without re doing the Dirac tuning!

Thanks!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

RAC said:


> I've just spent most of my day re going over this multiway method and this is by far the best way using the 8x12dl!
> My system sounds best flat from about 250-300hz up so I've used a shelf filter at 300hz - 8db and .5 gain. I've included this filter in my rew auto tune that is then applied to every output channel(this was just to make it a bit more flat) . I've used bw 18db filters everywhere but sub to midbass and noticed two things. I needed to flip the midrange polarity so they summed with the tweeters and mid bass and also the shelf filter must do something with the midbass to midrange crossover as I needed to drop the midbass crossover down about 40hz for it to sum correctly or else it had a big peak there.
> 
> What's great with this method is you can play all you want with crossovers ect..... As all Dirac was doing was correcting every speaker(and speaker pair) once that is done there is so many cool things you can do to change the sound to suit.
> ...


you got it !!! Bad ass .....

this is the only way.....minimum phase crossovers aren’t horrible..... Dirac is such a powerful dsp ...... I love hearing this.

finally a repeatable way everyone can get and actually hear crossovers summing good in a car..... not just good, but superbly...

Way way way better then you could do on your own aye.... It took me about a month to concede that Dirac is a much better tuner then me.... and haven’t looked back 

Yes flat for me also please.... if flat doesn’t sound right something is wrong , and a bump under 300 but only a few dB , no more then 3 to my ears.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> you got it !!! Bad ass .....
> 
> this is the only way.....minimum phase crossovers aren’t horrible..... Dirac is such a powerful dsp ...... I love hearing this.
> 
> ...


Fyi, I think RAC used the Dirac curve, and then added a 300Hz .5dB high shelf to basically counteract the Dirac curve and make it flat. It sounds like he added that high shelf on all channels, then measured and did REW Auto EQ.

Mind sharing your final curve @RAC ?


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

Anu2g said:


> Fyi, I think RAC used the Dirac curve, and then added a 300Hz .5dB high shelf to basically counteract the Dirac curve and make it flat. It sounds like he added that high shelf on all channels, then measured and did REW Auto EQ.
> 
> Mind sharing your final curve @RAC ?


In Dirac I made each group of drives flat, then loaded that to the 8x12dl then took a moving mic measurement. Then auto tuned that to a flat curve in rew from 100hz to 20khz and added the shelf filter into the rew file. The only thing making my curve shape is the shelf filter. You could skip the rew auto tune but for some reason I always end up with a few peaks through the midrange around 900hz after Dirac that I like to get rid of. I don't normally do anything about them with a two channel tune and some tunes they don't even pop up. 
The sub is included in its own group in Dirac and through bass management but there is still a little peq to that to make it how I like.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So just to make sure ..... whatever you do in REW with auto eq and whatever EQ shelf’s whatever .... this is very important 

they all need not only be applied to all outputs , but also to both left and right...

most of you know Dirac enough by now to already know this so I know I’m preaching to the choir. But for anyone else that may not know you cannot do separate left and right adjustments especially after Dirac

Any changes must be equally added to each Dirac group at a minimum and ideally to all the highs/fronts 

just makin sure we’re all the same page


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Ryan talked me through the entire new 7 channel process posted in this thread....I’m not the sharpest tool, and even though I’ve had the DSP for awhile, most of what is in here isn’t translatable. 

Wow! Wow! Wow! I’m sitting here with tears running down my face! All of the things you all have been saying - imaging, staging, coherence - it is all there!!! 

Especially the bass - I just have 8’s in the doors and a 12 in the front - articulate, low, fast bass that is all up front and coherent - mid bass and sub playing in unison - extraordinary. 

Some of it we have done before, but never got results like this! 

Funny - I just bought a pair of REL subs for the 2 channel system - I should be in there getting them set up and getting them sounding great, but I’m in my car for crying out loud! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bertholomey said:


> Ryan talked me through the entire new 7 channel process posted in this thread....I’m not the sharpest tool, and even though I’ve had the DSP for awhile, most of what is in here isn’t translatable.
> 
> Wow! Wow! Wow! I’m sitting here with tears running down my face! All of the things you all have been saying - imaging, staging, coherence - it is all there!!!
> 
> ...


This sounds great! I'm counting on you guys walking me through this in a few weeks! So excited to give this a shot, I just don't think I'll have time to try and work through it on my own before the meetup. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

bertholomey said:


> Wow! Wow! Wow! I’m sitting here with tears running down my face! All of the things you all have been saying - imaging, staging, coherence - it is all there!!!


That's great 👍 it's pretty astonishing how good it really sounds, and very straight forward to get up and running. 



squiers007 said:


> This sounds great! I'm counting on you guys walking me through this in a few weeks! So excited to give this a shot, I just don't think I'll have time to try and work through it on my own before the meetup.


Make sure to bring your laptop and microphone down, there will be plenty of us running 8x12DL at the meet who can help out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’m so jealous of this meet up.... that sounds like so much fun.... you guys better start early , sound like a long day (at least if I was there, ide be out till midnight lol)


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> I’m so jealous of this meet up.... that sounds like so much fun.... you guys better start early , sound like a long day (at least if I was there, ide be out till midnight lol)


Just a short flight away 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

3.1.2 is out 
I’m get tomorrow, can turn off gain and delay compensation..... why idk yet


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

There was a phase correction issue on MacOS?!?


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Anu2g said:


> There was a phase correction issue on MacOS?!?


Interesting - I had downloaded the previous update for Mac OS, completed the 7 channel - went to the filter screen - got an error message - hit the button at the bottom of the page to recalculate phase, and then it worked. 

So I wonder if this update fixes that bug that I saw. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

bertholomey said:


> Interesting - I had downloaded the previous update for Mac OS, completed the 7 channel - went to the filter screen - got an error message - hit the button at the bottom of the page to recalculate phase, and then it worked.
> 
> So I wonder if this update fixes that bug that I saw.
> 
> ...


Oh okay; that's not too bad. I would be more upset if it all _appeared _to work, but actually the phase was just wrong.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I added protection caps to the mids and tweeters, so feeling safe to try this now. Does this sound correct?
1. Set up bass management
2. Set each channel as a Dirac channel
3. Turn off all crossover, TA, and EQ settings
4. Run Dirac as 7 channel mode
5. Use curtains at driver roll-off/anticipated crossover frequencies
6. Set target curves to flat
7. Back in plug-in, set desired crossovers
8. Use shelf filters to create actual slope


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Oh okay; that's not too bad. I would be more upset if it all _appeared _to work, but actually the phase was just wrong.


you would definitely know..... lol

I’ve hadbad measurements, and your mad because you just wasted all that time.... something about the sound is just completely fu****ed .... lol

I’m about to go try it .....


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> I added protection caps to the mids and tweeters, so feeling safe to try this now. Does this sound correct?
> 1. Set up bass management
> 2. Set each channel as a Dirac channel
> 3. Turn off all crossover, TA, and EQ settings
> ...


take them off the mids ..... this is important!! Don’t run your sweeps that loyd if theres a concern .... your mid can absolutely handle a little bass for a sec at 90db ..... 

The cap will absolutely screw things up ...

Leave it on only the tweeter and leave it on permanently


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> take them off the mids ..... this is important!! Don’t run your sweeps that loyd if theres a concern .... your mid can absolutely handle a little bass for a sec at 90db .....
> 
> The cap will absolutely screw things up ...
> 
> Leave it on only the tweeter and leave it on permanently


The caps came with the Morel mids, which I've figured means that Morel itself thinks they need to be protected, but if it doesn't seem to really matter I can take them out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And make sure the tweeter cap is polypropylene and at least 400v ac rating...... this is a big deal for SQ 

DO NOT USE ELECTROLYTIC CAPS


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> The caps came with the Morel mids, which I've figured means that Morel itself thinks they need to be protected, but if it doesn't seem to really matter I can take them out.


Are they domes? If so then as you were

The domes will pop.... OK only exception you were given a pass

cone midrange don’t need them

and again you’ll leave them on forever as it will become part of the correction


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Morel CCWR254 - 2.5" cones. 

I had read several places that electrolytic caps were OK for this usage, as they would be well below the actual crossover points.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Morel CCWR254 - 2.5" cones.
> 
> I had read several places that electrolytic caps were OK for this usage, as they would be well below the actual crossover points.


so caps cause hysteris distortion... and it gets pretty bad at low frequencies.... they want to resist dc so much and long frequencies are “dc” for longer periods...

and the lower the frequencies the steeper the slope.....

If it’s a cone just take the cap off and make sure your environment is quiet... take measurements a little quieter like 87db if need be , 

If it were me I would just do my normal 90db sweeps through any cone. It’s not going to hurt it.... it’s a cone driver.

so like your output maybe start at -40dbfs
For sweeps... that should be plenty quiet


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thanks for the input! Does my list of steps otherwise look accurate? I'm guessing I missed something!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I bet they came with caps for the installers that were going to try hooking them up full range , or high passed off a 4ch or something. 

if they came with the speakers that’s an indication you can’t cross it at80 lol

for measurements tho I put my money on it will be fine


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Thanks for the input! Does my list of steps otherwise look accurate? I'm guessing I missed something!


yeah ..... except make target go all through the bandwidth of the driver , knee to knee of the natural response..... curtain off only where driver starts to naturally roll off , whichshould be way way way out of bad from anticipated crossover

And definitely take a nice long listen while it’s flat , you might just like it 

and also .... edit ; set all your targets the same dB down , like -5db in Dirac


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

hella356 said:


> I added protection caps to the mids and tweeters, so feeling safe to try this now. Does this sound correct?
> 1. Set up bass management
> 2. Set each channel as a Dirac channel
> 3. Turn off all crossover, TA, and EQ settings
> ...


@Truthunter's approach, which I am currently using, varies slightly from the above:

6. Instead of setting target curves to flat, leave the default Dirac curve
6b. Group the mid-basses with the sub; so you should have 3 groups in Dirac: Tweeters, Mids, and MBs/Sub

I have not personally confirmed whether this is better than setting flat like @oabeieo does.

Note: your first step (setting bass mgmt) does not impact the Dirac measurements, so it could be part of step 7 if you wanted. Bass Mgmt is ran on your inputs, and Dirac does not actually use any of the DSP's inputs.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Anu2g said:


> 6. Instead of setting target curves to flat, leave the default Dirac curve
> 6b. Group the mid-basses with the sub; so you should have 3 groups in Dirac: Tweeters, Mids, and MBs/Sub


That's what I am doing as well. I would also add....

3. Turn off all crossover, TA and EQ settings - set all levels to 0dB (maybe set your sub to -5dB if it is too loud during sweeps).


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

The only thing about using a tilt in the response is... you risk having errors in the crossovers.....

all of the crossovers in the minidsp are calculated for flat magnitude. That means the high pass and low pass need to sum together to fill the hole caused by a -3/-6 dB down..... filling the hole isn’t the problem.

it’s the phase tracking that needs requires both sides of a crossover to be of equal amplitude and the same shape for the crossover to work properly

As the crossover attenuate the hi pass and low pass are drifting to -180deg (there completely out of phase with one another) and that 180deg mark is the crossover point for a LR and the 90deg mark for BWs .... the two speakers one at -180 and the one at +180 sum to be zero degrees. And more importantly throughout the leg of the crossover it has to match the amplitude and shape of the adjacent crossover to sum properly. So if theres an amplitude change (from a tilt or a peak or dip in the response without the crossover being engaged) it runs the risk of destructive interference. Which is the number 1 reason I stopped using the 8x12. So all the coefficients need to be there before any tilt is applied.

so I need to think this one through all the way..... the logic of adding a tilt may or may not work.... I mean, it sounds like it’s working for you guys... I suppose if the tilt is at the same Rate then maybe .... all except the logarithmic way frequencie and phase interact.
Phase gets smaller as frequencies rise. So the tilt would have more turn on the low pass then the high pass

The way you guys are turning off crossovers and grouping I need to think this through.... I’m not fully on board yet, but it might work , I’m not an expert, but I am a thinker , just sometimes a slow thinker.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

The fact that the crossovers are turned off and targets made would definitely improve things as it would smooth out the response, it’s how there summing..... it seems to me still flat is the way , no default targets.... no tilt..... I don’t see it working optimally any other way .... yet ;-)

Dirac wasn’t made to tune a multi-way, were just utilizing it this way , so it needs to be proper to have the best results, so default target means nothing in this type of setup


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Although, in my experience building fir , as long as it’s close , and resembles the shape mostly it works killer...... 

So ....... if the tilt is minute , I can see it still phase tracking properly..... 

Still undecided, at least with minimum phase crossovers.... linear phase crossovers are much much more forgiving. But as with anything, the better the alignment the better the results... and you can’t argue with results .... if you guys say it works .... then I guess I’m left to assume close enough also works with minimum phase crossovers...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And btw 3.1.2 sucks 
It works very very slow it took like 10 minutes just to resume my project

and the disable gain and delay button didn’t even work it crashed the software so I downgraded back to 3.1.1


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> The fact that the crossovers are turned off and targets made would definitely improve things as it would smooth out the response, it’s how there summing..... it seems to me still flat is the way , no default targets.... no tilt..... I don’t see it working optimally any other way .... yet ;-)
> 
> Dirac wasn’t made to tune a multi-way, were just utilizing it this way , so it needs to be proper to have the best results, so default target means nothing in this type of setup


Do you agree with Ryan's method of grouping the mid-basses/sub together? I found that makes a really big difference, and am definitely a fan of that approach. I tried that at the same time as doing the Dirac curve. I would like to try Ryan's method of grouping MBs/sub together along with your _flat_ curve approach. But I likely won't be able to until the Meet itself as I'm feeding my other car addiction next weekend (and weekend after is the meet).


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Do you agree with Ryan's method of grouping the mid-basses/sub together? I found that makes a really big difference, and am definitely a fan of that approach. I tried that at the same time as doing the Dirac curve. I would like to try Ryan's method of grouping MBs/sub together along with your _flat_ curve approach. But I likely won't be able to until the Meet itself as I'm feeding my other car addiction next weekend (and weekend after is the meet).


yeah I do agree w Ryan , as doing anything to get the speaker to behave flat throughout the crossover massively helps.

I see why he’s adding the midbass and sub together, maybe he’s trying to get the phase rotation out of the bass management.... I can see that working yes , I also believe all of what he’s doing will definitely sound good.... and it might sound better .... only one way to find out

But as far as getting the crossovers themself to behave the most textbook at your position and knowing there’s going to be phase wraps , but they will sum properly, my way is preferable...

do I think it honestly comes down to how well the initial delays are done. And a few other considerations, like the GD in where midbass and subs are grouped together. It may work on some and may nit on others

doing everything on its own channels in Dirac
Tweets get a paired group
Mids get a paired grouped
Midbass get a paired group
And sub gets it’s own single group

dirac runs before bass management. So the crossover in bass management is off when Dirac is running sweeps anyways

for me it’s about proper summing on all the crossovers.... so I wouldn’t group anything different. And I wouldn’t add a tilt to any targets....except the sub.

after Dirac, the sub is separated from all the highs in bass management. The bass manager will give the midbass , midrange and Tweets the inherent phase shift from midbass crossover in bass management

that leaves the sun on its own separate thing as bass management LP side only goes to sub so a tilt on the sub won’t affect the highs... and it’s the highs that need proper summation more then the lows..... 

As far as the sub tilt , turn on a LR4 and in the minidsp you can put the mouse over the shape on the crossover screen , it will tell you how many dB down the slope is on the crossover picture in minidsp app.
So look where the top of the knee of the crossover for sun goes to 0db and start your tilt up to 10hz from that point ... that way you don’t affect the knee of the crossover and everything stays in relative gain

my way is repeatable for everyone ..... at least knowing how textbook crossovers work


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> The only thing about using a tilt in the response is... you risk having errors in the crossovers.....
> 
> all of the crossovers in the minidsp are calculated for flat magnitude. That means the high pass and low pass need to sum together to fill the hole caused by a -3/-6 dB down..... filling the hole isn’t the problem.
> 
> ...


This was my initial worry all along... I just do not prefer a ruler flat response in a vehicle. But, until I've actually heard a system setup this way I cannot say it's "wrong". Sounds like everyone whose done it thinks its an improvement so there's got to be something to it, just not sure what it is. 

I wonder if sending this method over to the support folks at Dirac or MiniDSP would get us any response? Maybe they could explain why this is or is not a good way of setting things up?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> This was my initial worry all along... I just do not prefer a ruler flat response in a vehicle. But, until I've actually heard a system setup this way I cannot say it's "wrong". Sounds like everyone whose done it thinks its an improvement so there's got to be something to it, just not sure what it is.
> 
> I wonder if sending this method over to the support folks at Dirac or MiniDSP would get us any response? Maybe they could explain why this is or is not a good way of setting things up?


they told us this is the way to do it years ago, I just didn’t understand it at the time

And no one is saying ruler flat is how you listen that’s just how you measure it initially you add your tilt with a shelving filter after Dirac

That tundra I did sure did sound good flat tho ..... and a tilt on sub only .....

i use flat in my car on most of my drivers and you definitely want it flat from 300hz-3.5khz,

which brings up a whole Nother topic but the way that Direc does a flat response with no tilt sure does sound good..


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

The “problem” doing it this way is Dirac won’t undo the phase twist caused by crossovers.... here’s the catch 

what sounds better .... reduced phase twist with crossovers that sum pretty badly. OR

excellent summing crossover and GD removed from each passband individually by drivers

experience has shown us , keeping the phase twist and having better summation in crossovers sounds arguably better.

in a 2ch Dirac tune, a super solid pre tune could also sound excellent.

it’s just a different style of tuning... and I think that’s why we have four presets

do a different style On each preset


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Anyone have any suggestions on how to set up rear fill while using the multi channel Dirac? Here is what my routing tab currently looks like. 










7 x Dirac already in use, for rear fill though I need to have 2 x Dirac channels available in order to set it up properly. If I assign rear fill to Dirac 7 and Dirac 8 like so:










The problem as you can now see, my subwoofer on Bass Mgt is also on Dirac 7, so this will not work. As is, I cannot think of a way to make it work without removing the subwoofer from Dirac and manually tuning that instead. Maybe that could work, but at the moment my subwoofer / midbass blend is better than I could ever get manually, so I am reluctant to pull the subwoofer out. 

I thought about maybe putting the subwoofer in with the midbass (since they are getting grouped in the Dirac software curve) but not sure that will work either as it then gives issues with Bass Mgt since I don't want that applied to the midbass. 

So, other than MiniDSP giving me a Dirac 9, can anyone see a way to keep multi channel and add rear fill?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Anu2g said:


> Do you agree with Ryan's method of grouping the mid-basses/sub together? I found that makes a really big difference, and am definitely a fan of that approach. I tried that at the same time as doing the Dirac curve. I would like to try Ryan's method of grouping MBs/sub together along with your _flat_ curve approach. But I likely won't be able to until the Meet itself as I'm feeding my other car addiction next weekend (and weekend after is the meet).


Btw, I realized I could actually try grouped MBs/sub + _Flat_ curve pretty easily, using my existing Dirac measurements...basically just needed to open up Dirac again and edit the curves in there (no new measurements needed). So I spent 10 min doing that during lunch today. It sounds pretty good. I can't really say whether it's better or worse than Ryan's approach. I will say that I definitely think grouping the subs and mid-basses together works really damn well, so any 7ch tunes I do in the future will be using that grouping approach. 

Seems to me like it doesn't really matter between drawing flat vs. using Dirac curve, so long as you apply proper shelves afterward to hit your target. But inconclusive (for me) for now.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

naiku said:


> Anyone have any suggestions on how to set up rear fill while using the multi channel Dirac? Here is what my routing tab currently looks like.
> 
> View attachment 314149
> 
> ...



My first thought is to pretune the mids/tweets the "old fashioned" way and put them on two Dirac channels (L/R). So CH1 is L tweet/mid, CH2 R tweet/mid, CH3-5 midbass and sub, 7 & 8 Rear fill.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Anyone have any suggestions on how to set up rear fill while using the multi channel Dirac? Here is what my routing tab currently looks like.
> 
> View attachment 314149
> 
> ...


Do it from the mixer instead ????

it seems to me I remember being able to do it from the mixer instead of the routing. I’m pretty sure you can right click and do the invert on that screen as well

I think you can do it on any of the screens actually I think you can even do it on the input before base management... It’s pretty versatile but I think for what you’re saying I think the mixer would be correct if I remember correctly

doing it from the mixer would be after Dirac... Which wouldn’t cause any problems with the sub


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Truthunter said:


> My first thought is to pretune the mids/tweets the "old fashioned" way and put them on two Dirac channels (L/R). So CH1 is L tweet/mid, CH2 R tweet/mid, CH3-5 midbass and sub, 7 & 8 Rear fill.


Eww the old fashioned manual way!! That may be the only option though. 



oabeieo said:


> it seems to me I remember being able to do it from the mixer instead of the routing. I’m pretty sure you can right click and do the invert on that screen as well


I'll check, but I'm not sure you can do it on the Mixer tab. Would be nice if you could, I'll mess with it some tomorrow. At the moment, I don't have the rears back in the car, just trying to see if it's feasible to include them as based on past experiences, adding them into the multi channel tune, should at least in theory, make the stage huge.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Eww the old fashioned manual way!! That may be the only option though.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll check, but I'm not sure you can do it on the Mixer tab. Would be nice if you could, I'll mess with it some tomorrow. At the moment, I don't have the rears back in the car, just trying to see if it's feasible to include them as based on past experiences, adding them into the multi channel tune, should at least in theory, make the stage huge.


yeah I’m like 99% sure you can do it anywhere in there..... even in the input section.... let us know tho to validate


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Just did a full blown retune on my car and was like really careful and looked to see what was minimum phase and what wasn’t... could only really tell under 1k

anyways , I turned all my crossovers off and did peq tune on most of the peaks and just did eq on left and right together on all drivers and made them as flat as I can.

I applied eq to both left and right bit only played noise on the left, leaving right muted. Then played right and compared.

for the right I only tamed any massive peaks and removed eq where it wasn’t needed not adding any more peq bands under 1k

above 1k was sane technique except I added more peq band to right to make it match left.

all done moving mic RTA pink PN 16k samples

Then turned back on crossovers and ran Dirac 2ch

it works very good.

so this is completely different then Dirac 1.7 , I could not do a peq pre tune in 1.7
So I always preached no pre tune.... 3.1.1 is doing something different

after experiencing this new 8x12 thing and reading all the enhancements and upgrades on Dirac webpage as it goes from 1.7 to 3.1 there’s many times it said something of “improve phase response between left and right”

so...... a pre tune works now. And works really good. So ...... maybe . We need to do what we’re doing in the 7ch tune but with peq and manual tuning then run a 2ch Dirac ......
volunteers??

Edit , I think the goal with a pretune is Trying very hard to make left and right have the same EQ bands in the same cuts and boozTrying very hard to make left and right have the same EQ Bands as much as possible.... can’t just start over completely on the right after doing left. That will definitely create a De-correlation filter. I only added like 1PEQ per pair and got it pretty dam flat. +/-3db


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So speaker tuning (crossover tuning) absolutely should be done at the listen position.....

so, awhile ago I was talking to thomas drugeon aka pos (creator or rephase) on the rephase thread on Diy. He said do crossover tuning at the speaker..... but he also said , you can do it at the listening position but it’s only good got one spot...

im beginning to feel it’s the best spot (for us) in a car.

close mic measurements do reveal measured phase very nice... super easy to read and no FDW needed. For us tho.... at our seat and a FDW works much better.

i went on a listen and it’s way way way way better.... my tweeters don’t sound brash no more .

so we’re on to something, I think we can make a 2ch tune be pretty dam bad ass if we do the 7ch method manually and do a 2ch Dirac...... 

@Ryan,
I understand your method now..... can you try and do your method but do a manual tune between sub and midbass pre Dirac , and do peq crossover tuning? Moving mic averages, and lmk..... I bet it’s good

you actually got me thinking, I was trying to figure out why you were doing it like that.... I get it now. Would be cool to know what you think like this


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> So speaker tuning (crossover tuning) absolutely should be done at the listen position.....
> 
> so, awhile ago I was talking to thomas drugeon aka pos (creator or rephase) on the rephase thread on Diy. He said do crossover tuning at the speaker..... but he also said , you can do it at the listening position but it’s only good got one spot...
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm missing something Andy, but aren't you just talking about the "old" way, which is outlined in Mini's docs? The old way is to handle PEQ, XOs, and TA before Dirac, and then running 2ch Dirac.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Maybe I'm missing something Andy, but aren't you just talking about the "old" way, which is outlined in Mini's docs? The old way is to handle PEQ, XOs, and TA before Dirac, and then running 2ch Dirac.


yeah , but a combo of both....

it might screw things up, I need to get another 8x12


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So my drive into work morning today , 
Tonality is great but imaging is wandering all over the place.....

so, to disappoint everyone I’m going to have to retract what I just said about separate left and right EQ working now it doesn’t... it created a de-correlation filter. And Direc corrected some of it but it did not fix all of it....

So I will be changing it and I will EQ the left side and the right side equally and just find the spot that has the flattest response for both without separate EQ.

last night in the garage it sounded just fine, coming in today it still sounds good but there’s small errors and it’s definitely EQ in pretune causing it.

boo :-(


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I completed a from scratch tune this morning using the 7 channel method - protective crossover on tweeters only, 7 channel Dirac, then Auto EQ in REW to get overall curve and to get low shelf - sounds terrific to me. I’m extremely happy with this tune. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I don’t miss all those measurements, man that’s like over 90 sweeps or something.. 


bertholomey said:


> I completed a from scratch tune this morning using the 7 channel method - protective crossover on tweeters only, 7 channel Dirac, then Auto EQ in REW to get overall curve and to get low shelf - sounds terrific to me. I’m extremely happy with this tune.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I don’t miss all those sweeps ..... like over 90 or something crazy.... 

Did you merge your sub into your midbass group ? It makes sense to do that , but also seems it would be the same thing on its own.. except tilt.

so you did 7 separate channels and 4 groups ?


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Tried this method, although since I have a cap before the tweeters (and mids, at least for now), I had all crossovers disabled for Dirac. Did not run any REW, as I didn't have time, and simply copied RAC's specs for a shelf filter. So still more to come, but so far, so good. With only the arbitrary shelf filter (applied to all outputs), and more crossover settings to try, I'm getting the best blend between sub and woofers I've had so far.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Tried this method, although since I have a cap before the tweeters (and mids, at least for now), I had all crossovers disabled for Dirac. Did not run any REW, as I didn't have time, and simply copied RAC's specs for a shelf filter. So still more to come, but so far, so good. With only the arbitrary shelf filter (applied to all outputs), and more crossover settings to try, I'm getting the best blend between sub and woofers I've had so far.


that’s what’s up .... :-$


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> I don’t miss all those measurements, man that’s like over 90 sweeps or something..
> 
> 
> I don’t miss all those sweeps ..... like over 90 or something crazy....
> ...


Hmmm - I did 9 sweeps / measurements to get the 7 Channel Dirac. 

To build the filters, I put the tweeters in a group, midrange in a group, and mid bass / sub in another group. 

Measured with REW, pulled the curve in, figured out the shelf needed for the lows - put that in for all drivers, Auto EQ to import into all speakers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bertholomey said:


> Hmmm - I did 9 sweeps / measurements to get the 7 Channel Dirac.
> 
> To build the filters, I put the tweeters in a group, midrange in a group, and mid bass / sub in another group.
> 
> ...


Are you using biquads or just standard PEQ?

Did you end up needing at 10 bands? 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

squiers007 said:


> Are you using biquads or just standard PEQ?
> 
> Did you end up needing at 10 bands?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


I imported from REW - 9 bands plus the low shelf on band #10. So that 9 bands was basically from 30hz to 16khz - that was the area I was having the system look at. 

So the low shelf was entered as Basic, but the import was through the Advanced tab (so BiQuads?). And I applied all of that for each speaker. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bertholomey said:


> I imported from REW - 9 bands plus the low shelf on band #10. So that 9 bands was basically from 30hz to 16khz - that was the area I was having the system look at.
> 
> So the low shelf was entered as Basic, but the import was through the Advanced tab (so BiQuads?). And I applied all of that for each speaker.
> 
> ...


That's what I had assumed but thought I'd verify. I'm going to try this out on Friday I think.

How is everyone taking there measurements? Sitting in front seat, sitting in back, not in the car at all? Mic boom, just holding it, etc? I've been thinking about trying to build a measurement jig out of PVC so my Dirac measurements are always in the same spot, but it's proving tricky. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

9 positions , 3 sweeps per position, that’s 27 sweeps , for a 2ch tune

for 7 ch it’s like 27x3+1 ..... (hold on let me get my calculator) ....82 sweeps
🤑🤑🤑😌😌😁😁😁🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

squiers007 said:


> I've been thinking about trying to build a measurement jig out of PVC so my Dirac measurements are always in the same spot, but it's proving tricky.


I forget who, but someone on here built and posted pictures of a PVC rig he had built, was cool looking and seemed to work well. I take measurements sitting in the car, dunno if one way or another is better.



oabeieo said:


> for 7 ch it’s like 27x3+1 ..... (hold on let me get my calculator) ....82 sweeps


Technically it is still only 9 sweeps (sweet spot + front 4 + back 4). But... each sweep consists of 8 (assuming 3 way + sub) tones being generated.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> I forget who, but someone on here built and posted pictures of a PVC rig he had built, was cool looking and seemed to work well. I take measurements sitting in the car, dunno if one way or another is better.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically it is still only 9 sweeps (sweet spot + front 4 + back 4). But... each sweep consists of 8 (assuming 3 way + sub) tones being generated.


that’s it ! You got it , it’s a lot tho , I remember sitting for awhile for each run....

I consider a sweep each time the tone is generated.... so my misunderstanding.... my bad 


pt2: I remember that rig, it was cool, I wanted one ....

i just lean the seat way way back so I’m almost layingdown flat , and sit and hold the mic.... I’ve taped strings down from ceiling to measure my box, but it was worthless.... a good guess works just fine... I can’t tell the difference.... and with me out of the car makes no difference also ..... that’s just me tho


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> that’s it ! You got it , it’s a lot tho , I remember sitting for awhile for each run....
> 
> I consider a sweep each time the tone is generated.... so my misunderstanding.... my bad
> 
> ...



Ha! I didn’t even think of that  All the individual tones in each position - and trying to be still - 2 channel is a lot easier 

I do exactly the same lean the seat back from my demo position - guess with the box, and ensure line of sight to each speaker to the mic for each position (best I can). 

I tried outside the car with a mic and boom arm - took a lot longer, and probably not as consistent overall - and I didn’t really feel there was any positive difference. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

@bertholomey did you use a flat curve in the Dirac step, or the Dirac curve?

In my latest tune, I did 7 channel Dirac with no XOs (protective caps on tweets); grouped tweets, mids, and MBs/sub in three respective groups; set target curves in Dirac to flat; then I added XOs (BW3s for everything except sub-to-mid-bass, which was LR4). Then I made my own "house curve" using shelves (see attached), and applied to all outputs. I didn't re-measure in REW nor did I use Auto-EQ. Probably re-measuring and using Auto-EQ would be better than my approach to just put the shelves on and not re-measure, but my way is sooo easy to iterate. I can make minor tweaks in the DSP software at my desk when i'm taking a break at work, and just load it to DSP before I drive home from work. This quick iteration process is nice for finding my desired tonality.

I think once I completely nail my desired tonality using the shelves, maybe I can measure that in REW, and then use Auto-EQ to make the curve as smooth as possible.

Also, I've been measuring with me in the seat. I don't even lean it back at all. I like the idea of measuring with it leaned all the way back. Maybe I'll try that some time. Also, I had some harshness from left tweet/mids, which are on axis in the A pillar. For the top-left measurement, I put it closer to the A pillar (per @oabeieo 's advice) , which really helped with that harshness.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Now that I've got the one rudimentary setup done, I think I can copy the settings to the other three slots in the plugin, and also apply that Dirac correction to those slots. Will do REW eventually, but thinking in the short term I'll just use the slots to try different crossover & shelf filter configs, as these will be quicker & easier to play with. Maybe leave current crossovers intact & change shelves, to find best filter, then try different crossovers with that filter.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> that’s it ! You got it , it’s a lot tho , I remember sitting for awhile for each run....
> 
> I consider a sweep each time the tone is generated.... so my misunderstanding.... my bad
> 
> ...


Pretty sure this is the thread, but none of the photos are showing up for me... Dirac measuring rig 

I'm can be a bit OCD so I figured a rig might help with that, but I think your tape/string method might get me close enough for way less effort, we'll see how motivated I'm feeling come Friday. If I'm able to come up with something I'll be sure to get some photos for everyone. In my previous tunes I was always sitting in the back seat holding the mic on a short boom, but it's difficult to get it positioned right and hold it steady. I may try a couple options to compare/contrast results.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

hella356 said:


> Now that I've got the one rudimentary setup done, I think I can copy the settings to the other three slots in the plugin, and also apply that Dirac correction to those slots. Will do REW eventually, but thinking in the short term I'll just use the slots to try different crossover & shelf filter configs, as these will be quicker & easier to play with. Maybe leave current crossovers intact & change shelves, to find best filter, then try different crossovers with that filter.


This is what I was thinking too. By taking the Dirac measurements with no xovers or EQ and a flat response you can play round with the xover points and EQ and not have to redo any of the Dirac measurements!


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Anu2g said:


> @bertholomey did you use a flat curve in the Dirac step, or the Dirac curve?
> 
> In my latest tune, I did 7 channel Dirac with no XOs (protective caps on tweets); grouped tweets, mids, and MBs/sub in three respective groups; set target curves in Dirac to flat; then I added XOs (BW3s for everything except sub-to-mid-bass, which was LR4). Then I made my own "house curve" using shelves (see attached), and applied to all outputs. I didn't re-measure in REW nor did I use Auto-EQ. Probably re-measuring and using Auto-EQ would be better than my approach to just put the shelves on and not re-measure, but my way is sooo easy to iterate. I can make minor tweaks in the DSP software at my desk when i'm taking a break at work, and just load it to DSP before I drive home from work. This quick iteration process is nice for finding my desired tonality.
> 
> ...


I used the Dirac flattish curve and adjusted the curtains


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I followed Truthhunter's method, and used LR24 between woofers & sub, BW18 everywhere else.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Pretty sure this is the thread, but none of the photos are showing up for me... Dirac measuring rig
> 
> I'm can be a bit OCD so I figured a rig might help with that, but I think your tape/string method might get me close enough for way less effort, we'll see how motivated I'm feeling come Friday. If I'm able to come up with something I'll be sure to get some photos for everyone. In my previous tunes I was always sitting in the back seat holding the mic on a short boom, but it's difficult to get it positioned right and hold it steady. I may try a couple options to compare/contrast results.


yeah that jig was cool... but honestly ballpark it , it’s just needs an average of around your head

the tighter the box the more precise the outcome at that location, although it takes away some of the liveliness of the room. So a 12” approx box is nice....

also , leaning back in seat works , before you put the seat back have someone look at the height of your ears and put a tape mark on the left as a reference point so you can nail the 1st measurement. That’s the only super important one.

min my car my ears are parallel with the seatbelt hook on the B pillar. So I put my mic visually in front of me center and then visually at my B pillar where my tape mark is to align height in the X,Y,Z axis. It works great, if I’m a little off it still works great.....

And now that I think about it , I actually do about 10” top to bottom measurements and 12” front to back measurements... roughly


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> So a 12” approx box is nice....


Shoot, I think I do almost a 24" box.... seems to work nicely though 🙃


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Shoot, I think I do almost a 24" box.... seems to work nicely though 🙃


24” is fine also! I’ve done that with the 1 person couch that adds the side measurements and loved it! Big box and set mic on the left window for far left and all the way to right window for far right and at passenger seat for mid right and at my L ear for mid left....

i absolutely loved that tune a lot. That was with horns. I should actually give it a go again.

it was super lively and wasn’t constrained at all..... but imaging was good just a tiny bitblurry

I remember putting the mic on the window really got rid of those window reflections in the mid range and HF.
It was kinda cool , it also made it to where if I roll the windows down at all the tune was pretty much wiped out


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I got the 101 posting up in the rephase thread on a little bit , probably be an hour or two ....


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

Here's what all my speakers look like with my 7 channel tune. This tune is kick ass! The system has three cancellations 80hz(driver side suck out), 200hz and 850hz. I drew around the 850 one in dirac otherwise the the amp wants to clip at max volume as it only has 50wpc(pioneer prsa900). This midranges are in the kickpanels(scan 15M discovery) The rest are focal flax. I don't think I can notice the peak at 560hz. It sounds so good I don't want to change anything at this stage. Every crossover here is bw18db.
The car is a 2019 Toyota Hilux ute.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

RAC said:


> Here's what all my speakers look like with my 7 channel tune. This tune is kick ass! The system has three cancellations 80hz(driver side suck out), 200hz and 850hz. I drew around the 850 one in dirac otherwise the the amp wants to clip at max volume as it only has 50wpc(pioneer prsa900). This midranges are in the kickpanels(scan 15M discovery) The rest are focal flax. I don't think I can notice the peak at 560hz. It sounds so good I don't want to change anything at this stage. Every crossover here is bw18db.
> The car is a 2019 Toyota Hilux ute.
> View attachment 314310


Got any photos of your kick panels? Great looking response too btw!


