# Dirac Live in car



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Does anyone know why no one seems to use Dirac Live for car audio? I use it in my home system and it frankly sounds much better than the very best setup I could possibly get with REW alone. As soon as I switched it on from an already carefully room corrected system, the effect was basically shocking.

Dirac Live is fundamentally especially good for configurations with sub-optimal speaker positioning. Therefore, I would think it would be even more useful for car audio than it is in the home.

Any thoughts anyone has on Dirac Live in the car would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Ive tried it. A few of us on here use it. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

What do you think of it? And how did you implement its use? I ask just because I none of the major manufacturers seem to offer it for any car audio products they make.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

viking1 said:


> What do you think of it? And how did you implement its use? I ask just because I none of the major manufacturers seem to offer it for any car audio products they make.


Minidsp ddrc24

Its tricky to use and i had some issues with distortion. I didn't extensively use it. The members Elgrosso and oabeio(?) Are the ones using it. 

Check out this thread in its entirety for alot of cool enclosure information and Dirac Knowlege.

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/4581986-post509.html#/topics/173370?postid=4581986

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

It’s very good in car , and 2.0 is being released in coming weeks/days 

I’m using beta dirac2.0 and all I can tell you is it’s the best thing I can imagine for a car audio environment. The 1.7 build was excellent as it is, this new build corrects for combfilters and other room related issues from being offset and the interactions between left and right, where the standard Dirac live corrects left and right as seperate channels not as a speaker system as a whole. So for car, this is very good news for us 

Now is an excellent time to get a Dirac live unit , the 2.0 firmware should be released very soon for the ddrc24 and shortly after the ddrc22 and mini just stated on another fourm there going to start beta testing for the 88 soon. 

I’m only two days into the new platform and I’m tellin ya , it’s very good.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Bro. Don't make me spend more money.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

viking1 said:


> Does anyone know why no one seems to use Dirac Live for car audio?
> ...
> Any thoughts anyone has on Dirac Live in the car would be greatly appreciated.


I was leaning towards that myself.

Very few DSPs are FIR based, and DIRAC is basically an equaliser to recover impulse response, using a FIR filter.

So one could use DIRAC or do the same manually, but in each case a FIR based DSP is needed, and I had counted only 3.


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> It’s very good in car , and 2.0 is being released in coming weeks/days
> 
> I’m using beta dirac2.0 and all I can tell you is it’s the best thing I can imagine for a car audio environment. The 1.7 build was excellent as it is, this new build corrects for combfilters and other room related issues from being offset and the interactions between left and right, where the standard Dirac live corrects left and right as seperate channels not as a speaker system as a whole. So for car, this is very good news for us
> 
> ...


Thanks for all the useful information. I'm pretty new to car audio. Would you mind sharing what your hardware setup is/how you integrated the Dirac unit exactly? I'm trying to figure out how all this stuff ties together. My dream would be to have some kind of upmixing whereby I could have great stereo play through 5 main speakers+trunk sub (basically like a Pro-Logic theater, I guess) when front passengers are in the car, then another mode optimized for all possible passengers in the car. How I would get the upmixing, the Dirac, crossovers, amplifiers, and everything else integrated into a sensibly elegant system is beyond me at the moment, but I guess I'm learning.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

FIR DSPs are pretty hard to come by. I'm in the process of poking at making a custom FPGA unit for that purpose. I'd like to see if I can get i2s -> Interpolation to DSD 256 -> 7.1 upmix -> 16800 min FIR taps per active channel (split into 16 active channels) -> ESS 9028 Sabre DAC out.

Matlab simulations say it should work but it's going to be a while until I can get around to it. Maybe if MiniDSP gets off their asses (and make an updated version with the upgraded ADSP-21587) I can just buy an offering from them instead of having to write verilog.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

GreatLaBroski said:


> FIR DSPs are pretty hard to come by.


Every so often someone posts on the MiniDSP forum asking that they enable DIRAC for the 8x12, in the specifications it even lists:

"Filtering Technology	IIR/FIR depending on plugin"

So, I would assume the hardware is capable of doing so. But, there is no plug in to enable it.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

naiku said:


> Every so often someone posts on the MiniDSP forum asking that they enable DIRAC for the 8x12, in the specifications it even lists:
> 
> "Filtering Technology	IIR/FIR depending on plugin"
> 
> So, I would assume the hardware is capable of doing so. But, there is no plug in to enable it.


I've bugged them about this myself. The ADSP chip can do FIR filtering, it's about how much effort they feel like putting into optimizing the firmware to get decent FIR throughput out of the middle-of-the-line chip they have in it.

I'm annoyed that they put it in their specs and seem unwilling to get it done.


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Pretty sure I started a thread on it as well a while back on there, I do agree though, it is annoying to list it as a spec, but it not actually be available, and Mini be apparently unwilling to make it available.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

naiku said:


> Pretty sure I started a thread on it as well a while back on there, I do agree though, it is annoying to list it as a spec, but it not actually be available, and Mini be apparently unwilling to make it available.


Yeah I've seen your thread over on the MiniDSP forums. I would be happy just opamp rolling and improving the capacitors on the I/V path and accepting the DAC of the MiniDSP 8x12 V2 if they could bring in Dirac Live or FIR capability.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> It’s very good in car , and 2.0 is being released in coming weeks/days
> 
> Now is an excellent time to get a Dirac live unit , the 2.0 firmware should be released very soon for the ddrc24 and shortly after the ddrc22 and mini just stated on another fourm there going to start beta testing for the 88 soon.
> 
> I’m only two days into the new platform and I’m tellin ya , it’s very good.


That’s cool news about 2.0! Is the DDRC22 really going to be supported? I was fearing miniDSP would skip over it and only support the newer SHD series (specifically the SHD Studio in place of the DDRC22).



GreatLaBroski said:


> FIR DSPs are pretty hard to come by. I'm in the process of poking at making a custom FPGA unit for that purpose. I'd like to see if I can get i2s -> Interpolation to DSD 256 -> 7.1 upmix -> 16800 min FIR taps per active channel (split into 16 active channels) -> ESS 9028 Sabre DAC out.


This sounds like a beast. Which 7.1 upmix?!



viking1 said:


> Would you mind sharing what your hardware setup is/how you integrated the Dirac unit exactly? I'm trying to figure out how all this stuff ties together. My dream would be to have some kind of upmixing whereby I could have great stereo play through 5 main speakers+trunk sub (basically like a Pro-Logic theater, I guess) when front passengers are in the car, then another mode optimized for all possible passengers in the car. How I would get the upmixing, the Dirac, crossovers, amplifiers, and everything else integrated into a sensibly elegant system is beyond me at the moment, but I guess I'm learning.


I’m still learning the world of FIR as well. I suggest by starting with that. The concept of FIR. Checkout oabeieo‘s thread on RePhase. That will get you started.

But from a preliminary standpoint, one of the possible ways you can could achieve what you seek is this way:

Source > DSP with Upmix (MS8 or H800 or Helix Mini) > DDRC 88a > amps > passive crossover/speakers


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> This sounds like a beast. Which 7.1 upmix?!


A custom algorithm one that's based on the technique of Penteo 4's upmix. This is the same technique being used by Andy in his Audiofrog upmixer as far as I know.

Basically you FFT the audio into a RL overlapped center, and spread the R to Far-R and L to Far-L in a horseshoe shape around the R/L speakers. The rearmost R speakers have the most R-Only audio while the others are a spread. Then you'd apply your time alignment and crossover frequencies.

It's not very hard to apply algorithmically but I'm sure I'll end up making tons of small tweaks if I end up building out the hardware. I'm willing to go without it if MiniDSP can get off their ass and get Dirac Live into their MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 v2 since I own one.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

GreatLaBroski said:


> A custom algorithm one that's based on the technique of Penteo 4's upmix. This is the same technique being used by Andy in his Audiofrog upmixer as far as I know.
> 
> Basically you FFT the audio into a RL overlapped center, and spread the R to Far-R and L to Far-L in a horseshoe shape around the R/L speakers. The rearmost R speakers have the most R-Only audio while the others are a spread. Then you'd apply your time alignment and crossover frequencies.


Nice! That is the the same upmix and premise as Andy’s future DSP. But yours
Would have FIR power!

Minus the upmixing part, couldn’t one connect a nano digi 2x8 board to 4 DDRC24 boards and have 16 channels Dirac. (Each DDRC24 would have to be tuned via software individually of course).


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Minus the upmixing part, couldn’t one connect a nano digi 2x8 board to 4 DDRC24 boards and have 16 channels Dirac. (Each DDRC24 would have to be tuned via software individually of course).


I've considered something along those lines in the past and came to the conclusion that you'd have to solve:

1. Synchronized Volume Control between the 4 modules.
2. Inconvenient / complex tuning (with 4 modules)
3. An "Okay" DAC stage.
4. No upmix ability.
5. A limit of (2048?) taps per channel max.
6. A unobtanium cost of $1750 without any ancillary hardware to help with volume control.

