# Minidsp CDSP-DL 8x12 Dirac live upgrade or new release help



## oabeieo

My cdspdl will be here tomorrow or next day , 

If anyone also has upgraded there’s or got a new unit and experienced any issues with yours please share what those issues are and how you resolved them. 

I will try and help anyone with there unit as much as I can if you having issues. 
Me and a few others have been using ddrc24s ddrc22s or ddrc88s or 2x4HDs which all share a similar platform as far as the UI and functionality. 
I’m sure there’s some experts here that can share somethings also. 

On the minidsp forum a couple ppl had issues getting Dirac to output and a new firmware was given, I do not know if it is live and a official build or if it was a patch that minidsp supplied to them on a individual basis. 

This is a very good unit and packed with power. even the most problematic acoustic problems can be made into sweet music bliss with this guy. 
There is a learning curve to this type of dsp but it’s easy and anyone can do it. 
You will make even the most experienced tuners shake and tremble when you have one of these installed. 

Hope to get good input from anyone that has got there’s already. 
Please let us know what isn’t working or doesn’t make sense the way you initially thought we can get it working the right way with a little bit. 

There’s a gain structure procedure on minidsp for the ddrc88a/bm and it’s very good. This should be adopted to the CDSP-DL as it’s almost the same unit, and the level setting part is the same. 

Thanks in advance:surprised:


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> On the minidsp forum a couple ppl had issues getting Dirac to output and a new firmware was given, I do not know if it is live and a official build or if it was a patch that minidsp supplied to them on a individual basis.


It's a file that they sent, in the email they said if it's successful they will release a software update. Fixed the problem for both myself and the other guy, so I imagine a software update will be available soon.

Are you still thinking of making a video of setting it up? I know you mentioned it in the other thread, it would be very handy to have as initial set up of the routing/mixer tabs and DLCT can be daunting!


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> It's a file that they sent, in the email they said if it's successful they will release a software update. Fixed the problem for both myself and the other guy, so I imagine a software update will be available soon.
> 
> Are you still thinking of making a video of setting it up? I know you mentioned it in the other thread, it would be very handy to have as initial set up of the routing/mixer tabs and DLCT can be daunting!



Yes I will, 

I should be getting mine in mail tomorrow so we all have same UI.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Make a video of a full tune...

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Are you planning to use FIR filters?


----------



## subterFUSE

tonynca said:


> Are you planning to use FIR filters?


I think DIRAC uses mixed-phase filters. Some FIR and some IIR.

If someone wanted to do all FIR filters, they probably need to use RePhase some something like that to build their own filters and then upload them.


----------



## naiku

Having been playing with the DL for about a week now, it kind of feels like cheating a little. I have a tune that rivals, if not beats, the best manual tune I'd done previously. Stage is wide, center is in the center, bass is not behind me. Dirac took all of 10 minutes, the manual tune, no idea, it easily took hours of REW measurements and EQ tweaks. I think for some of the guys who can nail down a good tune relatively quickly, this unit won't be for them, but for many of us it's great, just in the time saving alone. 

There's still a couple minor, but annoying bugs in the software, the worst being it tells you the levels are too low, when you've already set them correctly. Clicking OK then Start and it proceeds like it should do, it's just annoying having to click it every time.


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Having been playing with the DL for about a week now, it kind of feels like cheating a little. I have a tune that rivals, if not beats, the best manual tune I'd done previously. Stage is wide, center is in the center, bass is not behind me. Dirac took all of 10 minutes, the manual tune, no idea, it easily took hours of REW measurements and EQ tweaks. I think for some of the guys who can nail down a good tune relatively quickly, this unit won't be for them, but for many of us it's great, just in the time saving alone.
> 
> There's still a couple minor, but annoying bugs in the software, the worst being it tells you the levels are too low, when you've already set them correctly. Clicking OK then Start and it proceeds like it should do, it's just annoying having to click it every time.




Are you talking about the dialog box that opens on first measurement?

Lmao! Hahaha ....is that what it says? I’ve never took the time to read it , I figured it was an annoying dialogue warning about levels ...I never realized it says too low..... 


When it takes measurements on the bottom of the screen in DLCT it should show the mono waveform graph of the measurements, that should be about (roughly) half to 3/4 filled with audio traces. It shouldn’t be itty bitty small. 

I usually measure at -35dbfs with a mic gain at 0 

I never push the umik1 into the red on mic gain , the umik1 has a lot of gain (+18db) but that’s just me, it shouldn’t matter too much as long as your filling the audio track like I said about half to three quarters.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Make a videoooo. Doesn't need to be anything crazy. Just a recording of your screen as you use it. I wanna see a few things and I'd realllllly appreciate it

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Are you talking about the dialog box that opens on first measurement?
> 
> Lmao! Hahaha ....is that what it says? I’ve never took the time to read it , I figured it was an annoying dialogue warning about levels ...I never realized it says too low.....


Yeah, the first message says to make sure it's in the center of the listening area, then every measurement gives the warning about level being too low. It's not a deal breaker, but an annoyance.



oabeieo said:


> When it takes measurements on the bottom of the screen in DLCT it should show the mono waveform graph of the measurements, that should be about (roughly) half to 3/4 filled with audio traces. It shouldn’t be itty bitty small.
> 
> I usually measure at -35dbfs with a mic gain at 0
> 
> I never push the umik1 into the red on mic gain , the umik1 has a lot of gain (+18db) but that’s just me, it shouldn’t matter too much as long as your filling the audio track like I said about half to three quarters.


That's about what I aim for as well, I usually leave the microphone at the default level and just adjust the output so that each channel is just about hitting the -12 on the scale.




Jscoyne2 said:


> Make a videoooo. Doesn't need to be anything crazy. Just a recording of your screen as you use it. I wanna see a few things and I'd realllllly appreciate it


This video does a pretty decent job of showing the DLCT screen:

https://youtu.be/vVQhI7fPank

Unless you're also looking for a video of the MiniDSP software as well, it should be helpful as it's basically exactly the same.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Make a videoooo. Doesn't need to be anything crazy. Just a recording of your screen as you use it. I wanna see a few things and I'd realllllly appreciate it
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



I will ...i finally got my DHl email, my cdsp arrives tomorrow 
I’m using ddrc24 and ddrc22d right now.


I want to make a video with the cdsp , I need a day to install it and than I’ll make a video :-$


----------



## bnae38

naiku said:


> Having been playing with the DL for about a week now, it kind of feels like cheating a little. I have a tune that rivals, if not beats, the best manual tune I'd done previously. Stage is wide, center is in the center, bass is not behind me. Dirac took all of 10 minutes, the manual tune, no idea, it easily took hours of REW measurements and EQ tweaks. I think for some of the guys who can nail down a good tune relatively quickly, this unit won't be for them, but for many of us it's great, just in the time saving alone.
> 
> There's still a couple minor, but annoying bugs in the software, the worst being it tells you the levels are too low, when you've already set them correctly. Clicking OK then Start and it proceeds like it should do, it's just annoying having to click it every time.


Curious if you could outline the process for the 10 minute tune. Just to give us an idea exactly what steps are manual, automated etc.

I've been manually tuning my car for about 4 years, basically with no point of reference (ie what a good tune sounds like...) Still leaves something to be desired..


----------



## oabeieo

Okay I’ve never seen too low warnings in that cases 


Do the measurements to your ears sound fairly loud ? 

Should be fairly loud not balls to the wall tho


----------



## oabeieo

How about this I’ll do two videos 

One with DLCT and I’ll do it tonight , I’ll start production now

Than another one after I get my unit to cover the CDSP controls


----------



## naiku

bnae38 said:


> Curious if you could outline the process for the 10 minute tune. Just to give us an idea exactly what steps are manual, automated etc.
> 
> I've been manually tuning my car for about 4 years, basically with no point of reference (ie what a good tune sounds like...) Still leaves something to be desired..


Sure... You open the DSP plug in and set up dirac channels via a routing tab, so I have 5 channels set up, left speakers, right speakers, left rear, right rear and sub, then on a mixer tab assign those dirac channels to individual speakers... Channel 1 = left tweeter, left mid, left midbass and so on. On the output tabs enter your crossovers. Then set your levels, I used REW to get left/right levels. Save that and exit the DSP plug in.

Open DLCT, it scans for the DSP and you enter how many channels you are running. Basically select custom and then enter the number, in my case 5. Hit proceed, it finds the microphone, hit proceed again and you can adjust the output levels, there's a play button besides each channel, click that it sends pink noise out that channel. You can also rename the channels here to make more sense. Once you have the levels set here, hit proceed. 

Select "Chair" and you'll see a bunch of dots. Put the microphone on the first position, click start and it makes a number of sweeps (one more than the number of channels). If your output if too low or high it will tell you. Repeat for all, 9 positions and click proceed.

Load a target or use the auto one, drag the level down below the biggest dips. I link channels together (left and right front, left and right rear), but you can do individually. Click optimize, wait 30 seconds or so, marvel at the new response line. Click proceed and drag the Dirac file into a DSP preset. Save and exit.

Open the DSP and adjust the master volume, or individual channels if needed. 

Done.

Ignore the subwoofer on here, I was experimenting, but this was an earlier iteration of what I have now. 1/12 smoothing in REW.










As to knowing a good tune, for me it was attending meets and hearing other guys cars. But, there's also a lot of personal preference. If you don't like how it sounds, but someone says it's a good tune, is it really?


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Okay I’ve never seen too low warnings in that cases
> 
> 
> Do the measurements to your ears sound fairly loud ?
> 
> Should be fairly loud not balls to the wall tho


It's a bug with the C-DSP version, I'll be surprised if you don't get the too low message once you get yours installed.

Measurements are loud, but not if that makes sense.


----------



## oabeieo

I wonder if you have a weird setting in you audio devices properties box for umik 

Just a guess :/


----------



## naiku

Possible, but that other guy on the MiniDSP forum is having the same exact issue. Not saying it's impossible we both have the same microphone setting, but I'd be surprised.


----------



## oabeieo

Your probably right. 

But you still can get through the process at least it dosent force you to quit ....


----------



## naiku

Exactly. It's just an additional 2 clicks of the mouse per microphone position. One to close the message, another to start the sweep.


----------



## Mahapederdon

I'm really interested to see how everyone likes these.


----------



## bnae38

Is it one seat tune only with this product? Thinking so.


----------



## piyush7243

bnae38 said:


> Is it one seat tune only with this product? Thinking so.


If done correctly for a sofa kind of position and points. It can get a decent 2 seat tune as well

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

I got a video made 

It’s uploading now


----------



## oabeieo

bnae38 said:


> Is it one seat tune only with this product? Thinking so.



Yes! 

With some manipulation a 2 seat tune can be extracted with the use of a single All pass filter afterwards , however nothing replaces low path lengths 

The new version of Dirac 2.0 will have a two seat tune from what I hear , this one is one seat timing but sofa is getting more measurement points for a broader listening area 
So at least another person has smooth response without the imaging


----------



## oabeieo

Video number 1 this one is a teaser while I’m waiting for the other one to load 

https://youtu.be/Fjyf-fm78EQ


----------



## oabeieo

After 2 hours this nerdy guy finally went live 

Whallah I pretty sure I sucked at explaining it and can re do but hey I put something for yalls right before putting the kids to bed 

https://youtu.be/vPkNq8d-wuk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> After 2 hours this nerdy guy finally went live
> 
> 
> 
> Whallah I pretty sure I sucked at explaining it and can re do but hey I put something for yalls right before putting the kids to bed
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/vPkNq8d-wuk


Awesome thanks

I feel like the the cdsp dl is going to be weird with trying to find a curve that works and making all the speakers crossovers roll off at perfect slopes. I guess I'd just have to have it in my hands to try before i can say i do or don't understand the software. Or can or cant make it work.



Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ill let you pros do it first tho 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

I'm close to pulling the trigger on the upgrade for my 8x12.

Something I'm trying to understand is how this works through the crossover regions. If assigning one Dirac channel per speaker set (FL, FR, Sub) as the manuals example shows for active 3way & sub - how does it adjust the timing/phase independently for each driver in those xover regions as any changes would affect both drivers. I would think that assigning a single Dirac channel per driver would provide better results?... I suppose some experimenting would validate.


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Something I'm trying to understand is how this works through the crossover regions. If assigning one Dirac channel per speaker set (FL, FR, Sub) as the manuals example shows for active 3way & sub - how does it adjust the timing/phase independently for each driver in those xover regions as any changes would affect both drivers. I would think that assigning a single Dirac channel per driver would provide better results?... I suppose some experimenting would validate.


This is something I can't quite understand, it seems to work well, I just have no real idea how it is doing it. My experimenting using 7 channels is sort of for this reason, to see if it does a better job. Unfortunately I have to have the mid & midbass on the same channel (unless I ditch having rear fill) but since they are close together in physical location I am not so concerned, where as the tweeter is a good 12" or more away from the midbass, I figure giving them their own Dirac channel will possibly improve things.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ill let you pros do it first tho
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Umm doing it with a single ddrc24 with my horns now and it’s badass! 


Although......... I can go over it with a ddrc22d. 
I don’t think you can link channels twice in cdsp
So we’ll see , I’ll play with it 

Worst case I’ll use my cdsp in the end for a 1st dirac run and make crossovers in Dirac than use my ddrc22d and go over everything with it 



The should acoustically sum tho if the target is broken, that part works with an acoustical filter I do know so theoretically yes 

I’ll let you know soon tho I guess


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> I'm close to pulling the trigger on the upgrade for my 8x12.
> 
> Something I'm trying to understand is how this works through the crossover regions. If assigning one Dirac channel per speaker set (FL, FR, Sub) as the manuals example shows for active 3way & sub - how does it adjust the timing/phase independently for each driver in those xover regions as any changes would affect both drivers. I would think that assigning a single Dirac channel per driver would provide better results?... I suppose some experimenting would validate.


Excellent question!


So you assigned crossovers in back end , 
Than if you do all the Dirac sweeps in a multi-way you have let’s say 8ch of Dirac 

Now after taking measurements all the channels will be linked to a single target 


It will go through each sweep with you as you ajust the target and each passband only showing the passband in target screen leaving most of the stop band curtained off. So than you can draw your target on inband And ajust than after all that , you can unlink (if you want) the pairs of speakers from the multi-way and fine tune crossovers and pull the curtains back on each pair 

With my preliminary trials doing this I got linearized we’ll performing crossovers to -40dbfs 

I did that in a 88BM and it worked excellent this should be same idea


I will definitely get back on this and farther the topic


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> Excellent question!
> 
> 
> So you assigned crossovers in back end ,
> Than if you do all the Dirac sweeps in a multi-way you have let’s say 8ch of Dirac
> 
> Now after taking measurements all the channels will be linked to a single target
> 
> 
> It will go through each sweep with you as you ajust the target and each passband only showing the passband in target screen leaving most of the stop band curtained off. So than you can draw your target on inband And ajust than after all that , you can unlink (if you want) the pairs of speakers from the multi-way and fine tune crossovers and pull the curtains back on each pair
> 
> With my preliminary trials doing this I got linearized we’ll performing crossovers to -40dbfs
> 
> I did that in a 88BM and it worked excellent this should be same idea
> 
> 
> I will definitely get back on this and farther the topic


So, if I'm understanding you correctly - a different target curve can be assigned to each Dirac Channel to only include the planned passband of the driver it is assigned to?


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> So, if I'm understanding you correctly - a different target curve can be assigned to each Dirac Channel to only include the planned passband of the driver it is assigned to?


Yes 


That’s exactly right.


So for a multi-way, I like to link all channels to a single target (for ease ) than after target drawn unlink pairs (tweets,mids,subs,etc) than fine tune crossover regions, you will see where it acoustically rolls off and draw a crossover slope or help just shape the crossover at the beginning of its roll off to keep left and right behavior the same and curtain off the rest (which I’ve had good luck with so far)


----------



## Jscoyne2

So if u make a vid of the cdsp dl. Perhaps just "stream" the computer screen using a software that allows it. You could even make a twitch.tv account. They're free and im fairly certain they save everything you stream. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So if u make a vid of the cdsp dl. Perhaps just "stream" the computer screen using a software that allows it. You could even make a twitch.tv account. They're free and im fairly certain they save everything you stream.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



I will look into that yes 

I’m sure it captures audio ....

Good idea 

I’m doing the install tonight when I get home 

So maybe tonight maybe tomorrow


----------



## oabeieo

Got it 

Very sexy lookin unit for sure 

Nice


----------



## oabeieo

Installed but a glitch with optical in and the mixer 

Stay tuned


----------



## tonynca

I wish the remote was not so primative. 

For $800+ they really should have a display so you could see control values. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Yeaa the price is a little obnoxious

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

You guys are a little obnoxious 

LISTEN TO ME! 

I Finally got all 8ch working . 

Holy mother of sliced spaced ships!!!!!!! 

Who cares about the price or the remote or whatever ....it’s all whatever 


My gains are ****ed up! I had to limp through the measurements and got through them.

I linked all channels , drew a streigjt line , and unlinked and worked the seperate drivers stopband a tiny bit (almost not at all, in fact only did it to my midbass) 
Plugged the filter in and the spaceship ****in landed on me. 

It’s amazing. Better than anything I’ve ever heard in my life. No joke. I’m not bragging. 
It didn’t even sound like I was sitting in a car. It sounded like I was sitting in a huge room with such perfectly detailed vocal that is perfectly placed in the center. 


I’ve been dracing for awhile now and have never gotten this level of detail or ambiance or imaging ever. 

This unit has magic dust gang. Don’t ask me how yet I’m going to figure it out tho. 
At this point I don’t care about phase responses or impulses or anything anymore 
I only care about keeping it sounding-like this. Nothing else. 

It’s that good. I’m not lying. Something about seperate Dirac on each channel and this unit. 
I don’t know if the algo is changed for car , I don’t know nothing yet. I’m still trying to grasp how it sounds like it does. 


There’s definitely a video tomorrow. 
I’ve got to scope out my gains first and get prepared for the spaceship to arrive again


<a href='https://postimg.cc/NKjVNSp3' target='_blank'><img src='https://i.postimg.cc/g2VW0PR2/3-D1552-FE-97-FD-4-B03-B4-B6-C9-FB6-FB5288-E.jpg' border='0' alt='3-D1552-FE-97-FD-4-B03-B4-B6-C9-FB6-FB5288-E'/></a>


No pretune no post tune 

Just tuned my left mid down 1.5db after that’s it 

No peq , basic ass crossovers with no alignment at all , it should be a wreck but it’s not.


The mess

(Except how my midbass play to 16hz hehehe)


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> You guys are a little obnoxious
> 
> 
> 
> LISTEN TO ME!
> 
> 
> 
> I Finally got all 8ch working .
> 
> 
> 
> Holy mother of sliced spaced ships!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about the price or the remote or whatever ....it’s all whatever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My gains are ****ed up! I had to limp through the measurements and got through them.
> 
> 
> 
> I linked all channels , drew a streigjt line , and unlinked and worked the seperate drivers stopband a tiny bit (almost not at all, in fact only did it to my midbass)
> 
> Plugged the filter in and the spaceship ****in landed on me.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s amazing. Better than anything I’ve ever heard in my life. No joke. I’m not bragging.
> 
> It didn’t even sound like I was sitting in a car. It sounded like I was sitting in a huge room with such perfectly detailed vocal that is perfectly placed in the center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve been dracing for awhile now and have never gotten this level of detail or ambiance or imaging ever.
> 
> 
> 
> This unit has magic dust gang. Don’t ask me how yet I’m going to figure it out tho.
> 
> At this point I don’t care about phase responses or impulses or anything anymore
> 
> I only care about keeping it sounding-like this. Nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s that good. I’m not lying. Something about seperate Dirac on each channel and this unit.
> 
> I don’t know if the algo is changed for car , I don’t know nothing yet. I’m still trying to grasp how it sounds like it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There’s definitely a video tomorrow.
> 
> I’ve got to scope out my gains first and get prepared for the spaceship to arrive again


Well that's offly exciting. Got me a lil jittery.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

I know it's silly but record a video with your iPhone of music playing. Just wanna get a sense of the space and ambience of the interior of the car. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> Holy mother of sliced spaced ships!!!!!!!
> ...
> 
> Plugged the filter in and the spaceship ****in landed on me.
> 
> ...
> 
> I’ve got to scope out my gains first and get prepared for the spaceship to arrive again


You're hilarious... you've brightened my morning with this. Thanks


----------



## naiku

tonynca said:


> I wish the remote was not so primative.
> 
> For $800+ they really should have a display so you could see control values.


While I do agree the remote is not exactly great, what other DSP comes with a remote with a display? Or in fact comes with any remote at all? The Arc PS8 does not come with any that I know of, the Helix DSP Pro.2 does not come with one, and both the Helix and PS8 cost more than the MiniDSP, the Alpine H800 does not, the Dayton does not (I realize the Dayton is less than 1/4 the price). 

The last DSP's I can remember that come with a remote, that also has a screen is the Audison BitOne and the Mosconi DSP's. 

The funny thing with the MiniDSP remote is the manual shows that it has LED's to show the level, but it does not. If you take the remote apart, you can see on the board where the LED's should have been mounted, but for some reason they chose not to. In all honesty, I rarely ever touch the remote for mine, sometimes I will switch a preset if I am at a meet or turn the sub up/down but that's about it.




oabeieo said:


> Holy mother of sliced spaced ships!!!!!!!


I had a feeling you would like it once you got it installed. I have a solid preset now that sounds good, but want to go out and try a few things with mine, but alas, work is in the way!! 





tonynca said:


> I know it's silly but record a video with your iPhone of music playing. Just wanna get a sense of the space and ambience of the interior of the car.


I don't know if it would even come through on something like that recording, if oabeieo does not make a quick recording, I can try, but I doubt you will get any sense of the space that this thing generates.


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> I know it's silly but record a video with your iPhone of music playing. Just wanna get a sense of the space and ambience of the interior of the car.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Okay

I can do that:.....however I’m playing music from my iPhone 

I use the wife’s phone (she doesn’t have aptX) it’s a basic LG


----------



## oabeieo

I woke up and was sorta scared to listen again
Was worried it wouldn’t sound the same ....

It’s still spaceship sounding. I don’t know how to describe it but it 
Kinda sounds like your in a car and kinda not. And the depth of sound in the foreground behind the physical speaker locations is hard to believe. It’s like I’m in a living room with a nice set of towers or bookshelves sitting dead between them, except I’m offset and has car imaging 

The recording plays a lot I think , but every recording I’ve played sounds better. Some have so much ambiance two that stood out were (Mary Chaplin Carpenter;come on come on 
And “save me (feat .Adra) adventure club “ <spaceship song and Woner (feat. The kite string temple ) adventure club 

That’s all I’ve played so far I’m going to play some other tracks today some Jennifer warren and stuff to try out and see how sounds


----------



## naiku

So, you would say you are pleased with the C-DSP then :-D 

I'm planning to see if I can figure out the signal too low message in a couple hours, have some ideas of what to try and if that message still pops up will email support with a video / screenshots etc.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> I woke up and was sorta scared to listen again
> 
> Was worried it wouldn’t sound the same ....
> 
> 
> 
> It’s still spaceship sounding. I don’t know how to describe it but it
> 
> Kinda sounds like your in a car and kinda not. And the depth of sound in the foreground behind the physical speaker locations is hard to believe. It’s like I’m in a living room with a nice set of towers or bookshelves sitting dead between them, except I’m offset and has car imaging
> 
> 
> 
> The recording plays a lot I think , but every recording I’ve played sounds better. Some have so much ambiance two that stood out were (Mary Chaplin Carpenter;come on come on
> 
> And “save me (feat .Adra) adventure club “ <spaceship song and Woner (feat. The kite string temple ) adventure club
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all I’ve played so far I’m going to play some other tracks today some Jennifer warren and stuff to try out and see how sounds


Julia sheer. Jon d. "Little talks" on Spotify.

There is a female and male vocal and on my car. Male is left center. Female is right center. It sounds really really good.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> So, you would say you are pleased with the C-DSP then :-D
> 
> I'm planning to see if I can figure out the signal too low message in a couple hours, have some ideas of what to try and if that message still pops up will email support with a video / screenshots etc.




Yeah im getting signal too low also 
But I know my gains are way too high for this unit. 
I went from a unit that had a max of 2vrms tona unit with a max of 8vrms 
I’m pretty sure that’s all it is.


----------



## piyush7243

oabeieo said:


> Yeah im getting signal too low also
> 
> But I know my gains are way too high for this unit.
> 
> I went from a unit that had a max of 2vrms tona unit with a max of 8vrms
> 
> I’m pretty sure that’s all it is.


Its not 8vrms any more. I think its 6ish

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

naiku said:


> While I do agree the remote is not exactly great, what other DSP comes with a remote with a display? Or in fact comes with any remote at all? The Arc PS8 does not come with any that I know of, the Helix DSP Pro.2 does not come with one, and both the Helix and PS8 cost more than the MiniDSP, the Alpine H800 does not, the Dayton does not (I realize the Dayton is less than 1/4 the price).
> 
> 
> 
> The last DSP's I can remember that come with a remote, that also has a screen is the Audison BitOne and the Mosconi DSP's.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing with the MiniDSP remote is the manual shows that it has LED's to show the level, but it does not. If you take the remote apart, you can see on the board where the LED's should have been mounted, but for some reason they chose not to. In all honesty, I rarely ever touch the remote for mine, sometimes I will switch a preset if I am at a meet or turn the sub up/down but that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a feeling you would like it once you got it installed. I have a solid preset now that sounds good, but want to go out and try a few things with mine, but alas, work is in the way!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if it would even come through on something like that recording, if oabeieo does not make a quick recording, I can try, but I doubt you will get any sense of the space that this thing generates.




Helix, Audison, mosconi, etc all have the option of either buying a great display remote or comes with one. The option of it being available to you is what I'm pointing out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

I’m getting 11.67dbu (about 2.9vrms) with sliders all set to 0 and no peq or crossovers turned on at 1khz MOL 

That’s a very usable signal.... 3x as much as a was seeing with the 2x4hds I was getting.779vrms 

My alpine x series amps unity gain (nom) in middle is 2.83vrms , I’m so close to that I’m just going with the unity setting on the alpine amps 

The Rockford amps don’t have a unity marker and I don’t know the input topology (rebuffed or voltage divider) so I’m just going to match it with my meter to the alpine amps and get the outputs matched. There older amps so that’s about 1/3 way up. 

I’ll eat the driver sensitivity difference in my output slider ( I’m only turning down the horns -3db) the rest will be cut in eq. I’m getting no noise and no hiss so if I’m a tiny bit hot on horns that’s ok I want the room to eq anyway. 


That’s also with my iPhone as a source with toslink out of nx807 , my iPhone I want to say is upwards of 10db under 0dbfs as when I’m using Bt AptX I get way more gain, but this is how I’m going to listen so this is how gains get set. 

Had to call it quits the wife needed to go somewhere so I’m the babysitter now 

When she gets back I’m measuring.


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Helix, Audison, mosconi, etc all have the option of either buying a great display remote or comes with one. The option of it being available to you is what I'm pointing out.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I know I was just joking 

We’ll see, I think the wave flex unit display may work on this no? 
I don’t know but uses same plug


----------



## naiku

So, I tried to see if I could not get the low signal message, nope. Picked my quietest speaker, which for me is the drivers side left rear. Turned up the input gain until that was just about hitting -6 on the scale, then did the same with all the other speakers. Same signal too low error. Annoying.

I also get a weird thing happen anytime I try to use 7 Dirac channels, could be user error though. But, essentially I lose pretty much all of my output except on the tweeters and rear fill, even though on my target curve I pull down the target for the tweeters to match that of the mid / mid-bass. Will probably try another set of measurements tomorrow to see if I can figure it out. 

Actually, that is my one complaint so far with the Dirac unit. With my manual tune I had really nice mid-bass / sub-bass, that seems to be lacking currently. Could be as simple as the target I am using, the tune I have now sounds great, but is just lacking that thump.


----------



## dgage

naiku said:


> Actually, that is my one complaint so far with the Dirac unit. With my manual tune I had really nice mid-bass / sub-bass, that seems to be lacking currently. Could be as simple as the target I am using, the tune I have now sounds great, but is just lacking that thump.


Interesting. When looking at the specifications for the MiniDSP 8x12 DL, it shows an X next to bass management. Can anyone explain what that means? Dirac allows you to set a curve so shouldn’t it be able to manage the sub-bass as well? Or are they saying that with Dirac, PEQ manipulation is not available? Then again, the regular 8x12 is also not shown as having bass management and I would consider an 8x12 to have bass management capabilities.


----------



## naiku

With the 8x12 DL it has a bass management tab that you can pull a subwoofer feed out of your inputs, you can set the crossovers, levels etc. on that tab for the sub. I think!! Then you have the PEQ, crossovers, time delay, levels etc. for the sub on the output tabs. 

It does have PEQ, so after you run Dirac you can then manipulate the response some using that. In all honesty, I suspect my issue with the lacking bass is the curve I am using, I'd bet if I use a different curve that I can get the bass back to where I like it. Not saying that it is bad currently, it's not, its just not as hard hitting as I am used to based on previous manual tunes.


----------



## subterFUSE

naiku said:


> With the 8x12 DL it has a bass management tab that you can pull a subwoofer feed out of your inputs, you can set the crossovers, levels etc. on that tab for the sub. I think!! Then you have the PEQ, crossovers, time delay, levels etc. for the sub on the output tabs.
> 
> 
> 
> It does have PEQ, so after you run Dirac you can then manipulate the response some using that. In all honesty, I suspect my issue with the lacking bass is the curve I am using, I'd bet if I use a different curve that I can get the bass back to where I like it. Not saying that it is bad currently, it's not, its just not as hard hitting as I am used to based on previous manual tunes.




Probably because the manual tunes had too much bass. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

subterFUSE said:


> Probably because the manual tunes had too much bass.


Wait, you never got a demo in my car at Jason's, how did you know?? :laugh:

In all seriousness, you could well be exactly right.


----------



## subterFUSE

Most car audio guys have too much bass. It's a safe assumption.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Most car audio guys have too much bass. It's a safe assumption.


John, when are you going to buy one of these?... I know your entertaining the idea


----------



## subterFUSE

Already ordered. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

I will too. Just like those glitches fixed first...

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Already ordered.


I knew it!... Looking forward to your impression on it :thumbsup:


----------



## dgage

How long is it taking for delivery?


----------



## Mahapederdon

I want one but I'm gonna learn to do it the hard way first. By then they will be really cheap.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

dgage said:


> How long is it taking for delivery?


I've heard MiniDSP ships freakishly fast internationally (3-5 days).


----------



## oabeieo

So gang , 

Got my levels set and ran it again 

Definitely a glitch with the low levels thing , naiku, you were right buddy the whole time 
It seems to not keep a constant connection to dsp in DLCT , when you press start there’s a audible click like it’s connecting to dsp. I think there’s a latency issue and it’s not seeing the channel in time. But I want to say I saw it do it once before I even pressed start , but I get the message late so it could’ve been in next measurement by than. 

This bug needs to be addressed and i will inform the DevTeam about this issue as well. 

The tune tho. Again. Wow. I started off with no delays no peq (except on horns they have a +15db spot at 4K so it had to go down to be able to complete the measurements) 

After the tune the left was a bit too loud , but I couldn’t get my left mic positions because of clipping the horns, I need to add more pre eq. So I’m the end I turned down the left horn 1.8db and i had to flip the polarity on the 2118h and add .5ms to the left. But it sounds killer. Much better than what I’m used to. The bass is dialed , lots of ambience, super clear vocals. 

The bass management works great you send a HPf to everything and a LPf to sub pre Dirac ( I think so it can allocate fir taps better) 

The mic gain on the ddrcs never go above 0 this one seems a maybe (gets sensitive fast) 


I would suggest getting gains dialed because in DLCT the gain sliders actually lock the levels of those speakers as part of the configuration. That’s a waste of input voltage/signal. Throwing away signal to noise. So if gains aren’t good close DLCT and fix the issue keep the outputs pegged on each channel. 

Minidsp I am confident will fix these bugs rather quickly, this is definitely the best dsp to ever be released for car audio, no question about that at all. 

Plenty of output voltage , up to 4vrms , at unity it’s 2.9 (I would guess there intention was 2.83vrms) at least when I measured with my gear. And I tend to not do something right when it comes to optical in and analog out and measuring output voltage. 

It’s very good made some videos , waiting for them to upload


----------



## oabeieo

vault 11


----------



## tonynca

Do you have REW? Could you measure your response using that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Do you have REW? Could you measure your response using that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yes 

Tomorrow? Tired 




Video as promised 
iPhone mic 


https://youtu.be/xKYKGLmtJ5c


----------



## GreatLaBroski

The video was sniped on YouTube for copyrights. Maybe try on Vimeo?


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> I knew it!... Looking forward to your impression on it :thumbsup:


So, when are you ordering your firmware upgrade? :laugh:



GreatLaBroski said:


> I've heard MiniDSP ships freakishly fast internationally (3-5 days).


Yep, they ship pretty quickly. 



oabeieo said:


> Definitely a glitch with the low levels thing , naiku, you were right buddy the whole time
> It seems to not keep a constant connection to dsp in DLCT , when you press start there’s a audible click like it’s connecting to dsp. I think there’s a latency issue and it’s not seeing the channel in time. But I want to say I saw it do it once before I even pressed start , but I get the message late so it could’ve been in next measurement by than.
> 
> This bug needs to be addressed and i will inform the DevTeam about this issue as well.


I saw on the MiniDSP forum they are working on a fix with Dirac to get this resolved. Hopefully that won't take long, again, not a big deal having to make that one extra click of the mouse, but it's a bit annoying. 



oabeieo said:


> I would suggest getting gains dialed because in DLCT the gain sliders actually lock the levels of those speakers as part of the configuration. That’s a waste of input voltage/signal. Throwing away signal to noise. So if gains aren’t good close DLCT and fix the issue keep the outputs pegged on each channel.


I did not know that, I had lowered those sliders in DLCT as I had increased the output for my quietest speaker and it was then causing the others to clip. But, I had only increased the output on that one due to the low signal issue trying to see if I could get that figured out. Since it's officially a bug, I may try again with them all locked and just double check the initial gain with REW. L/R levels are good, pretty sure levels between tweeters / mids / mid-bass are all good as well. My biggest issue is lowering the target on the mids / mid-bass so much to cover off big dips that I lose a bunch of output. Then I get some weird behaviour on that preset that I am still trying to determine if it's a bug, or user error. No time today to do anything though, will have to wait for tomorrow.


----------



## tonynca

Damn YT took that down with a quickness. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Ill redo. I’ll have to add some talking or do vemo 

Minidsp stayed to me that they are working on the bug as we speak and it will be fixed soon.


----------



## tonynca

Just use something like mega.nz or Dropbox. Easier to share that way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> So, when are you ordering your firmware upgrade? :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they ship pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> I saw on the MiniDSP forum they are working on a fix with Dirac to get this resolved. Hopefully that won't take long, again, not a big deal having to make that one extra click of the mouse, but it's a bit annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not know that, I had lowered those sliders in DLCT as I had increased the output for my quietest speaker and it was then causing the others to clip. But, I had only increased the output on that one due to the low signal issue trying to see if I could get that figured out. Since it's officially a bug, I may try again with them all locked and just double check the initial gain with REW. L/R levels are good, pretty sure levels between tweeters / mids / mid-bass are all good as well. My biggest issue is lowering the target on the mids / mid-bass so much to cover off big dips that I lose a bunch of output. Then I get some weird behaviour on that preset that I am still trying to determine if it's a bug, or user error. No time today to do anything though, will have to wait for tomorrow.



Yeah i thought the sliders on each channel was just for the measurements, I didn’t know it keeps that level as part of the configuration , it seems to 

If you open DLCT and open your saved project you can go in and turn them back up , but it messes with the tune , it will stay until you turn off car than turn back on or change configuration and back , then the original levels back to what you first set them to.....

I just keep all sliders up so don’t have that issue and get gains right on amps or use output slider in the plugin.....yeah kinda weird but just getting used to it still .


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> So, when are you ordering your firmware upgrade? :laugh:


I'm thinking soon... trying to sell some speakers first


----------



## naiku

Spent a little time tweaking a curve (I believe it is one that originated from Andy Wehmeyer) while I had a few quiet minutes at work, went out and loaded it to one of the presets. This sums it up perfectly... 



oabeieo said:


> It didn’t even sound like I was sitting in a car. It sounded like I was sitting in a huge room with such perfectly detailed vocal that is perfectly placed in the center.


It's mind blowing, I am sure some guys may have heard better, may scoff at this, but damn, for me it is incredible. The center is nailed to the center, not only that, but it is high on the dash. The width makes it seem as though I have no sides to the car, rear fill just works. Really happy with the unit overall.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

naiku said:


> Spent a little time tweaking a curve (I believe it is one that originated from Andy Wehmeyer) while I had a few quiet minutes at work, went out and loaded it to one of the presets. This sums it up perfectly...
> 
> 
> 
> oabeieo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn’t even sound like I was sitting in a car. It sounded like I was sitting in a huge room with such perfectly detailed vocal that is perfectly placed in the center.
> 
> 
> 
> It's mind blowing, I am sure some guys may have heard better, may scoff at this, but damn, for me it is incredible. The center is nailed to the center, not only that, but it is high on the dash. The width makes it seem as though I have no sides to the car, rear fill just works. Really happy with the unit overall.
Click to expand...

This is perfect for me, I’m so glad I have an 8x12 v2. I’m going to have to wait until I do my full install cause I just ripped out my temporary test install yesterday. You have me excited. I’m not going to pretend that I’m a tuning expert. If I can get those results with only an hour or two of tuning and trying curves I’ll be elated.


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> Spent a little time tweaking a curve (I believe it is one that originated from Andy Wehmeyer) while I had a few quiet minutes at work, went out and loaded it to one of the presets. This sums it up perfectly...
> 
> 
> 
> It's mind blowing, I am sure some guys may have heard better, may scoff at this, but damn, for me it is incredible. The center is nailed to the center, not only that, but it is high on the dash. The width makes it seem as though I have no sides to the car, rear fill just works. Really happy with the unit overall.


Camel's back is broke... ordered the upgrade. Thanks Ian!


----------



## naiku

GreatLaBroski said:


> I’m not going to pretend that I’m a tuning expert. If I can get those results with only an hour or two of tuning and trying curves I’ll be elated.


Same here, I spent who knows how much time trying manual tunes, in some small part I do enjoy the tweaking (used to have a JBL MS8, I only sold it as I wanted to learn how to tune manually), but especially this time of year tuning is miserable, it is hot and humid and sitting in the car sweating is no fun. 

What's neat is once you get a good set of microphone measurements, unless you change equipment, or something in the DSP plug in (levels, maybe some initial TA type of thing) then you can try different curves all day long and hardly spend any time tuning.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

naiku said:


> What's neat is once you get a good set of microphone measurements, unless you change equipment, or something in the DSP plug in (levels, maybe some initial TA type of thing) then you can try different curves all day long and hardly spend any time tuning.


Any special tips on microphone placement?


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Camel's back is broke... ordered the upgrade. Thanks Ian!


I'd better hope you like it now, or will feel guilty about making you spend money 



GreatLaBroski said:


> Any special tips on microphone placement?


I have found that following some of the pointers oabeieo posted have worked well, initial measurement at about chest height and a little forward, lower measurements I have put the microphone at about hip height and upper measurements at the top of my head. Left ones I put fairly close to the door / window and right measurements I put out in about the middle of the passengers seat. That seems to work for my vehicle, yours might vary slightly.


----------



## tonynca

Dirac Live sounds like a lot of other well proven room EQ correction software. I use Sonarworks Reference 4 and it takes an average of 32 points measurements around my seat. Works very well for my room. 

What most people who use REW here don't even take averages which will hurt them in the end when they start tuning freqs above 1khz. Those change drastically when you move the mic. 

Glad to hear this type of system is working well for car audio as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> I'd better hope you like it now, or will feel guilty about making you spend money


No worries man... like stated by other here - the time saving alone will make it worth it even if there is no mind blowing improvement. It takes me at least 4hrs for a complete ground up tune that I'm happy with... and that not counting the necessary breaks.


----------



## TaylorMade

bnae38 said:


> I've been manually tuning my car for about 4 years, basically with no point of reference (ie what a good tune sounds like...) Still leaves something to be desired..


This is what worries me. Will be first build with DSP and I’m worried I spent thousands on equipment and hours of time installing and may have results that leave a lot to be desired. 
I doubt there’s any piece of equipment that solves that for green horns like myself but it would be nice to see if The new cdsp will help with that. Plus 12 channels of DSP is nice too


----------



## bnae38

TaylorMade said:


> This is what worries me. Will be first build with DSP and I’m worried I spent thousands on equipment and hours of time installing and may have results that leave a lot to be desired.
> I doubt there’s any piece of equipment that solves that for green horns like myself but it would be nice to see if The new cdsp will help with that. Plus 12 channels of DSP is nice too


Luckily most equipment we use holds its value somewhat well.. so changing gear isn't always a huge financial hit.

Yep, gotta admit I'm curious about trying one of these .


----------



## subterFUSE

I have one of these in order to play with in the Audi, and possibly going in the Mercedes if I like it.

Question...

Are the measurements taken in REW or is the Dirac a separate software?

Could you take measurements in a different software and import them for Dirac processing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> I have one of these in order to play with in the Audi, and possibly going in the Mercedes if I like it.
> 
> Question...
> 
> Are the measurements taken in REW or is the Dirac a separate software?
> 
> Could you take measurements in a different software and import them for Dirac processing?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dirac is a separate software all on its own. There is a PC based free trial version on the dirac website if you want to kinda see how it works.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

TaylorMade said:


> This is what worries me. Will be first build with DSP and I’m worried I spent thousands on equipment and hours of time installing and may have results that leave a lot to be desired.
> I doubt there’s any piece of equipment that solves that for green horns like myself but it would be nice to see if The new cdsp will help with that. Plus 12 channels of DSP is nice too


There's a definite lessening curve to any DSP, but once you figure one out, other than software differences the basics are much the same. The Dirac unit helps by making a lot of it automated, it's not that you can plug it in and it be great, you'll still have to set levels between left/right etc, but not having to measure, tweak EQ, repeat ad nauseum certainly makes it a more enjoyable experience and the results are very good.



subterFUSE said:


> Question...
> 
> Are the measurements taken in REW or is the Dirac a separate software?
> 
> Could you take measurements in a different software and import them for Dirac processing?


Measurements are taken in Dirac and you can only use a UMIK-1, at least with the version of Dirac that comes with the 8x12. There's nowhere that you can import previous measurements taken with other software, you can import your own target curve, but not measurements.

I'll actually be very interested to hear your thoughts once you get yours installed. Especially as I have heard nothing but good things about your tuning ability and enjoyed the last demo I had in the Audi.


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Camel's back is broke... ordered the upgrade. Thanks Ian!



Somebody’s going to get quite the surprise :surprised:


----------



## oabeieo

Low levels bug fixed 

New plugin look in downloads


----------



## dgage

Truthunter said:


> Camel's back is broke... ordered the upgrade. Thanks Ian!


Must have been a double humped camel who's back is having major problems at this point. I have heard quite a few home theater systems with Audyssey (OK), Dirac 1.0 (Better), Arc (Better), and Trinnov (Amazing) so I'm looking forward to seeing how much Dirac in the car improves the sound over what I can do (me, probably not too much).


----------



## Truthunter

dgage said:


> Must have been a double humped camel who's back is having major problems at this point. I have heard quite a few home theater systems with Audyssey (OK), Dirac 1.0 (Better), Arc (Better), and Trinnov (Amazing) so I'm looking forward to seeing how much Dirac in the car improves the sound over what I can do (me, probably not too much).


LOL - Yeah, definitely a weak (minded) camel that has a soft spot for audio tech 

Honestly, I bought my 8x12 used back in late 2017 when everyone talked down on them because of the floor noise... Even with this upgrade I've still spent less then MAP on a new Helix DSP.2


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> LOL - Yeah, definitely a weak (minded) camel that has a soft spot for audio tech
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I bought my 8x12 used back in late 2017 when everyone talked down on them because of the floor noise... Even with this upgrade I've still spent less then MAP on a new Helix DSP.2


Who pays full price on a helix product? 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

Jscoyne2 said:


> Who pays full price on a helix product?


Not Me!


----------



## Mahapederdon

dgage said:


> Truthunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camel's back is broke... ordered the upgrade. Thanks Ian! <img src="http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been a double humped camel who's back is having major problems at this point. I have heard quite a few home theater systems with Audyssey (OK), Dirac 1.0 (Better), Arc (Better), and Trinnov (Amazing) so I'm looking forward to seeing how much Dirac in the car improves the sound over what I can do (me, probably not too much).
Click to expand...

I've used odyssey on a million Marantz receivers and it's okay at best. It gets the time right and helps with the room a little. We sell NAD also which uses Dirac but I haven't personally used it. My boss said it's way better than odessey.


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Low levels bug fixed


Yep. Downloaded and installed it earlier, no more having to deal with that annoying pop up message every single time. Took a minute of tweaking the output level to stop it from clipping. The forward left measurement puts the mic close to the speakers, so while it was good at the "sweet spot" when close to the speakers it was clipping. 

All good now though.


----------



## tonynca

Did you get a chance to take the REW measurements? I really want to see if Dirac software is lying or not.


It would be nice to take the same measurements you took with Dirac then average them out within REW to see the freq response curve. Maybe even just take one measurement from the center of the listening position.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Are you looking to see what the response curve looks like in REW? I thought I had already posted one a few pages back, not of an ideal measurement (subwoofer was not included in the sweeps, so the sub level is way off), but it shows the response as measured by REW after I ran Dirac and used the auto target. If that's all you are looking for, I will try to take another in a couple hours, will likely just be one measurement from center of the listening position. 

If I remember to I will also take a screenshot of the Dirac software to show the curve I am using in there and see if it will overlay on top of the REW screen.

OK, here you go, Dirac screen and then a shot of REW while playing pink noise, 1/12 smoothing:



















So, what is odd to me is that the subwoofer response is down about 5dB in comparison to everything else. But, I will also add that I increased the output of the midbass/mids some after applying the Dirac filters, so it could be just that. Should be very simple to resolve though assuming that's all it is. Actually, I think I just realized what that is from, when setting the output levels in DLCT I reduced the sub channel by about 10dB to stop it clipping, also an easy enough fix. Looks like a new set of measurements tomorrow.

The dip at 450Hz is I believe my fault in not lowering the target curve to the bottom of that dip initially. This was a set of measurements I took earlier today after MiniDSP had fixed the low level bug, with it being 83F ambient temperature and feeling like 92F I was spending as little time sitting in the car as possible. Hope that is what you were looking for.


----------



## oabeieo

If you take 28 measurements of each side and time align them in rew and use the same spots you measurements on Dirac are it will be the same. Done it many times 


Sorry tonynca I hadn’t had time. Thanks naiku for posting 


Yes the sub is different as the bass knob will make it show different but especially with bass management is exact


----------



## oabeieo

So I did something really cool with my CDSPDL ....


I added my remote and I linked my midbass to the volume knob, I already have a bass knob for sub amp, it’s very nice to fatten things up on the fly , one could also link the midbass and tweeter to it and it would be an adjustable “loud” controls or more precisely a fletcher Munson device (the smiley face maker ) 

But it works very nice , in hot temps the midbass is lacking FOH ppl also do that at concerts as the venue heats up and people sweat, the higher temps mess with things 


So that is very nice to have on hand , I can raise the sub and midbass , so I could dial a flat target and make my house curve on the fly ...I totally love it


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> I have one of these in order to play with in the Audi, and possibly going in the Mercedes if I like it.
> 
> Question...
> 
> Are the measurements taken in REW or is the Dirac a separate software?
> 
> Could you take measurements in a different software and import them for Dirac processing?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Did it come yet? We’re dying to hear your impression. (Mr snottypamts over here ((me)) already knows your going to love it , )


----------



## tonynca

That's a pretty good resp curve man. What's the scale here?? Are those lines 5db increments??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

I feel like its still pretty rough. Could definitely use a few peq to even some things out. So you think heavy peq after dirac is a bad thing?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

So what do you think the DL has over the ddrc24? It obviously has more channels which means it can do crossover slopes in dirac which is a big deal but other than that. It still eqs the whole 20-20khz response in the same way. 

Thoughts?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## SloVic

Jscoyne2 said:


> I feel like its still pretty rough. Could definitely use a few peq to even some things out. So you think heavy peq after dirac is a bad thing?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Not sure how that looks rough, he said he dialed the sub back 10db to avoid clipping and the dip at 450hz was him. It's looks to be with in 2db or so of the JBL target curve he mentioned, +9db from 160hz to 60hz and a drop off of 6db from 3khz to 20khz.

Anyway on to the question I had in mind how would this unit handle a "midbass array" I would like to put one in each door then two under each seat with a 2ms delay or so. Passband would be 80ish to 300hz, think it would work alright?


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So what do you think the DL has over the ddrc24? It obviously has more channels which means it can do crossover slopes in dirac which is a big deal but other than that. It still eqs the whole 20-20khz response in the same way.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Higher voltage and bass management, otherwise the Dirac is same 


As far as the Dirac results , it’s the same as my old gear. 
Having control on every channel is the hotness , a pair of ddrc24s would net the same thing (minus bass management) as far as sq goes. 

The C is so nice to have all in one unit, it does all the delays for you. No lining up impulses , it’s just easy. 

They both use a single sharc so a pair of ddrcs May or may not do more in the time domain, however how the C has polarity flip and delay function across all channels before and fir is used that takes a huge load off of the fir demands 


So.....hard to say , but probably the same thing or very close to If done right


----------



## piyush7243

Waiting for the DIrac Live activation now to try it out on my existing 8x12

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

piyush7243 said:


> Waiting for the DIrac Live activation now to try it out on my existing 8x12


Same here. Unfortunately, I wasn't unable to get the firmware loaded until last night in order to get the license activation code to email... So likely won't get the activation key until Sunday evening (Monday Morning HK time).