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Alright, had a pretty productive day. Did the 7 channel flat (no tilt, everything set to zero) Dirac tune followed by REW AutoEQ w/ a low shelf filter and applied all the eq filters to each and every channel. In Dirac I setup 3 groups, Twts, Mids, and Midbass/Sub and set the curtains at least 1 octave above/below the approximate xover or down to the natural rolloff of the driver. 

Then I took some measurements of each driver pair (L/R tweeters, L/R mids, etc.) along with the whole system response. I did not have a lot of time to listen to it yet, but first impressions are good so far. I think I need to tweak my EQ target curve and settings a little, but that is easy to do now that the Dirac curve is flat! I'm also planning on trying out a couple different xover settings as well. 

Here's a screenshot showing all the measurement with 1/12 octave smoothing. These were taking using moving mic RTA average using pink noise. Pretty confident I can get this looking a bit better. Want to focus on the 450-100hz area the most. Auto EQ did some weird stuff here so I may just do it manually in REW then import the biquads it makes. The 300hz Mid/Midbass xover region looks a bit odd to me as well.


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

When I do the rew auto tune I'll upload it to all the outputs then see what the results looks like, if something isn't right I'll go back to the rew eq screen and modify one or two filters and re save and upload the re check.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

RAC said:


> When I do the rew auto tune I'll upload it to all the outputs then see what the results looks like, if something isn't right I'll go back to the rew eq screen and modify one or two filters and re save and upload the re check.


This is what I plan to do too, just ran out of time for the day. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Alright, had a pretty productive day. Did the 7 channel flat (no tilt, everything set to zero) Dirac tune followed by REW AutoEQ w/ a low shelf filter and applied all the eq filters to each and every channel. In Dirac I setup 3 groups, Twts, Mids, and Midbass/Sub and set the curtains at least 1 octave above/below the approximate xover or down to the natural rolloff of the driver.
> 
> Then I took some measurements of each driver pair (L/R tweeters, L/R mids, etc.) along with the whole system response. I did not have a lot of time to listen to it yet, but first impressions are good so far. I think I need to tweak my EQ target curve and settings a little, but that is easy to do now that the Dirac curve is flat! I'm also planning on trying out a couple different xover settings as well.
> 
> ...


that is almost exactly what my car is....

except I use my bass knob to get the gain on sub. And I have the tilt in my sub only..... but that’s just me. I don’t want to put eq shelf or boost on midbass , makes them sound muddy in a hurry.... I want power near the crossover, bit only on a flat response on midbass driver

That looks like it sounds awesome tho


the crossovers will always look like that, if you take measurements and vector average them, and use the exact spots you did your Dirac measurements, and remove time of flight, and maybe possibly play with a FDW then likely to be uniform on the screen..... what your hearing tho is probably very nice I presume.

and another thing we don’t want to forget.
because all that is speculation ^

Dirac will flat out ignore certain areas where the response would measure as not there, but the energy is there.... meaning , in convolution by making it minimum phase when it’s not naturally. So you’ll hear the frequencies but on an rta it will show them to be missing....

like have you ever done MMM live RTA after Dirac?; ever see like a mid (400-1k) area have a dip but it doesn’t sound like there’s a dip.... you go to boost that dip and it takes boost but sounds funky.....

After Dirac , REW needs to be setup just like Dirac to kinda unravel what it did.

if you can loop back your rca directly into REW instead of mic and do a measurement to see the inverse of what Dirac applied , you’ll see some unusual phase changes, many many what look like APF cascaded,and your inverse curve

I spent a long time doing that amd trying to figure out how it made corrections and flat out could not... it was so strange looking, the phase was. That was a few years ago, maybe I’ll make a 2nd go at it

the only thing I could think of was either was was a ton of APF or my sound card added delay


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> that is almost exactly what my car is....
> 
> except I use my bass knob to get the gain on sub. And I have the tilt in my sub only..... but that’s just me. I don’t want to put eq shelf or boost on midbass , makes them sound muddy in a hurry.... I want power near the crossover, bit only on a flat response on midbass driver
> 
> ...


I didn't follow 100% of this, but are you basically saying you wouldn't trust REW Auto EQ post Dirac? Since any of the EQs would be applied to all drivers, then in theory, there shouldn't be any phase change, right?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> I didn't follow 100% of this, but are you basically saying you wouldn't trust REW Auto EQ post Dirac? Since any of the EQs would be applied to all drivers, then in theory, there shouldn't be any phase change, right?


no not at all, whatever sounds good is what I would do.

I wouldn’t trust REW to show the crossovers to look smooth after Dirac, trust your ears....and trust and know out of your experience with Dirac how it does things. REW isn’t the best validation tool, without fully knowing what Direc is doing. I’ve studied enough to get a decent idea but I still I mean it’s kind of elusive. It’s algorithm has technical sheets, but they lock the recipe behind closed doors so to speak. So to get REW to analyze it, I think one would have to know the mechanics of its algorithm and the reasoning behind it.

this is why most ppl do there crossovers close mic and do the room separate. The room won’t affect the measurements, and it’s super easy to see the phase and close mic has no room interference so you don’t have to worry so much about determining minimum phase when using eq.
What we’re doing with Dirac is a better way, it’s very location specific. So trust Dirac , but mostly trust what you hear.
If it sounds smoother and crossovers are obviously summing better I wouldn’t be overly concerned with what REW shows.

and I’m not at all a fan of auto EQ... it does do a decent job, but a live RTA averages session will definitely be more faithful representation, unless you do a ton of sweep averages. Like 28 per driver is what most the experts on Diy say to do.
with a vector average. In that instance, it’s very accurate. And build your box around your head, just like Dirac, then it should show more true to what Dirac did.

I’m more a fan of live rta with wide Q (under 2) adjustments, they always sound good...easy and fast.... but for what you guys are doing, honestly auto eq would be just fine.

The modal stuff in auto eq is cool. Auto eq can also tell you what to eq and what not to... that is sorta handy and is built in. So it shouldn’t mess with a Dirac tune negative as it won’t eq things that shouldn’t be eq BUT....... you have to input to the eq a good response that’s built off plenty of averages. 

Edit , and no not theory , fact. If you apply it to all the outputs you won’t hear the shift/change. The only thing I wouldn’t do is separate left and right auto eq.... I would sum and average all the measurements together, left and right, all of them , then run auto eq and put that on everything... that’s the only safe way I can see it working.

what sucks about REW and auto eq , is you can’t (that I know of) tell it which measurements you send to eq are a stereo pair. You can only do one at a time. Unless there’s an update to auto eq that I don’t know about, it needs to be smart enough to know the stereo pair and base a correction for that. Like a Dirac group does. It needs to know what the other side is doing for one, to handle the correction to not de-correlate and for 2 to keep symmetry between left and right in the filters and response.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And (continued) 

so don’t take my last post as a negative, it’s just kind of a something to think about when we’re running to auto EQ after we run our Dirac. All I’m saying is it’s vital that we are in pudding the proper data into auto EQ.

I remember reading a little bit on the AV nirvana forms we’re John the creator of REW is very active, and he replies a lot of peoples questions very very accurately and it’s definitely worthwhile to go over and read a lot of that stuff.

it’s an excellent program, but the user really has to know the methodology and what they’re trying to achieve. Especially with auto eq and a post Dirac fine tune.

Soooooo, again I didn’t want to sound negative. but just wanted to be sure that we are all on the same page as far as fine-tuning this thing we’re doing with the 8x12.

auto EQ looks at phase data, room data, all sorts of things when calculating gains and Qs. If your measurement, For example is let’s say an average of a few different measurements, and those measurements weren’t time aligned properly, and then if you don’t use a vector average which will not only sum the response but does things with phase data in each measurement so they can be summed together. The end result could have errors in the proper gains and Qs. 

Yeah most of this is stuff I’ve learned when I make my own correction using an open DRC and re-phase. And getting set up to make a room correction to import into Rephase going off Swiss bears manual. So to me it makes sense to apply that methodology and move it into auto EQ, knowing auto EQ looks at a lot more than just the response.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> And (continued)
> 
> so don’t take my last post as a negative, it’s just kind of a something to think about when we’re running to auto EQ after we run our Dirac. All I’m saying is it’s vital that we are in pudding the proper data into auto EQ.
> 
> ...


This is good. One thing to consider is that most of us use a moving mic RTA measurement which does NOT contain any phase or impulse data. If what your are saying is true then we should be doing multiple sweeps and using that data for the Auto eq, not RTA. Thoughts? 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> This is good. One thing to consider is that most of us use a moving mic RTA measurement which does NOT contain any phase or impulse data. If what your are saying is true then we should be doing multiple sweeps and using that data for the Auto eq, not RTA. Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


this is what I’m hoping you guys can help with.
Ian said he had fantastic results, and he used auto eq, I have no reason to not believe him and you can’t argue with results.... 

All I know is this, once I have a good Dirac tune with clean measurements, anytime I go to try and make it better with eq, sometimes it looses some of the magic.

you know how Dirac produces a very good sounding result on its own.... it has like ambiance and a stage depth that are amazing, and then sometimes I’ll go and look at the RTA because I feel something is missing, i’ll look and the RTA shows that let’s just say maybe 2K through 4K he’s like one DB too high
Or it needs a 1db boost at 300 or 400 to just look perfect on that RTA

So you make your adjustments using wide Qs (which never sound bad) and then you listened and yes your tonality is a little better overall sound is more in line but it’s missing some thing..... some of that magic seems to be missing or shall I say spectral balance. The spectral balance seems to be off, which you would think is impossible because you just made it smooth. And then you start asking yourself why didn’t direc make it this smooth... was it off by 1db or is the RTA off....

So then you rely on your ears and you listen then you make the decision to yourself that yes in fact 2K through 4K do sound a bit hot , but you make the change and it may or may not help I’ve just had so many times where I’ve made changes and it takes away some of the magic..... 

So knowing what I know about how to make a rephase correction, maybe we can all kind of figure out exactly what is actually going on within REW.

people on the home audio site doing the same thing but with two channel tunes are doing 28measurements per driver, Time aligning the measurements, and using a vector average. Which is the same thing you do to prepare to import a measurement into rephase for a manual correction.

like in my car, anytime I had a tilt it made my mid base sound like crap. As soon as I made the entire magnitude perfectly flat all of my tonality issues with dirac disappeared.

so now I build my tilt using my sub and a 2nd set of midbass that aren’t on my Dirac tune... and it’s the best it’s ever been by a long shot.

there’s a lot of things in hindsight knowing what I know now that I would love to try again on an 8 x 12. and I’ll just say you guys got this **** down I can’t think of a better group of people to figure out the perfect way to do this then you all.

but I think we all have to make an agreement first that there have been times we’ve made arbitrary PEQ adjustments after the correction and lost some of the magic. maybe tonality did get better but something happened to the spacious sound that Dirac produced....


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I remember years ago I would tell ppl , don’t use peq use the target to shape things, because that was the only way I found to not destroy the stage presence and ambiance.... at the time that’s what I was doing , but I don’t feel that way anymore. If I drew a target and Dirac didn’t follow that target exactly, there was a reason why I concluded. It didn’t want to add or remove energy in those areas as something had to been going on that REW wasn’t Seeing something..... 

I’ve slowly been trying to get it, I’ve read about doing it the way I described but have only done that many manual measurements for rephase, as I don’t have an 8x12 any more.

when I did that tundra and did this to it it sounded so so much like my car, as far as coherent crossovers go. But I know everyone wants there tilt, and I’m also worried I may be giving bad recommendations based on my way of building a tilt because my car behaves so different.....and I haven’t got to play with 8x12 tuning like this for only a few hours. You guys are the ones I need feedback from 

when I tune customer cars I don’t get to play with it long enough. So I can’t incorporate very much of what I learn on those cars , but of course every car I tune adds something.....


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

If I were home with my car this weekend I would try a few things based on what you are musing about:

1) measure with REW (spatial averaging with moving mic) - 7 channel Dirac + Low shelf + Auto EQ applied after Dirac. See what that looks like on the graph. Listen to a reference track. 

2) flatten out all of the PEQ and measure / listen with / without low shelf - reference track. 

3) instead of applying the low shelf (tilt), just boost sub volume (but that may affect the phase relationship with the mid bass negatively. Measure / Listen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> Ian said he had fantastic results, and he used auto eq


Bearing in mind though, I've only used 2 bands of EQ and I don't believe, I'd have to double check, that the are massive cuts. Perhaps if I were using 10, maybe then I'd lose something. 



oabeieo said:


> don’t use peq use the target to shape things


I wonder if I made a note of the 2 x EQ that I applied through REW autoEQ, after taking measurements in Dirac, if I first loaded the default Dirac curve, then saved that curve. Open it and modify it by adding those 2 bands of EQ, then re-open that curve, but now slightly modified and apply that to the measured Dirac response, if that would generate the same result as adding the EQ after, or if it retains that magic sauce you're describing. 

Might try it, all I'd have to do is reload the measurements and apply the modified curve, apply to another preset and do some A/B listening and measurements with REW.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bertholomey said:


> If I were home with my car this weekend I would try a few things based on what you are musing about:
> 
> 1) measure with REW (spatial averaging with moving mic) - 7 channel Dirac + Low shelf + Auto EQ applied after Dirac. See what that looks like on the graph. Listen to a reference track.
> 
> ...


oh there’s just one thing I had forgot to mention. Well I did say it in other words.
So when I do my sub and use the bass knob, the fir snob that I am I can just set it where I like it and all is gravy baybee. But when I did have the 8x12 , I do remember drawing my target to start to roll off about 150hz so I was -3db around 150. And then I would round my target (like I do now). But you guys won’t have to do that because of the new method.

with an 8x12 I used to set my LPF in bass management to where my sub would be crossover at 80 acoustically, if I remember right with the tilt I used my crossover electrical was at 65hz BW36 and that made a LR4 acoustically.

but now a days I have discovered that I just say F*** it , and make my highs have a good acoustical crossover and let my sub overlap and play into the 120s...because of this one fact

I found where I like my sub, as far as where I usually have my bass knob, and being the sub is the first driver, and it’s a LP, that means plain old delay will work to mate up to a HPF. The acoustic overhang caused a 2ms difference, so I added 2ms to all the highs and now sub is sounding just fine with overlap..... most of the frequencies are back in alignment, leaving a 2ms GD below the acoustic crossover that I promise you can’t hear..... believe that. I have more GD variations just from boundary interference then what the causes.....

It’s not the correct way if your into seeing everything look pretty on a graph , I remember it sounded just fine and I loved it..... if I really wanted to bump hard and have the bass still stay in time I would delay the highs by another ms or two.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Bearing in mind though, I've only used 2 bands of EQ and I don't believe, I'd have to double check, that the are massive cuts. Perhaps if I were using 10, maybe then I'd lose something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Irespect your approach, 2 bands is minimal and isn’t radically changing things so you can A-B listen quickly and see if you like it....

You know the sauce tho right? Like , a freshie Dirac tune and a listen, you know how it’s really open sounding and tons of ambiance..... am I describing it right?


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> You know the sauce tho right? Like , a freshie Dirac tune and a listen, you know how it’s really open sounding and tons of ambiance..... am I describing it right?


Yup. Like I mentioned before, it's like having the effect of rear fill in the space and ambience you get, but without actually having rear fill.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Yup. Like I mentioned before, it's like having the effect of rear fill in the space and ambience you get, but without actually having rear fill.


fantastic, OK so it’s not just me.
And yes now I remember you did say that

so what I’m hoping to achieve is a repeatable way to add a shelf using REW without diminishing *the sauce 🤪🤪🥳🥳🤩🤩*


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

I've done a little more testing today. I think I like the tune with no peq and just one shelf filter. It's close though.


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

squiers007 said:


> Got any photos of your kick panels? Great looking response too btw!





squiers007 said:


> Got any photos of your kick panels? Great looking response too btw!


They are a wood frame with fiberglass skin with heaps of sound deadening on the inside and on the car steel, there really isn't a lot of volume behind them. I was going to carpet them or something but I like the finish they have now. No sealing apart from rubber down the door trim part and wool stuffing behind the drivers. The response is great on both drivers all the way to about 100-150hz, currently crossed at 250hz as of today. I had to make the grills. They are very sensitive 92dbish thankfully as I only have the PRSA900 running them, I would like a bit more power but it is plenty loud. They are 100 times better(way more detail) than having the 6.5in focal flax in the doors playing vocals.


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

RAC said:


> They are a wood frame with fiberglass skin with heaps of sound deadening on the inside and on the car steel, there really isn't a lot of volume behind them. I was going to carpet them or something but I like the finish they have now. No sealing apart from rubber down the door trim part and wool stuffing behind the drivers. The response is great on both drivers all the way to about 100-150hz, currently crossed at 250hz as of today. I had to make the grills. They are very sensitive 92dbish thankfully as I only have the PRSA900 running them, I would like a bit more power but it is plenty loud. They are 100 times better(way more detail) than having the 6.5in focal flax in the doors playing vocals.
> 
> View attachment 314607
> 
> ...


Are you based in the UK? I also drive a RHD 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

New Zealand.


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

RAC said:


> New Zealand.


A little far for a tuning session 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

SiW80 said:


> A little far for a tuning session
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Haha yep and good luck getting into this country right now! Not even a Kiwi can get back in.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

okay. So vector averages is what we need..... for auto eq to work properly.
It is self explained here. Duh andy

now time to figure out the right way to time align measurements for auto eq
I’ll be back.... I’ll ask John from REW


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> okay. So vector averages is what we need..... for auto eq to work properly.
> It is self explained here. Duh andy
> 
> now time to figure out the right way to time align measurements for auto eq
> ...


Assuming you're doing sweeps to accomplish this, from say the same spots as we do the Dirac sweeps, then I think you could just take the difference in the arrival times for the various locations and match them to the main listening location. I'm just not sure how to change the "offset" in arrival time (or path length) in REW ahead of the averaging. I'll do some digging too in case John takes a minute to get back to you. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Assuming you're doing sweeps to accomplish this, from say the same spots as we do the Dirac sweeps, then I think you could just take the difference in the arrival times for the various locations and match them to the main listening location. I'm just not sure how to change the "offset" in arrival time (or path length) in REW ahead of the averaging. I'll do some digging too in case John takes a minute to get back to you.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


Exactly!!! And that is the exact question at hand... I just asked him. He writes back quickly


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> Exactly!!! And that is the exact question at hand... I just asked him. He writes back quickly
> 
> View attachment 314774
> 
> ...


Andy, seems like you write with much better grammar in the AV forums. I'll interpret that as you being more comfortable with us car audio folks.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Andy, seems like you write with much better grammar in the AV forums. I'll interpret that as you being more comfortable with us car audio folks.


yeah ...... !!! (jk)


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Ok, I pulled this info from the "Help" section in REW. Looks like we will need to use sweeps, but I'm still not clear on whether we need to time align prior to Vector averaging or not? If yes, then you'll want to use a loopback connection because it tends to be more accurate than an acoustic timing reference in our highly reflective vehicles. 


_Time align_, which brings all the currently selected measurements into time alignment. If the measurements have been made with a timing reference (a loopback connection or an acoustic timing reference) the impulse response is shifted according to the measurement delay value, taking into account any IR timing offsets which have been applied since the measurement delay was calculated. Measurements which have been made without a timing reference are shifted according to the estimated IR delay. Time alignment can only be applied to measurements that have an impulse response.
_Vector average_, which averages the currently selected traces taking into account both magnitude and phase. It can only be applied to measurements that have an impulse response.
We'll probably need to play around with the minimum number of measurements to use, but at a minimum I'm thinking 9, similar to Dirac, but it may be more accurate to use something closer to 27. There is likely a point of diminishing returns and we obviously don't want to develop a method that is overly time consuming. The upside is that unless you change a xover setting you should be able to use the same measurements over and over to develop new EQ curves and never have to take new measurements (except to validate).

I'm very curious to hear back from John and get his thoughts. Also, getting excited for the meetup! Sorry you wont be able to join Andy, maybe we can give you a call while we're there and taunt you!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So he said... dB averages and use MMM (he’s a very strong proponent of MMM live rta, as am I )

So ......

I also could’ve swore I read something about auto eq looking at phase of an impulse was put into it.... guess not. :-(


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So ....... what would happen if..... 
you put a tilt through your desired passband, in your target. Then outside your desired passband make it flat so crossovers behave themselves?

I suppose you would have to use levels at the end of Dirac, and know exactly where your crossovers are going to be.....

I am getting another 8x12 that’s it .....it’s definitely time


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> I am getting another 8x12 that’s it .....it’s definitely time


It's about time! 🤪 I had a feeling this would happen before long, and glad that it is.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Ok, I pulled this info from the "Help" section in REW. Looks like we will need to use sweeps, but I'm still not clear on whether we need to time align prior to Vector averaging or not? If yes, then you'll want to use a loopback connection because it tends to be more accurate than an acoustic timing reference in our highly reflective vehicles.
> 
> 
> _Time align_, which brings all the currently selected measurements into time alignment. If the measurements have been made with a timing reference (a loopback connection or an acoustic timing reference) the impulse response is shifted according to the measurement delay value, taking into account any IR timing offsets which have been applied since the measurement delay was calculated. Measurements which have been made without a timing reference are shifted according to the estimated IR delay. Time alignment can only be applied to measurements that have an impulse response.
> ...


you guys definitely need to make some videos..... that would be really sweet. 
text me some vids for sure !


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> So ....... what would happen if.....
> you put a tilt through your desired passband, in your target. Then outside your desired passband make it flat so crossovers behave themselves?
> 
> I suppose you would have to use levels at the end of Dirac, and know exactly where your crossovers are going to be.....
> ...


I'm not following this. Wouldn't your passband include the xover region? I'm thinking a picture would be worth a thousand words here...

On a side note, I created another tune with a Low shelf and a high shelf (-3db drop to tame how bright it sounded to me) with only 1 band of PEQ to tame a large peak I had at 125hz and so far I'm pretty happy with the results. I can definitely hear what you guys were describing earlier when switching between this tune and the one where I ran the auto EQ, it just has more life and ambiance, like you're in the room vs. listening to a recording.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> I'm not following this. Wouldn't your passband include the xover region? I'm thinking a picture would be worth a thousand words here...
> 
> On a side note, I created another tune with a Low shelf and a high shelf (-3db drop to tame how bright it sounded to me) with only 1 band of PEQ to tame a large peak I had at 125hz and so far I'm pretty happy with the results. I can definitely hear what you guys were describing earlier when switching between this tune and the one where I ran the auto EQ, it just has more life and ambiance, like you're in the room vs. listening to a recording.


I was talking about like when you were in direcI was talking about like when you’re in Dirac, you have the entire Bandwidth of the driver , outside of where your crossovers are projected to be you would draw flat and inside where your crossovers are going to be, the bandpass , draw a tilt .....

I was just thinking it wasn’t anything anyway here’s another reply I got from him


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So my takeaway from this is ...... obviously don’t make separate Left and right anything post Dirac. And use our ears and listen and just be careful, but it should be okay if it’s minute changes , like what Ian did with 2 bands.

you know I have also noticed even before Dirac was a thing , I could make a small change at let’s say 2.5k and it would affect the sharpness at 10k.

I know eq can move phase and change harmonic balance, so we really just need to be good listeners and just do careful post Dirac changes, maybe do one change and listen and make sure before we move on to the next change wewant to make.... listen live while making changes, adjusting Qs real time while listening to music and just find the sweet spot that reinforces what we want to accomplish.... I guess that’s what fine tuning really is..... the subjective parts of listening carefully and making it what we want


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> yeah I’m like 99% sure you can do it anywhere in there..... even in the input section.... let us know tho to validate


Finally tried this today, using the Mixer tab doesn't work. It let's me route to the rear speakers, but it doesn't work right. Hard to describe, if you've heard rear fill, you'll know the odd echo sound, using the Mixer tab, you don't get that, not sure why it's like it doesn't do L-R but just carries on playing full range. 

I may try a few more things to verify, but at the moment it's not working.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Finally tried this today, using the Mixer tab doesn't work. It let's me route to the rear speakers, but it doesn't work right. Hard to describe, if you've heard rear fill, you'll know the odd echo sound, using the Mixer tab, you don't get that, not sure why it's like it doesn't do L-R but just carries on playing full range.
> 
> I may try a few more things to verify, but at the moment it's not working.


its because of Dirac

So L-R is simply the phase that is residual after canceling -180 deg of whatever plays L&R at the same time.

if Dirac moved the phase on the left different then the right it won’t be able to cancel properly. And anytime you’ve hit the invert button on one channel going to a sub perhaps and not the other, electrically it cancels and is the same at a mute button..

so yes, sorry I just seen it in there but didn’t think it through. Even if there 15deg apart it will play at full volume. It needs to be -180 at all center info to work right.

duh andy. Lol

so, you do need to to it pre Dirac. Your optical inputs make it difficult:

so... here’s something ghetto you can do

use bass management HPF but don’t use the LPF. Use the sub outputs LPF, just make sure to disengage it pre Dirac and send it to its own Dirac channel

then turn off your bass management LPF and use bass management and send it to two Dirac channels also. Then do your -180 switch at the bass management input.

I might have this completely wrong..... I’m again not thinking this through


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Any tips for a quick 4 seat setup? I'm driving to see Ween tonight & will have a full car. I've only ever set up for driver. Doesn't have to be anything special, just provide music. I have Polk coax in the rear doors.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

hella356 said:


> Any tips for a quick 4 seat setup? I'm driving to see Ween tonight & will have a full car. I've only ever set up for driver. Doesn't have to be anything special, just provide music. I have Polk coax in the rear doors.


Tune for the middle.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Any tips for a quick 4 seat setup? I'm driving to see Ween tonight & will have a full car. I've only ever set up for driver. Doesn't have to be anything special, just provide music. I have Polk coax in the rear doors.


theres only 1 sweet spot

all others will have good sound , put mic in middle and no one has sweet spot

at least give someone a sweet spot , perhaps yourself


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

oabeieo said:


> theres only 1 sweet spot
> 
> all others will have good sound , put mic in middle and no one has sweet spot
> 
> at least give someone a sweet spot , perhaps yourself


AKA, f**k your passengers!


----------



## RAC (Nov 21, 2020)

hella356 said:


> Any tips for a quick 4 seat setup? I'm driving to see Ween tonight & will have a full car. I've only ever set up for driver. Doesn't have to be anything special, just provide music. I have Polk coax in the rear doors.


I just do a 9 point tune with the centre point between the from seats and the other points in each 4 seats like a really big box. That worked well for me.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I got out of driving, but thanks, this will come in handy in the future.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Hey guys, Is there anyone out there that does Not have an IR remote who is wanting to get one?

They are only $7 from MiniDSP, but the shipping is $22. If I can get several people who want to order I'll just put in one big order for however many we need and then I can drop ship them out to you once I receive them. Should be pretty cheap shipping to your place once they are received in the States. The more we buy the cheaper they'll be. I did find an ebay store that is selling them with "free shipping" for $22 so if no one else is interested I'll likely go that route but figured I'd throw it out there in case others wanted a remote too. 

I should note, for those that don't know. The remote has a play/pause and next/previous track buttons, but they do not work with the 8x12. With the remote you'll be able to control volume, mute, change preset, and turn Dirac off/on. You do need line of sight to the wired remote as well (works with both the old and new OLED remote). If enough people are interested I'll start a new thread to track everything so we don't muddy this one up. Thanks.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Hey guys, Is there anyone out there that does Not have an IR remote who is wanting to get one?
> 
> They are only $7 from MiniDSP, but the shipping is $22. If I can get several people who want to order I'll just put in one big order for however many we need and then I can drop ship them out to you once I receive them. Should be pretty cheap shipping to your place once they are received in the States. The more we buy the cheaper they'll be. I did find an ebay store that is selling them with "free shipping" for $22 so if no one else is interested I'll likely go that route but figured I'd throw it out there in case others wanted a remote too.
> 
> I should note, for those that don't know. The remote has a play/pause and next/previous track buttons, but they do not work with the 8x12. With the remote you'll be able to control volume, mute, change preset, and turn Dirac off/on. You do need line of sight to the wired remote as well (works with both the old and new OLED remote). If enough people are interested I'll start a new thread to track everything so we don't muddy this one up. Thanks.


did you know any remote works

I use a remote from an old Sony deck , I’ve used Kenwood, pioneer , whatever I have had laying around

I simply program the buttons that make sense

1234 are obviously configurations. Volume up and down , mute , whatever .....

Any remote works ..... I even used my LG tv remote and it worked for my shd in my house


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

oabeieo said:


> did you know any remote works
> 
> I use a remote from an old Sony deck , I’ve used Kenwood, pioneer , whatever I have had laying around
> 
> ...


I had no idea... How do you program the MiniDSP to the new remote? Is that in the handbook? Thanks.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> I had no idea... How do you program the MiniDSP to the new remote? Is that in the handbook? Thanks.


go to the ir tab-in software , press Lear to which button you want to learn to , take whatever remote you want and press the button you want it to do... done ... take less then a sec to learn a button

I like the Apple remote , it looks slick , I have the minidsp remote but it looks like something that came out of a cheap kids toy ..... 

But any remote I’ve tried works and learns just fine....

the Sony deck remote I use now has a eq button , I programmed that to be Dirac on/off , then 1234 for configurations, volume , and mute

what I like also for me using any remote , is I can learn a different button across all my dsps and give them each there own command so when I press something it only changes that dsp I learned to


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.

1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
3) I left _all 7 channels _in the same group
4) I pulled the left curtain down to the elbow of my ported sub (channel 7)
5) I pulled the right curtain up all the way to the natural roll-off of my worser performing tweeter (channel 2)
6) I let it design the filters, and loaded into a MiniDSP preset
7) I set my XOs in the MiniDSP plugin
8) DONE

The notion of loading the full curve into Dirac (instead of creating it via PEQ) came from a conversation with @Truthunter and @bertholomey. They're doing it in 3 groups (tweeters, mids, and MBs/sub). By loading the full curve instead of the individual driver targets, Dirac does not mess up the gain; if you load individual driver curves (e.g. from the Jazzi spreadsheet), then Dirac will try to gain match all drivers, essentially flattening out your curve. That flattening out is why @oabeieo 's method works well.

But with this new method of loading the _full _target into Dirac, I decided to try it all in _one_ group because...why not? Dirac will only gain/cut up to 10dB, and for stuff way outside of the passband that it shouldn't be boosting...that's going to be XO'd away in step 7 above.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Anu2g said:


> I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.
> 
> 1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
> 2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
> ...


I was planning on trying this out too based on the same conversations. In steps 4 and 5, I'm having a hard time picturing this? So did you not EQ the entire audible spectrum from 20-20k?

Also, I thought I would add this in case everyone didn't know, but if you've already taken a 7 channel measurement in Dirac (w/ all xovers off, no EQ, no TA) then you don't need to redo your measurements to try this out. The only reason you'd want to redo your measurements is if you change out any gear or move something.  Dirac typically prompts you to save your project, and you can just load the previous project and go straight to the filter design tab, you don't even need your mic hooked up. It will give you a warning message about not detecting a mic, but you don't need it once you load the previous program. The benefit here is you can compare different Dirac tuning methods, using the identical measurements, so you're controlling one of the variables so you know any changes you hear are only from the tune, not a difference in the measurement (placement of the mic, ambient noise, etc.) Hopefully that helps some of you because it can save a ton of time.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Also, while I'm thinking about it. I'd love to try out some other house curves and since we are thinking about using full curves in Dirac now it should be quick and easy to load them in and try it out. Can people post up there .targetcurve files so other's can test them out? Thanks.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Anu2g said:


> I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.
> 
> 1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
> 2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
> ...


Finally, a simple Dirac setup that only requires reading one post instead of 5000! This may cause me to finally upgrade my 8x12.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Anu2g said:


> I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.
> 
> 1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
> 2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
> ...


Thanks Anu! I’m looking forward to trying this method this weekend when I finally stop traveling - I’ll post my impressions. 

Logan - I’ll be measuring this weekend with / without a towel / foam on the dash to see what affect that has on the weirdness of the mid range response  Thanks for the suggestion!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

ckirocz28 said:


> This may cause me to finally upgrade my 8x12.


Upgrading is definitely worthwhile, that's what I did with mine when they first released the Dirac upgrade. It's made tuning so simple, but I can also if desired, spend ages tweaking.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

And ‘one more thing’.....I really appreciate this forum......

I appreciate the ‘old dogs’ like Andy that would start a thread like this that we can share ideas with each other than can cause our systems to get better. 

I appreciate other veterans like Ryan and Ian who contribute thoughtful posts about things they have tried that have worked and those that didn’t. 

And I very much appreciate Anu and Logan - a couple of young bright guys that are jumping into this and applying their skills and ability to solving issues that many of us didn’t even know we had and sharing techniques that we wouldn’t have thought of. 

Good stuff here that is allowing / causing us to enjoy this hobby more and more every day. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

naiku said:


> Upgrading is definitely worthwhile, that's what I did with mine when they first released the Dirac upgrade. It's made tuning so simple, but I can also if desired, spend ages tweaking.


I imagine it is worth it, but the complexity of the tuning methods I have seen previously have had me hesitating. That^ method seems very simple and straightforward.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

I'm seriously considering selling C-DSP DL. And right now I can't make it work. It supposed to be an easy tuning solution, but it's not!

Can anyone please explain:
I PEQ'd the peaks first and set the XOs.
When making single point measurement for TA values, if my crossovers are set - I'm getting wrong delays. Example: the sub LPF is 40hz and the front drivers receive 20ms delay.
If my LPF is 80 hz - they're around 7-5ms. The stage moves 100% to the right.

How to do it properly?
And is 2 way Dirac after this is still a way to go?
Where can I find target curves?


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

datooff said:


> It supposed to be an easy tuning solution, but it's not!


Start simple. 

Give me half an hour or so and I will post up some screenshots that should (hopefully) help you out.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

datooff said:


> I'm seriously considering selling C-DSP DL. And right now I can't make it work. It supposed to be an easy tuning solution, but it's not!
> 
> Can anyone please explain:
> I PEQ'd the peaks first and set the XOs.
> ...


This is very odd. Can you provide more detail on your setup and how you have your routing in the MiniDSP software? Screenshots are usually the easiest way to communicate this. 

Don't worry, we'll get you sorted out and you'll be loving Dirac like the rest of us in no time.


----------



## Old Skewl (May 30, 2011)

Subbed. Picked up an used Mini DSP 8x12 that I plan to upgrade when installed. Thank you guys for all the tips.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

squiers007 said:


> I was planning on trying this out too based on the same conversations. In steps 4 and 5, I'm having a hard time picturing this? So did you not EQ the entire audible spectrum from 20-20k?
> 
> Also, I thought I would add this in case everyone didn't know, but if you've already taken a 7 channel measurement in Dirac (w/ all xovers off, no EQ, no TA) then you don't need to redo your measurements to try this out. The only reason you'd want to redo your measurements is if you change out any gear or move something. Dirac typically prompts you to save your project, and you can just load the previous project and go straight to the filter design tab, you don't even need your mic hooked up. It will give you a warning message about not detecting a mic, but you don't need it once you load the previous program. The benefit here is you can compare different Dirac tuning methods, using the identical measurements, so you're controlling one of the variables so you know any changes you hear are only from the tune, not a difference in the measurement (placement of the mic, ambient noise, etc.) Hopefully that helps some of you because it can save a ton of time.


Most people would do 20 to 20k, unless you have a steep rolloff on the tweeter. Also, I use a ported sub, so I didn't want to correct below the elbow/knee, because then it would boost frequencies below my port frequency, causing my subwoofer to lose control


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Thank you guys, 1 year ago when I was tuning the previous install with almost the same components - everything worked from 30-50 time. Now again I have to re-read hundreds of pages to make it work 

Dirac 1,2,3,4 - front 2 way.
Dirac 5 is front sub in the glovebox. Dirac 6 - is the rear sub in the trunk.
These are the delays (left rear sub crossed at 80hz) - right - at 40hz (as it should be).

I tried to get the TAs without the rear sub (dirac 6) and it worked fine. But when it's introduced back (it receives 0ms delay) and everything messes up.
I had this problem even with another sub that I had in trunk.
















These are old photos, but the configuration is like this (coax) - dirac 5 (front sub) - Dirac 6 routed the same way. (Not on this photo).
Also - each sub amp has 1 RCA output if that makes any difference.









Mixer tab - output 5 and 6 routed to Dirac 5 and 6. (As other channels).