If that could be done for around $800 I'd probably have already done it. But at the $1750 price point I can buy 2 8-channel Sabre ES9028 8-channel modules, 1 very high power FPGA module (or spin up a custom PCB), several extremely low noise power supplies, and a SOC to handle i2c volume management. And I'd still save a couple hundred dollars. But instead of having a "pretty good" DSP/DAC you'd have a absolute world-class DSP/DAC stage.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Bro. Don't make me spend more money.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




YOu have the ddrc24 don’t you 

The update will be free if I’m not mistaken


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> That’s cool news about 2.0! Is the DDRC22 really going to be supported? I was fearing miniDSP would skip over it and only support the newer SHD series (specifically the SHD Studio in place of the DDRC22).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’m running it on my ddrc22d as we speak , so yes (I’m a beta tester tho so wait for it)


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> YOu have the ddrc24 don’t you
> 
> 
> 
> The update will be free if I’m not mistaken


Good to know

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> FIR DSPs are pretty hard to come by. I'm in the process of poking at making a custom FPGA unit for that purpose. I'd like to see if I can get i2s -> Interpolation to DSD 256 -> 7.1 upmix -> 16800 min FIR taps per active channel (split into 16 active channels) -> ESS 9028 Sabre DAC out.
> 
> Matlab simulations say it should work but it's going to be a while until I can get around to it. Maybe if MiniDSP gets off their asses (and make an updated version with the upgraded ADSP-21587) I can just buy an offering from them instead of having to write verilog.


The elegant way to do it is to down sample the sub and woofer channels to a lower rate, and run those through a FIR with a sensible (lower) number of taps.

You should not need anywhere near 16k taps.




GreatLaBroski said:


> I've considered something along those lines in the past and came to the conclusion that you'd have to solve:
> 
> 1. Synchronized Volume Control between the 4 modules.
> 2. Inconvenient / complex tuning (with 4 modules)
> ...


How does the APL compare?

If you have the MATLAB skills, then measuring the response and building a DIRAC style of correction would allow for that FIR to implement it.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Holmz said:


> The elegant way to do it is to down sample the sub and woofer channels to a lower rate, and run those through a FIR with a sensible (lower) number of taps.
> 
> You should not need anywhere near 16k taps.


Of course you don't _need_ it, it's overkill. But that's what makes it fun. 



Holmz said:


> How does the APL compare?


I haven't taken an APL apart, but IIRC it has a Wolfson DAC chip which is "fine". I'm sure it sounds good and was determined to be good enough for the application. It's a middle of the road DAC.

It isn't as fancy as a Sabre DAC which can do some really cool things, like THD compensation, time domain jitter elimination (which I wouldn't need to use cause the FPGA would behave as FIFO i2s reclocker), and 32bit volume control.



Holmz said:


> If you have the MATLAB skills, then measuring the response and building a DIRAC style of correction would allow for that FIR to implement it.


That's the exact idea. I'm sure this is much harder to get right in practice than on paper, but the huge processing power would help out.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

If the subs were "filter-tune-decimate" down to a low rate then it gets easy.

Otherwise you need lots of taps to do the correction for the sub.
But the sub rarely goes over 200 Hz, so a 512 or 1k sample rate is more than enough.
Even a 2k sample rate would allow for a 512 tap FIR to get well below 10 Hz.

Whether one needs it for subs is a different story.

And then for the tweeters you also need a short filter as the lowest frequency is pretty high.

One could probably do all the modelling in MATLAB and work out how 128, 256, 512, 1k and 2k taps performed. Then it quickly gets apparent than 16k is well beyond improvement.

Of course you need the Filter-tune-decimate for the sub and the woofer. Probably the midrange would need the longest number of FIR taps.

Whether one can even hear the DAC is likely headed into the realm of psychology.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Holmz said:


> If the subs were "filter-tune-decimate" down to a low rate then it gets easy.
> 
> Otherwise you need lots of taps to do the correction for the sub.
> But the sub rarely goes over 200 Hz, so a 512 or 1k sample rate is more than enough.
> ...


You'd save tons of taps, but decimating ruins all the fun. 

The DAC likes direct high-sample-rate audio. If you were going to spend the time to implement some quasi quadratic interpolation to upscale the sampling rate, then you'd be throwing away the juicy samples you just made (for the sub channel at least). Now to your point, it's probably unnecessary.

I'd design around being able to do it at the full sample rate. If you fall on your face by running out of resources due to the mega sample window you need to reach 30hz or lower at your interpolated sample rate, then back off to something like 44.1khz. Even at that rate you'd have like 15-20x ceiling before the Nyquist frequency for your sub channel at the end of the roll off.

The bigger issue I'd see is that if you want to process this all in an FPGA, you're adding complexity to your architecture to have two different sampling rates. That'd add a bit of complexity to your Asyncronous FIFO stage and the overall architecture. There are a few ways you could get around this, but I'm not sure how much it would cost in logic cells or dsp slices.


----------



## piyush7243 (Sep 9, 2009)

I have DDRC-24 being used at home and i am now thinking to put it in my car before Helix DSP Pro mk2. Hope it can fix a lot of things. 


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> You'd save tons of taps, but decimating ruins all the fun.
> 
> The DAC likes direct high-sample-rate audio. If you were going to spend the time to implement some quasi quadratic interpolation to upscale the sampling rate, then you'd be throwing away the juicy samples you just made (for the sub channel at least). Now to your point, it's probably unnecessary.
> 
> ...


When you get done with the FIR on the decimated data, then just upsample the sub channel back to 44.1k or whatever 

Multi rate processing is your friend


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Holmz said:


> When you get done with the FIR on the decimated data, then just upsample the sub channel back to 44.1k or whatever
> 
> Multi rate processing is your friend


I was saying that the 44.1k would be the decimated sample rate if I were to go that route. I'm shooting for DSD 256.

I guess I should really perform FIR at whatever sample rate I'm getting baseline readings at. But either way working across sample rates can be a pain. I think I have enough possible computations to do it natively, but I'd have to limit the windows depending on the target frequencies to conserve processing. Or I can buy huge piece of silicon. :laugh:

Edit: But I think it'd be sensible to test the output waveforms and compare whether there's an appreciable difference by testing the sub frequencies head-to-head with a higher or lower sample rate and FIR correction.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> ...
> 
> Edit: But I think it'd be sensible to test the output waveforms and compare whether there's an appreciable difference by testing the sub frequencies head-to-head with a higher or lower sample rate and FIR correction.


^right^

You should be able to MATLAB a lot of it.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

Specifically in regards to running Dirac in a car, which calibration profile have you guys been having the best success with? Chair, Sofa, or Auditorium? Also are you performing the calibration within the driver seat head/ear listening area or across both front seats?


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

In addition to Bnlcmbcar's question, I'd also like to ask how you guys have it set up? Are you running your Source => DDRC24 in stereo => DSP/DAC?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Nx807 with embedded vol on 96k -> ddrc22d-> active optical splitter-> 3 2x4hds > rca to amps 


Got Steering wheel controls and regular usage from clairion audio volume works like a champ upstream, got a screen with CarPlay and nav and optical can’t complain it works nice and not a bigillion adaptors to make work , iPhone into regular usb from deck , works, 
For critical listen I throw in a 1t solid state drive with hi-res 24/96 or a regular 44.1 cd in the cd deck and enjoy, all sources I could want.


Erin H turned me on to the clairion, I wouldn’t have guessed , I love this deck it works well and isn’t a slug like some think


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Specifically in regards to running Dirac in a car, which calibration profile have you guys been having the best success with? Chair, Sofa, or Auditorium? Also are you performing the calibration within the driver seat head/ear listening area or across both front seats?


Sofa (focused) in 2.0 
Chair in 1.x 
Sofa (wide) for 2 seat listening in 2.0 

Didn’t care for sofa in 1.x or any the others 

Sofa focused in 2.0 is the cats meow


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

Cool. Thanks. I’m just patiently waiting for that 2.0 to emerge out of beta phase.

For the Sofa (focused). Are you performing all those measurement points within the driver seat area or are you measuring across both seats?


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Nice! That is the the same upmix and premise as Andy’s future DSP. But yours
> Would have FIR power!


Why won't Andy's have FIR? Just curious. Wondering why no one seems to be doing what they could, not even high-end companies that probably don't even really have cost limitations given how much money stereophiles and audio nuts generally are willing to spend on this kind of stuff.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Cool. Thanks. I’m just patiently waiting for that 2.0 to emerge out of beta phase.
> 
> For the Sofa (focused). Are you performing all those measurement points within the driver seat area or are you measuring across both seats?




Ive one it all kinds of different ways 

The best and most consistent is do it the way it shows on pic 

The outer 2 measurements I put the passenger one in passenger nose area and 1” away from passenger window 

And driver in driver nose area and 1” away from driver side window 


Getting it CLOSE to the glass really helps it use the reflections to reinforce the stage and that **** works well , I roll the window down and stage is different and I can hear the reflections make it better, it really wants to hear what’s going on at those reflection areas to do it’s room correction 

It’s crazy I roll window up/down several times so I can listen for the high frequency bounce , and instead of diffraction it’s stage width / ambiance and perfectly in time with direct sound .....very crazy to experience


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> Nx807 with embedded vol on 96k -> ddrc22d-> active optical splitter-> 3 2x4hds > rca to amps


Dirac doesn’t care about your crossover settings or anything like that? It just figures it out anyways?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Dirac doesn’t care about your crossover settings or anything like that? It just figures it out anyways?