----------



## subterFUSE

oabeieo said:


> Did it come yet? We’re dying to hear your impression. (Mr snottypamts over here ((me)) already knows your going to love it , )




Monday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## piyush7243

Truthunter said:


> Same here. Unfortunately, I wasn't unable to get the firmware loaded until last night in order to get the license activation code to email... So likely won't get the activation key until Sunday evening (Monday Morning HK time).


Yeah. Monday it is. I should have done it on Friday morning 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ordered. Sigh.

Horns and this thing otw

My poor poor single life no kids broke ass bank account 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## bnae38

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ordered. Sigh.
> 
> Horns and this thing otw
> 
> My poor poor single life no kids broke ass bank account
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Yeah, poor you.. 


God dammit, i really want one too....


----------



## Jscoyne2

bnae38 said:


> Yeah, poor you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God dammit, i really want one too....


Im sure someone will put one up for sale in the future. We're all fad lovers.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im sure someone will put one up for sale in the future. We're all fad lovers.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I don't think a MiniDSP will ever qualify as a fad, they're just not popular enough, and they don't cost enough. As for us all being fad lovers, I don't have one piece of AudioFrog or Helix gear or Mosconi, etc., so speak for yourself.


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ordered. Sigh.


Will be looking forward to what you, as well as all the others who have either upgraded an 8x12 to an 8x12DL or purchased the DL unit, think if it once you get it installed.

I've made my thoughts clear in this thread already and am very happy with it, pretty certain I can improve on what I have as well once I tweak things a little both pre and post Dirac.


----------



## Mullings

Hey Ryan, I want to hear your car before and after the dirac, also I want your thoughts on my new setup.


----------



## oabeieo

ckirocz28 said:


> I don't think a MiniDSP will ever qualify as a fad, they're just not popular enough, and they don't cost enough. As for us all being fad lovers, I don't have one piece of AudioFrog or Helix gear or Mosconi, etc., so speak for yourself.



Have you ever tuned with a aerospace (cough cough) 

What a boring device.....

And the tuning ...click click click click ....on a black and white ......yeah no color no support , no fun


----------



## ckirocz28

oabeieo said:


> Have you ever tuned with a aerospace (cough cough)
> 
> 
> 
> What a boring device.....
> 
> 
> 
> And the tuning ...click click click click ....on a black and white ......yeah no color , no vu meters , no nothing. And you can’t get more than 1vrms out of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to top it off THERE TECH SUPPORT DOSENT CALL YOU BACK (cough cough)
> 
> (what are back paintin the office pal)


Of course not. That sounds like a really high-dollar piece of equipment, though.


----------



## oabeieo

ckirocz28 said:


> Of course not. That sounds like a really high-dollar piece of equipment, though.



I was being sarcastic...... sorry. (Or was personal rant )


----------



## piyush7243

oabeieo said:


> I was being sarcastic...... sorry. (Or was personal rant )


I have used almost all of the high end DSP. Personally i feel minidsp is the simplest to tune. Functionality wise Helix is the best. Now lets use DL and see about Tuning effort vs results. I think DL will win hands down but wait n watch

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## piyush7243

piyush7243 said:


> Yeah. Monday it is. I should have done it on Friday morning
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Got the activation file just now. Who works on a freaking Sunday? Great customer service!!

Sent from my POCO F1 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

piyush7243 said:


> I have used almost all of the high end DSP. Personally i feel minidsp is the simplest to tune. Functionality wise Helix is the best. Now lets use DL and see about Tuning effort vs results. I think DL will win hands down but wait n watch
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk



X2 

Yeah I’ve tuned with everything as well , I like jL because of great support and a good overall product that works. I wish I had a reason to like masconi but worst support and dosent work as described, the helix is good, although I can’t stand that. I can tune someone’s car on my laptop and send them the file (something always gets screwed up) like the version number not matching completely changes the way the data isn’t displayed. However a good sounding dsp , nice UI , I like the helix , the minidsp still has it beat tho, only think I wish minidsp had was channel linking across all channels (but it’s not a deal breaker by any means ) 

The mini w DL is superiority, I agree. 


If I have issues with a dsp I want to be able to get ahold of someone , I don’t care ignore its a few day process, at least it get so resolved, with masconi you get directed to a answering machine and no return call , ever! 
The aerospace should be 200$ for what you get , it’s about as good as a Dayton dsp


----------



## tonny

oabeieo said:


> X2
> 
> Yeah I’ve tuned with everything as well , I like jL because of great support and a good overall product that works. I wish I had a reason to like masconi but worst support and dosent work as described, the helix is good, although I can’t stand that. I can tune someone’s car on my laptop and send them the file (something always gets screwed up) like the version number not matching completely changes the way the data isn’t displayed. However a good sounding dsp , nice UI , I like the helix , the minidsp still has it beat tho, only think I wish minidsp had was channel linking across all channels (but it’s not a deal breaker by any means )
> 
> The mini w DL is superiority, I agree.
> 
> 
> If I have issues with a dsp I want to be able to get ahold of someone , I don’t care ignore its a few day process, at least it get so resolved, with masconi you get directed to a answering machine and no return call , ever!
> The aerospace should be 200$ for what you get , it’s about as good as a Dayton dsp



Can't agree with that... maybe it's the support over there but over here there is super support for Mosconi! And for tuning option appart fromt the DL the Mosconi is the most complete en easiest to tune at least in my oppinion...


----------



## oabeieo

piyush7243 said:


> Got the activation file just now. Who works on a freaking Sunday? Great customer service!!
> 
> Sent from my POCO F1 using Tapatalk



GET at it ! 

We really want to know what you think 


Just curious what’s your system layout


----------



## Jscoyne2

Be here tomorrow.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

Activated mine last night - set channel names, routing, mixing, & prelim xovers. Plan on measuring and generating first filter sets tonight after work... should of called out sick :smug2:


----------



## rockinridgeline

Got mine on Friday at noon. Had the choice to put it in and attempt to tune but had to be at Slamology SQ competition at 8 am on Saturday. Everything would had to have gone perfectly to get it put together in time. I feel extremely comfortable tuning with the Helix DSP Pro Mk2 and have gotten excellent results with it in this my first year of competing. But I am really interested to see how the IR tuning along with DL changes things. Also love the idea of being able to try different house curves without having to do all the tuning work myself. Probably going to be the weekend after Father's Day before I get a chance to play. Looking forward to hearing feedback from others and will definitely post my results and opinions here as well.


----------



## oabeieo

Just ordered another one I’m installing for a kind gentleman, in a 1999 H1 hummer , doing 2 seperate sound stages and L-R rear fill pretty excited to listen to it 

He has a stereo pair of components in the front driver overhead and a stereo set in passenger overhead , I’m going to try to do a tune where the driver R and pass L act as a center channel , or do two seperate sound stages . Very interesting build , I knew right away this is prime dsp for this kind of configuration 





importance of forensic anthropology


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Very interesting install. Maybe a time to try auditorium mode in Dirac?


----------



## oabeieo

GreatLaBroski said:


> Very interesting install. Maybe a time to try auditorium mode in Dirac?


Exactly. 
Yeah I want to try a few different tunes with such a odd setup and see how it handles tuning. There’s got to be at least one that will be a home run


----------



## Jscoyne2

For anyone interested in this thread. I highly suggest following the minidsp thread as well.

https://www.minidsp.com/forum/dirac...-automotive-dirac-live-cdsp-8x12-dl?start=120

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Yeah I want to try a few different tunes with such a odd setup and see how it handles tuning. There’s got to be at least one that will be a home run


What target curves are you using?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

oabeieo said:


> I was being sarcastic...... sorry. (Or was personal rant )


I got that, and my comments were also sarcastic.


----------



## piyush7243

oabeieo said:


> GET at it !
> 
> We really want to know what you think
> 
> 
> Just curious what’s your system layout


Its a simple setup in a Swift hatch back. All Audible physics Drivers. Source: Kenwood 9018SM 
Avatar 6 Midbass 
2 inch Midfi
2 Avatar 10 inch subs in a sealed box. 

Amp is a NS Audio 4 channel and a mono to power the Subs. This is a very basic setup and a test bed for me.


Poweron the Software Activated it. Loading time is a little higher than normal minidsp 8X12 software

Old presets cant be loaded on DL version 

Still trying to figure out bass management

WiFi-DG doesnt work

Setup basic crossovers in DL and setup gains to prevent clipping. For now chose the chair and started to measure

1st impressions with the default curve.

Imaging is spot on
instrument Separation is beautiful
Tonality is very accurate as well.

What it did in 5-10 mins takes hell lot of time to achieve manually as i spend a lot of time tuning cars.

What DL can do with an imperfect install, i doubt we can do with a IIR based DSP.

With perfect installs its crazy but takes an expert tuner sometime to match DL. The imaging part with DL is unreal. Crazy

Sub Bass need more work on as we are used to louder than normal bass and i am still playing around with that. Still have to check with Sofa and Auditorium settings.


Overall i am very happy with what they did with the product. I am selling my DSP pro mk2 from my other car 

Eagerly waiting for Dirac 2.0


----------



## Truthunter

I have mine all setup and was at the point of starting the measurements but having an issue with the UMIK mic connecting to DLCT which I think is a W10 issue... I have a post about it with photos on the MiniDSP support forum.


----------



## naiku

Did you see they replied? Said it could be that REW is open and talking control of the microphone.


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> Did you see they replied? Said it could be that REW is open and talking control of the microphone.


Yeah, I replied to them. REW was not open when I was getting the message... it's just pinned to the taskbar at the bottom of the screen but not open.


----------



## piyush7243

Truthunter said:


> Yeah, I replied to them. REW was not open when I was getting the message... it's just pinned to the taskbar at the bottom of the screen but not open.


Reboot Ur laptop. Connect umik. You should hear a ding. Now open dlct

My case was rew causing issues as well

Sent from my POCO F1 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

piyush7243 said:


> Its a simple setup in a Swift hatch back. All Audible physics Drivers. Source: Kenwood 9018SM
> Avatar 6 Midbass
> 2 inch Midfi
> 2 Avatar 10 inch subs in a sealed box.
> 
> Amp is a NS Audio 4 channel and a mono to power the Subs. This is a very basic setup and a test bed for me.
> 
> 
> Poweron the Software Activated it. Loading time is a little higher than normal minidsp 8X12 software
> 
> Old presets cant be loaded on DL version
> 
> Still trying to figure out bass management
> 
> WiFi-DG doesnt work
> 
> Setup basic crossovers in DL and setup gains to prevent clipping. For now chose the chair and started to measure
> 
> 1st impressions with the default curve.
> 
> Imaging is spot on
> instrument Separation is beautiful
> Tonality is very accurate as well.
> 
> What it did in 5-10 mins takes hell lot of time to achieve manually as i spend a lot of time tuning cars.
> 
> What DL can do with an imperfect install, i doubt we can do with a IIR based DSP.
> 
> With perfect installs its crazy but takes an expert tuner sometime to match DL. The imaging part with DL is unreal. Crazy
> 
> Sub Bass need more work on as we are used to louder than normal bass and i am still playing around with that. Still have to check with Sofa and Auditorium settings.
> 
> 
> Overall i am very happy with what they did with the product. I am selling my DSP pro mk2 from my other car
> 
> Eagerly waiting for Dirac 2.0






Bro. Seriously that’s not ****box gear at all. At least you don’t have biuetooth That’s nice stuff and better than average. Average would be a factory radio with maybe if your lucky a ktp445u hi level 45w 4ch with no sub and some alpine type e speakers. And if is a sub some prefabricate job with jl w0 or the like with a whopping 6mm on the coil. I would say 90% of ppl that buy car audio buy basic gear. Your system is very decent! I bet it sounds excellent in fact. And not that there’s anything wrong with basic stuff either , there’s a place for everything. The crazy part , I know this dsp would make even basic gear compete with high end gear. Sad but true. I’ve installed countless times , hi end amps and speakers where (somebody in the sales process) thinks they don’t need a processor. And end up spending 3-5k on a mediocre sounding system. That’s too bad. Your miles ahead of most with this dsp. 



Truthunter said:


> I have mine all setup and was at the point of starting the measurements but having an issue with the UMIK mic connecting to DLCT which I think is a W10 issue... I have a post about it with photos on the MiniDSP support forum.


I had that before, moved my mic to the usb on right side of laptop and works fine , (basically just changed USB ports it was on) than have my C pluginto one of the two left side USB ports. Crazy part is both my laptops did same thing and this fixed it on both as well. Do you have another usb ? Or is it a mini or two in 1 




Jscoyne2 said:


> What target curves are you using?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Not sure yet, I’ll play with them once install is finished , they just shipped the unit today 





——————


Hey does anyone have 48db slopes missing from there bass management? 
Anyone know how to turn them back on?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Could be interesting to run an iasca class with an oem vehicle and this dsp. Pretty sure there's a class for it.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Could be interesting to run an iasca class with an oem vehicle and this dsp. Pretty sure there's a class for it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



The 19 Kia Soul has perfect imaging (driver seat) they used some delay and the sort , I think it uses Dirac (not 100% ) but sure sounds like it does


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Truthunter said:


> naiku said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see they replied? Said it could be that REW is open and talking control of the microphone.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I replied to them. REW was not open when I was getting the message... it's just pinned to the taskbar at the bottom of the screen but not open.
Click to expand...

It might cause other issues but maybe try starting up W10 in safe mode and see if it works. (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/12376/windows-10-start-your-pc-in-safe-mode) 

Otherwise follow this guide to remove as much things from running at startup as possible: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4026268/windows-10-change-startup-apps


----------



## oabeieo

One thing I’ve noticed is although my spread out measurements sound so much better than boxed in measurements, the HF (2.5k-6k) is a little off where I sit coming in hot at 5k for me. (Could just be the horns maybe maybe not) 


So , instead of using peq I used REW and ran moving mic averages , got about 32 averages 
Or more and than used my target in Dirac and made the adjustments from the target. 

I really like the results. , sounds better to my ears than just using peq . It’s close but better LEft and right coherency ..... just an idea that’s working great for me.


----------



## Truthunter

piyush7243 said:


> Reboot Ur laptop. Connect umik. You should hear a ding. Now open dlct
> 
> My case was rew causing issues as well





oabeieo said:


> I had that before, moved my mic to the usb on right side of laptop and works fine , (basically just changed USB ports it was on) than have my C pluginto one of the two left side USB ports. Crazy part is both my laptops did same thing and this fixed it on both as well. Do you have another usb ? Or is it a mini or two in 1


I figured out the solution to this. I noticed that there was no "chime" when I plugged in the UMIK. I had to open windows settings > devices and clicked on the UMIK under the audio section and clicked "remove device". Then I re-plugged the mic in and windows "re-set" it up. No issues after that.... now off to measuring...


----------



## Truthunter

Jscoyne2 said:


> Could be interesting to run an iasca class with an oem vehicle and this dsp. Pretty sure there's a class for it.


Starting this year, MECA stock class allows factory head units with an aftermarket DSP as long as it has less than 16bands per channel on it.

W̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶e̶a̶s̶i̶e̶r̶/̶f̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶u̶n̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶d̶u̶n̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶p̶u̶t̶
s̶̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶D̶i̶r̶a̶c̶ ̶L̶i̶v̶e̶.̶ ̶ ̶J̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶d̶r̶a̶w̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶ ̶-̶ ̶i̶n̶p̶u̶t̶ ̶&̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶p̶u̶t̶ ̶e̶q̶ ̶a̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶T̶A̶ 
a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶r̶r̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶A̶P̶F̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶l̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶g̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ 
t̶o̶ ̶p̶a̶y̶ ̶$̶9̶0̶0̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶i̶t̶.

*:EDIT:* The strikethough statement above is inaccurate. As pointed out by another member - Dirac test signals do not originate from the source so it will not correct any eq, ta, etc. from the source. Thanks to ET328 for the correction.

There still may be a way to accomplish this though and is discussed later in this thread starting at post # 185.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> Starting this year, MECA stock class allows factory head units with an aftermarket DSP as long as it has less than 16bands per channel on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Which brings up a point of how much easier/faster it will be to detune the factory headunits outputs with Dirac Live. Just draw your target and it does everything. - input & output eq along with TA and would likely correct for any APFs the factory signal has applied too... but just got to be willing to pay $900 for it.


$900 trophy printer. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Gets package..opens it... there's another..umik in here..welll ****. 

Looks up order. There's an option for (existing umik owner) that i had on no.


Guess i got another mic..welp

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Starting this year, MECA stock class allows factory head units with an aftermarket DSP as long as it has less than 16bands per channel on it.
> 
> Which brings up a point of how much easier/faster it will be to detune the factory headunits outputs with Dirac Live. Just draw your target and it does everything. - input & output eq along with TA and would likely correct for any APFs the factory signal has applied too... but just got to be willing to pay $900 for it.




From what I’ve read Dirac filters are a single all pass. The entire correction is done in a single biquad entry. That should qualify as a single band eq technically. 

Although there’s a fir biquad and a iir biquad , so maybe a two band eq. 

How you like them apples


----------



## oabeieo

So with the C I have noticed it’s only putting about 1/2 tape measure distances , 
I’m guessing the rest is done by moving low frequency phase. (E.x. A 90deg shift at 150hz is the same as 1.6ms approx)


But I tryed putting my mic right above the steering wheel on 1st measurement. 
Got my tape measure distances now , imaging is still good (better on highs worse on lows) 
I got to find the sweet spot for 1st measurement with multichannel.

I’m half tempted to quickly move the mic forward when it measures horns about 5” than back for the rest so see what happens



Edit: just tryed it. Bad idea. Wasn’t good, , think I’m just going to settle on about 3” more forward what I usually do ,


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Gets package..opens it... there's another..umik in here..welll ****.
> 
> Looks up order. There's an option for (existing umik owner) that i had on no.
> 
> 
> Guess i got another mic..welp
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




These UMIK mics are pieces of crap and only good for about 6 months of use. Might as well have a replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> These UMIK mics are pieces of crap and only good for about 6 months of use. Might as well have a replacement.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yea I've been a bit abusive to mine anyway

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Yea I've been a bit abusive to mine anyway
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




If it ever gets exposed to 90 degree heat ever, it should probably be tossed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> If it ever gets exposed to 90 degree heat ever, it should probably be tossed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


...welll ok

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> ...welll ok
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Mylar diaphragm. Very fragile.


There is a reason why good measurement mics normally cost $500-750 each. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s

oabeieo said:


> From what I’ve read Dirac filters are a single all pass. The entire correction is done in a single biquad entry. That should qualify as a single band eq technically.
> 
> Although there’s a fir biquad and a iir biquad , so maybe a two band eq.
> 
> How you like them apples


I really haven't done much research on DIRAC and do not own a MiniDSP or any other piece of equipment that incorporates the technology. So, please help me to understand. 

I thought the DIRAC measurements and algorithm process generated a combination of multiple IIR and FIR filters (aka mixed-phase) to correct magnitude and impulse response into a single "filter" that the signal is passed through. While it might be a single "filter" by name, isn't this really just a package or delivery method for an unknown combination of multiple IIR and FIR filters? If so, then I doubt you'll have much luck getting MECA R&E to approve the DSP for Stock Class.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> So with the C I have noticed it’s only putting about 1/2 tape measure distances ,
> 
> I’m guessing the rest is done by moving low frequency phase. (E.x. A 90deg shift at 150hz is the same as 1.6ms approx)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I tryed putting my mic right above the steering wheel on 1st measurement.
> 
> Got my tape measure distances now , imaging is still good (better on highs worse on lows)
> 
> I got to find the sweet spot for 1st measurement with multichannel.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m half tempted to quickly move the mic forward when it measures horns about 5” than back for the rest so see what happens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: just tryed it. Bad idea. Wasn’t good, , think I’m just going to settle on about 3” more forward what I usually do ,


Do you think that possibly all this work you're doing for us about finding good mic positions may only be useful to those with horns because of the massively different dispersion patterns they have vs cones?

Also, You said something in the video about making sure your levels were close to each other in REW and not to use the levels in DLC to make everything close, otherwise it'll sound weird. What do you mean by that? Do the levels not stay where you put them, because i have to adjust them individually to get them to play within the green box. 

Also, would you consider making a video that specifically shows where you measure. You were talking about using sofa mode and having the passenger side be incorporated..which is fine but there is 4 measurements on the left side that are hard to kinda contemplate of where to put them. I think sharing your exact mic positions would be super helpful 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Also interested to know if they use FIR filters. I know this DSP is capable of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

tonynca said:


> Also interested to know if they use FIR filters. I know this DSP is capable of it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Yes it uses some FIR and some IIR filters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

rton20s said:


> I really haven't done much research on DIRAC and do not own a MiniDSP or any other piece of equipment that incorporates the technology. So, please help me to understand.
> 
> I thought the DIRAC measurements and algorithm process generated a combination of multiple IIR and FIR filters (aka mixed-phase) to correct magnitude and impulse response into a single "filter" that the signal is passed through. While it might be a single "filter" by name, isn't this really just a package or delivery method for an unknown combination of multiple IIR and FIR filters? If so, then I doubt you'll have much luck getting MECA R&E to approve the DSP for Stock Class.




It was half hearted. Yeah I don’t compete and don’t care to. 
But I’m certain it wouldn’t qualify as a single filter unless there was the inevitable proof. 

Yeah, if anyone has ever worked with minidsp , than you know you can make an advanced filter set that is basically just a string of biquads that if long enough would take up many “peq” banks or the like. With biquads you could write some very unique and uncommon filters to achieve different things that aren’t exactly peq. Like a inverse magnitude filter is what I am leaning towards with Dirac, but only after making it invertible using an fir, while ignoring parts that it sees shouldn’t be messsd with (high Q dips , etc) which if you made a inverse mag filter and included high q dips it could severely damage the speakers. So they did it right no doubt. A lot of thought definitely went into this. 

It would be worth a look for the board to define this topology in the arena.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Do you think that possibly all this work you're doing for us about finding good mic positions may only be useful to those with horns because of the massively different dispersion patterns they have vs cones?
> 
> Also, You said something in the video about making sure your levels were close to each other in REW and not to use the levels in DLC to make everything close, otherwise it'll sound weird. What do you mean by that? Do the levels not stay where you put them, because i have to adjust them individually to get them to play within the green box.
> 
> Also, would you consider making a video that specifically shows where you measure. You were talking about using sofa mode and having the passenger side be incorporated..which is fine but there is 4 measurements on the left side that are hard to kinda contemplate of where to put them. I think sharing your exact mic positions would be super helpful
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


I would love to make another video. 

But let’s be clear gang, my measurement points are merely what works in my car, I know car acoustics enough to know the freakness of car acoustics to say that everyone should find there own “pattern” of mic positions. Ya know the chair and sofa are the same algo , it just recommendations on where to put the mic for different types of seating. You can change it to what you want, just keep the right and left integrity between measurement points. And some common sense , try to be somewhat symmetrical, but definitely deviate a little.

Keep in mind that with 2.0 that is very different and the measurement points need to be like picture with 1.7 (what we use). You can and should put them anywhere. The reason is in 2.0 it corrects for comb filters between stereo pairs so it would have to have certain parameters to rephase the drivers for better stereophony. In our version it makes the transfer functions match. (Room correction and eq 


I was talking about let’s say your tweets were 10db louder than mids or subs 20db louder than mids , use an rta and set gains so the acoustical shape of magnitude is in line with how you want to draw your target, dosent have to be perfect but the tighter it is the more gain you’ll get so it dosent have to cut something down to another pairs level.


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Also interested to know if they use FIR filters. I know this DSP is capable of it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It does in fact use fir 

It Hs the analog devices ADSP21xxx chipset , it’s a sharc. That means fir capability. It’s been disabled till now with Dirac upgrades. 

Lot has the ability of 8192 taps divided between 8ch at 48k sample speed. 

That’s roughly 26ms time window for fir. So it can convolve the time domain up to 26ms per stereo output. (4 left channels and 4 right channels ) or however you run your mixer. , you could if wanted to have a 52ms time window on a single channel, if you only wanted to Dirac the sub. Don’t know how it would handle it. But you could if wanted to 

A tweeter needs about 50taps at 48k 
A mid needs about 200 taps at 48k 
A midbass needs about 1500-2000 taps at 48k 
A sub could use a lot more? But with access to time delay per channel and polarity switch it would not need much more than 1500-2000 as well with a crossover about 80hz or higher. 

Even with a 60hz crossover and access o polarity and delay 2000 taps would suffice. 


What I mean by that is if the sub and midbass are 140 degrees off from each other a polarity flip would make them only 30 degrees, than the convolution, which may put everything at -360deg. Same thing for delay , 
If the sub has 10ms of group delay over half the in band , convolve the higher half (less taps) and add 10ms delay to the high frequency channels and all back to normal with much much much less fir. 


So that one sharc on board is plenty to get the job done
If anyone wants to post there after IR screenshots you’ll see the delay on the IR peak and how far it’s delayed from the before IR peak, that delay shows how much fir is being used. (My Dirac’s always use all available fir) but you could see for yourself.


----------



## Jscoyne2

So i got a small tune going. Just to see how this thing works.

Let me say this. Do. Not. Buy one of these if you don't have some heavy dsp experience already. Running between the minidsp software(which is a lot more complicated than the standard c-dsp) and the dirac software and getting curves from Jazzi companion. Its A Lot to deal with. 


I definitely see what you mean with the high frequencies and measurement points. This is a going to be a process to learn.

Im curious on how high i should be doing the box above my head. Im gonna try standard chair and standard sofa. See how they sound and explore from there.

The center is close. Not quite, but close enough. Not sure how to try and change that with measurement points??

I am getting a Very annoying issues that i had with any version of dirac I've used and thats the windowing being absolutely trash in letting you control it. It shouldn't just stop at any orange points you set up. It should let you push past anything you eant. Also at the very edges there are these large spikes for no reason that i cant get rid of. Ill post a pic of it.

The stage feels pushed onto the hood. Thats good. The instruments are super clear. That's very good. Im not gonna say it beats my tune because at this point..i don't really like how complicated it feels but ill report later once i get a feel and try some different curves and get the HF toned down.


It has Great potential. Just a big learning curve.





Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So i got a small tune going. Just to see how this thing works.
> 
> Let me say this. Do. Not. Buy one of these if you don't have some heavy dsp experience already. Running between the minidsp software(which is a lot more complicated than the standard c-dsp) and the dirac software and getting curves from Jazzi companion. Its A Lot to deal with.
> 
> 
> I definitely see what you mean with the high frequencies and measurement points. This is a going to be a process to learn.
> 
> Im curious on how high i should be doing the box above my head. Im gonna try standard chair and standard sofa. See how they sound and explore from there.
> 
> The center is close. Not quite, but close enough. Not sure how to try and change that with measurement points??
> 
> I am getting a Very annoying issues that i had with any version of dirac I've used and thats the windowing being absolutely trash in letting you control it. It shouldn't just stop at any orange points you set up. It should let you push past anything you eant. Also at the very edges there are these large spikes for no reason that i cant get rid of. Ill post a pic of it.
> 
> The stage feels pushed onto the hood. Thats good. The instruments are super clear. That's very good. Im not gonna say it beats my tune because at this point..i don't really like how complicated it feels but ill report later once i get a feel and try some different curves and get the HF toned down.
> 
> 
> It has Great potential. Just a big learning curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Please don’t say things like “don’t buy one if” 
It took me 1hr to get the hang of it. Ppl are smart , look if anyone can buy a new phone and get your email and browse the web than you have half a brain and can get this fairly easily. 

It’s WAY more simple to use than a macaroni or a helix or anything else, it’s full color display and the best support pages and live help. And it walk you through the tuning process. 


It’s not the dsp that ppl have a hard time with, or setting a crossover, it’s the measurements and getting good results. You do not need any tuning experience to work this thing. If you can draw a line your good. 

I mean, ppl figure things out. If your in the market for a dsp , I promise this is the easiest to work out of any of them., even the auto target sounds good , or better than what most ppl do on there own. 


Yeah there’s a lot of controls. But it’s easy. Configuration of my email servers is much harder and more technical, and most everyone can do that. 

I know for a fact video editing is harder than this , managing multiple video feeds and an audio track and all the effects...uugh that’s hard. This is easy.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Please don’t say things like “don’t buy one if”
> 
> It took me 1hr to get the hang of it. Ppl are smart , look if anyone can buy a new phone and get your email and browse the web than you have half a brain and can get this fairly easily.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s WAY more simple to use than a macaroni or a helix or anything else, it’s full color display and the best support pages and live help. And it walk you through the tuning process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not the dsp that ppl have a hard time with, or setting a crossover, it’s the measurements and getting good results. You do not need any tuning experience to work this thing. If you can draw a line your good.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, ppl figure things out. If your in the market for a dsp , I promise this is the easiest to work out of any of them., even the auto target sounds good , or better than what most ppl do on there own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there’s a lot of controls. But it’s easy. Configuration of my email servers is much harder and more technical, and most everyone can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> I know for a fact video editing is harder than this , managing multiple video feeds and an audio track and all the effects...uugh that’s hard. This is easy.


Yea but you're kinda a genius man. We're all just kinda trying to keep up with you these days.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

When I had speakers up high , I had issues with polarity post Dirac, 

Do not be aftraid to add a little delay to a speaker of hit the polarity switch on different drivers or try different crossovers after Dirac runs. 

It can’t tell how high your sound is, sometimes a incorrect acoustic polarity makes the stage rise. And I am all about what I like not what is “correct”. 

Even with some post Dirac adjustments , your still doing better than not having it at all. 
A delayed flat response is still a flat response, it’s not uncommon to have to do a little of this or that to get it to image the way you want after it runs. 

Eventually you’ll get a pre tune and a pattern that nails it. Just keep experimenting.

For me , I just know turning down the left horn -1.8db and flipping my doors out of phase before Dirac nets me a perfect stage. (But I know where the polarity is at crossover on all my speakers) it’s going to make linked channels match.


Also tray linking mid and tweet to a single target of your center isn’t right .


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Yea but you're kinda a genius man. We're all just kinda trying to keep up with you these days.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Please. 

I’m a fat old man with white hair and man boobs 

It’s just when everyone else is playing games or going to movies I’m reading 
The aes papers or Some technical journal


----------



## Jscoyne2

Is there any way /excel shortcut to bring an entire curve down by a set amount, instead of calculating -x amount every time?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Is there any way /excel shortcut to bring an entire curve down by a set amount, instead of calculating -x amount every time?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Don’t turn your stereo up as loud? 

Not sure what you mean?


Are you editing or creating targets by editing the target file?


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Don’t turn your stereo up as loud?
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean?


Like if i want to import a curve to dirac. If the curve is +9db above my biggest dip. I'd want to bring my entire curve down by 9 db. Is there an easy way to do that?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

https://www.dirac.com/news/2019/5/2...-live-enabled-minidsp-c-dsp-8x12-dl-processor


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Like if i want to import a curve to dirac. If the curve is +9db above my biggest dip. I'd want to bring my entire curve down by 9 db. Is there an easy way to do that?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Oh I see. 

I’m going to open a target in notepad and see how data is delimited, 
Maybe try and find an offset and make a macro in excel and save as “extension” 
And see if works


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m going to open a target in notepad and see how data is delimited,
> 
> Maybe try and find an offset and make a macro in excel and save as “extension”
> 
> And see if works


It should be something simple like a copy paste from Word to Excel and then some formula to say -10 from all in this row.

I just don't remember how to do that..its been a longgg time since H.S. Excel classes

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ok. Im officially. ****ing. Impressed.

That is all.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ok. Im officially. ****ing. Impressed.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Do go on.. ?


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m going to open a target in notepad and see how data is delimited,
> 
> Maybe try and find an offset and make a macro in excel and save as “extension”
> 
> And see if works


This is the spikes im talking about at the edges of windowing









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

I am seeing some pretty big bugs or what i assume are bugs. A few complete crashes of the software. The DLCT is suddenly not working for me. Its playing its test noise through my left midbass no matter what output i choose but i can play music and everything is fine.

My left and right center are switched..and i have no idea how that happened considering when DLCT was working and i did a few tunes with it. All speakers were what they wear supposed to be.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ET328

Truthunter said:


> Which brings up a point of how much easier/faster it will be to detune the factory headunits outputs with Dirac Live. Just draw your target and it does everything. - input & output eq along with TA and would likely correct for any APFs the factory signal has applied too... but just got to be willing to pay $900 for it.


Nope, Dirac/CDSP doesn't touch the input signals. You have to input clean, non equalized signal without factory TA or you'll get bad results. 
What is APF?


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> It should be something simple like a copy paste from Word to Excel and then some formula to say -10 from all in this row.
> 
> I just don't remember how to do that..its been a longgg time since H.S. Excel classes
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




In excel, you make a new row or column next to the numbers you want to subtract 10 from. Make all cells in new row or column “-10”

Then you highlight the numbers you want to change and copy. Then you click on the first entry of -10 and do Paste Special, Add. You will now have all the original numbers but -10.

Then you delete the original row or column and replace with the new values.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> In excel, you make a new row or column next to the numbers you want to subtract 10 from. Make all cells in new row or column “-10”
> 
> Then you highlight the numbers you want to change and copy. Then you click on the first entry of -10 and do Paste Special, Add. You will now have all the original numbers but -10.
> 
> Then you delete the original row or column and replace with the new values.


John, do you have yours up and running yet?


----------



## subterFUSE

I hooked up my CDSP8x12DL yesterday and have it playing successfully. Tonight I will try my first Dirac session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

ET328 said:


> Nope, Dirac/CDSP doesn't touch the input signals. You have to input clean, non equalized signal without factory TA or you'll get bad results.
> What is APF?


You're right! - The test signals for measurement are generated within the Dirac module not from the source - so no source correction. Thanks for bringing that to light. 

APF = All Pass Filter


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> You're right! - The test signals for measurement are generated within the Dirac module not from the source - so no source correction. Thanks for bringing that to light.
> 
> APF = All Pass Filter




It might be possible if you do this?


Source into a pair of inputs on the DSP. Route inputs to 2 DIRAC channels and then to a pair of outputs.

Hook an RCA cable from that pair of outputs back into an unused pair of inputs on the DSP. Then route those inputs to new DIRAC channels and then to unused outputs.

In theory you could use DIRAC to correct the input and then send the corrected signal back into the DSP and then DIRAC it again?


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> It might be possible if you do this?
> 
> 
> Source into a pair of inputs on the DSP. Route inputs to 2 DIRAC channels and then to a pair of outputs.
> 
> Hook an RCA cable from that pair of outputs back into an unused pair of inputs on the DSP. Then route those inputs to new DIRAC channels and then to unused outputs.
> 
> In theory you could use DIRAC to correct the input and then send the corrected signal back into the DSP and then DIRAC it again?


That may work.... target for the initial Dirac would be flat 20-20khz. Someone should try this and report back.


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> That may work.... target for the initial Dirac would be flat 20-20khz. Someone should try this and report back.


Downside is extra cycle of DA conversion. But, in theory, it should work.


----------



## ET328

subterFUSE said:


> It might be possible if you do this?
> 
> 
> Source into a pair of inputs on the DSP. Route inputs to 2 DIRAC channels and then to a pair of outputs.
> 
> Hook an RCA cable from that pair of outputs back into an unused pair of inputs on the DSP. Then route those inputs to new DIRAC channels and then to unused outputs.
> 
> In theory you could use DIRAC to correct the input and then send the corrected signal back into the DSP and then DIRAC it again?


Yes, it should work. There would be problems with volume control etc. But I think MiniDSP could add this as a feature and map 2 channels out of the normal route just for this function. But they probably won't do it, too much work. Then again, cant't you do a similar correction for example with MiniDSP 2x4 and REW?


----------



## subterFUSE

Yes, a separate unit would be a good idea. Especially if that unit in front of the DSP had digital outputs.


----------



## Truthunter

Jscoyne2 said:


> Is there any way /excel shortcut to bring an entire curve down by a set amount, instead of calculating -x amount every time?





Jscoyne2 said:


> Like if i want to import a curve to dirac. If the curve is +9db above my biggest dip. I'd want to bring my entire curve down by 9 db. Is there an easy way to do that?





oabeieo said:


> Oh I see.
> I’m going to open a target in notepad and see how data is delimited,
> Maybe try and find an offset and make a macro in excel and save as “extension”
> And see if works


I'm at the point of designing targets. I'm using a Dirac channel for each of 7 drivers.
Can targets generated by Jazzi's spreadsheet be imported easily?

Will attempt it when I get home.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> I'm at the point of designing targets. I'm using a Dirac channel for each of 7 drivers.
> 
> Can targets generated by Jazzi's spreadsheet be imported easily?
> 
> 
> 
> Will attempt it when I get home.


They import the same way as Rew but you'll need to adjust the document to get the whole thing at a certain overall level

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Oh I see.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m going to open a target in notepad and see how data is delimited,
> 
> Maybe try and find an offset and make a macro in excel and save as “extension”
> 
> And see if works


So im having a serious mixer issue that i think might be a bug. Can you verify?

Single pair of rcas into the Dsp. 

Left and right midbass on output 1-2
Left and Right midrange on output 3-4
Left and right tweet on output 5-6

This is my mixer and routing.

I open up Dl and set it to 6 channels. No matter which of the six channels i choose to run tones thru. It always goes to my left midbass.

Am i missing something?

















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

Your only routing to Dirac 1&2 but your assigning outputs from Dirac 1-6


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> Your only routing to Dirac 1&2 but your assigning outputs from Dirac 1-6


How am i only routing to 1&2? First two inputs are going to dirac 1-6. Am i not seeing something??

This all worked just fine last night and suddenly this routing doesn't work

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

Sorry, only glanced at the photos... Last time I post while mowing the lawn ?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> Sorry, only glanced at the photos... Last time I post while mowing the lawn


Im gonna post this to the minidsp forum. See if they have any opinions. For now. Im gonna try a reset on the box n see if that works.

Did a full unistall and reinstall of all software. Plus hardware reset. I now get no audio from the DL at all. ..fun

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

OK first time trying to measure DIRAC....

I set the mic sensitivity and channel levels to -12 dB. Started first sweep. Half way into the first sweeps the DIRAC app crashed.

I'm on Mac.


Any ideas?


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> This is the spikes im talking about at the edges of windowing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Are you taking about target to response tracking . 

Click on “all before” and you can see it track the response 

Where you first anchor point is , below that, the target is designed to blend to the actual response , the lines show how they will blend , 
If you pull the curtain closer they go faster in the direction of the response if you pull the curtain farther it will follow the response in a smooth fashion, 

I like to pull the curtain so that it’s not a abrupt upwards , downward is ok because it’s a cut , you don’t want the speaker to have a very narrow peak in the response because you curtained it so so close and your in a very large cut 


If your using the target for the crossover try to end your target and have the 1st anchor right next to part of the rolloff or move the curtain back a touch

While you can run your target in the crossover to -40db I would try just having it only following down a few dB , maybe to -10db or so, I’ve noticed it dosent so much after -10 and you loose a lot of output gain. 

If you have the gain to make up than as you were , 

I just like to shape the first few dB of my crossover


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Are you taking about target to response tracking .
> 
> 
> 
> Click on “all before” and you can see it track the response
> 
> 
> 
> Where you first anchor point is , below that, the target is designed to blend to the actual response , the lines show how they will blend ,
> 
> If you pull the curtain closer they go faster in the direction of the response if you pull the curtain farther it will follow the response in a smooth fashion,
> 
> 
> 
> I like to pull the curtain so that it’s not a abrupt upwards , downward is ok because it’s a cut , you don’t want the speaker to have a very narrow peak in the response because you curtained it so so close and your in a very large cut
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your using the target for the crossover try to end your target and have the 1st anchor right next to part of the rolloff or move the curtain back a touch


Sure that'd be just fine but since dlct is completely useless to me rn. I have a very expensive paper weight.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So im having a serious mixer issue that i think might be a bug. Can you verify?
> 
> Single pair of rcas into the Dsp.
> 
> Left and right midbass on output 1-2
> Left and Right midrange on output 3-4
> Left and right tweet on output 5-6
> 
> This is my mixer and routing.
> 
> I open up Dl and set it to 6 channels. No matter which of the six channels i choose to run tones thru. It always goes to my left midbass.
> 
> Am i missing something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Install the update via the SD card as per the manual, also update the remote 

Than after updated , open the plugin and click on “refresh DSP Program “

It will loose all settings and you have to start from scratch, you can’t reload your xlm you have to start over , should fix bug 

I had same issue and worked


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Install the update via the ddrc24 card as per the manual, also update the remote
> 
> 
> 
> Than after updated , open the plugin and click on “refresh DSP Program “
> 
> 
> 
> It will loose all settings and you have to start from scratch, you can’t reload your xlm you have to start over , should fix bug
> 
> 
> 
> I had same issue and worked


Pretty sure i did this and it didn't work. But ill try again i guess.

After doing the update. It left a log file on the sd card. Said something like "cant find .bin" file. Any ideas what that means?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Ah yeah the firmware updates.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Jscoyne2 said:


> After doing the update. It left a log file on the sd card. Said something like "cant find .bin" file. Any ideas what that means?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


That means it couldn’t find the .bin on the card to flash, you’ll want to double check it


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Pretty sure i did this and it didn't work. But ill try again i guess.
> 
> After doing the update. It left a log file on the sd card. Said something like "cant find .bin" file. Any ideas what that means?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Put the update on the SDcard 

Power off dsp and power back on 

Wait about 20sec , turn off and back on than log in and click refresh DSP Program 

At that point you can pull the SD out and put back on computer the file should have disappeared. 

The mini should delete the update if it took it


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Put the update on the SDcard
> 
> 
> 
> Power off dsp and power back on
> 
> 
> 
> Wait about 20sec , turn off and back on than log in and click refresh DSP Program
> 
> 
> 
> At that point you can pull the SD out and put back on computer the file should have disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> The mini should delete the update if it took it


It always deletes it. Just leaves the sd card with a "log" file. But ill try your method in a lil bit. Will report.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> OK first time trying to measure DIRAC....
> 
> I set the mic sensitivity and channel levels to -12 dB. Started first sweep. Half way into the first sweeps the DIRAC app crashed.
> 
> I'm on Mac.
> 
> 
> Any ideas?


Did you try it again?

No ideas on your specific issue but the my Dirac app shutdown all by itself halfway through "optimizing" for the first time. I just restarted the app, loaded the saved project, and it optimized without a hitch the second time.


----------



## oabeieo

Also make sure it’s only the update file is on SD not the folder 


And the SD make sure not to format it , they put a file on the SD card , 
Ignore that file , 

So the SD should have the file they put on it (don’t remember what it is) and the update without the folder just the extracted update file


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Did you try it again?
> 
> No ideas on your specific issue but the my Dirac app shutdown all by itself halfway through "optimizing" for the first time. I just restarted the app, loaded the saved project, and it optimized without a hitch the second time.




Oh yes I’ve had Dirac go all white and crash , it does that from time to time shouldn’t be chronic issue , 

Your right , just restart and go again should be fine


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Did you try it again?
> 
> No ideas on your specific issue but the my Dirac app shutdown all by itself halfway through "optimizing" for the first time. I just restarted the app, loaded the saved project, and it optimized without a hitch the second time.


Have tried 4 times. It crashes every time. About 10 seconds into the measurement.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> It always deletes it. Just leaves the sd card with a "log" file. But ill try your method in a lil bit. Will report.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


OKay 

And remember after you refresh dsp 
You have to start completely over, re do everything 

Your old saved configuration is no good trash it and start all over 


If the configuration (xlm) has a big trash it and start new


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> OKay
> 
> 
> 
> And remember after you refresh dsp
> 
> You have to start completely over, re do everything
> 
> 
> 
> Your old saved configuration is no good trash it and start all over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the configuration (xlm) has a big trash it and start new


This is in the log









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Also make sure it’s only the update file is on SD not the folder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the SD make sure not to format it , they put a file on the SD card ,
> 
> Ignore that file ,
> 
> 
> 
> So the SD should have the file they put on it (don’t remember what it is) and the update without the folder just the extracted update file


There's nothing else on the card but the log file...

Tried it. Still has an issue. It Has to be a dlct problem because i can play music just fine by matrixing it but DLCT simply will not play anything but the left midbass. 

I think i got it to play other speakers but thats if i completely randomly start picking random matrixing to turn on.

Perhaps and issue with thr Dlct and plug in together?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> There's nothing else on the card but the log file...
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




OKay, 

So now turn on dsp and click refresh DSP Program 

After it should say 1.5 on top or whatever the build is....

(Maybe it’s 2.5 cant remember) 

Click on about and see if update is live


----------



## oabeieo

It’s a plugin update , DLCT is not diffrent 

What’s wrong with DLCT ?


Are you sure your input matrix is set right 
And you selected “custom” on 1st page in DLCT


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> OKay,
> 
> 
> 
> So now turn on dsp and click refresh DSP Program
> 
> 
> 
> After it should say 1.5 on top or whatever the build is....
> 
> 
> 
> (Maybe it’s 2.5 cant remember)
> 
> 
> 
> Click on about and see if update is live


Version 1.6
Firmware 2.5

I can get the plug in to work just fine. Matrixing goes to the right speakers. Plays music on the right speakers.

But when i open Dlct and try to test output and levels. All i get is left midbass. On any output channel

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

oabeieo said:


> It’s a plugin update , DLCT is not diffrent
> 
> What’s wrong with DLCT ?
> 
> 
> Are you sure your input matrix is set right
> And you selected “custom” on 1st page in DLCT



,,,,


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> ,,,,


Channel 3 and 5 give me output to my left midbass. Everything else is silence. 

Doesn't make much sense when music plays fine via the plugin.


Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

When you log into the dsp the first page where the LFE is 

Your using input 1-2 analog correct? 

Are those turned on , both of them ?



Do you see the VU meters both ave audio?


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> When you log into the dsp the first page where the LFE is
> 
> 
> 
> Your using input 1-2 analog correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Are those turned on , both of them ?


I switched inputs to 3-4 just to test. Changed pic above to reflect.

Also in the plugin. Its "upgrade dsp program". Not refresh. And it doesn't change the preset settings. 











Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Okay so .....what’s wrong? 

No left ?

Give those other outputs in DLCT a name btw 
They need to have a name 




It should definitely be working. 

Flip rcas and see if it goes to right 

Make sure the crossovers in LFE are bypassed for now 
And your crossovers in all outputs are bypassed except tweeter channels 

Want to make sure it’s not just a gain issue 

Than listen and see if have audio


Turn up your source and make sure the input and output VU meters have signal and the signal is in the hello , -67dbfs is too low. 

You want to see about -40dbfs or so , make sure you see the VU meters going with Dirac turned off 

Make sure your signal path is good and working 


All good ?


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Okay so .....what’s wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No left ?
> 
> 
> 
> Give those other outputs in DLCT a name btw
> 
> They need to have a name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should definitely be working.
> 
> 
> 
> Flip rcas and see if it goes to right
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure the crossovers in LFE are bypassed for now
> 
> And your crossovers in all outputs are bypassed except tweeter channels
> 
> 
> 
> Want to make sure it’s not just a gain issue
> 
> 
> 
> Than listen and see if have audio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn up your source and make sure the input and output VU meters have signal and the signal is in the hello , -67dbfs is too low.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to see about -40dbfs or so , make sure you see the VU meters going with Dirac turned off
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure your signal path is good and working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good ?


Okay so i Definitely found an issue. Check this out. 

This is with Any of the 6 outputs in dlct playing. 

Not a single thing in routing is on.
There isn't anything plugged into input 1.
I get my other speakers playing when i turn on output 2-3-4-5-6.

It's playing its test tone. Thru input 1 and out into outputs 1-6. With no routing at all. 

Dirac 2-8 are silent.

























Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Okay so .....what’s wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No left ?
> 
> 
> 
> Give those other outputs in DLCT a name btw
> 
> They need to have a name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should definitely be working.
> 
> 
> 
> Flip rcas and see if it goes to right
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure the crossovers in LFE are bypassed for now
> 
> And your crossovers in all outputs are bypassed except tweeter channels
> 
> 
> 
> Want to make sure it’s not just a gain issue
> 
> 
> 
> Than listen and see if have audio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn up your source and make sure the input and output VU meters have signal and the signal is in the hello , -67dbfs is too low.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to see about -40dbfs or so , make sure you see the VU meters going with Dirac turned off
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure your signal path is good and working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good ?


Okay. Solved.

FOR WHATEVER ****ING REASON. 

If you don't have Umik plugged in. It loses. Its. ****. 

I've been doing all this and skipping the umik section. Didn't see why it mattered at. All. 

Process of elimination. Plugged in the umik. Everything works like it did before.

Stupid. Proprietary. BS. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Switched to PC from Mac. The Dirac software was able to finish the measurements successfully. However, only the tweeter channels got recorded. All 7 channels show the tweeter response only.

So attempt 1 is a total failure.

I’m done for today. Will try again from scratch tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Switched to PC from Mac. The Dirac software was able to finish the measurements successfully. However, only the tweeter channels got recorded. All 7 channels show the tweeter response only.
> 
> So attempt 1 is a total failure.
> 
> I’m done for today. Will try again from scratch tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry. I've been caught up in my issue. 

Whats your set up and routing/mixing channel look like?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Sorry. I've been caught up in my issue.
> 
> Whats your set up and routing/mixing channel look like?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Optical input.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Optical input.


Yea. All looks right. Does it play music in all the speakers?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Yea. All looks right. Does it play music in all the speakers?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Yes. Plays correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Yes. Plays correct.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Whats your DL screens look like? I assume you heard the other speakers playing their tones?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Switched to PC from Mac. The Dirac software was able to finish the measurements successfully. However, only the tweeter channels got recorded. All 7 channels show the tweeter response only.
> 
> So attempt 1 is a total failure.
> 
> I’m done for today. Will try again from scratch tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Awe dang it!

You’ll get it. 

Something mixed up. 

Don’t sweat it you’ll get it your smart dood , it’s kicking your ass but you will win the fight


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Awe dang it!
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Something mixed up.
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t sweat it you’ll get it your smart dood , it’s kicking your ass but you will win the fight


Its just sketchy rn because its so new. You don't know if you're being dumb or if its a bug 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Its just sketchy rn because its so new. You don't know if you're being dumb or if its a bug
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



You kinda have to know minis , 

Once familiar with them they a snap 

No not dumb. 