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

@datooff (and anyone else reading who is new to setting this up) hopefully the below helps to get you up and running. This is not meant to be the ultimate guide, but just some screenshots of my set up on the tune I am currently running, this is what works well for me. There are many other things that can be done, but as of yet, I let the software do most of the heavy lifting and am happy with the results. 

First off, Bass Management tab, I use optical into the DSP so enabled Bass Mgt on 7 and 8. I then set my HPF / LPF on the Bass Mgt tab. Click on images for full size.
























With those set, I go to the Display Menu --> Dirac Channels Selection and enable 1 through 7. I set tweeters as 1&2, mids as 3&4, midbass 5&6 and the sub on 7.

With that complete, I move on to the routing tab and set it up as so:









Then onto the Mixer tab, setting this up like this (ignore the inverted tweeter). 









Finally, onto the Output tabs, where I make sure that I have all my TA values set to zero, the levels all set to zero (yes, they are 5dB in the picture, I increased them _after _running Dirac to get some more output). At this point, my crossovers are *not *set, the exception being on my tweeters I set about a 2KHz HPF as I don't want to break them.









At this point, I open up Dirac Live (no pictures, I can't open it without being connected to the DSP) and go through setting up my microphone levels. Typically I find around -35dB works best for the Master Volume, YMMV,I usually leave the microphone gain at the default. 

Perform the 9 sets of sweeps, making sure to get that center one exactly where I want it. I make a larger box for the front and rear measurements, others make a smaller box, you'll need to tweak it to what works best for you and your vehicle. With the measurements complete, I move to the Filter Design step. I separate the tweeters to one group, the mids to another and the midbass and sub to a 3rd group. 

Now, at this point I load the default Dirac curve to all groups, move the curtains to where the drivers roll off and let the software optimize things. With that complete, I save it to a preset and head back to the MiniDSP software.

This is when I go ahead and now enable my crossovers, as I wrote above, I added 5dB to all outputs for more volume, you may not need to do so. I then added a low shelf, high shelf and 2 bands of PEQ (used REW to figure out where) to tailor things to my tastes. The important piece is to apply the shelf filters and EQ to all drivers using the Advanced Biquad option. I'd like to tell you how this works, but I don't know how it works, however I am sure many posting in here can explain further if you would like. 

At this point, I save the preset and start listening to music. Start to finish, probably 30 minutes. With this tune I had more than one person at a meet this past weekend tell me my car is the best it has ever sounded.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

* naiku , thank you!*

So basically it's a 1 step processing instead of what we were doing previously.

1 - Do you set up bass management to control it with the remote knob? I never use this and don't want to, should I set up bass management? If not - should I send both input 7&8 to dirac channels? 
2 - You don't set any crossovers previous to dirac, why? Due to the same reasons I had issues with? How do you know which XOs to set after the dirac is done? 
3 - Do you think that increasing digitaly each channel by 5db in minidsp won't hurt anything?
4 - Did you check the response with REW after everything is done? For example - last time I was doing this there was a huge! difference in the target response that dirac showed and the actual response in REW.

Thank you again.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

1. No, I don't use the remote control knob. @Truthunter sums up why to use bass management here _"Second, I used the Bass Management function to apply the Subs LPF and Midbass HPF. These filters aren't seen by Dirac as they are before where the test signal is injected into the signal path within the DSP. This also allow the midbass HPF to cascade to the mids & tweets." _

That is from post #64 in this thread, some good info there on those pages.

2. I'm far from an expert, someone can jump in and correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for not setting them previous to Dirac is that when it corrects to the curve, you end up with perfectly summed response in the crossover region. As for how I know which XO's to set after Dirac is done, long ago I ran pink noise sweeps in REW to get an idea of the natural roll off from the drivers, I set the XO's based on that for mids/midbass and then based the tweeter HPF off the roll off from the mid. 

3. I don't believe it hurts anything, nor does it have a negative effect on the Dirac calibration since all channels are increased by the same amount. Don't forget though, that 5dB is what works for me, it may be more than you need, or it may be less. 

4. Yes, although I personally don't place a huge emphasis on what the REW graph shows. Instead, if I like how it sounds then I call it good. The measured response of my tune is on I think page 6 or something like that from REW. It's following the default Dirac curve with my adjustments pretty well I believe.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

naiku said:


> @datooff (and anyone else reading who is new to setting this up) hopefully the below helps to get you up and running. This is not meant to be the ultimate guide, but just some screenshots of my set up on the tune I am currently running, this is what works well for me. There are many other things that can be done, but as of yet, I let the software do most of the heavy lifting and am happy with the results.
> 
> First off, Bass Management tab, I use optical into the DSP so enabled Bass Mgt on 7 and 8. I then set my HPF / LPF on the Bass Mgt tab. Click on images for full size.
> 
> ...


I can completely vouch for the statement that this is the best the Volvo has sounded! Extremely good! 

Did you also point out the Display drop down on the Plug-In? Especially with his 2 sub approach. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

bertholomey said:


> Did you also point out the Display drop down on the Plug-In? Especially with his 2 sub approach.


I tried to take a screenshot of that, but with it not connected to the DSP it won't let me open that menu. I did mention it though, and explained how it is set for my 7 channel set up.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Thank you.
Bass management thing is really weird. Why 80hz? And why both LPF and HPF at 80hz?
Is this step skippable?
I have 1 sub playing in front from 40-80hz and the rear up to 40. What settings should I use?

What's more weird is that the official DL guide from minidsp appears useless.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

datooff said:


> Thank you.
> Bass management thing is really weird. Why 80hz? And why both LPF and HPF at 80hz?
> Is this step skippable?
> I have 1 sub playing in front from 40-80hz and the rear up to 40. What settings should I use?
> ...


I'd almost treat your sub playing form 40-80 as a mid-bass and setup your bass management for a LPF of 40hz. Then just be sure you are sending both L and R to the front sub. 

The official guide is not useless, we've just come up with what we feel is a better method to producing great repeatable results.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

*squiers007, *So basically, like this for the front sub (Dirac 5)? And LPF of 40hz for the rear + bass management?


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

datooff said:


> *squiers007, *So basically, like this for the front sub (Dirac 5)? And LPF of 40hz for the rear + bass management?
> View attachment 315972


No, you'd have Dirac 5 as your front sub (as shown) and Dirac 6 as your rear sub with the signal coming from Bass management.


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

I am getting this error message as soon as I select the device in Dirac. Any ideas?


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Not seen that one before, I am assuming you already restarted everything?


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

I want to say I got this error message once when I re-connected to the MiniDSP software before Dirac opened. There is a delay when starting Dirac and it disconnects from the MiniDSP software, I want to say I re-connected thinking something had gone wrong and this messed up the Dirac software resulting in this error. I may be remembering that incorrectly, but either way you don't want to re-connect until after you've finished in Dirac and closed the program.


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

It is something I am doing in Configuration 2. 
Configuration 1 is connecting correctly. 
Will report back.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

SNCTMPL said:


> It is something I am doing in Configuration 2.
> Configuration 1 is connecting correctly.
> Will report back.


Check your speaker setup in the pulldown menu at the top under "Display", "Dirac channel configuration" to make sure it matches what you have in the mixer. If those don't match you'll get an error. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

I’m not sure what did it, but I got rid of the error message and had just enough time to get some measurements. Now the fun starts.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Ok, I finished the tune today, with the tips I received yesterday. Thank's everyone who helped me.

6 channel dirac - 12345 are front speakers + front sub. 6 is bass management with LPF at 40hz (rear sub).
My drivers where PEQ before this, I left the PEQ.
Disabled the XOs / no levels / no delays.
Measured all 9 positions, then I tried to group all the speakers in 1 group (1 colour). 1 house curve, I simply pulled it at the bottom end around my sub.
Then I re-enabled the XO's.
Actually, the result is surprisingly good. Even tho I spent ~1minute in the filter design menu and had no real idea how to set it up and I'm sure there's a LOT of room for improvement.

I saved the project, any tips? 









The second image is the curve with Dirac 1 (left full range speaker).


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Glad it worked out for you. 

I'm a bit confused by your 2nd image. Did you take another measurement post Dirac, but in Dirac? 

If you want to see the results of the filters you will need to do a moving mic RTA using REW.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

No, it's the same screen. The first photo is all speakers combined, the second one is tweeters only (Dirac 1)


squiers007 said:


> I'm a bit confused by your 2nd image. Did you take another measurement post Dirac, but in Dirac?


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

datooff said:


> No, it's the same screen. The first photo is all speakers combined, the second one is tweeters only (Dirac 1)


Ok, that makes more sense. Be careful playing the tweeter down that low. Even at low level I'd put a protective HPF at or slightly above the Fs of the tweeter so you don't blow it out.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

It's a full range speaker in a sealed box that plays 500hz-16K. I also have sony supertweeter above that.

I re-read the Dirac Live guide from minidsp and will be make a lot of different adjustments to the filter design tab.
Also, what I didn't do previously - I didn't set HPF filter in bass management (LPF only).
I also want to experiment with separate groups / curtains and tweaking the house curve.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Anyone ever do a "windows down" tune? Living in Long Beach, CA means it's seldom hot or cold enough year-round to need the windows up, and I probably have them down half the time I'm in the car. Or am I crazy?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

hella356 said:


> Anyone ever do a "windows down" tune? Living in Long Beach, CA means it's seldom hot or cold enough year-round to need the windows up, and I probably have them down half the time I'm in the car. Or am I crazy?


Absolutely. I've done windows down tunes. It's cold now where I'm at (DC), but whenever weather permits I drive windows down. I've also done a top down tune.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Anu2g said:


> I've done windows down tunes.


Does it work out well? I have thought about doing something like that before, if I can have the windows down I usually do (much to my wife's annoyance when it is cold out). I might have to try one just for a fun experiment, but then do I need to be outside, or in the garage. I'd assume I would have to be outside, otherwise Dirac may see my garage as an enormous rectangular car


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

naiku said:


> Does it work out well? I have thought about doing something like that before, if I can have the windows down I usually do (much to my wife's annoyance when it is cold out). I might have to try one just for a fun experiment, but then do I need to be outside, or in the garage. I'd assume I would have to be outside, otherwise Dirac may see my garage as an enormous rectangular car


Yea, definitely...it definitely results in a fully centered image. The bass gets helped out substantially. I actually do all my tunes outdoors because I noticed my bass sounds different inside a garage (keep in mind my car has a soft top), irrespective of whether the windows are opened or closed.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Once I feel like I'm (hopefully) getting to the end of tuning for me, then I'll apply that method to a windows-down tune. I suppose, technically, the measurements should be done while the car is moving.  

And a passenger side tune to treat my guests.

Which leaves two presets remaining. This is my biggest gripe with this DSP. It may be once I figure tuning out, that will be sufficient, but I've been using all 4 to be able to switch between different crossover settings while driving in real world conditions. I understand my original remote is hardware limited, but I've never seen anything to suggest that the newer OLED remote provides more than 4 presets are available. Would be great to have more.


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

It would be nice if somebody pinned the various methods people use to setup Dirac to the first page. I have some bookmarked/favorited, but for somebody new it might make it easier for them to get going and provide thoughts in the comments.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Not affiliated.









Sold: MiNiDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL New unopened box


Sold




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## Old Skewl (May 30, 2011)

doeboy said:


> It would be nice if somebody pinned the various methods people use to setup Dirac to the first page. I have some bookmarked/favorited, but for somebody new it might make it easier for them to get going and provide thoughts in the comments.


I agree. I read all 55 pages of the main 8x12 DL thread and came away confused. This thread is more enlightening. Although I have not played around with the UI yet as I am waiting on my amps to be refurbed.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

So I did a complete re-tune last night using the method Anu posted below - Keep all Dirac channels in same group and loading the final desired target. This along with applying cascaded xover filters.

Results were excellent - very holographic, pinpoint imaging, and a spacious wide stage - better it seems than dividing drivers into groups & loading the final desired target into all groups as I had been doing. Could it be that keeping all channels in same group produces better phase matching across the entire spectrum?

This method is so quick from start to finish too - the longest part is the measurements. Dirac is absolutely going to change the aftermarket & OEM DSP market landscape as more people experience it - it's already happening.



Anu2g said:


> I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.
> 
> 1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
> 2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
> ...


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Truthunter said:


> So I did a complete re-tune last night using the method Anu posted below - Keep all Dirac channels in same group and loading the final desired target. This along with applying cascaded xover filters.
> 
> Results were excellent - very holographic, pinpoint imaging, and a spacious wide stage - better it seems than dividing drivers into groups & loading the final desired target into all groups as I had been doing. Could it be that keeping all channels in same group produces better phase matching across the entire spectrum?
> 
> This method is so quick from start to finish too - the longest part is the measurements. Dirac is absolutely going to change the aftermarket & OEM DSP market landscape as more people experience it - it's already happening.


Is this correct?

Bass management to cross the subs with the front stage
I have caps on tweeters, so no crossovers in plug-in, but tweeter high-pass if no caps
No levels, EQ, TA settings in plug-in at any stage, as this will all be handled by Dirac
Set plug-in mode to one Dirac channel per speaker - in my case 7 channels for 3-way + sub
Run Dirac & stick with one group
Adjust the resulting Dirac curve to suit
High curtain at roll-off of tweeters
Low curtain at sub elbow
Save
Back to plug-in, set crossovers
Done

Some questions:
Elbow is the point where the upper response of the sub begins to fall off, correct? Anu specified ported sub, does it matter if I have sealed?
Cascaded crossovers - does this mean applying multiple crossovers to the same driver?
All tuning work other than crossovers is done via simply adjusting the target curve in DL?
Once the target curve is saved, we can adjust crossovers without "disturbing" the DL curve?
Are there any specific crossover methods to use/avoid? 
Should we stick with BW 18dB slopes, as was suggested early in the thread, or are we free to use any type/slope throughout?


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Is this correct?
> 
> Bass management to cross the subs with the front stage
> I have caps on tweeters, so no crossovers in plug-in, but tweeter high-pass if no caps
> ...


Yes, that is all correct




hella356 said:


> Some questions:
> Elbow is the point where the upper response of the sub begins to fall off, correct? Anu specified ported sub, does it matter if I have sealed?


The elbow Anu was referring to is where the lower response of the sub begins to fall off. Sealed is more forgiving because the box controls excursion so not as critical - safe to just drop the curtain at 20hz.




hella356 said:


> Cascaded crossovers - does this mean applying multiple crossovers to the same driver?


Yes, basically that's what it is.
Using the xovers in Bass Management automatically cascades the midbass HPF to the midrange and tweeter.
I apply the midbass LPF to the sub in the output tab also in the basic xover screen. More cascading can be done (like applying the Midrage HPF to the tweeter or the Midrange LPF to the Midbass & Sub) but it's not really necessary because the filters are more than 2 octaves away from the regular xover filters.




hella356 said:


> All tuning work other than crossovers is done via simply adjusting the target curve in DL?
> Once the target curve is saved, we can adjust crossovers without "disturbing" the DL curve?
> Are there any specific crossover methods to use/avoid?
> Should we stick with BW 18dB slopes, as was suggested early in the thread, or are we free to use any type/slope throughout?


Yes, any tonality changes can be made by manipulating the curve in Dirac.
Yes, xovers can be changed without the need for remeasuring in Dirac or adjusting the curve. But it's still good practice to keep the xovers at least 3/4 of an octave away from where the drivers natural response starts to drop... but that's not always possible depending on the driver locations and choices.
I've been using LR24 xovers throughout and haven't experimented with trying other slopes.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thank you, sir! 

So lower curtain at where sub low end trails off - or 20Hz, whichever is higher, I suppose?
In addition to the BM crossover, apply the LP from the woofers to the sub
I can easily keep the crossover points within the driver responses, so that's good.
And cool to know I can play around with more or less any crossover settings. 

Excellent. No time this weekend for the stereo, but I'll give this a go in a couple days.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

A question from a new 8-12 owner… if you upgrade to a Dirac license can you still use the processor while the license activation is taking place as I’ve seen it can take a day or two, I presume you can, but I’m wondering if it makes the processor dl but effectively useless while it’s not ‘licensed’ so to speak


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Truthunter said:


> So I did a complete re-tune last night using the method Anu posted below - Keep all Dirac channels in same group and loading the final desired target. This along with applying cascaded xover filters.
> 
> Results were excellent - very holographic, pinpoint imaging, and a spacious wide stage - better it seems than dividing drivers into groups & loading the final desired target into all groups as I had been doing. Could it be that keeping all channels in same group produces better phase matching across the entire spectrum?
> 
> This method is so quick from start to finish too - the longest part is the measurements. Dirac is absolutely going to change the aftermarket & OEM DSP market landscape as more people experience it - it's already happening.


I did a ground up tune as well just now. Same steps. 

Set up Plug-In - safety crossover for tweets - nothing else 

Dirac - 7 channel with small box measurement. All in one group. 

Apply crossovers 

Measure response in REW. 

Spectacular! Thank You Anu and Ryan! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bertholomey said:


> I did a ground up tune as well just now. Same steps.
> 
> Set up Plug-In - safety crossover for tweets - nothing else
> 
> ...


I did one yesterday too! Guess it was Fresh tune Friday! Lol.

The interesting thing I noticed is that I ended up with practically identical results entering my target curve into Dirac vs. using a matching low shelf. Switching between the 2 presets I could not tell a difference. The only thing I should note is that you cannot apply as much boost via the Dirac Target curve method as you can with a low shelf, so if you like a heavy low end is recommend doing a flat or default Dirac curve and applying a low shelf via PEQ.

The next thing I'd like to try is altering the target curve in areas that are still a bit off ( i.e. making cuts, or boosting) to see if that will fix those areas. This was something @Truthunter suggested and I think he might be onto something. 

Glad to be a part of this group and continuing to experiment with this process. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

dumdum said:


> A question from a new 8-12 owner… if you upgrade to a Dirac license can you still use the processor while the license activation is taking place as I’ve seen it can take a day or two, I presume you can, but I’m wondering if it makes the processor dl but effectively useless while it’s not ‘licensed’ so to speak


I could be wrong on this but, when upgrading you can’t get past the activation screen until they send you the key, and you have already changed the firmware to dl so no tunes are left on it. I left my stereo off until I got it. Then it went into my junk folder and cost me another day.


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

squiers007 said:


> I did one yesterday too! Guess it was Fresh tune Friday! Lol.
> 
> The interesting thing I noticed is that I ended up with practically identical results entering my target curve into Dirac vs. using a matching low shelf. Switching between the 2 presets I could not tell a difference. The only thing I should note is that you cannot apply as much boost via the Dirac Target curve method as you can with a low shelf, so if you like a heavy low end is recommend doing a flat or default Dirac curve and applying a low shelf via PEQ.
> 
> ...


I started practicing with tuning this week. Yesterday I followed a step by step guide to a 2 channel tune from a member named Sonny. It allows me to turn on rear fill after running DL and it sounds really good for my first tune.

Today I followed Anu’s method for the 7 channel tune. The front stage sounds awesome but it is lacking bottom end. I had to use the default curve as I can’t get a curve to load (might need your guys help with that). I am going to try the low shelf filter when I get a minute and see if that helps. Also no rear fill.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

squiers007 said:


> I did one yesterday too! Guess it was Fresh tune Friday! Lol.
> 
> The interesting thing I noticed is that I ended up with practically identical results entering my target curve into Dirac vs. using a matching low shelf. Switching between the 2 presets I could not tell a difference. The only thing I should note is that you cannot apply as much boost via the Dirac Target curve method as you can with a low shelf, so if you like a heavy low end is recommend doing a flat or default Dirac curve and applying a low shelf via PEQ.
> 
> ...


Fresh Tune Friday has a ring to it 

I had two real ugly spots in the midrange - and I made one stab at it so far, but ran out of time. I’ll post this anyway - I pulled two spots down on the Dirac curve by 5db - which affects both sides. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> I did one yesterday too! Guess it was Fresh tune Friday! Lol.
> 
> The interesting thing I noticed is that I ended up with practically identical results entering my target curve into Dirac vs. using a matching low shelf. Switching between the 2 presets I could not tell a difference. The only thing I should note is that you cannot apply as much boost via the Dirac Target curve method as you can with a low shelf, so if you like a heavy low end is recommend doing a flat or default Dirac curve and applying a low shelf via PEQ.
> 
> ...


I agree that there shouldn't be too much audible difference between using just shelves vs using the final target curve in Dirac. It's just faster using the Dirac target curve method.

As far as not being able to apply as much boost on the low end using the target method: Try lowering the overall target in Dirac by 3-6db (I do this in the text file) - this way there won't be as much boost needed on the low end and the high end will just be cut more. This will likely result in lower overall volume but that can be remedied by adding to the levels in the output tabs. I actually will add up to 3db in the routing tab and then additional level in the output as needed. Raising amp gains will perform the same thing but will require REW to confirm all gains are raised equally relative to each other. That's the method I would use if my one amp still had it's pre-amp intact.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

SNCTMPL said:


> I could be wrong on this but, when upgrading you can’t get past the activation screen until they send you the key, and you have already changed the firmware to dl so no tunes are left on it. I left my stereo off until I got it. Then it went into my junk folder and cost me another day.


That was kinda what I figured 😒 tbh the mini dsp in itself as a processor is very basic, 10 band eq isn’t really decent for a car for me, the only reason I have it is for curiosity with Dirac so I think I’ll upgrade it on the bench and not install it for now if I actually put it in at all


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Truthunter said:


> I agree that there shouldn't be too much audible difference between using just shelves vs using the final target curve in Dirac. It's just faster using the Dirac target curve method.
> 
> As far as not being able to apply as much boost on the low end using the target method: Try lowering the overall target in Dirac by 3-6db (I do this in the text file) - this way there won't be as much boost needed on the low end and the high end will just be cut more. This will likely result in lower overall volume but that can be remedied by adding to the levels in the output tabs. I actually will add up to 3db in the routing tab and then additional level in the output as needed. Raising amp gains will perform the same thing but will require REW to confirm all gains are raised equally relative to each other. That's the method I would use if my one amp still had it's pre-amp intact.


@squiers007 what about turning the amp gain up on the sub prior to measuring with Dirac? Since the sub will measure higher, you wouldn't need to use as much boost in the Dirac curve


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

hella356 said:


> Thank you, sir!
> 
> So lower curtain at where sub low end trails off - or 20Hz, whichever is higher, I suppose?
> In addition to the BM crossover, apply the LP from the woofers to the sub
> ...


I spent some time experimenting between BW3 and LR4, and I liked BW3, for my application. I suspect it's _very _application specific, and LR4 will likely work in more applications


----------



## MitchWolos (Aug 4, 2015)

Can someone explain exactly who decided to measure without crossovers? And why? 

The measured phase of each speaker will be altered by the crossover filters. So, Adding them after will alter the phase and Dirac will be correcting the unaltered phase?


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

dumdum said:


> That was kinda what I figured  tbh the mini dsp in itself as a processor is very basic, 10 band eq isn’t really decent for a car for me, the only reason I have it is for curiosity with Dirac so I think I’ll upgrade it on the bench and not install it for now if I actually put it in at all


Compared to Helix the MiniDSP UI looks like 1980s. 

DL UI looks very pretty though 

My transfer was done over a weekend but didn’t get an email confirming it, just had to keep checking my MiniDSP account and it appeared. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Do you guys thing adjusting gains on amps after dirac is a good idea? (For subs only)


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

SiW80 said:


> Compared to Helix the MiniDSP UI looks like 1980s.


While a little harsh, I'd say 1990's, coming from a Helix, I agree that the Helix UI is a lot more polished and modern looking than the MiniDSP UI. 

Thankfully, it works fine though, so no actual complaints since I don't really care what the UI looks like as long as it is usable.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

naiku said:


> While a little harsh, I'd say 1990's, coming from a Helix, I agree that the Helix UI is a lot more polished and modern looking than the MiniDSP UI.
> 
> Thankfully, it works fine though, so no actual complaints since I don't really care what the UI looks like as long as it is usable.


There’s a few other things I find odd, the new oled director gadget has zero fixing points on it except one screw on the back that could be repurposed I guess, but it hardly fits with its car role for me, it just seems like a dsp with a car label on it not a dsp designed for a car (and the oled has come out in the last year so someone designed it for a car… why not make mounting options?)

it also misses lots of features for integration to cars, although it does have all pass filters if required on inputs… but no facility for auto switching between day a factory radio for phone calls and a digital source which I do need… and you can’t find this out until you’ve bought the device to download the software which is probably a good thing as it would reduce sales 😂

i think I’d try the 2 channel digital dirac box (ddrc-22d) even though it’s almost as expensive as the processor… I would spend the extra to try it and have a helix gui for my dsp still

i did get warned the gui would make me want to kill fluffy puppy’s by a Facebook friend, but I figured he was exaggerating… maybe not lol


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

MitchWolos said:


> Can someone explain exactly who decided to measure without crossovers? And why?
> 
> The measured phase of each speaker will be altered by the crossover filters. So, Adding them after will alter the phase and Dirac will be correcting the unaltered phase?


The idea here is to create flat FR's for each of the drivers so that when you implement the xover they act just like a textbook xover would. For a LR 24db/octave xover this should result in perfect summing and phase tracking through the xover (again if the FR's are perfectly flat). In practice Dirac does a very good job getting the FR to be as flat as possible, but it's still obviously not perfect, but from what I've seen this has resulted in very good summation through the xover. If you use anything over than LR 24/db/octave, you will get different summing results, which is why IMO this is the xover setting that should be your default. That is not to say that over slopes won't work, but I think that should be your starting point.



datooff said:


> Do you guys thing adjusting gains on amps after dirac is a good idea? (For subs only)


This would result in a gain mismatch, post Dirac, between your individual drivers which could negatively effect your overall target curve and tonality.

Out of curiosity, why are you wanting to do this? If it's to get more volume headroom then you can do this in the Plugin by adding gain to each of the output channels, just be sure you add the exact same amount to every channel.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Anu2g said:


> @squiers007 what about turning the amp gain up on the sub prior to measuring with Dirac? Since the sub will measure higher, you wouldn't need to use as much boost in the Dirac curve


Missed this earlier.

The way I understand it, Dirac does level matching and TA before it makes the adjustments to the target curve (I want to say Andy had told me this...). So if you changed the gain on the sub channel pre-Dirac then it would just lower the sub level even more in Dirac to compensate. Right now my Dirac set my sub channel level to around -17db. I don't have an issue with this since my low shelf is +16, meaning I'm still at -1db of gain after I've applied my EQ so no extra headroom is required. 

I do think I could get the target curve to work if I simply adjusted the whole curve down by ~6db so that my max boost is +10 and on the upper octaves it would be around -9. One thing to remember too if someone reads this and starts freaking out when seeing that I'm boosting +10db, is that my net is actually -1 because Dirac is pulling the level way down to make a flat response curve, then I'm just boosting it back up with PEQ afterwards. 

Now that I type this maybe it does make more sense to have Dirac fit to the curve so that you are not altering the levels back and forth... I think I will give this another shot whenever I get to tuning again. Pretty darn happy with my 7 channel tune as it sits right now though.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

squiers007 said:


> Missed this earlier.
> 
> The way I understand it, Dirac does level matching and TA before it makes the adjustments to the target curve (I want to say Andy had told me this...). So if you changed the gain on the sub channel pre-Dirac then it would just lower the sub level even more in Dirac to compensate. Right now my Dirac set my sub channel level to around -17db. I don't have an issue with this since my low shelf is +16, meaning I'm still at -1db of gain after I've applied my EQ so no extra headroom is required.
> 
> ...


Yea, what I meant was to turn up your sub gain to fit your curve (roughly), prior to any Dirac measurements. Then make your Dirac measurements, and draw you curve in Dirac...if you set your sub's amp gain reasonably close, then Dirac wouldn't need to apply much if any boost.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

*squiers007*
I want to do minimal digital level processing (touching levels, volume knob), because it kills the dynamic range. (aka the difference between the quietest and loudest sound). For example - when you turn the overall volume to -10-16-24 db - it sounds worse than close to zero (it's kind of compressing).. The same with dirac, I don't want to pull the house curve too much, except the peaks.

But adjusting the level for subs after dirac may really make sense, because dirac really adjusted the subs to ~ -17db. + it's won't do much damage in the lower octaves.

By the way - a tip is to check the response in REW after the tune. For example - everything was almost perfect except a strange dip from 500-1000hz that didn't exist before. I changed the LPF of the midbass it became much better. Maybe because I used curtains?
So it seems that you can play with crossovers after the dirac tune, which is very nice.

After a few days I can say that I really like the 7 channel method. I did it with a good amount of PEQ.
I want to do another preset without any PEQ.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

datooff said:


> *squiers007*
> I want to do minimal digital level processing (touching levels, volume knob), because it kills the dynamic range. (aka the difference between the quietest and loudest sound). For example - when you turn the overall volume to -10-16-24 db - it sounds worse than close to zero (it's kind of compressing).. The same with dirac, I don't want to pull the house curve too much, except the peaks.
> 
> But adjusting the level for subs after dirac may really make sense, because dirac really adjusted the subs to ~ -17db. + it's won't do much damage in the lower octaves.
> ...


To my knowledge, adjusting the levels of your various output channels should have zero effect on your dynamic range, it's just a relative volume change, not altering the range of the original signal. The dynamic range will only be effected by lowering the volume of your source (if using a digital signal), or by lowering the volume in the plugin (if using an analog input). This is why it is recommended to have your source set to the max unclipped output for a digital source so you have the maximum number of bits. The only other way to limit dynamic range would be to employ a compressor, which the miniDSP plugin does not have to my knowledge, nor would we want to use on for this application.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

dumdum said:


> There’s a few other things I find odd, the new oled director gadget has zero fixing points on it except one screw on the back that could be repurposed I guess, but it hardly fits with its car role for me, it just seems like a dsp with a car label on it not a dsp designed for a car (and the oled has come out in the last year so someone designed it for a car… why not make mounting options?)
> 
> it also misses lots of features for integration to cars, although it does have all pass filters if required on inputs… but no facility for auto switching between day a factory radio for phone calls and a digital source which I do need… and you can’t find this out until you’ve bought the device to download the software which is probably a good thing as it would reduce sales
> 
> ...



This is not meant to be an argument - I’ve seen your posts - you do know what you are doing and you know what you want which is groovy. 

But......for others, I’d say, especially since implementing the ‘new’ 7 Channel process......I do very little in the plug in - set Bass Management, Routing tab, Mixer tab, Crossovers. 

I have used the Bit One, Mosconi 6to8, P99, Helix, and now MiniDSP / Dirac. Strengths and weaknesses can be pointed out on each of them, but I’ve never had the results that I’m getting now using the other processors. Just my experience. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

bertholomey said:


> This is not meant to be an argument - I’ve seen your posts - you do know what you are doing and you know what you want which is groovy.
> 
> But......for others, I’d say, especially since implementing the ‘new’ 7 Channel process......I do very little in the plug in - set Bass Management, Routing tab, Mixer tab, Crossovers.
> 
> ...


For clarity, I am talking about my experiences before Dirac as I bought the processor first as you can’t see the software prior to buying, but i presume you still have to use these controls before running Dirac, they just drive my ocd crazy


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

dumdum said:


> For clarity, I am talking about my experiences before Dirac as I bought the processor first as you can’t see the software prior to buying, but i presume you still have to use these controls before running Dirac, they just drive my ocd crazy


Hey @dumdum I've seen all your contributions on this forum. If it's helpful to you, I'd be glad to do a remote tune with you...assuming you get the Dirac license. We'd only need about one hour.

-Anu


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

Anu2g said:


> Hey @dumdum I've seen all your contributions on this forum. If it's helpful to you, I'd be glad to do a remote tune with you...assuming you get the Dirac license. We'd only need about one hour.
> 
> -Anu


thanks but I’m good, I am in a budget limited class for Emma of 4k euros so the v2.0 processor alone is 599 Inc oled display box, a dsp.3 and conductor is 619 but obviously less channels and no coax input, so I figured if I could get more channels and coax for the same money roughly I would, but adding Dirac would mean getting the v2.0 DL added to the price list and would then likely be too expensive for my budget so I’ve returned the processor, so Dirac will stay elsewhere for now and I’ll swap my dsp.3 to a dsp.3s with coax input and optical

i am also confident in my own ability’s to be able to setup Dirac live if I did go that way, but thank again for the offer

the other reason I wanted extra channels was to be able to daily drive my 9.5” underseats with a set of kicks containing unity 6x9 and have them switchable out for competition where I’d just run the satori 9.5 😎 but hey ho


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

dumdum said:


> thanks but I’m good, I am in a budget limited class for Emma of 4k euros so the v2.0 processor alone is 599 Inc oled display box, a dsp.3 and conductor is 619 but obviously less channels and no coax input, so I figured if I could get more channels and coax for the same money roughly I would, but adding Dirac would mean getting the v2.0 DL added to the price list and would then likely be too expensive for my budget so I’ve returned the processor, so Dirac will stay elsewhere for now and I’ll swap my dsp.3 to a dsp.3s with coax input and optical
> 
> i am also confident in my own ability’s to be able to setup Dirac live if I did go that way, but thank again for the offer
> 
> the other reason I wanted extra channels was to be able to daily drive my 9.5” underseats with a set of kicks containing unity 6x9 and have them switchable out for competition where I’d just run the satori 9.5  but hey ho


Welcome to borrow mine 

Guess the Emma prices are new rrp rather than what you paid for the equipment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

SiW80 said:


> Welcome to borrow mine
> 
> Guess the Emma prices are new rrp rather than what you paid for the equipment.
> 
> ...


Yup, otherwise everyone would buy zapco ap from a mate for £300 😂

tbh I don’t feel like I need Dirac, but thankyou

I’m a believer that if the right drivers are put in the right places then diracs benefit will be the icing on the cake if it improves anything, if your Derby/notts way si feel free to nip by for a listen, I think you’d like the corsa 😉


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Gave the new method a go. Only one set of crossover settings so far, and a couple Dirac curves, but so far this is the best my system has sounded. Smooth, clear, airy. Will be playing with it more over the next couple days, excited to hear what I can squeeze out of it.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@hella356 - is your system specs still the same as what's in your Profile:About?


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

steelwindmachine said:


> @hella356 - is your system specs still the same as what's in your Profile:About?


I just updated my signature, listing everything.


----------



## chasingSQ (Sep 25, 2017)

all this dirac stuff is snake oil !


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@chasingSQ - more for the rest of us


----------



## chasingSQ (Sep 25, 2017)

steelwindmachine said:


> @chasingSQ - more for the rest of us


i have the 8x12dl , just not using the dirac , at this time , i haver not had the best luck with it vs regular tuning


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@chasingSQ - well, at least you have the embedded option. I think if you're already good at tuning, it might be somewhat redundant. But, that's just a novice guess.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

chasingSQ said:


> i have the 8x12dl , just not using the dirac , at this time , i haver not had the best luck with it vs regular tuning


There are a good number of us here on this thread that would be more than happy to help out with Dirac. It really is amazing what the software can do once you get it dialed in. Just let us know, happy to help.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

squiers007 said:


> There are a good number of us here on this thread that would be more than happy to help out with Dirac. It really is amazing what the software can do once you get it dialed in. Just let us know, happy to help.


Ian has a call tentatively scheduled with me for some day in the future 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

bertholomey said:


> Ian has a call tentatively scheduled with me for some day in the future


What he should do, is come hang out sometime.


----------



## chasingSQ (Sep 25, 2017)

naiku said:


> What he should do, is come hang out sometime.


yes sir im working on that ill see you guys in may at jasons for sure


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@hella356 - any new updates on tuning?

how long do you think it's taken you to dial in to where you are now?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Just got a flex. with Dirac 
What an amazing dsp , it looks like it could be single din sized quite easily 

would make a perfect source, high bit output , future build will have digital outs.
Has The Sony LDAC BT and aptX , optical in, co ax in , analog in,


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

steelwindmachine said:


> @hella356 - any new updates on tuning?
> 
> how long do you think it's taken you to dial in to where you are now?


Haven't had any time to tinker with the rig lately. Hard to estimate how much time I've spent dialing it in to this point, as I've made changes to sound deadening, tweeter angling, sub placement, different midbass drivers, added + then tried multiple midrange drivers, etc. The miniDSP is my first crack at a DSP at all, and I did hook up a remote session with a user here to help me get comfortable with general DSP usage and Dirac. Had I had all of the "physical" driver/deadening work 100% finished before using the DSP, I'd say it would have been a few hours total to get it where it is. Now that I feel comfortable with the DSP/Dirac, when I make a change to the system it takes about 20 minutes to do a full re-tune, which I do each time I make a change. Typically I'll live with a new tune for a bit and then make some tweaks to suit what my ears are telling me, but since that consists of just altering the house curve within Dirac (without needing to remeasure anything) it's only a matter of a few minutes time.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@hella356 - that's quite encouraging! The time savings over running REW to DSP for hours and hours to dial in manually via a "traditional" DSP doesn't sound appealing.

is anyone here running Dirac with a 2-way front stange with sub or where you're using a wideband instead of a tweeter?