We’ll it dosent care , but your ears do , you want to have the systems crossovers set to optimize staging and imaging and keep drivers safe, you want the best crossover you can get beforehand, the better you set them up the better the outcome. 

You want to use your dsp (weather IIR or FIR) to fix problems at the speaker , let Dirac fix problems with the room at where you listen.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

That doesn’t mean dial in a flat response with eq at speaker, use as little eq as you can, 
Maybe a little stopband eq to get a crossover right , maybe and only if there’s a huge stopband peak that doesn’t sound good , maybe , if here was a peak Dirac would make it sound good , but the better your setup , gains especially the better it does. 

But let Dirac do the eq work , for most cars with direct radiators a minimum phase crossover and proper levels will be all you really need. Some horn systems or highly resonant , high efficiency mids may need a little work beforehand for optimum results


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Sorry I should have been a bit more clear: is Dirac able to get a decent tune upstream even though it has to to phase correction on multiple drivers from a single channel?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Sorry I should have been a bit more clear: is Dirac able to get a decent tune upstream even though it has to to phase correction on multiple drivers from a single channel?




Not sure I understand, but I’ll try 

Dirac listens to diffrent spots in the car for room related problems and as a means of averages for the listening position (1st measurement) it dosent necessarily make phase flat if it’s such a mess that it can’t , it’s algorithm is aimed at making it sound good , if it can make it flat it will , but it will make the phase and frequency match each other on both left and right channels (transfer function). 

It may be measured flat it may measure to look like it has two minimum phase rotations or three because of crossovers , but it makes them match each other on both sides , you can’t really hear “phase” per say, it’s not something you can hea easily, but you can definitely most definitely hear phase when another speaker playing the same things phase is diffrent with one another. 

If both sides have the same (or very similar) transfer function, it will sound much better. And that’s the goal better sound , not necessarily a flat line on a graph


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

A flat response dosent necessarily mean flat magnitude 
This delves into sound power and refraction, diffraction, and other reflective properties a room will produce to make sound appear louder or softer than it is. This algo looks at all of these things and let’s you the user choose a target curve that best fits your rooms sound power curve. Whatever curve you choose it makes all the variables work it’s best given its computer power to work with. It does a good job with the minidsp ddrc22d especially that is is a floating point FFT based convolution


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Thanks for taking a swing. I wasn’t clear enough still, I’ll add a little bit of background. My question was specifically about how it handles multiple drivers on a single channel of correction. Like source -> Dirac (2 channels) -> DSP (split into 9 channels); since you seem to be running this.

I’m curious about how it handles correcting phase and correcting dirac combs specifically over the crossover bands. Usually if you’re using the crossover within Dirac Live, it knows what bands are coming from which speakers. It knows where the crossover bands will be putting out frequencies from 2 drivers over the transition of the crossover.

I’ve never considered using Dirac with multiple drivers, crossed over upstream. The concern was how Dirac live would handle a situation where it thinks that the comb-laden response is simply a reaction of a poorly performing single full-range driver from the single Dirac channel.

In this case I assumed it would attempt to come up with the best compromise of magnitude corrections for the different microphone positions, instead of actually correcting the source of the issue which would be nonlinear phase from the IIR crossovers, differences in individual driver magnitude, and cancellations and from driver positioning.

If it recognizes the existence of multiple drivers and their crossovers, you’d think it would be able to do a much better job of “figuring out” the actual root cause of various acoustic issues and correcting them.

I was under the assumption it would not be very effective unless it had control over the individual drivers. Does that make sense?

But you seem quite pleased with its performance even in this configuration. That was why I was asking about it.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

So the whole multidriver upstream thing is where I’m not quite getting it 

Dirac goes before the crossovers in the digital signal chain 
In the instance of the ddrc24 or the ddrc88bm it still runs the correction before any crossover. 

But in any configuration weather is multi-way Dirac or two channel 
The correction is simply inserted in the signal chain somewhere, the real way to look at it is Dirac is actually placed at the end of the signal path at the microphone, that’s where it’s correction originates. It’s only as good as it’s measurements . So it’s not important where in the chain it’s placed , because what it does in the chain is a result of an acoustical measurement after any crossover.....


Let’s get linearized crossovers nailed down first. If you have a minimum phase crossover set between two drivers and both are crossed using LR4 at whatever frequency, the high pass side will go up as the slope goes down , up meaning positive phase (which is a delay because t=0 is a constant so the sine is pushed back) and the low pass slopes down and phase is pushed back into negative phase ( so the pass band is the trailing side and the slope is the delay) hoghpass is leading. Which on a logmarithic scale looks like a up hill and a downhill back to back. 

To “ flatten that “ one would simply create a minimum phase filter just like it than inver it in the phase section. In a FIR crossover that’s basically what happens, when your corrections are done in the entirety of the magnitude it’s a little diffrent , the sum of the two speakers acoustically couple (or not) and create a new phase pattern , if the crossover was textbook perfect (which it won’t ever be in a car) the two minimum phase signals would sum and the phase would flatten itself naturally..... the problem is non minimum phase behavior. Reflections and room modes and path length differences and all sorts of issues cause excess phase to occur. 

So it depends on how your car or room behaves, like I says, we have a very hard time hearing phase. It’s when two or more things produce the same sound and there not in time (phase) with each other is when we can notice those differences. 

So Dirac makes both the left and right side have the same magnitude and phase and it sounds very good. So there’s a difference when talking about crossover behavior and room behavior. What’s going on at your seat is a sum of everything on two ears or two channels. 

In the case of multi-way Dirac it just does the same thing just breaks it up across channels 


As far as combfilters, so Dirac uses a mixed phase both finite and infinite IR filters 
From what I’ve analyzed so far it’s brilliant. It cascades a series of all pass filters than uses fir to straighten them out. Much better use of fir and not wasting it , 

The fir taps only correct non minimum phase areas , just using regular eq and flatten the response makes phase flat as well , so it dosent need gobs of fir to do it, a 15ms time window is usually plenty, especially when your car is no bigger than 2-3 ms 

So how you set up your crossovers will determine how much frequency plays through that speaker and it location will help or hinder the stage , the bottom line is , if the transfer function is same on both sides it’s going to sound good , some like a boost at 1k some ppl like the smile face curve , that’s the beauty of making you own curve. It figures out how to make the impulse the same on both sides that makes the center pop out and the stage placement happen. At least from the 1st measurement position


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

The optimum set up, or maybe a good way to consider it is...
1) One could the DIRAC on speakers in a chamber to fully correct the speaker's impulse response.
2)Then some REW approach for the speakers in the cabin.
3) There is also the concept of cancelling reflections using a FIR, which would be more like DIRAc for the room.

Each speaker will likely have more going on with #2 and #3... and #1 should be fairly consistent across different speakers of the same brand.

But in reality 1-2-3 are clumped together upfront in the measurement, rather than a three step process.


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Could anyone share the basics on how one would integrate Dirac into their system? Let's say the MiniDSP 8x12 was compatible with Dirac (or that a coming successor will enable it). Could you do everything you want in that one unit and have no need for any other DSP? What about people who run DSP/Amplifier combo products? How would you want to integrate Dirac into a system using one of those?

I assume there is no way to add Dirac to a system based on one of these?

I would kill for someone like Helix to offer a product that had Dirac, enough channels to go active on everything, compact amplifiers, and upmixing for "surround sound" all in one box.


----------



## craigbru (May 11, 2016)

While I usually do more lurking that contributing, this thread and oabeieo's much longer '12 fit' thread have convinced me to buy a DDRC-24. It will be here on Tuesday. I'm definitely more ove a novice than some of you, but I'm an avid learner when something peaks my interest, as this has.

I'm currently running an Alpine Halo9 -> MiniDSP 8x12 -> 4 amplifiers -> 3 way active up front + proper ( delayed L-R, R-L) rear fill + subs. I'm guessing it might be a good idea to disconnect rear fill before calibration? I'm not sure what kind of havoc those extra rear speakers might cause. Also, is there any benefit in using all 4 of the DDRC's outputs? In the owners manual examples, it shows them being used for the subwoofers. Or should I just keep it 2 in 2 out stereo into the DSP?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

viking1 said:


> I assume there is no way to add Dirac to a system based on one of these?


Digital source > DDRC 22D > digital
Coax to optical converter > UP7BMW optical in


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

viking1 said:


> Could anyone share the basics on how one would integrate Dirac into their system? Let's say the MiniDSP 8x12 was compatible with Dirac (or that a coming successor will enable it). Could you do everything you want in that one unit and have no need for any other DSP? What about people who run DSP/Amplifier combo products? How would you want to integrate Dirac into a system using one of those?
> 
> I assume there is no way to add Dirac to a system based on one of these?
> 
> I would kill for someone like Helix to offer a product that had Dirac, enough channels to go active on everything, compact amplifiers, and upmixing for "surround sound" all in one box.