It’s getting two pieces of brand new software to work on various laptops with various inputs and a 2nd platform within the platform. 

It’s just lining up the pieces and getting them all to work together than it’s easy 
Once the chain is finally talking to each other


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Optical input.



That looks perfect for optical input . 


I would however check and make sure all crossovers are set 
And do a full audio test before turning Dirac on 



If you not getting sound in DLCT except on channels 7&8 
Than do the refresh dsp and will fix 


But will have to start a new configuration. Can’t load any saved ones to any slots


----------



## tonynca

Does minidsp update firmware often? Seems quite buggy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Does minidsp update firmware often? Seems quite buggy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Hummm 

Mine works perfect. 


I honestly think it’s just typical trouble getting a peripheral to connect .

I had the same amp of trouble connecting to a helix and a masconi the first time I used those. 

And honestly, when I bought a 15” laptop with the 10key and a basic graphics card (which dsps want) and uninstalled all the lame “anti virus” and all the bull **** free programs that computer came with and only use it for tuning. 
I can now connect to any dsp with ease.

Talking from my computer science degree, all these surface pros and 2in ones and hi end laptops with graphics cards that are to the extreme and all this extra stuff actually makes it harder to connect. Why? 

Do I have to explain? I can if want. It’s a long explanation.


It’s not buggy, they had two issues on its release , and both got solved first week of release with new update. The unit works fine on win10 

As far as Mac.....idk subterfuse I think is our guinnepig. However Mac and how it’s package contents work are fairly reliable, especially in dmg, I don’t know what version he’s running , but it should be stable. It’s a Mac.


----------



## Jscoyne2

I wouldn't say its buggy. Its just multilayered and its brand new. Think of how long the ms8 thread is. We're just figuring out all the kinks like having to have the mic connected for the test tones to work properly. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski

tonynca said:


> Does minidsp update firmware often? Seems quite buggy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah they’re really fast with firmware updates.


----------



## subterFUSE

The Mac plugin works great.

The Mac Dirac app does not work, period. They need to take it down from the MiniDSP site immediately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> The Mac plugin works great.
> 
> The Mac Dirac app does not work, period. They need to take it down from the MiniDSP site immediately.


They need to know about this. Have you submitted a support ticket on it? They usually respond within 24hrs and work on and release a fix shortly after.


----------



## naiku

subterFUSE said:


> Optical input.


That looks exactly the same as mine, also using optical input. Just checking, but did you make sure to select custom and pick the number of channels you're using? I've also found if you lower the individual volume sliders on the output test page, when you then go to listen to music, the channels you lowered may as well be muted. 



tonynca said:


> Does minidsp update firmware often? Seems quite buggy.


I think it's just ironing out bugs with the DL, I've had my 8x12 about 2 years now and only saw 1 update in that time and never had any issues (ignoring the whole V1 hissing that Mini went above and beyond to fix).


----------



## Jscoyne2

Once i had a dirac tune going. I did have issues with my tweeters being basically silent. I don't even know what i did to fix it.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> The Mac plugin works great.
> 
> The Mac Dirac app does not work, period. They need to take it down from the MiniDSP site immediately.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



PLEASE 
Start a support ticket


[email protected]


----------



## subterFUSE

Already did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Ok I just finished my first DIRAC tune.


Before starting DIRAC, I went into the DSP and set basic crossovers for each driver.


Then I ran the DIRAC procedure, and I used all Auto Target settings.

Exported to DSP and listened.



Staging is really, really good. I listened to pink noise at varying frequencies, and everything was centered. The seven snare drum test track has perfectly equal spacing between snares. The was very little to no frequency steering in the center image that I could detect.

On music, I found the bass to be too thin. I think a steeper tilt to the target might help with that. Also, with the volume at full max the stereo is not loud enough. So I think I will need to do something about levels with the correction filters?


But, overall, I am really impressed with how good the staging was with no manual input other than crossover points.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Ok I just finished my first DIRAC tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before starting DIRAC, I went into the DSP and set basic crossovers for each driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I ran the DIRAC procedure, and I used all Auto Target settings.
> 
> 
> 
> Exported to DSP and listened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staging is really, really good. I listened to pink noise at varying frequencies, and everything was centered. The seven snare drum test track has perfectly equal spacing between snares. The was very little to no frequency steering in the center image that I could detect.
> 
> 
> 
> On music, I found the bass to be too thin. I think a steeper tilt to the target might help with that. Also, with the volume at full max the stereo is not loud enough. So I think I will need to do something about levels with the correction filters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, overall, I am really impressed with how good the staging was with no manual input other than crossover points.


Turn up the master volume in the plug in. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Turn up the master volume in the plug in.



It was at full volume. I have the remote controller connected.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> It was at full volume. I have the remote controller connected.


Hm weird. Mine was quiet but at like -45. Turned it to -5. Had plenty of output. Maybe its a gain thing.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

No gains on my amps.

What is the voltage output from this DSP?



4.5 Volts max output. My Helix Pro 2 is 8 Volts out.

That will definitely play a factor in the volume level.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> No gains on my amps.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the voltage output from this DSP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.5 Volts max output. My Helix Pro 2 is 8 Volts out.
> 
> 
> 
> That will definitely play a factor in the volume level.


4 or 6 volts. Not sure









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

This is from the Product datasheet that was downloaded along with the manual.


----------



## Jscoyne2

So.. discrepancies. Oab??

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> 4 or 6 volts. Not sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


The V2 board puts out 4.5 volts.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Ok I just finished my first DIRAC tune.
> 
> Before starting DIRAC, I went into the DSP and set basic crossovers for each driver.
> 
> Then I ran the DIRAC procedure, and I used all Auto Target settings.
> 
> Exported to DSP and listened.
> 
> Staging is really, really good. I listened to pink noise at varying frequencies, and everything was centered. The seven snare drum test track has perfectly equal spacing between snares. The was very little to no frequency steering in the center image that I could detect.
> 
> On music, I found the bass to be too thin. I think a steeper tilt to the target might help with that. Also, with the volume at full max the stereo is not loud enough. So I think I will need to do something about levels with the correction filters?
> 
> But, overall, I am really impressed with how good the staging was with no manual input other than crossover points.


Interesting that you decided to go with the Auto Targets. I need to try that.

This was with a Dirac channel per driver and a single one for the subs?

Did you use the Bass Management or did you just route it through and use the xovers on the outputs?


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I used all Auto Target settings.


Did you link driver pairs?... or just leave the auto targets as is?


----------



## subterFUSE

Yes, 3 way active front stage and subwoofer.

A dirac channel for each of 7 channels.

I did route for bass management, but I don't think I did it correctly. I set crossovers in the plugin and then ran DIRAC. Clicked auto target and exported.

Like I said, staging is awesome. Tonality is thin on bass and overall it needs more volume. But it's really impressive for what it accomplished with no human interaction.



I think next I will try doing a manual tune with SysTune and then run Dirac after that. And maybe just do 2 channels of Dirac instead of 7. That's how the manual says to do active crossovers.


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Did you link driver pairs?... or just leave the auto targets as is?


I clicked auto target on each driver 1 by 1


----------



## tonynca

Does the software work in offline mode? Would like to check it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Here is another idea I am thinking about trying....


Erase all crossovers and EQ in the Plugin. Set the channel routing only.

Run Dirac for all channels in my system, 3 way active + sub = 7 channels.

Use a full range target curve for all channels, but just window the corrections to the regions where I will be playing each driver.

Export filters to the DSP, and then go into the Plug in and apply crossovers.

In theory, if the EQ corrections are done by DIRAC, then the crossover filters will be matched in the plugin. i.e. a 450 Hz high pass on the left side will be the same on the right because DIRAC has matched the EQ and levels.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Here is another idea I am thinking about trying....
> 
> 
> Erase all crossovers and EQ in the Plugin. Set the channel routing only.
> 
> Run Dirac for all channels in my system, 3 way active + sub = 7 channels.
> 
> Use a full range target curve for all channels, but just window the corrections to the regions where I will be playing each driver.
> 
> Export filters to the DSP, and then go into the Plug in and apply crossovers.
> 
> In theory, if the EQ corrections are done by DIRAC, then the crossover filters will be matched in the plugin. i.e. a 450 Hz high pass on the left side will be the same on the right because DIRAC has matched the EQ and levels.


I see what your getting at but don't think tweeters will like a full range sweep at the volume needed.

You can do the same with some protection by just setting up inital xovers like an octave or two wider and then bring them back in after Dirac filters?

But also if Dirac is correcting phase too... wouldn't you want the filters in place so it can correct the xover area phase abberations?


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> But also if Dirac is correcting phase too... wouldn't you want the filters in place so it can correct the xover area phase abberations?


Yes, but that would mean you need to do pretty much a full tune in the plugin before running Dirac. Otherwise, you will not have the same crossovers on left vs. right sides because the speakers will have different responses before they get equalized.

So, in that case, it would support the method suggested in the owner manual which is to use only 2 Dirac channels to feed the 6 active speakers channels. One Dirac for left side and one for right side.

Tune drivers in the Plugin, setting EQ and crossovers, and then run Dirac to correct EQ more precisely and to correct phase.



Basically like this, only 3 way instead of 2 way:

https://www.minidsp.com/application...x4hd-application/283-2x4-hd-twoway#crossover1


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Interesting that you decided to go with the Auto Targets. I need to try that.


I tried the auto target first and it's not bad, but agreed with it being low on bass. It does sound good though.



tonynca said:


> Does the software work in offline mode? Would like to check it out.


Yes, but I don't think you can download a copy to play with unless you have purchased a DSP (or someone sends you a copy). DLCT does not have much you can check out as it's mostly automated.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, but that would mean you need to do pretty much a full tune in the plugin before running Dirac. Otherwise, you will not have the same crossovers on left vs. right sides because the speakers will have different responses before they get equalized.


How about importing perfectly designed passband target curves for each driver and link driver pairs in Dirac so that it corrects to it?... Jazzi's spreadsheet can generate these target curves and can be imported into DLCT - may need some level adjustment but it works. This is what I did on my first attempt.




subterFUSE said:


> So, in that case, it would support the method suggested in the owner manual which is to use only 2 Dirac channels to feed the 6 active speakers channels. One Dirac for left side and one for right side.
> 
> Tune drivers in the Plugin, setting EQ and crossovers, and then run Dirac to correct EQ more precisely and to correct phase.
> 
> Basically like this, only 3 way instead of 2 way:
> 
> https://www.minidsp.com/application...x4hd-application/283-2x4-hd-twoway#crossover1


I plan on trying it this way too but will definately be more time especially for those of us that don't have systune 
May only be necessary to tune the LP/HP filter slopes and an octave on both sides to nail down the passband limits and let Dirac do the rest in between?


----------



## Truthunter

The point was brought up about using the software offline:

I haven't been able to load up a saved DLCT "project" without being connected to the processor. I would like to load up a project and work on adjusting targets and having it optimize to the new targets without having to be next to my car in the garage. Has anyone else been able to do this?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> The point was brought up about using the software offline:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been able to load up a saved DLCT "project" without being connected to the processor. I would like to load up a project and work on adjusting targets and having it optimize to the new targets without having to be next to my car in the garage. Has anyone else been able to do this?


Hmm. Try opening it when you're connected and then disconnect it and play with it.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Does this thing need an internet connection EVERY time you open DLCT, or just the first time? (for licensing check, activation)


----------



## Truthunter

ckirocz28 said:


> Does this thing need an internet connection EVERY time you open DLCT, or just the first time? (for licensing check, activation)


I think it only goes out to verify license when the "optimize" button is pressed.


----------



## ckirocz28

Truthunter said:


> I think it only goes out to verify license when the "optimize" button is pressed.


That is incredibly inconvenient, my WiFi doesn't reach out to my driveway.


----------



## subterFUSE

ckirocz28 said:


> That is incredibly inconvenient, my WiFi doesn't reach out to my driveway.




Cell phone hot spot?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

subterFUSE said:


> Cell phone hot spot?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I guess that's the only way. I HATE software that tethers me to the internet. I guess I'll just leave Dirac alone, for now.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

ckirocz28 said:


> subterFUSE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cell phone hot spot?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's the only way. I HATE software that tethers me to the internet. I guess I'll just leave Dirac alone, for now.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the optimization is done online (on their server, vs on your laptop) so you’ll need that for it to generate the corrections.


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> I clicked auto target on each driver 1 by 1




The auto target is the same no matter what you have , in 2.0 it’s more intuitive, so something to look forward for. 

Go back, remeasure and set all output sliders to max, check mark the boxes on output tab to let it know which one is subwoofer

Those steps pretty important 

Save your project right after measurements complete 

The target , you want to make sure each speaker pair is linked. 

I have a process I will do a video tonight. It works great. 

I’ll make the video in 30min and the upload will take me a few hours as I’m on slow internet. 

It’s a method where you link all channels and put anchors at each crossover point 

Than unlink all channels and link only pairs and simply remove the anchors in stop band and pull the curtain over. A little shaping at the crossover slopes good also but not necessary. That way you maintain the shape of the target you draw and maintain linked pairs but have seperate processes for each pair


----------



## oabeieo

GreatLaBroski said:


> Keep in mind that the optimization is done online (on their server, vs on your laptop) so you’ll need that for it to generate the corrections.



You can optimize offline , you can’t load the filterbank offline tho. IIRC 

(Yeah I’ve been known to make Dirac filter while driving, call me a freak but hey). I have to theather when I load filterbanks


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> You can optimize offline , you can’t load the filterbank offline tho. IIRC
> 
> 
> 
> (Yeah I’ve been known to make Dirac filter while driving, call me a freak but hey). I have to theather when I load filterbanks


You ever seen those dont text and drive commercials...

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Lol dangerous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Code:




Video made . 

Uploading.

Now the waiting game for my sloooow uploads


Excuse the kids screaming in background, had teenagers bugging mid production 
Had to pause it several times.


----------



## ET328

Truthunter said:


> I haven't been able to load up a saved DLCT "project" without being connected to the processor. I would like to load up a project and work on adjusting targets and having it optimize to the new targets without having to be next to my car in the garage. Has anyone else been able to do this?


Yes, I have done that many times. There's just one unlogical dialog box where you have to answer _cancel_ instead of _ok_ and the project loads. And then go to the filter design, it looks like it's inactive but it still opens.


----------



## oabeieo

ET328 said:


> Yes, I have done that many times. There's just one unlogical dialog box where you have to answer _cancel_ instead of _ok_ and the project loads. And then go to the filter design, it looks like it's inactive but it still opens.


Correct 

I do it all the time also 

I load a saved project , fiddle with my targets 
And simply save the target till I can get plugged in , 
Than load the project, load the target , Optimize , export


----------



## oabeieo

My wife really sucks at making movies. 
She had it out of focus the whole time.

Should I post it anyway or re do it ? 

You can see ....sorta ok... it’s pretty bad tho 


Uugh I tryed putting that video maker on and couldn’t find a free one


----------



## ET328

oabeieo said:


> Correct
> 
> I do it all the time also
> 
> I load a saved project , fiddle with my targets
> And simply save the target till I can get plugged in ,
> Than load the project, load the target , Optimize , export


Even better: you can also do the full optimize run offline. You just need internet connection to do it. And then save the project and just load it to the CDSP later.
Works really nice. I just connect my laptop to my local network and use Windows' Remote Desktop to connect my desktop PC to it.


----------



## oabeieo

okay heres the video 

https://youtu.be/_Vg5NzzZ1KM



I made a few Errors 

When I talked about making rear fill and center channels 
I wasn’t on mixer , I was on Dirac’s mixer =wrong 

That is done from mixer , sorry was tired trying make video work
You could mix Dirac’s if wanted tho also....would be kinda weird 


Tomorrow I’m going to try and remove the center information from my midbass 
And see if I get better staging. I just curious. Probably a flop but I’ll try


Edit 

It actually would work if I mix in a % of my sub channel and use LFE to 200hz than re add another crossover on sub output.

Himmmmm ....ideas 

Hell I could mix in a % of a unused channel and add a delay to it as well and get a pseudo rear fill using my midbass , a low % let’s say 20% or so

Guys the options are staggering


----------



## GreatLaBroski

You’re a legend, MiniDSP should be hooking you up for making them a tutorial.


----------



## subterFUSE

oabeieo said:


> Go back, remeasure and set all output sliders to max, check mark the boxes on output tab to let it know which one is subwoofer


Set the outputs to max before or after measuring?

If before measuring, won't that clip the inputs? I actually had my measurements get stopped automatically a couple of times because of clipping detected with the output sliders set to -12 dB on the meter.





> The target , you want to make sure each speaker pair is linked.


Is this linking done in DIRAC or in the Plugin? Because I linked my pairs in the plugin before starting DIRAC.


----------



## subterFUSE

A question on Bass Management and the high pass filter setting....


Before I ask the question, I need to review a scenario in car audio subwoofer setup for some background info.

Generally, a good way to setup a subwoofer is to tune the main speakers first and get them all dialed and running well as a group, and then define the subwoofer and the main speaker group as a 2-way system and tune the sub to match the mains. This method would mean that we have optimized our midbass to midrange crossover region well and have a good blend that maintains good phase alignment through the crossover point.

Now, we combine the subwoofer with our midbass and set the sub crossover point so that it blends well with our midbass. Good phase alignment through the crossover point, etc...

At this point, some of us might be finished. But some people might have reason to want to add a subsonic filter to their subwoofer for protection. Maybe they have a ported sub, or maybe they are IB and have a sub with a strong motor that can easily reach XMax if not careful. Whatever the reason for wanting a subsonic filter, there is always a problem presented by adding a high pass filter to just the subwoofer channel.

That problem is that when we put a high pass filter on a channel, there is a phase effect. For example, a Linkwitz 24 dB high pass filter at 20 Hz will cause a forward rotation of phase of 180 degrees at 20 hz. That forward rotation of phase at 20Hz will affect frquencies both above and below 20Hz, and it can even affect the phase response in the crossover point with the midbass. (60 Hz, for example, like many of us use)


What is the solution to this problem?

The solution is actually very simple in theory, but not simple because most car audio DSPs do not give us the tools we need to fix it.

The solution is that we need crossover filters on the inputs of the DSP, not just on the outputs. If we add a 20 Hz high pass filter to the input of the DSP, that means the forward rotation of phase caused by the high pass would get applied to all of the speakers in the system equally. If all speakers get phase shifted by the same amount, then the net effect is that there would be no phase offset created between different drivers. We could have our subsonic filter "cake" and eat it, too.



Now..... back to Bass Management.


It looks to me like the Bass Management is designed to work as an input highpass and lowpass. So, could we set the high pass to 20Hz as a subsonic filter that gets applied to all speakers in the car? A system-wide high pass, in other words.


----------



## Truthunter

ET328 said:


> Yes, I have done that many times. There's just one unlogical dialog box where you have to answer _cancel_ instead of _ok_ and the project loads. And then go to the filter design, it looks like it's inactive but it still opens.


Thanks, I always clicked ok in that pop-up... I'll try it later.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Is this linking done in DIRAC or in the Plugin? Because I linked my pairs in the plugin before starting DIRAC.


Linking target curves is done in DLCT - see Section 6.1 on page 48 of the manual


----------



## ET328

Truthunter said:


> Thanks, I always clicked ok in that pop-up... I'll try it later.


I just filed a bug report about this. I think it's always been like this i.e. the functions behind the buttons are reversed...


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Set the outputs to max before or after measuring?
> 
> If before measuring, won't that clip the inputs? I actually had my measurements get stopped automatically a couple of times because of clipping detected with the output sliders set to -12 dB on the meter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this linking done in DIRAC or in the Plugin? Because I linked my pairs in the plugin before starting DIRAC.




Yes in the Dirac where the 8ch are listen , the blue sliders next to your channels 
Max all those out. Not the main volume tho but max that out after done loading your new Dirac filters 

Try to get your mic and output volume to give nice big 1/2 window measurements without clipping on all drivers 


If you can not for you use the output slider on other side (the plugin) to turn down what’s too loud (if your amps don’t have gains) 

One you get through a measurements session , again max out the main volume in Dirac plugin 

The blues output sliders in Dirac plugin (DLCT) Dirac love calibration tool 
Must be left Medes before measurements and left alone for the measurement process and for all other reasons otherwise you’ll loose gain on the channels you turn down (don’t want that) 

If you need to and only if need to make adjustments to get through the measurement process , again , use the outputs in plugin instead (you can turn them back up and won’t be locked out , and make all the outputs fit your amps gain structure (Ideally this is where the amp gain comes in to play , you actually do not want any outputs boosted above zero , but for you’re amps you may not have a choise , you may not have to do anything 
Especially if your speaker sensitivity is almost the same across channels , meaning if your car already measures fairly flat (within 5-10db) across the entire spectrum


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> A question on Bass Management and the high pass filter setting....
> 
> 
> Before I ask the question, I need to review a scenario in car audio subwoofer setup for some background info.
> 
> Generally, a good way to setup a subwoofer is to tune the main speakers first and get them all dialed and running well as a group, and then define the subwoofer and the main speaker group as a 2-way system and tune the sub to match the mains. This method would mean that we have optimized our midbass to midrange crossover region well and have a good blend that maintains good phase alignment through the crossover point.
> 
> Now, we combine the subwoofer with our midbass and set the sub crossover point so that it blends well with our midbass. Good phase alignment through the crossover point, etc...
> 
> At this point, some of us might be finished. But some people might have reason to want to add a subsonic filter to their subwoofer for protection. Maybe they have a ported sub, or maybe they are IB and have a sub with a strong motor that can easily reach XMax if not careful. Whatever the reason for wanting a subsonic filter, there is always a problem presented by adding a high pass filter to just the subwoofer channel.
> 
> That problem is that when we put a high pass filter on a channel, there is a phase effect. For example, a Linkwitz 24 dB high pass filter at 20 Hz will cause a forward rotation of phase of 180 degrees at 20 hz. That forward rotation of phase at 20Hz will affect frquencies both above and below 20Hz, and it can even affect the phase response in the crossover point with the midbass. (60 Hz, for example, like many of us use)
> 
> 
> What is the solution to this problem?
> 
> The solution is actually very simple in theory, but not simple because most car audio DSPs do not give us the tools we need to fix it.
> 
> The solution is that we need crossover filters on the inputs of the DSP, not just on the outputs. If we add a 20 Hz high pass filter to the input of the DSP, that means the forward rotation of phase caused by the high pass would get applied to all of the speakers in the system equally. If all speakers get phase shifted by the same amount, then the net effect is that there would be no phase offset created between different drivers. We could have our subsonic filter "cake" and eat it, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Now..... back to Bass Management.
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the Bass Management is designed to work as an input highpass and lowpass. So, could we set the high pass to 20Hz as a subsonic filter that gets applied to all speakers in the car? A system-wide high pass, in other words.




Dirac will remove that phase twist on the sub and on all other channels.

However at 20hz that’s a VERY long filter. 

I would recommend using the compressor in the outputs and limit the sub after whatever -dbfs is necessary, using whatever ratio necessary, a better way to solve a problem) 

That could use all all Dirac’s ability just addressing that one HPF , especially if it tryes to do it first. 


The compressor will sound better , do the same thing and not as damaging to sq 




But if you like , you could also use the compressor mildly and mild (meaning -3dbcuts ) at 20hz in all the outputs shared 

There’s a few ways to do that


----------



## ET328

oabeieo said:


> I would recommend using the compressor in the outputs and limit the sub after whatever -dbfs is necessary, using whatever ratio necessary, a better way to solve a problem)


What compressor? There is no compressor in the -DL version, only in the basic CDSP.


----------



## Lanson

This thread is epic, the participants (guinea pigs) are epic, I'm just having a great time reading this.


And now I have to find ~$900 in my seat cushions.


edit: Do we FINALLY have a MS-8 killing product here for center/surround type builds? Or close enough?


----------



## Jscoyne2

fourthmeal said:


> This thread is epic, the participants (guinea pigs) are epic, I'm just having a great time reading this.
> 
> 
> And now I have to find ~$900 in my seat cushions.
> 
> 
> edit: Do we FINALLY have a MS-8 killing product here for center/surround type builds? Or close enough?


Murders the ms8. Seriously. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

ET328 said:


> What compressor? There is no compressor in the -DL version, only in the basic CDSP.


[email protected]&$ your right 

Forgot about that, maybe a feature request for future 
Updates .


Okay than, 

In that instance you could add a 20hz HPF in biquad to all other speakers under advanced in one of the peq banks , you would have to use the minidsp biquad spreadsheet or online calc to make it and just cut and past the coefficients into a peq slot s for all output channels 


The only reason he wants to do that in the input is so all speakers exhibit the same phase shift so it becomes inaudible 

So yeah that would work , you would loose a peq slot but with Dirac it’s nil anyways for the most part.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Jscoyne2 said:


> Murders the ms8. Seriously.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


In regards to multi-seat tune? Have you been doing sofa profile and measuring area covering both seats for 2 seat tune?


----------



## Lanson

Had a good read through this
https://www.audiostream.com/content/dirac-live-room-correction-suite-page-2


"The sweet spot can never be too big."


Well said!


----------



## oabeieo

fourthmeal said:


> Had a good read through this
> https://www.audiostream.com/content/dirac-live-room-correction-suite-page-2
> 
> 
> "The sweet spot can never be too big."
> 
> 
> Well said!




I enjoy that read thanks ! 
And I completely agree with it. 


Although it’s not taking out dynamics , it’s making the resolve flat , thus removing any out of control frequencies that make things seem dynamic 

I prefer tighter response, however I do not like over correction and a small box will sound over corrective. 


If you throw your keys at the passenger window will you hear the keys hit the glass if your sitting in the driver seat, well yes of course right, 

So why wouldn’t you add the far right as maybe two of the measurement points, you can hear everything over there , you can hear everything everywhere in the car. The response will be different in the middle of car vw the far edges , that’s why I do the box on the left and the sofa on the right. 

I do the box on left to control the level of left and it sounds good and the sofa on right because it sounds good. 

I don’t measure behind me.


I go as far as play the music and put my head in different positions and actually listen to what it sounds like, and try and find the spots where it sounds most different, but staying inthe general pattern that works for my car: 




As far as a true two seat time , 2.0 will have two sofa configurations one focused for a single seat and a wide for two people , that will be exciting when we see it. 

For now , I put my 1st measurement in middle between the two seats than after I add a 2nd order All Pass at 250hz with a Q of 1. And slightly tweak that with some small amount of delay till the low midbass is centered in both seats, 

Than I use a combination of delay and frequency correction to fine tune between both seats. Without using a manual fir bank. 

If one had additional fir bank one could simply measure the left and create a inverse phase and than shift the entirety to 90 degrees (from 250 to 1k) 
That makes n excellent two seat tune but PLd needs to be fairly low for a tight center, doors typically a defined slightly diffuse center but coherent and present to say the least.


----------



## bnae38

Resisting... 


For now........

Sigh.


----------



## Truthunter

fourthmeal said:


> Do we FINALLY have a MS-8 killing product here for center/surround type builds? Or close enough?





Jscoyne2 said:


> Murders the ms8. Seriously.


Am I missing something?... I don't think it has a built in center channel upmixer - From my understanding it has to be fed an upmixed signal - 5.1 or 7.1 in and assign a Dirac channel to each.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Truthunter said:


> Am I missing something?... I don't think it has a built in center channel upmixer - From my understanding it has to be fed an upmixed signal - 5.1 or 7.1 in and assign a Dirac channel to each.


It doesn't. Sorry if i didn't verify that. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

A true two seat tune can be a massive pita and be ready for quite a bit of compromises 
I usually focus solely on getting male vocal centered , female vocals is very hard. Like so so hard to get right without one side having more delay. 

Without fir the trick is to really, use the all pass I mentioned as a baseline , and find the frequency band that will image in both seats by screwing with every combination of polarity and delay and eq until you find it , than move that speaker pair forward in time and use hass and precedence effects to your advantage and delay all other speakers behind whatever speakers will give you that vocal. I’ve had to use as much as 4-6ms on pairs trailing the lead pair than turn those speakers down so precedence is dominant also using peq to shape frequency and using the phase shift from peq to help as well. 

Than finding a response that sounds tonality acceptable , by give more or less power to whatever frequencies that don’t collapse the imaging. 


It’s tough , and when I did it in my doors was almost not worth it , my upper dash actually worked way better (it shouldn’t have). It’s so much easier with kicks , like so so much easier and sounds better as well . 

If someone really wanted a two seat tune you can do it. Just takes a lot of patience and willingness to spend the time jumping back and forth listening and adjusting for many hours


----------



## subterFUSE

OK I did round 2 of measuring and DiRAC tuning....


This time I was able to get a louder overall volume level, although still not loud enough. Tomorrow I will try even more tilt to the target curve.

The staging is still spot on accurate, right out of the gate. So impressive how good the staging is, really. But my bass is still too light and the dynamics I want are not quite there yet. Don't get me wrong, it sounds great.... I just want some more impact.


----------



## piyush7243

Whats the point Inverting phases n manually changing TA as DL does most of it. Or this is to experiment around

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> OK I did round 2 of measuring and DiRAC tuning....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This time I was able to get a louder overall volume level, although still not loud enough. Tomorrow I will try even more tilt to the target curve.
> 
> 
> 
> The staging is still spot on accurate, right out of the gate. So impressive how good the staging is, really. But my bass is still too light and the dynamics I want are not quite there yet. Don't get me wrong, it sounds great.... I just want some more impact.


Overall volume has got to be a gain/ initial dlct level setting issue. I have zero issues at all with it.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

piyush7243 said:


> Whats the point Inverting phases n manually changing TA as DL does most of it. Or this is to experiment around
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


I do it to raise the stage 
However I maintain the delays set by Dirac as far as offsets go between pairs 

I add 2ms to my mids and .5 to my horns , it makes my stage rise above my dash. I know I messing some things up but making some things better 

With speakers in kicks you have to do some trickery with Haas to make stage height. 

At some point I will find a target that raises the stage .


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> OK I did round 2 of measuring and DiRAC tuning....
> 
> 
> This time I was able to get a louder overall volume level, although still not loud enough. Tomorrow I will try even more tilt to the target curve.
> 
> The staging is still spot on accurate, right out of the gate. So impressive how good the staging is, really. But my bass is still too light and the dynamics I want are not quite there yet. Don't get me wrong, it sounds great.... I just want some more impact.




Make sure your not measuring with sub wide open.

Just crack the bass knob when measuring 
Have the bass response go just up to the 0db line if can 

Than after the tune crank up your sub 

Bass frequencies are 99.9% minimum phase so adding won’t do anything destructive (to a point), 


When driving I can’t even hear my sub unless is 15db louder than the rest 
Because of road noise


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Am I missing something?... I don't think it has a built in center channel upmixer - From my understanding it has to be fed an upmixed signal - 5.1 or 7.1 in and assign a Dirac channel to each.



I’m going to experiment and try to make one for this hummer


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> OK I did round 2 of measuring and DiRAC tuning....
> 
> 
> This time I was able to get a louder overall volume level, although still not loud enough. Tomorrow I will try even more tilt to the target curve.
> 
> The staging is still spot on accurate, right out of the gate. So impressive how good the staging is, really. But my bass is still too light and the dynamics I want are not quite there yet. Don't get me wrong, it sounds great.... I just want some more impact.


Thanks for sharing John.

Can you share your mic placements?... Is the first position the center of your head? And how far away from the first position are you going left/right/up/down? Are you in the vehicle while measuring?

When you say the Dynamics are lacking - do you mean just sub-bass or dynamics in general across the whole freq range?


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Thanks for sharing John.
> 
> Can you share your mic placements?... Is the first position the center of your head? And how far away from the first position are you going left/right/up/down? Are you in the vehicle while measuring?
> 
> When you say the Dynamics are lacking - do you mean just sub-bass or dynamics in general across the whole freq range?



Yes, mic in center for first measurement.

Other measurements around area of head.

Not in vehicle while measuring.

Midbass and sub dynamics are lacking, and overall volume too low.

I think the only way to keep the volume up is to not so so much EQ cut by placing the target curve below all the dips. Need to keep target closer to 0 dB line, I think.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, mic in center for first measurement.
> 
> Other measurements around area of head.
> 
> Not in vehicle while measuring.
> 
> Midbass and sub dynamics are lacking, and overall volume too low.
> 
> I think the only way to keep the volume up is to not so so much EQ cut by placing the target curve below all the dips. Need to keep target closer to 0 dB line, I think.


This is still using a Dirac ch per driver? Auto targets?


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> This is still using a Dirac ch per driver? Auto targets?


Yes, 7 channels DIRAC.

No, I did my own targets by linking all channels and setting a global, and then going to linked pairs and modifying them for each, and then unlinking pairs and optimizing.


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, mic in center for first measurement.
> 
> Other measurements around area of head.
> 
> Not in vehicle while measuring.
> 
> Midbass and sub dynamics are lacking, and overall volume too low.
> 
> I think the only way to keep the volume up is to not so so much EQ cut by placing the target curve below all the dips. Need to keep target closer to 0 dB line, I think.




With gainless amps I can see that being a issue 

How deep are your biggest dips ,?

It’s okay to keep the target above parts of the dips , but you just don’t want it to boost like more than about 6db max , you’ll notice it will be sorta harsh at higher volumes if your boosting a lot. 

That said , it also depends on the dip and what’s causing it and if you have the amp power available. I definitely boost 4db into a spot on mine but I also used gains on my amps to ajust to the target as much as I can. 

I’m cutting overall about 6db out of my signal and my system gets stupid loud. 


Good info tho! Good to know this sort of scenario


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, 7 channels DIRAC.
> 
> No, I did my own targets by linking all channels and setting a global, and then going to linked pairs and modifying them for each, and then unlinking pairs and optimizing.



Linking and setting global target - hadn't thought of that... Thank you.

Just a thought... This is in the manaul too - but what about doing some preliminary rough eq on the outputs in order to tame large peaks so that the Dirac measurements can be taken at a higher level without getting level too high error? For instance, my vehicle has like a 10db peak at 40hz. Maybe doing that can get you some more volume?


----------



## subterFUSE

My next tune is going to be a full manual tune using the plugin, and then a 2 channel DIRAC correction. This is how miniDSP suggests to setup an active system in the manual.


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> My next tune is going to be a full manual tune using the plugin, and then a 2 channel DIRAC correction. This is how miniDSP suggests to setup an active system in the manual.



That’s basically how mine was for two years using a ddrc22d 


Few months ago I added a ddrc24 for just my horns and ddrc22d for everything else and it definitely got better. 

As soon as I added the C...........spaceship 



But that’s the best part of this , you can do whatever you want and how you want. Your system could definitely be better for you that way , it will definitely be easier to manage the target with a single stereo channel Dirac. 
Do it! After some time with it and experience with how it tunes and know what to expect and how it reacts to your car and your gear and your tastes you may venture to more channels maybe not. But it don’t matter. Your going to love it once you find the configuration that’s hits your sweet spot. 

If you do, can I make a recommendation, try using the Dirac TA numbers in 8ch and apply them to your outputs before you run your two channel Dirac 

My gut tells me you’ll net a better result...maybe not. Worth a go tho maybe. 

Just curious what amps you use?


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Set the outputs to max before or after measuring?
> 
> If before measuring, won't that clip the inputs? I actually had my measurements get stopped automatically a couple of times because of clipping detected with the output sliders set to -12 dB on the meter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this linking done in DIRAC or in the Plugin? Because I linked my pairs in the plugin before starting DIRAC.



That’s the input gains. Unity is at max 

If your source is clipping than turn it down. 
I wouldn’t tho, I would just not turn my source to clipping 


I’ll try and explain again. 

The sliders for outputs in Dirac tool, if you turn those down and run the calibration your loosing output gain and it won’t get as loud when your done 
It will become a part of that optimization. 

If you have to do a 1/2 or full pre tune using peq. For you it may be better than turning down an entire channel plus the cuts Dirac makes 

Linking in Dirac . 


Try ajust mic gain and output master in the Dirac tool so you can get through measurements 

A small pre tune in the outputs May be necessary to knock down peaks if you have too much variance in your response. I usually knock half the peaks down 
And do a 1/2way to flat pre tune (on my horns because they upwards of 25db variance ) I do nothing to my direct radiators except set my amps gains. But that’s just me. 


You might like a full blown pretune than Dirac. 
To me honestly it sounds over corrected and dynamics seem to really get killed.
But it’s dammmm accurate tho man it is very precise doing a full blown pretune than Dirac. You might like it better, and from the feedback your stereo might sound better that way......only one way to find out  


Great input everyone. I like how I’m getting different tastes in the finished tunes and hearing the different opinions. Awesome feedback !




Truthunter said:


> Linking and setting global target - hadn't thought of that... Thank you.
> 
> Just a thought... This is in the manaul too - but what about doing some preliminary rough eq on the outputs in order to tame large peaks so that the Dirac measurements can be taken at a higher level without getting level too high error? For instance, my vehicle has like a 10db peak at 40hz. Maybe doing that can get you some more volume?




Definitely worth trying. I do it on my horns because I have no choice. 
Elgrosso likes his like that better. I find it too over corrected on my mids especially


----------



## Jscoyne2

So i did my measurements with the sub on. There isn't really a way to make it so it just isn't correcting the sub channel. So can if i just leave the sub off during music playing. Will it not take all the processing power for those ultra low frequencies?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> So i did my measurements with the sub on. There isn't really a way to make it so it just isn't correcting the sub channel. So can if i just leave the sub off during music playing. Will it not take all the processing power for those ultra low frequencies?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Isn’t that what the correction windows are for? I.e. if you don’t want to correct low you keep the window up higher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Isn’t that what the correction windows are for? I.e. if you don’t want to correct low you keep the window up higher?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cept u cant window outside the orange dots and u have to have at least one orange dot. So..

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Cept u cant window outside the orange dots and u have to have at least one orange dot. So..
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


THats correct!

I read on mini forum awhile back that dragging the curtain over everything cancels the frequency response correction but leaves the phase and timing correction. The phase correction can not be curtained off. 

As far as what your trying to do ..... I would definitely experiment. Maybe leave the one orange dot in the center of your sub response. Or at the very beginning.
Or way way down the bottom of rolloff .....
I’ve never tryed doing that, I’ve always used a sub correction (to me that’s the best part of Dirac) 

If you don’t want to include your sub than why not just stick it on a non Dirac channel and add the delays manually? 

I’m not sure what your trying to accomplish.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So i did my measurements with the sub on. There isn't really a way to make it so it just isn't correcting the sub channel. So can if i just leave the sub off during music playing. Will it not take all the processing power for those ultra low frequencies?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Are you trying to have Dirac on only highs? There’s enough power to do everything. But if you want to try , turn your sub output off of the Dirac mixer and make it a non Dirac channel , than go to the IR in the Dirac for everything else and zoom in as much as can and put cursor on peak and see how many ms the ir is shifted. Add that delay to sub output and fine tune from there.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> THats correct!
> 
> 
> 
> I read on mini forum awhile back that dragging the curtain over everything cancels the frequency response correction but leaves the phase and timing correction. The phase correction can not be curtained off.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what your trying to do ..... I would definitely experiment. Maybe leave the one orange dot in the center of your sub response. Or at the very beginning.
> 
> Or way way down the bottom of rolloff .....
> 
> I’ve never tryed doing that, I’ve always used a sub correction (to me that’s the best part of Dirac)
> 
> 
> 
> If you don’t want to include your sub than why not just stick it on a non Dirac channel and add the delays manually?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what your trying to accomplish.


Weren't you just saying that having correction at 20hz is huge amount of processing and could take up all the processing power?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Weren't you just saying that having correction at 20hz is huge amount of processing and could take up all the processing power?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Yes. Correcting at 20 Hz requires 8000+ taps minimum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Yes. Correcting at 20 Hz requires 8000+ taps minimum.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So wouldn't correcting the sub be bad?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> So wouldn't correcting the sub be bad?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




I doubt Dirac uses FIR to correct below 40 Hz. Prob uses IIR there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Think I'm going to go back to a 5 rather than 7 channel set up for now. Seems to work better for me. With 7 I have a hell of a time getting the levels right. I played pink noise and used REW to get a rough shape of what I wanted.

Open DLCT, get too low errors on the right tweeter and rear speakers in the forward left microphone position. If I turn the output up so that those are not too low, I then get clipping on the left midbass/mid combo and occasionally the subwoofer. Seems a real juggling act to get the levels in a good spot such that they remain good in all microphone positions.


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Think I'm going to go back to a 5 rather than 7 channel set up for now. Seems to work better for me. With 7 I have a hell of a time getting the levels right. I played pink noise and used REW to get a rough shape of what I wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> Open DLCT, get too low errors on the right tweeter and rear speakers in the forward left microphone position. If I turn the output up so that those are not too low, I then get clipping on the left midbass/mid combo and occasionally the subwoofer. Seems a real juggling act to get the levels in a good spot such that they remain good in all microphone positions.


I had to tame the high peaks in rew for my midbass, in order to get clean output without clipping. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Weren't you just saying that having correction at 20hz is huge amount of processing and could take up all the processing power?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


A high pass filter at 20hz on sub almost and nothing else could. 
I would have to loopback the Dirac sweep from rew to see how it handles such a thing, it may not even try.


But if a 20hz HPF was on everything, that’s different. They all share the same shift now. So it really wouldn’t need much of anything to sound good. 

OTOH to linearize a 20hz HPF would possibly take over 10,000 taps at 48k per channel. So I doubt it would try, 

TLDR : don’t use a 20hz HPF on sub alone.


----------



## oabeieo

Sometimes I’ll ask my kids a question and get completely ignored.........


talking crypticly 


having a **** day . that’s so.......never mind I’m ranting again
Ignore this


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Sometimes I’ll ask my kids a question and get completely ignored.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> talking crypticly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> having a **** day . that’s so.......never mind I’m ranting again
> 
> Ignore this


Heres some memes buddy
















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Heres some memes buddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Okay! You made my day I’m happy again.

Yesterday was dumb my apologies.


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> I had to tame the high peaks in rew for my midbass, in order to get clean output without clipping.


It's definitely a bit of trial and error to get the outputs right without either clipping or being too low, especially as what works fine for 1 microphone position might be no good for another.

I am sort of thinking today of trying to use PEQ to minimize a huge dip I get at 400Hz before running Dirac. As it is, I have to lower the entire target curve by a good (IIRC) 10dB in order to have it below the dip. Wondering if I can work on that via PEQ initially, then run Dirac if it will not cut so much of my overall output. 



oabeieo said:


> Sometimes I’ll ask my kids a question and get completely ignored.........


Many times I liken asking my children a question to talking to a wall, door, umbrella... really any inanimate object as I get the same (complete lack of) response.


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> It's definitely a bit of trial and error to get the outputs right without either clipping or being too low, especially as what works fine for 1 microphone position might be no good for another.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sort of thinking today of trying to use PEQ to minimize a huge dip I get at 400Hz before running Dirac. As it is, I have to lower the entire target curve by a good (IIRC) 10dB in order to have it below the dip. Wondering if I can work on that via PEQ initially, then run Dirac if it will not cut so much of my overall output.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many times I liken asking my children a question to talking to a wall, door, umbrella... really any inanimate object as I get the same (complete lack of) response.


I mean boosting a dip via peq or dirac is going to be the same power consumption wise. If it's vehicle oriented, might as well just pull down the curve on Dirac. Oab is throwing out his experience and saying it might not be a super great idea but we're all still figuring Dirac out. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

I meant bringing everything around the dip down via PEQ, then bringing the level of the midbass back up to that of the tweeters / mids and finally running Dirac. So, let's say overall after the PEQ my midbass is down 5dB compared to everything else, I would then use the output sliders (in the plug in) to bring the midbass back up 5dB. 

Ideally then giving me a higher overall level to the target curve as I am not pulling it (and everything else) down to meet that dip. No idea if it would work properly, but might be worth a try at least. Certainly can't hurt anything.


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> A high pass filter at 20hz on sub almost and nothing else could.
> I would have to loopback the Dirac sweep from rew to see how it handles such a thing, it may not even try.
> 
> 
> But if a 20hz HPF was on everything, that’s different. They all share the same shift now. So it really wouldn’t need much of anything to sound good.
> 
> OTOH to linearize a 20hz HPF would possibly take over 10,000 taps at 48k per channel. So I doubt it would try,
> 
> TLDR : don’t use a 20hz HPF on sub alone.


The best way would be to process the sub at something like 512 or 1k sample rate. 44.1k or 96 is a bit of overkill when Shannon and Nyquist sort out that to bed back in the day.


----------



## bitshifted

naiku said:


> I meant bringing everything around the dip down via PEQ, then bringing the level of the midbass back up to that of the tweeters / mids and finally running Dirac. So, let's say overall after the PEQ my midbass is down 5dB compared to everything else, I would then use the output sliders (in the plug in) to bring the midbass back up 5dB.
> 
> Ideally then giving me a higher overall level to the target curve as I am not pulling it (and everything else) down to meet that dip. No idea if it would work properly, but might be worth a try at least. Certainly can't hurt anything.


Lurking in here because I'm interested in installing this unit...

This comment is confusing (I'm a beginner, so bare with me), from what I've read, you can't or shouldn't boost through a room mode. By the sounds of what you are describing, you would be doing exactly that? Sounds like you are implying you can fix the null, and the level for free and not hurt anything. Wouldn't you be clipping on the frequency where the null is?

Asking because I have giant 10db nulls and not a lot of headroom. I doubt Dirac is a magic bullet for that?


----------



## subterFUSE

My plan is to try the following:

1. Measure each speaker with the mic up close to the cone and EQ approximately flat with parametric EQ in the plugin. This will be correcting the speakers not the room.

2. Set delays and crossovers in the plugin.

3. Run Dirac in 2 channels to correct the room and linearize the phase response.



Not sure when I will get around to trying it. I hate tuning my car so I rarely ever make time to mess with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I hate tuning my car so I rarely ever make time to mess with it.


No doubt tuning is my least favorite part of this hobby too.


----------



## naiku

bitshifted said:


> By the sounds of what you are describing, you would be doing exactly that? Sounds like you are implying you can fix the null, and the level for free and not hurt anything. Wouldn't you be clipping on the frequency where the null is?


It's not really fixing it for free, in that I would be lowering everything around the null so that it's not such a large dip. I can then via the plug in increase the output of that channel to compensate. Let's say overall I pull down the frequencies before and after the null by 5dB to flatten it out some. I can then increase the output slider on that channel by 5dB to bring the overall output back up. So I'm not actually boosting any frequencies at all, but cutting individual frequencies and then increasing overall output. 

Honestly, I have no idea if it will work or if it's even the best method. But, unless I do something really stupid, the only thing I lose is some time.



subterFUSE said:


> My plan is to try the following:
> 
> 1. Measure each speaker with the mic up close to the cone and EQ approximately flat with parametric EQ in the plugin. This will be correcting the speakers not the room.
> 
> 2. Set delays and crossovers in the plugin.
> 
> 3. Run Dirac in 2 channels to correct the room and linearize the phase response.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure when I will get around to trying it. I hate tuning my car so I rarely ever make time to mess with it.


I might try this sometime between now and Thursday, ideally tomorrow but playing catch up at work, so might not get around to it.


----------



## oabeieo

bitshifted said:


> Lurking in here because I'm interested in installing this unit...
> 
> This comment is confusing (I'm a beginner, so bare with me), from what I've read, you can't or shouldn't boost through a room mode. By the sounds of what you are describing, you would be doing exactly that? Sounds like you are implying you can fix the null, and the level for free and not hurt anything. Wouldn't you be clipping on the frequency where the null is?
> 
> Asking because I have giant 10db nulls and not a lot of headroom. I doubt Dirac is a magic bullet for that?




If you have a null in multiple positions it is fixable in the time domain, 
It shifts the phase of the system to repair such issues, it will ignore deep nulls that are specific to location and it also ignores nulls caused by combfilters caused by left and right interaction (Dirac 2.0 addresses that, something to look forward to) 

It will boost some as well , but you can control the amount depending if your trying to squeak every last drop of volume out of your system or not. 




subterFUSE said:


> My plan is to try the following:
> 
> 1. Measure each speaker with the mic up close to the cone and EQ approximately flat with parametric EQ in the plugin. This will be correcting the speakers not the room.
> 
> 2. Set delays and crossovers in the plugin.
> 
> 3. Run Dirac in 2 channels to correct the room and linearize the phase response.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure when I will get around to trying it. I hate tuning my car so I rarely ever make time to mess with it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That’s exactly how I did it when I had speakers that weren’t flat naturally 
And that’s exactly how I do my horns.


I did a LOT of things to get my drivers to play flat on there own. 
But that was a year of trying and building and it paid off. 


Guys subterFUSE is correct , and I love the way this dood thinks. Smart man.
His responses are educated and intelligent. 


Use peq to fix the speaker and use Dirac to fix the room. That’s actually how it was designed and I think the manual sorta in other words explains that 




naiku said:


> It's definitely a bit of trial and error to get the outputs right without either clipping or being too low, especially as what works fine for 1 microphone position might be no good for another.
> 
> I am sort of thinking today of trying to use PEQ to minimize a huge dip I get at 400Hz before running Dirac. As it is, I have to lower the entire target curve by a good (IIRC) 10dB in order to have it below the dip. Wondering if I can work on that via PEQ initially, then run Dirac if it will not cut so much of my overall output.
> 
> 
> 
> Many times I liken asking my children a question to talking to a wall, door, umbrella... really any inanimate object as I get the same (complete lack of) response.



Yeah they (and the wife) like completely forgot about Father’s Day, I had a whole bunch of plans to go hiking and ........ ended up getting in a argument with the wife about onions. The stupidest day ever. 
And of course I said nothing and just let it go as usual. 
But we’re men! We suck it up and do it no matter what. 
Thanks niaku!


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> If you have a null in multiple positions it is fixable in the time domain,
> It shifts the phase of the system to repair such issues, it will ignore deep nulls that are specific to location and it also ignores nulls caused by combfilters caused by left and right interaction (Dirac 2.0 addresses that, something to look forward to)
> ....
> Thanks niaku!


That is a pretty elegant solution... so it is essentially group delay on one Chanel where the nulls were formally at?




oabeieo said:


> ...
> Yeah they (and the wife) like completely forgot about Father’s Day, I had a whole bunch of plans to go hiking and ........ ended up getting in a argument with the wife about onions. The stupidest day ever.
> And of course I said nothing and just let it go as usual.
> But we’re men! We suck it up and do it no matter what.
> Thanks niaku!