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@oabeieo - what do you plan to do with the Flex?

How could it become a car HU and integrate and control a multi-channel system?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Get a iso mount single din kit, pull the top cover off and drill out some spots for it to mount/or be creative and find a way to mount it inside of a single din ISO kit , ISO meaning , not a cage mount a trim ring, so the trim ring that comes in the dash kit will be used.

then a simple 12v dc isolator like the minidhardwired to the switched radio harness.

BOOM , done.

it’s a 12v unit, I have put car 12v into it works fine, but the same thing as the 2x4hd , you want the minidc add on car conversion from minidsp that would be purchased separately from minidsp

i am using mine as a shop system for now in my bay , check out the hangs in building for the bay


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Wait , it’s a little small , but a plate could be easily made


----------



## lucas569 (Apr 17, 2007)

cant stop reading all this good info, almost sold my Dirac DSP now im keeping it!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

lucas569 said:


> cant stop reading all this good info, almost sold my Dirac DSP now im keeping it!


Yeah don’t do that, 
I would humbly say im a master tuner, and it keeps up and better then what can be done with most staandard minimum phase dsps 

go work on a helix for a month and Dirac eats it up in 20min with the same tuner behind the controls


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Just got a flex. with Dirac
> What an amazing dsp , it looks like it could be single din sized quite easily
> 
> would make a perfect source, high bit output , future build will have digital outs.
> Has The Sony LDAC BT and aptX , optical in, co ax in , analog in,


I was checking out the flex when it first released... a great set of modern advanced features in a small box which I think is unmatched at this time.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Truthunter said:


> I was checking out the flex when it first released... a great set of modern advanced features in a small box which I think is unmatched at this time.


So funny! I was completely confused - I thought Andy was saying he just got a Ford Flex, or a customer came in with a Flex.......with Dirac.......which made me think of that video where they were demonstrating some software to use with OEM.....and those pictures didn’t seem to steer me closer to figuring anything out  I’m such a goof! Now I need to look up the MiniDSP Flex!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bertholomey said:


> So funny! I was completely confused - I thought Andy was saying he just got a Ford Flex, or a customer came in with a Flex.......with Dirac.......which made me think of that video where they were demonstrating some software to use with OEM.....and those pictures didn’t seem to steer me closer to figuring anything out  I’m such a goof! Now I need to look up the MiniDSP Flex!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If it makes you feel any better I was completely lost too, lol. Need to stay more up to date on new products I guess... 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## lucas569 (Apr 17, 2007)

Wish this weather didnt suck so bad... itching to get out there!!!!


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

I have been doing the 2 channel dirac where I put the left on one channel the right on the other channel with the sub in both. It has worked out pretty well. Thing is I am going to put some drivers under my seat so I can continue with that, but I saw some people were having a lot of good luck with a dirac channel per driver. I would have 4 + 4 up front and then the 1 sub in the back. If I wanted to do the driver per dirac channel would it be best to just leave out the sub? I really just want to play around with another preset on this effort to see what kind of sound it produces. ANy thoughs?


----------



## bbjoying (12 mo ago)

I am a noob at tuning or anything car audio technicals, even audio  , but I wanted some good music in my car and have been building a setup. Planning to add in a dsp and from the reading the mindsp seems to be the easiest for a beginner.

Can some one send me some screen shots of their minidsp settings? I have installed the minidsp software on my laptop and trying to understand it before I go ahead and get the dsp and install it in my car.

For eg The first tab inout and bass management, I will be using Optical, so do I disable analog inputs or whats done here?

Is this how routing is configured for Dirac live? I now have a front and rear passive components and rear dual sub. Adding the dsp I am planning to run front as three way active adding a midrange. Rear and sub will remain the same. Should I also run rear active?










If I want all my speakers tuned by Dirac is this mixing table correct?











Do I need to set any value for PEQ? or just leave it default and just add the Xover based on speaker manufacturer values.










Is the delay calculated as below?








Let's say my Front left tweeter is at 30 cm from listening position. then delay is 30*34.4=1032 ?

Is there anything else I need to set before running Dirac tuning?

Is it ok hijacking this thread or should I star a new one?

Thanks for your support.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

squiers007 said:


> If it makes you feel any better I was completely lost too, lol.


Same, was thinking he sold the Honda and picked up a Ford Flex. 



lucas569 said:


> Wish this weather didnt suck so bad... itching to get out there!!!!


Yes!! Even in my garage with the sub zero freezing temperatures it stays cold. I've been able to work on my install some, but it's miserably cold.


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

bbjoying said:


> I am a noob at tuning or anything car audio technicals, even audio  , but I wanted some good music in my car and have been building a setup. Planning to add in a dsp and from the reading the mindsp seems to be the easiest for a beginner.
> 
> Can some one send me some screen shots of their minidsp settings? I have installed the minidsp software on my laptop and trying to understand it before I go ahead and get the dsp and install it in my car.
> 
> ...



You may want to start a new one. My suggestion would be to look at the Minidsp manual and start with the active setup where you use 2 dirac channels one for the left and one for the right. That is what I did. I use analog and not a digital connection so there are some differences there. Once you are tuned into what the manual says I would share what you have come up with in this other thread and people can provide feedback. This is what is nice about presets you could have one for the method I mention that minidsp has in the guide. THen you could setup another preset for the other methods they have in this post.


----------



## bbjoying (12 mo ago)

doeboy said:


> You may want to start a new one. My suggestion would be to look at the Minidsp manual and start with the active setup where you use 2 dirac channels one for the left and one for the right. That is what I did. I use analog and not a digital connection so there are some differences there. Once you are tuned into what the manual says I would share what you have come up with in this other thread and people can provide feedback. This is what is nice about presets you could have one for the method I mention that minidsp has in the guide. THen you could setup another preset for the other methods they have in this post.


Thanks you. I am still waiting for the DSP to arrive, hopefully next week (this week they are closed for Chinese New Year) I will have it installed. So looking forward to all the learning before, so I am ready when its here


----------



## bbjoying (12 mo ago)

I just got an update the shipping is initiated so it should reach in in the next few days. Excited 

In the mean time from the reading and help from the forum I have come up with the below option.

Option 1: 3 Way Active front, 2 Way passive rear, 2 SUB. Optical inputs.

Input: HPF and LPF Configured at 80 Hz cutoff.

























Routing: Using one Dirac channel as in manual.










Mixing:









Just wanted to confirm if I am doing everything correct.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

bbjoying said:


> I just got an update the shipping is initiated so it should reach in in the next few days. Excited
> 
> In the mean time from the reading and help from the forum I have come up with the below option.
> 
> ...


To run a 3-way active front, you would want to use 6 Dirac channels. So on the Dirac tab, you would have "OpticalL" at 0dB for Dirac1, Dirac3, and Dirac5 (and off for all other Dirac channels). "OpticalR" at 0dB for Dirac2, Dirac4, and Dirac6. On the Mixer tab, you would have Dirac1 feeding FLTweet, Dirac3 feeding FLMid, and Dirac 5 feeding FLWoof. Dirac2 feeding FRTweet, Dirac4 feeding FRMid, and Dirac6 feeding FLWoof.

For the sub, I would only use one Dirac channel. On the Dirac tab, set OpticalL _and _OpticalR at 0dB for Dirac7, that way the sub would be getting summed Left and Right. On the mixer tab, have Dirac7 feed Sub1 and Sub2, at -3dB each.

Now the big question is what do with those passive rears, as we only have one Dirac channel left. I don't have advice for you here, as I haven't ran rears with Dirac. Hopefully the above is still helpful, though.


----------



## bbjoying (12 mo ago)

Anu2g said:


> To run a 3-way active front, you would want to use 6 Dirac channels. So on the Dirac tab, you would have "OpticalL" at 0dB for Dirac1, Dirac3, and Dirac5 (and off for all other Dirac channels). "OpticalR" at 0dB for Dirac2, Dirac4, and Dirac6. On the Mixer tab, you would have Dirac1 feeding FLTweet, Dirac3 feeding FLMid, and Dirac 5 feeding FLWoof. Dirac2 feeding FRTweet, Dirac4 feeding FRMid, and Dirac6 feeding FLWoof.
> 
> For the sub, I would only use one Dirac channel. On the Dirac tab, set OpticalL _and _OpticalR at 0dB for Dirac7, that way the sub would be getting summed Left and Right. On the mixer tab, have Dirac7 feed Sub1 and Sub2, at -3dB each.
> 
> Now the big question is what do with those passive rears, as we only have one Dirac channel left. I don't have advice for you here, as I haven't ran rears with Dirac. Hopefully the above is still helpful, though.



Thank you.
This is what I thought initially , but reading the manual it said this maybe difficult or did I understand wrong?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

bbjoying said:


> Thank you.
> This is what I thought initially , but reading the manual it said this maybe difficult or did I understand wrong?
> 
> View attachment 323665


Yea. The manual recommends a 2-ch Dirac tune, which means you would need to do PEQ for the left side (of your front active 3 way) and right side (of your front active 3 way) on your own, before Dirac, including XOs, and then running Dirac. However, if you read through this thread, we've all found better results going with individual drivers following the process outlined here. It's actually significantly less work than the method the manual says (less than half the total time).


----------



## bbjoying (12 mo ago)

Anu2g said:


> Yea. The manual recommends a 2-ch Dirac tune, which means you would need to do PEQ for the left side (of your front active 3 way) and right side (of your front active 3 way) on your own, before Dirac, including XOs, and then running Dirac. However, if you read through this thread, we've all found better results going with individual drivers following the process outlined here. It's actually significantly less work than the method the manual says (less than half the total time).


Thank you so much, this definitely sounds like making life easier. I need to figure out what do with the rear fills. so just set the routing and mixers as you said (for now I will ignore the rear). And the Xover as per speakers? nothing else to be changed or modified?

BTW about the PEQ, is this actually needed? I thought DL was to make life easier. Does it mean if I run the setup as manual, I need to use rew and set the PEQ?


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

bbjoying said:


> Thank you so much, this definitely sounds like making life easier. I need to figure out what do with the rear fills. so just set the routing and mixers as you said (for now I will ignore the rear). And the Xover as per speakers? nothing else to be changed or modified?
> 
> BTW about the PEQ, is this actually needed? I thought DL was to make life easier. Does it mean if I run the setup as manual, I need to use rew and set the PEQ?


You can setup your house curve in Dirac, or have Dirac use a flat target curve and use some low and high shelf filters in the PEQ to get to your desired house curve. People have done it both ways with good results. I'm currently using the PEQ method because I feel I'm getting better driver integration at the xover points with a flat curve. The trick here is that you have to apply the same EQ to every channel so the resulting phase shift from the EQ is happening everywhere. Doing this limits you to a max of 10 filters, but I'm only using 2 (a low shelf and a high shelf), so it's not really a big issue.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

bbjoying said:


> I need to figure out what do with the rear fills.


When I ran rear fill, I simply didn't assign them to any Dirac channels (I think the manual may even say this) but just manually tuned them so that they weren't noticeable.

The rear fill only plays a small range, I think mine was 400-3500Hz, so making any manual changes was fairly simple to do.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Just ordered a CDSP 8x12 DL! Pretty excited about it, considering the progress made here with a streamlined workflow. 

A while ago when I was considering the purchase, I read miniDSP's manual and became less interested in the 8x12 DL because a lot of the manual tuning is still required. They want you to PEQ each driver, time align, and set crossovers before performing DL. That can be hours of work! The beauty of software like this, or so I thought, is that (after setting up your input/output matrix) you can just take a measurement (or 9) and press go and it optimizes all of this for you. The approaches outlined in this thread are getting pretty dang close to that dream workflow and apparently they are working well for people. Big thanks to this thread, because that's what sold me.

So, like most new users I have a few questions. Some are probably worth their own thread but I think this one is appropriate for this thread... when you all take your 9 DL mic measurements, which direction do you point your mic? The miniDSP DL manual says to point it toward the ceiling in one section, but says to point it forward toward the speakers in another. I manual is more home than car-centric, so I think the difference in recommendation is for surround sound you point up to ceiling, but for stereo 2ch you point toward speakers. 

Are you all pointing forward? Like straight forward toward the steering wheel, or toward the center of the windshield toward the rear view mirror?


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Congrats on the decision - you will enjoy it I’m sure. For the measurements, I have always pointed the Mic towards the ceiling and use a 90 degree calibration file. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

bertholomey said:


> I have always pointed the Mic towards the ceiling and use a 90 degree calibration file.


Same here, anyone I have seen taking measurements also always does this.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

naiku said:


> Same here, anyone I have seen taking measurements also always does this.


I do pointed towards ceiling and 90 degree calibration file as well. I suspect if you pointed forward and used a 0 degree cal file, you'd probably get similar results.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

From what I recall, you only want to use the 0 degree cal file and pointing at the driver if taking a measurement on-axis with the driver (typically done very close to the cone as well). Otherwise you want to point it straight up (w/ the 90deg file). Something to do with picking up the reflections better, which is definitely what you want in an environment like a vehicle.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks for the replies everyone. Seems like there is a consensus for pointing toward the ceiling and using the 90deg calibration file. Without asking this question to the group, I would have pointed forward. Here's where I found the info (highlighted in blue at bottom of screenshot). It's from the miniDSP Dirac Live manual. But as I mentioned before, this is more geared toward in-home use. Other parts of the manual say to point toward the ceiling, but that seemed to be for surround systems.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

I think the key distinction between how we are measuring in our vehicles vs. a dedicated stereo setup is that we are not equidistant to each speaker. The MiniDSP manual puts "exact center" in bold for a reason. The other key distinction is that in most stereo setups the individual drivers of each speaker are time and phase aligned already via the passive xover network. In our setups none of this is true and we need Dirac to handle all of that. Not sure if that helps at all, but that's how I think about it. 

If you're curious you could always try it both ways, use the same house curve on both and set them as 2 different presets. Then you could toggle back and forth and see if it made any difference... I'm actually really curious if it would or not...


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

I want to get TA values from 1 Dirac measurement.
Can anyone explain why dirac gives absolutely wrong numbers? Xos are set. 
For example - the sub is ~ at the same distance as the furthest midbass (or 10-20cm difference). 
But Dirac gives these values: 0ms for sub and ~4-5ms for front end which completely pulls the stage to the right.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

datooff said:


> I want to get TA values from 1 Dirac measurement.
> Can anyone explain why dirac gives absolutely wrong numbers? Xos are set.
> For example - the sub is ~ at the same distance as the furthest midbass (or 10-20cm difference).
> But Dirac gives these values: 0ms for sub and ~4-5ms for front end which completely pulls the stage to the right.


Per the manual - the sub LPF needs to be off during the measurement


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

*Truthunter*
Thank you, will try that.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> *Truthunter*
> Thank you, will try that.


yeah , keep your LPF off on the OUTPUT of the sub forever. You will use the LPF from bass management to handle the LPF for all the sub outputs that you will assign in the mixer under bass management.

before measuring, turn off all filters on bass management. Then re-engage them after Dirac is done.

you’ll draw your target all the way through the usable response between midbass and sub on the magnitude for each respective channel…

Once you turn the crossovers back on after Dirac, they will sum together very nicely. 🙂

thuth is right tho , man he’s spent a lot of time on that for us. Maybe pm me or him if you need further help. I’m 100% he’ll be happy to help you.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> Thanks for the replies everyone. Seems like there is a consensus for pointing toward the ceiling and using the 90deg calibration file. Without asking this question to the group, I would have pointed forward. Here's where I found the info (highlighted in blue at bottom of screenshot). It's from the miniDSP Dirac Live manual. But as I mentioned before, this is more geared toward in-home use. Other parts of the manual say to point toward the ceiling, but that seemed to be for surround systems.
> 
> View attachment 323833


I’m fairly sure it says use the 0deg cal….
In a car, tge reflected sound and direct sound are a mix of both. And it’s argued that reflected sound is as much as direct sound.

so using the 0deg you should be able to better capture (Dirac will) what difference between direct and reflected energy.

it’s only for the very top octave that it’s meaningful. You should only notice minor changes between 15-20k, otherwise both cal files should net the same thing


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Truthunter said:


> Per the manual - the sub LPF needs to be off during the measurement


Did this - same crap, but now with ~2.25-1.06 ms. Much better result with the all crossovers removed except on the tweeters, but still - the stage pulls to the right if the TAs are manually set.
If Dirac is enabled - now the stage is pulled to the left. Tried playing with inverting the polarity - didn't help. 

By the way, do you guys separate the speakes into groups on the filter design tab? If I have 1 target curve with all speakers in 1 groups - what I really don't like is that dirac pushes the eq up on the midbass.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> Did this - same crap, but now with ~2.25-1.06 ms. Much better result with the all crossovers removed except on the tweeters, but still - the stage pulls to the right if the TAs are manually set.
> If Dirac is enabled - now the stage is pulled to the left. Tried playing with inverting the polarity - didn't help.
> 
> By the way, do you guys separate the speakes into groups on the filter design tab? If I have 1 target curve with all speakers in 1 groups - what I really don't like is that dirac pushes the eq up on the midbass.


if your using any 12db slopes (bw lr ) you want to invert the low pass after Dirac.

if you’re manually entering delays, you need to manually be entering signal reduction as well per channel.

and then to clarify, the center image the vocal should be between the speakers ideally it’s up high and far back in the dead center of the car at the bottom of the windshield. The vocals should not be in front of you.

i’m kind of jumping in on a conversation that I’m not 100% familiar with. truth, what do you think?


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

oabeieo said:


> I’m fairly sure it says use the 0deg cal….
> In a car, tge reflected sound and direct sound are a mix of both. And it’s argued that reflected sound is as much as direct sound.
> 
> so using the 0deg you should be able to better capture (Dirac will) what difference between direct and reflected energy.
> ...


The 8x12 DL manual doesn't say which file to use, but there are two sections in the miniDSP DL manual that talk about which files to use. In both cases, they say to use 0deg if pointing towards speakers, and 90deg if pointing toward ceiling.



https://www.minidsp.com/images/documents/miniDSP%20Dirac%20Live%20User%20Manual.pdf



page 13:









page 25:









Sounds like most people are using 90deg file and pointing toward ceiling so I'll give that a shot first. I don't think I really hear much towards 20kHz anyhow so if 15-20k is the only place it matters, no biggie!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> The 8x12 DL manual doesn't say which file to use, but there are two sections in the miniDSP DL manual that talk about which files to use. In both cases, they say to use 0deg if pointing towards speakers, and 90deg if pointing toward ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah I saw it somewhere……
you got it…..

i would go for the 0deg file to be honest. Give Dirac the best chance possible to distinguish reflected vs direct sound possible…..

The room correction changes behavior of the driver to accommodate for reflections…. The better the data the better the result in my opinion.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> if your using any 12db slopes (bw lr ) you want to invert the low pass after Dirac.
> 
> if you’re manually entering delays, you need to manually be entering signal reduction as well per channel.
> 
> ...


24db slopes.
Ok, after dirac I have to enter levels - for midbass minus 15-17db and for the sub -24??? (that's what is showing me)
Of course I know where the image should be, it's dissapointing that after almost 2 years of ownership of DL I can't make it work consistently.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

datooff said:


> 24db slopes.
> Ok, after dirac I have to enter levels - for midbass minus 15-17db and for the sub -24??? (that's what is showing me)
> Of course I know where the image should be, it's dissapointing that after almost 2 years of ownership of DL I can't make it work consistently.


Not sure exactly your set up and work flow but I would recommend trying the recently discovered method some of us have been using. It's much quicker with more repeatable results compared to the 2ch method the manual and MiniDSP recommends.

Anu2g gives a quick concise step by step here: Dirac tips and tricks


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> I wanted to share a technique I tried this past weekend at the Virginia Meet, which worked well, according to myself and a few other MiniDSP users/listeners at the Meet.
> 
> 1) I ran 7 channel dirac, with no crossovers (except the protective caps that I have on my tweeters).
> 2) In Dirac's Filter Design screen, I loaded my full target curve
> ...


that is fantastic, and I’ll just quote this as truth posted a link to it

so one thing tho. As you said putting it all in one group, and it trying to boost way outside of the intended crossover…. Although it is “only” 10db +/- , I think what your doing could work if….

Dirac sees the other magnitudes in the target and doesn’t try to boost a driver…. For example

if you had everything in one target group, let’s say the midrange in that group naturally rolls off at 3khz, and the tweeter plays to 1.5k. That overlap should prevent Dirac from seeing the midrange drop off and not try and boost 4-20khz on the midrange. Because it’s one target.

but if Dirac just makes the same linked target across all magnitudes then individually trays and make each output match the common target then you’ll be boosting that midrange 4-20k

in my first initial example having separate pairs there is no way that can happen….

and furthermore, it’s simple to make your target . 1st off , all you do is set all channels to the same “db downpoint” in the target. So if all pairs of channels are set to -5db for example, Dirac won’t do anything “strange” with gains. It will make all outputs -5db down…..

Dirac pre sets gains on all outputs to be relative to each other. So the target screen “db” represents an actual acoustical difference between all channels and they’re all relative to each other…..

So maybe this is something truth Hunter can help us solve….. perhaps do it that way and go into REW with a single driver with Crossovers off and analyze it and see if it’s boosting past its natural Roloff…..

if someone can confirm that then I will say that this method is solid as long as it’s not boosted…

Because a boosted response even outside its passband will have stretched the time domain to its harmonic…. If you do a 12 DB Peak eq at let’s say 2.5khz , The phase shift pulls on the entire magnitude all the way to DC…. It may be only a fraction of a degree down that low but at 1K its noticeable…. So this needs to be confirmed


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’m tuning two 8x12s next week…. One in a ram with utopia drivers and one in that tundra I did with krx drivers….. the ram has brax amps and fully digital…. I’ll be excited to try this technique on that truck…. If what you guys are saying works that makes it hella easy …… 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> I’m tuning two 8x12s next week…. One in a ram with utopia drivers and one in that tundra I did with krx drivers….. the ram has brax amps and fully digital…. I’ll be excited to try this technique on that truck…. If what you guys are saying works that makes it hella easy …… 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩


Let us know how it goes!


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> I’ll be excited to try this technique on that truck…. If what you guys are saying works that makes it hella easy


If it doesn't work, I'll eat an RCA. 

Or, you did something wrong. 

🤣

Honestly, you'll be surprised at just how quick and easy it is to get a great result.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> If it doesn't work, I'll eat an RCA.
> 
> Or, you did something wrong.
> 
> ...


Hahaha it’s on….. but you have to put mustard on it… jk 😛😇😁

this guy with the ram has a helix I did his truck in 2016, I’ve been telling him to ditch the helix ,
soon he will be very surprised 
I think I have pics I’ll look


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Only pics I have


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Just met a guy from Dubai , helping him with some setup stuff….. his amps are legit … like 200w at4ohm amps , a bunch of stevens and AF.

super cool setup ….. I hope he asks all the questions on here …. We got you Boney….


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Truthunter said:


> Not sure exactly your set up and work flow but I would recommend trying the recently discovered method some of us have been using. It's much quicker with more repeatable results compared to the 2ch method the manual and MiniDSP recommends.
> 
> Anu2g gives a quick concise step by step here: Dirac tips and tricks


This is the exact 7 step method! Without Xos, delays and levels.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Are you all setting high or low pass filters on your amps? Or are you allowing crossovers in the plugin to handle that completely and bypassing filters on the amp? I am thinking I'll bypass filters on the amp so that phase and summing over the crossover region is not interfered with. I suppose if filters are used on amps, they should be set _before_ running Dirac?

My only concern with amplifying the full range instead of just what is needed (eg 200Hz to 3kHz for a mid), is it could introduce noise in the system if you try to amplify unnecessarily.

Side note: I know some people are using a HPF on the amp to protect tweeters, in cases where an in-line cap is not used (I have caps installed).


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

sapphari said:


> Are you all setting high or low pass filters on your amps? Or are you allowing crossovers in the plugin to handle that completely and bypassing filters on the amp? I am thinking I'll bypass filters on the amp so that phase and summing over the crossover region is not interfered with. I suppose if filters are used on amps, they should be set _before_ running Dirac?
> 
> My only concern with amplifying the full range instead of just what is needed (eg 200Hz to 3kHz for a mid), is it could introduce noise in the system if you try to amplify unnecessarily.
> 
> Side note: I know some people are using a HPF on the amp to protect tweeters, in cases where an in-line cap is not used (I have caps installed).


Bypass all crossovers in the amp, unless you need something to protect your tweeter, in which case you should turn that on prior to Dirac, and leave that on thereafter


----------



## bonesb (Sep 19, 2017)

oabeieo said:


> Just met a guy from Dubai , helping him with some setup stuff….. his amps are legit … like 200w at4ohm amps , a bunch of stevens and AF.
> 
> super cool setup ….. I hope he asks all the questions on here …. We got you Boney….


Thank you for having my back 
I will be doing my install this Sunday so making sure I am ready for it.

*For some reason I already feel the sound in my new car sounds amazing, way different from how it sounded in my old car. Maybe the smaller cabin and not using the Helix DSP now  Looking for better finetuning after the Dirac. *


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bonesb said:


> Thank you for having my back
> I will be doing my install this Sunday so making sure I am ready for it.
> 
> *For some reason I already feel the sound in my new car sounds amazing, way different from how it sounded in my old car. Maybe the smaller cabin and not using the Helix DSP now  Looking for better finetuning after the Dirac. *


yeah no problem, thanks for telling me about Dubai!

yeah this thread has a lot of talent. We all will be happy to help…

and It’s a fact, some cars promote good sound while others are …….let’s just say more challenging. If you don’t have big dips at 150-350hz the car will sound great

and if your car reinforces 60-90hz well then that’s a huge bonus

the midrange and highs are mostly placement and tuning etc etc …. Given two cars with same gear ….


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Tuned the tundra. Did the default tilt. It worked just fine….. super easy super fast…

I had to exit the Dirac app several times so that all channels measured -12db in the Dirac levels tab with all sliders at max….(at -48db on master) 

That way all the magnitudes would match and the default tilt was midway through the peaks and dips of all the response….

besides that one thing, super easy super smooth and quick (for a Dirac tune)


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> Tuned the tundra. Did the default tilt. It worked just fine….. super easy super fast…
> 
> I had to exit the Dirac app several times so that all channels measured -12db in the Dirac levels tab with all sliders at max….(at -48db on master)
> 
> ...


Oh interesting. You're basically gain matching using the DSP software, prior to running the Dirac measurements? Using the levels step in Dirac to check the gain


----------



## bonesb (Sep 19, 2017)

So after all the reading and from what I have understood came with the below config, which of these do you think is the right one? I understand the manual says running one side in one channel while people here have experience running it in individual channel. I just am trying to accommodate my rears also into the mix, I want it tuned as part of the DIRAC process. So which of the below is correct or is there still something wrong in it?

Input: No filters at input all at output on minidsp









Config 1:

















Config 2:


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

First update in a year to the plug-in is now posted on miniDSP site. No change log, though.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Uninstalled previous plug-in version, installed the new. Still showing as Rev 1.12, despite the website specifying it as 1.13. Not sure if it is actually any different. The firmware remains unchanged.


----------



## mumbles (Jul 26, 2010)

hella356 said:


> First update in a year to the plug-in is now posted on miniDSP site. No change log, though.


Can you provide a link, I can't seem to find it...


----------



## mumbles (Jul 26, 2010)

hella356 said:


> Uninstalled previous plug-in version, installed the new. Still showing as Rev 1.12, despite the website specifying it as 1.13. Not sure if it is actually any different. The firmware remains unchanged.


I... Uhhh, never mind then


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

It's on the miniDSP website - you need to log in and go to User Downloads. I suppose it's possible that the software has been updated, but they omitted to change the version?


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Also, there have been a few updates to the Dirac Live software - anyone seen any difference with these newer versions?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Oh interesting. You're basically gain matching using the DSP software, prior to running the Dirac measurements? Using the levels step in Dirac to check the gain


no…. All outputs maxed in Dirac….
I let Dirac set the levels in its level adjustment vs other drivers….. if there’s a driver that comes in way way way too low that it eats up all my gain I’ll fix why it’s doing that then re measure


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Good morning everyone. Way earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that meet that was held back in November. I missed out because my water pump picked the perfect time to start leaking and I had to change it out. Does anyone know if another will be planned in the spring? I’m in the RVA area.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

NC meetup in May


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Thank you. Lol, I need to get better at navigating through this site.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

So what is the going method now for this revised process in relation to the 8X12DL User Manual (Revision 2.7) and Dirac Live User Manual (Revision 1.5)?

Might anyone be willing to start/share a Google Doc that outlines this DIYMA DIRAC process? If not, I would - let's see what the consensus is and I can share with people who PM me their email.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> So what is the going method now for this revised process in relation to the 8X12DL User Manual (Revision 2.7) and Dirac Live User Manual (Revision 1.5)?
> 
> Might anyone be willing to start/share a Google Doc that outlines this DIYMA DIRAC process? If not, I would - let's see what the consensus is and I can share with people who PM me their email.


i like crossovers off , curtain off method,


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

dmparker5725 said:


> Does anyone know if another will be planned in the spring? I’m in the RVA area.


Assuming by RVA you mean Richmond? Logan already posted the link to the NC meet in May, but if you've any interest in meeting up before then, let me know. I'm up near Winchester, but there's a few of us in VA. We could possibly try a mini meet somewhere within a short driving distance.


----------



## dmparker5725 (Feb 20, 2014)

Yes, Richmond. I would be interested in a mini meet.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So I’ve just recently got a minidsp flex for my shop, with Dirac, I can switch between Dirac and non Dirac fir on the fly…. Very nice…

so the Dirac of course is impeccable… however
The non Dirac fir side I’ve been playing with this software…. It’s very powerful 

i think my next build with be with my OpenDrc and the 2x4hds for crossovers all in fir, and all at 96k.

you guys should read the entire thing, you’ll be amazed what this does… and it’s sorta simple to navigate



https://audiophilestyle.com/s3/article-images/2017/1205/mitch/Audiolense-help.pdf


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@oabeieo - how would you implement Audilense in a car environment?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - how would you implement Audilense in a car environment?


absolutely!!!!

we all know how good Dirac is….. when it comes to any auto correct, I can say this

auto correct = under correct

an auto tune has to be _very_ careful not over correct because it would bebig problems even if it did one small thing too much…

with this , your in control and you know how _good_ your measurements are or aren’t… etc etc and can do a little more and if it doesn’t sound right Akustische because you can see what your doing


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

But to implement it, do 3X miniDSP 2x4hds and do the fir linear phase crossovers. And use output minimum phase eq to do driver tuning (with no crossovers) 

then an upstream OpenDrc 2x2 and use that as the main eq (room correction)

All of this can be done in rephase, but audio lense can do multi-way and make filters that compliment eachother and the workflow (oh the workflow is so important) is all in one so you can start to finish do all your minimum phase and linear phase corrections that compliment eachother all done in one go.


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

I think you should create another post on that product Audiolense as there may be others interested in it that aren't reading this post as it is around Dirac in particular the CDSP.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Just curious. I know you're not supposed to sum rcas. But if you wanted to use two Dirac boxes in a row. Could you?

For example. 

Full range signal into 8x12 Dl boxs input 1+2

Outputs a corrected l/R midbass, midrange,tweeter channels. On outputs 1-6

Then have those 6 outputs feed into 8x12 DL 1-6 inputs. To them output a corrected signal to outputs 1-6. 

Not sure how 2nd boxs matrixing would work. 

Sent from my LM-Q730 using Tapatalk


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Just curious. I know you're not supposed to sum rcas. But if you wanted to use two Dirac boxes in a row. Could you?
> 
> For example.
> 
> ...


I don't see why this wouldn't work, but I'm not sure what you'd gain from this since the 6 outputs from the first DSP are already corrected and good to go?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Okay gang here’s a new trick 

i made a review on here comparing a usb mic to a good quality XLR mic….

i am using a tascamus366 but I’m getting rid of it as it’s 44.1k I want a 192k rig

but I used my audio control mic with the tascam to measure my shop because I needed a 100’ cord to put the mic in various spots in the shop

it is way better then the umik1 and umm6

So I tuned my car with it….. night and day! The mids are finally the smooth sound I would expect from 7000$ in speakers…

let’s junk these chincy usb mics and get good mics…. I’m looking at a earthworks or Josephson mic next …… the cm10 so far is so much better (so so so so much better)


----------



## lithium (Oct 29, 2008)

Did you record any differences in response between the microphones?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

lithium said:


> Did you record any differences in response between the microphones?


oh my goodness yes!!! The responses weren’t just a little different, they’re radically different…

the cm-10 shows more HF (a lot more) and the cm10 also shows more low low bass ,

so that means the umik and umm6 net more HF and too much LF compared….

both sound smooth, the cm10 sounds correct…

If you put a dead flat responce with the usb mic it sounds like it has way way too much highs
(No wonder why everyone uses these ridiculous tilted responses) 

the cm10 with a dead flat target sounds so correct and it sounds good!!! It’s not too much anything!! It is just perfect how a flat response should be ….. exacerbate the engineer wanted you to hear…

these ridiculous tilts ppl are using it’s like , I mean, how muddy do you want it for ****s sakes …. The recording engineer was hearing what they thought as bliss when they mastered that…. Why would we want anything different… flat should sound the _MOST_ correct….. and I suggest it does…. It’s the mic…..

Back when I tuned with the 3050A (I still have one) flat sounded absolutely killer….. I’ve been trying to get back to that as flat…. I think I’ve found it finally….

i don’t know what’s going on with who says who is right as far as calibrations go or cal files. All I know is the audio control mic sounds so much better


----------



## lithium (Oct 29, 2008)

If i'm following your process correctly, I'd bet that if you applied the microphone difference to the house curve you'd get the same speaker response (or something close to it)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

lithium said:


> If i'm following your process correctly, I'd bet that if you applied the microphone difference to the house curve you'd get the same speaker response (or something close to it)


Exactly…. Sorta … except 20-50hz area is backwards

the cm-10 flat sounds what I would guess (above 100hz) as a 6db tilt to 700hz , and a 4db cut per oactave cut past 2.5k , it’s a lot , not to mention all the what I can tell as flat out distortion the ubs mics have…. Because I think it gets down into the nitty gritty with the minute nuances…

I’m not kidding , before I couldn’t get 630hz to not sound echoy without some post Dirac eq

first try flat responce is amazingly smooth and warm sounding….. no joke.

Let’s face it audio control has some dumb stuff these days…. When it comes to measurement stuff…. I’m serious, they absolutely kill it. Nobody comes close. 
and the DMRTA is the most retarded thing I’ve ever seen as a rta….. so there lost a little bit….. but the mics ….. oooohhhhhh the mics ….. there truly is something to be said…..

It takes me back to the 90s where audio control was the hot ticket with the 3050a….
No system sounded good unless tuned with a 3050a to flat ….. it was a standard, IASCA built it’s rules around the 3050A… there’s a reason…. I’m beginning to understand why now…. They truly own the mic standard…


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

So someone a few pages back mentioned Mics up or forwards…

With a mic forwards between two home speakers the mic is equally off axis to both speakers, so the top end of both speakers is captured similarly

Now consider a mic as a reversed speaker it has a polar response just like a speaker, it rolls off the highs the more off axis you get

So if you point a mic forwards in a vehicle at the listening position you then get more measure high frequency info from the drivers side and less from the passenger side and so the responses may match on a pc screen once you’ve done eq… but they will in reality be way off and the passenger side will have measured less top end even though it may match, and the eq will have artificially boosted that side making it way off to the ears

Now if you point the mic up and tilt it forwards slightly so both speakers are at 90 degrees to the centre line of the mic body the polar response to both tweeters will be identical, and therefore if the responses match they should actually match to your ears

It’s all down to the polar response of the capsule in the mic, a smaller capsule will also be more stable and have a better polar response to a higher freq than a larger capsule, just like a larger tweeter rolls off earlier

But as the capsule is round at 90 degrees there is no difference whichever way you measure from as long as your at 90 degrees from the capsule…

This is why for surround sound you point up and for stereo you aim between the speakers

Tbh In a car headrests that are fixed are a pain if you want a mic tip 4” from it, so pointing at the centre of the screen (while the left right polar response should be more accurate) is hard work, so slightly forward and up at 90 degrees to the tweeters or widebands is seemingly the best solution for me for every car 👍🏼 But use the 90 degree cal file

Incidentally the 90 degree cal file for a umik is just a steady rise from a given freq to 6db more at 20khz to compensate for it being off axis

Import the 0 degree and 90 degree file into rew and use trace arithmetic to subtract one from the other to see the difference just for fun

I suspect the 0 degree is measured and the 90 degree is a set amount more for all the mics because the capsule is the same size in all of them


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

Only problem now is that this doesn't help us with Dirac since you have to use the Umik... Unless you're suggesting to do an RTA with good mic to alter the house curve we are inputting into Dirac?