I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t just throw a ddrc24 in-line with there normal dsp and use 4ch into your normal dsp whatever it may be do two of the crossovers in the ddrc and the other two in your dsp for a 4wy 

Don’t wait for the “car special “ the ddrc24 is 12v and ready to go out of the box 
Add the 24$ isolation from minidsp and you now have a remote turn on and noise free outputs


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

craigbru said:


> While I usually do more lurking that contributing, this thread and oabeieo's much longer '12 fit' thread have convinced me to buy a DDRC-24. It will be here on Tuesday. I'm definitely more ove a novice than some of you, but I'm an avid learner when something peaks my interest, as this has.
> 
> I'm currently running an Alpine Halo9 -> MiniDSP 8x12 -> 4 amplifiers -> 3 way active up front + proper ( delayed L-R, R-L) rear fill + subs. I'm guessing it might be a good idea to disconnect rear fill before calibration? I'm not sure what kind of havoc those extra rear speakers might cause. Also, is there any benefit in using all 4 of the DDRC's outputs? In the owners manual examples, it shows them being used for the subwoofers. Or should I just keep it 2 in 2 out stereo into the DSP?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Your car is going to sound killer


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> So the whole multidriver upstream thing is where I’m not quite getting it
> 
> Dirac goes before the crossovers in the digital signal chain
> In the instance of the ddrc24 or the ddrc88bm it still runs the correction before any crossover.
> ...


Thanks for the effort in this response. I do understand all this stuff, but I think it’s valuable for the thread and I appreciate the effort it takes to write it out.

I was simply saying that Dirac, upstream, will perceive effects from nonlinear phase crossover areas which will be problematic (as usual) due to lack of time alignment and due to phase shifts. Say between a tweeter and mid, or mid and midbass, or midbass and sub.

It seems you know I was saying that, but my point was that if the Dirac unit is upstream from the DSPs handling active crossing over into your 9 active channels, I’d expect it to do less well of a job interpreting the microphone measurements since I’d expect it to expect 2 full range driver measurements (left and right, for your 2 Dirac output channels) versus a full 6 channel front stage + sub stage.

Most units do not have minimum phase ability (MiniDSP 8x12, Helix, etc) which I think would make the problem far worse. If you handled TA and phase linearization in that last DSP stage along with the crossover, then I think Dirac would have a much better chance of working as intended even with only 2 channels upstream. And I assume that’s what you’re doing.

But I was going on to say that i would expect Dirac to struggle with nonlinear phase crossovers breaking the output stereo channel from Dirac into a more complex output stage. Since Dirac won’t know it exists I was worried about how it would interpret the microphone results and correct.

Is that how you’re running your Dirac?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Thanks for the effort in this response. I do understand all this stuff, but I think it’s valuable for the thread and I appreciate the effort it takes to write it out.
> 
> I was simply saying that Dirac, upstream, will perceive effects from nonlinear phase crossover areas which will be problematic (as usual) due to lack of time alignment and due to phase shifts. Say between a tweeter and mid, or mid and midbass, or midbass and sub.
> 
> ...


Okay I see what your saying now , 
And sorta but no. 
All dsps use minimuphase crossovers. Minimum phase crossover is another way of saying infinite impulse crossover, just a regular crossover via active or passive 

If your crossovers are done right they will sum to be linear in phase acoustically, but the problem is you can still hear the crossover distortion, 

When the two speakers are playing and the airwaves so to speak combine (sum together) there will be non linear artifacts in the sum of the two speakers playing , Dirac does correct for this , is it better to make linear phase crossovers as well as run Dirac , well yeah! That’s exactly what I’ve done in my car. Especially in the bass ....the Dirac will still move the phase by many different means , by creating an all pass that fits your cars transfer function for both left and right , and the sub (whatever frequencies play when the sweeps are played) it fixes.

You don’t need to do any time alignment even if your speakers have many different distances, it can make an all pass for the entire bandwidth of each channel that will correct for distances and in crossover areas. It dosent need to know where your crossovers are set or how apart any of the speakers are. 

Sure it’s definitely worth trying to set delays first beforehand, and run the sweeps , and determine how it corrects your system. In my experience with it , it dosent matter a whole lot. 1ms of convolution is not much (I don’t see many path lengths much more than 1ms diffrent, and it can do a 26ms time window. 
So it’s not a big deal. 

The word convolution should give way to what I’m trying to explain. It can twist time domains around and bend them like a garden hose carries water. If both sides have the same transfer function what difference does it make how it’s done. 

You can pre delay or not, i do a tiny bit of pre delay, tiny being .2ms but it’s not needed to sound good, but yes changing crossover points and doing some pre delay will change the way it creates the correction algorithm, but the end result is basically the same thing.


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> Okay I see what your saying now ,
> And sorta but no.
> All dsps use minimuphase crossovers. Minimum phase crossover is another way of saying infinite impulse crossover, just a regular crossover via active or passive
> 
> ...


Sorry, I was pre-coffee before so I was misfiring a bit. I was suggesting that Dirac would have an easier time if everything was corrected for phase and time alignment to a "reasonable level" (maybe from a center position between the two seats). I meant to say classical DSPs will cross over with minimum phase versus linear phase (FIR). I'd expect if you standardize to linear phase at the output stage that Dirac would have less unexpected distortions to handle and would then be able to treat it successfully like a single 2-channel full-range system in terms of correction; since the output stage would be synced with phase and timing to a reasonable level. Of course that'd never be completely true, but there'd be much less comb cancellations to deal with versus an out of phase and non-TA'ed system.

But to go back to the beginning of the thread when I first asked, it seems you're not doing that. You're using minimum phase crossovers at the output stage dacs (your 2x4hd's) and letting Dirac handle the rest, apparently with great results. This is super interesting to me because a DDRC22D isn't _that_ expensive. I might grab one to play with it. It'd be used in: Source => DDRC22D => MiniDSP 8X12 v2.

Hmm, I need to make up my mind on whether I'm going to try to make my FPGA FIR processor / DAC or not.

Anywyas, before I started romanticizing about purchasing a DDRC22D I wanted to see if I had my understanding correct about how you're using it in your setup.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

If you don’t add any pre delay you won’t shift the natural combfilter from the room, the distance the speakers are to you etc..... 

When it runs its sweeps , you want it to have the actual time distance the speakers physically are ...... if you add delay to the left it will think the speakers are further away and how it addresses the combfilter correction in 2.0 I think (not 100%) it needs that data to be right along with the room reflections the co inside with the actual distances 

When I said I add delay pre , I meant I add equal amounts of delay to both sides to help match up my horn and my midbass. So to clairify on what I meant by pre delay. 

If your door speaker and tweeter are quite a ways apart , yeah correct that before you run it a little to help the algo , becyots going to do that anyway, I just leave the farthest speaker at it’s actual zero delay..... but again, i don’t have to do that, and I definitely don’t add delay to the left side vs right, it does all that better if I leave. I want it to know that actual distances so it can make sense of the measurements vs reflections better. It’s some complicated **** man, I still am amazed on how it figures it out and I try to pick it apart the best I can, and it makes sense when I do REW and afters ,


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

The minimum phase section of my HDs is untouched 
I use the HDs strictly as a fir crossover and a DAC ....


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

So basically. 

Source-ddrc24(or whatever minidsp dirac device) - dsp that has crossovers set but no t/a. 

And use the ddrc24 for all eq? Or is it still 10db limited

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> The minimum phase section of my HDs is untouched
> I use the HDs strictly as a fir crossover and a DAC ....


This is essentially the essence of what I was trying to pull out of you. 

Since you're using 2x4HDs with FIR crossovers (linear phase) I'm curious if I'd have nearly as much success with an IIR (non-linear) crossover DSP downstream, since that'd produce more aggressive combs in the response due to the nonlinear phase of the crossovers. I was trying to figure out how much success Dirac would have correcting that, since it won't "know to expect them" from having the crossovers defined within the Dirac stage.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GreatLaBroski said:


> This is essentially the essence of what I was trying to pull out of you.
> 
> Since you're using 2x4HDs with FIR crossovers (linear phase) I'm curious if I'd have nearly as much success with an IIR (non-linear) crossover DSP downstream, since that'd produce more aggressive combs in the response due to the nonlinear phase of the crossovers. I was trying to figure out how much success Dirac would have correcting that, since it won't "know to expect them" from having the crossovers defined within the Dirac stage.



I’ve done it both ways, it produces unnoticeable difference except the sub integration is better with an fir crossover added , obviously more taps in low frequencies will definitely help it. But the midbass and highs sounds the same and produces the same sonic characteristicss ..... I just run fir crossovers ahead of time because I can. It dosent need it tho


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> So basically.
> 
> Source-ddrc24(or whatever minidsp dirac device) - dsp that has crossovers set but no t/a.
> 
> ...




Use eq wherever needed with any eq 

Use eq to correct issues at speaker 
Use Dirac eq for main eq 


I don’t use any eq at all , I just set my levels to get the target curve general shape and use Dirac eq on everything 

If you have a speaker that needs some stopband eq , yes use it first 

Well actually, my horn has a 6db cut at 1k pre Dirac ,


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> So basically.
> 
> Source-ddrc24(or whatever minidsp dirac device) - dsp that has crossovers set but no t/a.
> 
> ...




Use eq wherever needed with any eq 

Use eq to correct issues at speaker 
Use Dirac eq for main eq 


I don’t use any eq at all , I just set my levels to get the target curve general shape and use Dirac eq on everything 

If you have a speaker that needs some stopband eq , yes use it first 

Well actually, my horn has a 6db cut at 1k pre Dirac , but I can almost bet most direct radiators won’t , unless it has a put of control frequency that crossover isn’t pushing down


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Use eq wherever needed with any eq
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Should you make the target curve follow the large dips or does all that fancy stuff you two are talking about somehow fix those nulls?