I suppose it all ended in tears?


----------



## Jscoyne2

Ooops loll









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ooops loll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Lmao! 

Hahaha! You guys are brats! Lol 




Holmz said:


> That is a pretty elegant solution... so it is essentially group delay on one Chanel where the nulls were formally at?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose it all ended in tears?



Tears , really??? 

Now that you ask. It was a river, the tears rolled down my chapped ass and cleansed my stinky whine ....hahaha


----------



## naiku

subterFUSE said:


> 1. Measure each speaker with the mic up close to the cone and EQ approximately flat with parametric EQ in the plugin. This will be correcting the speakers not the room.
> 
> 2. Set delays and crossovers in the plugin.
> 
> 3. Run Dirac in 2 channels to correct the room and linearize the phase response.


So, I gave this a quick try.... while it does sound good, for me everything is shifted way right. Could be a couple of things though, either that my delays I set are wrong (I found an old file with them written down, but could be wrong) or my microphone positioning was not ideal. 

This was just using 5 Dirac channels, once I get this exactly how I want, then I will experiment again using 7. I want to try again with slightly different microphone positioning (and confirm my delay values) but it's every bit of 90F here today and humid. Sitting in a hot car in the garage with no A/C is utterly miserable.


----------



## subterFUSE

Is there a way to get the delay values that Dirac comes up with so that we can try them out in the plugin?


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Is there a way to get the delay values that Dirac comes up with so that we can try them out in the plugin?


Yea it shows them in the dirac section of the plug in

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Keep in mind that it will 
Add delay to speaker that do not have excess group delay before convolution to align with a speaker that does have excess group delay. (Like a ported sub) 
To save fir coefficients, and also , convolution by itself is a delay, and the delay could be used from the fir output against other channels , with the exception of 2ch Dirac. Meaning if one channel fir is 5.66ms and another channel is 6ms , guess what. So some of the delays may not make sense or seem like there right 
And they may not be right for what you like. It’s delay structure is different than just actual distances , and so are the levels , you may see a left side turned down farther than right but it sounds even or quieter , there more going on that the numbers it outputs.

Also , convolution and any movement in phase can be seen as a delay (filters are casual)
Example, if you move phase at 200hz by 180deg it’s like 1.6ms or close to (I made those numbers up from memory could be wrong but you get the idea) 

So if it’s moving only a certain amount of phase in one area of the magnitude that could the same thing as a full on delay from start to finish, depending on how the speaker is “phased” on measurements 

So you just don’t know! 

The delays it adds are usually dam close. I would move the mic forward a tiny bit or back a tiny bit to move the center in combination with how close you get the mic to the left channel. Having the left side measurement points REALLY close to the speakers will lower the output on that channel , think about it. It averages all the responses between left and right, if one of the averages is high volume it will cut it. 


In my post Dirac if I don’t completely like where something is at , I start with levels and simply turn down levels on individual speaker in output in plugin not Dirac output , and move pairs of speaker up or down in delay , but keeping the delay apart the same , 

Example, freshly after Dirac if my midrange output is a 1ms for the Left and 1ms for the right than I would try moving Both to 1.25ms and listen than 1.5ms and listen 
Or I may try going to .75 than .5 , and that’s why I start my Dirac with all speaker delays at 1ms so I can go down afterwards if I want one to go down starting all at zero only allows you to go up , if you did that than you would have to delay everything (all channels ) by 1ms so you could go down on one channel , I find it easier to start everything at 1ms than run Dirac 

Do that to the mids or tweets or whatever and go back to the starting 1ms in my case and than try another pair of speakers like the midbass or tweets , 


Between levels and delays on outputs you should get it nailed down. 
Again I don’t add delay to a single speaker , just pairs, the Dirac delays it sets between pairs is usually spot ****in on. 

But only you know what a high and far back soundstage sounds like, moving the delays together and should raise/lower the stage and also change the phase a little at crossover frequencies if you have a harsh sounding crossover interaction and needs a tiny bit of delay to smooth it out on one side. 

You can definitely try the invert button on pairs if you find the invert sounds better try re running Dirac with invert on.


I’ve run Dirac about 100x now with different combinations of starting delays and levels on outputs in plugin and now have a post Dirac tune that needs nothing 
It’s perfect 

There’s lots of ways to skin the cat in the dsp


But also remember. 
Your not trying to get your time alignment set to exact distances to make yourself feel better. Your trying to make your system sound kick ass. 
Sometimes I get fought up on wanting something to measure a certain way or have the right amount of 1k or something and get lost on the basics of overall sound quality. 

* What is overall sound quality one might ask......ponder that one.

I would suggest it starts with not obsessing with settings in dsp being true or textbook “correct” and do what sounds good. If moving your mids 2ms away from your tweets after your perfect impulse alignment sounds better than why the hell aren’t you doing that? But more importantly why would it theoretically sound better is the bigger question. 

A large deep soundstage is a recreation of something only your minds eye can extrapolate and your version of what is good may be what your actually after and this trying to adhere to textbook methods may be more damaging than it is good. What if hypothetically, you want your deep stage to sound like it’s coming from outside the car how would you get there. Well for one you would have to break almost every rule in speaker alignment there is but you would get there.
Because of this. Sound is made up of phase , frequencies and amplitude (a transfer function). If you want the sound to sound like it’s 30’ away you have to create a transfer function that does that or 10’ or 5’ or just an extra foot (hummmm a foot sounds a awful lot like a single millisecond now doesn’t it )

In a real soundstage some of the parts of the stage that give depth are because the instruments in the stage are diffrent depths away, if the real stage is 10’ deep and your cars minds eye stage is 2’ deep (because of aspect ratios) a 1ms delay added to say a mid could add 10’ of depth to a stage) get what I’m saying.

Also high frequencies travel farther with less change to its phase and low frequencies travel farther without attenuation, so if you are sitting 30’ away from the stage the lows may be a lot stronger and moved away from the highs in phase. So to recreate the sound stage wouldn’t it make sense to move the timing of certain pairs of drivers to recreate the stage the way you like it? 

Measurements indeed have there place and accuracy is definitely a part of the solution but it’s not the goal. Don’t get too hung up on trying to have the “setting correct” get it to sound good within reason . 

What do I mean by “within reason” , I mean don’t go moving the mids like 15ms away , that’s just retarded. Within reason is within the wavelength. If a speaker is playing a wavelength that is 20ms on the low side a 4ms on the highs side guess what....I would t go much past 4ms in that case ...

So for my mids that is 4.5ms on the low side and 1.128ms on the high side , I move them up to 1.128 ms away from other speakers and it sounds just fine actually I don’t have a problem even going a tiny bit beyond that depending on how steep the crossover is , if my horn interacts down into the 400s that’s lie 2 plus ms ......



Dial your stage in with delays , let Dirac do the left right timing unless you absolutely hate it and must go a little more. Make it yours and what you like! 


Actually, it’s quite good thing


With Dirac now you have transfer functions that match so much better now between left and right , try recreate a soundstage when there’s massive time domain issues between all the channels that delay can not solve. Eek . 

Even moving pairs of speakers with delay to make a soundstage still puts you miles and miles ahead of everyone else that dosent use Dirac.



I would suggest non Dirac dsp systems have as much as 25ms deficiencies in there spectrum. So your little 1 or 2 ms add on for staging is peanuts compared to what you had before. I’m convinced without any finite impulse correction a system is beyond repair in a car as far as a truly exciting soundstage (in my opinion) without excessive modifications or extremely calculated speaker placements and absolutely expert level dsp work. *

The Dirac can make a typical door install phenomenal.


----------



## subterFUSE

Is it possible to link channels in the plugin and delay them in groups?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> Is it possible to link channels in the plugin and delay them in groups?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I wish ! That would be so nice


----------



## naiku

subterFUSE said:


> Is it possible to link channels in the plugin and delay them in groups?


I asked Mini for that about a year ago now, might be in the suggestions forum over at MiniDSP. I think someone replied it was a good idea but it never went anywhere.


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> ...
> 
> *
> I would suggest non Dirac dsp systems have as much as 25ms deficiencies in there spectrum. So your little 1 or 2 ms add on for staging is peanuts compared to what you had before. I’m convinced without any finite impulse correction a system is beyond repair in a car as far as a truly exciting soundstage (in my opinion) without excessive modifications or extremely calculated speaker placements and absolutely expert level dsp work. *
> 
> ...


Yes and no...
A stunning set of speakers with good impulse response, and maybe sealed enclosures or IB would also not require much group delay correction.
So if those sets of speakers were closer to perfect than some other set, then an IIR based DSP would do just fine as there is little fix (TA and levels).

On the other hand there is not a lot of expert level tools that can make an IIR do impulse correction, and I am not sure if an all-pass can do group delay correction. So FIR based DSP is the straight forward way. Perhaps an IIR can do some of it, or perhaps when the levels of impulse response and group delay are low enough, then it doesn't matter so much.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Keep in mind that it will
> 
> Add delay to speaker that do not have excess group delay before convolution to align with a speaker that does have excess group delay. (Like a ported sub)
> 
> To save fir coefficients, and also , convolution by itself is a delay, and the delay could be used from the fir output against other channels , with the exception of 2ch Dirac. Meaning if one channel fir is 5.66ms and another channel is 6ms , guess what. So some of the delays may not make sense or seem like there right
> 
> And they may not be right for what you like. It’s delay structure is different than just actual distances , and so are the levels , you may see a left side turned down farther than right but it sounds even or quieter , there more going on that the numbers it outputs.
> 
> 
> 
> Also , convolution and any movement in phase can be seen as a delay (filters are casual)
> 
> Example, if you move phase at 200hz by 180deg it’s like 1.6ms or close to (I made those numbers up from memory could be wrong but you get the idea)
> 
> 
> 
> So if it’s moving only a certain amount of phase in one area of the magnitude that could the same thing as a full on delay from start to finish, depending on how the speaker is “phased” on measurements
> 
> 
> 
> So you just don’t know!
> 
> 
> 
> The delays it adds are usually dam close. I would move the mic forward a tiny bit or back a tiny bit to move the center in combination with how close you get the mic to the left channel. Having the left side measurement points REALLY close to the speakers will lower the output on that channel , think about it. It averages all the responses between left and right, if one of the averages is high volume it will cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my post Dirac if I don’t completely like where something is at , I start with levels and simply turn down levels on individual speaker in output in plugin not Dirac output , and move pairs of speaker up or down in delay , but keeping the delay apart the same ,
> 
> 
> 
> Example, freshly after Dirac if my midrange output is a 1ms for the Left and 1ms for the right than I would try moving Both to 1.25ms and listen than 1.5ms and listen
> 
> Or I may try going to .75 than .5 , and that’s why I start my Dirac with all speaker delays at 1ms so I can go down afterwards if I want one to go down starting all at zero only allows you to go up , if you did that than you would have to delay everything (all channels ) by 1ms so you could go down on one channel , I find it easier to start everything at 1ms than run Dirac
> 
> 
> 
> Do that to the mids or tweets or whatever and go back to the starting 1ms in my case and than try another pair of speakers like the midbass or tweets ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between levels and delays on outputs you should get it nailed down.
> 
> Again I don’t add delay to a single speaker , just pairs, the Dirac delays it sets between pairs is usually spot ****in on.
> 
> 
> 
> But only you know what a high and far back soundstage sounds like, moving the delays together and should raise/lower the stage and also change the phase a little at crossover frequencies if you have a harsh sounding crossover interaction and needs a tiny bit of delay to smooth it out on one side.
> 
> 
> 
> You can definitely try the invert button on pairs if you find the invert sounds better try re running Dirac with invert on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve run Dirac about 100x now with different combinations of starting delays and levels on outputs in plugin and now have a post Dirac tune that needs nothing
> 
> It’s perfect
> 
> 
> 
> There’s lots of ways to skin the cat in the dsp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But also remember.
> 
> Your not trying to get your time alignment set to exact distances to make yourself feel better. Your trying to make your system sound kick ass.
> 
> Sometimes I get fought up on wanting something to measure a certain way or have the right amount of 1k or something and get lost on the basics of overall sound quality.
> 
> 
> 
> * What is overall sound quality one might ask......ponder that one.
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest it starts with not obsessing with settings in dsp being true or textbook “correct” and do what sounds good. If moving your mids 2ms away from your tweets after your perfect impulse alignment sounds better than why the hell aren’t you doing that? But more importantly why would it theoretically sound better is the bigger question.
> 
> 
> 
> A large deep soundstage is a recreation of something only your minds eye can extrapolate and your version of what is good may be what your actually after and this trying to adhere to textbook methods may be more damaging than it is good. What if hypothetically, you want your deep stage to sound like it’s coming from outside the car how would you get there. Well for one you would have to break almost every rule in speaker alignment there is but you would get there.
> 
> Because of this. Sound is made up of phase , frequencies and amplitude (a transfer function). If you want the sound to sound like it’s 30’ away you have to create a transfer function that does that or 10’ or 5’ or just an extra foot (hummmm a foot sounds a awful lot like a single millisecond now doesn’t it )
> 
> 
> 
> In a real soundstage some of the parts of the stage that give depth are because the instruments in the stage are diffrent depths away, if the real stage is 10’ deep and your cars minds eye stage is 2’ deep (because of aspect ratios) a 1ms delay added to say a mid could add 10’ of depth to a stage) get what I’m saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Also high frequencies travel farther with less change to its phase and low frequencies travel farther without attenuation, so if you are sitting 30’ away from the stage the lows may be a lot stronger and moved away from the highs in phase. So to recreate the sound stage wouldn’t it make sense to move the timing of certain pairs of drivers to recreate the stage the way you like it?
> 
> 
> 
> Measurements indeed have there place and accuracy is definitely a part of the solution but it’s not the goal. Don’t get too hung up on trying to have the “setting correct” get it to sound good within reason .
> 
> 
> 
> What do I mean by “within reason” , I mean don’t go moving the mids like 15ms away , that’s just retarded. Within reason is within the wavelength. If a speaker is playing a wavelength that is 20ms on the low side a 4ms on the highs side guess what....I would t go much past 4ms in that case ...
> 
> 
> 
> So for my mids that is 4.5ms on the low side and 1.128ms on the high side , I move them up to 1.128 ms away from other speakers and it sounds just fine actually I don’t have a problem even going a tiny bit beyond that depending on how steep the crossover is , if my horn interacts down into the 400s that’s lie 2 plus ms ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dial your stage in with delays , let Dirac do the left right timing unless you absolutely hate it and must go a little more. Make it yours and what you like!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it’s quite good thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Dirac now you have transfer functions that match so much better now between left and right , try recreate a soundstage when there’s massive time domain issues between all the channels that delay can not solve. Eek .
> 
> 
> 
> Even moving pairs of speakers with delay to make a soundstage still puts you miles and miles ahead of everyone else that dosent use Dirac.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest non Dirac dsp systems have as much as 25ms deficiencies in there spectrum. So your little 1 or 2 ms add on for staging is peanuts compared to what you had before. I’m convinced without any finite impulse correction a system is beyond repair in a car as far as a truly exciting soundstage (in my opinion) without excessive modifications or extremely calculated speaker placements and absolutely expert level dsp work. *
> 
> 
> 
> The Dirac can make a typical door install phenomenal.


Chapter 1 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Yes and no...
> A stunning set of speakers with good impulse response, and maybe sealed enclosures or IB would also not require much group delay correction.
> So if those sets of speakers were closer to perfect than some other set, then an IIR based DSP would do just fine as there is little fix (TA and levels).
> 
> On the other hand there is not a lot of expert level tools that can make an IIR do impulse correction, and I am not sure if an all-pass can do group delay correction. So FIR based DSP is the straight forward way. Perhaps an IIR can do some of it, or perhaps when the levels of impulse response and group delay are low enough, then it doesn't matter so much.



Your right , and you know your right and I’m not arguing that. However 
2 variables to consider 

1. Reverbant small room 
2. Speaker location (low doors or floor in particular) 


What do you do if you like the way it sounds better when you change it from the “perfect impulse” 

That’s the question and suggestion 

Do you leave it or go with what sounds better to YOU. 

Screw the impulse at some point one might consider and go with what sounds good.


Again. My hypothesis is a semi argumentative way of saying 
It’s ok to break away from the graphs if it works better.



It’s easy to arbitrarily say a bad speaker or whatever to make the reader assume your answer is the correct one because of a defined reason. 

What if you tried almost hundreds of speakers , than what, and tryed multiple speaker locations. Your in a car, your kinda limited actually and have to make compromises. We all know that. 

I’m suggesting that at some point the chase for a perfect measurement needs to be augmented with the realities of what you really want in your system and what you actually can do about it with what you have .


If you want the perfect impulse, by all means put you steering wheel in middle of car and pad all the windows and make that one seater , the rest of us will still drive production cars 

I can post my before and after impulse 
The before looks way better , it does 

The after sounds better, vocals are high up in the dash and deep stage 
The before is good, but a little low to the ground, my vocal sings into my heater core , I don’t like that, I like the vocal to image on top of the dash at least


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> Your right , and you know your right and I’m not arguing that. However
> 2 variables to consider
> 
> 1. Reverbant small room
> 2. Speaker location (low doors or floor in particular)
> 
> 
> What do you do if you like the way it sounds better when you change it from the “perfect impulse”
> 
> That’s the question and suggestion
> 
> Do you leave it or go with what sounds better to YOU.
> 
> Screw the impulse at some point one might consider and go with what sounds good.
> 
> 
> Again. My hypothesis is a semi argumentative way of saying
> It’s ok to break away from the graphs if it works better.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s easy to arbitrarily say a bad speaker or whatever to make the reader assume your answer is the correct one because of a defined reason.
> 
> What if you tried almost hundreds of speakers , than what, and tryed multiple speaker locations. Your in a car, your kinda limited actually and have to make compromises. We all know that.
> 
> I’m suggesting that at some point the chase for a perfect measurement needs to be augmented with the realities of what you really want in your system and what you actually can do about it with what you have .
> 
> 
> If you want the perfect impulse, by all means put you steering wheel in middle of car and pad all the windows and make that one seater , the rest of us will still drive production cars
> 
> I can post my before and after impulse
> The before looks way better , it does
> 
> The after sounds better, vocals are high up in the dash and deep stage
> The before is good, but a little low to the ground, my vocal sings into my heater core , I don’t like that, I like the vocal to image on top of the dash at least


There was not a lot to argue, so the implicit message was that the speakers or the DSP need funding.

I thought you said that the DiRAC was spot on, and that you then "bulk adjust" speaker delays by moving them a mS or so...? (But the impulse within a speaker's band would be good)

... cars with steering wheels in the middle only have a radio to talk to the crew... 

I would not mind seeing your before and after plots.
There is something pretty interesting going on, that is probably worth understanding. (I am not sure what it is,)


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> There was not a lot to argue, so the implicit message was that the speakers or the DSP need funding.
> 
> I thought you said that the DiRAC was spot on, and that you then "bulk adjust" speaker delays by moving them a mS or so...? (But the impulse within a speaker's band would be good)
> 
> ... cars with steering wheels in the middle only have a radio to talk to the crew...
> 
> I would not mind seeing your before and after plots.
> There is something pretty interesting going on, that is probably worth understanding. (I am not sure what it is,)



Lol ...yes a forklift! That’s what I should have got instead of a fit 


But yeah as far as delays between left and right , I’ve found them to be perfect 
And I’ve played with them a little and can tell the convolution applied makes it difficult to steer away from them (between pairs) it seems to quickly go to **** especially under 1khz 

But as far as delay between sets (mids to tweets or mids to midbass , it’s close , I’m finding some issues with crossover interactions that’s pulling my stage down and causing a bit of harshness in the crossover region due to interaction between my horns and mids , 

Keep in mind my horns are a diffrent species and they are sensitive to interaction with mids , 

The midbass yo sub delay seems great! 

So again this also could just be my horns causing this. 
But I would still not rule out anything and still say take a go at it and just see what you think on yours. The feedback would be great for me. 


I’ll post them up tonight after kids go bed


----------



## subterFUSE

So I have the Helix hooked back up in the Audi right now, and been listening to the tune for comparison. The biggest difference is the staging. The Dirac does such a good job with getting the positions correct within the stage. And the stage is perfectly spread out. I don't have things bunched up on the left side like I do with the Helix.

So, I just need to get my tonality dialed and I'll be happy.


----------



## tonynca

Helix owners will say you don't know how to tune

LOL


----------



## GreatLaBroski

tonynca said:


> Helix owners will say you don't know how to tune
> 
> LOL


And they’d be fools, look at his sig.


----------



## naiku

GreatLaBroski said:


> And they’d be fools, look at his sig.


And if you ever get the chance, listen to the S6. It's good.


----------



## Mahapederdon

tonynca said:


> Helix owners will say you don't know how to tune
> 
> LOL


I just got a helix but I've been keeping up on this thread cause it's interesting and there's some info here.


----------



## Jscoyne2

I really haven't had time to play with this dsp unfortunately. Been super busy and its summer. I got abunch of curves and modified them to fit under 0db. So far my favorite is half whitledge. 

I would say that my sub output is absolutely murdered but is perfectly balanced with the rest of the stage.. something im not a Huge fan of (output wise)because i like to be able to turn up my sub when i want too. I even did measurements with the bass knob all the way down and when its turned all the way up. I don't have the output i should have.

I need to do some Rew sweeps and see if im cancelling anywhere. 

Midrange and tweets wise. I'd say my biggest noticeable improvement is the instruments separation. I was NEVER anywhere near this kind of separation. Its pretty great. 

Stage is excellent tho i think maybe i lost some depth. Not really sure 


Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

God midbass back. Sub needed inverted. Question about that. 

If a driver needs to be inverted. Should i run the sweeps again with the correct polarity?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Jscoyne2 said:


> God midbass back. Sub needed inverted. Question about that.
> 
> If a driver needs to be inverted. Should i run the sweeps again with the correct polarity?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Yes because your resp curve changed. The DSP won't know those changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

So i've found that i need to delay my left midbass by around .6ms and drop it about 3db in order to get a good center. Its around 6-8in to the left too much. 

Is that bad....?

Also horn diaphragms will be here Saturday. I gotta make a decision on if i want to tear my system apart and build the horns for a Comp nxt saturday or i want to try and get this system in top shape..and then tear it apart after the comp


----------



## subterFUSE

OK so here is the next question on my mind.....


So after we measure with Dirac, and then were are at the point of setting our target curves, I am curious about how the acoustic crossovers work out. Specifically, if we are dragging our target curves around by eyesight, then we obviously are not being very precise about making sure our corner frequencies and slopes are matched between high and low drivers. With traditional DSP, this would be an issue because we might overlap or underlap our crossovers or get the slopes different and have phase incoherence from that.

So, do we need to be worried about this with Dirac? My initial guess is no because my testing thus far has yielded damn-near perfect staging without worrying about crossover points and slopes on the target. But, I am wondering if it would be a good idea to generate our target curves in a software like REW or SysTune which have virtual EQ sections. We could then export the text files with perfectly aligned highpass and lowpass slopes to import into Dirac.

Thoughts?


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> OK so here is the next question on my mind.....
> 
> 
> So after we measure with Dirac, and then were are at the point of setting our target curves, I am curious about how the acoustic crossovers work out. Specifically, if we are dragging our target curves around by eyesight, then we obviously are not being very precise about making sure our corner frequencies and slopes are matched between high and low drivers. With traditional DSP, this would be an issue because we might overlap or underlap our crossovers or get the slopes different and have phase incoherence from that.
> 
> So, do we need to be worried about this with Dirac? My initial guess is no because my testing thus far has yielded damn-near perfect staging without worrying about crossover points and slopes on the target. But, I am wondering if it would be a good idea to generate our target curves in a software like REW or SysTune which have virtual EQ sections. We could then export the text files with perfectly aligned highpass and lowpass slopes to import into Dirac.
> 
> Thoughts?


So these text files are driver specific target curves?... which I assume would be used when using a dedicated Dirac channel per driver?
If so then I think some of us have considered this already - but using Jazzi's target curve generator spreadsheet instead of using REW or Systune to generate the target curves. I've tried it and they imported into Dirac with no issue.


----------



## Jscoyne2

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/gXameY7

^^^ Little tutorial i made if u wanna make target curves with the correct roll off that'll import into Rew and can be level set for Dirac.

When i used Jazzis companion (on my helix) for targets and crossover roll off. I had to experiment between electric settings and acoustic output. So if i set Jazzis companion setting on my midrange lpf to 3khz. Id obviously have to play between the 2500-3500mark electrically, On Each driver to get it roll at 3khz like i wanted. 

Now the hpf on my tweet is going to need the same thing. 

With Dirac. Just make the the crossover a little bit higher on hpf and a little bit lower on Lpf, so that it can bring everything down to match.


----------



## ErinH

I just want you all to know that I hate you. 

Especially John. 



Keep going.


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> https://m.imgur.com/gallery/gXameY7
> 
> ^^^ Little tutorial i made if u wanna make target curves with the correct roll off that'll import into Rew and can be level set for Dirac.



Nice. 

Another way is to just enter the value you want to reduce it by in cell E1 for example, then in C1 enter "=B1-$E$1" hit enter, then double click the bottom right corner of cell C1 to copy the formula (and results) all the way down the list.




ErinH said:


> I just want you all to know that I hate you.
> 
> Especially John.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep going.


:laugh:


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> So these text files are driver specific target curves?... which I assume would be used when using a dedicated Dirac channel per driver?
> If so then I think some of us have considered this already - but using Jazzi's target curve generator spreadsheet instead of using REW or Systune to generate the target curves. I've tried it and they imported into Dirac with no issue.



Yes, I am talking about running a Dirac channel for each driver, using perfectly matched target curves that have the same crossover point and slope for the highpass and lowpass on sequential drivers.


My assumption is that it does not matter because Dirac is linearizing the phase, but I guess it will be good to try it.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, I am talking about running a Dirac channel for each driver, using perfectly matched target curves that have the same crossover point and slope for the highpass and lowpass on sequential drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My assumption is that it does not matter because Dirac is linearizing the phase, but I guess it will be good to try it.


Thats exactly what im doing. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Just got done with an updated tune using 7 channels. It's not perfect, like an idiot I forgot to lower the levels on my target curves before loading them so had to manually pull them down in DLCT so it's not quite right. If you are wondering why I did not do it in Excel, the old laptop I use for tuning does not have Excel. 

Ignoring that though, I did what SubterFUSE mentioned above and took nearfield measurements of my speakers, then used REW and PEQ in the plug in to get them mostly flat. In addition to that I started with something Andy (oabeieo) had suggested and set a 1ms delay on my tweeters in the plug in, since I was grouping my mids and midbass onto a single Dirac channel (left onto ch3 and right onto ch4) I used my measured distances on those. 

Fiddled around with the output levels until they were good, maybe it's just my car, but a single output level can cause one speaker to clip with the mic in one position and be too low in a second position. I think if I measure again I may increase my subwoofer output just slightly in the plug in first as it was a little low for my target. 

So, after doing all that and a quick listen it's f**king glorious. What really impresses me is that it does not matter what type of music you throw at it, everything sounds good. Live music the crowd sounds low and wider compared to the musicians on stage, electronic music is really cool due to the way Dirac seems to just make the speakers disappear. There are little details that I never noticed before, for example at the beginning of Sampha - No One Knows Me Like The Piano, there are birds singing in the background. I had to listen to it twice to be sure I was not hearing birds outside, then went back inside and listened to the same song on my desktop speakers (I run a pair of Rockville APM6C) and while you can hear the bird, it's not as clear or noticeable, female vocals are centered and really high up above the dash. 

At this point, I have 4 good tunes all set in a quarter of the time it would have taken to manually get one as good. The only thing I really might tweak after some listening is rear fill and subwoofer levels, those are just going to be for personal preference more so than anything else.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

naiku said:


> The only thing I really might tweak after some listening is rear fill... for personal preference more so than anything else.


How are you running your rear fill? 

Stereo R and L
Or
Stereo R-L and L-R
Or
Mono R-L

And if you are sending a difference signal.. are you doing so before performing Dirac calibration or after Dirac calibration?


----------



## Holmz

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, I am talking about running a Dirac channel for each driver, using perfectly matched target curves that have the same crossover point and slope for the highpass and lowpass on sequential drivers.
> 
> 
> My assumption is that it does not matter because Dirac is linearizing the phase, but I guess it will be good to try it.


A Dirac file on the whole left (or right) channel would not account for the phase that is happening in the cross over...
If the cross overs are using symmetric FIR filters, then those filter are zero-phase... so the whole channel method would be dandy.
However if the cross over filters are IIR or LR, etc, then the cross overs could be fighting each other.

Using a separate file for each speaker, has them all at ideal phase... then the only issue would be if a speaker was inverted, then the phase would be fighting each other in the cross overs... but one would have to make the DIRAC, and then invert the speaker. If the speaker was inverted first, then the DIRAC would effectively invert everything to be upright.


----------



## naiku

Bnlcmbcar said:


> How are you running your rear fill?
> 
> Stereo R and L
> Or
> Stereo R-L and L-R
> Or
> Mono R-L
> 
> And if you are sending a difference signal.. are you doing so before performing Dirac calibration or after Dirac calibration?


Stereo R-L and L-R, doing so before Dirac calibration.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Cool thanks! Out of curiosity have you experimented with sending the difference signal after doing Calibration with just R and L for rear fill? I think that’s how the manual describes to do it but wasn’t sure what users were experiencing in practice.


----------



## naiku

Not yet, but if I remember I'll certainly give that a shot next time I try another tune and post my impressions.


----------



## oabeieo

Been busy getting this C installed, 

12 speaker 8 ch 2 alpine xa70f runs everything 

Focal FX components 3 sets 
And a pair of flax shallow subs 

Tuning it tomorrow, doing a home made center and rears off the C 

Can’t wait to finally tune it 










key bank national locations


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Very nice work, I'm excited to hear your impressions.


----------



## ET328

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Out of curiosity have you experimented with sending the difference signal after doing Calibration with just R and L for rear fill? I think that’s how the manual describes to do it but wasn’t sure what users were experiencing in practice.


Doing Dirac before or after has no effect to how rear fill sounds.

The manual instructs: 
_The basic strategy is as follows:
1. Create L-R and R-L signals as shown in the routing matrix below.
2. Add a delay of up to 20 ms to the rear channel outputs (experiment to see what sounds best to you)
3. Add high pass and low pass filters to the rear channels to limit bandwidth (experiment to see what sounds best)._


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

ET328 said:


> Doing Dirac before or after has no effect to how rear fill sounds.
> 
> The manual instructs:
> _The basic strategy is as follows:
> 1. Create L-R and R-L signals as shown in the routing matrix below.
> 2. Add a delay of up to 20 ms to the rear channel outputs (experiment to see what sounds best to you)
> 3. Add high pass and low pass filters to the rear channels to limit bandwidth (experiment to see what sounds best)._


Yea I glanced over page 35 too quickly!

The next part after that talks about delays and filters interacting with Dirac Live calibration which should be defeated before calibration and applied back again after. At first I was thinking this also included matrix of the difference signal but it turns out that’s not the case.


----------



## oabeieo

So made it through round 1 tuning the hummer


It definitely builds the stage much much better with direct radiators. I think the horns dispersion are maybe need some work after tuning just a tiny bit 
So maybe my adding delay thing after Dirac should be considered with prudence 


The rear fill works great! 

The focal flax were almost flat by themself no eq and afterwards it made it very spacious 


The car is like 7’ wide , and even with all 8 speaker locations it still made a centered stage 


It’s kinda wired listening to the stage in that wide of a car however it seemed to pull it off 

The right side was balls to the wall loud and the left side barley playing of course 
But it still got loud enough 

Pretty amazing how it pulled it off 

The two center speakers could barely tell they were on when I turned them off it didn’t do much to the stage except I could hear the location, 


So I think I’m going to do preset 1,2,3,4 for 

1. 1 listener 

2, two front listeners 

3 a modified 1 seat listener but to add the rears and take them on left so could be a 3 seat listener with 3rd passenger in left rear 

4 4 seat positions using the center and lowering the rear fill so back seat passengers aren’t getting blazed in the face with rear fill 

The 2 seat I’m going to turn off all channels except the driver side two and measureme that way than after Dirac LT urn on other sets and route the to that corrections do it’s a copy on other side of car. 

Pretty cool how it’s working out


----------



## Jscoyne2

So Oab. What exactly is wrong with having measurements/curve above 0 in dlct? Was it causing distortion or..?

And is there anything wrong with maxing out outputs in the plugin after everything is done and tuned? Maxing out outputs relative to each other. I bring down levels in the plug in when testing levels in dlct. So say my highest would be -3 on my tweets and -12 on my midbass. 

Is there anything wrong with bringing everything up by +15db. So the tweets would be at 12db and the midbass would be at 3db. But everything would still be tuned and level set according to dlct curve

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So Oab. What exactly is wrong with having measurements/curve above 0 in dlct? Was it causing distortion or..?
> 
> And is there anything wrong with maxing out outputs in the plugin after everything is done and tuned? Maxing out outputs relative to each other. I bring down levels in the plug in when testing levels in dlct. So say my highest would be -3 on my tweets and -12 on my midbass.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with bringing everything up by +15db. So the tweets would be at 12db and the midbass would be at 3db. But everything would still be tuned and level set according to dlct curve
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


The ideal is unity gain. 

Minidsp output sliders at 0 (zero) is already up fairly high , the add the additional if maybe the input is super low and your no where near 0dbfs

But the issue with boost on one side with a cut on the other is noise 

Obviously if it sounds good , my whole why not if it works rule would definitely apply, I’ve always been about do whatever floats you boat 

But ideally in my experience with minis the closer to unity the lower the noise and the better overall volume you can get unclipped 

Pay attention to the input switches if analog in and the input voltage and output matching resistance, on the new excelon Kenwood input in the H1 i used the 4vrms setting (defaulted) incouldnt find the specs for output impudence on Kenwood so stayed with the 10kohm setting and it still seemed a tiny bit hot going on at max vol , so to avoid an ADC overload I ended up attenuating the Dirac master put to -5 and it seems to be just right now no noise with alpine amps at unity (nom 2.83vrms) 

I could have lowered the amp gain but again to avoid an ADC overload I did it that way, and I can go all the way up on the Kenwood no clipping.

I have not found any reason or use for boosting the output sliders , I’ve noticed it quickly goes into saturation but again I have a maximized input gain structure.

I have noticed the C has more ability in its outputs than the ddrc or 2x4hds , where those went to full blown saturation even at +3db , so I’ve gotten used to the mini platform like that, this one does seem to have more but for me it’s mostly unexplored. 

Up to you, do what you want and what works. I’ve never been a fan of boost. Make best use out of what signal you have (unless it’s a pathetic signal like a 10mv phonograph signal or something very noisy and weak)


As far as having your target above the 0db line , nothing , but if you have 12-20db deep dips i sure wouldn’t want to to listen very loud to that much boost. 
But again, if you have a 20db dip and have 6db of headroom (circa) and you put the target at +3db , do the math , you input would have to be attenuated by about 10-15db than it would be fine 

I just find it more useful and much better sounding to match your gains from the get go than just cut , it’s eqsier and imo sounds better and gets overall louder instead of louder at some frequencies and clipped at others. And I don’t listen balls to the wall loud , yes I loose a little bit by cutting but it needs to be made up somewhere , I would rather make it up in my master volume source instead of in the dsp. I could do different so my system is balls loud at 15/40 on my deck volume , instead I have it balls loud at 40/40 , all the losses are in places I would normally never listen anyway. So why not make use upstream. 
More output from the source sounds better anyway. Anyone remember reading about “MOL” I do and it’s true 


I also (and many others on home theater shack agree) think cutting to the bottom of the “avg spectrum “ in response sounds the best. 
It’s normalization works pretty good and seems to be right. Although again and I will repeat I have no problem boosting 3-6 dB into a dip that’s 10db deep , 

I just keep my target at the overall generalized bottom of the “AVG.SPECTRUM” 
In DLCT


----------



## ET328

oabeieo said:


> and it still seemed a tiny bit hot going on at max vol , so to avoid an ADC overload I ended up attenuating the Dirac master put to -5 and it seems to be just right now no noise with alpine amps at unity (nom 2.83vrms)
> 
> I could have lowered the amp gain but again to avoid an ADC overload I did it that way, and I can go all the way up on the Kenwood no clipping.


Please explain, are you talking about the ADC of the CDSP? What did you adjust to avoid overload? There is no adjustment that effects CDSP's analog input stages other than the 2/4 volt DIP switches. So I don't understand what you did.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> The ideal is unity gain.
> 
> 
> 
> Minidsp output sliders at 0 (zero) is already up fairly high , the add the additional if maybe the input is super low and your no where near 0dbfs
> 
> 
> 
> But the issue with boost on one side with a cut on the other is noise
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously if it sounds good , my whole why not if it works rule would definitely apply, I’ve always been about do whatever floats you boat
> 
> 
> 
> But ideally in my experience with minis the closer to unity the lower the noise and the better overall volume you can get unclipped
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention to the input switches if analog in and the input voltage and output matching resistance, on the new excelon Kenwood input in the H1 i used the 4vrms setting (defaulted) incouldnt find the specs for output impudence on Kenwood so stayed with the 10kohm setting and it still seemed a tiny bit hot going on at max vol , so to avoid an ADC overload I ended up attenuating the Dirac master put to -5 and it seems to be just right now no noise with alpine amps at unity (nom 2.83vrms)
> 
> 
> 
> I could have lowered the amp gain but again to avoid an ADC overload I did it that way, and I can go all the way up on the Kenwood no clipping.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not found any reason or use for boosting the output sliders , I’ve noticed it quickly goes into saturation but again I have a maximized input gain structure.
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed the C has more ability in its outputs than the ddrc or 2x4hds , where those went to full blown saturation even at +3db , so I’ve gotten used to the mini platform like that, this one does seem to have more but for me it’s mostly unexplored.
> 
> 
> 
> Up to you, do what you want and what works. I’ve never been a fan of boost. Make best use out of what signal you have (unless it’s a pathetic signal like a 10mv phonograph signal or something very noisy and weak)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as having your target above the 0db line , nothing , but if you have 12-20db deep dips i sure wouldn’t want to to listen very loud to that much boost.
> 
> But again, if you have a 20db dip and have 6db of headroom (circa) and you put the target at +3db , do the math , you input would have to be attenuated by about 10-15db than it would be fine
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it more useful and much better sounding to match your gains from the get go than just cut , it’s eqsier and imo sounds better and gets overall louder instead of louder at some frequencies and clipped at others. And I don’t listen balls to the wall loud , yes I loose a little bit by cutting but it needs to be made up somewhere , I would rather make it up in my master volume source instead of in the dsp. I could do different so my system is balls loud at 15/40 on my deck volume , instead I have it balls loud at 40/40 , all the losses are in places I would normally never listen anyway. So why not make use upstream.
> 
> More output from the source sounds better anyway. Anyone remember reading about “MOL” I do and it’s true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also (and many others on home theater shack agree) think cutting to the bottom of the “avg spectrum “ in response sounds the best.
> 
> It’s normalization works pretty good and seems to be right. Although again and I will repeat I have no problem boosting 3-6 dB into a dip that’s 10db deep ,
> 
> 
> 
> I just keep my target at the overall generalized bottom of the “AVG.SPECTRUM”
> 
> In DLCT


I got about 20% of that. Basically. Keep master volume at -5 for noise control and in the plugin, keep individual drivers at below zero db. Raise volume with amplifier gains instead. 

80prs at max volume on songs i know are recorded loudly, playing at low-medium volume. 

Im not a fan of increasing my gains that much to get output but okay i guess.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

If you're using Alpine class D amps or any good class D amps you shouldn't really have a high noise floor. The way class D works is by only amplfying if there's signal so the noise floor is really low. This is why they're so efficient. You notice that most class AB amps have a louder hiss at idle than a class D. This is not to say that class D is going to sound better or anything. It's just their floor noise is really low. 


It's always best to try to use up as much headroom of the source/DSP preout instead of cranking up gain on the amps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

i was giving an example of this 2019 kenwood with a true 5v input 
Which was a tiny more than the mini wanted a MOl (maximum output level) aka all the way up 


That was an example of what I did with that deck and alpine amps 
But I promise it will be diffrent with diffrent gear. 

It was just an example.

Tonyca is spot on, most good D amps have the input controlled 
And the input goes into triangle wave thingy instead of being a resonant circuit with the output so noise must be induced. (eMi or the like usually) but can still get noise, just not as likely.


I was giving an example of signal paths and things to consider when setting your gain pass through and why I wouldn’t cut the signal on the input and boost the signal on the output 

However also giving an example where it would be appropriate to cut the input.


What’s your source maybe we can pull some specs for you and give you an idea? 

The mini wants 4vrms input (and rms is more the just the standard v) where kenwood for example is rms where a Jensen deck may be 4v rated but 200mV rms .....


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> i was giving an example of this 2019 kenwood with a true 5v input
> 
> Which was a tiny more than the mini wanted a MOl (maximum output level) aka all the way up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was an example of what I did with that deck and alpine amps
> 
> But I promise it will be diffrent with diffrent gear.
> 
> 
> 
> It was just an example.
> 
> 
> 
> Tonyca is spot on, most good D amps have the input controlled
> 
> And the input goes into triangle wave thingy instead of being a resonant circuit with the output so noise must be induced. (eMi or the like usually) but can still get noise, just not as likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving an example of signal paths and things to consider when setting your gain pass through and why I wouldn’t cut the signal on the input and boost the signal on the output
> 
> 
> 
> However also giving an example where it would be appropriate to cut the input.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What’s your source maybe we can pull some specs for you and give you an idea?
> 
> 
> 
> The mini wants 4vrms input (and rms is more the just the standard v) where kenwood for example is rms where a Jensen deck may be 4v rated but 200mV rms .....


Im running the 80prs (60/62)which is about 2 volt to 55 and then jumps to 5 at 602

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im running the 80prs (60/62)which is about 2 volt to 55 and then jumps to 5 at 602
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Have tried reducing your output level controls to -4 db to avoid overdriving the dsp inputs? My 80prs measures 3.95 volts with volume at 62, output levels at -4 db, with a 0 db test tone. It shows -1 db on the input level in the MiniDSP plugin.


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> ...
> Tonyca is spot on, most good D amps have the input controlled
> And the input goes into triangle wave thingy instead of being a resonant circuit with the output so noise must be induced. (eMi or the like usually) but can still get noise, just not as likely.
> ....


I am pretty sure that in a hi fidelity system, then if the noise is in the input then the noise will be on the output?

I also thought that the gains are managed in the DSP to minimise distortions, which gets more important with 16 or 24 but processors than with 32 bit systems?


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> I am pretty sure that in a hi fidelity system, then if the noise is in the input then the noise will be on the output?
> 
> I also thought that the gains are managed in the DSP to minimise distortions, which gets more important with 16 or 24 but processors than with 32 bit systems?




Yes if there’s noise anywhere in the system it will play through the signal chain 


So , you have your upstream source. That is also a “gain” in s sense 

The goal is to get the maximum amount of unclipped signal to the amps with the lowest noise. 

Being able to maximize the source is ideally the best, meaning., you want the most amount of unclipped signal the source will output to keep the signal to noise ratio as low as possible. If there’s more signal than noise (because the master volume is up more) between the source and dsp that is preferred. 
However must be done minding clipping from the source.

Once going into the dsp there’s two sections, the input gains and output gains.
The signal within the dsp , same principle, depending how it’s configured.

Than out of dsp to amps. 

Hope that helps some .



So if one was to add boost somewhere in dsp , now there’s some opamp I’m sure or something somewhere in dsp that has to drive the signal higher 
Now your picking up the added noise from that which could be no big deal but could be a issue. If the upstream source still has more to give why not use that as a go to for added gain (the master volume) your already inherited the noise from its opamps. 


Now with the exception of a digital source that is fixed in volume and the master volume is done in the dsp , that’s a completely different structure. But if it’s a digital source upstream that has volume embedded, I would still treat that like I would an analog signal, except I wouldn’t worrying about clipping.


As far as pseudo balanced it looks for the common mode and rejects everything else (common mode rejection) like a JL amp or the mini alpine used a step up multiplier transformers IIRC above “nom/unity” and resistive below. The pseudo balanced scheme can have noise on the in and no noise on the out. But it also depends on what kind of noise we’re talking about , inherent noise is different, induced noise can be “canceled”


----------



## oabeieo

ET328 said:


> Please explain, are you talking about the ADC of the CDSP? What did you adjust to avoid overload? There is no adjustment that effects CDSP's analog input stages other than the 2/4 volt DIP switches. So I don't understand what you did.


Yes the ADC going in minidsp.

You can hear it overload when the signal does not clip (on a scope) but audibly started to saturate when the kenwood was about 5clicks to max volume. 

In the Dirac plugin there’s a master output and individual output sliders for each speaker. There all a input gain, I used the master slider and turned it down to -5 
And problem was gone. 

I could then max the kenwood with no clipping on the input and output of the mini. I still used the 4v setting on mini (which is a resistive circut from the 2v setting). 

I kept the 10k input impedance instead of the lower one to keep the resistance high for one but I also didn’t know the output impedance of the kenwood. 
I maybe should have metered it, but the 10k worked fine. So I went with it.


I could have also used the high level switch and went hi level input but than I would have been starving for gain. 

The kenwood was at the bleeding edge of too much input at the low level setting, so I used input gain to get me the rest of the way. It’s probably not the bestest but I didn’t want the loss in signal and I do not think this customer will ever take it to max volume.

I could almost promise a pioneer won’t do that, the kenwood excelon has a true 5v and it does every bit of it


----------



## oabeieo

ckirocz28 said:


> Have tried reducing your output level controls to -4 db to avoid overdriving the dsp inputs? My 80prs measures 3.95 volts with volume at 62, output levels at -4 db, with a 0 db test tone. It shows -1 db on the input level in the MiniDSP plugin.



I also have a 80prs in the wife’s van and it also barely scratches 4v


----------



## ckirocz28

oabeieo said:


> I also have a 80prs in the wife’s van and it also barely scratches 4v


I meant it measures 3.95 volts at max volume, but with the output levels at -4 db. It measures 5.35 or so with the outputs at 0 db.


----------



## oabeieo

ckirocz28 said:


> I meant it measures 3.95 volts at max volume, but with the output levels at -4 db. It measures 5.35 or so with the outputs at 0 db.


Really , yeah mine I have got to high 3s iirc 

It’s been awhile since I’ve metered it tho actually 
Totally going off memory from like 2014 

We’re you running the SLA up all the way or something 
Or boost in eq to get to 5 

I’ve heard a few ppl have discrepancies on the 80 and the 880
Maybe meters and tones issues mostly 
It probably does 5 and don’t know it


----------



## ckirocz28

oabeieo said:


> Really , yeah mine I have got to high 3s iirc
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been awhile since I’ve metered it tho actually
> 
> Totally going off memory from like 2014
> 
> 
> 
> We’re you running the SLA up all the way or something
> 
> Or boost in eq to get to 5
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve heard a few ppl have discrepancies on the 80 and the 880


No eq, SLA at 0. It does start clipping just past 5 volts though (with a test tone), it's clean to volume level 59 with 0 db output levels, no eq, and SLA at 0 with music, anything above that gets a little distortion. Not bad distortion, the kind that makes the music "come alive" (even order?). That probably happens before 5 volts though.


----------



## Jscoyne2

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...share_tid=309378&share_fid=10112&share_type=t

Did some testing of the 80 awhile back

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Basically.

80prs output voltage 
Volume voltage 62 4.72v
61 3.76v 
60 2.96v 
Drops off rapidly after 57 or so.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Interesting....

I may have to have a 2nd loook 

Knowing my old man ass I could be thinking of a different deck 
Lol

I just don’t remember it being that high 
But okay , no arguing here


I wonder if a 12v power supply instead of a 13.8v car makes up that last lil bit 
Iirc dc/dc shouldn’t matter 
Just now slid it out I’ll bring w me tomorrow to work


----------



## ckirocz28

oabeieo said:


> Interesting....
> 
> 
> 
> I may have to have a 2nd loook
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing my old man ass I could be thinking of a different deck
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> I just don’t remember it being that high
> 
> But okay , no arguing here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if a 12v power supply instead of a 13.8v car makes up that last lil bit
> 
> Iirc dc/dc shouldn’t matter
> 
> Just now slid it out I’ll bring w me tomorrow to work


I checked mine at 14.4 volts.


----------



## ckirocz28

Just thought it might be useful info to avoid overdriving the C-DSP inputs. Didn't mean to derail the thread though.


----------



## ET328

oabeieo said:


> Yes the ADC going in minidsp.
> 
> You can hear it overload when the signal does not clip (on a scope) but audibly started to saturate when the kenwood was about 5clicks to max volume.
> 
> In the Dirac plugin there’s a master output and individual output sliders for each speaker. There all a input gain, I used the master slider and turned it down to -5
> And problem was gone.


What did CDSP plugin's input meters show when the Kenwood was at -5 clicks of max volume? Adjusting any gains in the plugin or Dirac DLCT does not effect CDPS's input ADC level. Only source head-unit or 2/4V DIPs can change that level. So maybe you were overloading after the AD conversion? There are lots of gain adjustments after that.


----------



## naiku

All this talk of output voltage from head units has me wondering what the output is from my tablet. I'm running a Sabre USB-DAC and can find these specs listed:

Output levels:
Open 2.2Vrms
4.7Kohm 2.1Vrms
1.8Kohm 1.9Vrms
510ohm 1.5Vrms
330ohm 1.3Vrms
30ohm 1Vrms

I'd assume that I have it running wide open so 2.2V, wondering now if I am leaving any power on the table.


----------



## oabeieo

ET328 said:


> What did CDSP plugin's input meters show when the Kenwood was at -5 clicks of max volume? Adjusting any gains in the plugin or Dirac DLCT does not effect CDPS's input ADC level. Only source head-unit or 2/4V DIPs can change that level. So maybe you were overloading after the AD conversion? There are lots of gain adjustments after that.


WELL .....