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

anyone notice any results difference between a UMIK-1 from miniDSP and one purchased/calibrated from Cross Spectrum Labs?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> anyone notice any results difference between a UMIK-1 from miniDSP and one purchased/calibrated from Cross Spectrum Labs?


I've attached a cross-spectrum calibration file as well as the miniDSP calibration file, for my UMIK-2, so you can see the differences.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

squiers007 said:


> Only problem now is that this doesn't help us with Dirac since you have to use the Umik... Unless you're suggesting to do an RTA with good mic to alter the house curve we are inputting into Dirac?


Discussed offline, but to document here, there are other/many non-UMIK mics that can be used for Dirac.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@Anu2g - looks like the Cross-Spectrum cal file has much more data points and of those that are close to the original mDSP file, the readings are ever so slightly difference.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare sound/RTA results from a DIRAC or non-DIRAC system using a cross-specktrum labs calibrated umik-1 vs. the Audio Control CM-10.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> @Anu2g - looks like the Cross-Spectrum cal file has much more data points and of those that are close to the original mDSP file, the readings are ever so slightly difference.
> 
> Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare sound/RTA results from a DIRAC or non-DIRAC system using a cross-specktrum labs calibrated umik-1 vs. the Audio Control CM-10.


Yea, I don't think it makes a big difference. I went with cross spectrum bc it's wasn't much more expensive, and gave me some peace of mind.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

well, it still all comes down to whether or not the resulting sound is satisfactory to your ears.

Though if a "better" mic gets you more satisfactory results sooner than having to retweak to a desired curve, then I guess it might be worth the expense for some people.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> Only problem now is that this doesn't help us with Dirac since you have to use the Umik... Unless you're suggesting to do an RTA with good mic to alter the house curve we are inputting into Dirac?


you can use any mic with Dirac , unless your on Dirac 1.x


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

What dumdum said about Polars and capsule quality makes a lot of sense. I’m starting to feel like capsule distortion is adding something….. 

I’ve measured both mics now on REW and there very similar as far as response goes 

when Dirac gets to it is very different…. Hummm weird …..


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

I've tried to capture everything from this thread and curate it into a simplified document, outlining the process. I hope you all find it useful: MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL (Dirac Live): Quick Tuning Guide


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

squiers007 said:


> Only problem now is that this doesn't help us with Dirac since you have to use the Umik... Unless you're suggesting to do an RTA with good mic to alter the house curve we are inputting into Dirac?


Why can’t you put the umik in the same axis? What’s so hard about what I just explained, missing your point if that was in reply to me?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

dumdum said:


> Why can’t you put the umik in the same axis? What’s so hard about what I just explained, missing your point if that was in reply to me?


idk why, I don’t think it matters so much, but I’m starting to discover the mic matters more then we give credit for…. You were right I’m starting to realize

Take a sh** box 1$ capsule that is complete garbage as a “condesor” and make a “cal file” that changes its offsets to be some ultra smooth machine…

what you said about the reverse speaker resonated with me and I can’t stop thinking about it.

it’s a backwards speaker, it’s non-linearities would absolutely be passed on in the minute (+-/ 1db arena) as far as resolution and the polar fidelity (especially with Dirac) seems to bring in a whole new set of questions…..

i mean , what are we supposed to do, point the mic directly at every speaker during a sweep?

the on/off axis responce of a mic I suggest can be dramatic……maybe only a question god could answer , except god has a stake in crappy capsules. So maybe not…. Or maybe so if I’m open minded enough to listen……
Ok god I’m listening…. (It’s a joke to @GotFrogs Andy W , it’s a love hate thing)

i so badly want a baller mic, like a 3000$ mic


----------



## Bikey (May 15, 2021)

What orientation did you have the CM-10? The CM-10 has an embedded calibration - any idea if that cal is for a 0 or 90deg orientiation?




oabeieo said:


> idk why, I don’t think it matters so much, but I’m starting to discover the mic matters more then we give credit for…. You were right I’m starting to realize
> 
> Take a sh** box 1$ capsule that is complete garbage as a “condesor” and make a “cal file” that changes its offsets to be some ultra smooth machine…
> 
> ...


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> idk why, I don’t think it matters so much, but I’m starting to discover the mic matters more then we give credit for…. You were right I’m starting to realize
> 
> Take a sh** box 1$ capsule that is complete garbage as a “condesor” and make a “cal file” that changes its offsets to be some ultra smooth machine…
> 
> ...


just buy an isemcon emx-7150, no need to spend loads


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Bikey said:


> What orientation did you have the CM-10? The CM-10 has an embedded calibration - any idea if that cal is for a 0 or 90deg orientiation?


i do Streit fowat chappy …. jk 🤓

yeah I’ve never pointed up…. I tried it when I first started Dirac and was inconsistent


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

dumdum said:


> just buy an isemcon emx-7150, no need to spend loads


What preamp do you use with that?


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

Anu2g said:


> What preamp do you use with that?


Focusrite Scarlett 2i2


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

dumdum said:


> Focusrite Scarlett 2i2


so that mic says class 1 performance and has an * Astrek saying it’s not class 1

so what is class 1 ? And what makes it superior?

I’m going to do some reading this week on it , but if you know , that mic does look interesting


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So class 1 from my understanding is more accurate but it only operates in octave spaces measurements (10band) so class 2 and class 3 are more robust for impulse responce measurements and fft the way we do things

but more importantly, there’s apparently 3 traditional types of mics, and a new tech to make a 4th

free field
Pressure field
Diffuse field
*(4 th category MEMS, it’s a sensor not a mic but can be used as a very dam good mic from what I am reading)

pressure field and diffuse field are the ones we want to pay attention to….

free field (no reflections, outdoor)
Diffuse field (many reflections like a car)
Pressure field (also bass in a car and where mic is very close to source, like a port)

check out these






Type 4971-H-041 ½" CCLD Pressure-field Microphone | Brüel & Kjær


Pressure-field microphone with CCLD preamp for measuring close to reflective surfaces, near sound ports of audio devices or in flush mountings.




www.bksv.com










Type 4943 1/2" Diffuse-Field Microphone | Brüel & Kjær


1/2" Diffuse-field microphone for random-incidence and noise measurements in accordance with ANSI standards with a freq. range of 3.15 Hz to 10 kHz.




www.bksv.com





the later looks very promising

i want to find out what type the usb mics we use are

And according to this article , most mics are free field and it says pointing the mic up makes it work in diffuse field …. So maybe use the 0deg file and a 90deg mount???? 
kinda explains all the extra HF


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

Might not be a bad idea to create a new thread just based around your last post.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

doeboy said:


> Might not be a bad idea to create a new thread just based around your last post.


good idea! Thank you
I’m going to keep gathering data and I’ll post in a new thread and link it here

on RTA, all 5 mics I use are almost the same
On Dirac …… it’s just so much different from the USB mics…. Mainly the umik1 and uMM6/omnimic. Of course using the same measurement points. All of which are consistent with themselves…. So no mic has inconsistent measurements outside of itself. (I’ve ruled out a mic going bad or having issues) 

so it’s at this a Dirac question I may reach out to them with a question. , but yes I’ll make a new thread .


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

is anyone sitting in the car when doing the sweeps/measurements? Or, sitting in the back seat if you have one?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> is anyone sitting in the car when doing the sweeps/measurements? Or, sitting in the back seat if you have one?


yes , I sit in the car , I lean seat way way back to I’m almost laying back. So I can hold mic for rear measurements

I want my body in with the measurements because the body will absorb quite a bit of energy, I don’t want anything blocking the measurement tho… unless it’s going to be driven like that …. Like my leg blocking kick panel driver , I want my leg in measurements blocking as I would be driving ….. but I don’t want my torso blocking mic path to right side, as it needs To know what is going on as far as proper levels at the listener between left and right…. My leg is not at the listener but my body is


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@oabeieo - let's see a video 

Anyone use the DIRAC in combination with a 2-way front stage with a wide-band and/or with a coaxial mid-tweeter like the C3SX or Integra 424 with satisfactory results?

Am curious to know how much "correction" Dirac can accommodate for systems that aren't full active 3-way.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - let's see a video
> 
> Anyone use the DIRAC in combination with a 2-way front stage with a wide-band and/or with a coaxial mid-tweeter like the C3SX or Integra 424 with satisfactory results?
> 
> Am curious to know how much "correction" Dirac can accommodate for systems that aren't full active 3-way.


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

He's running 2-way active, but with tweeters instead of widebands


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - let's see a video
> 
> Anyone use the DIRAC in combination with a 2-way front stage with a wide-band and/or with a coaxial mid-tweeter like the C3SX or Integra 424 with satisfactory results?
> 
> Am curious to know how much "correction" Dirac can accommodate for systems that aren't full active 3-way.


i can try n make one , maybe when I tune this ram I can make a video…. Utopia 3ways and brax amps…. I finally getting him out of helix….

As long as there is usable response Dirac will do great , the mic can _hear_ a lot more then we can as far as having comparison between the audio signal and what is heard. It will hear any of the break up modes, it’ll notice the dips or any nonlinearity‘s in the system. Again auto correct also means under-correct , as with any auto tune it has to be very careful. And this one does a very good job and will maintain a very high degree of sound quality, no matter what you throw at it. Throw us a of Wizzer cones in there and it will make them flat out amazing , * for Wizzer cones*


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

New Dirac Live release 3.3.0 now with new Auto-Target Curve algorithm and other improvements:

Dirac Lives new auto target curve even better sound effortlessly


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> New Dirac Live release 3.3.0 now with new Auto-Target Curve algorithm and other improvements:
> 
> Dirac Lives new auto target curve even better sound effortlessly
> 
> ...


Ohhhhhhhhh boyyyyyyyyyyy

OK boys let’s get to work!!!

see you back here post tuneing! Oh my goodness we’ve got some work ahead of us


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Ohhhhhhhhh boyyyyyyyyyyy
> 
> OK boys let’s get to work!!!
> 
> see you back here post tuneing! Oh my goodness we’ve got some work ahead of us


It's really easy and fast! 
I just loaded an existing 7ch tune. Adjusted the low end up to +12db and kept the high end at -3db then loaded it.
Sounds fantastic! I like it better than my own targets! A comment left on Dirac's facebook post about it said "it opened up the stage even more" and " made the mids and highs sound more natural".


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Downloaded and tried it…..

it works nice…it’s said it’s a shelf….. idk
I was able to convert it to a target with points 
To draw a big dip 

it works nice


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> It's really easy and fast!
> I just loaded an existing 7ch tune. Adjusted the low end up to +12db and kept the high end at -3db then loaded it.
> Sounds fantastic! I like it better than my own targets! A comment left on Dirac's facebook post about it said "it opened up the stage even more" and " made the mids and highs sound more natural".


yeah I like it better then mine also…..

i like that it seems to make it less “in a car” sounding…. That’s probably my favorite part.

i also had to move the 22 to -10dbfs because of its boosts , but that’s nil… overall. Better!

now I need to drive to work a few times to really hear the subtleties


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I noticed your response only goes to 4K 

I’m guessing the tweets are on 1&2 mids 3&4 and the rest is crossovers off……so midbass and sub together….. very interesting. I actually love that approach. I avs


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> I noticed your response only goes to 4K
> 
> I’m guessing the tweets are on 1&2 mids 3&4 and the rest is crossovers off……so midbass and sub together….. very interesting. I actually love that approach. I avs


Yes, that's only the midbass & subs in the group displayed.
So one difference in this new release is it seemed to of lost the ability to display all groups/channels at the same time like before by holding CTRL and selecting them all.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> Yes, that's only the midbass & subs in the group displayed.
> So one difference in this new release is it seemed to of lost the ability to display all groups/channels at the same time like before by holding CTRL and selecting them all.


intresting…. What if you convert it to a target and measurement points…. Then does it work


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> intresting…. What if you convert it to a target and measurement points…. Then does it work


I did not try that yet but I will hopefully tonight.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> intresting…. What if you convert it to a target and measurement points…. Then does it work


So, yes.. Convert to manual target and it still allows multiple groups to display at the same time. But auto-target option does not.
Few more things I noticed:

1. Auto target / Manual target can be selected for all groups or individual can be selected. For example: Groups 1 & 3 can be Auto-target and group 2 can be changed to manual target on it's own.

2. The snap shot does not save the auto target low/high level adjustments with it. So if you select a snap shot that used a manual target and then go back to select the snap shot that used auto-target - the low/high level adjustment bars go back to the default +5.5db / -3db instead of whatever they were set to when the snap shot was recorded.

3. The Dirac file that is saved to PC does not save the adjusted auto-target Low/High level adjustments. So load an existing file that has a autotarget curve and when it loads the default low/high level adjustments of +5.5db / -3db will be displayed and not the levels that it was saved with.

There is something else I noticed that is disappointing but want to do further testing to confirm and try a possible work around...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> So, yes.. Convert to manual target and it still allows multiple groups to display at the same time. But auto-target option does not.
> Few more things I noticed:
> 
> 1. Auto target / Manual target can be selected for all groups or individual can be selected. For example: Groups 1 & 3 can be Auto-target and group 2 can be changed to manual target on it's own.
> ...


so I just loaded my shop into 3.3 used and old 3.1 measurements. It converted it

the auto target in my shop has a opposite tilt!!!

it starts at 17hz at 0db and goes flat to 20k and it has a +1db at 20k…. Wtf a tilt in wrong direction??

so I loaded it and to my dismay it sounds amazing!! Way better then the tilt I had

it’s even sounding through the shop and the highs are not over powering at all….. so so so strange


myquestion for you …. How did you adjust your auto target? Like can you bring it down to like -5db area like lower the entirety of the target?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

edit its a.3db boost ????? wtf


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

So in my car it defaults to +5.5db on the low end and -3db on the high end. And I see its 0db on the low end and -0.3db on the high end in your example. So it seems that the default auto-target is based on the measurements & the algorithm determining what is possible... so different for each application.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> myquestion for you …. How did you adjust your auto target? Like can you bring it down to like -5db area like lower the entirety of the target?


Not exactly sure what your asking but in my car:
The low end can be adjusted from 0db - 12db and defaults at 5.5db
The high end can be adjusted from 0db to -3db and defaults at -3db.

There is no way to adjust the target as a whole that I see if that is what your asking.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Aah I figured it out 

you can slide up and down the auto target on each side a little , it stops and I don’t know how it does it but you can bring the shelf down a little

at least on one side


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)




----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> There is something else I noticed that is disappointing but want to do further testing to confirm and try a possible work around...


I'm using an existing measurement set that I took in version 3.2.3 that already had several targets listed in the snap shot menu. So I thought there was no way to change the auto-target directly to a manual target. When I would click the manual target option it would just load the previous manual target that had been selected... I thought it would just convert the auto-target to manual points so I could manipulate it manually if desired. But I found a work around: Design the auto-target with your preferred low/high end adjustments then save the target. When loading it back it will show up as a manual target with the same shape as the auto target with adjustment points that can be manipulated.

So I now have a preset with 2 groups (Sub, Midbass, Tweeters) using the auto-target and 1 group (Midrange) using a manually adjusted version of the auto-target to lower an area between 400hz-1khz.

So yes, it is friendly to those who like to experiment like me


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I'm using an existing measurement set that I took in version 3.2.3 that already had several targets listed in the snap shot menu. So I thought there was no way to change the auto-target directly to a manual target. When I would click the manual target option it would just load the previous manual target that had been selected... I thought it would just convert the auto-target to manual points so I could manipulate it manually if desired. But I found a work around: Design the auto-target with your preferred low/high end adjustments then save the target. When loading it back it will show up as a manual target with the same shape as the auto target with adjustment points that can be manipulated.
> 
> So I now have a preset with 2 groups (Sub, Midbass, Tweeters) using the auto-target and 1 group (Midrange) using a manually adjusted version of the auto-target to lower an area between 400hz-1khz.
> 
> So yes, it is friendly to those who like to experiment like me


so I plugged in an 8x12 and noticed in the groups box , there’s a toggle for auto target orpoints fwiw

can you send me a link to your Build page
your responses look really good… i’m curious about your install


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> so I plugged in an 8x12 and noticed in the groups box , there’s a toggle for auto target orpoints fwiw


Yes Sir... that's where I have been switching between the Auto & Manual targets



oabeieo said:


> can you send me a link to your Build page
> your responses look really good… i’m curious about your install


It hasn't been updated in a long while but here is the link:
2015 Camry V6 Build Log

This gen camry has proven to be a real gem as far as being a good base to build a SQ system. All kinds of aftermarket support to replace the headunit... Space in the doors for larger midbass and factory dash corners speaker locations that throw a relatively good response. I just added tweeters to the sails and a trunk baffle sub. My current list of equipment is in my sig... pretty simple and low cost setup.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I'm using an existing measurement set that I took in version 3.2.3 that already had several targets listed in the snap shot menu. So I thought there was no way to change the auto-target directly to a manual target. When I would click the manual target option it would just load the previous manual target that had been selected... I thought it would just convert the auto-target to manual points so I could manipulate it manually if desired. But I found a work around: Design the auto-target with your preferred low/high end adjustments then save the target. When loading it back it will show up as a manual target with the same shape as the auto target with adjustment points that can be manipulated.
> 
> So I now have a preset with 2 groups (Sub, Midbass, Tweeters) using the auto-target and 1 group (Midrange) using a manually adjusted version of the auto-target to lower an area between 400hz-1khz.
> 
> So yes, it is friendly to those who like to experiment like me





Truthunter said:


> Yes Sir... that's where I have been switching between the Auto & Manual targets
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m going to check it out tonite and get caught up 
Aah yes I’ve seen your car before…. It’s awesome….


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Truthunter said:


> So, yes.. Convert to manual target and it still allows multiple groups to display at the same time. But auto-target option does not.
> Few more things I noticed:
> 
> 1. Auto target / Manual target can be selected for all groups or individual can be selected. For example: Groups 1 & 3 can be Auto-target and group 2 can be changed to manual target on it's own.
> ...


2 and 3 sound like bugs to me


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> 2 and 3 sound like bugs to me


maybe….. I’m sure it will get better…..

what I would love to see is how Dirac 10.0 sounds in a few years


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

So I just went out and did a tune following Anu2g’s guide and the results are outstanding.
But I am not sure that I did the target curve correctly though with this new update.
When I got to that part I clicked on “set default curve” instead of “load curve”.
Then I boosted the curve to 12db.

Is that the correct way to use the Dirac curve?

I did everything else by the guide, and the results are good, just not sure about that one part.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SNCTMPL said:


> So I just went out and did a tune following Anu2g’s guide and the results are outstanding.
> But I am not sure that I did the target curve correctly though with this new update.
> When I got to that part I clicked on “set default curve” instead of “load curve”.
> Then I boosted the curve to 12db.
> ...


You boosted the low side to 12db ?


----------



## SNCTMPL (Nov 23, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> You boosted the low side to 12db ?


Yes


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SNCTMPL said:


> Yes


yeah it’s fine….. just make sure your magnitude response is less then 10db

So , if you brought the line to 12db, I’m assume your sub response is within that and not below it…. Anywhere the amplitude responce is below the target it will boost that section. You just can’t have more than 10 DB variation throughout the boost range. Otherwise The filter will just sound awful….

So if your sub is at 3db let’s say and your mids are at - 5db you’ll be asking ot to boost the sub 9db and the mids 5 db (assuming your mids target is around 0db). That’s more then 10db 
that’s like 15db overall boost and it won’t sound good at all …..

so yes and no

yes you can put it at +12, so long as your subwoofer responce is already up there anyway….


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

It’s like this… it’s just a regular equalizer. Except for the graphical view is backwards… meaning

if you zoomed in and drew your target to match the exact shape of your magnitude response and followed every single line up and down up and down. it would equalize nothing. noting would be cut or boosted….no matter where the amplitudes are sitting relative to the 0db line…. Because it is a normalized view

so if your sub response is at + 5DB and you draw your target right at its level, you can know with confidence that the midbass rolloff (stopband) Will not be getting any EQ boost. (In a 2ch tune for example)

I hope that helps


----------



## chasingSQ (Sep 25, 2017)

where can i find the latest update? or will it prompt me to do it when i load it up ?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

chasingSQ said:


> where can i find the latest update? or will it prompt me to do it when i load it up ?


Live.Dirac.com 

just go to your account and download “latest” it will automatically update yours, you shouldn’t need to uninstall first


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I was gone all weekend (OSU Buckeye Spring Game....flame suit on!), so I updated this morning. 

Found it very easy to update, pull up a couple tunes (3 channel tunes and a 7 channel tune), it took a little longer to update the calculations when I loaded each tune (made me think something great was happening in there because it was ‘analyzing’ so much), and then chose a couple different settings for the 3 channel tunes. 

I really liked what I heard, but I only had time for parts of a few tracks. I’m gone all this week, so I’ll listen again next weekend. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

will @Anu2g guide need updating due to any process changes in the new Dirac version?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> will @Anu2g guide need updating due to any process changes in the new Dirac version?











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


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...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

I have a 8x12DL on the way 

So, where should I start with learning the operation of this thing? I've already played with Helix, Zapco, JL and Audiocontrol's DSP software, so am no stranger to the terminology/layouts.

It seems the MiniDSP sourced user manual and addendum have some redundancy. Should I just read both and then for software setup once it's in the car, follow Anu2g's guide?

I intend to ensure the unit's firmware and Dirac is up to date.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

steelwindmachine said:


> I have a 8x12DL on the way
> 
> So, where should I start with learning the operation of this thing? I've already played with Helix, Zapco, JL and Audiocontrol's DSP software, so am no stranger to the terminology/layouts.
> 
> ...


I am a new user too, and that's what I did. Read the MiniDSP User Guide and Dirac Live guide to get a general understanding, and to help with getting software/license set up. But then I just followed the Anu guide and all was good!


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

I'm reading through the 8x12DL User Manual (Rev 2.7) and have come across a confusing bit of information on page 33.

The text is:

A note on active crossovers and Dirac Live
The connection scheme shown in Figure 12 is our recommendation for implementing an active crossover and combining it with Dirac Live. Because of the number of Dirac Live channels available, you may be tempted to try an arrangement where each individual driver is corrected by a single Dirac Live channel. The configuration would look something like this: (routing image)

This arrangement is tempting as it seems that Dirac Live will adjust for the delays between the drivers and flatten the response of each driver individually. However, we don’t recommend this configuration. Apart from being more difficult to set up:
• Dirac Live will not be able to correct for the phase shift through the crossover(s). In other words, impulse response correction will not be working as expected.
• Dirac Live will not be able to correct the combined response of the drivers in the crossover region.
We therefore recommend that you use the output channel processing to implement the active crossover (including basic driver correction and delays between drivers) and allow Dirac Live to work on the combined response of two or three active-crossed drivers.

** Isn't the guide from @Anu2g recommending assigning one driver per Dirac Live channel? I know it suggests groupings as an alternative method. What am I missing here?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> I'm reading through the 8x12DL User Manual (Rev 2.7) and have come across a confusing bit of information on page 33.
> 
> The text is:
> 
> ...


See 2a in our guide:

`After countless man-hours spent experimenting with different tuning methods, we found better results using a 7-channel tune as compared to the results of the 2-channel method suggested by MiniDSP`

An important nuance is that Dirac's guide talks about inability to correct phase shift in the XOs...however our new 7-channel approach doesn't use XOs in the measurements. That was one of the main breakthroughs with our new approach...use Dirac to correct raw signals without XOs, and then add XOs afterward. The XOs on a Dirac-corrected driver should perform nearly ideally.


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

steelwindmachine said:


> I'm reading through the 8x12DL User Manual (Rev 2.7) and have come across a confusing bit of information on page 33.
> 
> The text is:
> 
> ...


You are correct. We are recommending not listening to the manual. Anu, myself, and a handful of other users have experimented with this pretty extensively and the conclusion is that the individual Dirac per channel tune yields a better overall sound than the recommended 2 channel setup. That being said ymmv, so is say try it out both ways, and set them as different presets so you can swap back and forth and see which you like best. I did this for a couple months and ended up preferring the multi channel tune. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

I looked through the user manual and couldn't find a procedure for setting the gains for the Headunit->DSP->Amp(s)

What's your process?


----------



## chasingSQ (Sep 25, 2017)

just did my first complete dirac tune with jasons help last night .. pretty awesome i must say . one question , how are you guys running the box for sweeps ? example . are you using your left shoulder for the lower left sweep or behind the seat .. ? is your head in the middle or in front ?


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

chasingSQ said:


> just did my first complete dirac tune with jasons help last night .. pretty awesome i must say . one question , how are you guys running the box for sweeps ? example . are you using your left shoulder for the lower left sweep or behind the seat .. ? is your head in the middle or in front ?


For me - in the demo position - which has the base of the seat moved back to its limit, and then the seat back tilted back a little bit:

Position 1 = tip of the nose

Position 2 & 3= base of the mic at about shoulder level - 6 - 10 inches in front of my shoulder. 

Position 4&5 = top of the mic about shoulder level - 6-10 inches in front of shoulder. 

Then I lean the seat back till it about hits the back seat. The base of the mic is level to where my shoulder would be - 6 inches back from where they would be in the demo position for the top part of the box, and the top of the mic at shoulder level, 6 inches back from demo position. 

We lean the seat back dramatically so there is line of site between each speaker and the mic (sub doesn’t matter of course). 

Does that sort of answer your question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

steelwindmachine said:


> I looked through the user manual and couldn't find a procedure for setting the gains for the Headunit->DSP->Amp(s)
> 
> What's your process?


My buddy John or my installer Mark typically uses an O-Scope but others are using the Dirac screen (volume level screen) to do it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> I'm reading through the 8x12DL User Manual (Rev 2.7) and have come across a confusing bit of information on page 33.
> 
> The text is:
> 
> ...


So, if you want to pre tune every channel with MmM and REW, and make each driver flat and do a 2-3 ch Dirac tune, it will produce similar results, and Dirac will fix the GD caused by the LP side of each filter and fix the sums all pass to a flat shape….is that better…. If it worked yes 

using our method (anu2g manual) you keep the all pass caused by the crossovers…… but it’s almost perfect all pass behavior…. No crossovers fighting because of Dirac moving phase in the LPF side of each channel which results in a few twists or a sawtooth looking phase response in log.

we keep the all pass caused by the crossovers, as long as both sides all pass is in perfect time with eachother it sounds just like linear phase in the sum….. you can only hear a phase change against something with different phase

so….. this method sounds better and performs better then the minidsp method….

matbe there’s works better in a home where PLd is equal, comb filters are so minor and are laughingstock to what we have to deal with….

this way is far superior for car


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

has anyone noticed whether or not DIRAC tuning has compensated for less than optimal driver install locations?

I don't know that my situation qualifies as significantly impactful in terms of whatever DIRAC is going to do to "correct", but I'm debating about putting my CDT 2" widebands in my sail panels as opposed to my A-pillars since customizing my sail panels would be an easier job.

Yes, a driver in the sail panel more directly contends with the door glass reflections.

Alternatively, a drive in the A-pillar contends with both the windshield and dash reflections.

But, in the context of what DIRAC does, do either of these situations where the drive is closer in proximity to one reflective surface(s) as opposed to another really matter when either of them will effectively be within the same line of sight to my ears? They'll essentially be either on-axis or just slightly off-axis in either case.

thoughts?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> has anyone noticed whether or not DIRAC tuning has compensated for less than optimal driver install locations?
> 
> I don't know that my situation qualifies as significantly impactful in terms of whatever DIRAC is going to do to "correct", but I'm debating about putting my CDT 2" widebands in my sail panels as opposed to my A-pillars since customizing my sail panels would be an easier job.
> 
> ...


the 2” paper speaker as a tweeter…. I’m sure it’s a good speaker but I would never want my 5k+ response coming from a paper cone driver

Dirac will handle it beautifully. So no worry’s there, but it can’t make a cone driver sound like a dome.

like I ran Dirac on a 2022 tacoma With stock speakers , factory deck and added a Jl stealth box

did an 8ch amp (xd8008) and ran everything off the 8ch active to 4ch upfront , rears and subs bridged on two ch

the Tacoma has 2” mid tweets as well with small 3.3uF caps and I ran it

dirac got rid of the factory 2nd order all pass on the right side door at 250hz , amazing job there

the highs sounded good, has a lot of hysteris distortion. The cone simply was breaking up at higher volumes and even at low volumes the 5k range wouldn’t project.

that being said! I don’t know the cdt , and the stock Toyota driver is a pos! So ……

i would go for a good tweeter. Maybe the AF gB15 or the like… or a stevens SA1 tweeter something that can play to 1800 acoustically


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@oabeieo - thanks for the insight! So, would you say Dirac makes a steak out of a Taco?  Though, I do love me some tacos whatever the protein 

The CDT Unity 8.0 has a decent reputation for reproduction at 450Hz on up. Given that I'm 44 and my hearing isn't great about 16KHz, I'm hoping it'll be satisfactory. If it isn't, then I'll always have the option of adding a tweeter. I'm anxious to hear the tonality of this driver and see how it goes. I bought them NIB from another user here for a fraction of the cost of it's wideband peers (RAM, HAT, AF, Aries, etc.).

But, given the DIRAC capabilities, trying the CDT driver in the sail first will be faster and easier for me to accomplish vs. building a a-pillar pod. It'll also be less conspicuous since my vehicle came with a factory tweeter in the sail.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - thanks for the insight! So, would you say Dirac makes a steak out of a Taco?  Though, I do love me some tacos whatever the protein
> 
> The CDT Unity 8.0 has a decent reputation for reproduction at 450Hz on up. Given that I'm 44 and my hearing isn't great about 16KHz, I'm hoping it'll be satisfactory. If it isn't, then I'll always have the option of adding a tweeter. I'm anxious to hear the tonality of this driver and see how it goes. I bought them NIB from another user here for a fraction of the cost of it's wideband peers (RAM, HAT, AF, Aries, etc.).
> 
> But, given the DIRAC capabilities, trying the CDT driver in the sail first will be faster and easier for me to accomplish vs. building a a-pillar pod. It'll also be less conspicuous since my vehicle came with a factory tweeter in the sail.


so you know there is only one way to find out

Haha , I bet it’s very decent…. Steak tacos? Perhaps that sounds good to me


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - thanks for the insight! So, would you say Dirac makes a steak out of a Taco?  Though, I do love me some tacos whatever the protein
> 
> The CDT Unity 8.0 has a decent reputation for reproduction at 450Hz on up. Given that I'm 44 and my hearing isn't great about 16KHz, I'm hoping it'll be satisfactory. If it isn't, then I'll always have the option of adding a tweeter. I'm anxious to hear the tonality of this driver and see how it goes. I bought them NIB from another user here for a fraction of the cost of it's wideband peers (RAM, HAT, AF, Aries, etc.).
> 
> But, given the DIRAC capabilities, trying the CDT driver in the sail first will be faster and easier for me to accomplish vs. building a a-pillar pod. It'll also be less conspicuous since my vehicle came with a factory tweeter in the sail.


I put the CDT 8.0s in my older brother's Jeep, on the dashboard firing up (off-axis) in a 2-way active setup. They sound pretty good! This doesn't directly answer your Dirac question, as I did not install a Dirac DSP in his car. It doesn't sound as good as my 3-way active (which also has the unfair advantage of Dirac), especially way up top, but I prefer it to a 2-way active using tweeters, specifically because now he's got 600Hz+ coming from above the dashboard. Btw, I had better lock crossing those 8.0s around 600Hz, versus 450ish. YMMV. It seemed over strained at lower frequencies, which makes sense since it's a very small driver.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@Anu2g - thanks for the experiential input on the Unity 8! I bought a cap to protect them from 250Hz down based on CDT's recommendation to cross at 250Hz or higher (FS = 200Hz). So when I run the Dirac sweeps, it should be okay and yeah, I'll certainly seek to cross higher if my Morel Virtus MW6 mid blends well at that higher frequency to take as you point out, the lower-midrange bands off it's palate.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

If it’s a cone driver I wouldn’t use a protective cap for measurements as that cap will be a phase shift as well (unless you leave it on) 

a cone driver should be able to handle any lows for a few sec at a time with sweeps at lower volumes….

i would be more interested in having perfect phase, even tho the HP is leading, it still comes out at 45deg ahead of time (it’s a funky thing with caps….. they can sorta in a weird way see the future)

but that’s just me , even tho I know Dirac will correct for it i still like anal like that


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Dirac Live 3.3.1 is out, although looks like just bug fixes.

I haven't tried the new Auto method introduced in 3.3.0 - planning on doing a new full measurement with the 7 channel method. It appears this is still valid and only means skipping my own curve part, no?


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@hella356 - did 3.3.1 just release today?

If so, does these mean another firmware update for the 8x12DL? or just updating the Dirac software on the computer?


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Just DL. Hasn't been a firmware update by miniDSP in a while.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

hella356 said:


> Dirac Live 3.3.1 is out, although looks like just bug fixes.
> 
> I haven't tried the new Auto method introduced in 3.3.0 - planning on doing a new full measurement with the 7 channel method. It appears this is still valid and only means skipping my own curve part, no?


Yea, the guide still holds completely true. You just get two curve options:
1) Use DL's default curve, which gives you a vertical slider on the top end and vertical slider on the low end. If you go with this approach, be sure to adjust the sliders to the same values for all channels
2) Or, use your own curve per the guide; if you do that, there is a little icon on the top right of each channel that you have to click in order for it show the "classic" view. It will make sense when you're in there.

I'm hoping to update the guide with new screenshots this weekend. Have been struggling to get around to it. If you have any issues while doing your tune, feel free to DM me.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thanks! I don't expect that will be too difficult to navigate.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Did Remote Desktop and helped Justin (screen name???) setup his 8x12….. his car (Mercedes’ or Lexus couldn’t tell) super sweet car…. Has dynaudio esotecs all the way…. My goodness what a sweet setup…. Hope he made it through all the measurements…

I was able to set up dsp , and get one measurement taken , and show him the targets and curtains……

so if anyone needs help , I can remote help


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Here’s a good read 






Microphone techniques in car cabin


miniDSP is a leading manufacturer of Digital Audio Signal Processors for the HomeTheater, Hifi, headphone and Automotive market. Join our large community of Audiophiles, Engineers and DIYers using our innovative products.




www.minidsp.com


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Anyone successfully take Dirac measurements with the engine on? When I try that, I get the error saying there's too much background noise. I've tried adjusting mic gains and master output but to no avail.

The problem is my car doesn't have an accessories power state. Stereo only comes on with engine on.

My work around is feasible - I can set the DSP to turn on always (whenever connected to 12v). But that means uninstalling my sub to access the DSP, reinstalling the sub to take measurements, then uninstalling sub to re-set DSP, then reinstalling sub again for normal play. So it's just time consuming.


----------



## lithium (Oct 29, 2008)

sapphari said:


> Anyone successfully take Dirac measurements with the engine on? When I try that, I get the error saying there's too much background noise. I've tried adjusting mic gains and master output but to no avail.
> 
> The problem is my car doesn't have an accessories power state. Stereo only comes on with engine on.
> 
> My work around is feasible - I can set the DSP to turn on always (whenever connected to 12v). But that means uninstalling my sub to access the DSP, reinstalling the sub to take measurements, then uninstalling sub to re-set DSP, then reinstalling sub again for normal play. So it's just time consuming.


tried my first tune today with dirac and had no luck with car running.

I think your best bet is to wire up a 3 position switch to manually apply 12v turn on to the minidsp (car accessory ON, Off, and 12v jumper from +12). Route the switch to a easy to access location.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Yeah a switch…..double throw ….


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> Here’s a good read
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice read; thanks for posting. I wish they had a Dirac-specific version of this, since the UMIK-X (or any mic array for that matter) is not an option for Dirac measurements.


----------



## Bikey (May 15, 2021)

lol, I almost posted the same link but I had the same reaction after seeing that Dirac isn't currently compatible with the UMIK-X. Argh.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Yeah and the umikx uses a generic cal file.

I’m a little sus about all of them using a generic cal file.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’ve got an idea…. Oh boy, here I go with ideas…

what if ……… (pondering this)

we did a full crossovers off tune…. Set crossovers , got everything just the way we want…. Then

go to Dirac, resume where left off , and retake the 1st measurement point with crossovers on…. Only the 1st measurement point as that does all the phase correction…. Then apply that…

that should eliminate the crossover phase shift (which I think isn’t a big deal when the sum properly Like we are-doing) 

But what if it did something awesome…..

you would have to wreck a set of measurements to try it …… anyone up to the challenge ?

help me ponder this ….. talk to me


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

what issue or improvement do you believe might be achieved as opposed to the results via the current method?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> what issue or improvement do you believe might be achieved as opposed to the results via the current method?