Have you tested the eq gain limits? How much can it pull down or boost? 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> I’ve done it both ways, it produces unnoticeable difference except the sub integration is better with an fir crossover added , obviously more taps in low frequencies will definitely help it. But the midbass and highs sounds the same and produces the same sonic characteristicss ..... I just run fir crossovers ahead of time because I can. It dosent need it tho


Cool, that's tempting


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

This is very interesting, and mostly way over my head. 

However, couple of questions:

1) Assuming this is setup one of the "proper" ways as suggested above, how much different would this setup (Dirac tuned) be vs a "Good Pro Tune" for a decent 3-way current SQ setup?

Obviously I would think the biggest benefit would be the small amount of time dropping in the Dirac vs the time and expertise required for the "pro install". Then next would be the high level tune that results! 

2) Is this "Dirac tune" continually calibrated or is it static, like a normal tune?

I have a decent tune now, but far from perfect so wondering if this will help me get to the next level ? :laugh:


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

If you're a G when it comes to RePhase then in theory there's nothing that you couldn't do yourself that Dirac does. It's just a matter of convenience since Dirac tunes to your target curve in about 10 minutes to achieve "close" levels to what you could do in many hours of tuning.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> If you're a G when it comes to RePhase then in theory there's nothing that you couldn't do yourself that Dirac does. It's just a matter of convenience since Dirac tunes to your target curve in about 10 minutes to achieve "close" levels to what you could do in many hours of tuning.


Which makes me wonder what is happening inside the APL...
Or course one can stuff the taps into an APL, and maybe a MiniDSP... but I thought that MiniDSP will not allow one to pull out the DIRAC taps...?

I was leaning heavily towards the DDRC 24 I think... but the forum questions and answers seemed to suggest that at least the units other than the DDRC24 were over-promised/over-hyped.
Maybe it was just a bad impression?


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

GreatLaBroski said:


> If you're a G when it comes to RePhase then in theory there's nothing that you couldn't do yourself that Dirac does. It's just a matter of convenience since Dirac tunes to your target curve in about 10 minutes to achieve "close" levels to what you could do in many hours of tuning.


So it sounds like its similar to the MS-8 in regards to the auto-tune but probably does lots more! Since you say "close" to what you can do yourself, I guess even with Dirac there may be spots where you would still want to tweak manually?


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

Also wondering if this was an option for my setup:

Android USB-C Out > PSix USB > 1) Speakers 2) Sub amp, speakers.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Should you make the target curve follow the large dips or does all that fancy stuff you two are talking about somehow fix those nulls?
> 
> Have you tested the eq gain limits? How much can it pull down or boost?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



I think you can cut all you want. Gain I’m pretty sure is still 10db (not sure) 

If you have large dips and want to go loud , I would follow the low frequency 80hz dip a little, depends on how much power your running and speakers ability 

I’m using 10” high efficiency midbass in enclosure with a grip of power, and I don’t follow the dip , but I don’t play balls to the wall loud. I choose this setup just for brute force approach to get the response at the level I play. 

It does fix the phase problem from the suckout in the room so you can hear the 80hz dip and it sounds right , but there is nothing that can be done except change the room size ....

So it depends, if you want to go super loud , yes I would cut the low frequency dips, and maybe try others if there severe , in modal region, like the 1st comb dip past the Schroeder the all pass it applies should fix it at your listening location. So frequency response will be there, but visceral impact will still be somewhat lost due to the room. Past 1k it fixed all that stuff in the all pass.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

GreatLaBroski said:


> If you're a G when it comes to RePhase then in theory there's nothing that you couldn't do yourself that Dirac does. It's just a matter of convenience since Dirac tunes to your target curve in about 10 minutes to achieve "close" levels to what you could do in many hours of tuning.


That is correct . 

I love Dirac because I change our gear all the time and try different things 
So I would rather not be “tuning” all day and night . 

If I was content with my gear, and you knew your **** , you could do the same stuff in rephase with an fir and export the iir biquads into the peq bank for the minimum phase steps


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> I think you can cut all you want. Gain I’m pretty sure is still 10db (not sure)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never messed with Dirac past the pc version so im not sure how exactly a car version would work.

So bypass dirac and set crossovers by measuring a speaker full range with the same mic spots(in rew) as Dirac asks you to use. Then set your crossovers,make them follow a 24db roll off and within 10db of your target curve. 

Do that for every speaker and then..play them all together(left side by itself and right side itself) with Dirac on. Then let dirac eq each side to your curve. Idk, i feel like t/a is still super necessary so crossovers sum better but you're far smarter on this subject. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

banshee28 said:


> So it sounds like its similar to the MS-8 in regards to the auto-tune but probably does lots more! Since you say "close" to what you can do yourself, I guess even with Dirac there may be spots where you would still want to tweak manually?


I wouldn’t compare it to an ms8 

Ms8 was good for it’s time, but that as like 10years ago 
Things have come leaps and bounds


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> I never messed with Dirac past the pc version so im not sure how exactly a car version would work.
> 
> So bypass dirac and set crossovers by measuring a speaker full range with the same mic spots(in rew) as Dirac asks you to use. Then set your crossovers,make them follow a 24db roll off and within 10db of your target curve.
> 
> ...



Not even that, set your system up with just crossovers turned on and no eq 
And run it . That’s about it , than do all further tuning from within Dirac 


Post Dirac tune , in previous version I’ve sometimes had to change a little delay on a speaker or a little level on a speaker , mostly because my measurements weren’t ideal, sometimes I would get measurements that didn’t need much 

This version , so far I’ve just run it and didn’t do really anything..besides level setting 

Use an rta and make sure your levels are within 3db at all channels of each other and go for it. 

The pc trial isn’t that great, 


For sub , use you bass knob set levels so bass knob is barely on , like 1/3 way up to meet the midbass, 

Dirac will cut all your sub and you don’t want to add 20db gain in the target to get your subs loud , use the bass knob to restore the subs level for how we do it in car . A cars subs should be about 12db higher than midbass , don’t over boost the target 

Keep target under the 0db line and make cuts in Dirac target, a little bass incline is ok in bass on target to shape the subs when you turn up gain but not a lot, that gain will be fed to all speakers and can cause some clipping or saturation


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

I might actually buy a DDRC88D when the new firmware is released in that case. I'd really like to play with the 1 seat (chair) 2 seat (sofa) and 4 seat (auditorium) options. Hmmm..


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

GreatLaBroski said:


> I might actually buy a DDRC88D when the new firmware is released in that case. I'd really like to play with the 1 seat (chair) 2 seat (sofa) and 4 seat (auditorium) options. Hmmm..


Theres a pc free trial version

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Not even that, set your system up with just crossovers turned on and no eq
> 
> And run it . That’s about it , than do all further tuning from within Dirac
> 
> ...


Righttttt. So im a visual learner. When 2.0 comes out. You should make a video ))

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Jscoyne2 said:


> GreatLaBroski said:
> 
> 
> > I might actually buy a DDRC88D when the new firmware is released in that case. I'd really like to play with the 1 seat (chair) 2 seat (sofa) and 4 seat (auditorium) options. Hmmm..
> ...


Sweet, for some reason I thought they canned the standalone version. That’d be the way to try it out.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Righttttt. So im a visual learner. When 2.0 comes out. You should make a video ))
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


;-) could arrange


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> ;-) could arrange


Sweeeet

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

I have one more specific theoretical Dirac in a car scenario that I’m curious to know if anyone can chime in on.

A DDRC22D before a DSP that is handling matrix/EQ/TA/XO. What happens when a non upmixed mono sum (R+L) center channel is added into the setup?

The center speaker would generate signal when the Right side of the Dirac Live calibration is performed. It would also generate a signal during the Left side of Dirac Live calibration step. 

In essence can Dirac Live provide any potential benefit to integrating a mono sum center into a stereo soundstage? An does the same go for a properly steered center?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> I have one more specific theoretical Dirac in a car scenario that I’m curious to know if anyone can chime in on.
> 
> A DDRC22D before a DSP that is handling matrix/EQ/TA/XO. What happens when a non upmixed mono sum (R+L) center channel is added into the setup?
> 
> ...


You would need a discreet Dirac sweep for that channel 
The ddrc88 would be in order


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

I am sure there are a few company's already planning this, but wouldn't it be NICE if there was something like the Helix PSix with integrated Dirac!! For me, I would go from Androd>PSix and have Dirac do the full tune all within a single unit! 

As soon as that's available I would be all it!! I am sure lots of others would to.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

banshee28 said:


> I am sure there are a few company's already planning this, but wouldn't it be NICE if there was something like the Helix PSix with integrated Dirac!! For me, I would go from Androd>PSix and have Dirac do the full tune all within a single unit!
> 
> As soon as that's available I would be all it!! I am sure lots of others would to.