There is no input meters , only output meters , the Non DL plugin I believe has input meters , like the 2x4hd does or any of the Hd lineup 


So I don’t know

I could hear it start to saturate with music. With tones it was mostly non issue. 
I added a 40hz later to the 1k tone and got it to saturate, signal not clipped on my scopemeter, but sounding not super awesome coming out the back end 

I know for a fact because I’ve done it plenty of times a kenwood should go all the way to the very top with just a tiny bit of clipping that is mostly inaudible.
That is with all bells and whistles turned off and all eq on deck at flat 

A tiny bit of clipping sorta sounds like mild distortion that sometimes just makes things seem louder but is mostly unnoticeable to most people. A completely unclipped signal and if a loudspeaker can play that signal with fidelity wont sound as loud as it would with the signal soft clipping 

A saturated signal is extremely audible,, it’s really grainy and overdriven sounding. 


The manual states the input voltages between low level and high level , 
It’s 4vrms input will definitely work just fine with everyone’s hi volt decks 
Just a tiny bit of caution on the very top end 


Like I said before , lowering the master gain in DLCT is associated with the input level , taking it to -5 did the job good enough, although a resistive circuit would have been ideal if I was planning on playing the deck at max volume all the time.

The DLCT target would also bring down the input but that’s done in dsp and isn’t really the input. i.e the signals already in the chip. 


So my post was just a warning to anyone over 4vrms and usually likes to tune there system to go all the way up with no audible distortion, to just mind the input and maybe not use the very last click on your master volume but that’s it. 
I really shouldn’t have brought it up. 

Jsconey2 was asking about levels and on and out gains , I think he was asking about output gains and boost , I was talking about maximizing the input before going and adding boost. 

If one wanted to use the high level input setting on the 5v deck that would for sure do the job, the threshold is a bit low for my taste and as much as Dirac will take away from the signal when you cut the target , I would rather just use the 4v setting and again, ignore the last click on stereo, 

If your max vol is 35 stop at 34. You’ll have a lot more usable input gain. 


The kenwood was fine all the way except the very last click, which if I remember was 5db gain. Which is a huge jump in signal I can’t remember the actual numbers but it was the difference of almost a full volt if I remember right, 
I think it was 4db so I attenuated 5db on the master output in DLCT (which really is the input gain) 

The non DL unit the Dirac correction lies in the input “peq” bank and the fir 

The old plugin had a input slider gain and seperate output slider gains (okay I’m guessing but the ddrc24 is that way) someone should be able to validate that: 
I never seen the non dL plugin , but it should have had a input gain slider and a input peq bank. 

The DLCT takes over that input section, the DLCT plugin affects the input sideand depending how the matrix is configured, there is a straight through diagram on the manual that shows it . 

* So turning down the master a couple clicks should cut the signal, but that’s after the ADC is already done , I am not saying it cuts it before it, I only did that so I’m not at the bloody 0dbfs line, even tho my target would have cut me to a safe spot anyway. A resistive circut would be needed to cut the input signal farther if it was a issue , if it’s that big of a issue just don’t turn source up so loud or use the high level inputs *


----------



## Jscoyne2

This is all assuming a perfectly flat full range signal, through a head unit, through Dirac, and through the plug in. As soon as you start taking into account the eq done from Dirac and the Master volume. Gain structures are all over. I need to get out the scope and do some research on each of my outputs and play with the master slider/ individual outputs in the Plugin because right now. i only get medium volume from 62/62 and that's not okay..

But to be fair i haven't touched my amp gains at all switching from a helix dsp.2 which has 6 volts out.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> This is all assuming a perfectly flat full range signal, through a head unit, through Dirac, and through the plug in. As soon as you start taking into account the eq done from Dirac and the Master volume. Gain structures are all over. I need to get out the scope and do some research on each of my outputs and play with the master slider/ individual outputs in the Plugin because right now. i only get medium volume from 62/62 and that's not okay..
> 
> But to be fair i haven't touched my amp gains at all switching from a helix dsp.2 which has 6 volts out.



we have a dmtra it has scope features it works decently 
Plus I have a scope on my meter. 

And btw I got over 5v on the 80  at 62 


I’m not sure what your doing. 

I can get a TON of gain out of the mini easily more than I get with most headunits and definitely way more than I’ve ever got with a 2x4hd or ddrc 

Have you opened your C and done anything with the dips?

Are you sure your not on hi-level in switch and are using the low level switch 
With the default 4v input


short baby boy names unique


Edit:



Jscoyne2 said:


> This is all assuming a perfectly flat full range signal, through a head unit, through Dirac, and through the plug in. As soon as you start taking into account the eq done from Dirac and the Master volume. Gain structures are all over. I need to get out the scope and do some research on each of my outputs and play with the master slider/ individual outputs in the Plugin because right now. i only get medium volume from 62/62 and that's not okay..
> 
> But to be fair i haven't touched my amp gains at all switching from a helix dsp.2 which has 6 volts out.


 6v amp gain settings...well silly you need to gain that up 
I’m not worried one bit you’ll get it go crank them up
A tad


----------



## GreatLaBroski

^^^ this is a good point


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> we have a dmtra it has scope features it works decently
> 
> Plus I have a scope on my meter.
> 
> 
> 
> And btw I got over 5v on the 80  at 62
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what your doing.
> 
> 
> 
> I can get a TON of gain out of the mini easily more than I get with most headunits and definitely way more than I’ve ever got with a 2x4hd or ddrc
> 
> 
> 
> Have you opened your C and done anything with the dips?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure your not on hi-level in switch and are using the low level switch
> 
> With the default 4v input
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> short baby boy names unique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6v amp gain settings...well silly you need to gain that up
> 
> I’m not worried one bit you’ll get it go crank them up
> 
> A tad


Checked the switch. They are all on 4v. 

















Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

I just hooked my 80up to cig lighter wire to power it up 
And ran a rca to my C , I’ve never opened it so everything is default 

No saturation, no clipping. Seemed to play just fine through the C 
Plenty of gain. And a 5min test no touching anything except routing the matrix for the analog in using all my setting for toslink input and my Dirac tune for toslink etc etc 

Worked fine , sounded great! Not a single problem at all , went to 62 no distortion or clipping at all. 

(I also wanted to hear the 80 through it and see how the 80 eq sounded passing through it out of curiosity). Tbh it sounded the same as my optical. Gosh, all that fuss for an optical that really dosent do a whole lot. Regardless, you should be good to go


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> I just hooked my 80up to cig lighter wire to power it up
> And ran a rca to my C , I’ve never opened it so everything is default
> 
> No saturation, no clipping. Seemed to play just fine through the C
> Plenty of gain. And a 5min test no touching anything except routing the matrix for the analog in using all my setting for toslink input and my Dirac tune for toslink etc etc
> 
> Worked fine , sounded great! Not a single problem at all , went to 62 no distortion or clipping at all.
> 
> (I also wanted to hear the 80 through it and see how the 80 eq sounded passing through it out of curiosity). Tbh it sounded the same as my optical. Gosh, all that fuss for an optical that really dosent do a whole lot. Regardless, you should be good to go


Well i mean, before Dirac(Dirac OFF). I have volume up the ass. But after Dirac(Dirac ON). Not so much.


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Well i mean, before Dirac(Dirac OFF). I have volume up the ass. But after Dirac(Dirac ON). Not so much.




Turn up amp gains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Checked the switch. They are all on 4v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Your target is cut too much ! 

I can see it in your target 

Your cutting too much out of target , 


I can see how your sub is the leading than everything drops, 

USE YOUR BASS KNOB TO ADD SUB after everything is done to get that boost in the bass. Don’t do it in the target, your killing your gain, 

Run your target curve to -3db or so and fun a tiny bit of boost in the dip you have at 1.5k i(if there is one) you should be using the bass knob to get that boost in the sub not the target


You want your target to hug the lower edge of the response 
Not way deep into the stop band of other drivers. 
Man that’s a lot of wasted signal. I bet it sounds great! Just not very loud


Also if you cut that Much out of inband it will extend the crossover points farther out, but your cutting the signal as well , so it’s moot, but could make a tweeter play dangerously low in some instances, horns are fine to do that, but say a silk 1” could get hot.


When I say “keep the target below the “avg.spectrum” I didn’t mean at the bottom of the screen. I hope I didn’t explain it wrong , sorry if so


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Your target is cut too much !
> 
> 
> 
> I can see it in your target
> 
> 
> 
> Your cutting too much out of target ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how your sub is the leading than everything drops,
> 
> 
> 
> USE YOUR BASS KNOB TO ADD SUB after everything is done to get that boost in the bass. Don’t do it in the target, your killing your gain,
> 
> 
> 
> Run your target curve to -3db or so and fun a tiny bit of boost in the dip you have at 2.5k i(if there is one) you should be using the bass knob to get that boost in the sub not the target


Ah. Thats why i posted pics..

But how do i get Dirac to do correction on the sub then? I could just make the subs curve at a lower level(or equalish) on average to the midbass and then raise it with the bass knob but doesn't Dirac look at interactions between drivers and compensate? I'd assume that if the sub level changed after Dirac. Its compensation would be moot.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ah. Thats why i posted pics..
> 
> But how do i get Dirac to do correction on the sub then? I could just make the subs curve at a lower level(or equalish) on average to the midbass and then raise it with the bass knob but doesn't Dirac look at interactions between drivers and compensate? I'd assume that if the sub level changed after Dirac. Its compensation would be moot.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Just draw the shape you want in response , I shape the crossover a little (maybe 2db down but that’s it) I don’t draw the target to -40db or anything silly. 
But whatever floats your boat , of course do what you like. 

But yeah draw the shape you want , than for sub just turn up the sub on a bass knob 


Dood I have my sub response lookin about like yours is there, after Dirac I crank it up about another 30db on some songs with my bass knob. 


Dirac thinks your in a room, you’ll never hear the sub while driving if you ran it from the target. The sub should be way way way higher than the rest. 

Unless it’s critical listening with the car off sitting in a cool garage or something
Or sitting in a lane or looking at graphs.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Just draw the shape you want in response , I shape the crossover a little (maybe 2db down but that’s it) I don’t draw the target to -40db or anything silly.
> 
> But yeah draw the shape you want , than for sub just turn up the sub on a bass knob
> 
> 
> Dood I have my sub response lookin about like yours is there, after Dirac I crank it up about another 30db on some songs with my bass knob.
> 
> 
> Dirac thinks your in a room, you’ll never hear the sub while driving if you ran it from the target. The sub should be way way way higher than the rest.
> 
> Unless it’s critical listening with the car off sitting in a cool garage or something


Key word. "Cool Garage"

Seriously. This hobby isn't even possible without one.

Question. If my sub measurement is above 0db and i follow its response perfectly with Dirac points, it shouldn't boost anything right? Just do its magic phase fixing.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Key word. "Cool Garage"
> 
> Seriously. This hobby isn't even possible without one.
> 
> Question. If my sub measurement is above 0db and i follow its response perfectly with Dirac points, it shouldn't boost anything right? Just do its magic phase fixing.




Curtain off the sub and don’t have any measurement points (except 1) that will do only phase response. 


Just draw a flat line on sub from 20 to 50hz using two or three points 
At the 0db line , curtain off everything else 
And than run it 

After crank up sub gain a LOT than tel me how it sounds ;-)


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Curtain off the sub and don’t have any measurement points (except 1) that will do only phase response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just draw a flat line on sub from 20 to 50hz
> 
> At the 0db line , curtain off everything else
> 
> And than run it
> 
> 
> 
> After crank up sub gain a LOT than tel me how it sounds ;-)


Like that?









Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Yes but add a point at the beginning, and maybe one in middle but not necessary, but yes two pts min , one at 20 and one at 50


Otherwise yes perfect 


You’ll be surprised how good it can make sub ....


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Yes but add a point at the beginning, and maybe one in middle but not necessary, but yes two pts min , one at 20 and one at 50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise yes perfect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’ll be surprised how good it can make sub ....


Will do.

When i optimize two drivers (both midbass). Does it matter if i optimize them separately or as a linked pair?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Will do.
> 
> When i optimize two drivers (both midbass). Does it matter if i optimize them separately or as a linked pair?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



I do linked pairs always, keeps them correlated 

If the target is exactly the same than it dosent matter, but they have to be e x a c t l y the same . 

But again falls into whatever floats your boat, I always do linked pairs if I want them to image worth a ****. 

On bass drivers I suppose there’s some leeway , but not much 


Unlinking should be for different groups (fronts/rears/ highs/lows/mids/ etc )
But stereo pairs should be linked



Example, the manual says you can unlink two and follow a dip with one if one side has a dip , I’ve done that and it ruins imaging, that’s why I just eq under the dips, than it’s a non issue and all works fine. 

Except dips in the treble can usually take some boost. Especially with horns.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> I do linked pairs always, keeps them correlated
> 
> 
> 
> If the target is exactly the same than it dosent matter, but they have to be e x a c t l y the same .
> 
> 
> 
> But again falls into whatever floats your boat, I always do linked pairs if I want them to image worth a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> On bass drivers I suppose there’s some leeway , but not much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlinking should be for different groups (fronts/rears/ highs/lows/mids/ etc )
> 
> But stereo pairs should be linked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example, the manual says you can unlink two and follow a dip with one if one side has a dip , I’ve done that and it ruins imaging, that’s why I just eq under the dips, than it’s a non issue and all works fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Except dips in the treble can usually take some boost. Especially with horns.


Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.

There's my output.

Where's your donation box..

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.
> 
> There's my output.
> 
> Where's your donation box..
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


It’s the little scale at bottom left called reppower 
That’s why we’re here to help each other out ;-)


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> It’s the little scale at bottom left called reppower
> That’s why we’re here to help each other out ;-)


Done. Crazy how much 10 db really is volume wise.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Here's a video. Idk how long before YouTube kills it but image is center. Just cant tell.

https://youtu.be/2iqv45NdRFQ

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Done. Crazy how much 10 db really is volume wise.



Yeah it’s quite a bit. Think about this 3db is 2x as loud


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Here's a video. Idk how long before YouTube kills it but image is center. Just cant tell.
> 
> https://youtu.be/2iqv45NdRFQ
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Can still tell the sq is there. Even with crappy mic 

I put headphones on and can hear the ambiance , obviously the tonality is garbage from that phone mic


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Can still tell the sq is there. Even with crappy mic
> 
> 
> 
> I put headphones on and can hear the ambiance , obviously the tonality is garbage from that phone mic


Yea yea but its an idea of what a 20min tune you can get from Dirac. For anyone who reads this thread.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZYGPn9iN1Y

Source song btw.


----------



## ET328

oabeieo said:


> There is no input meters , only output meters , the Non DL plugin I believe has input meters , like the 2x4hd does or any of the Hd lineup


You should look at the plugin's input levels and verify that they are not clipping at head unit's max level (if max level is going to be used). The plugin is the only place to check them. Dirac is just an inside part of the DSP, it has no control of the input and adjusting it's gain will not effect input ADC clipping. Gain adjustments after the ADC can be done via the plugin's routing and mixer tabs


----------



## naiku

I had sent this to oabeieo, but it makes sense to post this here as well. 

So, after posting a few days ago about having things sounding great, but since I had to manually move my curve I decided to tinker with it a little by first modifying the curve in Excel then optimizing to that new curve. Overall the curve is the same, just a little better shaped due to not having to manually adjust it.

However, for some reason now it sounds awful and I cannot determine why, just sounds really flat. I am re-using the same microphone measurements, just a slightly different curve. The biggest thing appears to be that on the Dirac tab in the plug in, the tweeters are -40dB down.










But, I can't really tell why. If I look in my text file for the curve I used, the lowest level I have on the tweeters passband is at 5k and is at -15dB (-4k is -17dB), tweeters crossover is 4.2k. 

If I look in DLCT at my measured response, the tweeters/mids/midbass are all at a fairly similar level:










If I look as well in DLCT at my target compared to the response, the highest measured peak is about 5dB and my lowest piece of the target is around -17dB. So, a swing of 24dB, still not the -40dB it is showing in the plug in.










There is no massive difference between the target on the tweeters and the mids/midbass either:










And eventually, the optimized response also does not show any reason why the tweeters should be so low:










So, I am confused. I am pretty sure if the tweeters were showing as about -5dB or so in the plug in that it would not sound so damn bad. But, I can't increase the tweeter level that much in the plug in (nor would I want to do so). The odd thing is it has done the same with 2 different curves (Half Whitledge and JBL Andy). 

I checked my text files for any screwy values and don't see anything, they are pretty much as they came out of jazzi's spreadsheet. From the replies around Jscoyne2 having low output, I can raise my target some, but it's not an overall output issue (although once I figure this out, I'll happily take some more output). 

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## ErinH

Jscoyne2 said:


> Ah. Thats why i posted pics..
> 
> But how do i get Dirac to do correction on the sub then? I could just make the subs curve at a lower level(or equalish) on average to the midbass and then raise it with the bass knob but doesn't Dirac look at interactions between drivers and compensate? *I'd assume that if the sub level changed after Dirac. Its compensation would be moot.
> *


I think you've got it all figured out now but just wanted to say "yes" to the bolded part. Raising the subwoofer volume after you've gotten the tune correct via DL (or any other method, really) will effect the response between it and the midbass (as well as other drivers, depending on crossover and slope) in a negative way. In my car, if I raise the sub even 1dB I can notice a pretty significant difference in sound and it isn't for the better. And I'm using Helix with my manual tune.





Jscoyne2 said:


> Done. Crazy how much 10 db really is volume wise.





oabeieo said:


> Yeah it’s quite a bit. Think about this 3db is 2x as loud


Just to clarify, there a couple different elements to this. Studies say that 10dB is perceived as twice as _loud_. 3dB is 2x the _power_. And 6dB would be 2x the _voltage_. This site and graphic below do a much better job explaining it than I ever could:
Loudness volume doubling sound level change factor of perceived loudness decibel scale log compare intensities formula calculate power level noise levels volume logarithm dependence three four fold loudness sound - by what factor does level decrease 



> Double or twice the loudness = factor 2 means about 10 dB more sensed loudness level (psycho acoustic)
> Double or twice the voltage = factor 2 means 6 dB more measured voltage level (sound pressure level)
> Double or twice the power = factor 2 means 3 dB more calculated power level (sound intensity level)


----------



## tonynca

Yes bass knobs are bad if you're using any sort of mild-medium 12/24db slopes. You should only use a bass knobs if:

1. You don't care about bass cohesion within your sound stage
2. You're running FIR filters with a steep slope like 48db/oct which allows for each speaker to just play its own freqs. You don't have any blending so with FIR filters you're in phase even at 48db slopes since there are no phase rotations using FIR filters. Audison Bit One HD is good for this.

What you notice happening if you use a bass knob is that the midbass and sub freqs starts to lose focus and it's no longer tucked into the soundstage. You start to smear the tightness of the low end. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> I think you've got it all figured out now but just wanted to say "yes" to the bolded part. Raising the subwoofer volume after you've gotten the tune correct via DL (or any other method, really) will effect the response between it and the midbass (as well as other drivers, depending on crossover and slope) in a negative way. In my car, if I raise the sub even 1dB I can notice a pretty significant difference in sound and it isn't for the better. And I'm using Helix with my manual tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, there a couple different elements to this. Studies say that 10dB is perceived as twice as _loud_. 3dB is 2x the _power_. And 6dB would be 2x the _voltage_. This site and graphic below do a much better job explaining it than I ever could:
> Loudness volume doubling sound level change factor of perceived loudness decibel scale log compare intensities formula calculate power level noise levels volume logarithm dependence three four fold loudness sound - by what factor does level decrease



Thanks Erin , I did read that before and forgot about it, 




So one thing I would add and Erin is on to something with his statement 


So in critical listening, the sub does totally change things for the worse if moved up too much. The room ambiance goes away and it quickly begins to sound like a couple subs bangin away in the rear and no longer blends correctly.


With that said, I would shape your midbass target for a little steeper incline between 100-200hz (not a lot) so that you can overcome road noise and keep the sub at its highest level while maintaining that cohesion between subs and highs. And create a target just for playing loudly (where he wanted more gain) 


when I’m driving and I’m not trying to have the perfect blend I definitely do crank the sub up as much as 30db (it’s like my party mode lol) so I can jam out. 

So I was just saying use the sub knob to get added gain, , you can still turn it down and up on the fly and easily find that spot where everything comes together. 


I have a target for critical listening and a target where my midbass slope starts at about 100hz and slopes down about 10db to 200-300hz so when I crank up sub it still sounds good and blends right, ....sorta, at least keeping the response smooth, may not be so flat , but smooth, that’s the key to make a good sounding party mode. I listen to my bangin preset almost as much as my SQ preset. It’s about 50/50 so I think there is something to say about it. 

And I know there I go again promoting bad habits, but I also think and believe a system should do what you want, not what’s always “correct” all the time , that’s boring. Correct is a must and that’s a big part of the goal, but also having freedom to fit your mood or driving conditions is just fun ....

But again to clarify, it definitely does pull away from everything else. I agree with Erin , So what I was talking about was just a way to get the added freedom over your system to fit the mood you are in. 


I’m pretty sure some of us like to jam out from time to time right guys, I would hope so. We don’t put large subwoofers in our cars to play them quietly all the time now. Maybe some do. Nothing wrong with that.


And in the case in jsconey2 target he posted where sub was much higher than the rest, that could have been made up in sub knob as well and had the target more flat with rest of highs , it’s really easy to hear when sub is in SQ mode 
And that would also make it so he wouldn’t have had to cut so much gain from the highs ......that’s all I was meaning . But the 30db example was definitely aimed towards freedom over system
Maybe and only maybe a tiny bit of post D tuning in rew , maybe , but the sub is mostly minimum phase, it should go up down smoothly and the curve shouldn’t change. But I can see maybe some issues in the 70-80hz range by a dB or two 
If at all. Would have to bust REW out to validate, but worth the added gain imo 




tonynca said:


> Yes bass knobs are bad if you're using any sort of mild-medium 12/24db slopes. You should only use a bass knobs if:
> 
> 1. You don't care about bass cohesion within your sound stage
> 2. You're running FIR filters with a steep slope like 48db/oct which allows for each speaker to just play its own freqs. You don't have any blending so with FIR filters you're in phase even at 48db slopes since there are no phase rotations using FIR filters. Audison Bit One HD is good for this.
> 
> What you notice happening if you use a bass knob is that the midbass and sub freqs starts to lose focus and it's no longer tucked into the soundstage. You start to smear the tightness of the low end.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Number 1 don’t care . 
At least not all the time. Especially on I25 or I70 doing 75mph


Although I think your on to something also, 
Steep slopes definitely do allow a little more freedom , it’s hard to explain 
So maybe I’m going have to experiment with that one before I share any input

I have a 48db slope tune on my #4 preset and the sub does go louder without breaking from cohesion. ......(dot dot dot ) thinking.....


----------



## oabeieo

So look at Ian’s response 

That looks very nice and it is definitely cool to work with targets like that, 
However I’ve had issues doing it that way.


On his Tweeters he has a bunch of gain cut and is completely re-shaping the crossover if you take that and run it through roomieq I think what it’s going to actually do is extend the crossover way way out beyond where you really want it and it’s going to add a whole bunch of cut to that channel that doesn’t need to be there but I think you should be doing is draw the shape of the response you want staying under the average response in average spectrum but don’t pull it down that that far, If you want it acoustically crossover higher get your crossovers right using PEQ and close measurements to Speakers before you run it, or choose a higher crossover point to get your acoustical slope the way you want it and then it game down the tweeter so that average spectrum is closer to where you’re going to be drawing your line , 

You kind of have to adjust your games to match the target that you want first instead of using the target as a gain control 


I mean it is an advanced eq doing it that way is one way to do it but I suggest that it’s not making best used of your gain and it would extend the crossover out to fart because you’re cutting too much and that’s in band 
If you played that through roomieq I bet the response would be a little bit different 

I am having great luck with shaping crossovers with Dirac, however I am not cutting an entire octave out of mine I’m just shaping the knee that’s it I’m not pulling the Target down and building a crossover within Dirac , I would say get your crossovers right first , get your avg spectrum to resemble the shape of the curve you want via gain on amps , than run your targets , so that your target line is hugging the avg spectrum , 

And than shape the knee of the crossover, just get the knee shaped and let your active crossovers do what they do, shaping the knee will pull the outband in shape , look in rew and you’ll see it’s the same. 

I don’t think Dirac wants to see the target go way way way down like that, I’ve had it make huge cuts and drop my output to pathetic levels, I tried it one time and it wasn’t the best it didn’t work
Although it was really cool to see my target optimized in blue screen , it just actually perform like that in real life, rew showed something different


If you want that stairstep response , I would just try drawing flatlines on all your speakers directly under the avg spectrum line on all , than use output gain or amp gain and turn down tweets and mids using REW as a guide.


Dirac works best if your drawing straight lines with small changes , 
It’s just a eq, should be treated as one, 

If it wasn’t Dirac and another eq what would you do , 

Rta the tweeter flat and use gain to control the level to build your overall target , this is no different except it does allow some shaping that a normal eq just can’t , 
But it’s still a eq none the less


----------



## rockinridgeline

oabeieo said:


> If you want that stairstep response , I would just try drawing flatlines on all your speakers directly under the avg spectrum line on all , than use output gain or amp gain and turn down tweets and mids using REW as a guide.
> 
> 
> Dirac works best if your drawing straight lines with small changes ,
> It’s just a eq, should be treated as one,
> 
> If it wasn’t Dirac and another eq what would you do ,
> 
> Rta the tweeter flat and use gain to control the level to build your overall target , this is no different except it does allow some shaping that a normal eq just can’t ,
> But it’s still a eq none the less


I think this logic is a bit flawed in that when you start changing gain levels on drivers after crossovers have been set you are without a doubt changing the acoustic crossover point. This is what Erin was talking about with changing sub level. When you get your sub and midbass properly integrated, it is integrated to a great degree because the they are crossed over and blending correctly. If you boost a subwoofer you are increasing the lowpass crossover point acoustically, regardless of where you have the electronic crossover set. There is no way around that. Now you have overlap that isn't intended in the crossover design. They way around that would be to lower your lowpass for the subwoofer. For example, if you EQ for flat and then boost your sub by 12 db, you would need to set your lowpass for your sub 1/2 octave lower than your highpass for your midbass to keep your acoustic crossover the same as when the sub output was the same as the midbass. 

Along the same lines, if you lower a tweeter output, you are increasing the acoustic crossover point. If you had Dirac draw you a perfectly flat response between mids and tweets and you decrease the tweeter output, you are changing the interaction between the mids and tweets. The likely result would be a drop in output in the crossover region all things else being equal. 

For someone that is using the Jazzi files to generate response curves, changing the levels of the drivers changes how they interact in the crossover region. The results would be less predictable that way, especially when using anything other than LR24.


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> On his Tweeters he has a bunch of gain cut and is completely re-shaping the crossover if you take that and run it through roomieq I think what it’s going to actually do is extend the crossover way way out beyond where you really want it and it’s going to add a whole bunch of cut to that channel that doesn’t need to be there


I just tried again a few minutes ago, this time I used the auto generated curve, did not touch the level outside of where DLCT placed it. The tweeter level is still showing as -40dB (actually, now the right is showing -38dB), which ultimately makes it sound like garbage. 

What I don't understand is that I never had this problem before, I may save my settings from the plug in and do a factory reset on it at this point and then try loading the same Dirac project again to see what that does.


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> Number 1 don’t care .
> 
> At least not all the time. Especially on I25 or I70 doing 75mph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think your on to something also,
> 
> Steep slopes definitely do allow a little more freedom , it’s hard to explain
> 
> So maybe I’m going have to experiment with that one before I share any input
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 48db slope tune on my #4 preset and the sub does go louder without breaking from cohesion. ......(dot dot dot ) thinking.....



Steep slopes are also useful for 3 way because most people install tweeters, mids and mid bass in different locations with different angling. The cars interior will interact with the install location and cause issues with blending. 

If you just do a sweep at your listening position and figure out a freq where both the speakers meet well that's your crossover point. You then just let each speaker play its own range without having to worry about how they blend. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

rockinridgeline said:


> I think this logic is a bit flawed in that when you start changing gain levels on drivers after crossovers have been set you are without a doubt changing the acoustic crossover point. This is what Erin was talking about with changing sub level. When you get your sub and midbass properly integrated, it is integrated to a great degree because the they are crossed over and blending correctly. If you boost a subwoofer you are increasing the lowpass crossover point acoustically, regardless of where you have the electronic crossover set. There is no way around that. Now you have overlap that isn't intended in the crossover design. They way around that would be to lower your lowpass for the subwoofer. For example, if you EQ for flat and then boost your sub by 12 db, you would need to set your lowpass for your sub 1/2 octave lower than your highpass for your midbass to keep your acoustic crossover the same as when the sub output was the same as the midbass.
> 
> Along the same lines, if you lower a tweeter output, you are increasing the acoustic crossover point. If you had Dirac draw you a perfectly flat response between mids and tweets and you decrease the tweeter output, you are changing the interaction between the mids and tweets. The likely result would be a drop in output in the crossover region all things else being equal.
> 
> For someone that is using the Jazzi files to generate response curves, changing the levels of the drivers changes how they interact in the crossover region. The results would be less predictable that way, especially when using anything other than LR24.



That’s why I also mentioned using rew as a guide and to ajust your target appropriate. I don’t think logic flawed , I think maybe I was at work and trying to think and .....yeah so 


Okay I’ll try and explain better now that I can think.


Ian’s response shows all drivers hovering close to the 0db line right, 
And his target was substantially below that on the tweeter. That I don’t have an issue with as much as he was rebuilding his crossover completely.

What I think I was trying to say is , 
If the crossover acoustic rolloff doesn't match the electrical crossover what needs to be done.....

So first one has to ask oneself why is the crossover farther out than the electrical slope, the answer is obvious ithere more efficiency in the part of the response for whatever reason, could be horn loading, could be the speaker , 
One would have to take close measurements to determine that right. 
But if you want a certain crossover you should do what needs to be done to achieve the crossover , by either gain or peq based on what your close vs far measurements are showing. 

So instead of using the target to rebuild the crossover , I would use peq and use rew as a guide and get the crossover to behave as desired first. What that will do is allow the target to be more flat and basically stoping at the knee of the acoustic crossover in avg spectrum. Because the rolloff has been addressed it will measure in Dirac diffrent. So , if you have a 12db crossover and it’s behaving itself , if you raise or lower the gain, the crossover will still be the same, the only thing that will change is where that crossover actually crosses over to the next driver. 

So if you have a desired curve , like the stair step Ian posted, which looks very nice sounding , I’m suggesting just a little different approach, 

1. Don’t use Dirac to rebuild a crossover , get the crossovers right first 
But do use Dirac to shape the knee , because that definitely helps. 

2.try considering using Dirac to build the shape of the response you desire out of a speaker but not worrying about how it intersects to other drivers on the Dirac graph. Instead maximize the gain of that driver by hugging the bottom of the response , making the least amount of cut from the signal, do that with all drivers. 

3. Bust out rew and set levels of all drivers after Dirac is done to make the shape of target by using gain. 


After that is done, you could either 1 leave it , or 2. Remeasure with Dirac and the avg spectrum should show more closely the desired target and a lot less would be cut from the signal. 


I think the point I’m making is Dirac is a eq not a eq crossover. Although it can do some things a regrew just can’t. 

Here’s an example analogy 


If you have a speaker and a 1/3 oactave eq , and you eq your system and all sliders go +/-12db 

You do you eq work and end up with all sliders at -10db except one is at -12db 

1. Do you leave it ? Or 2. Put everything back at 0 and turn that one slider down -2db? .....and BTW it’s a interpolation type eq. Well it would make sense to only turn down that one by -2db and fox the gain problem that brought you to that. 

Does that make more sense? 

I’m not saying use gain and move a speaker after the response is set. I’m saying fix the gain problem so less eq is needed.

And who knows , if the gain was set more inline with the target maybe the crossover would not extend and be more inline with the electrical slope


But again , do what you like and what’s sounds good. 
Maybe an extended out crossover sounds good. (Yes here I go again) 
If there’s a full oactave of overlap and it’s kickin ass , why do anything at all.
(Sorry has to throw that out there)


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> I just tried again a few minutes ago, this time I used the auto generated curve, did not touch the level outside of where DLCT placed it. The tweeter level is still showing as -40dB (actually, now the right is showing -38dB), which ultimately makes it sound like garbage.
> 
> What I don't understand is that I never had this problem before, I may save my settings from the plug in and do a factory reset on it at this point and then try loading the same Dirac project again to see what that does.



That configuration seems to sound like maybe corrupt 

Are your other presets okay?

When you turn off Dirac does it come back ?


----------



## oabeieo

rockinridgeline said:


> I think this logic is a bit flawed in that when you start changing gain levels on drivers after crossovers have been set you are without a doubt changing the acoustic crossover point. This is what Erin was talking about with changing sub level. When you get your sub and midbass properly integrated, it is integrated to a great degree because the they are crossed over and blending correctly. If you boost a subwoofer you are increasing the lowpass crossover point acoustically, regardless of where you have the electronic crossover set. There is no way around that. Now you have overlap that isn't intended in the crossover design. They way around that would be to lower your lowpass for the subwoofer. For example, if you EQ for flat and then boost your sub by 12 db, you would need to set your lowpass for your sub 1/2 octave lower than your highpass for your midbass to keep your acoustic crossover the same as when the sub output was the same as the midbass.
> 
> Along the same lines, if you lower a tweeter output, you are increasing the acoustic crossover point. If you had Dirac draw you a perfectly flat response between mids and tweets and you decrease the tweeter output, you are changing the interaction between the mids and tweets. The likely result would be a drop in output in the crossover region all things else being equal.
> 
> For someone that is using the Jazzi files to generate response curves, changing the levels of the drivers changes how they interact in the crossover region. The results would be less predictable that way, especially when using anything other than LR24.




See , We’re on the same page 





tonynca said:


> Yes bass knobs are bad if you're using any sort of mild-medium 12/24db slopes. You should only use a bass knobs if:
> 
> 1. You don't care about bass cohesion within your sound stage
> 2. You're running FIR filters with a steep slope like 48db/oct which allows for each speaker to just play its own freqs. You don't have any blending so with FIR filters you're in phase even at 48db slopes since there are no phase rotations using FIR filters. Audison Bit One HD is good for this.
> 
> What you notice happening if you use a bass knob is that the midbass and sub freqs starts to lose focus and it's no longer tucked into the soundstage. You start to smear the tightness of the low end.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Number 1 don’t care . 
At least not all the time. Especially on I25 or I70 doing 75mph


Although I think your on to something also, 
Steep slopes definitely do allow a little more freedom , it’s hard to explain 
So maybe I’m going have to experiment with that one before I share any input

I have a 48db slope tune on my #4 preset and the sub does go louder without breaking from cohesion. ......(dot dot dot ) thinking.....


Okay thought about it.

So , I’ve done all of that. Fir filters , etc etc etc etc 

For me it’s road noise plain and simple. 
If you can’t hear the bass how are you breaking away from the midbass (I’m just sayin) if you turn up the sub just so you can hear the dam thing how is that breaking away from anything. 

I think that’s better left for contemplation and car audio philosophical thinking and logic , ****in flawed or not I don’t care, if I can’t hear my sub I’m sorry I’m going to turn it up so I can hear it. And sorry it blends perfectly to my ears again at a much higher level than sitting in my garage at midnight.


----------



## GEM592

oabeieo said:


> See , We’re on the same page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number 1 don’t care .
> At least not all the time. Especially on I25 or I70 doing 75mph
> 
> 
> Although I think your on to something also,
> Steep slopes definitely do allow a little more freedom , it’s hard to explain
> So maybe I’m going have to experiment with that one before I share any input
> 
> I have a 48db slope tune on my #4 preset and the sub does go louder without breaking from cohesion. ......(dot dot dot ) thinking.....
> 
> 
> Okay thought about it.
> 
> So , I’ve done all of that. Fir filters , etc etc etc etc
> 
> For me it’s road noise plain and simple.
> If you can’t hear the bass how are you breaking away from the midbass (I’m just sayin) if you turn up the sub just so you can hear the dam thing how is that breaking away from anything.
> 
> I think that’s better left for contemplation and car audio philosophical thinking and logic , ****in flawed or not I don’t care, if I can’t hear my sub I’m sorry I’m going to turn it up so I can hear it. And sorry it blends perfectly to my ears again at a much higher level than sitting in my garage at midnight.


Great to see you posting again, and talking it up with the gurus. To me, this is the best of what is left of this forum.


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> Thanks Erin...
> ...
> With that said, I would shape your midbass target for a little steeper incline between 100-200hz (not a lot) so that you can overcome road noise and keep the sub at its highest level while maintaining that cohesion between subs and highs. And create a target just for playing loudly (where he wanted more gain)
> ...
> 
> ...


I keep getting drawn toward band pass boxes, and I think it conceptually along the same concepts...


----------



## rockinridgeline

The problem that I have with a lot of what I am reading on this thread is that there is no adherence to a process that is grounded in what objectively works. You can't EQ to a house curve and then change the levels of the drivers relative to each other without having a change in the acoustic crossovers. When you do that you are creating either overlap or underlap in the crossover region. That is objective fact. That doesn't mean that it won't sound good because it might. A great example would be that I tend to like a little cut that happens to be between where I crossover my mid and tweet. I could eq the the mid and tweet response to a flat line and then lower the level of the tweeter. What I would likely end up with would be a dip in the response between tweet and midrange because of the change to the acoustic crossover. Granted, if I only drop the level of the tweets a couple of db's and I am using LR24, there isn't a huge change in the crossover point. But you need to UNDERSTAND why it does what it does. My point is that level adjustment in any legitimate tuning process should happen prior to eq to a house curve, especially when using Dirac which is autotuning. It doesn't make sense to autotune and then change levels because when doing so you are not only changing levels, you are changing the acoustic crossover points between driver bands. I made my post only because I wanted to be sure that people understand that point. Again, it isn't just a level change, it is a crossover change as well and that impacts the response AFTER EQ. 

In the prior example I agree 100% that you don't want to set your targets far below the average response. That is just throwing signal gain away for no reason. It makes much more sense to measure drivers in REW and get crossovers and levels set as close as possible to the target curve in REW. Then run Dirac to EQ everything. If you don't like the sound, start over with a difference house curve and do it again until you get the sound that you like. Bouncing around in the process will lead to less predictable results unless we fully understand what effects are going to happen when we make changes.


----------



## oabeieo

Edit

Bass knobs have no place in sq 

We should tell anyone that uses one 
To just throw it away because 

1. We don’t want anyone to know we actually do use them 

2. Don’t know how to use a bass knob 

3. Shouldn’t have subs because it makes spectral balance off 

4. Don’t ever ever ever ever ever ever ever deviate from my target


----------



## Truthunter

rockinridgeline said:


> The problem that I have with a lot of what I am reading on this thread is that there is no adherence to a process that is grounded in what objectively works.


I agree... I think most of us are still trying to figure out that process to adhere too 

BTW, have you had a chance to install yours yet & tinker with it?... Looking forward to your impressions too.


----------



## rockinridgeline

I get what you are saying Oabeieo. You are correct that you can do whatever floats your boat. And, I totally agree that in the past the amount of bass that I want sitting at a contest getting judged can be different than what I want driving down*the road. However, I would say that what I have learned recently is that if you get it right you can be happy with the same level setting going down the road as what you run in the lanes. Understanding what it takes to get it right is key.

*

My problem is that people that don’t have a lot of experience tuning will not be helped by statements of “do whatever you want”. There really needs to be some grounding in a process that is based on objectivity to get someone on the right*track and again, we have the freedom to tune to whatever house curve floats our boat. You can call that your artistic input towards creating something slightly different than what the recording artist and the producer intended if you like. But if that is*what you want, go back to mounting an EQ on your dash and have at it, LOL.

*

Just for the sake of folks who come across this thread that are learning to tune I want to illustrate with REW what I am talking about. I am not an expert, but I have learned quite a bit from people whom I believe are indeed expert. They*have engineering degrees and a lot of trophies to validate their process so I pay attention when they offer advice.*

*

This first slide is showing a black line that is the “JBL” house curve that Andy Wehmeyer has shared and that many people use as a tuning reference. I am not promoting this curve and I don’t personally use it although it works well. The*slide also shows the individual driver response curves that will blend to create that house curve in a 3 way plus subwoofer system with crossover points at 60, 200 and 2000. Those curves are imported text files that were created with a spreadsheet that was created*by DIYMA member Jazzi. They are a fantastic help with a solid tuning process. As you can see, the drivers overlap at 60 hz, 200 hz and 2000 hz. All crossovers are LR 24 db/octave.

*

The next slide shows what happens if I increase the output of the subwoofer by 10 db without changing anything else. As you can see, now the subwoofer output crosses with the midbass at 80 hz even though the electronic crossover on the*subwoofer remains set at 60hz. Now there is a much greater level of output from the subwoofer at 80hz and above. From a competition standpoint, if you have your sub mounted in the rear of the car it is much more likely to be localized to the rear, which*is not what you want. The way to fix it would be to set the lowpass for the subwoofer at around 40 or 45hz (not stopping to do the math but you get the idea). That would give you the increased output but still blend well with the midbass and have proper phase relatiinship and possibly not localize to the rear of the car. More importantly though,*is that the response is more predictable and phase relationship between drivers more consistent.

*

The next slide is showing the subwoofer back at the original level and now we have dropped the tweeter output by 4db. Now the midrange and tweeter response intersects at 2242 hz instead of 2000 hz. They will not sum flat since the crossovers*are not symmetrical. The crossover point has been changed and the phase relationship between drivers has changed.

I still don’t think it makes sense to make a level change that yields both a crossover and phase change as unintended consequence. Better to*set those levels prior to EQ and crossover settings.
























Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## rockinridgeline

Truthunter said:


> I agree... I think most of us are still trying to figure out that process to adhere too
> 
> BTW, have you had a chance to install yours yet & tinker with it?... Looking forward to your impressions too.


I've not installed mine yet. I was having all kinds of issues with the Helix Director wanting to load presets at random and the display not working correctly. I've given up on it and disconnected it. I have a couple more things I want to work on with the manual tune with the Helix before I let Dirac do its thing.


----------



## Nirvana

I am ready to order a MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL. Has anyone purchased this model or the non-Dirac model since May 10, 2019? If so, I want to know if your order was subject to a 25% duty (tariff) and if so, was it the shipping carrier that was collecting that?


----------



## oabeieo

rockinridgeline said:


> I get what you are saying Oabeieo. You are correct that you can do whatever floats your boat. And, I totally agree that in the past the amount of bass that I want sitting at a contest getting judged can be different than what I want driving down*the road. However, I would say that what I have learned recently is that if you get it right you can be happy with the same level setting going down the road as what you run in the lanes. Understanding what it takes to get it right is key.
> 
> *
> 
> My problem is that people that don’t have a lot of experience tuning will not be helped by statements of “do whatever you want”. There really needs to be some grounding in a process that is based on objectivity to get someone on the right*track and again, we have the freedom to tune to whatever house curve floats our boat. You can call that your artistic input towards creating something slightly different than what the recording artist and the producer intended if you like. But if that is*what you want, go back to mounting an EQ on your dash and have at it, LOL.
> 
> *
> 
> Just for the sake of folks who come across this thread that are learning to tune I want to illustrate with REW what I am talking about. I am not an expert, but I have learned quite a bit from people whom I believe are indeed expert. They*have engineering degrees and a lot of trophies to validate their process so I pay attention when they offer advice.*
> 
> *
> 
> This first slide is showing a black line that is the “JBL” house curve that Andy Wehmeyer has shared and that many people use as a tuning reference. I am not promoting this curve and I don’t personally use it although it works well. The*slide also shows the individual driver response curves that will blend to create that house curve in a 3 way plus subwoofer system with crossover points at 60, 200 and 2000. Those curves are imported text files that were created with a spreadsheet that was created*by DIYMA member Jazzi. They are a fantastic help with a solid tuning process. As you can see, the drivers overlap at 60 hz, 200 hz and 2000 hz. All crossovers are LR 24 db/octave.
> 
> *
> 
> The next slide shows what happens if I increase the output of the subwoofer by 10 db without changing anything else. As you can see, now the subwoofer output crosses with the midbass at 80 hz even though the electronic crossover on the*subwoofer remains set at 60hz. Now there is a much greater level of output from the subwoofer at 80hz and above. From a competition standpoint, if you have your sub mounted in the rear of the car it is much more likely to be localized to the rear, which*is not what you want. The way to fix it would be to set the lowpass for the subwoofer at around 40 or 45hz (not stopping to do the math but you get the idea). That would give you the increased output but still blend well with the midbass and have proper phase relatiinship and possibly not localize to the rear of the car. More importantly though,*is that the response is more predictable and phase relationship between drivers more consistent.
> 
> *
> 
> The next slide is showing the subwoofer back at the original level and now we have dropped the tweeter output by 4db. Now the midrange and tweeter response intersects at 2242 hz instead of 2000 hz. They will not sum flat since the crossovers*are not symmetrical. The crossover point has been changed and the phase relationship between drivers has changed.
> 
> I still don’t think it makes sense to make a level change that yields both a crossover and phase change as unintended consequence. Better to*set those levels prior to EQ and crossover settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk



Okay I can agree with you. You make good sense and speak honestly and are articulate. 


I really like that you don’t just arbitrarily say “oh it’s your sub” or some other “remark” that is aimed at shut down a good argument.


And like, some old zeppelin or maybe old bob segar or hank Williams, sorry +30db is perfect to my ears 


I really appreciate the time you spent on this post. It’s well thought out


I like how you pointed out lowering the sub crossover point. 

That’s a excellent point and definitely contributes to my argument. 




Again I’m in no way saying everyone should just crank up there subs and rock out and forget SQ. I am saying there is a way to have both under certain conditions. That’s all , it’s a compromise indeed , but it’s worth it when you can’t hear your sub at all



And I think my point being , you’ll be surprised how well Dirac keeps it together if you fiddle with things enough to get the bass response you want under those conditions while still maintaining a good portion of that spectral balance

Geesh 
Don’t everyone go install a epicenter at once now


----------



## rockinridgeline

That should really be the big advantage with this processor. It should be fairly easy to have an extra bass preset letting dirac do a lit if the time consuming heavy lifting for you. You should ne abke to have a +20 dvc bass preset with the best possible blend without a great deal if the eq work that would normally be required, right?

What I am hoping to get is the ability to play with different target curves and/or crossovers without having to do hours and hours of tuning with eq. If it does that well it really changes the time commitment. 

If course it still takes sime knowledge to know your vehicle, system and specific challenges in your setup and not expect dirac to magically make all your troubles go away. But it would be very nice and worth the price if it cuts your tuning time in half. 

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Too busy listening to my spaceship to comment. Be back later.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

rockinridgeline said:


> That should really be the big advantage with this processor. It should be fairly easy to have an extra bass preset letting dirac do a lit if the time consuming heavy lifting for you. You should ne abke to have a +20 dvc bass preset with the best possible blend without a great deal if the eq work that would normally be required, right?
> 
> What I am hoping to get is the ability to play with different target curves and/or crossovers without having to do hours and hours of tuning with eq. If it does that well it really changes the time commitment.
> 
> If course it still takes sime knowledge to know your vehicle, system and specific challenges in your setup and not expect dirac to magically make all your troubles go away. But it would be very nice and worth the price if it cuts your tuning time in half.
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


It cuts my tuning time in like.. 1/5th if not more.

Its seriously some impressive tech.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Did a tune tonight. Brought my acoustic crossovers closer to my imported curve is so its not correcting as much. 

Put the center mic position dead on where my head is and just kinda..cocked my head side ways to do it. Ended up having to give my left drivers anywhere from .5 & .7ms of delay but it all dialed in nicely. 

Im not sure how i feel about measuring the whole cabin(couch) when it comes to 500hz or less. My passenger side doesn't have some of the larger dips that my driver side does and i think its skewing some of the results. 

I left my sub above 0db(most of it) but made the curve follow its response perfectly as i could. 

In the Dirac tab of the plug in. Its showing my sub channel gain is down -16 but rew shows differently. It shows everything is playing the way i tuned it. Kinda strange.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

rockinridgeline said:


> The problem that I have with a lot of what I am reading on this thread is that there is no adherence to a process that is grounded in what objectively works. You can't EQ to a house curve and then change the levels of the drivers relative to each other without having a change in the acoustic crossovers. When you do that you are creating either overlap or underlap in the crossover region. That is objective fact...
> ...


Except if the band pass filter go to a brick wall, like one can do with a FIR... then there's is nor cancellation in the overlap, as the overlap goes to zero.


----------



## oabeieo

You guys keep me on my toes . I love it !


----------



## oabeieo

rockinridgeline said:


> That should really be the big advantage with this processor. It should be fairly easy to have an extra bass preset letting dirac do a lit if the time consuming heavy lifting for you. You should ne abke to have a +20 dvc bass preset with the best possible blend without a great deal if the eq work that would normally be required, right?
> 
> What I am hoping to get is the ability to play with different target curves and/or crossovers without having to do hours and hours of tuning with eq. If it does that well it really changes the time commitment.
> 
> If course it still takes sime knowledge to know your vehicle, system and specific challenges in your setup and not expect dirac to magically make all your troubles go away. But it would be very nice and worth the price if it cuts your tuning time in half.
> 
> Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk



You know what’s wierd , is it didn’t make some of what I thought were problems go away, it fixed problems I didn’t realize were problems, afterwards listening I bought a clue what it was doing. 
The problem I had before I was eventually able to solve it compermise but with other problems fixed those other problems weren’t as bad and were manageable 

Especially in the suband midbass goodness yes


----------



## oabeieo

So , to be clear so no body’s confused 

Like rockinridgine said he dosent like that there no process, 

Well there is , and I think what I’ve been advocating is just that, but also mixing up my super sub ideas with it.



So, in regards to that, (process) what everyone is doing is ok 
That’s the point , define a target and use it. 

What I was saying was a way to help get your gain structure set to compliment your targets 
Instead of massive cuts by using the target. 

I have advocated staying under the avg spectrum line in the normalized response 
However not way way way below it.