I’m thinking the other 8 measurements will allow (and the 9th prior to) a resulting summation

then once crossovers properly setup to taste…. And the target achieved , redoing the 1st measurement will only affect 1/9th of the measurements and effectively remove the GD from the crossovers (now applied)

a more linear phase result….. even tho it alread sounds mostly linear phase , I have a truly linear phase system in my car with fir crossovers and a upstream Dirac …

the current 8x12 method nets a similar sound

I’m curious if this will make things maybe better for some….. if everyone tried it , and reported back ….. we would know

It wouldn’t wreck a set of measurements if saved with old and saved after with new name,… let’s just say it didn’t work


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

I think I see what you're trying to accomplish... different measured passbands would net different calculated delays to possibly make up for the GD. Curtains would need to be readjusted. Worth a try I suppose.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

In my experience recently with the latest version of Dirac, if I remeasure with Dirac filters applied, I get all zeroes on the Dirac tab. So I don't even know how I'd test this.

I'm not sure if this is a MacOS specific bug


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I think I see what you're trying to accomplish... different measured passbands would net different calculated delays to possibly make up for the GD. Curtains would need to be readjusted. Worth a try I suppose.


i thought y’all’s were doing a complete target with one ginormous group????

correct it wouldn’t work with curtains and speakers groups….. (my method)

maybe a hybird approach ??? Like what your doing with your midbass and sub ?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> In my experience recently with the latest version of Dirac, if I remeasure with Dirac filters applied, I get all zeroes on the Dirac tab. So I don't even know how I'd test this.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a MacOS specific bug


yeah that’s weird …

move been able to go back and re do any measurement at any given time …..


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So help me logic this through 

Ryan said the curtains,

so I’m not convinced that will need to be

it’s still going to see 8 measurements with valid curtains for full driver responses

by just doing the 1st measurement with crossovers on, it should sum that to the others

it would definitely be mixed phase, but if it only looks at the 1st for phase data , then keeping curtains as is , and crossovers on and 1st measurement ……

or!!!! Or or or galore

add a 2nd order APF where your crossover is going to be , and leave crossovers off!!!

then go back and re do 1st measurement….
The 2nd order APF should approximate (or be exactly like) your crossovers phase shift, thus linearizing it , and turn it off after , and apply your crossover….. so how u like them apples ?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Like a LR4 should equal a 2nd order all pass Q=1.21 

a LR2 and BW12 should both use 1st order APF

(I’m pretty sure those are the only types you can sim with APF, unless you cascade them for an 8th order)

But , I think as long as it’s not quadratic, even if the Q is wrong, it should be “close enough” as long as Q isn’t too high…

I’m pretty sure it would work

you would want to try it again, as a finish, and a redo of 1st measurement…. The APF will change the responce, we don’t want that too much, so leave the other 8 as is and re do number 1 , and turn off the APF when done , and engage your crossover….. it just might work

it would be “burnt-in” or convolved with the other measurements in the averaging… so it won’t mess with the phase tracking of the crossover you employ……. It will simply be a change in the file played through it….


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I have a question for the group. Last weekend I tried my first tune incorporating a subwoofer with the Anu method. I ended up with very low output from the sub. Audible but not enough.

Here is the target curve I used:
20 9.3
28 9.7
35 9.9
40 9
50 7.7
62 6.1
80 4.6
100 3
125 1.7
157 0.8
200 0
800 0
2000 0
2500 -0.53
3150 -0.85
3900 -1.3
5000 -2
6250 -2.56
7850 -3
10000 -3.91
12500 -5
16000 -6
20000 -6.75

In the volume calibration screen in Dirac, I set my remote bass gain knob such that the volume of the sub was a few dB louder than the mids and tweeters, thinking that it will need to be boosted to hit the target curve, so I should give it more signal for the measurements.

After measurements, here is the Dirac tab in the 8x12 plugin. Dirac 1/2 are tweeters, 3/4 are mids, 5 is sub. As you can see, there is a difference in the input level, the gain, and the output level for Dirac 5 relative to 1-4. Ch5 has -16.6dB gain applied. The output for ch5 is also very low, which I assume is why my sub volume is low.










What should I do to get the sub volume up? Should I take new measurements, but this time with the remote gain knob lower, so the sub level matches the mids and tweeters more closely in the volume calibration screen? Simply increasing the gain on the Output 1-6 tab of the 8x12 plugin is not a good solution - I get distortion.

I also noticed in the upper right hand corner, the master volume is -49 (I changed that back to zero later) and the sub volume is -115 (this seems like it cannot be changed). I don't think this is the problem but thought I'd check...

Thanks in advance!!


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

sapphari said:


> I have a question for the group. Last weekend I tried my first tune incorporating a subwoofer with the Anu method. I ended up with very low output from the sub. Audible but not enough.
> ...


The Dirac tab on mine also shows the sub channel being cut some 14.x db... but don't have issue with low sub levels.
Could it be the target curve chosen?... I noticed in the target numbers posted that the highest sub freq (35hz) is 9.9db and 1khz is at 0db. In the curve I'm using, 35hz is 14db above 1khz. So maybe play with the curve?


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

sapphari said:


> I have a question for the group. Last weekend I tried my first tune incorporating a subwoofer with the Anu method. I ended up with very low output from the sub. Audible but not enough.
> 
> Here is the target curve I used:
> 20 9.3
> ...


Echoing @Truthunter , your Dirac tab looks fine to me. But your sub volume being that low seems very weird. You could try (slowly) adjusting that up and seeing if that makes a difference.

If it is the curve as Truthunter said, you could try adjusting your sub volume up until it sounds right for you, and then use REW with pink noise to measure/see what the curve looks like, that way you know what your actual target preference is. And then modify your Dirac target accordingly.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Agreed X3

yeah the Dirac tab shows the auto levels, what it had to turn down to get the proper correction

Like , you can set the outputs in plug-in so that are all the same level, or you can set levels in Dirac levels screen when running DLCT. that levels we like to keep maxed because it makes it plug in dependent…. Meaning if other configs don’t have same exact settings we can’t drop filters into those slots….. (which makes it hard to fine tune and make a favorite configuration) furthermore, if you ever have to re load the configuration, those levels don’t come with it as they are a part of the Dirac filter…

so those are the two ways (minus your physical amp gains) to set levels in dsp…. There is a 3rd…. That’s the auto level that Dirac does

once youget all speakers to play roughly the same in your outputs. There not perfect… and the sub especially is sensitive to gain.

so Dirac adjusts the levels so there perfect… and then normalize them so when you pull your target down let’s say 1db. That measure is exact across all channels…

That auto Dirac levels is called the trims.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

You can go in and look at the trims and adjust your outputs also and remeasure and get everything closer if you want a more unified gain structure… somewhere things eventually have to be adjusted…..

having the trims show the sub was taken down like 10db or something isn’t necessarily bad… as long as you have enough gain coming out of dsp across all channels it’s ok….

like in my car I use a ddrc22 and 4 2x4hds
I have to do my trims manually. And it’s taken a few go’s at it to get it right.

my 6” mid is turned down -12db, where my 3.5” mid isn’t turned down at all…. My sub is turned down 23db and my input gain on ddrc22 is down 10db…. All other channels have maybe 2 or 3 db cut also…..

i can turn my volume up all the way on my deck (toslink) and it gets exactly loud enough to where nothing blows up, nothing is clipping, etc etc

if your using analog in and a quality source like Kenwood excel on or pioneer NEX then you should be able to go to max volume on it… maybe not listen like that, but you should be able to go that high on deck without it sounding bad…

If the deck only goes like halfway and it starts to saturate and sound bad and be too loud, that’s an indication things need to go down…

O scoping gains is great and all, but I find it useless…. I’m not , and never want to try and squeeze every drop of power from amp…

i use either unity gain or below always. Keeping maximum output level of analog down the signal chain keeps high signal to noise ratio…

and most importantly maximum output level means the maximum *unboosted *level that can be achieved.


----------



## tjk_bail (Feb 2, 2012)

Dang, all this 'brain-storming' sounds like fun..... WISH I had Dirac so I could join in on all this testing.......


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

Can Dirac do TA and corrections on passive 2 way front end setups or do you have to be active for it to work best?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

SiW80 said:


> Can Dirac do TA and corrections on passive 2 way front end setups or do you have to be active for it to work best?


Yes... to a point: It will be able to delay most of the woofer & tweeter passbands independently but the xover region probably will not be ideal. I believe that the results will likely be much better than just delaying the entire channel by a set point using a traditional DSP.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SiW80 said:


> Can Dirac do TA and corrections on passive 2 way front end setups or do you have to be active for it to work best?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


it does it , you could literally put all your speakers out of phase and no TA and ****ed up levels and it will still correct it

obviously don’t do that, make it best you can, it will do the rest


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

My car OEM locations are bad and the tweeter is supplied from the mid with a cap for a crossover, but if DL can TA all drivers when passively crossed I could make something work 

Would need to tune the tweeter cap value I guess somehow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

SiW80 said:


> My car OEM locations are bad and the tweeter is supplied from the mid with a cap for a crossover, but if DL can TA all drivers when passively crossed I could make something work
> 
> Would need to tune the tweeter cap value I guess somehow.
> 
> ...


Yeah Dirac will make it the best it can be…even if it’s an abomination of a system it will still make it something decent.

what car is this? A Toyota ?


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> Yeah Dirac will make it the best it can be…even if it’s an abomination of a system it will still make it something decent.
> 
> what car is this? A Toyota ?


It’s a 2011 Skoda Octavia VRS - fast family euro hatch. 

Mids are at the back of the doors and tweeters are in front of the door handles. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Dirac will make it as good as possible for those locations…… of course the locations are what they are


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

In reference to posts 514-518...

I uploaded a new target curve into DL, which has a larger delta between 1khz and 40hz to get more low end. It helped - the low end is more present with the new curve. But to my surprise, when I go back into the 8x12 plugin, the Dirac tab still shows all the same level adjustments for all channels including the sub (sub is still down 16.6dB). I take this to mean that those levels are set by the mic measurements and are independent of the target curve.

Just thought I'd note that since that's not the behavior I expected.

I'm going to go back and take new measurements, this time using different levels of mid/hi vs sub to see if that brings the sub level in the Dirac tab up more than -16.6dB.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> In reference to posts 514-518...
> 
> I uploaded a new target curve into DL, which has a larger delta between 1khz and 40hz to get more low end. It helped - the low end is more present with the new curve. But to my surprise, when I go back into the 8x12 plugin, the Dirac tab still shows all the same level adjustments for all channels including the sub (sub is still down 16.6dB). I take this to mean that those levels are set by the mic measurements and are independent of the target curve.
> 
> ...


turn your master sub down 16db before measuring…. I usually go about -20 , -16 sounds about right


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I just repeated the mic measurements, this time with the sub's remote gain knob in a lower position than it was before. So in the volume calibration screen, the sub volume was ~5db lower than the mid/hi (whereas last time it was ~5db higher than mid/hi). Now the sub channel's output level in the 8x12 Dirac tab is -5.6dB (before it was -16.6db). So I can confirm that the target curve changes what we hear but it's the mic measurements that change the individual channel output levels. It's also worth noting that the entire Dirac tab in the 8x12 plugin is read-only. So the only way to change those values is to repeat the mic measurements.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

oabeieo said:


> turn your master sub down 16db before measuring…. I usually go about -20 , -16 sounds about right


In the volume calibration screen? That seems like it would work...


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Or maybe you are referring to the Outputs tab of the 8x12 plugin? Then would you increase it back to 0 after measuring?

There is this mention in the Anu guide:









But prior to that, it tells you to set all gains to 0 in the Outputs tab:


----------



## squiers007 (Sep 12, 2012)

sapphari said:


> Or maybe you are referring to the Outputs tab of the 8x12 plugin? Then would you increase it back to 0 after measuring?
> 
> There is this mention in the Anu guide:
> View attachment 334695
> ...


I don't honestly think it makes a difference. Yes it's pulling it down to level match all the drivers, but at the end of the day it's the curve that determines how it sounds. Is your turn it down before your run the measurement it ends up with the same result, just a different method. The benefit, if you need it, is that you should end up with more headroom because the sub wasn't pulled down as much. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> In the volume calibration screen? That seems like it would work...


No , with bass knob


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

squiers007 said:


> I don't honestly think it makes a difference. Yes it's pulling it down to level match all the drivers, but at the end of the day it's the curve that determines how it sounds. Is your turn it down before your run the measurement it ends up with the same result, just a different method. The benefit, if you need it, is that you should end up with more headroom because the sub wasn't pulled down as much.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


thats exactly right , more headroom


to everyone else. i use bass knob because I like to crank the sub up way past my target , like when I listen to the cars or Fleetwood Mac

the recording itself is like non existent bass lol
It just needs it 

so -15 -20 db down on bass knob pre Dirac gives that headroom for everything


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

oabeieo said:


> I like to crank the sub up way past my target


This! For normal listening, the target curve is fine. But when I want to really bump it, I want to add another several db beyond that.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

but @squiers007 I agree, if you are just going for the target, this doesn't really matter


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Yeah , and if you remember where you did it and you simply use bass knob , dial back to -20 or whatever for sq mode 

i like a lot of low bass that is tight… not loud …

I prefer a high ish Q sealed box and dump power in the 20-38 hz range where it doesn’t have a lot of output but is felt in the seat and the air is windy with ultra tight low bass , 15s and 18s are my choice 

but it’s so nice with Dirac, I can have that and roll the sub off in a way that it does that and isn’t hollow ringing in the 80-150hz range


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

anyone here try utilizing a center speaker to acheive a more focused front-center stage?

If so, how did you set it up with DIRAC?


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

I have to say I like the new dirac a lot more! (with auto-curve). It works well even with 1 measurement. (Previously I hated the software, no matter what I did)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> anyone here try utilizing a center speaker to acheive a more focused front-center stage?
> 
> If so, how did you set it up with DIRAC?


i don’t know how focused you want it, it’s pretty hard to beat. But if you wanted to , I would do L+R there’s no way to remove L-R that I know of…. So …

maybe one of the eBay 5.1 mixers and use only the center to one of the inputs and route that to the center….. just spitballing ideas


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

it's was a curiosity as to whether anyone had tried using a center channel to improve the center image focus particularly in wide vehicles (SUVs, trucks, etc.).

I haven't installed my system yet, so this isn't coming from my own observation of something lacking in my situation.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> it's was a curiosity as to whether anyone had tried using a center channel to improve the center image focus particularly in wide vehicles (SUVs, trucks, etc.).
> 
> I haven't installed my system yet, so this isn't coming from my own observation of something lacking in my situation.


trucks…. What is it a Silverado? With a 10’ tall dash line? Lol (I’m kidding)

i know rams and tundras usually have a super solid center…… same with newer tacos with 2” up high ….


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm getting some weird behavior using the Anu et al method. I love the sound I'm getting from the tune but I want to see if anyone has ideas for how I could resolve this issue. As some of you may remember, I am currently working on integrating my sub into this tuning method.

Here's what happening - if master volume on the miniDSP is loud enough (eg -20dB with the wired remote), when I turn my sub amp's remote gain up to around where it was when I took dirac measurements, I get a popping/distortion sound out of my tweeters when the bass hits. What perplexes me about this is that the sub amp and the amp powering my tweeters are separate amps. Both receive signal from the miniDSP, but they are not connected in any other way (except maybe via remote turn on wire, I can't remember exactly).

Has anyone experienced this? I have solid electrical and did not experience this before the miniDSP. How could adjusting the remote gain on one amp cause distortion in another amp?? I have been working with miniDSP to resolve the issue but they have not been able to pin it down yet. :/


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> I'm getting some weird behavior using the Anu et al method. I love the sound I'm getting from the tune but I want to see if anyone has ideas for how I could resolve this issue. As some of you may remember, I am currently working on integrating my sub into this tuning method.
> 
> Here's what happening - if master volume on the miniDSP is loud enough (eg -20dB with the wired remote), when I turn my sub amp's remote gain up to around where it was when I took dirac measurements, I get a popping/distortion sound out of my tweeters when the bass hits. What perplexes me about this is that the sub amp and the amp powering my tweeters are separate amps. Both receive signal from the miniDSP, but they are not connected in any other way (except maybe via remote turn on wire, I can't remember exactly).
> 
> Has anyone experienced this? I have solid electrical and did not experience this before the miniDSP. How could adjusting the remote gain on one amp cause distortion in another amp?? I have been working with miniDSP to resolve the issue but they have not been able to pin it down yet. :/



Ahhh , yes , so different amps ? Let me guess , different amp brands…


The fix is use a GLI on the sub amp 


The sub amp rca input has different ground path return then the highs amp and is interfering with the highs and your hearing it come though the tweets….


A GLI on sub amp should solve this 

I had a Rockford amp with my 3 alpine amps, same issue Rockford was a bass amp 

GLI fixed it , as soon as I got the matching alpine bass amp I no longer needed GLI


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@sapphari - for you or anyone else not knowing the acronym @oabeieo is using, GLI = Ground Loop Isolator


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

@oabeieo Yes, two different amps, and different brands. Both get signal from the miniDSP. A 4ch amp powers mids and highs, and a monoblock powers the sub stage. 

I will be thrilled if this is the issue!! I have a couple questions though... Does a GLI work for a single channel? My sub amp has mono input. I'm also wondering if the GLI reduces voltage (if yes, I'll want to re-set the gain on the sub amp). Any concerns about coloring sound? And last question, are there good and bad GLIs or will any of them work well?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> @oabeieo Yes, two different amps, and different brands. Both get signal from the miniDSP. A 4ch amp powers mids and highs, and a monoblock powers the sub stage.
> 
> I will be thrilled if this is the issue!! I have a couple questions though... Does a GLI work for a single channel? My sub amp has mono input. I'm also wondering if the GLI reduces voltage (if yes, I'll want to re-set the gain on the sub amp). Any concerns about coloring sound? And last question, are there good and bad GLIs or will any of them work well?


contrary to popular believe, a GLI does absolutely nothing to the signal….

it’s an isolation transformer that’s only used on the return path the outer shield… (at least quality ones are that way)

even the cheap $35 PAC is a decent quality

If both of the amps had even somewhat similar resistance to ground from outer shield there would be no noise…. Some of them are high impedance some of them are low some of them are isolated and some of them aren’t

150-2000 ohms is pretty common ( but it can go as high as 10 K) it’s a simple ground loop

it will work… i’m certain of it


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I ordered one. I will definitely report back! 🤞


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm happy to report this issue is resolved! When I swapped out the old RCA for the GLI, it eliminated the distortion in the tweeters. What's interesting, is I also swapped the old RCA for another standard RCA (not a GLI), and that ALSO eliminated the problem. So the GLI was not needed, but the RCA needed to be changed out for sure. 

Side note: I did not measure voltage, but I think I perceived more bass with the non-GLI RCA vs the GLI, so maybe voltage is lost through the GLI.

It could have been a long time until I thought about messing with the RCAs, so massive thanks to @oabeieo for the direction on this fix! I was pretty puzzled by this one! And I'm SO HAPPY to have my bass back to it's full potential 🔈🔈🔈


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

Did you place it on the input RCAs into the DSP or the output side RCA to the amplifier?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> I'm happy to report this issue is resolved! When I swapped out the old RCA for the GLI, it eliminated the distortion in the tweeters. What's interesting, is I also swapped the old RCA for another standard RCA (not a GLI), and that ALSO eliminated the problem. So the GLI was not needed, but the RCA needed to be changed out for sure.
> 
> Side note: I did not measure voltage, but I think I perceived more bass with the non-GLI RCA vs the GLI, so maybe voltage is lost through the GLI.
> 
> It could have been a long time until I thought about messing with the RCAs, so massive thanks to @oabeieo for the direction on this fix! I was pretty puzzled by this one! And I'm SO HAPPY to have my bass back to it's full potential 🔈🔈🔈


so a cable…. A ha !

it shouldn’t have messed with bass at all

otoh , it’s another amp on the return I’ve heard of weird stuff before… that one is new to me.

glad it’s workin now… 😋🥳😎


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

doeboy said:


> Did you place it on the input RCAs into the DSP or the output side RCA to the amplifier?


This was the RCA from the DSP output to the sub amp's input.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

sapphari said:


> This was the RCA from the DSP output to the sub amp's input.


Do you by chance have amps with balanced inputs and others with unbalanced inputs in your system?


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

All my amp inputs are RCA, so unbalanced.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> All my amp inputs are RCA, so unbalanced.


i Wonder if he meant pseudo balanced (like JL)

minidsp uses isolated pseudo balanced outputs

It uses common mode rejection on its input side iirc…..I asked a few years ago when it didn’t work on a tru line8 and that was why


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

Amp models are ESX QE1200.4 and Wolfram O-8000.1

I don't think either have fancy inputs. 

But just so we are all on the same page here, the issue was resolved by swapping out the bad RCA cable. I've had bumpin enjoyment for almost a week now.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

sapphari said:


> All my amp inputs are RCA, so unbalanced.


Like JL Audio, they can run balanced on RCA inputs.
I ask because I run 2 JL XD 400/4's and 2 Wolfram 3000.1's and I had noise until I switched the Wolfram's to twisted pair cables, Stinger 4000 series.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

ckirocz28 said:


> Like JL Audio, they can run balanced on RCA inputs.
> I ask because I run 2 JL XD 400/4's and 2 Wolfram 3000.1's and I had noise until I switched the Wolfram's to twisted pair cables, Stinger 4000 series.


Interesting! Wonder if Wolfram is the common element here. Is that the W-3000.1? That's a half-bridge, whereas my O-8000 is full. That may not make a difference though. I also own the W-3000.1 btw, I like that amp a lot.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Nice


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

sapphari said:


> Interesting! Wonder if Wolfram is the common element here. Is that the W-3000.1? That's a half-bridge, whereas my O-8000 is full. That may not make a difference though. I also own the W-3000.1 btw, I like that amp a lot.


I think the problem was "balanced" and unbalanced rca's hooked up to the MiniDSP, not necessarily a brand problem.
Yes, I bought 2 of the W-3000.1's, and I like them too, but they are huge.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

ckirocz28 said:


> I think the problem was "balanced" and unbalanced rca's hooked up to the MiniDSP, not necessarily a brand problem.
> Yes, I bought 2 of the W-3000.1's, and I like them too, but they are huge.


I'm not a fan of the Incriminator brand, but I recently saw they have short (in length), high power, half bridge amps. They are twice as tall as most amps (like 5"), but length is often the limiting dimension. 

Length limitation is the reason I went with full bridge. The high power half bridge amps are like 30" or longer.


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

sapphari said:


> I'm not a fan of the Incriminator brand, but I recently saw they have short (in length), high power, half bridge amps. They are twice as tall as most amps (like 5"), but length is often the limiting dimension.
> 
> Length limitation is the reason I went with full bridge. The high power half bridge amps are like 30" or longer.


The Wolfram W-3000.1's are 23 inches long.


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

The IX4.1, a 4k amp, is 10.63 W x 5.12 H x 12.59 L. And the 6k is 10.63 W x 5.12 H x 14.96 L.





IX6.1







www.incriminatoraudio.com


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Can you guys take the survey and say we want more multi-way support for minidsp, more advanced controls, and that we want a hugely complicated system that has as many options as possible

and specify minidsp, your email should have the link


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

I took the survey and mentioned the DIYMA guide!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

sapphari said:


> I took the survey and mentioned the DIYMA guide!


fantastic!!!! Anu did a awesome job on it!

we need multi-way calibration that calculates the shift for a crossover….. like we can input our planned crossover or do crossovers from Dirac

the mini would need acces to it’s outputs

they could at least ask intended crossover


----------



## sapphari (Oct 7, 2013)

That was my second suggestion - to ask the user to give a range acceptable crossover frequencies based on knowledge of drivers and their applications, then have the software select the best frequency within that range.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Knowing how the program works now and knowing that it can’t know what you are trying to do unless you tell it… The method does the multiway perfectly but it keeps the phase shift from the Crossovers

if we could input and tell it hey this is what crossover I’m going to use, and continue doing what we normally do with our method, it could also add the appropriate shift to eliminate crossover phase shift…a simple linearization added 

that’s how it needs to be explained in the questionnaire


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Can you guys take the survey and say we want more multi-way support for minidsp, more advanced controls, and that we want a hugely complicated system that has as many options as possible
> 
> and specify minidsp, your email should have the link


Where is this survey. Will also do


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

In your email


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Okay Dirac tips and tricks vol the big 83 Cadillac !!

This is a really good one you guys are gonna be really excited about this this is as good as the last tip that created the method


What I did … I did a method tune that normal way with the method…. I set my crossovers the way I like…. I choose only LR4 or BW18

Then I copy that configuration to another slot

Then I go to new slot with copied configuration and turn back off crossovers….

Then go to PEQ and turn on APF Q.7 for LR4 and APF Q1.0 for BW18s 

I did a 75 hz APF on all mains and sub as those will be on the BM cascade 

Turned off filters on BM also 

Ran Dirac again

Did same thing on last run sent filter to new slot 

Then go to configuration after Dirac and turn OFF THE APFs and TURN ON the crossovers and BM crossovers 

WWhollah!!! Excellent crossover behavior with linear phase!!!! 

Sounds and measures very well


Get to work boys!!!! 

@truthhunter @niku @Anu2g @bertholomy @piccomethiser @steelwindmachine

Let me know what you think I think you’re going to be impressed and this definitely needs to be added to the manual


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Only the midrange had 3 APFs 

Everything else only had 2

Sub had one 

It worked amazing…… it’s a spitting image of my car now……. No need for upstream 22s 

This worked fantastic….

Very curious of your results


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> Only the midrange had 3 APFs
> 
> Everything else only had 2
> 
> ...


When you say the mid had 3 APFs, do you mean because you cascaded the APF that simulates BM onto the Mid? And you did not cascade that onto the Tweeter?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> When you say the mid had 3 APFs, do you mean because you cascaded the APF that simulates BM onto the Mid? And you did not cascade that onto the Tweeter?



Okay 

Tweet has the BM APF and the tweeter crossover APF 

Mid has the two crossover APF plus the BM APF 

Midbass has the BM APF and the 1 APF for its LP

Sub has only the BM APF


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Cool. I understand the approach you're taking. Written slightly differently:

1) Follow the normal approach that we've documented to do a 7 channel tune
2) Copy the CDSP Plugin's config to a new Preset
3) Replace the LR4 XOs with Q=.7 APFs
4) Remeasure Dirac (basically repeat number 1, but with the APFs in place)
5) Once done, replace the APFs with the LR4 XOs

(Note: I assumed usage of LR4s [and not BW3s] to simplify it a bit for people trying to follow along)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Cool. I understand the approach you're taking. Written slightly differently:
> 
> 1) Follow the normal approach that we've documented to do a 7 channel tune
> 2) Copy the CDSP Plugin's config to a new Preset
> ...


Boy you sure condensed that but basically yes that’s exactly right

But if you would pretty please add the BW to your Manuel because I don’t think in one’s going to get confused if they’re running direc they’ll know what we mean


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

Lol. I got you re: BW3s. I use that approach as well. Just want to get more people testing out this APF approach before making it "the way". I'll try it out in a couple weeks when new pillars arrive .


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Only the midrange had 3 APFs
> 
> Everything else only had 2
> 
> ...


Deleted


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Okay Dirac tips and tricks vol the big 83 Cadillac !!
> 
> This is a really good one you guys are gonna be really excited about this this is as good as the last tip that created the method
> 
> ...


Why not start out your first Dirac run with the APF in place of where your xo's would be instead of running Dirac twice?
I didn't think you could rerun the dirac tune with something that is already using the dirac corrections


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

@oabeieo
I'm sure your on to something ground breaking. I'm not quite understanding the exact steps though. Are APFs only applied where the HPFs would be (at the same freqs) or both HPFs and LPFs?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Why not start out your first Dirac run with the APF in place of where your xo's would be instead of running Dirac twice?
> I didn't think you could rerun the dirac tune with something that is already using the dirac corrections


So that you can get your tonality right…. For those that already have a tune going with the method , then there’s no need to do it twice…

I just wrote that as if you’re starting from scratch..



Truthunter said:


> @oabeieo
> I'm sure your on to something ground breaking. I'm not quite understanding the exact steps though. Are APFs only applied where the HPFs would be (at the same freqs) or both HPFs and LPFs?


Will you PM me your phone number? Man I’ve been wanting to talk to you a whole bunch…

Anyway, The idea is to use the allpass filter to cause a shift that is identical to the shift that the crossover will make. 

Then remove the allpass when you’re done measuring and turn on your crossover, and that will net you linear phase, by means of linearization. 

Kind of like what Anu and bertholomy is doing by putting a flex or ddrc22 upstream , except for you don’t need the device up stream now. Can do it all in one go just by a little bit of manipulation on the way it sees the measurements

The only downside is your condempt to that crossover once you measure

That’s why I wrote do the normal method first and find the crossovers you like and get your tonality right first. Because once the allpass has become a part of the measurement you can’t undo that.


But in rephase the linearization works the same way. It just remove the crossover phase shift by adding reverse allpass, Dirac will fine tune that even more, because it will remove the allpass and any other issues that go along with it so the crossover should net Pure linear phase to that listening posttion.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I took some measurements and saw the phase shift…. It was precise and accurate. It linearized it perfectly. It works fantastic and doesn’t cause any weird crossover issues


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> So that you can get your tonality right…. For those that already have a tune going with the method , then there’s no need to do it twice…
> 
> I just wrote that as if you’re starting from scratch..
> 
> ...


So your first measurement is so you can figure out what crossover points work best, and what sort of curve you want to Dirac to tune to?
Dirac itself isn't using the first measurement, yeah?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> So your first measurement is so you can figure out what crossover points work best, and what sort of curve you want to Dirac to tune to?
> Dirac itself isn't using the first measurement, yeah?



Exactly….. because you can’t go back once the all pass it a part of the measurements…. Your stuck with that crossover.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Exactly….. because you can’t go back once the all pass it a part of the measurements…. Your stuck with that crossover.


Fantastic. I'm still taking measurements every other day or so trying to figure out what my car wants as far as measuring mic placements, but I'm going to give this a shot this weekend while the lady is away and I can spend hours listening to an uncountable number of aine sweeps lol


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> Will you PM me your phone number? Man I’ve been wanting to talk to you a whole bunch…
> 
> Anyway, The idea is to use the allpass filter to cause a shift that is identical to the shift that the crossover will make.
> 
> ...


I'll PM you my number... would be great to chat.

Thanks for the further explanation - that made it more clear to me the reasoning.

Just not sure if the APFs get applied to where all HPFs are planned or where both HPFs & LPFs are planned?

I'm testing out some pre-production Xcelsus drivers and plan a retune... would love to be able to add this new method to the mix


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Exiting stuff, guys. Curious to see where this leads. You're a mad scientist, oabeieo.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I'll PM you my number... would be great to chat.
> 
> Thanks for the further explanation - that made it more clear to me the reasoning.
> 
> ...


I haven’t heard of those , lookin them up rn 

Yeah I’m really curious what you think…. It’s very subtle differences…..

Being the method now presents almost perfect all pass behavior the phase shift is almost inaudible….. so linearizing it is almost not noticeable off the bat…

But as you listen you’ll notice the subs roll off stays in time with the midbass all the way through the rolloff…. That time smear is quite noticeable…. Everything else is Minute, but definitely better … more detail that stands out and a tad deeper more open stage all together


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Boy you sure condensed that but basically yes that’s exactly right
> 
> But if you would pretty please add the BW to your Manuel because I don’t think in one’s going to get confused if they’re running direc they’ll know what we mean


I've seen a couple of places that you are quite a fan of 3rd order Butterworth filters. This may not be the right place to ask(maybe it is since you've mentioned it here), but why do you seem to lean on those over the traditional knowledge of 4th order linkwitz?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> I've seen a couple of places that you are quite a fan of 3rd order Butterworth filters. This may not be the right place to ask(maybe it is since you've mentioned it here), but why do you seem to lean on those over the traditional knowledge of 4th order linkwitz?


I definitely don’t choose it over a LR4 
But I definitely don’t use them every time 
I actually prefer an LR2 most of the time.


The BW3 is cyclic just like a LR4 (meaning it’s one cycle out). It has a flat power responce where LR4 has a -3db hole (at crossover) 

So it has its advantages, read my phase shift explained thread (before it got bombarded by nonsense) I go into detail about it w screenshots 

It’s a good sounding filter for midbass to midrange. And a few other things


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> I definitely don’t choose it over a LR4
> But I definitely don’t use them every time
> I actually prefer an LR2 most of the time.
> 
> ...


So you say to use an apf 1.0 for the BW compensation here. It makes sense that you would use a 2nd order APF for a LR24 to compensate for the 360° phase rotation of that xo. But what order would you use on the bw18 since it's not a full 360° rotation?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> So you say to use an apf 1.0 for the BW compensation here. It makes sense that you would use a 2nd order APF for a LR24 to compensate for the 360° phase rotation of that xo. But what order would you use on the bw18 since it's not a full 360° rotation?


1st order all pass for BW12 (and would work well enough for LR2) although the Polarity flip on a 2nd order pretty much makes it linear phase so it’s not really super important to do it on those. 

2nd order Q=1 for Butt18
2nd order Q=0.7 for LR4

An LR8 would be a bicycle. (Hahahaha) 
A pair of APFs q.7 because a higher Q 1.4 would not do the same thing….

If someone did do an LR8 I don’t think Dirac has enough power to linearize it below 200hz 
I would put my money on it unwinding only part of it…

At 48k 4096 taps can get to 20hz, but attenuation would have ripple. Pretty badly and ring. I know Dirac wouldn’t let that happen. So I bet it would work above it. 

Someone would have to test. It might do something like add extra delay to the fronts to remove most of the wrap and then a funky all pass to remove the rest….. idk …. Someone would have to try


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Im retuning my car for the first time in a long time and i'm having a hard time justifying the recommended measurement box size in regards to upper midrange and tweeters. You can have 10-20db swings from just a few inches away in those frequencies and since we are generally using Dirac live for pre-XO corrections. I don't see why we can't use separate zones in a more intuitive way. I've been thinking about doing separate zones based on the idea of wavelengths. IE: subs and true midbass in zone 1 with the 9 measurements being based on the recommended pic in Dirac Live. As for zone 2. Making a MUCH smaller box. No more than 3-4inches from each ear and having zone 2 be midrange/tweeter. That would keep things far more accurate in the 2khz or so and up area.

I'd love some thoughts on this.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im retuning my car for the first time in a long time and i'm having a hard time justifying the recommended measurement box size in regards to upper midrange and tweeters. You can have 10-20db swings from just a few inches away in those frequencies and since we are generally using Dirac live for pre-XO corrections. I don't see why we can't use separate zones in a more intuitive way. I've been thinking about doing separate zones based on the idea of wavelengths. IE: subs and true midbass in zone 1 with the 9 measurements being based on the recommended pic in Dirac Live. As for zone 2. Making a MUCH smaller box. No more than 3-4inches from each ear and having zone 2 be midrange/tweeter. That would keep things far more accurate in the 2khz or so and up area.
> 
> I'd love some thoughts on this.


Why not just keep the measurment box small to begin with instead of doing it in groups? I've found with my brief time with dirac in the car that a fairly small box worked best for me when it comes to imaging. But I'm unsure how using a larger size box would benefit the mid/subbass tuning from the software.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Here’s a good read
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats a really fair point. 

My brain says the large box helps with averaging out some of the weird dips you can have in the lower midrange with longer wavelength frequencies. I've found that at certain points around your head. You can have very large holes in the FR due to weird cancellation standing waves.


----------



## dumdum (Feb 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> Yeah Dirac will make it the best it can be…even if it’s an abomination of a system it will still make it something decent.
> 
> what car is this? A Toyota ?


Only if you use an individual Dirac channel per driver, and bi amp the passives otherwise it can only correct the crossover region the same for both, so if they were 90 degrees out of phase it couldn’t correct for that if they were on the same Dirac channel if that makes sense, so timing would be incorrect


----------



## doeboy (May 2, 2012)

How do people handle having more channels than actual Dirac channels available for tuning? Would it just be a matter of tuning the additional speakers manually?


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

doeboy said:


> How do people handle having more channels than actual Dirac channels available for tuning? Would it just be a matter of tuning the additional speakers manually?


I believe so.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> 1st order all pass for BW12 (and would work well enough for LR2) although the Polarity flip on a 2nd order pretty much makes it linear phase so it’s not really super important to do it on those.
> 
> 2nd order Q=1 for Butt18
> 2nd order Q=0.7 for LR4
> ...


When you're setting an all pass, I'm confused slightly. You're mentioning Q, but what about the frequency?

Are you suggesting we have an all pass filter of 3000Hz, for a LR24 HPF at 3000Hz?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> When you're setting an all pass, I'm confused slightly. You're mentioning Q, but what about the frequency?
> 
> Are you suggesting we have an all pass filter of 3000Hz, for a LR24 HPF at 3000Hz?