Audio Control has a home system with Dirac 

I’m just saying , we’ll see 

I’ve heard Dirac is going to be making modules for cars in coming months 

I don’t see the Hangup on wanting a “car” manufacturer to put it in
When one already exists from arguably the most knowledgeable dsp manufacture already


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Although it would be cool to see Dirac make a car specific UI for car 
Showing a pic of dash and car and telling it where the speakers are and inputting room dimensions,etc 

It’s comin , wait for it .....they hear our cry’s


----------



## K-pop sucks (May 28, 2018)

I use Dirac live on my home system with great results. Thinking of picking up a mini DSP unit for the car.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

oabeieo said:


> Although it would be cool to see Dirac make a car specific UI for car
> Showing a pic of dash and car and telling it where the speakers are and inputting room dimensions,etc
> 
> It’s comin , wait for it .....they hear our cry’s


I hope they include the other OEM automotive algorithms in there too!

Dirac Live but also:

*Dirac Unison:* co-optimizes multiple loudspeakers to remove variations in sound quality across seats, maximize impulse response fidelity and achieve an unparalleled bass performance.
https://www.dirac.com/unison


*Dirac Virtual Center:* technology processes the audio signals to ensure that you are listening to the music as if you were always within the sweet spot, regardless of your actual position in the car.
https://www.dirac.com/dirac-virtual-center


*Dirac Panorama Sound:* allows for an expanded soundstage from unconventionally located loudspeakers, for instance, using only an array of loudspeaker in the dashboard of the car.
https://www.dirac.com/panorama-automotive


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> So the whole multidriver upstream thing is where I’m not quite getting it
> 
> Dirac goes before the crossovers in the digital signal chain
> In the instance of the ddrc24 or the ddrc88bm it still runs the correction before any crossover.
> ...


Thanks very much for all the explanation. I am still a little confused, though, if you wouldn't mind helping me. I know that crossovers cause phase shifts. But speaker positions do too, right? So wouldn't you need as many separate channels of Dirac correction as you have speakers in order to phase align everything?

I would like to have 5 main "speakers" (two 3-ways up front, a 2-way center channel, and two 2-way rear fills) + a subwoofer. I would think I would therefore need 6 channels of Dirac correction, since 6 speakers would be at different positions.

Where am I going wrong?


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

oabeieo said:


> Not sure I understand, but I’ll try
> 
> Dirac listens to diffrent spots in the car for room related problems and as a means of averages for the listening position (1st measurement) it dosent necessarily make phase flat if it’s such a mess that it can’t , it’s algorithm is aimed at making it sound good , if it can make it flat it will , but it will make the phase and frequency match each other on both left and right channels (transfer function).
> 
> ...


I guess I am also figuring out how this would work for my setup using a Helix P6.

If I used a DDRC24 upstream, how would this connect to the P6 in a 3-way plus SUB setup? Would each of the outputs be for a pair of speakers (Tweet,Mid,MB)? Otherwise not sure if 1 unit will be enough?


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

viking1 said:


> Thanks very much for all the explanation. I am still a little confused, though, if you wouldn't mind helping me. I know that crossovers cause phase shifts. But speaker positions do too, right? So wouldn't you need as many separate channels of Dirac correction as you have speakers in order to phase align everything?
> 
> I would like to have 5 main "speakers" (two 3-ways up front, a 2-way center channel, and two 2-way rear fills) + a subwoofer. I would think I would therefore need 6 channels of Dirac correction, since 6 speakers would be at different positions.
> 
> Where am I going wrong?



If your dead set on that center ch , yes the ddrc88bm 

If you don’t use the center , the 22/24 will work fine 

You will have a very strong center without a speaker being installed 
But if that’s what you want than by all means...

I’m not so sure a speaker position is the result of a phase shift if I’m understanding you, 

If you have a speaker playing in a room and you have a fixed spot in the room you listen , the speaker will have a certain behavior in phase and magnitude for that point in the *room* 

If you start walking around the room, the phase will be constantly changing as you move around the room. And the room will cause other amplitude related artifacts on the sound of that speaker too , it’s a simple experiment, turn the tv on and walk around and listen 

So the position will have its own signature, and this unit corrects all that for the 1 position you tell it (1st measurement)


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

banshee28 said:


> I guess I am also figuring out how this would work for my setup using a Helix P6.
> 
> If I used a DDRC24 upstream, how would this connect to the P6 in a 3-way plus SUB setup? Would each of the outputs be for a pair of speakers (Tweet,Mid,MB)? Otherwise not sure if 1 unit will be enough?



2ch in (rca or optical or usb) 4 channel out 

Do two channels for sub and midbass and two channels 
For mid and tweet , and let’s say you use crossover out of ddrc as a 400hz Lp for ch1,2 and a 400hz HP for ch 3,4

In helix set your input matrix to accept 4ch in and divide it into 4 more channels 

The 1,2channels in send to channels 1234 
And the 3,4 inputs send to 5678 

Than ch 1,2 add a LPF at 80hz sub
And ch 3,4 add a HPF at 80hz midbass 

^both of those will have a 400hz crossover in LPF from ddrc 

Now channel 5678 have the 400hz high pass from ddrc 

Ch 5,6 add a 3khzLPF mid 
AND ch 7,8 a 3khz HPF tweet 

Or whatever however you want....this is just an example


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

If the p6 is only 6ch out , than use 2ch into the p6 and the other two out of ddrc to sub 
And do the three way in the p6 except you can do one of the crossovers in the ddrc 


It is a good idea to have a common crossover on all speakers in groups anyway so they all exhibit the phase shift together.... so my 1st example is ideal ......if the p6 has 8 outputs 
If not do it the other way


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Wow that got complicated

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

A FIR based DSP:
1) can have zero phase in the cross over, and steeper cross overs.
2) has zero phase for the EQ function.

The DIRAC adds making the impulse response sharper.

So the speakers should be more true to the input signal, and the effect should be more dramatic as the speaker quality gets worse.

So the phase would be good, and the sweet spot would be zero time delay, and other spots (in the room) would have a non-zero time delay. But phase is usually relative.
As FIR can also have phase zero everywhere, then harmonics would be in the correct phase as te fundamental, but most say that phase cannot be heard... whether it matters or not, the speakers end up being closer to the true input signal... so the fidelity is better, whether or not it matters at all.

Piggy backing another DSP for cross overs seems redundant, if the DIRAC unit can do the cross over function...


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Holmz makes a good point on harmonic structure 

But we all have to remember, regular eq is 90% of the phase correction 
Once the magnitude is made smooth the phase will be corrected with it with regular eq we’ve been using for years, 

The big problem is the *room* adds its own issues, that’s where it does it magic 

If the room behavior is minimum phase there wouldn’t be a need for one of these 
But it’s not, however a large majority of the magnitude is minim phase. It’s the problem areas that Regular eq dosent want to cooperate. 

So by changing the behavior of the drivers timing in targeted frequencies, the loudspeaker will use that problem area and make it a part of the direct sound and incorporate it. That’s where phase adjustments are necessary. 

If the end result of what you hear corrects non minimum phase issues than the shape of the phase is not as important, as phase follows magnitude.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

I was thinking more that the LR and other IIR crossovers are not linear phase near the cross over, but flat in the middle.
FIR is flat everywhere.

I don't believe that room affects the phase... more like... just positions within the room are offset in time.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Holmz said:


> I was thinking more that the LR and other IIR crossovers are not linear phase near the cross over, but flat in the middle.
> FIR is flat everywhere.
> 
> I don't believe that room affects the phase... more like... just positions within the room are offset in time.



Correct , it’s worth the time to make a fir crossover 
And a garunteed alignment. There’s some ringing artifacts visible in envelopment time and step response. An iir crossover can sum very well in a car, but I like shallow slopes and I like to hear driver overlap. Fir crossover makes the stopband blending something magical when you can’t get it with iir 

Sometimes the iir crossover delay actually helps line up a mid and tweet or midbass and mid or helps reinforce stage height or depth and is desirable.
But again, when you need it the Fir is a dam nice tool to have in the bag


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

oabeieo said:


> If your dead set on that center ch , yes the ddrc88bm
> 
> If you don’t use the center , the 22/24 will work fine
> 
> ...


Ok so let's say you have 5 main speakers and a sub in the trunk. My notion is that since all 6 speakers have different distances from the listener, it would take 6 channels of phase correction to have their signals all reach the ear at the same time. That's my concept of what phase correction is -- aligning the timing of the speakers so they all hit your ear at the same time. Do I have that correct? If that's indeed correct, I'm having a hard time understanding how Dirac on 2 channels (the stereo input) could phase correct a 6 channels system.

By the way, the reason I like the 5 main speakers is just that I like the idea of surround sound in a car and have heard good things about the results of the upmixing that comes with the Helix DSP I'm considering. I'm also hoping that Audiofrog is going to be coming out with impressive upmixing system soon as well. I sure wish one of those companies would integrate Dirac, but assume they won't.


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

Yep, also waiting for the Dirac integration in some product since I think thats a huge benefit, similar to how the DSP is built into the amp on a Helix P6.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

viking1 said:


> Ok so let's say you have 5 main speakers and a sub in the trunk. My notion is that since all 6 speakers have different distances from the listener, it would take 6 channels of phase correction to have their signals all reach the ear at the same time. That's my concept of what phase correction is -- aligning the timing of the speakers so they all hit your ear at the same time. Do I have that correct? If that's indeed correct, I'm having a hard time understanding how Dirac on 2 channels (the stereo input) could phase correct a 6 channels system.
> 
> By the way, the reason I like the 5 main speakers is just that I like the idea of surround sound in a car and have heard good things about the results of the upmixing that comes with the Helix DSP I'm considering. I'm also hoping that Audiofrog is going to be coming out with impressive upmixing system soon as well. I sure wish one of those companies would integrate Dirac, but assume they won't.