In my experience with Dirac I have found the way the eq responds against the actual response works best if you set your gains to compliment the target (like you would any eq)

However it’s a little diffrent critter we all know by now 

So by drawing the shape of the response (not doing anything with the target in regards to the crossover) so basically drawing a straight (ish) line than after go to rew and make the response you want (like the stair-step) by using gin, it dosent have to be perfect just get in the ball park. 

Than next go back and re measure in Dirac and the avg spectrum will be much closer to your desired response , thus using much less eq , and achieving a much more repeatable target and the target will reflect in REW much more faithful to your target. 

That’s all i was saying. A way to get your gains to compliment the way Dirac will create your target because you set your gains with a Dirac correction active. 

How it measures and applies the correction is a bit different gang. I have found doing this allows me to dump just about any target I want and the crossovers are where I want them, the response matches better in REW. 

The only thing is if you have massively different targets you may want tiny bit of gain on each of those configurations , but I would be willing to bet that you use targets that are very similar.


I don’t think we’re wanting to cut so much gain that there’s no volume, 
Just getting the gains a little closer to the target


By using a Dirac correction to set with REW it will be much much easier to see what’s what, 
Maybe the auto target , set gains semi close to desired target , than run it with your targets, I be willing to bet your before is much closer to what you want and a lot less eq, again more repeatable , etc 


I’m not saying the rew part has to be dead on balls , just get a little closer in the ballpark than 10db and get the crossovers to be where you want them acoustically before using the target to cutoff entire octaves. 

I don’t see how that is not good practices


----------



## naiku

FU forum.... timed out while writing a post so now I have to write it again..... 

Can anyone give me pointers on setting the initial output in DLCT? I reset my unit as it was having a weird issue with the tweeters (setting them at -40dB no matter what). Started putting a new tune together and I cannot for the life of me get a solid output level. 

I first used REW, set my levels and slope to look roughly what I wanted. Tweeters about -5dB down from the mids. Open DLCT, check the outputs, take the first measurement and it's all good. Move to the 2nd measurement, it tells me the level is too low (looks like both tweeters). Go back to the output tab, increase the output and take the 2nd measurement. 

Get to the 3rd measurement. Front lower right. Here the subwoofer level clips, despite it being nowhere near clipping on the previous 2 measurements. 

Back to the output tab, lower it a little, take the measurement again. 

Onto the 4th measurement. Front lower left. 

The ****ing right tweeter is now reading as too low. 

Back to the output tab. Increase the level a little.

Now the damn left mid/midbass are clipping. 

Smash my head into the steering wheel multiple times. 

Give up. 

I don't know if I am either doing something completely wrong in setting the levels, I don't know what, I had a pretty good manual tune before getting the DL unit, so it's not like I have no idea what I am doing. Or, my car has stupidly annoying reflections causing the sweeps Dirac makes to be wildly different depending on the microphone location. Either way, it is driving me mental.

Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> FU forum.... timed out while writing a post so now I have to write it again.....
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone give me pointers on setting the initial output in DLCT? I reset my unit as it was having a weird issue with the tweeters (setting them at -40dB no matter what). Started putting a new tune together and I cannot for the life of me get a solid output level.
> 
> 
> 
> I first used REW, set my levels and slope to look roughly what I wanted. Tweeters about -5dB down from the mids. Open DLCT, check the outputs, take the first measurement and it's all good. Move to the 2nd measurement, it tells me the level is too low (looks like both tweeters). Go back to the output tab, increase the output and take the 2nd measurement.
> 
> 
> 
> Get to the 3rd measurement. Front lower right. Here the subwoofer level clips, despite it being nowhere near clipping on the previous 2 measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the output tab, lower it a little, take the measurement again.
> 
> 
> 
> Onto the 4th measurement. Front lower left.
> 
> 
> 
> The ****ing right tweeter is now reading as too low.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the output tab. Increase the level a little.
> 
> 
> 
> Now the damn left mid/midbass are clipping.
> 
> 
> 
> Smash my head into the steering wheel multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> Give up.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I am either doing something completely wrong in setting the levels, I don't know what, I had a pretty good manual tune before getting the DL unit, so it's not like I have no idea what I am doing. Or, my car has stupidly annoying reflections causing the sweeps Dirac makes to be wildly different depending on the microphone location. Either way, it is driving me mental.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions?


I set my dlct to -30 and then mic sensitivity to 0. I use the plug in and not dlct to set actual levels because dirac locks levels of drivers if you do it via dlct. Bring levels linearly back up after your done doing dlct. Like if your MB is at -8, your mr is -5 a d your tw are at -3. Bring everything up by 3 db so you're back at a 0db output.

I haven't scoped this dsp to see if it puts out a clean signal above 0db.

As for clipping in certain measurements and not others. The "window" is only a few db wide from what i can tell so if one spot is peaky, it'll clip it. Generally its anywhere really close to boundaries, windows, doors, ext. I found moving the mic around to a slightly different spot usually fixes it and if not, do a sweep in Rew of the driver that clips alot and find out where and bring it down via peq. I had to bring down 400hz by 6db and i know Oab had to do some pre peq work with his horns(im not running horns yet) as well. 

When you're done and saving a dlct setting to the box(export menu), bring the output level from -30 back up to 0. 

That almost has enough output for me but my gains are still way lower than they need to be.

You probably know all that but just throwing out what i can.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions?


I also set my levels at about 75% of the green bar so it has room to be louder at certain spots

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> I set my dlct to -30 and then mic sensitivity to 0. I use the plug in and not dlct to set actual levels because dirac locks levels of drivers if you do it via dlct. Bring levels linearly back up after your done doing dlct. Like if your MB is at -8, your mr is -5 a d your tw are at -3. Bring everything up by 3 db so you're back at a 0db output.
> 
> I haven't scoped this dsp to see if it puts out a clean signal above 0db.
> 
> As for clipping in certain measurements and not others. The "window" is only a few db wide from what i can tell so if one spot is peaky, it'll clip it. Generally its anywhere really close to boundaries, windows, doors, ext. I found moving the mic around to a slightly different spot usually fixes it and if not, do a sweep in Rew of the driver that clips alot and find out where and bring it down via peq. I had to bring down 400hz by 6db and i know Oab had to do some pre peq work with his horns(im not running horns yet) as well.
> 
> When you're done and saving a dlct setting to the box(export menu), bring the output level from -30 back up to 0.
> 
> That almost has enough output for me but my gains are still way lower than they need to be.
> 
> You probably know all that but just throwing out what i can.


Thanks, appreciate the tips. I went back out for another try, I did essentially what you are saying and changed the levels in the plug in, then would go back to DLCT, check the output. Move onto the next speaker, repeat for each until they were all hitting around the same spot on the graph. 

Just as an example, this first picture is the "sweet spot":










This second is from the lower left rear position:










The tweeter levels and subwoofer are so much lower in this position, annoyingly when I then did the upper rear measurements the rear speakers were clipping slightly. Had to lower the output a little and try again. 

I had turned the microphone gain up a little for these, but will set it back to zero again and instead just increase the overall output slider. But, at least for now I have semi decent music playing. The sub level is lower than I would like now, but I just used the auto target in Dirac in order to get somewhere. I'll definitely look into using PEQ if needed to cut certain frequencies before Dirac if needed. 

At least the tweeters are no longer -40dB!!!


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Thanks, appreciate the tips. I went back out for another try, I did essentially what you are saying and changed the levels in the plug in, then would go back to DLCT, check the output. Move onto the next speaker, repeat for each until they were all hitting around the same spot on the graph.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an example, this first picture is the "sweet spot":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This second is from the lower left rear position:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tweeter levels and subwoofer are so much lower in this position, annoyingly when I then did the upper rear measurements the rear speakers were clipping slightly. Had to lower the output a little and try again.
> 
> 
> 
> I had turned the microphone gain up a little for these, but will set it back to zero again and instead just increase the overall output slider. But, at least for now I have semi decent music playing. The sub level is lower than I would like now, but I just used the auto target in Dirac in order to get somewhere. I'll definitely look into using PEQ if needed to cut certain frequencies before Dirac if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> At least the tweeters are no longer -40dB!!!


Different spots are going to have different levels, so yea sometimes tweeters especially, will be more quiet in certain areas. Dont worry about the whole 75% fill of the window on every measurement. Its not realistic. Just get it to have 75% ish on the first measurement.

Give the half whitledge curve a try from Zazzis curve and adjust overall curve levels . I posted a tutorial on how to do it earlier. Bass is still too quiet if u follow the curve. 

I did my measurements with the bass knob all the way down and still had to bring levels down in the plugin in order to get into that green level in level setting. When i was optimizing my sub. I didn't try to make it level or follow any curve at all. I just made it follow its normal response but with its 24db roll off. I do that so Dirac corrects phase but not amplitude and i can let my bass knob be in charge of amplitude

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Finally!! Got a good tune back again.... I'm just using the auto target currently. I'll go back at some point and try some others, but for now this will keep me happy.

I think there's a slight issue between where the sub rolls off and the midbass, but I'll figure that out another day. At least now I have a good set of measurements saved.


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Finally!! Got a good tune back again.... I'm just using the auto target currently. I'll go back at some point and try some others, but for now this will keep me happy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a slight issue between where the sub rolls off and the midbass, but I'll figure that out another day. At least now I have a good set of measurements saved.


Hurra! Gratz

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Honestly. I think i like chair more. 


Like.. alot more.


idk if i want to tear out my cones and try horns..it sounds sooooooo good right now.

So it REALLY wants to invert my sub and i have no idea why. No matter which way i have my sub. It always inverts it and when i test it in Rew. Its wrong and is cancelling.

So if you're having sub bass issues. Test that its actually summing and not cancelling

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Managed to spend about 40 minutes listening to the latest tune I have yesterday. The sub bass / mid bass I think needs a little work, it's good, I think just a little low. Some tracks it's just right, but others I know have way more bass seem a little low. It could well be as simple as the target I'm using. Will take some measurements with REW and see if as Jscoyne2, it needs to be inverted.

Overall it sounds great though, plenty of volume, with a wide and deep stage. Going to keep this as a preset and use the other 3 for trying different things.


----------



## oabeieo

Spent last 3days getting levels some pre eq to getting crossovers correct 
Mic placements , got it all done up really nice like

Finally have a post tune that needs nothing.
Stage is high, Bass is dam near perfect. 
It’s spaceship worthy , 

Ended up using 5ch Dirac 

The horns and midbass so close together they well within 1/4wavelenth at crossover 
I’m measuring better phase data keeping them on a combined Dirac channel
I don’t think it was looking at the relationship between channels as a multi-way but more as matching the transfer functions , with horns and mids on same Dirac stage is nice. 

Rear midbass and subs use there own Dirac 


Its nice to nail it down without having to add some delay to get stage to rise after 
Yeah it’s working really well now, quite pleased


----------



## banshee28

So I dont have a C-DSP-DL but I do have a DDRC-24 that I am working on learning DL with. I have tested a bit using it on my Computer 2.1 setup and definitely can hear and like the difference! I am still figuring out how high to set the measurement target compared to the target curve, but I think the answer is simply high enough were most of the cuts would not cause any dips in the end result. I'm sure that can be worded much better, lol.

One thing i noticed and had a question about and may be the same for the C-DSP platform, is once DL makes all of its changes, where can I see those changes? I dont see any PEQ, XO or other changes, only a slight change on the input channels (TA/gain), but nothing more. 

Maybe this is hidden somewhere or even different than on the C-DSP? 

Will try to get this setup in the car soon as a simple 2-ch DL tune. I will first try my current manual tune and ADD DL, then do a basic XO and gain only tune then DL.


----------



## oliverlim

I was trying to get the 1 Dirac channel per driver thing to work with mixed results. But I just tried the Left to once Channel and the Right to the 2nd channel and wooowee.....

While I have my first ok tune by using a per driver per dirac channel for a total of 7 Dirac channel tune, I took the advice of the support guys from MiniDSP that Dirac can and will be able to help with timing and crossover integration with multiple drivers within a single Dirac driver with their wizardry.

So I did a 4 way set up with all left tweeter/mid/lower bass/sub in one Dirac Channel and the Right in the other using only 2 Dirac channel. And I have to say, I was blown away. The blend is even better then my initial 7 dirac channel tune and it was so much easier to specify a house curve. I did 2 one base on JBL and the other MP1. It just amazing. While I think my previous APL tune using these house curve may have slightly better control in the Low Bass region, the Dirac tune blows it away in the mids and highs. Everything is just so clear. Soundstaging is much better.

E.g. 1 - The stereophile LEDR which plays a tone which is suppose to move from the speaker level and up. And then move it over from left ti right and vice versa. This is the absolute best I have heard. Steady movement up and over and back. Beats what I have even heard in my dedicated HT room with much more expensive equipment/speakers and room treatment but no Dirac, just Audyssey Pro. And this is in a car!!!! Not sure how that can happen.

E.g. 2 - Audiofrog 5 position soundstage test Left, Left Center, Center, Right Center, Right for 3 different tones. Pink Noise, Piano, and Bass guitar. All 5 position sound exactly the same. Ok the on closes to me sounds just a little warm or leaner then the other 4 positions. But they are all located at the exact location without moving when the piano/guitar chords is being played. 

E.g. 3 - Madonna's "Like a prayer" from her The Immaculate Collection. I almost forgotten that there was sound thing they tried in this album called Q Sound. They threw some sound effects that was suppose to come from before you and I heard it for the first time after this Dirac tune! And this song is one of my test songs and I never ever heard it before in my car ever. 

Basically, vocals, bass, soundstaging is just outstanding. Its now a matter of just getting the right house curve employed and I think I really cannot complain. I hope that I can get the 2.0 version to see that improved phase thing they talked about.

Just outstandingly amazing. :laugh: 







oabeieo said:


> Spent last 3days getting levels some pre eq to getting crossovers correct
> Mic placements , got it all done up really nice like
> 
> Finally have a post tune that needs nothing.
> Stage is high, Bass is dam near perfect.
> It’s spaceship worthy ,
> 
> Ended up using 5ch Dirac
> 
> The horns and midbass so close together they well within 1/4wavelenth at crossover
> I’m measuring better phase data keeping them on a combined Dirac channel
> I don’t think it was looking at the relationship between channels as a multi-way but more as matching the transfer functions , with horns and mids on same Dirac stage is nice.
> 
> Rear midbass and subs use there own Dirac
> 
> 
> Its nice to nail it down without having to add some delay to get stage to rise after
> Yeah it’s working really well now, quite pleased


----------



## Truthunter

oliverlim said:


> I was trying to get the 1 Dirac channel per driver thing to work with mixed results. But I just tried the Left to once Channel and the Right to the 2nd channel and wooowee.....
> 
> While I have my first ok tune by using a per driver per dirac channel for a total of 7 Dirac channel tune, I took the advice of the support guys from MiniDSP that Dirac can and will be able to help with timing and crossover integration with multiple drivers within a single Dirac driver with their wizardry.
> 
> So I did a 4 way set up with all left tweeter/mid/lower bass/sub in one Dirac Channel and the Right in the other using only 2 Dirac channel. And I have to say, I was blown away. The blend is even better then my initial 7 dirac channel tune and it was so much easier to specify a house curve. I did 2 one base on JBL and the other MP1. It just amazing. While I think my previous APL tune using these house curve may have slightly better control in the Low Bass region, the Dirac tune blows it away in the mids and highs. Everything is just so clear. Soundstaging is much better.


Thanks for sharing this.

From your description above I assume you did not utilize the "Bass Management" feature?

Also, did you perform any pre-Dirac measurement corrections: driver level matching or output tab EQ using REW to get the acoustic xovers lined up?


----------



## oliverlim

Truthunter said:


> Thanks for sharing this.
> 
> From your description above I assume you did not utilize the "Bass Management" feature?
> 
> Also, did you perform any pre-Dirac measurement corrections: driver level matching or output tab EQ using REW to get the acoustic xovers lined up?


I did not use the bass management feature. As I am using 2 amp channels to power up my Sub, I decided to treat my system as a 4 way dedicating one sub channel to Left and one to Right. 

I did not perform any EQ or driver level matching as I wanted to see what DIRAC could do on its own. I did try to match each driver as best to the other side using the Dirac app and then changed the gain on the 8x12DL to try to get each driver within the ballpark of the general house curve I was targeting. This meant Dirac did not need to boost or cut too much. I used a crossover that was recommended by many folks who had my car and also recommend by the speaker maker (audiofrog in my case) as a good starting range. So it was 80/200/2500 LR24 for my 4 way. I am using a 1.5" tweeter with a 4" mid, and a 6.5" mid bass and a 8" Sealed sub at the back

Also after the first measurement, I check to see that Dirac did not detect any dip at the crossover range and I also used that to boost/cut the 8x12DL gains. I did not use the Dirac volume control but quit Dirac and went to the 8x12DL app to change the memory slot gains for those channels to get the frequency to line up better to my target curve or at least my first house curve. I then used the same 9 measurements to another target curve. They were slightly different by in the ballpark. Namely sloping down from bass to highs.


----------



## Truthunter

My initial attempt with this unit left much to be desired. I rushed through it and accepted the autotargets. This was using a separate Dirac ch per driver and using delay values calculated from distance in the output tabs. Imaging was really good but tonality was terrible. Sub-bass and tweeters could barely be heard. Midbass sounded strained.

I wanted to replace my tweeters before attempting again which I accomplished last weekend.

After some trials and tribulations this past week that I won't go into here - I spent today really digging in and attempting a tune using only 3 Dirac channels (L, R, Sub). I loaded in my own custom targets based off the Half Whiteledge curve. The only pre-Dirac work I did was enter xovers (All LR4 at 70, 300, & 3k) and a little level matching with REW using the plugin's output tab adjustments. I let DLCT handle all time delay and EQ.

The results are incredible for the amount of effort applied. Imaging is spot on and coherence is better then I've ever heard in my vehicle. Stage height is right below the mirror where before it was right on the dash barely above it. Stage depth has improved too. Tonality is very good but I feel it could use a bit more massaging for my liking.

Below are some screen shots. You'll notice my targets have some nulls built in so that DLCT would not boost nulls in the midbass. Also you'll notice the sub target is above the measured response: I tried upping the level of the sub to try and meet up with the target but no matter what I did the measured response stayed the same even though I could hear the sweeps were louder which baffled me. After several attempts to correct it I just decided to roll with it and see what happens - it worked just fine and the Dirac tab is showing the sub channel level being cut 17db so not sure what is going on but it worked.

Left Channel:











Right Channel:











Sub:











Here are REW measurements with and without Dirac applied:


----------



## oliverlim

The simple method of letting Dirac take care of the crossovers between drivers is really amazing. I am starting to get the hang of doing the per driver per dirac model. But its "hard" work getting the slope/crossover for each driver to be correct. The Dirac app does not allow you to choose where the boost/cuts. It also does not allow you to sometimes draw the frequency area it corrects closer when there is a point already shown on your target curve. I always end up having to do some correction for the target curve when I do a per driver per dirac model. 

Another problem I have is for 2 of the further front measurement in my car also ends up clipping when measuring the sub. It always ends up needing me to lower the sub channels in the Dirac screen about 3-4 db for those 2 measurements. 

Glad you also have such a impressive results just using 3 Dirac Channel. I am enjoying my 3 Dirac Channel tune as well. Will soon be attemping to do a 7/8 Dirac Channel tune.


----------



## ErinH

Ryan, good to see your results. Thanks for sharing. 

I also talked with someone at miniDSP about some questions I had. In his reply email he noted that it is not intended to be used as we are and instead it should be used for 2 channels of DL; that we should set everything else up in the miniDSP for a 3-way system and then let DL correct the response curve. Which is the same thing you guys were told. I replied that I think there's merit to using it for 3-way systems but I would talk that over with him later. But based on what he said, I now wonder if DL does any sort of time alignment; most likely via an all pass filter. Otherwise, it's completely on the user to set it up correctly (tape measure would suffice, I suppose). And based on the results you (Ryan) mentioned (thanks, btw), either you nailed the T/A in the miniDSP GUI or DL does indeed do some compensation between active drivers. I'll have to ask them about this.


----------



## Truthunter

oliverlim said:


> But its "hard" work getting the slope/crossover for each driver to be correct.


Using Jazzi's spreadsheet to generate target curves makes this more automated. Still requires some work but the results are better than just eyeballing it in DLCT filter design tab.




oliverlim said:


> The Dirac app does not allow you to choose where the boost/cuts. It also does not allow you to sometimes draw the frequency area it corrects closer when there is a point already shown on your target curve. I always end up having to do some correction for the target curve when I do a per driver per dirac model.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I easily was able to modify target curve to follow nulls so they would not be boosted. And the target points can be removed or moved as needed.



oliverlim said:


> Another problem I have is for 2 of the further front measurement in my car also ends up clipping when measuring the sub. It always ends up needing me to lower the sub channels in the Dirac screen about 3-4 db for those 2 measurements.


I was having this same issue. What worked for me was driver level matching (to the overall system target) first using REW. I used the level adjustments on the output tabs for this. Any level changes made after the Dirac tab on the plug-in should show up in the measurements.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> Ryan, good to see your results. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I also talked with someone at miniDSP about some questions I had. In his reply email he noted that it is not intended to be used as we are and instead it should be used for 2 channels of DL; that we should set everything else up in the miniDSP for a 3-way system and then let DL correct the response curve. Which is the same thing you guys were told. I replied that I think there's merit to using it for 3-way systems but I would talk that over with him later. But based on what he said, I now wonder if DL does any sort of time alignment; most likely via an all pass filter. Otherwise, it's completely on the user to set it up correctly (tape measure would suffice, I suppose). And based on the results you (Ryan) mentioned (thanks, btw), either you nailed the T/A in the miniDSP GUI or DL does indeed do some compensation between active drivers. I'll have to ask them about this.


I did not enter any delay values in the MiniDSP GUI (Aka Plun-In) in the my example above. So yes - DL absolutely compensates for time alignment / impulse response between drivers even when they are combined on the same Dirac Channel (like the L Tweet, L Mid, L MBass and the same on the right side in my example above). Not sure if its using APFs or some FIR wizardry but to my amazement - it works.


----------



## naiku

Glad to see that you finally overcame all the issues and got a tune working!! Last night I spent a few minutes getting a new tune ready, level matched, tried to get the response to vaguely follow my made up curve and cut any large peaks in the response using REW / PEQ. 

Depending how the week goes I am hoping to take the DL measurements tomorrow sometime.


----------



## subterFUSE

Dirac definitely does time delays, as you can go to the DIRAC page and view the delays they use by channel there. Today I am planning to use the DIRAC suggested delays to enter in the Plugin and see how they do with a non-Dirac tune.


So last night I hooked up the miniDSP 8x12DL to the Audi again for some testing. I ran my tune with no Bass Management this time. I just ran channel 7 as my sub and used the crossover in the plugin and then ran it like the other channels with the target curve.

As before, the results of the 7 channel Dirac tune were that the staging is very impressive but the tonality is terrible. There is just no bass. I tried inverting the sub, but it was correct at the beginning. I then went into the Plugin and I cranked up the gain on the sub channel and the sub finally came to life. But raising the subwoofer obviously changes the effective crossover point with the midbass and therefore the delay setting would also need to change to get back in phase. So, cranking up the sub just made the sub louder and the image pulled to the rear of the car.

Next, I tried making a target curve with a 20 dB slope from sub to tweeters. This definitely made the tune play louder, but not in a good way. The sound was very harsh and not pleasant to listen to. It was not distorting, just not good tonality.


My takeaway from last night is that the target curve is EVERYTHING. If you don't have a good target, it's not going to sound good. And while that statement sounds like a no-brainier, the difference between a good target and a bad target is not very easy to pinpoint. If I draw a target that matches targets I have used in tuning my car with a Helix DSP, it doesn't sound anywhere near the same. So I am going to have to do a lot of trial and error with target curve tweaks to get the tonality I want. Ultimately, this might be a lot more work than it would be just tuning with a Helix using IIR filters. At least with traditional DSP you can listen and EQ at the same time to see what works. With Dirac, you would have to adjust the target and optimize the filters and export.

To be fair, this seems to be a general theme with FIR based filtering hardware. I have an APL1 in the car, and likewise the results depend entirely on the target curve you select. Even the slightest changes to the target make the sound completely different, and it has never been easy to correlate how to adjust the target to get the desired tonality.


My next tuning session on the Dirac will be a 3 channel Dirac correction on top of a traditional tune via the Plugin.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> My takeaway from last night is that the target curve is EVERYTHING. If you don't have a good target, it's not going to sound good. And while that statement sounds like a no-brainier, the difference between a good target and a bad target is not very easy to pinpoint. If I draw a target that matches targets I have used in tuning my car with a Helix DSP, it doesn't sound anywhere near the same.
> ...
> To be fair, this seems to be a general theme with FIR based filtering hardware. I have an APL1 in the car, and likewise the results depend entirely on the target curve you select. Even the slightest changes to the target make the sound completely different, and it has never been easy to correlate how to adjust the target to get the desired tonality.


I'm discovering this the more I experiment with this thing. The tune I competed with in Garner this Spring measured very close to the measured outcome of my most recent attempt with Dirac but they sound different.




subterFUSE said:


> My next tuning session on the Dirac will be a 3 channel Dirac correction on top of a traditional tune via the Plugin.


Definately try it with 3 channels - the bass was not missing like it was when I used 7. Possibly because this time I loaded level aligned targets where before I just used the autotargets. You'll see in the photos I posted above that the Sub target was above the measured response but it worked out.

Also, try it without first entering any delays on the outputs... you'll be suprised how it can delay discrete frequency ranges within a single Dirac channel. Pretty sure the Delay shown on the Dirac tab is just the overall delay assigned to the channel but there is definately more frequency dependent TA correction going on behind the scenes.


----------



## ErinH

One idea I mentioned to John was to measure the FR of his system as it was before the minidsp/DL combo. Then use that to build your target curve. At least then you are closer to what you are used to and can evaluate the performance based on that. 

As for t/a, that's a fuzzy area right now. Ryan's results indicate all is well there but I would expect L/R deltas to be pretty good. However, my main concern is the delay between driver pairs (like the left tweeter to left midrange, etc). It may not be completely obvious what a 0.50ms delay there does - and if DL isn't implementing some sort of APF to correct for this then it could be an "ignorance is bliss" case. Meaning, unless you have a "proper" t/a setup to A/B against you might not realize just how incorrect the DL version without this individual delay capability could be. To find out for sure, though, I'll have to measure the outputs directly and see what they're doing electronically and maybe glean some insight there ... and I'll also ask about this to see if they can just tell me if DL accounts for physical offsets between speakers on the shared Dirac channel. At this point, I just don't *know*. I want/need to know. The fact they tell you to set delays yourself in this tech sheet makes me think there's no accounting for it.

Per their suggestion you can always simply measure the distance of each speaker and set your delays accordingly. And that certainly works to get you in the ballpark. Alternatively, you could use DL to build all filters/delay for each individual speaker in the 3-way setup, then measure those results with a mic in REW via the IR results or measure the outputs of the miniDSP directly via RCA. Then use those values to enter in to the miniDSP's channel outputs, then go back to using DL in 2-channel mode. It's a cumbersome way of doing it but I would expect this to really allow you to perfect the tune. But, again, I need to understand exactly what DL is doing with a single channel where active drivers are not already correctly delayed. 

Edit: If I recall correctly, isn't there a DL menu that shows the levels and delays DL used? If so, there you go. Just measure with DL on all channels individually, then copy down those delays and use them on the outputs and re-run DL in 2-channel mode.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> There is just no bass.


After thinking more about this I'm becoming more convinced the sub-bass was where it needed to be in my most recent Dirac tune outlined above because of properly level aligning the Sub target to the rest of the drivers.

I'll post these photos again - Notice that most of the passband on the sub channel target is above 0db where as the entire target for the L/R channels are below 0db. Using auto target would have the sub and L/R target curves all around the same level.

And you would think that having the target above the measured sub response would make Dirac boost up to it but infact the Dirac tab after optimization show a -17.x db cut on the sub channel. :shrug:


Sub:











Left:










Right:


----------



## Jscoyne2

On the subject of bass. I used a target curve of around 80hz and up and put that at my (0) on the line so everything above 80hz is being pulled down by Dirac. For my sub. I put wanted target curve like 0.5 db below the subs response (so actually above 0db on the Dirac) target and let the dirac eq phase but minimally touch amplitude. 

This way the whole tune isn't super quiet and my sub is still getting worked on.

Basically don't boost above 0db but its okay to be above it.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> As for t/a, that's a fuzzy area right now. Ryan's results indicate all is well there but I would expect L/R deltas to be pretty good. However, my main concern is the delay between driver pairs (like the left tweeter to left midrange, etc). It may not be completely obvious what a 0.50ms delay there does - and if DL isn't implementing some sort of APF to correct for this then it could be an "ignorance is bliss" case. Meaning, unless you have a "proper" t/a setup to A/B against you might not realize just how incorrect the DL version without this individual delay capability could be.


You may be right... looking forward to the results of your further investigation on this.


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> After thinking more about this I'm becoming more convinced the sub-bass was where it needed to be in my most recent Dirac tune outlined above because of properly level aligning the Sub target to the rest of the drivers.
> 
> I'll post these photos again - Notice that most of the passband on the sub channel target is above 0db where as the entire target for the L/R channels are below 0db. Using auto target would have the sub and L/R target curves all around the same level.
> 
> And you would think that having the target above the measured sub response would make Dirac boost up to it but infact the Dirac tab after optimization show a -17.x db cut on the sub channel. :shrug:




I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider. 

I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.

I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this. 


^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.


----------



## Jscoyne2

ErinH said:


> I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider.
> 
> I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.
> 
> I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this.
> 
> 
> ^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.


and it begins. :3


----------



## dgage

ErinH said:


> I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider.
> 
> I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.
> 
> I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this.
> 
> 
> ^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.


Considering Dirac for the car came many years after Dirac for home theater where every channel except LFE is full range, you may have hit it on the head. FYI, LFE in a 7.1 signal is channel 4 in case someone wants to test that further.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Why gives u 8 outputs then? In what situation would you need 8 dirac channels that only do left and right and sub.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## GreatLaBroski

I'd think that the Dirac folks would have thought about this, but windows does have Automatic Gain Control enabled by default when you have the checkbox for "Allow applications to take exclusive control of this device" enabled in the UMIK microphone settings. I'm wondering if there might be some anomalies caused by AGC.


----------



## subterFUSE

GreatLaBroski said:


> I'd think that the Dirac folks would have thought about this, but windows does have Automatic Gain Control enabled by default when you have the checkbox for "Allow applications to take exclusive control of this device" enabled in the UMIK microphone settings. I'm wondering if there might be some anomalies caused by AGC.




That’s a good point.

Usb mics are not known for quality, either.

It would be nice if I could import my own measurements from SysTune or Smaart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

subterFUSE said:


> That’s a good point.
> 
> Usb mics are not known for quality, either.
> 
> It would be nice if I could import my own measurements from SysTune or Smaart.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Have you tried to use your own mic(s)? There’s a drop down for sound card input. Can you pick your own soundcard in lieu of the UMIK?


----------



## subterFUSE

ErinH said:


> Have you tried to use your own mic(s)? There’s a drop down for sound card input. Can you pick your own soundcard in lieu of the UMIK?




Not yet but I will try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> Edit: If I recall correctly, isn't there a DL menu that shows the levels and delays DL used? If so, there you go. Just measure with DL on all channels individually, then copy down those delays and use them on the outputs and re-run DL in 2-channel mode.


You've got me thinking. John mentioned doing this too.

Yes the Dirac tab in the Plug-In will show the delay Dirac applies to each Dirac channel. I'm going to set up another couple presets - 1 with a Dirac channel per driver (except the sub - don't see a need to obtain that delay) to obtain the delay it will set for each driver, and another 3ch setup but will plug in the aforementioned delays. Then I can compare between the preset I currently have going and this new one with delays per driver pre-entered.

Only consideration is:

Do I enter the exact delays per driver as shown on the Dirac tab

OR

Do I enter just the difference in delay between the drivers on each side?


My thinking is the delays shown in the Dirac per driver set up will also have delay built in for L/R differences which would not be required because they will just be re-assigned when optimized through the 3ch Dirac setup?


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> You've got me thinking. John mentioned doing this too.
> 
> Yes the Dirac tab in the Plug-In will show the delay Dirac applies to each Dirac channel. I'm going to set up another couple presets - 1 with a Dirac channel per driver (except the sub - don't see a need to obtain that delay) to obtain the delay it will set for each driver, and another 3ch setup but will plug in the aforementioned delays. Then I can compare between the preset I currently have going and this new one with delays per driver pre-entered.
> 
> Only consideration is:
> 
> Do I enter the exact delays per driver as shown on the Dirac tab
> 
> OR
> 
> Do I enter just the difference in delay between the drivers on each side?
> 
> 
> My thinking is the delays shown in the Dirac per driver set up will also have delay built in for L/R differences which would not be required because they will just be re-assigned when optimized through the 3ch Dirac setup?



I'd take those delay values as gospel and use them as they are. Assuming what DL shows you is the delay values it had to use for each channel, which is my assumption.


----------



## oabeieo

What I do to fix tonality issues is exactly what Erin is saying try to do 

I like the way my system sounds with rew and moving mic averages on RtA 

So after my DL I open rew and do moving mic averages BUT 

*I make the correction using my target in DL*

So if my rew rta shows I’m hot at 4K I go to DL and turn down 4K 

Than go back to rew and check it 

DL fixes the time domain around what you tell it to do with your target so it sounds better than running and using PEQ after DL. I use the target as my EQ and REW RTA as my analyzer. 

You might ask what’s the point of DL than, it still does it’s thing. You still have freedom over the target, and I do my DL measurements pretty wide though out the cabin , so it’s averaging is going to be loose. I just like to tighten it up with ReW and my preferred mic. 

It works , it works great! 

And the bass comes back and the highs sound much better , at least what I like because I know what I like using REW and my higher end mic


----------



## oabeieo

So out of curiosity 

I just ran some sweeps 

I plugged in my 8ch dL TA numbers and ran 3ch DL 

Sub and highs ,

Than some REw sweeps 


This is the flattest DL has made my phase response. 
By a long ****in shot also.
And 

It sounds quite good , except after dL I added .3ms to the left mid because my center want perfect, now it is 

........so there’s that





Truthunter said:


> You've got me thinking. John mentioned doing this too.
> 
> Yes the Dirac tab in the Plug-In will show the delay Dirac applies to each Dirac channel. I'm going to set up another couple presets - 1 with a Dirac channel per driver (except the sub - don't see a need to obtain that delay) to obtain the delay it will set for each driver, and another 3ch setup but will plug in the aforementioned delays. Then I can compare between the preset I currently have going and this new one with delays per driver pre-entered.
> 
> Only consideration is:
> 
> Do I enter the exact delays per driver as shown on the Dirac tab
> 
> OR
> 
> Do I enter just the difference in delay between the drivers on each side?
> 
> 
> My thinking is the delays shown in the Dirac per driver set up will also have delay built in for L/R differences which would not be required because they will just be re-assigned when optimized through the 3ch Dirac setup?





To validate , do some close mic measurements, look at the phase 
Do it on groups of speakers 


Open rew do a measurement as close as possible to speaker group 
Than one 4”away than one 8” away than one 12”away 

Look at all of them you’ll see the phase wraps get worse , the close mic measurements will still have some delay in the measurement, add a 1cy window to remove it , if the TA is off it will wrap even at very close distances 

Pre Dirac you have to trim off your crossovers to see this work right , or just know that wrap is the crossover 

One of the drivers may phase way way way different than the other , so TA values that seem to be wrong may look better between the drivers , or a rev pol 
May look better. Just do that same on both sides 

But like I said up there , the 8ch numbers on 2ch is the flattest yet I’ve seen on DL in 2 years .just didn’t quite image the way I wanted , had to add a tiny bit more delay on my left mid, hours may be different, mine could just be a reflection causing that


----------



## Jscoyne2

So basically. Do as much pretune as possible. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So basically. Do as much pretune as possible.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


On TA yes if you use 2ch dL 

And for gosh sakes get your crossovers tuned first but yes 

I’m torn between 5ch DL and 3ch DL on mine 

There bolth very good, 
The 2ch definitely sounds more accurate and faithful 
The 5ch just patty’s and gets balls loud with no distortion and image is stable at extreme levels ....it’s a kick n the butt 


And BTW guys I’ll confess 

When I was swearing by 8ch DL I have a DL2.0 box In front of my CDSp
I hope I didn’t mislead anyone , the 2.0dL box is 2ch and is acting as my real EQ 

I have it bypasse mode now for this test to be fair


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider.
> 
> I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.
> 
> I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this.
> 
> 
> ^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.




Yeah sorta, that and I think mostly because 
2ch mode will linearize crossover phase distortion 
Multichannel won’t see the phase change as it’s at the beginning and end only and it may ignore that.

So you’ll get better “phase” between all drivers on 2ch 

It’s will make the transfer functions match 1st before it tryed to make phase flat
I’ve spent about 6mo studying what it’s doing by looping back myDL into REW and trying to make sense of what it’s doing, because at the time I was still measuring wraps and expecting flat phase not knowing how phase sounds when a change is made. It took awhile to nail down how it works fully over the course of a few thousand measurements.


Each Dirac channel was intended for a full spectrum stereo channel 

If one had rears or speakers substantially farther than 1/4 wavelength another Dirac channel is in order except maybe a tweeter when turning down 2000 degrees of phase is only a few taps , but nevertheless a waste of fir power, even with dead nuts TA the other 9 measurements are anchored to the 1st. Each of the 9 has a timing reference, the last sweep in each measurement, it’s based of ch1 in the system or what it sees as the 1st Dirac channel in mixer 

It associates the timing of each measurement to the first, so even dead nuts TA won’t suffice and it will see the true phase, it has to to be able to make the correction. And the other measurements are all over the place 


2ch on fronts is definitely how it should be used, you could add the sub also if your GD is low and TA is clean, I did it that way for a long time.


But again, and I will always advocate what sounds better vs what measures better. Maybe the crossover GD is what makes the soundstage better to you or not, only you can like or dislike how each way of using this dsp in the many ways it can be done. But to be clear 2ch is proper for each full range stereo channel 

And that’s why they have the BM before DL so you can split the sub and highs crossover before Dirac and the phase shift will affect the entire dsp , so if you do decide to do 3ch Dirac to get that awesome control over your sub the shift isn’t audible

*So when you have let’s say 6 Dirac channels going , if they aren’t linked to each other on a single target Dirac will do seperate corrections to all of them independently and do nothing to make each of those channels phase well together it only looks at what is linked. In the case of 6 or 8channels it wouldn’t work to link them all together if there band limited because of the extreme eq that would be applied so linked pair is the only option but in that mode with band limited don’t expect any crossover linearizations it will only do eq and phase correction on linked pairs , in that case it would only be the passbands and there’s usually most of the time not any phase issues in passbands except those caused by reflections, again it does nothing to crossovers *


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> On TA yes if you use 2ch dL
> 
> And for gosh sakes get your crossovers tuned first but yes
> 
> I’m torn between 5ch DL and 3ch DL on mine
> 
> There bolth very good,
> The 2ch definitely sounds more accurate and faithful
> The 5ch just patty’s and gets balls loud with no distortion and image is stable at extreme levels ....it’s a kick n the butt
> 
> 
> And BTW guys I’ll confess
> 
> When I was swearing by 8ch DL I have a DL2.0 box In front of my CDSp
> I hope I didn’t mislead anyone , the 2.0dL box is 2ch and is acting as my real EQ
> 
> I have it bypasse mode now for this test to be fair


You can't loopback and use Dirac twice can you?


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> You can't loopback and use Dirac twice can you?


OH yes , think rew sweeps with Dirac turned on , rca out of dsp right into loopback ch. but I also had Dirac with fir banks on other downstream dsps at the time so I could one was a rew rendition, but it’s the same it was looped back completely electrically , I picked up DA noise but it still worked 


Hell I’ve looped back , imported to rephase , inverted , drawn the exact correction and sent back to dsp as a experiment, yeah I copied a Dirac correction in rephase and it worked , except mine was manual , it sounded very very close to the same,


Im the guy that does things over and over and over again to understand some things. I’m hands on. 

I’ve read countless articles about phase and got pretzeled , until I get my hands dirty than I figured it out


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> OH yes , think rew sweeps with Dirac turned on , rca out of dsp right into loopback ch. but I also had Dirac with fir banks on other downstream dsps at the time so I could one was a rew rendition, but it’s the same it was looped back completely electrically , I picked up DA noise but it still worked
> 
> 
> Hell I’ve looped back , imported to rephase , inverted , drawn the exact correction and sent back to dsp as a experiment, yeah I copied a Dirac correction in rephase and it worked , except mine was manual , it sounded very very close to the same,
> 
> 
> Im the guy that does things over and over and over again to understand some things. I’m hands on.
> 
> I’ve read countless articles about phase and got pretzeled , until I get my hands dirty than I figured it out


I mean with one 8x12 unit though cuz being able to do 2 mb, 2 mr, and 2 tw, and then send the signal back and do it as a left and right.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> I mean with one 8x12 unit though cuz being able to do 2 mb, 2 mr, and 2 tw, and then send the signal back and do it as a left and right.



No no no 

For analysis. I wanted to see for myself what the hell it did to the phase and eq 
Acoustical measurements are never clean enough, an electrical measurement tells you exactly what it’s doing to the signal 

I wanted to know exactly how it works to better use it and to just know what it was doing. I wanted to see the magic


That’s also how I know it dosent quite use “peq” type filters , it’s a single allpass for the entire channel. Quite brilliant actually


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> No no no
> 
> 
> 
> For analysis. I wanted to see for myself what the hell it did to the phase and eq
> 
> Acoustical measurements are never clean enough, an electrical measurement tells you exactly what it’s doing to the signal
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to know exactly how it works to better use it and to just know what it was doing. I wanted to see the magic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s also how I know it dosent quite use “peq” type filters , it’s a single allpass for the entire channel. Quite brilliant actually


Use your clout at minidsp to get them to program a loopback

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oliverlim

ErinH said:


> Ryan, good to see your results. Thanks for sharing.
> 
> I also talked with someone at miniDSP about some questions I had. In his reply email he noted that it is not intended to be used as we are and instead it should be used for 2 channels of DL; that we should set everything else up in the miniDSP for a 3-way system and then let DL correct the response curve. Which is the same thing you guys were told. I replied that I think there's merit to using it for 3-way systems but I would talk that over with him later. But based on what he said, I now wonder if DL does any sort of time alignment; most likely via an all pass filter. Otherwise, it's completely on the user to set it up correctly (tape measure would suffice, I suppose). And based on the results you (Ryan) mentioned (thanks, btw), either you nailed the T/A in the miniDSP GUI or DL does indeed do some compensation between active drivers. I'll have to ask them about this.


They did tell me this 

"Dirac Live is smart enough to perform “inter driver” alignment with a single Dirac Live path. It’s not a simple PEQ or FIR. The internal path can easily handle to time align and EQ multiple speakers at once. Believe us, we know what’s behind the scenes.. ;-)"

Also if you put all the drivers in a single Dirac Channel, you get the advantage of having Dirac correcting the issues at the crossover section too. So yes, it seems like they do and are able to do some TA in a single channel. I see in the Dirac tab, that all my 4 drivers are using a single delay but the sub does sound like its coming in the front. There is a limit though to my ears. I still sometimes hear my sub coming from the rear in this mode. It is totally gone when I do a 3 way active with Right and LEft on a Dirac Channel and Sub on its own channel. They delay and Dirac in this method removes all traces of the sub sounding like its coming from behind me.


----------



## oliverlim

subterFUSE said:


> My takeaway from last night is that the target curve is EVERYTHING. If you don't have a good target, it's not going to sound good. And while that statement sounds like a no-brainier, the difference between a good target and a bad target is not very easy to pinpoint. If I draw a target that matches targets I have used in tuning my car with a Helix DSP, it doesn't sound anywhere near the same. So I am going to have to do a lot of trial and error with target curve tweaks to get the tonality I want. Ultimately, this might be a lot more work than it would be just tuning with a Helix using IIR filters. At least with traditional DSP you can listen and EQ at the same time to see what works. With Dirac, you would have to adjust the target and optimize the filters and export.
> 
> To be fair, this seems to be a general theme with FIR based filtering hardware. I have an APL1 in the car, and likewise the results depend entirely on the target curve you select. Even the slightest changes to the target make the sound completely different, and it has never been easy to correlate how to adjust the target to get the desired tonality.
> 
> 
> My next tuning session on the Dirac will be a 3 channel Dirac correction on top of a traditional tune via the Plugin.



This is what I found as well. I could be using the exact same target curve from my AP1 and Dirac end result and even my rough RTA measurements shows similar result, they sound totally different. Tonality is the one where it seems to differ the most. I suspect it is because Dirac applies a maximum boost of up to 10db while APL1 default is db. So unless your target curve in Dirac is all below or you ensure it is not more then 6db above your measured response, that could very well be the issue. 

I find that APL1 measurements and curve even with different runs has very similar end result and tonality and sound. While Dirac with each 9 measurement run, does seem to differ somewhat. Not always alot of difference but there are difference. 

My rough RTA measurements also seem to show that Dirac i all different target curve, shows a peak of around 5-8db in the 50hz region. APL1 tune does not show that. So it seems like even with a 4 way 2 channel DIRAC tune, it does not take care of this peak in the 50hz region. 

Still trying to figure a good target for my Dirac tunes. Many are close but just not totally there.


----------



## oabeieo

On the minidsp forum I told ppl to use 2ch. I said I’ll continue to use 8ch 

I feel it’s partly my fault for getting everyone started on 8ch knowing it’s not the best way, 
But OTOH I’ve only run 2ch in the past so I didn’t actually know at the time. 

But I have another 2ch Dirac upstream of my 8ch running 2.0. So I got the benefits of 2ch with my 8ch (that’s why I said I’ll run 8 and didn’t specify I thought y’all already knew .....) 

*Gang, I apologize, I spaced that and should have gotten everyone on the right path sooner. I’m sorry, I just have problems telling ppl what to do because of certain flamers on here, so my new advice has been do what you want and shut up and let me do what I want. I was wrong to mix that mentality with this thread, and actually I kinda don’t care....but I do care. So I’m sorry. Everyone switch to 2 or 3 channel now.....how it was educational sorry! *

Not to mention nobody knew what I was talking about when I would make comments as nobody would have ! It was still new to everyone, so I made 2 videos , and I did it like everyone else , and I also wanted to do 8ch and say if this is how your going to do it do it like this, but that was bad I should have just said two ch only, but the way things were going nobody would have listened because I thought it several times, so I went with the flow , I should have stuck to my guns Nd just stopped it , but I won’t do that, it’s not who I am. 

I’m all about **** it let’s learn this together from scratch and forget the two years advantage , no one wanted to hear that I felt and I can’t stand flamers.

And for god sakes when did I ever have a eq on my dash? 
Oh wait I had 4 Alesis meq230s on the dash of my Jetta in 1992 but that was before most of you were born so that don’t count! (Lol )


----------



## oliverlim

ErinH said:


> I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider.
> 
> I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.
> 
> I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this.
> 
> 
> ^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.


However in Dirac, there is a option that you can tick and choose that those channels are "Subwoofer" so that it will output in their words, a correct signal that takes into account that its not a full range speaker. I would think that would correct this issue....?


----------



## oabeieo

Repost for those who don’t read back pages , this one has good info 




ErinH said:


> I think this may be caused by the setup of output levels in the DL menu. And this may be one reason why we are told to use DL in 2-channel mode. If DL is expecting full range signal then setting up the inputs/outputs for a channel that has very limited passband may be throwing the process for a loop. For example, consider tweeters... if they're high pass relatively high there's not as much spectrum to collect so the output level reader may be low but when the sweep is ran the level is adequate for the bandpass. So, if you adjust the levels to match the tweeter, in my experience, DL will then attenuate the tweeter. I'm using compression drivers with nearly a 20dB swing over the midrange output so my case is more extreme. But DL did knock those levels down about 22dB iirc. When I re-ran, I let the tweeter signal output stay a little lower than the other channels, instead of trying to adjust them all to the -12dB point, and the tweeter levels weren't attenuated nearly as much. Just something to consider.
> 
> I could see the subwoofer being similar where there's not as much energy in it's limited bandpass and this also may come in to play with the "subwoofer" checkbox because I believe the sweep is different (I'd have to verify) if an item is checked as 'subwoofer'.
> 
> I think in those cases (like the tweeter and maybe the sub) it may be best to ignore the output level bar or use some reasoning there and determine the appropriate level to adjust all other channels based on this.
> 
> 
> ^ Lot of "thinking". Beware.




Yeah sorta, that and I think mostly because 
2ch mode will linearize crossover phase distortion 
Multichannel won’t see the phase change as it’s at the beginning and end only and it may ignore that.

So you’ll get better “phase” between all drivers on 2ch 

It’s will make the transfer functions match 1st before it tryed to make phase flat
I’ve spent about 6mo studying what it’s doing by looping back myDL into REW and trying to make sense of what it’s doing, because at the time I was still measuring wraps and expecting flat phase not knowing how phase sounds when a change is made. It took awhile to nail down how it works fully over the course of* a few thousand measurements.*


Each Dirac channel was intended for a full spectrum stereo channel 

If one had rears or speakers substantially farther than 1/4 wavelength another Dirac channel is in order except maybe a tweeter when turning down 2000 degrees of phase is only a few taps , but nevertheless a waste of fir power, even with dead nuts TA the other 9 measurements are anchored to the 1st. Each of the 9 has a timing reference, the last sweep in each measurement, it’s based of ch1 in the system or what it sees as the 1st Dirac channel in mixer 

It associates the timing of each measurement to the first, so even dead nuts TA won’t suffice and it will see the true phase, it has to to be able to make the correction. And the other measurements are all over the place 


2ch on fronts is definitely how it should be used, you could add the sub also if your GD is low and TA is clean, I did it that way for a long time.