Sorta , frequency is same as crossover and the all pass is temporary!!! Don’t leave it on 

It’s only to mimic the crossover phase shift , then be turned off after Dirac when crossovers are turned on


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> Sorta , frequency is same as crossover and the all pass is temporary!!! Don’t leave it on
> 
> It’s only to mimic the crossover phase shift , then be turned off after Dirac when crossovers are turned on


Yep, did some reading and figured that out. I always assumed it was temporary, as I was trying to simulate the group delay of the filter that DIRAC "can't" measure. 

Just finished a first pass, and the big thing I notice right off the bat? Bass is more forward. Previously, my to do list included poking at delays for that, but this solved it, and it makes sense at to why. 

Very cool trick, the only annoying thing is that MiniDSP's biquad calculator doesn't have a txt output to copy paste, and I'm too lazy to write one.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

I just got back from Brasil yesterday afternoon, but wanted to try the new method. 

I completed a 7 channel run last night with Anu’s help. Pulled up the PlugIn, put in the All Pass Filters, ran the 7 channel, then bypassed the All Pass Filters 1 turning on the crossovers. 

I only had time to listen to 1 or 2 tracks - sounded excellent, and I believe I experienced the same phenomenon as above - bass seemed a bit more forward and and a bit more elevated in the stage. When I get back from Miami, I’ll compare to the previous version of this tune. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

bertholomey said:


> I just got back from Brasil yesterday afternoon, but wanted to try the new method.
> 
> I completed a 7 channel run last night with Anu’s help. Pulled up the PlugIn, put in the All Pass Filters, ran the 7 channel, then bypassed the All Pass Filters 1 turning on the crossovers.
> 
> ...


I mean, this all makes sense.

we can't locate bass easily, and now we're eliminating the phase shift from the LR24 filters.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

This is Fantastic we’re all getting similar results!


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> This is Fantastic we’re all getting similar results!


Honestly, this process is mechanical. There is no reason for it to be so. I hope MiniDSP or Dirac is taking notes, because the methodology with that can be automated for easier/better results.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@ean611 - where would you utilize automated processes?

This guide is posted over on the MiniDSP community forum, but no idea if anyone from MiniDSP actually read the guide or is following along on here.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

steelwindmachine said:


> @ean611 - where would you utilize automated processes?
> 
> This guide is posted over on the MiniDSP community forum, but no idea if anyone from MiniDSP actually read the guide or is following along on here.


What I'd automate:

1. Set up filters pre-dirac. Set up all filters as you want them in final setup.
2. automatically calculate all pass filters "equivalents" and apply them on every channel.
3. DIRAC
4. Automatically turn off all pass filters and restore previous filters.

Leaves less room for error.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I agree, I hope the techs at miniDSP & Dirac see all the innovative approaches our resident lunatics here (I mean that as a term of endearment) have taken the time & effort to come up with, and find a way to incorporate them into their software.


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

the XO after DIRAC are arbitrary based on your interpretation of the DIRAC measurements. that probably can’t be automated without some sort of more intensive algorithms


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’ve been sending emails to them
And I hope everybody is talking about this in their email questionnaire that they sent out


We have to let them know that we want it overly complicated with as many user definable features as humanly possible… 

They’re already sort of doing that in other systems that use a true bass management, where it automatically assigns the subwoofer in highs crossover within Dirac….

Something is coming that will automate it I’m pretty sure and they are listening to us

They have a send us a message thing in their website it’s definitely worth sending them a line and suggesting some thing like what we’re doing it got to be able to talk to the Mini DSP outputs which right now we can’t. And that is why Mini DSP does not have the full feature bass management. 

It might be a platform change down the road who knows but I would be willing to sell this processor and get a different one if that meant having that kind of control


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> They’re already sort of doing that in other systems that use a true bass management, where it automatically assigns the subwoofer in highs crossover within Dirac….
> 
> Something is coming that will automate it I’m pretty sure and they are listening to us


I think you are talking about "Bass Control" where it will suggest a range of xovers which could be applied in the Dirac App for the sub/mains. And perhaps they are working on something that will do that for a full spectrum active setup.

I had asked MiniDSP about incorporating Bass Control into the 8x12 but IIRC they mentioned the hardware isn't up to the task. So perhaps they are working on a more advanced automotive DL processor? I too would be willing to upgrade.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @ean611 - where would you utilize automated processes?
> 
> This guide is posted over on the MiniDSP community forum, but no idea if anyone from MiniDSP actually read the guide or is following along on here.


A few are , the ddrc88 isn’t as popular as ppl buy the 8x12 for more features even for home studio use


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Truthunter said:


> I think you are talking about "Bass Control" where it will suggest a range of xovers which could be applied in the Dirac App for the sub/mains. And perhaps they are working on something that will do that for a full spectrum active setup.
> 
> I had asked MiniDSP about incorporating Bass Control into the 8x12 but IIRC they mentioned the hardware isn't up to the task. So perhaps they are working on a more advanced automotive DL processor? I too would be willing to upgrade.


Aah yes I think I remember that….

I saw a video where it optimizes the bass by using all the speakers bass output and phase responce to make perfect bass 

Yeah minidsp told me that it needs access to the outputs crossovers which Dirac has its own block and can’t go past that in minidsp 
But of course there working on it (lol of course) 

Something like that where it has access to the outputs , it could do a killer multi-way …. Once it is ever to fruition I bet it’s amazing


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

So did my first retune last night with APFs applied for the Dirac Measurements as @oabeieo discovered and shared above.

The differences are subtle but I can confirm what others have said already:

1. Up front sub bass stability has improved. There are certain tracks where before the sub bass sounded more just to come from everywhere and would localize to the rear if I turned my head. Now the impression is that it is up front and stays there with my head turned.

2. Stage height seems more stable across the stage giving the impression that it is higher overall.

3. Ambience and sense of space is improved. Even with the previous methods - ambience was very very good but now it sounds even better. Speaker locations have disappeared even more so than before.

Thanks @oabeieo for sharing your mad scientist skills with the rest of us! 🤓


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@Truthunter - might a revision be in order or adendum to the guide be made to include the process that @oabeieo suggested?

@Anu2g - thoughts?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

And also keep in mind everyone that there are a few small exceptions here …

To do 48db slopes (which btw is like ****ing magic between a mid and tweet) just cascade two APFs for that filter) 

Also 

You can also use this to acomidate for the phase at a crossover where there’s a dip….. 

For example if you do a 48db linearization amd only apply a 24db filter it will have all pass behavior just like a normal crossover but it will go backwards in the time domain (the LP will lead instead of the HP)!! 

Imagine some of the uses for this in measured phase !!!! 


Do that in the butt18 filter set like I described in my crossover phase thread and run the butt backwards and you move the lobe for one and they sum linear phase! Pretty cool tricks


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @Truthunter - might a revision be in order or adendum to the guide be made to include the process that @oabeieo suggested?
> 
> @Anu2g - thoughts?



I believe Anu is working on something 

So I’ll run some sims today and get a complete list of APFs that match as many crossovers as possible…


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @Truthunter - might a revision be in order or adendum to the guide be made to include the process that @oabeieo suggested?
> 
> @Anu2g - thoughts?


I feel the guide's target audience should remain new users. Sweeping and correcting driver's without xovers is already non-tradtional and new ground for some. And likely most never heard of or used an APF in the past. Maybe an addendum or a "advanced" or "stage 2" guide could include this new information?


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Truthunter said:


> I feel the guide's target audience should remain new users. Sweeping and correcting driver's without xovers is already non-tradtional and new ground for some. And likely most never heard of or used and APF in the past. Maybe an addendum or a "advanced" or "stage 2" guide could include this new information?


That makes perfect sense to me. The existing guide is easy to follow & understand, and gets great results quickly. This is my first DSP & there's a learning curve for people like me. And the existing guide is actually easier than when I first started learning it. (Thanks, Ryan!) After having gotten used to the process, I'll be comfortable trying the "advanced" additions next time I tune, but it likely would have been a bit too much to absorb initially.


----------



## teh_squirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

hella356 said:


> That makes perfect sense to me. The existing guide is easy to follow & understand, and gets great results quickly. This is my first DSP & there's a learning curve for people like me. And the existing guide is actually easier than when I first started learning it. (Thanks, Ryan!) After having gotten used to the process, I'll be comfortable trying the "advanced" additions next time I tune, but it likely would have been a bit too much to absorb initially.


I just upgraded my cdsp8x12 to DL and I'm getting ready to do the first few run throughs. The most subjective part seems like choosing the crossovers. It makes sense that you would want dirac to take the shift into consideration when processing. I'll have more time to read and poke around while I wait for the activation code to come


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> I believe Anu is working on something
> 
> So I’ll run some sims today and get a complete list of APFs that match as many crossovers as possible…


Send those to me whenever you have them and/or post them here.



Truthunter said:


> I feel the guide's target audience should remain new users. Sweeping and correcting driver's without xovers is already non-tradtional and new ground for some. And likely most never heard of or used an APF in the past. Maybe an addendum or a "advanced" or "stage 2" guide could include this new information?


Yep; it'll become an addendum. I wanted to redo the optional iterations section at the end anyways. I'll be putting new pillars into my rig in a week and a half, and then will go through the process above and outline it for an update to the guide; not replacing the old way, just adding it as a potential "advanced" add-on for people looking to iterate.

FYI, I've been in touch with Andy, Ryan, Jason, and others as we "vet" the new process; but just putting it on record that I never doubted Andy's suggestion that this method would be great


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Anu2g said:


> Send those to me whenever you have them and/or post them here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah you could do a minimum phase setup and a linear phase setup and call it as such 

I will get on it today and get it to you, I’ll text you some screenshots also 

And thanks! 

Yeah there’s benefits to both styles….. or a big benefit to mixed phase… partial linear phase and partial minimum phase…. Like doing the sub for sure linear phase and midbass to midrange as well and leaving the tweet to be done minimum phase…

Or a mix of whatever floats someone’s boat honestly 


When I tuned the Hyundai (I have a build page for that) I did 4 configs and with different mics and the #1 config slot was the 1st tune that was all minimum phase amd I left it as it sounded fantastic and had a hard time deleting it. Lol 

But yeah having both options would be stellar


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Here’s a few more settings that will work….
These sims show the all pass playing in reverse time, there not a normal all pass. That is so I can sim the expected behavior. If it was a normal all pass with the crossover it would show double the phase twist. 


And I was wrong about the LR8 !!!

LR8 is a cascade of two allpass one Q.5 and one Q1.4

The BW18 shows a 90° offset…. But worry not they will sum linear phase! The fact the offset is running backwards will sum at 0 and still have the side lobe and still have a flat power response!!! This is a little badass for off axis speakers….(I’ll post another screenshot below)


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Reading these last few posts, I need to find some time to try the method using the APF. Some of the benefits described are the small things where I think I could do with some improvement.

Might have to try this weekend 👍


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

naiku said:


> Reading these last few posts, I need to find some time to try the method using the APF. Some of the benefits described are the small things where I think I could do with some improvement.
> 
> Might have to try this weekend 👍


Yeah buddy ,
{Hey guys he finally comes out from hiding} (kidding 🤪)

let’s us know your settings and what u think


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Here is the BW18 and the summed response is in green! Completely flat phase.

the 1st pic is the sum second is what Dirac will do in a sim , there the same

(I’m case someone was wondering why the BW18 showed a 90 and not flat phase as the other pics above in previous post)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So here are the different options in APF for Dirac linearization

LR12, 1st order APF (with polarity flip post Dirac on LPF) ((must use minidsp spreadsheet to calculate biquads for 1st order) 

BW18, 2nd order APF Q=1
LR24, 2nd order APF Q=0.707 (or.7)
LR48, 2nd order APF Q=1.4 and Q=0.5
BW24, 2nd order APF Q=0.865


----------



## teh_squirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> So here are the different options in APF for Dirac linearization
> 
> LR12, 1st order APF (with polarity flip post Dirac on LPF) ((must use minidsp spreadsheet to calculate biquads for 1st order)
> 
> ...


I saw you mention BW for midbass to midrange (not sure I think you meant BW18), but I'm wondering what the go to crossover types are for most people running dirac. I know the guide mentions LR24 as an example. So... *What is everybody using for their XO types for which transitions?*


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

teh_squirrel said:


> I saw you mention BW for midbass to midrange (not sure I think you meant BW18), but I'm wondering what the go to crossover types are for most people running dirac. I know the guide mentions LR24 as an example. So... *What is everybody using for their XO types for which transitions?*


I've been using LR24 for everything: 70, 250, 3000hz


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

oabeieo said:


> {Hey guys he finally comes out from hiding} (kidding 🤪)


Haha yep, things been busy here... Started a new job the beginning of May, trying to get a detached garage built etc.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

teh_squirrel said:


> I saw you mention BW for midbass to midrange (not sure I think you meant BW18), but I'm wondering what the go to crossover types are for most people running dirac. I know the guide mentions LR24 as an example. So... *What is everybody using for their XO types for which transitions?*


there is a huge thing going and has been ongoing that LR4 (Linkwitz 24db) is the only one to use..

that is false (although it is an excellent choice) and very possibly could be the best for your system as they work really good 

if you read my crossover phase shift thread it might make some sense. But go with what works the best, NOT what someone tells you is the best

Every speaker will act different in each _diffrent_ environment and all the variables that go with that (power,location,etc etc)

BW18 is not the best as there is no best, but for off axis and for Issues where the left behaves differently from the right or can be a useful tool.
I go into detail on that thread









Crossover Phase Shift Explained


I have been asked by a bunch of you to post some illustrations. Here are some things I hope can help. 1st off. The idea of using an APF to get rid of phase shift from a crossover is complete nonsense. The phase shift of the all pass goes in the wrong direction. An out of band all pass can help...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> So here are the different options in APF for Dirac linearization
> 
> LR12, 1st order APF (with polarity flip post Dirac on LPF) ((must use minidsp spreadsheet to calculate biquads for 1st order)
> 
> ...


The only thing I see in the MiniDSP sheet is second order all pass. Not sure where you'd get first order.

Just asking to clarify, as I only need second order, but want to make sure I understand correctly.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> The only thing I see in the MiniDSP sheet is second order all pass. Not sure where you'd get first order.
> 
> Just asking to clarify, as I only need second order, but want to make sure I understand correctly.


min the 8x12 you can choose “all pass” instead of peak (eq)
That is second order

in the minidsp sheet you can calculate 1st order and use advanced biquads to copy and past coefficients into advanced peq slot

1st order is not a 360deg turn but a 180deg so it’s Q can not be changed (as the nature of its derivative of a conjugate high pass and Lowpaß) which I believe is Q0.5 IIrC 

I believe first order all pass is on the first page of the spreadsheet in the lower left hand bank if I remember correctly, then make sure you’re sampling at 48K!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

You can use other calculators 
Minidsp uses IEEE 32 bit floating point coefficients


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> min the 8x12 you can choose “all pass” instead of peak (eq)
> That is second order
> 
> in the minidsp sheet you can calculate 1st order and use advanced biquads to copy and past coefficients into advanced peq slot
> ...


Awesome. This is what I thought. Just wanted to be 100% clear.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I just loaded the minidsp sheet and don’t see 1st order in APF tab I think it’s in extras tab


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> So here are the different options in APF for Dirac linearization
> 
> LR12, 1st order APF (with polarity flip post Dirac on LPF) ((must use minidsp spreadsheet to calculate biquads for 1st order)
> 
> ...


So is this essentially a complete group of settings for APF for this new approach? I'll be re-tuning in about a week. Thanks for the effort, maestro!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> So is this essentially a complete group of settings for APF for this new approach? I'll be re-tuning in about a week. Thanks for the effort, maestro!


yes sir…. No problem

i Did a tune yesterday using all LR4 and my goodness it turned out good…..the phase And summing was better then what I was getting using minimum phase LR2

this method really does good on LR4


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Cool, I've been using LR24 already, so that's great to hear. Woohoo!


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> yes sir…. No problem
> 
> i Did a tune yesterday using all LR4 and my goodness it turned out good…..the phase And summing was better then what I was getting using minimum phase LR2
> 
> this method really does good on LR4


SO.....after playing with the calculator....I noticed that the MiniDSP software can directly set APF.








For those who just use LR24, or anything that the basic second order covers? Can just do this here. Wish I saw this earlier...would have saved me time.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

ean611 said:


> SO.....after playing with the calculator....I noticed that the MiniDSP software can directly set APF.
> View attachment 339666
> 
> For those who just use LR24, or anything that the basic second order covers? Can just do this here. Wish I saw this earlier...would have saved me time.


Indeed. Only time you're going to need to calc biquads are for 1st order APF. Second can all be done with variable Q through choosing that filter type in EQ settings.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Indeed. Only time you're going to need to calc biquads are for 1st order APF. Second can all be done with variable Q through choosing that filter type in EQ settings.


now the issue I have: Bought ARC RS3.0 and they're running IB in doors. Found they REALLY don't like DIRAC, in the sense that they hit XMAX quickly, and do not have any space to go past xmax, so voice coil can't go further. This means doing a full sweep without a filter is not really possible on them, as don't want to risk damage to the drivers at low frequencies. 200 2nd order HPF at a minimum needed. Now I just need to figure out how to set this up given that limitation.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

So the idea here is to first determine what crossover points/slopes work best. As in, let's say I use REW to arrive at (for example) 80/600/3500 at LR24 as a good solution. I then disable the crossovers, use APF that match (in this case Q=0.7 in place each of the low and high pass LR4 crossover), run Dirac, go back to the plug-in and remove the APF and re-enable the crossovers?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

awesome !!!!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> So the idea here is to first determine what crossover points/slopes work best. As in, let's say I use REW to arrive at (for example) 80/600/3500 at LR24 as a good solution. I then disable the crossovers, use APF that match (in this case Q=0.7 in place each of the low and high pass LR4 crossover), run Dirac, go back to the plug-in and remove the APF and re-enable the crossovers?


So you don’t want to use REW so much….

you want to do a run on Dirac with no crossovers and no APFs and use that to determine your desired crossovers…. Simply what has the best imaging cues and staging attributes and tonality.

then go back and run Dirac again with the APFs on and crossovers off , then turn off APFs and crossovers on when Dirac is over

The crossovers will sound completely different post dirac then they would with a REW tune….

dirac changes the timing in ways that will alter the crossovers so much that a REW tune won’t be anything like it…. Dirac does a far better job then what can be done in REW for one , but the timing changes simply invalidates any REW work.

It’s sorta like how after Dirac any peq in any modal areas can destroy the ambiance and make the tune sound flat, because the peq is at the wrong time.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

OK, that's even easier! Perfect. I'm upgrading my mids and midbasses before I run this new method, so won't be able to a true before/after test, but looking forward to giving it a go.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> OK, that's even easier! Perfect. I'm upgrading my mids and midbasses before I run this new method, so won't be able to a true before/after test, but looking forward to giving it a go.


i would keep your minimum phase tune as preset 1 and make the new one on preset 2 so you can audition them , you’ll still very much appreciate the minimum phase version and you’ll discover what you want to do on preset 3 and 4 for mixed phase


----------



## teh_squirrel (Jan 16, 2020)

oabeieo said:


> So you don’t want to use REW so much….
> 
> you want to do a run on Dirac with no crossovers and no APFs and use that to determine your desired crossovers…. Simply what has the best imaging cues and staging attributes and tonality.
> 
> ...


Choosing the crossover points, I think dirac just shows you the response of the different drivers, how do you get information about staging and tonality? I know in REW you just choose based on where the responses best meet.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

teh_squirrel said:


> Choosing the crossover points, I think dirac just shows you the response of the different drivers, how do you get information about staging and tonality? I know in REW you just choose based on where the responses best meet.


so you do a full tune with crossovers off in Dirac (and NO APFs)

after Dirac, play around with crossovers and slopes and such and frequencies until you find what you like

then do another tune with crossovers off (and APFs ON that match your XOs)

then after that run of Dirac go turn on the crossovers and OFF the APFs and done

You get information by a listen and test tracks 
And trial and error on crossovers….. because once locked in on an APF tune your stuck with those crossovers


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

ean611 said:


> now the issue I have: Bought ARC RS3.0 and they're running IB in doors. Found they REALLY don't like DIRAC, in the sense that they hit XMAX quickly, and do not have any space to go past xmax, so voice coil can't go further. This means doing a full sweep without a filter is not really possible on them, as don't want to risk damage to the drivers at low frequencies. 200 2nd order HPF at a minimum needed. Now I just need to figure out how to set this up given that limitation.


How loud is the dirac sweep playing to the ear? It shouldn't be crazy loud. I would make sure your mic gain is set appropriately. I'm using focal mw3.5s IB and they have no issue with the sweep. Not even close to xmax


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> How loud is the dirac sweep playing to the ear? It shouldn't be crazy loud. I would make sure your mic gain is set appropriately. I'm using focal mw3.5s IB and they have no issue with the sweep. Not even close to xmax


yeah I agree

I’ve tuned almost 1008x12s now and all of them end up being between -47db and -32db with mic gain at 0 with minidsp mic (or +12 for umm6 or xlr mic)


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

Would anyone be willing to post up their mic cal file they use for dirac?
I'm trying to use the audiofrog cal file, and it doesn't like it it any form, txt, cal, or FRD. So. Hoping to hand copy my mics cal info to a known usable by Dirac cal file. Thank ya!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Would anyone be willing to post up their mic cal file they use for dirac?
> I'm trying to use the audiofrog cal file, and it doesn't like it it any form, txt, cal, or FRD. So. Hoping to hand copy my mics cal info to a known usable by Dirac cal file. Thank ya!


all cal files should read as a Inverse impulse (sorta)

just open your cal file in notepad and make a copy save the copy as (and you have to put the quotes to change the file extension)

“mycalfile.frd”


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> all cal files should read as a Inverse impulse (sorta)
> 
> just open your cal file in notepad and make a copy save the copy as (and you have to put the quotes to change the file extension)
> 
> “mycalfile.frd”


It seemed like it changed the extension without adding quotes. I tool the orig file name and changed it from audiofrogblahblah.txt to audiofrogblahblah.frd and it said it changed the extension as it should with the old "this file may not be readable after changing" prompt. Still no dice last night.
I'll try again with quotes later today


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

That’s why I always make a copy of it first so if I **** up I can go back and try again


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

ean611 said:


> now the issue I have: Bought ARC RS3.0 and they're running IB in doors. Found they REALLY don't like DIRAC, in the sense that they hit XMAX quickly, and do not have any space to go past xmax, so voice coil can't go further. This means doing a full sweep without a filter is not really possible on them, as don't want to risk damage to the drivers at low frequencies. 200 2nd order HPF at a minimum needed. Now I just need to figure out how to set this up given that limitation.


Well. I "Fixed" this problem.









*







*

Bye Bye MECA Street class. 

Hello either Modified or Extreme.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

Now if I can just get my center image to line up exactly right. Playing with box locations.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> Now if I can just get my center image to line up exactly right. Playing with box locations.


it should be dead on balls center of car

the box, rear measurements, top of head right next to head , and shoulders under ears

forward , parallel with rears about 10-12” forward , so box is not super wide. About 10” wide

then if you have the left speakers playing a tiny bit too loud (left dash speakers or pillars or sails are notorious) move the top forward left measurement about 6-10” closer to that speaker (and that depends how forward you sit And how far speaker are relative to your box)

get that one measurement point closer to offensive speaker will add a little reduction of energy in the sum of the measurements. So it won’t turn it down too much and it won’t negatively affect its averages. It will smooth the averages while attenuating the channel that needs it.

I’ve never had the right too loud , only left dash or upper speakers…. It’s nice doing it in the average instead of post Dirac channel cutting because it smooths it to ajacent speaker better


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> it should be dead on balls center of car
> 
> the box, rear measurements, top of head right next to head , and shoulders under ears
> 
> ...


This is my plan. Also going to use higher volume. Found for my car it seems to help


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

Also, I use a tripod and am tuning while outside the car. not sure if my head transfer function matters much\


EDIT: Didn't re-measure primary point (nose tip). Re did all others. Yeah, head transfer function may help


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> Also, I use a tripod and am tuning while outside the car. not sure if my head transfer function matters much\
> 
> 
> EDIT: Didn't re-measure primary point (nose tip). Re did all others. Yeah, head transfer function may help


sit in the car…..recline seat for rear measurement or all measurements… yes get your body in there , your body absorbs a ton of energy, make that a part of correction

see where your ears are (probably parallel with B pillars or seatbelt pulley) and do 1st measurement between your ears ….. where they would be

having the seat reclined allows you to get your microphone tip where it should be easily.
Just the tip lol

Don’t point your microphone directly at the ceiling pointed out about 45° you can use either 90° or 0° calibration file whatever floats your boat but don’t pointed directly at the ceiling pointed down just a little bit and it will work optimally


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

@oabeieo - really need that video from you of this procedure  Come on, I know you got a smart phone right? 

Another idea for the especially OCD among us would be to take some string and cut it to length and hand from the headliner with blue painter's tape to mark out the measurement "box" for repeatability in 3D space as you're reclined back. Measure with the mic at the bottom of each string as tilted per oabeio's instructions.


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - really need that video from you of this procedure  Come on, I know you got a smart phone right?
> 
> Another idea for the especially OCD among us would be to take some string and cut it to length and hand from the headliner with blue painter's tape to mark out the measurement "box" for repeatability in 3D space as you're reclined back. Measure with the mic at the bottom of each string as tilted per oabeio's instructions.


Brilliant on the string my guy. My locations have no easy point of comparison when I lean back. So this should work great


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> @oabeieo - really need that video from you of this procedure  Come on, I know you got a smart phone right?
> 
> Another idea for the especially OCD among us would be to take some string and cut it to length and hand from the headliner with blue painter's tape to mark out the measurement "box" for repeatability in 3D space as you're reclined back. Measure with the mic at the bottom of each string as tilted per oabeio's instructions.


fine lol I’ll do it tonite

and no silly string!!!

Remember I’m the guy that full-blown mocks anyone that does impulse response time alignment to one point in space….

The tweeter is the only speaker in the car with wavelength short enough for that crap to matter

nobody can hold their head that still

Dirac is absolutely repeatable every single time all you need is a box it doesn’t have to be perfect every single time that does nothing for you

just get your first measurement in between your ears and the rest of them approximately in the right area and it will work fine….

In fact what if you’re perfectly designed a little box it’s that one little tiny spot that is destructive and you repeat it over and over again… where the car actually is not destructive it’s just that one little micro spot

lol …… if your OCD just clean your car do some detail work or something else to preoccupy your time lol 😎😻🐈🐭


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Brilliant on the string my guy. My locations have no easy point of comparison when I lean back. So this should work great


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

lol ……. Please guys let’s not fall for this gimmick. It’s a bit ridiculous…..


----------



## steelwindmachine (May 15, 2017)

of course we take stuff to the nth-degree 

who says we don't detail? I keep a micro-fiber in my console to "dust" my interior when my OCD spikes 

but in all seriousness, just follow oabeio's practical advice. I'm just a nutter


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

steelwindmachine said:


> of course we take stuff to the nth-degree
> 
> who says we don't detail? I keep a micro-fiber in my console to "dust" my interior when my OCD spikes
> 
> but in all seriousness, just follow oabeio's practical advice. I'm just a nutter


lol…. Okay okay …. As you were then 😀😝🤓

And if it makes you feel better , I have a actual detailer duster in my door pocket 

people have asked me if I wear makeup lol


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> lol ……. Please guys let’s not fall for this gimmick. It’s a bit ridiculous…..


Oh my friend, i thought you were ocd as well hahah


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Oh my friend, i thought you were ocd as well hahah


not like that…. My goodness….. I would go crazy with strings draped all over me while measuring a car lol


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> not like that…. My goodness….. I would go crazy with strings draped all over me while measuring a car lol


Just think of it like streamers because your having a party in the car


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

No video tonite 
Wife shut me down…. I’ll do it soon


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Few questions:
1. Do you usually separate the outputs into groups with different curtains for the group? (for example - I know dirac likes to boost my midbass lows and it's very noticeable).
2, Do you use new dirac auto curve or manual curve?
3. If the sub response in the filter design is say at 6db and I raise the auto curve to +12 db - it's not good?
4. Do you always make 9 measurements for the tune or it can be done with just 1 measurement?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> Few questions:
> 1. Do you usually separate the outputs into groups with different curtains for the group? (for example - I know dirac likes to boost my midbass lows and it's very noticeable).
> 2, Do you use new dirac auto curve or manual curve?
> 3. If the sub response in the filter design is say at 6db and I raise the auto curve to +12 db - it's not good?
> 4. Do you always make 9 measurements for the tune or it can be done with just 1 measurement?


the less measurements the worse it sounds

do whatever curve you like ,

i like the auto curve, it works,I also like all the way flat on highs 

and yes each pair of speakers has its own group


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Thanks!
Did the 7channel tune again yesterday with all speakers in 1 group and got midbass overload again. Will be separating into groups with curtains.

If the rta after isn't as you wanted (some peaks left). What should I do ? Pull the house curve lower in Dirac? OR EQ after Dirac?


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> sit in the car…..recline seat for rear measurement or all measurements… yes get your body in there , your body absorbs a ton of energy, make that a part of correction
> 
> see where your ears are (probably parallel with B pillars or seatbelt pulley) and do 1st measurement between your ears ….. where they would be
> 
> ...


I did point at ceiling, redid tune. Just picked up 81.5 points in MECA, and that is with some rattles I have unfixed, and a low stage height. Time to play with aiming of my tweets and mids.

Also to Datooff's question, I use a modified Harman curve, as in addition to what oabeieo says, you will find that your car may have oddities that require deviations from a "standard" curve. I use Dirac in my home theater, and the default 3.3+ auto curves in the Dirac application work wonderfully in my home. For my cars, there are always tweaks. For instance, the "normal" Harman curve does not handle my tiny MX-5 well on the bass side, because the cabin gain comes in much earlier than most cars due to very tiny cabin, so I need a tiny bit less from 80-120 to balance that out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> Thanks!
> Did the 7channel tune again yesterday with all speakers in 1 group and got midbass overload again. Will be separating into groups with curtains.
> 
> If the rta after isn't as you wanted (some peaks left). What should I do ? Pull the house curve lower in Dirac? OR EQ after Dirac?


No no no !!!!!

not one group!!!

tweets get a group

mids get a group

midbass get a group

sub gets a group

Use BM properly also (do no use a LPF on sub output , and do not use a HPF on midbass output)

All one group to start

draw your target , then break down into pairs of groups , then curtain off at the knee of the responses

and make sure your crossovers are off on everything when measurements are being made except tweeter put at 1khz


all one group would have Dirac boost into all of the stop bands ….. bad bad bad , saturations saturations saturations!!

no rta after…. Rta is spacial averages (that adds more information, it takes all the responses from all the different points in space and add them together)

dirac uses time averages (which removes room information) then adds all those together.

You’ll get different results, rta will say there’s peaks and dips when in fact there’s not… try and “fix” it will destroy the ambiance and room correction Dirac just did…

look , Dirac works great , it just needs very good accurate measurements and will do what it does , your setup and install will say weather something is wrong…..

Try doing a 3 ch Dirac and listen to that first and get a feel for it


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> I did point at ceiling, redid tune. Just picked up 81.5 points in MECA, and that is with some rattles I have unfixed, and a low stage height. Time to play with aiming of my tweets and mids.
> 
> Also to Datooff's question, I use a modified Harman curve, as in addition to what oabeieo says, you will find that your car may have oddities that require deviations from a "standard" curve. I use Dirac in my home theater, and the default 3.3+ auto curves in the Dirac application work wonderfully in my home. For my cars, there are always tweaks. For instance, the "normal" Harman curve does not handle my tiny MX-5 well on the bass side, because the cabin gain comes in much earlier than most cars due to very tiny cabin, so I need a tiny bit less from 80-120 to balance that out.


81.5 is that good?


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> 81.5 is that good?


That is very good…..in my experience - depends on the judge - if it is a respectable judge - then that is a great score. 

In my experience - most ‘good’ cars score in the low to mid 70s for MECA. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bertholomey said:


> That is very good…..in my experience - depends on the judge - if it is a respectable judge - then that is a great score.
> 
> In my experience - most ‘good’ cars score in the low to mid 70s for MECA.
> 
> ...


the cars I had in the show I hosted , the lowest was 94, the highest 190

i can’t remember iasca or meca tho the points ….

The car that was 94 got a 94 only because his L and R were backwards and he couldn’t score imaging or staging


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> all one group would have Dirac boost into all of the stop bands ….. bad bad bad , saturations saturations saturations!!


Thanks! This is exactly the problem I can hear - the unnecesary boost with just all speakers in all groups.
But the latest guides for the 7 channel tune don't stress the importance of splitting them in groups and give this as an option., or maybe I didn't understood this.



oabeieo said:


> dirac uses time averages (which removes room information) then adds all those together.
> You’ll get different results, rta will say there’s peaks and dips when in fact there’s not… try and “fix” it will destroy the ambiance and room correction Dirac just did…


So REW rta after dirac may show unperfect response, but in reality it's what Dirac shows as the "corrected" response in filter design tab?

EQ after dirac may ruin the sound, what about the PEQ - only for some peaks?


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> 81.5 is that good?





bertholomey said:


> That is very good…..in my experience - depends on the judge - if it is a respectable judge - then that is a great score.
> 
> In my experience - most ‘good’ cars score in the low to mid 70s for MECA.
> 
> ...


This was MECA in CA. Linda was the judge.

She's one of the strictest judges out there.

For comparison, scale goes to 100

high score of the day was 85 from Nick Adams. Robert Boyd, who has an amazing car that typically wins everything in class (Modified Street), was 80.5.

And my stage was super low despite things, (tweeter aim issue, etc), and I lost a point or two there. I also have some rattles to track down because, well, it's a MX5 Miata, not some overbuilt German car.

I think there are at least 2-3 more points I can wrangle out of this, as this was literally less than 1 week of playing with the setup, and before the competition, I swapped in a new amp, (same model, will send old for fixes), and re-tuned DIRAC in the parking lot waiting to be judged.

Bottom line? The All Pass Filter trick? If you were in doubt before, it is that good.



EDIT:
before I did pods, I had 79 points from Richard as Judge (Street), then 76.42 points (Street) with a worse setup/tune (was trying a few things, they didn't work). I've been doing competition for a while, on and off. If you're doing MECA, there's another set of things. For a "normal" car? Dirac freaking rules. It does an amazing job getting 95% of the tuning job that one would do manually out of the way. And the phase handing cannot be done otherwise.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> Thanks! This is exactly the problem I can hear - the unnecesary boost with just all speakers in all groups.
> But the latest guides for the 7 channel tune don't stress the importance of splitting them in groups and give this as an option., or maybe I didn't understood this.
> 
> 
> ...



just ignore what RTA says …..

the “peaks” on rta are not peaks…. You’ll ruin the sound and ambiance…. The depth will collapse and won’t sound as good

The manual does say split into groups , and every step is important…

so yes , split them into groups of pairs after you draw your target , then curtain off to the knee of each pair of responses.

start over and don’t run to rta , stop. Dirac uses far more advanced way of measuring…. RTA is additive… 

on a purely minimum phase dsp live rta is the best way …. On a linear phase dsp , rta is not optiamal as it has more ability to see deeper into things

So I will add, frequencies above 4K you can use peq and it won’t negatively affect the correction


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> This was MECA in CA. Linda was the judge.
> 
> She's one of the strictest judges out there.
> 
> ...


Oh snap okay okay …… wow …. Then that’s really good!!


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> Oh snap okay okay …… wow …. Then that’s really good!!


California is super competitive, so yeah "good" like that won't net much trophy wise. There are so many folks out here that really know what they're doing.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

ean611 said:


> California is super competitive, so yeah "good" like that won't net much trophy wise. There are so many folks out here that really know what they're doing.


I think Linda and Richard are excellent judges, and Nick Adams has an incredible car…..you are in great company, and you are getting great feedback. 

The interesting thing will be - with Dirac - when they give you suggestions to tweak - what kinds of things you will able to do to complete those tweaks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’m tuning a really awesome car , going for round 2 next week , I promised secrecy, but it’s full blown rephase correction done right with some truly exotic gear…. That’s all I can divulge… 

thing is amazing!!! Super excited! Can’t wait to hear it corrected , so far just the minimum phase portion is superb, once we get the phase corrected it should be pretty hard to beat.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

bertholomey said:


> I think Linda and Richard are excellent judges, and Nick Adams has an incredible car…..you are in great company, and you are getting great feedback.
> 
> The interesting thing will be - with Dirac - when they give you suggestions to tweak - what kinds of things you will able to do to complete those tweaks.
> 
> ...


Depends on the feedback. You have to use the tools that you have. 

For instance, I needed to add a bit of bass at 63-80 to the front mid bass, and drop it from sub. Crossover was 70. So, I lowered crossover to 63Hz. This of course means re-measuring for phasing. Likewise, I changed other filters, and any filter changes means re-measure and re-doing all pass.