Okay so if you have “surround sound or a center , or any process besides left and right , than you must have a seperate Dirac channel for those 
Speakers , ddrc88


You have to get “phase correction” out of you mind and start thinking impulse correction or room correction. 

In the case of left and right stereo, it sorta dosent matter as much 
How many speakers are on each side, with extra emphasis on; assuming all the speakers are playing seperate passbands with crossovers and some overlap is just fine, 

What your left ear hears and your right ear hears are what matters. When all the speakers are playing on each left and right side they sum together and each ear hears parts of left and right. This unit can correct channels, a 2ch Dirac can correct two channels , it’s not so important how many speakers are on each channel , so long as the crossovers are at least turned on and there within about a millisecond or two in distance from each other. Or less . 

Hope that helps 


And there is already a product out, minidsp . 
I can’t understand what anyone is waiting for except a UI that shows a car, :-/ 
It’s moot , this one does a nice job


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Okay so if you have “surround sound or a center , or any process besides left and right , than you must have a seperate Dirac channel for those
> Speakers , ddrc88
> 
> 
> ...


^^^ that answered a lot of questions that i had.

Traditionally, we give each speaker of the same type, an electrical crossover that is asymmetrical. IE: the left midbass LPF at 250 and the right midbass LPF at 300hz. Both acoustically roll off at 250hz and with the help of some Eq work after 250hz. We can get them both to have nigh exact same roll off. Something that i found to be extremely helpful in overall sound quality, stage, ect. 

Generally after setting crossovers, we do eq work on L/R to match them up to each other as well as a curve.

You're saying. Don't stress any of that and just set general safe crossovers that take into account beaming, install, natural roll off, yada yada; and just let Dirac 2.0 due its thing to fix any and all problems that may occur from not being overly anal on perfect crossover roll offs?

And leave T/A alone (thats hard to grasp) because it needs to know actual distance of speakers for its algorithms.


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

viking1 said:


> Ok so let's say you have 5 main speakers and a sub in the trunk. My notion is that since all 6 speakers have different distances from the listener, it would take 6 channels of phase correction to have their signals all reach the ear at the same time. That's my concept of what phase correction is -- aligning the timing of the speakers so they all hit your ear at the same time. Do I have that correct? ...
> 
> ...


Time correction is called time-alignment.
Frequency correction is usually under REW, or EQ.




oabeieo said:


> ...
> You have to get “phase correction” out of your mind and start thinking impulse correction or room correction.
> ...


Correct.
The Dirac function describes an impulse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

GreatLaBroski said:


> Most units do not have minimum phase ability (MiniDSP 8x12, Helix, etc) which I think would make the problem far worse. If you handled TA and phase linearization in that last DSP stage along with the crossover, then I think Dirac would have a much better chance of working as intended even with only 2 channels upstream. And I assume that’s what you’re doing.





Jscoyne2 said:


> And leave T/A alone (thats hard to grasp) because it needs to know actual distance of speakers for its algorithms.


So it sounds like maybe the "basics" generally "safe/optimal" XO's, and basic (tape measure) TA would be enough for the DSP, and let Dirac to the rest? If so maybe I can try this soon. I am getting a DDRC-24 for my Computer 2.1 setup, so may experiment with the car next!


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

You guys have to wrap your head around this....I think there’s some points not being considered. It’s tough , it took me a while to catch on. 

First, time alignment is time misalignment. It’s only a alignment in the signal, acoustically there’s alignments only at some frequencies while others are misaligned. 

You have to convert “phase” degrees to radians to understand the relationship. 
There’s only an alignment at some frequencies and a misalignment at others. It’s easily searchable , do it and learn that. 

Pre time alignment really isn’t super important at short distances with this and I’m only talking speakers on same respective channel. This thing can do what would seem like delays at some frequencies and not others or more delays than others at different frequencies.

You don’t need any time alignment between left and right and really don’t have to do any between same channel speakers , but you can to get a better result, but you don’t need it 
Take a few measurements and it will eventually output one (witching probably two or three try’s) that sound great with no time alignment at all (as long as speakers are less than about a millisecond and aren’t running some Wierd setup like rears or center on same left and right channel) 

When I say this makes an all pass for each side, it’s not just a simple 2nd order all pass, it’s a cascade of them to twist “time” in all kinds of ways to gently push and pull all of the diffrent speakers into an actual alignment at all frequencies, and that’s just a regular iir biquad , that’s not even getting into the fir yet. Than it uses the fir to push and pull things to eliminate ringing in the filter and smooth out whatever the biquad iir couldn’t. 

It plays dot to dot game and inverts it (sorta) with time. Each frequency has its own duration so it has to be uniform and stay linear, adding delay is very non linear and causes more problems while fixing others. 

No to time alignment. Pure signal delay is more of a misalignment than an alignment


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> You guys have to wrap your head around this....I think there’s some points not being considered. It’s tough , it took me a while to catch on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anddddd when is this coming out

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

https://www.audiofrog.com/community/tech-tips/time-alignment-part-2/

This is good


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Ddrc22d and ddrc24 have been out for some time now 

The 2.0 should release very soon i haven’t seen the announcement


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

If you move the left side 1ms in time , that’s great alignment for frequencies that are 2ms long , what about frequencies that are 4ms long, that’s only 1/4 the way “aligned” that now just caused another set of combfilters that a car definitely could live without. 

Let the Dirac see that actual distances in the 1st measurement of each frequency it hears. Don’t confuse it, it can handle many many different delays simultaneously. No need for signal delay. 

I can see a case for some pre delay if someone was using rears and had more than one speaker per channel playing the same thing as others on same respective channel 
And that’s what I meant as , experiment with some pre delay. Or if you have a large path lengths on same side drivers , definitely experiment.....but it will still make it sound good even if you didn’t


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> If you move the left side 1ms in time , that’s great alignment for frequencies that are 2ms long , what about frequencies that are 4ms long, that’s only 1/4 the way “aligned” that now just caused another set of combfilters that a car definitely could live without.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So this seems like a lot of progress since first reading your experimenting with dirac on Elgrossos thread. You didn't seem totally happy with Dirac then, or rather couldn't get a tune you liked.

Has the software/ algorithms evolved that much to make it easier? 

I think i might grab a ddrc24 with my next paycheck. If you have time to make a video running through your process and tips and specifically bass management (because you have it turned down or something?) 

Id be grateful. Id really hate to get. $500 piece of hardware and find out that I cant get it to give me a tune i like.

I'd even donate a small amount as a thank you. Call it a long range 6 pack of beer thank you. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

@oabeieo I suspect you're on NDA but is Dirac v2.0 supposed to arrive on DDRC88D anytime soon? Or will it be substantially after the DDRC24 / DDRC22D?


----------



## Holmz (Jul 12, 2017)

banshee28 said:


> So it sounds like maybe the "basics" generally "safe/optimal" XO's, and basic (tape measure) TA would be enough for the DSP, and let Dirac to the rest? If so maybe I can try this soon. I am getting a DDRC-24 for my Computer 2.1 setup, so may experiment with the car next!


Dirac is to align the impulse, and it is done in a FIR filter.

Any FIR filter can do time delay just by shifting the taps left or right.
And the FIR can also equalise the group delay, where group delay is different delays at different frequencies.

The only thing FIR sucks at is using more processing, having more cost, and being potentially more difficult to use. In every other way it is better.


----------



## Bridgehl4 (May 13, 2013)

Holmz said:


> Dirac is to align the impulse, and it is done in a FIR filter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


77

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


----------



## Bridgehl4 (May 13, 2013)

T


Holmz said:


> Dirac is to align the impulse, and it is done in a FIR filter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


567886

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

GreatLaBroski said:


> @oabeieo I suspect you're on NDA but is Dirac v2.0 supposed to arrive on DDRC88D anytime soon? Or will it be substantially after the DDRC24 / DDRC22D?


Mini has a thread already for Beta testing 2.0. Sounds like once this Beta is up end of April I think I read, maybe it would be available? Either way you can sign up and see if you can get in now.


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

Not sure if I am starting to understand or believe this now, but I am definitely ready to try! 

Thanks for all the comments guys, once I get my setup will let the fun begin.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

banshee28 said:


> Mini has a thread already for Beta testing 2.0. Sounds like once this Beta is up end of April I think I read, maybe it would be available? Either way you can sign up and see if you can get in now.


Link for sign up?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Link for sign up?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


https://forms.gle/pgB2JwgojHicw2gd7


----------



## alachua (Jun 30, 2008)

Looks like this morning's minidsp newsletter has the info we've all been hoping for:

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

Following the success of the CDSP 8x12, we're excited to release an update with the CDSP 8x12 DL: the first aftermarket automotive processor featuring Dirac Live DSP advanced tuning capabilities!