But again, and I will always advocate what sounds better vs what measures better. Maybe the crossover GD is what makes the soundstage better to you or not, only you can like or dislike how each way of using this dsp in the many ways it can be done. But to be clear 2ch is proper for each full range stereo channel 

And that’s why they have the BM before DL so you can split the sub and highs crossover before Dirac and the phase shift will affect the entire dsp , so if you do decide to do 3ch Dirac to get that awesome control over your sub the shift isn’t audible

*So when you have let’s say 6 Dirac channels going , if they aren’t linked to each other on a single target Dirac will do seperate corrections to all of them independently and do nothing to make each of those channels phase well together it only looks at what is linked. In the case of 6 or 8channels it wouldn’t work to link them all together if there band limited because of the extreme eq that would be applied so linked pair is the only option but in that mode with band limited don’t expect any crossover linearizations it will only do eq and phase correction on linked pairs , in that case it would only be the passbands and there’s usually most of the time not any phase issues in passbands except those caused by reflections, again it does nothing to crossovers *




oliverlim said:


> However in Dirac, there is a option that you can tick and choose that those channels are "Subwoofer" so that it will output in their words, a correct signal that takes into account that its not a full range speaker. I would think that would correct this issue....?


Erin dosent have DL (Erin go get one already! )

It adds subwoofer for the BM , so that it can extract the correct timing from all channels and send to sub. The Dirac side can’t detect the settings in the plug in as it’s a Dirac made software that is used across many brands platforms , so you need to check mark it manually 

You could set it to extract signal from 6ch of input, if those channels aren’t the same in level or timing , it needs to know so it can make that signal that is sent to the sub correct for the sub sweeps. 

And yes also because it’s band limited , but not entirely , Dirac will curtain off automatically any band limitations on any channel , the band limited remark Erin made was him thinking......

But primarily, it gives back up to 10db for sub channel, chalking that box will give you the added gain as part of BM


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Repost for those who don’t read back pages , this one has good info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah sorta, that and I think mostly because
> 
> 2ch mode will linearize crossover phase distortion
> 
> Multichannel won’t see the phase change as it’s at the beginning and end only and it may ignore that.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’ll get better “phase” between all drivers on 2ch
> 
> 
> 
> It’s will make the transfer functions match 1st before it tryed to make phase flat
> 
> I’ve spent about 6mo studying what it’s doing by looping back myDL into REW and trying to make sense of what it’s doing, because at the time I was still measuring wraps and expecting flat phase not knowing how phase sounds when a change is made. It took awhile to nail down how it works fully over the course of* a few thousand measurements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each Dirac channel was intended for a full spectrum stereo channel
> 
> 
> 
> If one had rears or speakers substantially farther than 1/4 wavelength another Dirac channel is in order except maybe a tweeter when turning down 2000 degrees of phase is only a few taps , but nevertheless a waste of fir power, even with dead nuts TA the other 9 measurements are anchored to the 1st. Each of the 9 has a timing reference, the last sweep in each measurement, it’s based of ch1 in the system or what it sees as the 1st Dirac channel in mixer
> 
> 
> 
> It associates the timing of each measurement to the first, so even dead nuts TA won’t suffice and it will see the true phase, it has to to be able to make the correction. And the other measurements are all over the place
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2ch on fronts is definitely how it should be used, you could add the sub also if your GD is low and TA is clean, I did it that way for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again, and I will always advocate what sounds better vs what measures better. Maybe the crossover GD is what makes the soundstage better to you or not, only you can like or dislike how each way of using this dsp in the many ways it can be done. But to be clear 2ch is proper for each full range stereo channel
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s why they have the BM before DL so you can split the sub and highs crossover before Dirac and the phase shift will affect the entire dsp , so if you do decide to do 3ch Dirac to get that awesome control over your sub the shift isn’t audible
> 
> 
> 
> *So when you have let’s say 6 Dirac channels going , if they aren’t linked to each other on a single target Dirac will do seperate corrections to all of them independently and do nothing to make each of those channels phase well together it only looks at what is linked. In the case of 6 or 8channels it wouldn’t work to link them all together if there band limited because of the extreme eq that would be applied so linked pair is the only option but in that mode with band limited don’t expect any crossover linearizations it will only do eq and phase correction on linked pairs , in that case it would only be the passbands and there’s usually most of the time not any phase issues in passbands except those caused by reflections, again it does nothing to crossovers *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erin dosent have DL (Erin go get one already! )
> 
> 
> 
> It adds subwoofer for the BM , so that it can extract the correct timing from all channels and send to sub.
> 
> 
> 
> You could set it to extract signal from 6ch of input, if those channels aren’t the same in level or timing , it needs to know so it can make that signal that is sent to the sub correct for the sub sweeps.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes also because it’s band limited , but not entirely , Dirac will curtain off automatically any band limitations on any channel , the band limited remark Erin made was him thinking......


Erin does have Dl. He has mine while i rebuild horns.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Erin does have Dl. He has mine while i rebuild horns.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


That lucky ducky. 
Aren’t you the nicest dood ever , 
That’s actually really cool of you.


I actually think I’m going back to my ddrc22d and 2x4hds 
I kinda miss that rabbihole of delays and all linear phase crossovers before DL 

Even tho it still sounds spaceship both ways , I kinda miss all the USB cords!


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> That lucky ducky.
> 
> Aren’t you the nicest dood ever ,
> 
> That’s actually really cool of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think I’m going back to my ddrc22d and 2x4hds
> 
> I kinda miss that rabbihole of delays and all linear phase crossovers before DL
> 
> 
> 
> Even tho it still sounds spaceship both ways , I kinda miss all the USB cords!


LESS CLUTTER. LET IT GO. COME BUILD MINE..

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Hmm. So maybe do a tape measurement of each driver for t/a. Use the 10bands for crossover correction then run dirac with 7 channels and have left mb,mr,tw linked. And right sub,rmb,rmr,tw linked.

Then have the target be the full house curve. 

Would you have to worry about it boosting the V of the crossovers?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Hmm. So maybe do a tape measurement of each driver for t/a. Use the 10bands for crossover correction then run dirac with 7 channels and have left mb,mr,tw linked. And right sub,rmb,rmr,tw linked.
> 
> Then have the target be the full house curve.
> 
> Would you have to worry about it boosting the V of the crossovers?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Nope.

2 or 3ch DL for fronts with sub 

Do your pre ta how you want. 

I chose the 8ch TA numbers with excellent results, tape measure is fine also 
Or do some measurements and see how they align. 
Whatever , just do 2 or 3 ch DL 

If have rears do 4 or 5 ch DL


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 2 or 3ch DL for fronts with sub
> 
> 
> 
> Do your pre ta how you want.
> 
> 
> 
> I chose the 8ch TA numbers with excellent results, tape measure is fine also
> 
> Or do some measurements and see how they align.
> 
> Whatever , just do 2 or 3 ch DL
> 
> 
> 
> If have rears do 4 or 5 ch DL


Kinda defeats the purpose of 8 out :/

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oliverlim

Jscoyne2 said:


> Kinda defeats the purpose of 8 out :/
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


That could be our issue! More does not always mean better! 

But I guess in this case, unless Dirac has a loop feature as in run dirac on each and every driver then do a Dirac tune again on each channel with the tuned Dirac Drivers taking into account the crossovers in this case...... that might actually be better...


----------



## oabeieo

Remember when I was talking about Dirac works better when drawing straight lines.

And I almost got killed for saying that. And flames and got questioned down.

Well......I wasn’t joking and I still trying to say the same dam thing 

Draw straight (ish) lines don’t make these ragged changes 
It will blow 

The purpose of 8ch Dirac is for 8 full range channels.

Let’s say you had a center and rears and rear rears and doors and a sub 
(8ch) 

For US SQ guys that only use fronts and a sub 

2 or 3 DL channels with straight (ish) lines drawn and you’ll be blown away


I’m the exception because I have 2ch DL in front of my 8ch 

So I run my 8ch for the timing and the eq and the crossovers and the inband fir and let my 2ch DL do the crossover fir and my main eq



No no no no loop features it does not have that. I have a ddrc22d in front of my CDSPDL I have 10ch of Dirac 2 of which pass through on a seperate correction, 

It’s a 2ch Dirac with 8ch Dirac for my own craziness


Like I said earlier I bypass my ddrc22d tonight and ran 3ch off the cdsp and it’s still spaceship, the loopback was only for analysis in REW not for listening


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Remember when I was talking about Dirac works better when drawing straight lines.
> 
> 
> 
> And I almost got killed for saying that. And flames and got questioned down.
> 
> 
> 
> Well......I wasn’t joking and I still trying to say the same dam thing
> 
> 
> 
> Draw straight (ish) lines don’t make these ragged changes
> 
> It will blow
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of 8ch Dirac is for 8 full range channels.
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s say you had a center and rears and rear rears and doors and a sub
> 
> (8ch)
> 
> 
> 
> For US SQ guys that only use fronts and a sub
> 
> 
> 
> 2 or 3 DL channels with straight (ish) lines drawn and you’ll be blown away


Im confused by what you mean by full range channels. Is every channel not full range before we put a hp/lp on it? Center, rears, ect would all have some filter on it. 

And what do you mean by a straight line Exactly? Can you show me in pics?

Not criticism, just curious trying to understand 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Im confused by what you mean by full range channels. Is every channel not full range before we put a hp/lp on it? Center, rears, ect would all have some filter on it.
> 
> And what do you mean by a straight line Exactly? Can you show me in pics?
> 
> Not criticism, just curious trying to understand
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



Full range channels or “channels” to be specific 

Left front is a channel (no matter how many speakers make up that channel that’s one full range channel , and so on and so-forth.

Center is concidered it’s own “channel” 

Right rear is a channel ,

Us SQ guys use two channel plus sub 
Many speakers in that two channel system , so two channel plus sub would be 3 Dirac channels (or two would work also)


----------



## oabeieo

oliverlim said:


> This is what I found as well. I could be using the exact same target curve from my AP1 and Dirac end result and even my rough RTA measurements shows similar result, they sound totally different. Tonality is the one where it seems to differ the most. I suspect it is because Dirac applies a maximum boost of up to 10db while APL1 default is db. So unless your target curve in Dirac is all below or you ensure it is not more then 6db above your measured response, that could very well be the issue.
> 
> I find that APL1 measurements and curve even with different runs has very similar end result and tonality and sound. While Dirac with each 9 measurement run, does seem to differ somewhat. Not always alot of difference but there are difference.
> 
> My rough RTA measurements also seem to show that Dirac i all different target curve, shows a peak of around 5-8db in the 50hz region. APL1 tune does not show that. So it seems like even with a 4 way 2 channel DIRAC tune, it does not take care of this peak in the 50hz region.
> 
> Still trying to figure a good target for my Dirac tunes. Many are close but just not totally there.



Dirac *ignores room modes*

If you have a peak at 50 you’ll have one at 200 and 400 also 

It won’t cut those room modes when you draw a straight target over it 
The room modes by cutting the gain out will make it sound spectral but will affect the time domain negatively. It will look at the speakers direct sound vs reflected sound, the boost caused by the room should be left or it can cause detrimental problems to the spectrum in upper oactave s in the overall harmonic structure , it’s like adding a allpass filter to fix a null , you have to make the choose which you like more the null or or screwed up time domain. 

In this case you would have to pick which you like more absolute spectral balance or a better time domain and cleaner impulse 

This only happens in modal areas , so everything above room modes it won’t happen , usually in a car it’s every peak under 400hz

It will also ignore deep dips for the opposite reason unless the dip is present in all measurements equally.



You can use the target and pull that down a little if you like with less ill effects than using peq , but from a standpoint of ambiance and music presentation it should be left alone 



That’s where I get into the whole do what you like , some ppl just want there measurements flat and don’t care or won’t accept the good reason not to do something. And that’s perfectly okay. I don’t care to get into some argument over anything, some might want to argue that it’s better this way or that way and I say do whatever you want.........da.....na....shhhhhhhhh 


And believe me......and I won’t say why 
Apl is not this advanced. I won’t get into it so don’t ask 
Apl does things completely different. 
It a plain old minimum phase eq that’s done in fir , and the phase “correction part” is excess GD only. It’s oblivious to room. It’s not a room correction device , it’s a Group delay removal device that is very limited. The fact that all of it’s “correction” is done using a finite filter is like, big ****ing deal , any dsp can do 90% of what it can do without any fir. 

Dirac is a true room correction, it looks at issues in the room and helps solve problems in time domain that cause things to sound bad, group delay dosent always sound bad. I’ve used normal minimum phase crossovers for years and used the group delay from the crossover to help shape my sound stage. 

Nobody 5 years go said, “oooh that car has too much group delay I don’t like it” 
Nobody, because it’s hard to hear group delay, at least it’s hard to tell how bad it is unless you have a way of getting rid of it. So removing group delay definitely helps the sound, it’s just not always what makes things sound bad in the time domain, oftentimes the room is the problem instead of a crossover phase shift, we’ve lived happily with that for years


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Dirac *ignores room modes*
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a peak at 50 you’ll have one at 200 and 400 also
> 
> 
> 
> It won’t cut those room modes when you draw a straight target over it
> 
> The room modes by cutting the gain out will make it sound spectral but will affect the time domain negatively. It will look at the speakers direct sound vs reflected sound, the boost caused by the room should be left or it can cause detrimental problems to the spectrum in upper oactave s in the overall harmonic structure , it’s like adding a allpass filter to fix a null , you have to make the choose which you like more the null or or screwed up time domain.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case you would have to pick which you like more absolute spectral balance or a better time domain and cleaner impulse
> 
> 
> 
> This only happens in modal areas , so everything above room modes it won’t happen , usually in a car it’s every peak under 400hz
> 
> 
> 
> It will also ignore deep dips for the opposite reason unless the dip is present in all measurements equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can use the target and pull that down a little if you like with less ill effects than using peq , but from a standpoint of ambiance and music presentation it should be left alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where I get into the whole do what you like , some ppl just want there measurements flat and don’t care or won’t accept the good reason not to do something. And that’s perfectly okay.


I think this comment is really important. 

All that being said. Do you think having a pretune(before dirac)to a curve is overall a bad idea because it messes with um... whatever it is you just said o_0

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> I think this comment is really important.
> 
> All that being said. Do you think having a pretune(before dirac)to a curve is overall a bad idea because it messes with um... whatever it is you just said o_0
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




If anyone goes back and reads what I’ve been saying and can seperate my mistake on my ddrc22d along with the cdsp and that’s whole bad advice and use fairness keeping that in mind (because it was a mistaken and not intended) 

And between the lines I’ve said only one thing.

Use peq to fix problems at the speaker , use Dirac to fix the problems at the room



Tune your crossovers with peq , use peq if you near field measurements are **** , anotherwords if you use horns (haha!) get the speaker to play flat and have nicely tuned crossovers in the nearfield meaning less than a foot away from speaker. Let Dirac do the rest and that’s the best 



But don’t go crazy on eq , over correcting sucks, just mildly knock down any big peaks , that all. Don’t try to make it perfectly flat. Don’t do that, 

Use peq to fix bad crossover behavior, and knock down any large wide Q peaks . 

Dirac can handle everything else. 10peqs is a lot..


My horns use 9 pre Dirac peq slots 
All my speakers use 2 and each of those two is a 2db cut with a Q under 2 
My sub uses zero


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> If anyone goes back and reads what I’ve been saying and can seperate my mistake on my ddrc22d along with the cdsp and that’s whole bad advice and use fairness keeping that in mind (because it was a mistaken and not intended)
> 
> And between the lines I’ve said only one thing.
> 
> Use peq to fix problems at the speaker , use Dirac to fix the problems at the room
> 
> 
> 
> Tune your crossovers with peq , use peq if you near field measurements are **** , anotherwords if you use horns (haha!) get the speaker to play flat and have nicely tuned crossovers in the nearfield meaning less than a foot away from speaker. Let Dirac do the rest and that’s the best
> 
> 
> 
> But don’t go crazy on eq , over correcting sucks, just mildly knock down any big peaks , that all. Don’t try to make it perfectly flat. Don’t do that,
> 
> Use peq to fix bad crossover behavior, and knock down any large wide Q peaks .
> 
> Dirac can handle everything else. 10peqs is a lot..
> 
> 
> My horns use 9 pre Dirac peq slots
> All my speakers use 2 and each of those two is a 2db cut with a Q under 2
> My sub uses zero


See. 20pages later, we just needed a Tl;Dr


----------



## oliverlim

oabeieo said:


> Dirac *ignores room modes*
> 
> If you have a peak at 50 you’ll have one at 200 and 400 also
> 
> It won’t cut those room modes when you draw a straight target over it
> The room modes by cutting the gain out will make it sound spectral but will affect the time domain negatively. It will look at the speakers direct sound vs reflected sound, the boost caused by the room should be left or it can cause detrimental problems to the spectrum in upper oactave s in the overall harmonic structure , it’s like adding a allpass filter to fix a null , you have to make the choose which you like more the null or or screwed up time domain.
> 
> In this case you would have to pick which you like more absolute spectral balance or a better time domain and cleaner impulse
> 
> This only happens in modal areas , so everything above room modes it won’t happen , usually in a car it’s every peak under 400hz
> 
> It will also ignore deep dips for the opposite reason unless the dip is present in all measurements equally.
> 
> 
> 
> You can use the target and pull that down a little if you like with less ill effects than using peq , but from a standpoint of ambiance and music presentation it should be left alone
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where I get into the whole do what you like , some ppl just want there measurements flat and don’t care or won’t accept the good reason not to do something. And that’s perfectly okay. I don’t care to get into some argument over anything, some might want to argue that it’s better this way or that way and I say do whatever you want.........da.....na....shhhhhhhhh
> 
> 
> And believe me......and I won’t say why
> Apl is not this advanced. I won’t get into it so don’t ask
> Apl does things completely different.
> It a plain old minimum phase eq that’s done in fir , and the phase “correction part” is excess GD only. It’s oblivious to room. It’s not a room correction device , it’s a Group delay removal device that is very limited. The fact that all of it’s “correction” is done using a finite filter is like, big ****ing deal , any dsp can do 90% of what it can do without any fir.
> 
> Dirac is a true room correction, it looks at issues in the room and helps solve problems in time domain that cause things to sound bad, group delay dosent always sound bad. I’ve used normal minimum phase crossovers for years and used the group delay from the crossover to help shape my sound stage.
> 
> Nobody 5 years go said, “oooh that car has too much group delay I don’t like it”
> Nobody, because it’s hard to hear group delay, at least it’s hard to tell how bad it is unless you have a way of getting rid of it. So removing group delay definitely helps the sound, it’s just not always what makes things sound bad in the time domain, oftentimes the room is the problem instead of a crossover phase shift, we’ve lived happily with that for years



I hear you. But apl1 does do tonality very well. That is something I have come to appreciate. Maybe it’s just that I have not found a house curve that I like with Dirac . Will try the auto target a bit to see how it sounds.

If a Dirac tune has a slight shift to say the left, can you correct it by increasing the right channels delay slightly? I assume that it would not affect any of the Dirac tune if all right channels are delayed the same amount?

Or can I go back to a saved project with all 9 measurements and delete just the first measurement and remeasure that first measurement only?

Also if I have wired my single sub as a 2 channel sub, would it likely sound better dedicating each sub to left and right so I use 2 Dirac channels or it would be better to use BM and have them as use one single Dirac channel as sub?


----------



## oabeieo

oliverlim said:


> I hear you. But apl1 does do tonality very well. That is something I have come to appreciate. Maybe it’s just that I have not found a house curve that I like with Dirac . Will try the auto target a bit to see how it sounds.
> 
> If a Dirac tune has a slight shift to say the left, can you correct it by increasing the right channels delay slightly? I assume that it would not affect any of the Dirac tune if all right channels are delayed the same amount?
> 
> Or can I go back to a saved project with all 9 measurements and delete just the first measurement and remeasure that first measurement only?
> 
> Also if I have wired my single sub as a 2 channel sub, would it likely sound better dedicating each sub to left and right so I use 2 Dirac channels or it would be better to use BM and have them as use one single Dirac channel as sub?




I agree with you, the overall shape of response isn’t faithful to my RTA with moving mic averages, workshop uses moving mic sweep averages where you can gather 150-200 averages if you wanted to. And you do the eq work based on a lot more averages. 


The 28 measurements on a 2ch Dirac is the absolute minimum that can be used using sweeps , if I quote someone from another forum correctly.

But yes I do agree


I encourage everyone to try using an RTA with there favorite mic and let it average 50x or more and put the discrepancy into your target and than listen, 
(I use pink PN and plain old rta , but your favorite way is a good way also) 
The offset should be added to the linked pair of channels, (or both 2ch) 
Because it’s not a L/R issue because the imaging isn’t the complaint so it’s just the eq, so correcting it in the linked target affecting left and right simultaneously is the way to do it. Also , I’ve had better luck with just a single added anchor and a wider Q if you were to call it that in the target adjustment. 

Some zooming into the target and drawing the exact shape is okay also with added anchor points as long as the Q is still wider than narrowing, you’ll have to just try for self on that one 

I’m curious what others think doing that, I’ve never had any issues in modal areas I didn’t like tonality, looks like some of you do, my biggest gripe is it wants to add 8db of gain at 4K to my horns , (that’s awful on horns) 

I just do my rta trick and it’s back to perfect 


If you did a full blow pre tune with peq than followed the “all.avg spectrum” curve you could follow the graph in target and also see what the discrepancies are but that is not preferable because you would be also adding more eq on top of eq you don’t need. 

So running rta after Dirac is done and only fixing the spots that you don’t like is preferred. 


I’m curious what others think when they do this.

Using the target as your eq defiantly sounds better than using peq.
If you applied the peq change to every channel evenly so all channels exhibit the same phase shift caused by eq , .....I don’t know I’ve never done that, using the target works great tho .


I’ve also noticed the wider my measurements the more it adds a variable , but the better it sounds in its room correction attributes, but the tonality of a close head mic averages is what I like better, so I do that after the fact, as described


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> If you applied the peq change to every channel evenly so all channels exhibit the same phase shift caused by eq , .....I don’t know I’ve never done that, using the target works great tho .


Or how about using an eq that is pre-DSP/Dirac in the signal chain that affects all drivers... like the eq built into most aftermarket headunits?


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Or how about using an eq that is pre-DSP/Dirac in the signal chain that affects all drivers... like the eq built into most aftermarket headunits?


That could also work! 

I don’t have that luxury 

The phase difference would pass down so it should work fine with no audible I’ll affects. But I’ve never tried it.

Could you try it and let us know what you think.


I’ve only fixed my issues at 4K , I’ve never played with modal regions 
But I can post a white paper that explains it if you like that’s very good


----------



## oabeieo

Here you go 


http://diracdocs.com/on_room_correction.pdf


----------



## oabeieo

Such a good white paper 

I could quote off that thing for years and never get board.


Here’s my quote of the day from that paper.



> , as elementary logic teaches us: a false premise implies any proposition, false or true. So you can produce examples which will sound great on occasion even with a faulty rationale. But that does not mean that with a better rationale you will not be able to do even better.


I love that! That kind of thinking is so honest and holds water. When I argue , i like to poke at diffrent angles of certain topics to bleed out fallacy. I sometimes purposely make error in my comments for arguments to see where the logic standard is at knowing the rational of the current ideology on audio has to start to be looked at different. I won’t fall in line on the norm ever, knowing there’s so many other things to be concidered in any argument. I love a good argument. 
My dad was like that, so I got it from him. 
That’s why when I’m some arguments everyone will think I’m wrong, than pages later when something else comes up and the correlation to that argument sheds light on my ideas, there not always right. But I do definitely try to get ppl to look at things differently and start to consider other things, I like to mix things up so I don’t look like a know it all, because I’m still learning also, but just be careful when arbitrary saying someone is wrong about something, they just might make ya look dumb in future arguments. 

Together all of us , we will change the way car audio is thought about and move forward to new better ideals. Throw away those dash mounted eqs is just the beginning, And lead new ways and embrace the modern age of acoustic correction.


----------



## subterFUSE

Yes, if there was one more option that I would add to almost every car audio DSP on the market, that option would be full input-side processing.

That means Gain, Delay, EQ and Crossovers on every input and then the same on every output.


By having EQ and crossovers on the input side, you can apply filtering to all speakers in such a way that the phase consequences are equal to all, which in effect becomes no shift since all are shifted the same.

Most pro audio DSPs have this. None of the car audio DSPs do, however. The closest we have are some input EQ on the Helix, Audison, etc... This miniDSP with Dirac is the closest available with the Bass Manager, that acts like an input crossover.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Yes, if there was one more option that I would add to almost every car audio DSP on the market, that option would be full input-side processing.
> 
> That means Gain, Delay, EQ and Crossovers on every input and then the same on every output.
> 
> 
> By having EQ and crossovers on the input side, you can apply filtering to all speakers in such a way that the phase consequences are equal to all, which in effect becomes no shift since all are shifted the same.
> 
> Most pro audio DSPs have this. None of the car audio DSPs do, however. The closest we have are some input EQ on the Helix, Audison, etc... This miniDSP with Dirac is the closest available with the Bass Manager, that acts like an input crossover.


John,
The standard MiniDSP 8x12 V2 has gain & 10 bands PEQ on each input which the DL version loses. I used it quite a bit... Actually more than I used the PEQs on the outputs.

*:EDIT:* But after thinking about it the Dirac Live function is kinda like an input auto eq that is way more powerful then 10band PEQ and gain adjustment.

Also, Concerning input xovers: I'm not understanding the benefit of xovers on the input... they would introduce a phase shift too?... it's not like all crossovers required can be implemented on a single pair of channels so the sum of all the associated phase shifts follows through


----------



## naiku

Just got done with a quick 2 (well, really 5.... Left, Right, Sub, Left Rear and Right Rear tune). Before running Dirac I took nearfield measurements and just knocked down some of the higher peaks. 

The Dirac tune sounds good, but is lacking the midbass / sub bass that I had with my last manual tune. The subwoofer volume is set to -2dB, on the output tab, to not have it clip during measurements I had it set to -20dB. To get any real noticeable volume from the sub I have to bump it back up to -12dB but it then sounds like it sort of throws things off a little. I was only able to give it a really brief listen though, might tinker some more throughout the week. 

Overall volume is weird as well, but I can't determine if that is me coming from the tablet and optical to a Kenwood and RCA's. Seems really quiet below about 20 (out of 40) but then at 30 gets really loud.


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> The Dirac tune sounds good, but is lacking the midbass / sub bass that I had with my last manual tune.


Can you post photos of the filter design screens?... I would like to see how the target level on the sub channel compares to the Front L/R channels


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Also, Concerning input xovers: I'm not understanding the benefit of xovers on the input... they would introduce a phase shift too?... it's not like all crossovers required can be implemented on a single pair of channels so the sum of all the associated phase shifts follows through



Here is an example of the benefit to crossovers on the inputs:


The proper way to set up a subwoofer is to first set up the main speakers so they work as a unit, and then to match the subwoofer to the mains.

When we set up the mains, we are working to achieve smooth crossover behavior between the drivers. This requires a combination of timing, EQ and filter selection for HP and LP. All of these things have phase consequences which must be taken into account.

When we have a good match for the mains, and it becomes time to add the subwoofer, the same rules apply. We use delay, EQ and filtering to achieve a smooth response through the crossing point.

Now that we have matched the subwoofer to the mains, let's say that we want to add a high pass filter to the subwoofer to prevent over-excursion. What happens when we add a high pass? It causes the phase to rotate forwards. This phase effect will be most pronounced at the filter frequency, but it also extends up several octaves. What will then happen is that your nice and smooth subwoofer to midbass region will now have a phase ripple through it which causes a response ripple.

What is the solution?


The solution is to put the subwoofer high pass filter on the inputs, so that the phase effect from that filter gets put onto the entire system. By doing this, you have no net phase effect to the subwoofer-midbass transition because both drivers have been shifted forward the same amount.


----------



## Holmz

Truthunter said:


> John,
> The standard MiniDSP 8x12 V2 has gain & 10 bands PEQ on each input which the DL version loses. I used it quite a bit... Actually more than I used the PEQs on the outputs.
> 
> *:EDIT:* But after thinking about it the Dirac Live function is kinda like an input auto eq that is way more powerful then 10band PEQ and gain adjustment.
> 
> Also, Concerning input xovers: I'm not understanding the benefit of xovers on the input... they would introduce a phase shift too?... it's not like all crossovers required can be implemented on a single pair of channels so the sum of all the associated phase shifts follows through


If one can plot the phase, then it should be easy to see whether they have problems in the x-over that would result in cancelation.


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Can you post photos of the filter design screens?... I would like to see how the target level on the sub channel compares to the Front L/R channels


Left:









Right:









Subwoofer:


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Here is an example of the benefit to crossovers on the inputs:
> 
> 
> The proper way to set up a subwoofer is to first set up the main speakers so they work as a unit, and then to match the subwoofer to the mains.
> 
> When we set up the mains, we are working to achieve smooth crossover behavior between the drivers. This requires a combination of timing, EQ and filter selection for HP and LP. All of these things have phase consequences which must be taken into account.
> 
> When we have a good match for the mains, and it becomes time to add the subwoofer, the same rules apply. We use delay, EQ and filtering to achieve a smooth response through the crossing point.
> 
> Now that we have matched the subwoofer to the mains, let's say that we want to add a high pass filter to the subwoofer to prevent over-excursion. What happens when we add a high pass? It causes the phase to rotate forwards. This phase effect will be most pronounced at the filter frequency, but it also extends up several octaves. What will then happen is that your nice and smooth subwoofer to midbass region will now have a phase ripple through it which causes a response ripple.
> 
> What is the solution?
> 
> 
> The solution is to put the subwoofer high pass filter on the inputs, so that the phase effect from that filter gets put onto the entire system. By doing this, you have no net phase effect to the subwoofer-midbass transition because both drivers have been shifted forward the same amount.


I feel bad I made you type all that :blush:

I'm on board with the point your making - basically a sub-sonic filter on the input to apply the induced phase change to all the outputs.

On the "Input & Bass Mgt" tab of the plug-in - I don't think the "HPF" box is meant for a subsonic filter though.. as it's not applied to the subwoofer signal chain but to all other drivers?

Actually I really don't understand the need for the bass mgt function in our application. And since the Dirac measurement signal is fed after the xover filters here - I don't see how the phase is linearized through them with Dirac


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> -Screen shots posted by naiku-


Hmmm, I guess my inclination to believe getting the sub/L/R targets level alignments correct is mistaken.

We really need to figure out what is causing this low sub level issue. My current tune that I posted two days ago does not have this issue - The sub & midbass levels are dynamic and pleasing - at the same levels they were in my pre-Dirac tune with which I competed. Hopefully this issue will not show itself with subsequent tunes I'm planning.


----------



## naiku

What I might do is copy the preset to a new slot, keep one with the sub at -12dB and the other at -20dB and just listen to them for a while. I should also measure both with REW to see what things look like.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

If you guys haven't already, the MiniDSP devteam should be notified about the subwoofer level challenges that you guys are running into.


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Just got done with a quick 2 (well, really 5.... Left, Right, Sub, Left Rear and Right Rear tune). Before running Dirac I took nearfield measurements and just knocked down some of the higher peaks.
> 
> The Dirac tune sounds good, but is lacking the midbass / sub bass that I had with my last manual tune. The subwoofer volume is set to -2dB, on the output tab, to not have it clip during measurements I had it set to -20dB. To get any real noticeable volume from the sub I have to bump it back up to -12dB but it then sounds like it sort of throws things off a little. I was only able to give it a really brief listen though, might tinker some more throughout the week.
> 
> Overall volume is weird as well, but I can't determine if that is me coming from the tablet and optical to a Kenwood and RCA's. Seems really quiet below about 20 (out of 40) but then at 30 gets really loud.




You know, sometimes I’ve had a crossover scheme that on rew is textbook 
Perfect and sounds excellent, phase delay is smooth and measures almost exactly like the electrical, tells me the crossover is purely minimum phase behavior, than I run Dirac and the end result sounds like the crossover regions are canceling. 

I’ve had this happen to me a few times. 

I don’t know if Dirac is purposely causing the cancelations or if it knows that’s how it’s going to end up.


The stage sounds nice and ambient and wide and all that seems ok but there’s a new interaction issue that is quite undesirable going on.

I honestly don’t know why this happens sometimes. I’ve had it happen a few times. I had something in the dsp that the end result didn’t agree with. 

I can’t remember what I did to fix it, I want to say I added a few points of delay to one of the drivers than re ran Dirac. 

Does the sound get better at all if you add a little delay to one of the speakers , like the midbass, have you tried adding up to 1ms equally just to see if the interaction is better between drivers.


----------



## ErinH

naiku said:


> Left:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subwoofer:


The thing I'm concerned with here is the measured subwoofer response vs the target response below 40hz and above 60hz. Or, another way of looking at it: only 40-60hz syncs up with the target curve pre-DL filter. There's more than 10dB between those two curves below 40hz and a loooooot of delta between the two above 60hz (getting higher than 15dB at 100hz, for example). DL is basically flying blind here; it's going to do what you tell it to do - within reason. IIRC, our version of DL has a maximum boost of 10dB and I don't see anywhere for us to change that value. So, let's assume DL is trying to boost those frequencies as much as it can ... in those two regions I mentioned it's in need of >10dB so it's going to boost certain frequencies up to 10dB to match the target. I would expect this to be 'taken off the top' of the master volume; leaving little headroom (if any) in your system. Not only that, but it won't be able to reach your target on the sub if it is indeed limited to 10dB boosts and that's going to effect the midbass area. I would suggest maybe trying some of these things: 
bumping the sub level up as much as you can and letting DL cut the 40-60hz region to match, 
altering your target by pulling down frequencies so it fits better to the measured response (especially on the low end where you may run out of excursion anyway below 30hz), or
simply use the sub in conjunction with your right and left speakers and stick with using DL for 2-channel (left and right) correction with the sub as part of each channel. But you'll have to account for how you have the sub mixed; meaning that when you play one side + sub then the subwoofer level would be down 6dB when you play both sides at the same time. So somehow you'd have to adjust for this if you have the subwoofer channel playing summed mono from left and right inputs.
edit: adjust your targeted crossover points so your targeted subwoofer slope is more in-line with the natural response as it integrates with the midbass. IOW, on the minidsp, relax the slope of the sub's low pass filter and see if that lines up with the target more naturally.

Don't shoot me if those suggestions don't help. I can give you a list of names if you want to shoot someone. Just PM me first and we can talk it out.


----------



## Truthunter

Erin,
I did the same thing in the tune I posted. Below is a snippet of my post.

Note: Sub target is above measured response. I tried upping the sub level on the output tabs of the plugin and re-measuring but the measured response level remained the same even though the sweep of the sub sounded louder which didn't make sense to me. I eventually just rolled with it and optimized anyway. The result was the sub channel gain shown in the plugin on the Dirac tab after optimization was -17db <<< yes negative gain.

So 2 things happened that don't make sense here:
1. The higher audible sweep is not plotting higher on the filter design screen.
2. Though the target is above the measured response - the algorithm is applying negative gain.



Truthunter said:


> Below are some screen shots. You'll notice my targets have some nulls built in so that DLCT would not boost nulls in the midbass. Also you'll notice the sub target is above the measured response: I tried upping the level of the sub to try and meet up with the target but no matter what I did the measured response stayed the same even though I could hear the sweeps were louder which baffled me. After several attempts to correct it I just decided to roll with it and see what happens - it worked just fine and the Dirac tab is showing the sub channel level being cut 17db so not sure what is going on but it worked.
> 
> Sub:


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> The thing
> Don't shoot me if those suggestions don't help. I can give you a list of names if you want to shoot someone.


Erin have you lost your marbles.

Nobody wants to shoot anyone. If you do feel that way about a chat forum about car stereos maybe should take a break. 
Furthermore, if someone feels like killing someone over a car stereo they need to be seen by a professional.

Seriously are you okay man. 

I hope you were kidding. 
Or joking 

I’m going to think your joking ......

But if your nicely joking , I’ll be happy to Be put at the top of your list. Your oldskool. I would feel honored to be concidered one of the people you want to shoot (hypothetically) because I would die for standing up for what I believe to Be true instead of falling in step with BORING old ways that are washed up.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> The thing I'm concerned with here is the measured subwoofer response vs the target response below 40hz and above 60hz. Or, another way of looking at it: only 40-60hz syncs up with the target curve pre-DL filter. There's more than 10dB between those two curves below 40hz and a loooooot of delta between the two above 60hz (getting higher than 15dB at 100hz, for example).


Ian, can you check the Dirac tab in the plugin and tell us what Gain is listed on the Sub channel?


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> Erin have you lost your marbles.
> 
> Nobody wants to shoot anyone. If you do feel that way about a chat forum about car stereos maybe should take a break.
> Furthermore, if someone feels like killing someone over a car stereo they need to be seen by a professional.
> 
> Seriously are you okay man.
> 
> I hope you were kidding.
> Or joking
> 
> I’m going to think your joking ......



yowza...

Ian and I know each other. So, yes, definitely kidding.


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> yowza...
> 
> Ian and I know each other. So, yes, definitely kidding.


Okay! 

As you were .



Just had my moment where once again I feel , cryptically a thousand fingers get pointed at me for talking. 


I’m back to normal now


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> Erin,
> I did the same thing in the tune I posted. Below is a snippet of my post.
> 
> Note: Sub target is above measured response. I tried upping the sub level on the output tabs of the plugin and re-measuring but the measured response level remained the same even though the sweep of the sub sounded louder which didn't make sense to me. I eventually just rolled with it and optimized anyway. The result was the sub channel gain shown in the plugin on the Dirac tab after optimization was -17db <<< yes negative gain.
> 
> So 2 things happened that don't make sense here:
> 1. The higher audible sweep is not plotting higher on the filter design screen.
> 2. Though the target is above the measured response - the algorithm is applying negative gain.


With as many variables as there are it’s just too hard to know for sure what’s going on. Might help to just start from the top... sorry if you’ve addressed this all before. 

When you ran it, was the subwoofer designated as a subwoofer via the checkbox in the DL GUI input/output window (where you set your mic and output levels)? Or did you leave that unchecked? On the minidsp Dirac input menu do you have bass management activated (are the channels’ crossovers set to bypass or are you implementing a filter there)? Same questions for Ian. 

Hopefully this weekend I can get some hands on time and sort through this stuff in tandem with y’all. I honestly feel like this process should be simpler and I really think it has more to do with us not using it as intended (as a 2-channel left/right setup) but I am absolutely down for exploring it outside of the intended use just for kicks. But maybe it’s better to start from basics and understand how to implement it that way, then move on to the more fun stuff. Scorched earth... burn it all down and start back over... that’s the only way I can save myself from me. LOL.


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> Okay!
> 
> As you were .
> 
> 
> 
> Just had my moment where once again I feel , cryptically a thousand fingers get pointed at me for talking.
> 
> 
> I’m back to normal now


Dude. No one on this forum would be on my list. Maybe my ignore list. I save the Ian list for the boneheads in traffic.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> With as many variables as there are it’s just too hard to know for sure what’s going on. Might help to just start from the top... sorry if you’ve addressed this all before.
> 
> When you ran it, was the subwoofer designated as a subwoofer via the checkbox in the DL GUI input/output window (where you set your mic and output levels)? Or did you leave that unchecked? On the minidsp Dirac input menu do you have bass management activated (are the channels’ crossovers set to bypass or are you implementing a filter there)? Same questions for Ian.
> 
> Hopefully this weekend I can get some hands on time and sort through this stuff in tandem with y’all. I honestly feel like this process should be simpler and I really think it has more to do with us not using it as intended (as a 2-channel left/right setup) but I am absolutely down for exploring it outside of the intended use just for kicks. But maybe it’s better to start from basics and understand how to implement it that way, then move on to the more fun stuff. Scorched earth... burn it all down and start back over... that’s the only way I can save myself from me. LOL.


So what I have is a 3ch Dirac setup = L, R, Sub

I did check the subwoofer box on Dirac3 (The sub channel) before testing levels and measuring. 

I did not use the Bass Mgt: All filters on that tab are bypassed and all inputs are set to off feeding bass mgt. Instead I routed the L/R Sub preouts from my headunit directly into Dirac3 on the routing tab. I have all processing in the headunit bypassed (no xover, eq, or delay) and the sub level is set to max (15). Headunit is an Alpine X008U.

Just jumped in the car and took some screen shots of a few plug-in tabs:

Input & Bass Mgt. tab:











Routing Tab:











Dirac tab showing -17.7db gain on Dirac3 (Sub) channel:


----------



## banshee28

oabeieo said:


> I actually think I’m going back to my ddrc22d and 2x4hds
> I kinda miss that rabbihole of delays and all linear phase crossovers before DL


 I really like the idea of only a 2 CH Dirac tune... Mostly since I only have a ddrc24, LOL....
So I would like some advise on the best way to set this up. I have a 3-way front, plus Sub. I think I need to simply have ALL left plus the L ch of the Sub on Dirac 1 and similar for the Right side. Then tune as discussed through this post, including some finer details in the below quotes... 

I will have basic TA and XO done of course first.... Those 2 ddrc24 outputs will go to my Helix P6, but all EQ on the Helix will be bypassed. I will have the Sub XO and levels set on the P6 SUB outputs but simply passing through to the SUB AMP, right? 

Oh, and would it make any difference if the pre-tune is set in the Helix OR DDRC24? 



oabeieo said:


> 2 or 3ch DL for fronts with sub
> 
> Do your pre ta how you want.
> 
> I chose the 8ch TA numbers with excellent results, tape measure is fine also
> Or do some measurements and see how they align.
> Whatever , just do 2 or 3 ch DL
> 
> If have rears do 4 or 5 ch DL





oabeieo said:


> 2ch mode will linearize crossover phase distortion
> Multichannel won’t see the phase change as it’s at the beginning and end only and it may ignore that.
> 
> So you’ll get better “phase” between all drivers on 2ch
> 
> Each Dirac channel was intended for a full spectrum stereo channel
> 
> 2ch on fronts is definitely how it should be used, you could add the sub also if your GD is low and TA is clean, I did it that way for a long time.


----------



## oliverlim

naiku said:


> Just got done with a quick 2 (well, really 5.... Left, Right, Sub, Left Rear and Right Rear tune). Before running Dirac I took nearfield measurements and just knocked down some of the higher peaks.
> 
> The Dirac tune sounds good, but is lacking the midbass / sub bass that I had with my last manual tune. The subwoofer volume is set to -2dB, on the output tab, to not have it clip during measurements I had it set to -20dB. To get any real noticeable volume from the sub I have to bump it back up to -12dB but it then sounds like it sort of throws things off a little. I was only able to give it a really brief listen though, might tinker some more throughout the week.
> 
> Overall volume is weird as well, but I can't determine if that is me coming from the tablet and optical to a Kenwood and RCA's. Seems really quiet below about 20 (out of 40) but then at 30 gets really loud.


There is just something strange and not consistent in what Dirac is measuring and doing on its final tune on subwoofers. 

1. Some positions just throw off clipping in the measurements. The manual and helpdesk just tell you to lower the sub channel in Dirac and remeasure just that position. So what does it do in that case? Do you move it back to the original position for the rest of the position?( I do this)

2. Some final tune results in that large negative Subwoofer volume. Why? No idea. It sometimes sounds ok, sometimes just too bass light. I forget to do a RTA just to see what the issue could be in those situations.

3. Some of my memory slots seems to change its subwoofer volume up a few db. Now sure how it could happen but the knob was not touched and it is under master volume mode. This happens every once in a while. Like I know it is in 0db subwoofer. then when I go do a new tune and I check the values for that same memory slot, it has moved to +3db subwoofer volume. Bug?


----------



## Holmz

I take it that phas is not able to be plotted(?)...


----------



## subterFUSE

Holmz said:


> I take it that phas is not able to be plotted(?)...




Not with Dirac. But I can measure with Smaart afterward and get a phase plot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Ian, can you check the Dirac tab in the plugin and tell us what Gain is listed on the Sub channel?


I'll double check it later today, but IIRC it was at -11dB on mine. 




ErinH said:


> With as many variables as there are it’s just too hard to know for sure what’s going on. Might help to just start from the top... sorry if you’ve addressed this all before.
> 
> When you ran it, was the subwoofer designated as a subwoofer via the checkbox in the DL GUI input/output window (where you set your mic and output levels)? Or did you leave that unchecked? On the minidsp Dirac input menu do you have bass management activated (are the channels’ crossovers set to bypass or are you implementing a filter there)? Same questions for Ian.


Subwoofer checked in the output window, bass management activated but no crossovers there instead I have that set on the output tab. I am planning to try a couple of your suggestions later this afternoon, specifically numbers 2 and 4. 



oliverlim said:


> 1. Some positions just throw off clipping in the measurements. The manual and helpdesk just tell you to lower the sub channel in Dirac and remeasure just that position. So what does it do in that case? Do you move it back to the original position for the rest of the position?( I do this)


That's what I have done previously, annoying, but seems to be OK.


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> I did check the subwoofer box on Dirac3 (The sub channel) before testing levels and measuring.





naiku said:


> Subwoofer checked in the output window




Ok. I _think _the quoted is key here. In short, an LFE channel is typically expected from an AVR (for home theater purposes). From an AVR these channels are boosted 10dB. 

Since you checked the ‘subwoofer’ box in the DLCT menu, you’ve designated that channel as an LFE channel and thus told DL that channel will be receiving a +10dB signal from an AVR or some other ‘LFE’ channel. Now, you probably have gathered, after running some sweeps, that DL sweeps are fully internal; it’s self-generated and there is no external source for their stimulus. Case in point, if you have your radio playing in your car while you’re setting up miniDSP and then switch over to DL GUI, DL takes over and ignores the input signal so it can run the sweeps and measure the response. Since DL receives no external stimulus and depends on the user to tell it what function it serves, the LFE channel sweep is boosted by 10dB in DL because that’s what it expects to receive from an AVR; so it just accounts for that when it runs the sweeps. Then - after DL has done it’s thing and matched the response of the interally-generated sweeps to your target - when you play your stereo from the RCA outputs of your headunit (which doesn’t apply a +10dB increase for the LFE purpose) the result is the subwoofer volume being too low. Which makes sense because the measured vs target curve match looks good (at least in Ryan's case). But when you exit DL and play music off a non-LFE channel like your headunit’s subwoofer out, you’re not providing the miniDSP that extra 10dB DL was told it would have, and you have no more bass. 

TLDR: Try unchecking the ‘subwoofer’ box. DL expects a +10dB boost from an LFE channel but you’re not actually giving it that from your headunit.


----------



## naiku

ErinH said:


> Try unchecking the ‘subwoofer’ box. DL expects a +10dB boost from an LFE channel but you’re not actually giving it that from your headunit.


I'll make sure to give that a try later along with the other suggestions, started work not long after 5 this morning, so should be able to either grab a longer lunch break or sign off early and spend some time taking measurements.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> Ok. I _think _the quoted is key here. In short, an LFE channel is typically expected from an AVR (for home theater purposes). From an AVR these channels are boosted 10dB.
> 
> Since you checked the ‘subwoofer’ box in the DLCT menu, you’ve designated that channel as an LFE channel and thus told DL that channel will be receiving a +10dB signal from an AVR or some other ‘LFE’ channel. Now, you probably have gathered, after running some sweeps, that DL sweeps are fully internal; it’s self-generated and there is no external source for their stimulus. Case in point, if you have your radio playing in your car while you’re setting up miniDSP and then switch over to DL GUI, DL takes over and ignores the input signal so it can run the sweeps and measure the response. Since DL receives no external stimulus and depends on the user to tell it what function it serves, the LFE channel sweep is boosted by 10dB in DL because that’s what it expects to receive from an AVR; so it just accounts for that when it runs the sweeps. Then - after DL has done it’s thing and matched the response of the interally-generated sweeps to your target - when you play your stereo from the RCA outputs of your headunit (which doesn’t apply a +10dB increase for the LFE purpose) the result is the subwoofer volume being too low. Which makes sense because the measured vs target curve match looks good (at least in Ryan's case). But when you exit DL and play music off a non-LFE channel like your headunit’s subwoofer out, you’re not providing the miniDSP that extra 10dB DL was told it would have, and you have no more bass.
> 
> TLDR: Try unchecking the ‘subwoofer’ box. DL expects a +10dB boost from an LFE channel but you’re not actually giving it that from your headunit.



Erin,

I'm a manual reader before attempting type of person. Page 25 shows an illustration of where the Dirac test signal are "injected" in the signal path. This is important to me because I previously used the HU sub level control to control sub level on the fly and would tune with it at 10 (out of 15) to give some room to turn it up. But realized that would not work with the DL upgrade because the test signal does not originate from the HU. So if the test signal does not contain this lower level for the sub then had to make sure my source did not either.

This LFE angle is a good theory but not sure if it's correct... it would have to be tested. First off the this current tune that I have going is not lacking in sub-bass at all... though my first attempted tune was.

I had considered the LFE issue as being the cause of low sub output. Actually was not familiar with LFE so I did some reading to familiarize myself (I'm not a HT enthusiest)... Low Frequency Effects signal boosted by 10db.


But reading through the user manual the only mention of LFE is here on page 40:

"For a 5.1 source that applies the “10 dB LFE gain,” use 5.1 Speaker System"


So just from reading the user manual I figured LFE was not the issue as I was not choosing "5.1 Speaker System" in the Dirac app sound system tab... so therefore thinking the App was not treating the subwoofer channel as an LFE signal.

And there is no indication in the manual that corresponds LFE to the subwoofer checkbox on the Output & Levels tab. Page 42 of the manual describes the function of the subwoofer checkbox:

"The subwoofer checkbox tells the Dirac Live analysis algorithm to use a different method to detect the impulse on that channel, which in turn affects the delay that will be assigned to that channel. This is needed because of the limited frequency response of the subwoofer."


Again, just from reading the manual I don't think this is an LFE function issue - but I think it should be tested because manuals aren't always 100%.


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Again, just from reading the manual I don't think this is an LFE function issue - but I think it should be tested because manuals aren't always 100%.


That's why I am happy to test later, I figure anything that will help us all to get a repeatable process to getting the best results, that I think we all know are possible, with Dirac makes sense to at least try. 