For frequency response, it means opening up laptop and altering curve. If it's just a frequency response "issue", you can just alter your target curve. Every car will respond slightly differently, so the target curve will vary. You could "model" the change with the PEQ to see if it does what you want, but final changes roll into the Dirac curve, with all PEQ bands off.

Since I use groups for each driver type, I can easily change the target curve per driver if I have something I want to fix in only one driver. Generally, I prefer to keep one curve at this stage of tuning, as I'm not nearly as dialed in as I want. If I was further dialed in, I'd make specific tweaks per set / per driver in the DIRAC app.


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

Some really great info in here. I started tuning the old fashioned way and spent a great deal of time dialing in xovers based on dats measurements (ap mids) and ears. Moved on to delay and phase and was pretty happy with the way it sounded even without any headroom. I thought Dirac can only improve things and was excited to try it out.
I had no eq adjustments made but i left my xovers and delay settings when running a 5ch measurement (2 way fr + sub)
I gained focus but center location was now off. I felt like i lost some impact in midbass too.
When i went to the peq it seemed like it wasn't cooperating. I competed without doing any more tuning and just turned dirac off. Luckily i met Anu and Jason with some thoughts on how to compromise my tuning style with Dirac. I got home and moved the eq adjustments i was happy with to the target curve and there was noticeable improvements right away. 
Oabeieio said "frequencies above 4K you can use peq and it won’t negatively affect the correction"
My response was surprisingly linear from 400hz up so i was focusing on the lower end. i would modify that to say; "frequencies below 4K you can't use peq and it will negatively affect the correction.

I believe dirac can really help put the finishing touches on a system. If your going to listen and tweak like me presets are your friend and transferring the changes to your dirac target curve once you like what you hear helps.


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

Impossible Bill said:


> I got home and moved the eq adjustments i was happy with to the target curve and there was noticeable improvements right away.


What did you do? Eqed pre Dirac or just tweaked the target curve inside Dirac?


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

Eq'd with dirac off to find what i liked tonality wise. Then added that eq change to the target curve in dirac and defeated the filter in peq. 
It makes for an unusual target curve but i way back when i used to tune many cars they all sounded similar but didn't have the same curves at the end of the day. I know because i had to make sacrifices so the rta score wasn't giving away too many points. Had to get that 37 our you went from 1st to 4th so systems were measured every weekend before a competition.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> Some really great info in here. I started tuning the old fashioned way and spent a great deal of time dialing in xovers based on dats measurements (ap mids) and ears. Moved on to delay and phase and was pretty happy with the way it sounded even without any headroom. I thought Dirac can only improve things and was excited to try it out.
> I had no eq adjustments made but i left my xovers and delay settings when running a 5ch measurement (2 way fr + sub)
> I gained focus but center location was now off. I felt like i lost some impact in midbass too.
> When i went to the peq it seemed like it wasn't cooperating. I competed without doing any more tuning and just turned dirac off. Luckily i met Anu and Jason with some thoughts on how to compromise my tuning style with Dirac. I got home and moved the eq adjustments i was happy with to the target curve and there was noticeable improvements right away.
> ...


So, let me sorta shed some light some more on the post Dirac PeQ challenge.

so Dirac will change phase on a bunch of stuff , but let’s face it , in a reflective environment (pretty much anything except outdoors on the grass) phase is only measurable that’s meaningful up to about 2.5k

Between 1k and 2.5k it totally depends on how clean the measurements are and the environment how high past about 1k you can measure

we know the phase changes Dirac is making is to make a clean impulse (hence it’s name Dirac)

so that must mean (which all DRC does) it takes FDW averages, averages them together then looks at a singe measurement in sweet spot the corrected responce (or for Dirac what it knows will be the corrected responce) and wil move all the excess phase to zero degrees. That will subsequently make everything that’s not minimum phase , and make it minimum phase and remove all the group delay at the same time (crossover phase shift, enclosure phase etc etc)

so the excess phase that is fixable really only resides in the 100hz to 1.6kgz range (safely) +/- a little

Below 100hz , it’s just delay that can fix GD issues… as sub bass almost always behaves minimum phase…. So any phase change in sub bass range will only be timing (near the crossover) and here’s how

the machine exchanges group delay for output latency…. If a low pass is the lagging side (which we all know) then the lowest low pass in the network, so everything else is delayed to the output of the sub and furthermore it’s GD.

so that makes it only make sense that peq can also be used without I’ll effects below the knee of the sub crossover….

So the area of focus where it’s moving excess phase, 100hz to 1.6khz ,

where is itpretty safe to say post eq is ok DC-60hz and about 4K and up (maybe as low as 2.5k)

when it makes something that was non minimum phase , and makes it minimum phase , those areas, because of the manipulation,PEQ although the right frequency you want to adjust, it that it will adjust in the wrong time. That’s the problem

Also ….. Dirac takes your room, and with its corrections and how it looks at the FDW, it can make the source material have better ambiance and fullness…. Eliminating the room effects
so adding PEQ so it could (and most likely will in the targeted areas ) be detrimental to stage size and layers and depth


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> Eq'd with dirac off to find what i liked tonality wise. Then added that eq change to the target curve in dirac and defeated the filter in peq.
> It makes for an unusual target curve but i way back when i used to tune many cars they all sounded similar but didn't have the same curves at the end of the day. I know because i had to make sacrifices so the rta score wasn't giving away too many points. Had to get that 37 our you went from 1st to 4th so systems were measured every weekend before a competition.


I’ve at first liked unusual targets , then realized after years my mic sucked 

a generally smooth shape will pretty much always sound better in the long run

don’t trust 1st impressions too much

i ran that trail for a year…… my mic was making things harder then anything

umik2 from CSL for the cheap win


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

I really appreciate the input. I've learned to trust my ears maybe too much but i am getting feedback that the tonality is great and it sounds natural and effortless. I'm pudding the limits of the Harmony 8x12 for sure. Maybe the microphone is the cause of the delta between what i hear and what dirac gives me. 
I do tune with a light hand and make minor changes. There are some ripples and shelfs in the target now but no peaks and valleys. That could be a function of the lack of headroom, limits of dirac correction or the system being very on axis.
I'm adding power and have a good idea ox the sound i can get from it. I won't be starting from zero but probably do need to alter the approach in using dirac with a better mic


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> I really appreciate the input. I've learned to trust my ears maybe too much but i am getting feedback that the tonality is great and it sounds natural and effortless. I'm pudding the limits of the Harmony 8x12 for sure. Maybe the microphone is the cause of the delta between what i hear and what dirac gives me.
> I do tune with a light hand and make minor changes. There are some ripples and shelfs in the target now but no peaks and valleys. That could be a function of the lack of headroom, limits of dirac correction or the system being very on axis.
> I'm adding power and have a good idea ox the sound i can get from it. I won't be starting from zero but probably do need to alter the approach in using dirac with a better mic


shelf are fine!!!

narrow Q changes sound ok , but it sounds better usually without them

yeah your on the right path it sounds like , a light hand , I like that …. Exactly


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

The system was +/-3db without and peq applied, from 20-20khz. closer to +/-1db in the mid to high range. So much for a sub bass shelf... Tweeters are attenuated ~15db due to their efficiency and the lack of headroom. I applied 4 peq filters between 70-400 i think. No major boost or cut just smoothing response by ear. I think power and adding some resonances will help take it to the next level. I appreciate the effort and input of the community. Especially when dealing with an atypical system layout like mine.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> The system was +/-3db without and peq applied, from 20-20khz. closer to +/-1db in the mid to high range. So much for a sub bass shelf... Tweeters are attenuated ~15db due to their efficiency and the lack of headroom. I applied 4 peq filters between 70-400 i think. No major boost or cut just smoothing response by ear. I think power and adding some resonances will help take it to the next level. I appreciate the effort and input of the community. Especially when dealing with an atypical system layout like mine.


That’s where your going wrong 

take off the silly peq….. your using RTA I assume to try and validate, and are more worried about an rtaresponce and what you want to believe sounds better then the result it does on its own

Mild peq to taste 20-60hz and 4K and up only !

your putting peq after Dirac at 400?

Yeah ….. the RTA will mislead you big time… 

Simply don’t use peq between 100-4K … none 

if something doesn’t sound right it’s an install issue or the target is wrong or you mic is poor quality….


i think I’ve said this 20x this week alone

post Dirac peq is a horrible way to try and make it sound better….Especially in the vocal range!

Have more faith in Dirac and learn to listen without the room issues 

you will think it’s missing volume in certain frequencies when it’s not … there energy is there , RTA will mislead you and it the worst validation tool you could possibly use with Dirac


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

No RTA. I like to listen and make small changes in a pretty with a copy then compare them. I wish the minidsp switched orders faster but its worked out well tonally. Haven't had a mic in the car since the 9 dirac measurements. I want a Voice to sound like a person and instruments to have real character and trust my ears over an rta measurement Ti get there.
That method doesn't work with dirac so i defeat it, tweak away then take that work product over to dirac sw and tweak the target curve and generate a new filter. 
Then i can A/B compare versions with dirac on.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> No RTA. I like to listen and make small changes in a pretty with a copy then compare them. I wish the minidsp switched orders faster but its worked out well tonally. Haven't had a mic in the car since the 9 dirac measurements. I want a Voice to sound like a person and instruments to have real character and trust my ears over an rta measurement Ti get there.
> That method doesn't work with dirac so i defeat it, tweak away then take that work product over to dirac sw and tweak the target curve and generate a new filter.
> Then i can A/B compare versions with dirac on.


oh boy ,

Dirac is a very fine piece of software

it’s a shame to see it be used wrong (not to sound like Simon cowell with a bad contestant, so please excuse me …. I really am trying to help

All the tonal issues I’ve had with Dirac were from simply improper setup or a bad mic or something was making Dirac tone sound wrong

This is what I would recommend if you want really good tonal balance

Do rta on all your drivers w Dirac off and flatten the response on everything, then set levels and Ta so it shows smooth on rta

then run a 2ch Dirac and just listen to it and make tiny changes to the flat target with no peaks or dips drawn …. Start with flat and work the tilt how you like, work it until your pleased 

Find the responce you like that way ! Then save that target and send it to a multi channel tune

Your destroying the best parts of Dirac with peq


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

So what your describing is essentially shipping a step. Rather than listen without dirac and validate changes to my response test the changes i think will yield small improvements directly with the target curve and A/B that result with the previous tune.
That actually saves time as long as i have a light hand and my listening impressions are on point. I'm getting really positive feedback on the overall tone and focus on my subtle tweaks from trustworthy sources do I'll continue with critical listening but with the methods you've outlined on the target curve. 
Once the power upgrade is done I'll also take better mic measurements. I just have a mindset that i can still improve the sound in every system I've ever touched and that has been the case even with Dirac in this car. I am in it for hours each day and making mental notes by nature. I will cease and desist testing then with the peq instead of dirac directly.
Thanks again!


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

Impossible Bill said:


> So what your describing is essentially shipping a step. Rather than listen without dirac and validate changes to my response test the changes i think will yield small improvements directly with the target curve and A/B that result with the previous tune.
> That actually saves time as long as i have a light hand and my listening impressions are on point. I'm getting really positive feedback on the overall tone and focus on my subtle tweaks from trustworthy sources do I'll continue with critical listening but with the methods you've outlined on the target curve.
> Once the power upgrade is done I'll also take better mic measurements. I just have a mindset that i can still improve the sound in every system I've ever touched and that has been the case even with Dirac in this car. I am in it for hours each day and making mental notes by nature. I will cease and desist testing then with the peq instead of dirac directly.
> Thanks again!



Here's the thing: You're finding things you want to fix post Dirac.

The process here if you want to maintain phase/Dirac fixes: use PEQ to "validate", such as, I'm low at 3KHz or so. Next: go back to Dirac app, and change your curve, recalculate, push to 8x12, and then remove PEQ. 

By altering the target curve, you account for this. It's fully required for the best sound, because the default Dirac curves are for large room. The only time the default curves work for me is in my home, or with my top and windows down (yay convertible). For a car, you will have to modify the curve to fit the specific needs of the car.

I think what oabeieo is getting at: You shouldn't be relying on PEQ post DIRAC long term. 

Good example: Post MECA, I'm a bit low in the 1-4KHz range. I don't add a PEQ, I go into Dirac and change my curve. As it happens, my tweeters were also too low with new setup (lower bound was around -2.8dB). I re-shaped the curve to be closer to -2dB at 10kHz, and started my roll off a little higher. This helped, and I'm still listening and refining this. If I hear something, I can use the PEQ to quickly check if it's a frequency response issue, but then I go back to DIRAC app and fix my target curve.

Hope that helps?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> So what your describing is essentially shipping a step. Rather than listen without dirac and validate changes to my response test the changes i think will yield small improvements directly with the target curve and A/B that result with the previous tune.
> That actually saves time as long as i have a light hand and my listening impressions are on point. I'm getting really positive feedback on the overall tone and focus on my subtle tweaks from trustworthy sources do I'll continue with critical listening but with the methods you've outlined on the target curve.
> Once the power upgrade is done I'll also take better mic measurements. I just have a mindset that i can still improve the sound in every system I've ever touched and that has been the case even with Dirac in this car. I am in it for hours each day and making mental notes by nature. I will cease and desist testing then with the peq instead of dirac directly.
> Thanks again!


listening without Dirac ??? What’s the point ?
It will never be as good… turning Dirac off is only for pre setup , then run Dirac and listen


Once Dirac is ran , you have to use Dirac to make any sound changes…. Because only Dirac app will make the response changes you want and be able to keep everything in the right time!



Yes , drop a Dirac tune in a few slots programmed the same. Then make changes in Dirac !

Once Dirac is ran that’s it…. Levels, TA pretty much need to not be touched ….. and peq maybe some mild peq in areas I mentioned…. But never ever in modal areas!

Sometimes I’ll drop tweeter levels by half a db…. Rarely….. NEVER do any TA , or polarity flips unless the crossover requires it 

If it sounds like it needs a polarity flip then that is interference most likely in the crossover


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

That's the way I've been doing it. I learned right away that dirac didn't like me making changes in peq.
I have done a lot to avoid initial reflections and use home oriented speakers. Once i dialed in xovers its about chasing the hair standing up on the back of your neck. When the emotion and nuances are all present and somehow even the car seat gets more comfortable.
I'll move that effort directly to the target curve in those tiny increments. 
I told my wife "i have to buy amps to get the potential out if the system" i need to add a new mic and an external hard drive to the list.
I how this encourages some to keep tweaking and pushing the envelope. I'm motivated.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> That's the way I've been doing it. I learned right away that dirac didn't like me making changes in peq.
> I have done a lot to avoid initial reflections and use home oriented speakers. Once i dialed in xovers its about chasing the hair standing up on the back of your neck. When the emotion and nuances are all present and somehow even the car seat gets more comfortable.
> I'll move that effort directly to the target curve in those tiny increments.
> I told my wife "i have to buy amps to get the potential out if the system" i need to add a new mic and an external hard drive to the list.
> I how this encourages some to keep tweaking and pushing the envelope. I'm motivated.


okay then …. Yeah Dirac is excellent

years ago when I first started tuning with Dirac , @Mic10is (a well respected competitor that won multiple word titles) told me he knew a guy (a competitor) that had issues with tonality…. Using Dirac and he got rid of Dirac 😵‍💫 . And subsequently mic hasn’t had any interest in Dirac. It sorta broke my heart in a car audio kinda way…. 

i wished so much I could’ve helped that guy because, it took me a few years to discover what and how to tune Dirac in a car and have superb tone….

I’m assuming he was doing it wrong unwittingly. I know I did for a long time…. It’s really easy to go down that path and get lost… Keep at it ! You’ll never go back to minimum phase dsp…


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

I know Mic and go back even further. A true dinosaur. I recognized right away that dirac was making the fine tuning difficult. It was frustrating but i also realized it was doing things out of the gate that could take a lot of fine tuning To accomplish. 
Merging these paths in the right way is the challenge, add those points (thanks Anu) and tweak the target curve.
Funny thing, my last competition system was in my Legend. I competed at '02 finals. My front speakers were installed at the venue so i had limited time to tune it after taking care of the other cars i was responsible for. I have even less time tuning this system and it sound better at least from 1 seat IMHO. Dirac works, i just have to make it work for me. Some of that means trusting a mic as much as my ears and getting them to work together.
I'll get a good mic and keep Dirac On going forward.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> I know Mic and go back even further. A true dinosaur. I recognized right away that dirac was making the fine tuning difficult. It was frustrating but i also realized it was doing things out of the gate that could take a lot of fine tuning To accomplish.
> Merging these paths in the right way is the challenge, add those points (thanks Anu) and tweak the target curve.
> Funny thing, my last competition system was in my Legend. I competed at '02 finals. My front speakers were installed at the venue so i had limited time to tune it after taking care of the other cars i was responsible for. I have even less time tuning this system and it sound better at least from 1 seat IMHO. Dirac works, i just have to make it work for me. Some of that means trusting a mic as much as my ears and getting them to work together.
> I'll get a good mic and keep Dirac On going forward.


you’ll get there, sorry if I sounded like a pain in the ass. 🤓

just please don’t give up on it there’s definitely a learning curve, and once you find it. it’s amazing

you can make traditional DSP sounds really good but this type of DSP definitely behaves differently

The room will never be as lively, tone can be a ***** to get right, but once all that is squared away , and being 100% honest with yourself not what you think you like but what actually sounds better and is more correct and faithful to the sound source you’ll never ever turn back


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Like with minimum phase dsps , I could get the center to be dead center of dash on all songs , fairly easily. And different recordings wouldn’t be a whole lot difference. They all were pretty much the same center with minor differences.

Dirac will also do that, but some songs have what sounds like at first blurry center…. But once you realize it’s not blurry and the recording was meant to have the singer in the far field of stage then you’ll always hear and identify those recordings and hear it as far field ….

it’s just hard to grasp the stage going beyond the windshield…. It’s not like it sounds outside the car, it sounds more like no car at all. And sorta almost headphones effect but with proper imaging.

Here’s a track that gives that effect


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

Ideally there is no car.. Just its battery. 
Center is easier now compared to when everything you did was judged from 2 seats. 😃
Being selfish sure can have its benefits. I have a sound system, passengers have air pods.


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I did a tune from the passenger seat so I can give bestow a rider the sweet spot. But that's rare.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I have a two seat tune that I did, The images decent on both sides center is good but left and right are a little Quacky but I listen to it about a fourth of the time when I have someone with me

otherwise it’s just the onesie tune


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

👼Behold! i bequeath to you a center image and vast soundstage. Revel in its ambience.
Has anyone used dirac in a 2 seat tune?


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

Beat me to it. So a commotion level tune would be challenging? Did you use the larger listening position and additional measurements?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’ve tried it but it sucks

The two seat tune that I use is a rephase tune
I used Dirac with gains and delays disabled then used rephase with an upstream OpenDrc at 48k and forced a 90/90 phase between 250-1000hz

then set the response around everything else

center is good , like I said left and right wonky

I am not using my dash 6.5s on that tune
Only kick panels 3s and tweets as those drivers have under .6ms PLD

i’m pretty sure your path length differences for Dirac to do it would have to be very very low like a sofa to a 12 foot away speaker side which equates to about .3 ms

in my car the two seat tune is really super fuzzy and phasy … The center is so diffuse I kind of can’t even make it out at all


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I may attempt a two seat tune, but I figure it's a compromise for both people, so I likely won't bother. Since at least 90% of the time I'm alone in the car, on the occasions I do have someone with me, I'd rather let them enjoy the sweet spot. Sounds pretty weird from the driver's seat, but it's a small sacrifice when I get the full measure pretty much all the time.


----------



## ean611 (Feb 2, 2010)

oabeieo said:


> okay then …. Yeah Dirac is excellent
> 
> years ago when I first started tuning with Dirac , @Mic10is (a well respected competitor that won multiple word titles) told me he knew a guy (a competitor) that had issues with tonality…. Using Dirac and he got rid of Dirac 😵‍💫 . And subsequently mic hasn’t had any interest in Dirac. It sorta broke my heart in a car audio kinda way….
> 
> ...


Funny, The only MECA competitors I know with Dirac, one loves it, the other dropped it because of signal compatibility issues with hardware (nothing to do with DIRAC) and will likely re-try and get it fixed this winter. 

Based on my point scores, in multiple cars, with MECA, I'd say this: Dirac will help you get good scores fast. It used to take me hours to get something that Dirac can do in 10 min of measuring. 

Still requires that back and forth afterwards to tweak.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

ean611 said:


> Funny, The only MECA competitors I know with Dirac, one loves it, the other dropped it because of signal compatibility issues with hardware (nothing to do with DIRAC) and will likely re-try and get it fixed this winter.
> 
> Based on my point scores, in multiple cars, with MECA, I'd say this: Dirac will help you get good scores fast. It used to take me hours to get something that Dirac can do in 10 min of measuring.
> 
> Still requires that back and forth afterwards to tweak.



That was back in 2015 tho or 16 

A lot has changed


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

@Impossible Bill 

What is your system consist of what kind of car is it I’m just curious


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> @Impossible Bill
> 
> What is your system consist of what kind of car is it I’m just curious


It is very cool - top shelf drivers - very good placement - and an amazing baffle design! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bertholomey said:


> It is very cool - top shelf drivers - very good placement - and an amazing baffle design!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I’ve never met this gent

I thought he was a complete rook, now I’m finding out he’s been in this for a minute and is not a complete rook ….(whoops) 

Now I want to see the car it sounds like it’s probably pretty awesome


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

Simple setup in a 2021 Mitsubishi Mirage G4. 1 year old and just shy of 24K miles.
Joying head unit to Harmony 8×12. I figured the amplified version was only a little more $$ and install would be easier. Its under pass seat.
Sending 40w to each vc of a Hybrid clarity 12dvc in spare tire well. Shallow sub for 2 chambered enclosure with spare present (needed that on NJTPK last week) can AP that in future to tune response if it gets enough power.
Front is 2 way, Purifi PTT6.5's in kick panels with aperiodic vents into the sill. Tuned with rockwool and fiberglass to match , they barely move with 40w but match the tonality and accuracy of the tweeters well.
Bliesma T34B are on pillar / dashpods {tumors). Mounted in wg relatively on axis. I had them in fog light housings for a few weeks to aim them. Added clear acrylic baffles around the wg to eliminate the round baffle issues and direct as much of the sound waves within the passband as feasible with functional airbags.

Sweet spot is large, seat position doesn't have that much of a negative effect. Maintains a good center image with one or both windows open. I am getting everything available from the Harmony. I'm probably the only car there that judges took out the db meter to make sure i met the volume threshold for high level linearity. Not by much but its enough volume for everyday driving...just enough. The PTT6's would love it if i closed the 15db back to the tweeters with some watts.

I wanted to try things i always thought about in a car i didn't care about if i was going to build myself a car. Its been a while. Last car was in 04, my Evo has the same system as it did then and less miles on it than this car.


----------



## SiW80 (Mar 13, 2019)

Impossible Bill said:


> Simple setup in a 2021 Mitsubishi Mirage G4. 1 year old and just shy of 24K miles.
> Joying head unit to Harmony 8×12. I figured the amplified version was only a little more $$ and install would be easier. Its under pass seat.
> Sending 40w to each vc of a Hybrid clarity 12dvc in spare tire well. Shallow sub for 2 chambered enclosure with spare present (needed that on NJTPK last week) can AP that in future to tune response if it gets enough power.
> Front is 2 way, Purifi PTT6.5's in kick panels with aperiodic vents into the sill. Tuned with rockwool and fiberglass to match , they barely move with 40w but match the tonality and accuracy of the tweeters well.
> ...


Any pics or build log?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

I'll put something together and put a build log here. Was going to wait till i finalized things. I don't want to sidetrack this thread any more so here's a mimic of it an old car audio friend sent me.
View attachment 344091


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> Simple setup in a 2021 Mitsubishi Mirage G4. 1 year old and just shy of 24K miles.
> Joying head unit to Harmony 8×12. I figured the amplified version was only a little more $$ and install would be easier. Its under pass seat.
> Sending 40w to each vc of a Hybrid clarity 12dvc in spare tire well. Shallow sub for 2 chambered enclosure with spare present (needed that on NJTPK last week) can AP that in future to tune response if it gets enough power.
> Front is 2 way, Purifi PTT6.5's in kick panels with aperiodic vents into the sill. Tuned with rockwool and fiberglass to match , they barely move with 40w but match the tonality and accuracy of the tweeters well.
> ...


okay you did some of that , all I heard last time was harmony

jesssssus that’s some nice stuff …..

yeah a build log would be really nice to see
I’m assuming you don’t listen loud w 40w , but just enough to enjoy it I bet…

that sounds like a killer system!!


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Impossible Bill said:


> I'll put something together and put a build log here. Was going to wait till i finalized things. I don't want to sidetrack this thread any more so here's a mimic of it an old car audio friend sent me.
> View attachment 344091
> View attachment 344115


Really bad cell phone pics from SVR - looked killer in person! 




















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Holy crow that thing is bad ass !!!

😯😯😯😦😦😦😦😦


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Impossible Bill said:


> I'll put something together and put a build log here. Was going to wait till i finalized things. I don't want to sidetrack this thread any more so here's a mimic of it an old car audio friend sent me.
> View attachment 344091
> View attachment 344115


horn loading tweeters….. interesting. But man it sure does lazer beam the sound to your ears
you get all the low order harmonics , I can see why you want an incredible tweeter….

Lol on db meter….. that’s awesome.


----------



## Impossible Bill (9 mo ago)

I'd guesstimate 70-80% of tweeter output is direct high pressure sound. Does wonders for efficiency. Doors anyone make a 4ch amp that's 5wx2 and 500x2?
I started a build log today. Will populate more as i can.


----------



## MitchWolos (Aug 4, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> i Wonder if he meant pseudo balanced (like JL)
> 
> minidsp uses isolated pseudo balanced outputs
> 
> It uses common mode rejection on its input side iirc…..I asked a few years ago when it didn’t work on a tru line8 and that was why


IIRC the outputs aren't balanced. I upgraded the caps/op-amps/output resistors etc in an 8x12 and I'm fairly certain the shield of the outputs are all tied together.


----------



## MitchWolos (Aug 4, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> I definitely don’t choose it over a LR4
> But I definitely don’t use them every time
> I actually prefer an LR2 most of the time.
> 
> ...


LR filters are two cascaded butterworth filters. -6db at the filter frequency. But, -6 + -6 sums to zero. 
Butterworth are -3db at the filter frequency. Even order sum at +3db. Odd order are 270deg apart (half a cycle) and sum at 0db.
-6db of attenuation = 45deg 
-6db/octave Butterworth filter is 45 degrees apart per driver = 90deg
-12db is 90 degrees apart per driver = 180deg (That's why one speaker needs to be inverse polarity) 
-18db is 135 degrees apart per driver = 270deg/90deg from being in phase
-24 is 180 degrees per driver = 360deg/0deg


----------



## MitchWolos (Aug 4, 2015)

oabeieo said:


> 1st order all pass for BW12 (and would work well enough for LR2) although the Polarity flip on a 2nd order pretty much makes it linear phase so it’s not really super important to do it on those.
> 
> 2nd order Q=1 for Butt18
> 2nd order Q=0.7 for LR4
> ...


-3b = 0.707 (Butterworth)
-6b = 0.5 (LR)


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

MitchWolos said:


> IIRC the outputs aren't balanced. I upgraded the caps/op-amps/output resistors etc in an 8x12 and I'm fairly certain the shield of the outputs are all tied together.


Hmm, a good point you bring up. Upon closer inspection of the DSP specs, it says diff inputs. Nothing about it being in the output.


----------



## Anu2g (Nov 4, 2020)

MitchWolos said:


> IIRC the outputs aren't balanced. I upgraded the caps/op-amps/output resistors etc in an 8x12 and I'm fairly certain the shield of the outputs are all tied together.


Did upgrading those items make an audible difference for you?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Cool


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

deleted (sounded duschey) 

apologies ….. I wrote this deleted message in a hurry in a bad mood lol


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Tip No.187

small box gang!

4” small box tight around your ears
Except the forward top left measurement about 10” forward (if center , your car notoriously pulls left)

and obviously get your head out of the way , lean seat back

small box for 3.3.3 on auto target! I did some talking to some very smart folks and tried it

guys it’s a winner! Get to work


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thus far I've ignored the auto target feature. Does this mean not loading a target & also not adjusting, just going with what Dirac suggests? 

The top left measurement - do you mean holding the mic 6" further forward, but still keeping it within the 4" box laterally?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

hella356 said:


> Thus far I've ignored the auto target feature. Does this mean not loading a target & also not adjusting, just going with what Dirac suggests?
> 
> The top left measurement - do you mean holding the mic 6" further forward, but still keeping it within the 4" box laterally?


either auto target or auto shelf target, or your target!

I bet the auto works way better like this for you tho

Top forward left 10” outside the 4” box….and point it directly at the dash speakers that need attenuation and blending. 

Only if your car puts too much power to left dash speakers with a symmetrical box. Mine does and most my dash pod cars do

that said , try it ….. I was astonished
Way different the Dirac 1.7 (when i
Last tried it and wasn’t good)


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

hella356 said:


> Thus far I've ignored the auto target feature. Does this mean not loading a target & also not adjusting, just going with what Dirac suggests?
> 
> The top left measurement - do you mean holding the mic 6" further forward, but still keeping it within the 4" box laterally?


I would give the target that Dirac automatically goes to when it does corrections a try. Maybe with a boost down low (that's what I do currently).
That target is the first time I've gotten a tune where it sounds like the car completely disappears at times. And it's completely different than what I usually tune to via REW. The staging still has some issues (great in some measurement sets, only good in others for some reason)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> I would give the target that Dirac automatically goes to when it does corrections a try. Maybe with a boost down low (that's what I do currently).
> That target is the first time I've gotten a tune where it sounds like the car completely disappears at times. And it's completely different than what I usually tune to via REW. The staging still has some issues (great in some measurement sets, only good in others for some reason)


put your sub about 10-12db above 250hz area and the auto target will adjust and use the added gain !

it’s downright amazing sounding too , it corrects the phase between the crossover and the added gain…. It’s not a tilt it’s like a hump

like this, this is the auto shelf converted to points with no changes so you can see it better

I have my Dirac input attenuation at -10db because I like the way it sounds when it boosts in the midrange at 1k area , I have my dash 6.5s also turned down -10db , this way I can get more power in stop band at 3.5s so ignore my responce, just look at the sub and how it took the added gain and ran with it as making a target


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

Thanks, I'll try the smaller box. I haven't had any issues with the left side being louder, so I'll start with a symmetrical box. And experiment with the auto mode.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I wasn’t happy with auto curve with other mics 

your CSL mic should be great …. I love it w mine


----------



## hella356 (Dec 11, 2016)

I have a standard UMIK-1. I'll still give it all a go. Once I lock down a job I'm going to upgrade the mic.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

oabeieo said:


> put your sub about 10-12db above 250hz area and the auto target will adjust and use the added gain !
> 
> it’s downright amazing sounding too , it corrects the phase between the crossover and the added gain…. It’s not a tilt it’s like a hump
> 
> ...


Hey Andy

1) I understand the small box (lean seat back and get 1st measurement middle of head, lean seat back maybe more to virtually get the 4” from ears box high and low)

2) Are you still using all pass filters and 7 channel Dirac with this? That screenshot appears to be 2 channel Dirac. 

3) I have used the auto curve as well - may do a snapshot with auto curve, and a snapshot with imported curve to see which I prefer. I’m not sure what part of the software you are referring to with ‘Dirac Input Attenuation at -10db’ - others on here may steer me to the right conclusion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> put your sub about 10-12db above 250hz area and the auto target will adjust and use the added gain !
> 
> it’s downright amazing sounding too , it corrects the phase between the crossover and the added gain…. It’s not a tilt it’s like a hump
> 
> ...


That's just about how I have mine now actually and like you said, it sounds amazing. Only thing I've found is I like a bit more of a rising response below 50hz. Tons of impact, but the rumble isn't quite there for me.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

bertholomey said:


> Hey Andy
> 
> 1) I understand the small box (lean seat back and get 1st measurement middle of head, lean seat back maybe more to virtually get the 4” from ears box high and low)
> 
> ...


I did a very quick retune using the 4" method - kind of hard to assess where 4" from ears would be (high and low) with the seat leaned back. 

I also did 4 different snapshots (auto curve with +10db on sub and MB, +5db on MB/+10db on sub, +5db on sub and MB, and lastly Ryan curve (Mikes additions, Erin's additions). 

That is the one I settled on. Listening to it now. Main difference seems to be a little bit more weight and focus of the vocals vs my previous tune. 

I think it sounds fantastic (I’m very biased) - a few dudes will hear it in a couple weeks at the VA Sep meet. Thanks Andy for continually pushing the techniques forward and sharing with the community!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Picassotheimpaler (Sep 21, 2014)

bertholomey said:


> I did a very quick retune using the 4" method - kind of hard to assess where 4" from ears would be (high and low) with the seat leaned back.
> 
> I also did 4 different snapshots (auto curve with +10db on sub and MB, +5db on MB/+10db on sub, +5db on sub and MB, and lastly Ryan curve (Mikes additions, Erin's additions).
> 
> ...


Out of curiousity, what does the curve you settled on look like?
Also, what's the importance of snapshots? I know they exist, but what's the difference between them and doing a save as of the tune after curve is calculated?


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Picassotheimpaler said:


> Out of curiousity, what does the curve you settled on look like?
> Also, what's the importance of snapshots? I know they exist, but what's the difference between them and doing a save as of the tune after curve is calculated?


I'll have to do a screenshot this afternoon of the Curve when I can connect to the car.

I can only speak to my experience - the experience for others may be different. 

Some may see Snapshot as a helpful tool, and others may see it as completely unnecessary.

My friend Ryan told me about them...I used them a little bit...then stopped (can't remember why). Lately I started using them again. I used to run Dirac....Save As.....name it something specific.....listen.....want to adjust something in the curve, or adjust a window, etc......Save As.....name it something specific as to the change, etc.....

I would end up having several saved Dirac runs with slightly different names......takes up some space in the Dropbox folder. 

Then I started to really use Snapshot.....I ran Dirac.....developed my 4 groups......fixed my curtains......took a snapshot and named it as the original run.....then manipulated the AutoCurve for +10db on the bottom (kept the top at -3db for each group) - grabbed that Snapshot and named it.....+5db - snapshot....and then imported my curve.....snapshot. 

Then I move to the next window, name the overall configuration, export, and do one Save As with an appropriate name. Now all 3 or 4 snapshots are all within that same file. 

I got back in to the Plug In, bypassed the All Pass Filters, employed the Crossovers, saved the Plug-In file again.....confirmed I was centered for each pair of drivers.....and then listened to something I know well. For yesterday, it was sub and midbass response. The +10db for both was a bit hot, so I dived back in to Dirac, loaded up the project, hit the next snapshot for +5db, next screen, save (not save as), Plug In, listen......pretty good......back in to Dirac, snapshot for my curve......back out to Plug-In......that one sounded the best......

Again, pretty quick once you get the hang of it.....if you are listening for a particular troubling frequency, and you are adjusting in the Dirac curve, it is pretty easy to use Snapshot to make the adjustment, name each snapshot, and then you can go back to the 2nd one you tried out of 4 - because they are all still in that file. Long winded, but wanted to spell it out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bertholomey said:


> Hey Andy
> 
> 1) I understand the small box (lean seat back and get 1st measurement middle of head, lean seat back maybe more to virtually get the 4” from ears box high and low)
> 
> ...


yes , APF ,

I have fir crossovers and multiple dsps
And an upstream ddrc22 

for the 8x12 , use the 7ch method with APFs
or however 

the smaller box tho ……. It worked nice


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

bertholomey said:


> I'll have to do a screenshot this afternoon of the Curve when I can connect to the car.
> 
> I can only speak to my experience - the experience for others may be different.
> 
> ...


and that you did very nicely, thank you


----------



## datooff (Aug 5, 2019)

You're boosting 6-10db in the midrange? I totally don't undestand how it can sound good.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

datooff said:


> You're boosting 6-10db in the midrange? I totally don't undestand how it can sound good.


because I have my dsp cut -10db , and the ddrc22 isalso cut -10db , so there’s 20db of digital gain before unity…

so 32db before 0dbfs…..

The boost is no where near the celieng….

If it was maximized gains , it would sound like total ass…..

The ddrc22 you can attenuate Dirac/input by -10db just so you can do this.

In the 8x12dl it uses the trims (Dirac levels) which can go as far as -25db


----------



## stmblaster (Oct 24, 2020)

I have my input signal -10dB. As I understand it makes no difference for Dirac results if during volume calibration I have midbass/midrange/tweeter something like -15/-17/-15 or -15/-11/-15 or any other combination, as Dirac will gain balance them, making a precise -15/-15/-15 volume calibration not necessarily needed? Or is there a certain delta which if exceeded, Dirac can no longer correct?


----------