Combining the power of Dirac Research proven technology together with miniDSP's powerful processing toolbox, the CDSP 8x12 DL sports 8 channel of Dirac Live processing to correctly tune your cabin. The 12ch output channels allows for multiway setup or Rear/Center processing thanks to our flexible matrix mixer. Forget the guesswork but instead rely on multi-point cabin measurements with the UMIK-1 calibrated microphone to optimize your system response


----------



## craigbru (May 11, 2016)

The CDSP 8x12 DL sounds awesome! Of course, it's announced one day after my DDRC-24 arrives... I've already got an 8x12, so I'll hold off on a new purchase, but everything in one box is damn tempting!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

craigbru said:


> I've already got an 8x12, so I'll hold off on a new purchase, but everything in one box is damn tempting!


You should be interested in this piece then... 

"Also note that existing CDSP 8x12 customers will be able to upgrade with a simple infield upgrade. Details of this upgrade to be published in the coming 3-4weeks once the software flashing tools are ready. Thanks for your patience!"

I wonder if the upgrade will be the cost difference between an 8x12 and the 8x12DL, or if it will be slightly less. I am unsure if I will upgrade when the time comes, certainly would look into it.


----------



## craigbru (May 11, 2016)

naiku said:


> You should be interested in this piece then...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, good catch! I guess I'll have to repurpose my DDRC or outright sell it if not needed. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku (May 28, 2008)

Yeah, I am definitely keeping an eye out on what the upgrade price will be. I have a pretty good tune currently, but I am far from an expert and there are issues in the car I would bet DIRAC could take care of.


----------



## craigbru (May 11, 2016)

I've got a barely passable tune myself. Lack of time is the biggest issue. I've been unable to find a large enough window to really dig in and get to tweaking. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Well ****. I was gonna get a ddrc24 on Friday but for double the the price. I can have 3x the outputs? Hmm

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## banshee28 (Mar 23, 2006)

This is great news! That Minidsp unit looks awesome! I had the original C-Dsp and liked it alot. If I did not already have my current setup, I would probably be looking into this. I think other manufactures are proably right behind! If not they should be! 

For now, I will try a DDRC-24 inline with my current setup and see what happens.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

4.5 volts out. Says it has Dirac on 8 channels but minidsp processing on 12. I wonder what that means

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> 4.5 volts out. Says it has Dirac on 8 channels but minidsp processing on 12. I wonder what that means
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Exactly what it says.

Probably a hardware limitation.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

I didn't see the 10 Peq listed. So its 8 with Dirac and 4 with 10 peq. I wonder if the first 8 has peq and Dirac

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## JVD240 (Sep 7, 2009)

Jscoyne2 said:


> I didn't see the 10 Peq listed. So its 8 with Dirac and 4 with 10 peq. I wonder if the first 8 has dirac and Dirac
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I think I understand what you're saying now.

On the first 8 do you still have standard MiniDSP processing in addition to the Dirac. Not sure. Their spec sheet says this:

Dirac Live correction (8 ch), matrix mixer, miniDSP processing on all 12 outputs


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Id really like to see the software and what they mean by rear/center channel.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> Ddrc22d and ddrc24 have been out for some time now
> 
> 
> 
> The 2.0 should release very soon i haven’t seen the announcement


Will the 8x12dl have 2.0? And do you think its necessary (read: enough positive benefit,) to run individual channels with dirac like this new box will allow?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

Was just going to say the 8x12dL was announced 

There you guys go for the car version


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> Was just going to say the 8x12dL was announced
> 
> There you guys go for the car version


Yep, I'm stoked. Once the plugin is available I'll grab it.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

I’m so tempted, the 4vrms is so tempting and 8ch DL vs two 

Oooohhhhhh baby !


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

oabeieo said:


> I’m so tempted, the 4vrms is so tempting and 8ch DL vs two
> 
> 
> 
> Oooohhhhhh baby !


But that price tag.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

oabeieo said:


> I’m so tempted, the 4vrms is so tempting and 8ch DL vs two
> 
> Oooohhhhhh baby !


And you can't leave out the better quality DAC


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

​


Jscoyne2 said:


> 4.5 volts out. Says it has Dirac on 8 channels but minidsp processing on 12. I wonder what that means
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I interpret it as: 

8 channels of Dirac Live to (potentially) handle each input if each input was a discreet signal. An example would be feeding it an upmixed 7.1 surround setup. This would occupy the 8 individual input channels.

Those 8 Dirac Live processed channels can then be divided into the appropriate 12 discreet speaker channels. For example your Dirac 1 and Dirac 2 channels might be Front L and Front R. But Front L and Front R can be a 2-way setup that occupies 4 outputs and not just 2.

But this is just one strategy. It could also very well be used as you mentioned with 8 Dirac Channels distributed as you see fit (Front L High, Front R High, Front L Low, Front R Low, etc) and have 4 non Dirac PEQ channels that you send to amps or DDRC24 for even more Dirac Live channels.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> ​
> 
> 
> I interpret it as:
> ...


Hmm. I'll need to make a very real decision on wether of not to sell my helix dsp.2 for this new fancy Dirac machine. I'd hate to lose 31 bands of peq for Dirac and not be able to use it correctly.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

Scratch that! Just realized there are only 6 inputs! I was thinking it had 8 channel input like the DDRC88


----------



## GreatLaBroski (Jan 20, 2018)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Scratch that! Just realized there are only 6 inputs! I was thinking it had 8 channel input like the DDRC88


6 Analog and 2 digital


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

GreatLaBroski said:


> 6 Analog and 2 digital


If you want to count them individually, 6 analog inputs plus 2 digital with 2 channels each (I think you can use 2 digital plus 6 analog at the same time)= 8 channels.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar (Aug 23, 2016)

Yep individually 8 inputs between digital and analog (maybe simultaneously) but not in a manner that is feasible for my 7.1 scenario (unless you want to get unnecessarily complex).

Until we have the plugin to play with, I’m guessing it has 8 channels of Dirac Live correction that can be distributed to 12 active speaker locations allowing you to make crossovers for certain channels (most likely being your Front L and Front R).


----------



## ckirocz28 (Nov 29, 2017)

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Yep individually 8 inputs between digital and analog (maybe simultaneously) but not in a manner that is feasible for my 7.1 scenario (unless you want to get unnecessarily complex).
> 
> 
> 
> Until we have the plugin to play with, I’m guessing it has 8 channels of Dirac Live correction that can be distributed to 12 active speaker locations allowing you to make crossovers for certain channels (most likely being your Front L and Front R).


Yep, seems we're just forgotten when it comes to surround setups. Someone needs to market a Dirac-enabled full-on surround receiver/dsp that has RCA outputs only for car audio.


----------



## oabeieo (Feb 22, 2015)

My 2x4hds don’t do analog and digital simultaneously 

The twk88 does 


So I don’t know but I doubt it mini dosent do that on anything


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Not to sidetrack my own thread, but does anyone know how I could integrate multi-channel upmixing into a system utilizing a DDRC88 (huge news about announcement couple days ago -- super pumped!)? I mean both currently and theoretically/going into the future.

I'd like to use a center channel and the rear speakers as surround speakers while playing stereo source material. So I'd like something similar to Dolby ProLogic or Harman Logic7, in order to ameliorate the effects of fundamentally poor stereo speaker placement intrinsic to cars, as well as to produce more enveloping sound (that I happen to like).

What kind of products could I use now, or look forward to using in the future, and how would I combine them with the C-DSP 8x12DL running Dirac in order to get what I'm looking for? This kind of dream setup (Dirac + multichannel) is what I'm waiting for to take the plunge into car audio.


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

viking1 said:


> Not to sidetrack my own thread, but does anyone know how I could integrate multi-channel upmixing into a system utilizing a DDRC88 (huge news about announcement couple days ago -- super pumped!)? I mean both currently and theoretically/going into the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mattkim on here is running an MS8 specifically for its logic 7. No actual ms8 autotune or anything. So ms8 to helix mk2 and he sends that to all his speakers.

So. Ms8 logic 7 and split the signal to two minidsp 8x12 dl

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Mattkim on here is running an MS8 specifically for its logic 7. No actual ms8 autotune or anything. So ms8 to helix mk2 and he sends that to all his speakers.
> 
> So. Ms8 logic 7 and split the signal to two minidsp 8x12 dl
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Interesting. I'm new so didn't know about this 10 year old device. What a waste it would be to add something that includes everything in the world (amplification, EQ, DSP, etc) just for the upmixing, though!


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

viking1 said:


> Interesting. I'm new so didn't know about this 10 year old device. What a waste it would be to add something that includes everything in the world (amplification, EQ, DSP, etc) just for the upmixing, though!


Sadly upmixing is basically non existent in the car audio world except for som old gear that still sells for good prices. The audiofrog dsp promises to change all that but that'll only come out when i get a delorean. 

You should get into the basics of car audio tho. There is some serious basic knowledge to learn before you start with multi channel upmixing set ups.

I

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## viking1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Jscoyne2 said:


> Sadly upmixing is basically non existent in the car audio world except for som old gear that still sells for good prices. The audiofrog dsp promises to change all that but that'll only come out when i get a delorean.
> 
> You should get into the basics of car audio tho. There is some serious basic knowledge to learn before you start with multi channel upmixing set ups.
> 
> ...


No I want everything now!


----------



## K-pop sucks (May 28, 2018)

I need help with a 3 way active system.

How would I implement mini Ddrc-24?

Headunit to Ddrc-24 to processor/crossover to 3 amps?


----------