If it blows up something, I get to shoot Erin (or take the Mac amp) :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> Erin,
> 
> I'm a manual reader before attempting type of person. Page 25 shows an illustration of where the Dirac test signal are "injected" in the signal path. This is important to me because I previously used the HU sub level control to control sub level on the fly and would tune with it at 10 (out of 15) to give some room to turn it up. But realized that would not work with the DL upgrade because the test signal does not originate from the HU. So if the test signal does not contain this lower level for the sub then had to make sure my source did not either.
> 
> This LFE angle is a good theory but not sure if it's correct... it would have to be tested. First off the this current tune that I have going is not lacking in sub-bass at all... though my first attempted tune was.
> 
> I had considered the LFE issue as being the cause of low sub output. Actually was not familiar with LFE so I did some reading to familiarize myself (I'm not a HT enthusiest)... Low Frequency Effects signal boosted by 10db.
> 
> 
> But reading through the user manual the only mention of LFE is here on page 40:
> 
> "For a 5.1 source that applies the “10 dB LFE gain,” use 5.1 Speaker System"
> 
> 
> So just from reading the user manual I figured LFE was not the issue as I was not choosing "5.1 Speaker System" in the Dirac app sound system tab... so therefore thinking the App was not treating the subwoofer channel as an LFE signal.
> 
> And there is no indication in the manual that corresponds LFE to the subwoofer checkbox on the Output & Levels tab. Page 42 of the manual describes the function of the subwoofer checkbox:
> 
> "The subwoofer checkbox tells the Dirac Live analysis algorithm to use a different method to detect the impulse on that channel, which in turn affects the delay that will be assigned to that channel. This is needed because of the limited frequency response of the subwoofer."
> 
> 
> Again, just from reading the manual I don't think this is an LFE function issue - but I think it should be tested because manuals aren't always 100%.



The reason I think the subwoofer check box corresponds with the LFE channel is because when subwoofer is checked I definitely heard a different stimulus. Also, I don't see what the purpose of the subwoofer check box would be if not to account for this boost, again, since DL doesn't know the source signal will or won't be boosted without you telling it; and the last thing they'd want you to do is mess with the subwoofer level after the fact. I don't have anything solid to base this on, just some "if/then" assumptions that I gave. But, it's simple enough to find out by running the setup without the sub box checked. I don't care about being right or wrong. I care about getting the most out of this thing so I'm just trying to provide some options and logic as to why I'm suggesting what I am. 


Also, Ian, I still recommend you reconsider the subwoofer target you've used. I can't help but think that DL is trying hard to get to that and just can't do it without boosting a whole lot of frequencies. And, no, you can't have my Mc amp!!!!!!


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> I'm a manual reader


You mean you don't have someone read to you?... You read things yourself?! You're living in the dark ages, man. You gotta get you a robot to do the reading for you. Or at least book on tape.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> You mean you don't have someone read to you?... You read things yourself?! You're living in the dark ages, man. You gotta get you a robot to do the reading for you. Or at least book on tape.


Lol, I do live in the dark ages somewhat but I'm catching up... Just got my first smart phone this past winter :laugh:


----------



## oliverlim

ErinH said:


> The reason I think the subwoofer check box corresponds with the LFE channel is because when subwoofer is checked I definitely heard a different stimulus. Also, I don't see what the purpose of the subwoofer check box would be if not to account for this boost, again, since DL doesn't know the source signal will or won't be boosted without you telling it; and the last thing they'd want you to do is mess with the subwoofer level after the fact. I don't have anything solid to base this on, just some "if/then" assumptions that I gave. But, it's simple enough to find out by running the setup without the sub box checked. I don't care about being right or wrong. I care about getting the most out of this thing so I'm just trying to provide some options and logic as to why I'm suggesting what I am.
> 
> 
> Also, Ian, I still recommend you reconsider the subwoofer target you've used. I can't help but think that DL is trying hard to get to that and just can't do it without boosting a whole lot of frequencies. And, no, you can't have my Mc amp!!!!!!


I believe the main reason for the subwoofer option in the dlct app is for the subwoofer volume control. In subwoofer vol mode, the vol knob controls the boost Or cuts for those channels marked as subwoofer in the dlct app.


----------



## ErinH

oliverlim said:


> I believe the main reason for the subwoofer option in the dlct app is for the subwoofer volume control. In subwoofer vol mode, the vol knob controls the boost Or cuts for those channels marked as subwoofer in the dlct app.


Well, there you go.


----------



## Truthunter

oliverlim said:


> I believe the main reason for the subwoofer option in the dlct app is for the subwoofer volume control. In subwoofer vol mode, the vol knob controls the boost Or cuts for those channels marked as subwoofer in the dlct app.


Could be but why wouldn't the manual state that?

The manual only states that "the subwoofer checkbox tells the Dirac Live analysis algorithm to use a different method to detect the impulse on that channel... because of the limited frequency response of the subwoofer" which makes sense.

Pretty sure the remote sub level control, which has to be assigned as outlined in section 7.3 on page 55 of the manual, only affects the output levels, as it does in the Non-DL version, outside of the Dirac function.... Which is why I think they include the note in section 5.3.3 - "Check that the subwoofer volume is set to zero. (Remember that this volume is relative to the master volume. Zero is typically the best setting to use for calibration.)"

But then again, manuals aren't always %100 correct or complete so :shrug:


----------



## oabeieo

banshee28 said:


> I really like the idea of only a 2 CH Dirac tune... Mostly since I only have a ddrc24, LOL....
> So I would like some advise on the best way to set this up. I have a 3-way front, plus Sub. I think I need to simply have ALL left plus the L ch of the Sub on Dirac 1 and similar for the Right side. Then tune as discussed through this post, including some finer details in the below quotes...
> 
> I will have basic TA and XO done of course first.... Those 2 ddrc24 outputs will go to my Helix P6, but all EQ on the Helix will be bypassed. I will have the Sub XO and levels set on the P6 SUB outputs but simply passing through to the SUB AMP, right?
> 
> Oh, and would it make any difference if the pre-tune is set in the Helix OR DDRC24?




Honestly , Dirac does it’s thing the way it wants to, 

Some say a pretune is the way, I find it over corrected, and after reading the diracdoc I can see why I find it over corrected as it’s meant to ignore certain things 

It’s mire about retraining your ears to accept the new ways of listening 
And it’s better! I went back to the old ways several times and was so disappointed once I gave it a chance and let it do it. 


I do however strongly believe in a post Dirac tune for taste and for better crossover interaction, the Dirac doesn’t know how good or bad the crossovers will interact after its correction and sometimes a little delay needs to be added to a speaker after to get things staging and sounding good again. And just for personal taste 


A ddrc with a helix is solid way to go. Although I hate the helix file structure, it’s still a very good dsp. The C would do as good or better 


But Dirac does what it wants? Sometimes the after just needs a little love.
But even a little tweaking after Dirac is still miles better than what you do with just peq 


If you haven’t bought that yes I would get the C 

If you have the helix get the ddrc it will work fine


Edit:

I would still keep your helix functioning for crossovers and some tuning bound that as well. A ddrc upstream would be fantastic (I’ve done it actually)


----------



## oabeieo

I just tried 8ch Dirac 
But linked all channels to single eq (so it behaves like 2ch Dirac but it does delays


I tryed it before with very screwed up results,

This time it’s good, it sounds correct 

I don’t know if anyone else wants to try it also, 
I think last time I was boosting somewhere , 

It shouldn’t work but it is actually pretty good. 


I’ll measure the phase tonight in rew and see what it’s doing. 


Minidsp has never said anything about doing it this way, I’m still a little confused why this time it’s working very decent, and last time it was a mess

:-/


Maybe last time I had gaps in crossover region and wanted to add boosts after crossover s or my target wasn’t low enough 

Idk but it seems to sound a awful lot like 2ch Dirac now, your guess is as good as mine ....



I know I’ve said this is bad way, 
I’m just screwing around , and ended up working now. 

I’m only posting this if anyone else wants to try it 

If you have some 8ch measurements, linked all to one target and load a curve 
I’m just curious if anyone else’s sounds good doing this


----------



## naiku

OK, just got done with some measurements.... tried with the subwoofer not checked on the output tab, seemed to make no real noticeable difference (either visually or auditory), certainly not a 10dB difference if it were thinking it was an LFE channel or not. 

So, went back and took new measurements with it set as a subwoofer. I had tweaked the LPF from 24db to an 18db slope. I also modified the target to more closely resemble the measured response from the sub:










Overall Dirac response:









Measured REW (1/3 smoothing, pink noise, sweeps around the head):









Looking at the REW response, I think the output of the mids could be lowered. They play 800 - 4200Hz, which seems to coincide right with that bump. That could also explain some of the harshness at higher volumes. 

But.... overall it is sounding a WHOLE lot better. The subwoofer is still lacking some for me, although it does match between REW and Dirac (about a 13-14dB swing from one end to the other). I think the next time I will try to raise the subwoofer in the output tab by 2-3dB, lower the mids 4-5dB and re-measure. Might find time to do that later today, especially now I know what level on the output tab seems to work for all positions. 

My only real complaint currently........ Overall volume. Again, I am not sure if this is a behaviour difference between tablet and head unit. It just seems odd to me that for it to be loud (hitting 100dB playing music) that I have to have it at 75% volume. That could absolutely just be me though, especially as it is plenty loud enough, just odd to have to turn it up so much for it to be loud.


----------



## Holmz

subterFUSE said:


> Not with Dirac. But I can measure with Smaart afterward and get a phase plot.


I think that looking at the phase for the sub, and the mid bass separately... will show if anything 'untoward' is happening in the cross over region.


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> I think that looking at the phase for the sub, and the mid bass separately... will show if anything 'untoward' is happening in the cross over region.


Totally agree, 

And if he can do overlays with smaart man that could help us,

I’ve only been able to compare single measurements of individual speakers and a measurement of two (or more) speakers in REW with the same mic location and same windowing methods etc. 

It’s clear to me it’s not trying so much to “linearize” or make phase flat, as much as it’s trying to make the phase the same for bolth left and right , the entire transfer function. I’ve seen the phase still have some GD properties and some wraps from XOs , but left and Right were so so much alike vs with Dirac off.


With smaart he should really be able to see what’s going on every step of the way, 


John please do! I’ll put my learning hat on and let you take it away.


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> My only real complaint currently........ Overall volume. Again, I am not sure if this is a behaviour difference between tablet and head unit. It just seems odd to me that for it to be loud (hitting 100dB playing music) that I have to have it at 75% volume. That could absolutely just be me though, especially as it is plenty loud enough, just odd to have to turn it up so much for it to be loud.




I think that’s pretty normal with a lot of eq cuts, but unfortunately it’s necessary to make big cuts or it’s just worse. You should still have enough overall volume tho 


As far as the harshness, can you isolate what frequencies it sounds harsh at? 

Do you think maybe (just maybe) it’s one of the speakers disagreeing with the correction, 

I have extremely efficient speakers that are so capable of any kind of eq you throw at them and this sometimes can put them right up to the end of what they want to do. Meaning, 

If the speaker naturally wants to play a certain way and your asking it to do something opposite of how it wants to behave it could make it harsh kinda quickly or prematurely. Follow what I’m saying...

If you can isolate the frequencies that’s making it harsh , you could try a different crossover or maybe some eq to tame it and let another speaker play the part it’s breaking up (if that’s even possible?) 

Just some ideas .......


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> As far as the harshness, can you isolate what frequencies it sounds harsh at?


Not sure exactly which frequencies yet, it's towards the higher end of female vocals. Need to give it a longer listen to be sure though.

Anyway, so I knocked down the mids by 4dB and increased the subwoofer by 3dB, then re-measured. I think I am experiencing the same thing that Ryan did with his measurements and the sub...



Truthunter said:


> I tried upping the level of the sub to try and meet up with the target but no matter what I did the measured response stayed the same even though I could hear the sweeps were louder which baffled me.


The sweep sounded louder, visually they looked larger on the DLCT measuring screen, I also just compared the sub response on the filter design tab and it is exactly the same, despite me turning it up. Weird.

Anyway, took new measurements, loaded my target and now making some real good progress with this. Latest REW (1/6 smoothing) response looks like this:









I'm thinking if I can cure that dip around 55Hz that I may well be completely happy with this particular tune.


----------



## oliverlim

oabeieo said:


> It’s clear to me it’s not trying so much to “linearize” or make phase flat, as much as it’s trying to make the phase the same for bolth left and right , the entire transfer function. I’ve seen the phase still have some GD properties and some wraps from XOs , but left and Right were so so much alike vs with Dirac off.


Are you in on the beta 2.0? I understand that one of the main upgrades on 2.0 DL is a better phase correctiOn between pairs of speakers. 

“In addition to the usability upgrades, the new Dirac Live also includes an enhanced phase correction algorithm for improved stereo reproduction. Where the previous version of Dirac Live individually measured the phase of each stereo speaker, this new version also analyzes speakers in pairs, which ensures that the pair's phase responses are matched to each other.”

I am still hoping they release it soon. So that I can stop tinkering so much in my car. Wife is going to wonder soon why I am always sneaking to my car with my laptop in tow.....


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> The sweep sounded louder, visually they looked larger on the DLCT measuring screen, I also just compared the sub response on the filter design tab and it is exactly the same, despite me turning it up. Weird.


Right... I did it over three times turning the sub up 4db at a time and saw no difference on the filter design screen. Bloody Wonky


----------



## Truthunter

oliverlim said:


> Are you in on the beta 2.0? I understand that one of the main upgrades on 2.0 DL is a better phase correctiOn between pairs of speakers.
> 
> “In addition to the usability upgrades, the new Dirac Live also includes an enhanced phase correction algorithm for improved stereo reproduction. Where the previous version of Dirac Live individually measured the phase of each stereo speaker, this new version also analyzes speakers in pairs, which ensures that the pair's phase responses are matched to each other.”
> 
> I am still hoping they release it soon. So that I can stop tinkering so much in my car. Wife is going to wonder soon why I am always sneaking to my car with my laptop in tow.....


IDK, it seems to do a decent job of that already. I mean, on a standard DSP, if I were to set delays by distance, then eq L/R to the same target and then measure the combined response with mono pink noise - the response would be all over the place because of phase differences between the two sides. There is a popular tuning guide that instructs it be done that way but it never produced good results for me. Dirac seems to take care of those differences as the combined overall measured response basically follows the targets set for each side.


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Not sure exactly which frequencies yet, it's towards the higher end of female vocals. Need to give it a longer listen to be sure though.
> 
> .



So somewhere in the tweeter to mid crossover, uugh yeah that’s tough to get right no doubt. 


I would try starting with the tweeter channels in PEQ link them together, than set a peq to a Q of 1.7 , turn it down to -6db , than listen and move the frequency slider up/down and try to see if the mode goes away, than do the same thing to the mid and try the same thing. Try to isolate that frequency, 
Moving the frequency slider trying and listening to find that spot! And which driver it’s on 

When you find the exact spot turn it back up to 0 and now you know where the problem is , , now try different crossovers , steeper slopes or move it up or down and try to get the other speaker to cover that band more (if you can) 

If you can’t , you might try steeper or shallower slopes to take the load off and let adjacent speaker do more there...


If all else fails , try using your target and creating a notch in that band and that should (hopefully lessen its effects) the latter will only put a small dip in response, I would start with -2db and work that area 



oliverlim said:


> Are you in on the beta 2.0? I understand that one of the main upgrades on 2.0 DL is a better phase correctiOn between pairs of speakers.
> 
> “In addition to the usability upgrades, the new Dirac Live also includes an enhanced phase correction algorithm for improved stereo reproduction. Where the previous version of Dirac Live individually measured the phase of each stereo speaker, this new version also analyzes speakers in pairs, which ensures that the pair's phase responses are matched to each other.”
> 
> I am still hoping they release it soon. So that I can stop tinkering so much in my car. Wife is going to wonder soon why I am always sneaking to my car with my laptop in tow.....




Yes beta .... I was able to load filters into my ddrc22d as I got a set of measurements made in the C , literally the next day they ended the beta so I got super lucky to have clean measurements and working filters that work with my C .....

The beta had ended so I can’t take any new measurements until the release 




So, to clarify , the current version makes both sides have as close as possible the same impulse (within its parameters) and does nothing about how the stereo pair interact.

In 2.0 (which is hot diggity dog for us) it looks at combfiltering between the stereo pair caused by one side being farther and having to use signal delays (which cause a whole new set of comb-filters) so it addresses some of that. 

It doesn't do anything about comb-filtering caused by multiple reflections and compound reflections (copies of copies of sound arriving late) because that is just not possible. 

Yeah the ddrc should be first to release, I’m anxiously waiting!

It’s only a slight improvement over what we have now. But still an improvement, 
And the auto target is very intuitive, the auto target is actually really bad ass, where the auto target on ours now is the same for everything and everyone’s systems, and has nothing to do with the target and how it sounds on your specific measurements. In 2.0 the auto target is the cats meow


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> Right... I did it over three times turning the sub up 4db at a time and saw no difference on the filter design screen. Bloody Wonky




I don’t think giving sub more gain and than measurements is going to change anything, it will just add or subtract gain to match the target, (unless I’m not understanding you right) 


I do my sub measurements with my sub bass knob very very low (1/8th way up) 

That way I have the added gain at the end, 



I know you guys want to stick to a target and not deviate, but honestly, 
Heat changes the sub output, and different recordings have different bass. 


I know what you meant in previous posts to have good bass and not have to crank it up , I do know what you mean. I agree with that also, and I too like sq bass , I’m not a bass head , I just like to hear it right compared to the rest of the music. but in my experience, and tell me what you think about this . 


Like , I’ll measure with Dirac, set my targets , I’ll be super happy , the next day on way to work when it’s about 50deg hotter in my car, the bass just seems whimsy compared to last night, almost as if something changed. 

The sub is almost purely minimum phase behavior, so turning it up with a bass knob to restore just enough so it’s sounds right again dosent make any ill effects on the sub. It just restores the bass for the conditions.

I’ve had excellent luck doing that. , it’s super easy to hear when the blend is right, I know you can hear it come together within a dB or two, it’s super obvious when the level is back, the ambiance comes back, the midbass is enhanced almost when the Harmonics between sub and midbass are just right and play together. 


I still think maybe this is all that is needed. I had the same issues and this solved it for me , and gave me control over every different recording type and current road noise conditions. 

Am I off base?


----------



## tonynca

Newbie question: could you specify the sub crossover slope to whatever you want? 

If you could, you should use 48db slopes so using a bass knob won't affect cohesion so much since you're using FIR filters. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Newbie question: could you specify the sub crossover slope to whatever you want?
> 
> If you could, you should use 48db slopes so using a bass knob won't affect cohesion so much since you're using FIR filters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Not noob , 


But yeah you could , if one wanted 


Or do like a 40hz 12db 

The thing is , Dirac will “correct” any slope you put on it to match your target 
Unless your target follows that shape .


If it’s in a post Dirac situation where you lower or add steeper slop than by all means 



But , I don’t think it’s always necessary 

I’ve experienced where the sub just simply looses power based on conditions, and that is in step with pro audio in concerts , FOH ppl are always adjusting the bass real time as heat from venue rises and conditions just change 
And face it out in car conditions change quite a bit.

With the old way of tuning sub you more than likely didn’t have near the eq on the sub, so it could be some frequency are changing while others are not. 
And wasn’t noticed as much. 
It really is hard to say, 


But to answer , yeah you could definitely do that. 

I would just be sure it’s just simply not something related to power loss. 


But I honestly don’t know the exact reason why this happens, it just does.
I’m kinda relieved to know it’s not just my setup that does this. 
But at the same time, it’s a little annoying but easily addressed .

But your right in your assumptions, there’s a few ways it could be addressed.

For me, I just use sub control and don’t do anything with crossovers and it comes back just fine, the blending isn’t a issue at all , it’s just a little level, and it’s not much, I usually only have to turn it up a tiny bit...I’ve noticed in the morning when it’s cool, I can go back to where it was when I measured. It fluctuates a little that I’m certain 

Unless I’m listening to a 1975 recording of “the cars” or something, than I crank it up a lot a lot, but that’s a different issue all together we already talked about. 
So I don’t want to confuse anything.


I fixed this problem the first day I ever used DL ever in my life, lol 
I was like, nope! I got to have my bass right.
At the time it seemed like a easy solution, but I do remember it threw me on one hell of a spin trying to figure out why, I just gave up and started tuning and measuring with the sub barley on and used sub control and haven’t looked back. It just worked


----------



## oabeieo

If someone is measuring the bass response they like with REW, (like Ian posted) and it still sounds weak , 
I might think maybe it’s this:; 

I am just guessing here , but do you think maybe because DL is ignoring certain modal peaks it’s making the bass sound weak? 

For instance if you have a room mode at 200 and it’s reverbant reinforcement because of room size, so you now have a little more energy there than you old flat (boring) rta with old (boring) dsp (lol sorry) 

If that bump shouldn’t be taken out wouldn’t it make the bass sound low because to you the midbass sounds high? Ya know, the way your interpreting how loud the bass is compared to other frequencies. Maybe your thinking that because you now have extract mid-bass energy. 

If your not using PEQ and forcing down the modal range (which adds or takes away energy at the wrong time in that range) the way Dirac does things would show your after to be flat, but the energy left alone in that range so the peak should still have some of that peak in your measurements, they should reflect that, not by tons and tons but if you measured with REW after like he did , that midbass peak that’s reverbant should still be somewhat still there. 


And that also leads me to ponder this. Maybe DL is doing something in that so adding a little volume just fixes things. Because it’s a car. The bass in a car is different and so is the energy transfer. I can swear just turning the sub up a tiny bit after seems to fix it 100% for me. 

I’m just thinking out loud, would love your thoughts on that


Edit: if you want to know which peak is reverbant grab a tone Gen, you’ll hear it .



Have you ever seen the videos where the guy puts sand on a sheet of metal and send vibrations through the metal, the sand goes to like 2 spots, than a oactave abovtthat the sand moves to 4 vibrating piles of sand instead of 2, than a octave above that it goes to 8 evenly spaced piles of vibrating sand.

Your reverbant room modes do the same thing. Some spots go high pressure evenly spaced throughout the car, the higher up in frequency more and more nodes appear.. 

No point to that......just a visual. That video is cool. It’s a guy that makes speakers out of cardboard boxes and flat things with tactile transducers


----------



## tonynca

You know enough about this DSP to summarize this entire thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> Totally agree,
> 
> And if he can do overlays with smaart man that could help us,
> 
> I’ve only been able to compare single measurements of individual speakers and a measurement of two (or more) speakers in REW with the same mic location and same windowing methods etc.
> 
> It’s clear to me it’s not trying so much to “linearize” or make phase flat, as much as it’s trying to make the phase the same for bolth left and right , the entire transfer function. I’ve seen the phase still have some GD properties and some wraps from XOs , but left and Right were so so much alike vs with Dirac off.
> 
> 
> With smaart he should really be able to see what’s going on every step of the way,
> 
> 
> John please do! I’ll put my learning hat on and let you take it away.


Yeah at the frequencies he is at the wavelength is large.
So individual sub, and individual mid-bass phase plot(s) should tell if there is something happening to cause concern.

If one unplugs the midbass and sound gets louder in the cross over region, then that is a qualitative clue. But the quantitative plot is ideal.


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> I don’t think giving sub more gain and than measurements is going to change anything, it will just add or subtract gain to match the target, (unless I’m not understanding you right)


The issue is this:

Measurements are complete and it is noticed in DLCT filter design screen that the measured sub response is below the target you want it to reach. 

So you go back and turn up the sub, say 6db, on the output tab of the plugin (Not in DLCT) and then go back into DLCT and redo all 9 measurements - during the measurement the sub sweep audibly sounds louder and visually looks larger on the time-domain response graph at the bottom of the measurement screen. 

One would expect the measured sub response in the DLCT filter design tab would now plot higher in amplitude - BUT IT IS NOT... it's at the same level as the previous measurement.


----------



## subterFUSE

I think someone might have been onto something when they mentioned Windows applying auto gain to the UMIK 1 input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I think someone might have been onto something when they mentioned Windows applying auto gain to the UMIK 1 input.


Could be but I would expect it to do the same when using REW but I'm not experiencing any anomalies like this when using REW?


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Yeah at the frequencies he is at the wavelength is large.
> So individual sub, and individual mid-bass phase plot(s) should tell if there is something happening to cause concern.
> 
> If one unplugs the midbass and sound gets louder in the cross over region, then that is a qualitative clue. But the quantitative plot is ideal.


Guys make sure that your measurements are clean, 
If your having a phase issue in a crossover down low , you can help that with new measurements. Something is causing that, a simple adjustment or just a new measurement sometimes can fix that. 

If it’s persistent in all measurements make a change like add a little delay or reverse the polarity on a set than try new measurements till it sounds right.

We shouldn’t sound where the speakers are fighting each other in the low frequency the high frequency can be a completely different challenge 





Truthunter said:


> The issue is this:
> 
> Measurements are complete and it is noticed in DLCT filter design screen that the measured sub response is below the target you want it to reach.
> 
> So you go back and turn up the sub, say 6db, on the output tab of the plugin (Not in DLCT) and then go back into DLCT and redo all 9 measurements - during the measurement the sub sweep audibly sounds louder and visually looks larger on the time-domain response graph at the bottom of the measurement screen.
> 
> One would expect the measured sub response in the DLCT filter design tab would now plot higher in amplitude - BUT IT IS NOT... it's at the same level as the previous measurement.



Don’t quote me on this, but I think I read actually on a home theater shack review or on a video by them (can’t remember) that someone said there no more then 10db difference in the traget before it will truncate parts of it.

Reason 99 to use a bass knob


----------



## oabeieo

The phase cancellation thing in the low-frequency is the new one to me because were almost the whole time I’ve ever use this except for now I’ve used to linear phase crossovers 
Downstream the measurements never picked up any twisting 

But I have had bad measurements do that 

So yeah I would be curious what smart things


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Reason 99 to use a bass knob


While I get what you are saying with this, previously with my manual tune I never needed to use the bass knob. I had it set at a level that I was happy with no matter what I was listening to. 

Using Dirac if my sub is not clipping during the sweeps and I feel that the level is too low for my taste, if I increase the sub level on the output tab (via the plugin), the level is shown as a louder sweep in DLCT, then surely that should translate through as a higher level on the filter design tab, which would then ultimately go all the way through to a higher subwoofer level while listening. It does not seem to do that and so then I end up pulling my target curve down some to match the subwoofer and ultimately lose that output I am trying to dial back in. 

Sure the bass knob will bring that back, but I should not have to use it unless I really wanted to do so.


----------



## oabeieo

I’m email David grosso and see if he’ll jump in on this 

He also has a ton of experience with DL 
And he’s all about how you guys want things 

I’m more of a , if it sounds good this way I don’t care guy, 

But if your competing and want it that exactly in your targets maybe he has an answer better than me


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> I’m more of a , if it sounds good this way I don’t care guy,


This is how I am as well, but at the same time....



oabeieo said:


> But if your competing and want it that exactly in your targets maybe he has an answer better than me


I would not mind competing and would also like to understand why the sub acts the way that it does. Even if it is just to get it to a level that I can "set it and forget it"


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> While I get what you are saying with this, previously with my manual tune I never needed to use the bass knob. I had it set at a level that I was happy with no matter what I was listening to.
> 
> Using Dirac if my sub is not clipping during the sweeps and I feel that the level is too low for my taste, if I increase the sub level on the output tab (via the plugin), the level is shown as a louder sweep in DLCT, then surely that should translate through as a higher level on the filter design tab, which would then ultimately go all the way through to a higher subwoofer level while listening. It does not seem to do that and so then I end up pulling my target curve down some to match the subwoofer and ultimately lose that output I am trying to dial back in.
> 
> Sure the bass knob will bring that back, but I should not have to use it unless I really wanted to do so.




I’m just talking about just lifting gain on sub after your done measurements 
And that’s it. 

But yeah if you increase the sub and remeasure, you’ll run into the same thing your target sounds no matter how you do it (within 10db)


Yeah it won’t boost more than 10db and there isn’t more than 10db of wiggleroom within the entire target 


Which is weird , I want to say I’ve made some deep deep cuts before no issues 

I need to find out


----------



## oabeieo

The avg spectrum response you see when you are drawing your target is a “normalized view”. 

So the eq (target) reacts to that not quite exactly as it looks. 
It normalizes the response to be centered on the 0db line when actually the response (dB for dB) could be something else. But the response shape should still be consistent with what was measured.


There no more than 10db of boost (which also means no more than 10db of tilt in the target) if I’m not mistaken. I’m trying to find where I read that now to confirm , *edit: if I remember right. The “0dbline” is just a reference for you to use the eq and means nothing to how much “boost or cut” is over the signal, because like I said it’s a normalized view. 


I’m the digital realm there’s no 0db line with 10db above that, you hit 0dbfs period at the top. That said , if the target has more than 10db of tilt , it’s going to look at it as one continuous gradual boost (looking right to left) *

It actually might be in the minidsp forums buried in a thread also. I’m lookin , I’m also at work so it might take me a little to try n find it


----------



## naiku

Just got back from about a 40 minute drive, definitely happy with this particular tune overall (using 5 channels). If I can just get that _little _bit more from the subwoofer (which I may end up just turning it up in the output tab a couple dB) and fix that dip at 55Hz it will be about perfect. 

Midbass is good currently, imaging, stage etc. all good. Just those last few minor tweaks and I think I am set.


----------



## oabeieo

Keeping the target under the response ensures you aren’t adding boost over what the input signal is bringing in. 

The target as a whole though, is also subject to the 10db max overall boost.


And it makes sense why that is, when I had eqs taped to my dash years ago (just for you rockinridgeline lol) for instance, at one point I had a rane me30s running as two channel eq over everything , if I had boost in the lows it would saturation on the signal in the highs. 
And the tweeters would sound crappy. 

I don’t see how this eq is any different, if your in 2ch Dirac you don’t want a lot more of the low frequencies signal proportionally higher than the highs or the same would happen, 

I think that’s why they only do 10db of tilt max. 

(Still trying to find that post! )


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> Just got back from about a 40 minute drive, definitely happy with this particular tune overall (using 5 channels). If I can just get that _little _bit more from the subwoofer (which I may end up just turning it up in the output tab a couple dB) and fix that dip at 55Hz it will be about perfect.
> 
> Midbass is good currently, imaging, stage etc. all good. Just those last few minor tweaks and I think I am set.


Woohooo!!! Yes! 

That’s excellent 

Yeah I like my 5ch more than my 2ch Dirac also (call me crazy I just like it more)



But dang your first dip at 55 yeah I saw that , you have a bmw. That is so unusually low in my experience I usually don’t see the first dip till at least 60-65 more often 70-80 and sometimes 90-110 


Forgive me , you have IB?


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> Yeah I like my 5ch more than my 2ch Dirac also (call me crazy I just like it more)


I should say, mine is a sort of 2 channel. Front Left, Front Right, Rear Left, Rear Right and Sub, not a Dirac channel per driver type of thing. 



oabeieo said:


> But dang your first dip at 55 yeah I saw that , you have a bmw.


Close, I have an Audi, specifically an A4 Avant. 



oabeieo said:


> Forgive me , you have IB?


Nope, ported enclosure downfiring into a sort of hollow space under the trunk floor.


----------



## Truthunter

oabeieo said:


> The avg spectrum response you see when you are drawing your target is a “normalized view”.
> 
> So the eq (target) reacts to that not quite exactly as it looks.
> It normalizes the response to be centered on the 0db line when actually the response (dB for dB) could be something else. But the response shape should still be consistent with what was measured.


This seems to be the case - Different Dirac channel measured responses do not seem to corrolate to eachother in terms of level.
BUT, what I found is the different targets do need to corrolate to eachother in terms of level.




oabeieo said:


> Keeping the target under the response ensures you aren’t adding boost over what the input signal is bringing in.


I don't think this is the case... reason being the target I used for the sub was above the measured response but the resulting gain on the plug-in's Dirac Tab for that channel ended up being -17.7db (See my posts above).
I believe Naiku posted similar information.


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Could be but I would expect it to do the same when using REW but I'm not experiencing any anomalies like this when using REW?




Not necessarily. REW might have a setting that bypasses the Windows defaults. But that is purely speculation.

I am planning to try using my Tascam and Behringer Mic with Dirac to see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

naiku said:


> I should say, mine is a sort of 2 channel. Front Left, Front Right, Rear Left, Rear Right and Sub, not a Dirac channel per driver type of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Close, I have an Audi, specifically an A4 Avant.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, ported enclosure downfiring into a sort of hollow space under the trunk floor.


Sorry I hear about it work on so many cars in one day. I thought you said bmw in the PM , but now I remember you did say Audi 


I wonder if that dip is enclosure related. 

Have you had other subs in there before did all your previous setups do the same thing.

Going from 50-60hz the wavelength goes from big to ginormous.

55 could stil be the room mode, just lower than I would have thought

So your cabin gain is at like 45than I would presume , your bass probably has a hard time sounding punchy if iits sucking out at55

But than again if you have full reinforcement at 70-90 the doors I would guess sound killer


----------



## naiku

I think the dip is a result of this particular tune, if you look back at post #15 I linked a REW measurement there and the dip is not there. The sub is also much higher, but that was due to me just cranking the sub after using DLCT. Crossovers are still the same, wonder if it is a weird microphone positioning type of thing.


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> I think the dip is a result of this particular tune, if you look back at post #15 I linked a REW measurement there and the dip is not there. The sub is also much higher, but that was due to me just cranking the sub after using DLCT. Crossovers are still the same, wonder if it is a weird microphone positioning type of thing.


Also IIRC, on this tune you followed the contour of the measured sub plot with your target likely leaving a gap between the sub & midbass.


----------



## oabeieo

Interesting......
Your right. 


That is strange.... I dont know how to respond 

The LF should just be pressure modes much bigger than the car. 


The mic might be picking up a low nodes and high nodes (pressure) and trying to compensate 


I don’t know a whole lot about spl but one of my bass head installers works really hard to make sure his kick panel has lots of pressure, that’s where they measure when he competes
So there is something to say about that. I’ve never had such drastic swings in the 50s 
(Thinking)


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> Reason 99 to use a bass knob


On the flip side, Reason #1 not to use a bass knob: Dirac Live

I don't want to beat a dead horse since this was discussed earlier. But using a bass knob to 'fix' the response pretty much defeats the purpose of what DL is doing. I get it... if you want more when you're driving and you're not that concerned about all the SQs then that's your call. I won't tell you that you can't do it or you shouldn't do it... I honestly don't care about that particular aspect. But to have a bass knob to correct for DL is counterproductive, at least as far as I see it.


----------



## oliverlim

naiku said:


> While I get what you are saying with this, previously with my manual tune I never needed to use the bass knob. I had it set at a level that I was happy with no matter what I was listening to.
> 
> Using Dirac if my sub is not clipping during the sweeps and I feel that the level is too low for my taste, if I increase the sub level on the output tab (via the plugin), the level is shown as a louder sweep in DLCT, then surely that should translate through as a higher level on the filter design tab, which would then ultimately go all the way through to a higher subwoofer level while listening. It does not seem to do that and so then I end up pulling my target curve down some to match the subwoofer and ultimately lose that output I am trying to dial back in.
> 
> Sure the bass knob will bring that back, but I should not have to use it unless I really wanted to do so.



I have this “issue” as well with the dirac tune. When I was with the apl1, if I was happy with the house tune, it would sound great be it listening at low levels or normal or high levels. Now with Dirac, some tune sound great at high levels then meh at normal and poor at lower levels. Or a tune could sound great at normal levels the boomy ya high levels. And too bass light at lower levels. 

It’s almost like a compression or a volume eq being applied but I do not think that to be the case.


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> On the flip side, Reason #1 not to use a bass knob: Dirac Live
> 
> I don't want to beat a dead horse since this was discussed earlier. But using a bass knob to 'fix' the response pretty much defeats the purpose of what DL is doing. I get it... if you want more when you're driving and you're not that concerned about all the SQs then that's your call. I won't tell you that you can't do it or you shouldn't do it... I honestly don't care about that particular aspect. But to have a bass knob to correct for DL is counterproductive, at least as far as I see it.




Yeah I get what your saying. And you sir can do it the way you like and I’m not mad at you for that. That’s the best part of this hobby.

And to be completely clear one more time. 

I can load jazzis target or Andy’s target it any target , run it, and the bass sounds great, now the second I play anything that has like no bass in it or when the temp in the car is rather hot , I feel it needs a little more to recover back to exactly the level when measurements were made.

It’s not just the bass either that has this small error. 
The 250hx range goes thin as well and the 2.5k range goes high. 
It happens, as much as you want to disagree it happens. 

A car is no where near the controlled environment as a home , and things change with heat and humidity. I can come fresh out of a DL measurement session and it’s fantastic! Than the very next day changing not a thing get in play the same track as day before and it sounds different. Than I could wait, and another day or drive it’s back to what it was. 

It did this with my HD amps , my Rockford amps, and now my alpine X amps. 
I have a 270a alt , a supercap bank , xswpower agms , what gives Erin? Seriously. Having the bass knob fixes it for me all the way in the bass. 

If you think my sub is “wrong” we’ll , what about the 2 w3s that do it that I have, or the 2 audax 12s that I have that do it , or the focal flax subs , those do it also , it’s not the sub , it’s not how I’m tuning, it’s not Dirac , it’s the environment! And Dirac’s super fine eq work makes the lowered/changed levels stand out more. 

I think everyone can agree , the bass sounds good, but I’ve heard complaints about the levels of some of these cars. 
I’m trying to be honest and helpful. I’m not in any way saying “oh just turn it up” as a quick solution to “have an answer to give” this is indeed a problem that you too will/should notice. 

I’m talking 2-3db most of the time! 

Except.......if I’m listening to let’s say -1989 Depeche Mode here is this house- 
Which in the house sounds to have good bass without changing anything from my home system , put that track in the car and I need as much as 30db gain on amp just to put the bass at the level it is at home (and my home system plays flat flat and is stable) 

I know you want to find fault with this, but I can’t agree Erin. I urge you to reconsider what your saying. 
If you can prove to me that everyone’s cars acoustic response is unchanged in all types of temperatures or conditions I will concede. But I don’t think you can do that, you absolutely will see deviations. And there small, but there there. 

I like a smooth response just as much as you. I have ppl from my company’s urging me to compete and to just go get some rings, but I find it so so boring. 
I have a hard time with ppl that do compete (yourself , mic Wallace, anyone else that is recognized) as if every statement you guys make isn’t gold and “the standard” and it’s not. I’ve been to these stereo comps man, like 5ppl show up for sq and someone’s getting the ring. So as much as everyone else wants to agree with you more , I disagree.

Honestly, Erin. I have a lot of respect for you though. Man you have been super cool when others won’t be. And your reasonable person (and your car is dope as hell) but plz. Think this one through and plz see the spirit in which I’m saying this.


----------



## oabeieo

Contd:



Either that or something is changing when we start our units up the next day.

I’ll admit, before Dirac I never saw the need for a bass knob. The only thing that is changing is temp and humidity. 

Unless I’m missing something, maybe it is changing when the dsp starts. 
Does the fir instruction start wierd? Does the dsp change in some way after each startup? 

I don’t know, and I doubt it. But I don’t know! I do know that something is definitely changing day to day running Dirac forcing me to use my bass knob and it seems such an easy fix. It works.


I’ll be the first one to uninstall my bass knob if someone can come up with a way that it dosent change the output by small amounts , I’ve come to the conclusion it’s the environment. I had to get that problem solved the first day I ran DL. 
That’s when this whole thing stared anyway, and it’s the exact same problem over 5 diffrent DL boxes so what gives there. But again, I’ll be happy to rip that thing out if we together can find a way that this isn’t a issue in car. 
This doesn’t happen in the hose at all.
I definitely wouldn’t pose an argument with you for ****s n giggles, maybe you can figure out why for us. More brains the better right. I would be thrilled if my tunes were consistent, like exactly every day the exact same , and they are for the most part, but most part isn’t 100%


----------



## dgage

What about using the multiple presets to address these differences? A target curve for around town driving, one for louder highway driving, etc. This way you get the benefit of Dirac’s magic while addressing the different environments a car encounters on a day to day basis, or with different types of music.


----------



## oabeieo

dgage said:


> What about using the multiple presets to address these differences? A target curve for around town driving, one for louder highway driving, etc. This way you get the benefit of Dirac’s magic while addressing the different environments a car encounters on a day to day basis, or with different types of music.


Yes sir, you could do that, 

More importantly why exactly is this a issue at all. 

I’ve just learned to live with the boost at 2.5k when it’s hotter than 95 in the car and the loss at 250 dosent bother me as I have a nasty room mode at 200 that’s like 6db tall.


But you could , I just found a tiny twist of the bass knob is all it needs really . 



I have my presets as my ongoing two seat tune , my 5ch dL tune, my two channel dL tune and my never know what your going to get tune that I just screw with non stop. 

I’ve thought about kicking the sub off the Dirac and going back to just eq and crossovers only and for a short time I did just that, but after listening to how Dirac does the sub I can’t go back, I love the way it makes my bass sound. It hits every note perfectly, like every single individual note/frequency is perfect nothing is louder than another , it sounds so good It’s my favorite part of Dirac actually. It’s punvhy and dogs super deep and isn’t overwhelming in any of the spots it plays. 

Just have to use the bass knob from time to time to get that perfect blend to the highs. 


And I’ll admit there are days I like to party (just a little) only because I have a kilowatt on a 15” and it’s fun when it’s playing Loud sometimes (especially when the kids are in the car they love it) and the bass still sounds musical even when it’s exaggerated, but I usually don’t break away from the midbass response most of the time , it just needs to be about 3db louder than the midbass and it’s perfect for me.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Yeah I get what your saying. And you sir can do it the way you like and I’m not mad at you for that. That’s the best part of this hobby.
> 
> And to be completely clear one more time.
> 
> I can load jazzis target or Andy’s target it any target , run it, and the bass sounds great, now the second I play anything that has like no bass in it or when the temp in the car is rather hot , I feel it needs a little more to recover back to exactly the level when measurements were made.
> 
> It’s not just the bass either that has this small error.
> The 250hx range goes thin as well and the 2.5k range goes high.
> It happens, as much as you want to disagree it happens.
> 
> A car is no where near the controlled environment as a home , and things change with heat and humidity. I can come fresh out of a DL measurement session and it’s fantastic! Than the very next day changing not a thing get in play the same track as day before and it sounds different. Than I could wait, and another day or drive it’s back to what it was.
> 
> It did this with my HD amps , my Rockford amps, and now my alpine X amps.
> I have a 270a alt , a supercap bank , xswpower agms , what gives Erin? Seriously. Having the bass knob fixes it for me all the way in the bass.
> 
> If you think my sub is “wrong” we’ll , what about the 2 w3s that do it that I have, or the 2 audax 12s that I have that do it , or the focal flax subs , those do it also , it’s not the sub , it’s not how I’m tuning, it’s not Dirac , it’s the environment! And Dirac’s super fine eq work makes the lowered/changed levels stand out more.
> 
> I think everyone can agree , the bass sounds good, but I’ve heard complaints about the levels of some of these cars.
> I’m trying to be honest and helpful. I’m not in any way saying “oh just turn it up” as a quick solution to “have an answer to give” this is indeed a problem that you too will/should notice.
> 
> I’m talking 2-3db most of the time!
> 
> Except.......if I’m listening to let’s say -1989 Depeche Mode here is this house-
> Which in the house sounds to have good bass without changing anything from my home system , put that track in the car and I need as much as 30db gain on amp just to put the bass at the level it is at home (and my home system plays flat flat and is stable)
> 
> I know you want to find fault with this, but I can’t agree Erin. I urge you to reconsider what your saying.
> If you can prove to me that everyone’s cars acoustic response is unchanged in all types of temperatures or conditions I will concede. But I don’t think you can do that, you absolutely will see deviations. And there small, but there there.
> 
> I like a smooth response just as much as you. I have ppl from my company’s urging me to compete and to just go get some rings, but I find it so so boring.
> I have a hard time with ppl that do compete (yourself , mic Wallace, anyone else that is recognized) as if every statement you guys make isn’t gold and “the standard” and it’s not. I’ve been to these stereo comps man, like 5ppl show up for sq and someone’s getting the ring. So as much as everyone else wants to agree with you more , I disagree.
> 
> Honestly, Erin. I have a lot of respect for you though. Man you have been super cool when others won’t be. And your reasonable person (and your car is dope as hell) but plz. Think this one through and plz see the spirit in which I’m saying this.


Okay, calmm down Oab. I believe what he was saying is that we create a smooth downwards curve from sub to midbass because having a smooth transition creates good phase interaction and thus up front bass and good blending between drivers. When you increase the bass knob after Dirac has done its tune. You're now taking that curve and thus good phase response and twisting it just a little. Enough perhaps to give you locatable bass or sloppy bass or bass crossover interaction or whatever you can think of.

Maybe the answer software side, is to wait for Dirac 2.0 and just raise the bass on the curve by a few db since 2.0 will look at driver interaction. I haven't been paying attention to this thread for the last few pages but has anyone tried raising the bass level a few db via their curve?

Also as long as your time alignment is spot on and your phase on both MB and Sub is gold which is should be with Dirac working. Will raising the sub level via knob actually do anything other than possibly raise the response in the crossover region just a little bit. (again i haven't read the last few pages) But..has raising the level actually caused any ill effects? Locatable bass and such? Its such an ITD dominant area, overlapping xo shouldn't cause THAT many issues.

i also had issues with it flipping my sub polarity and giving me massive cancellation for whatever reason. Maybe that got solved? ill have to go back and read.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Another thought on the sub level dilemma. How many people are running two rcas to the sub and how is it matrixed in the plug in? Are we perhaps sending only a left(or right) signal to the sub when it does its measurements and thus its reading something funky.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## High Resolution Audio

I read the first two pages, but have to leave for work. So far this thing sounds like a great product.


----------



## subterFUSE

Here is a question.....

If we are using a single RCA output from the DSP to a subwoofer, when we do the input routing should we reduce the gain on the inputs for Left + Right mixing to the sub? i.e. Use Left 0 dB Right 0 dB? Or use Left -6 dB Right - 6dB?


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Here is a question.....
> 
> If we are using a single RCA output from the DSP to a subwoofer, when we do the input routing should we reduce the gain on the inputs for Left + Right mixing to the sub? i.e. Use Left 0 dB Right 0 dB? Or use Left -6 dB Right - 6dB?


I use a single rca out from the dsp for sub. I left the routing at 0db simply because that how I did it previously, before the Dirac upgrade, with good results.... though my sub channel also had to be cut by ~16-18db to level match and meet target with the rest of the system. I always thought that was needed because of cabin gain and an efficient AE IB sub.


----------



## oabeieo

For sure , and I know that’s what he means also, I think we’re all on the same page and are all after the same goal, at the end of the day, I’m more interested in how it sounds vs how my measurements look.



So in complete fairness I’m trying some things.

I added a -3db bass shelf. So far , it’s a little more consistent. 
I’ll know tomorrow or after I drive a few times if it working.

I stayed up till 2am thinking about what else it could be.

I did come with maybe, just maybe , my targetbwhich is flat down 2db per oactave down from 20 to 60hz than rolls off 

I added the bass shelf at 45hz to knock some of the low low lows down a bit. 
I wonder if I’m just used to this curve of flat flat and the Uber lows are the issue with heat, the 50s seem to be fine. 

I’m trying to be completely honest with myself also and not to get stuck on just one answer to this. Even tho it’s worked for me this long to do a bass knob , maybe there is another way. And maybe ....it’s target related 


I also make one of my configs subless and let my 10” b&cs that are sealed in 1cu each play all the way down with no crossover , I’m going to listen to it that way also and see if it does it like this.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Another thought on the sub level dilemma. How many people are running two rcas to the sub and how is it matrixed in the plug in? Are we perhaps sending only a left(or right) signal to the sub when it does its measurements and thus its reading something funky.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk



I’m using a single Dirac sweep for both left and right inputs and have the matrix all 4 boxes enabled and all set to -3db 

So both rcas get the same thing......

But I see your logic none the less


----------



## oliverlim

I was wondering if one of the cause for the measurement inconsistencies was due to Dirac being “live” for that memory slot? I usually do not delete the Dirac live tune for the slot I am tuning. I assume that dirac live would automatically switch it off during measurement mode. Could it be that it was still active during the measurement?


----------



## naiku

Good point, I'd assume it's off, but not absolutely certain.


----------



## oabeieo

oliverlim said:


> I was wondering if one of the cause for the measurement inconsistencies was due to Dirac being “live” for that memory slot? I usually do not delete the Dirac live tune for the slot I am tuning. I assume that dirac live would automatically switch it off during measurement mode. Could it be that it was still active during the measurement?


It definitely shuts it off during measurements 

When you get to the end of measurements it’s always off and you have to engage it manually every time, in the last page where you drop your filters into the slot. 





———


On another note

The drive home sub wasn’t sure it still sounded good 

The midbass tune sounded good too.


Maybe the shelving worked......at least this drive all seemed good


----------



## oliverlim

oabeieo said:


> On another note
> 
> The drive home sub wasn’t sure it still sounded good
> 
> The midbass tune sounded good too.
> 
> 
> Maybe the shelving worked......at least this drive all seemed good


For this issue, I am leaning towards the house curved used or Dirac not loading the saved memory properly each time. Although temp and humidity can affect sound, I would assume it affects it similarly. Or it could just be heat or cold affecting the driver differently resulting in a leaner or warmer
Sound. Or it could just be us! Our moods!


----------



## Sonnie

Mahapederdon said:


> I've used odyssey on a million Marantz receivers and it's okay at best. It gets the time right and helps with the room a little. We sell NAD also which uses Dirac but I haven't personally used it. My boss said it's way better than odessey.


Agree... Dirac Live is far superior to Audyssey. I've been thru literally dozens of receivers and processors with Audyssey... as well as the miniDSP DDRC-88BM, the NAD T758 and M17 v2... DL slams the door on Audyssey. I can no longer live without it in my listening system.

Here is my system with DL... and I could never ever, no matter how hard I tried with distance, phase, manual PEQ mixed with Audyssey... I could never get it looking or sounding as good as it does with Dirac Live.














oabeieo said:


> Contd:
> 
> Either that or something is changing when we start our units up the next day.
> 
> I’ll admit, before Dirac I never saw the need for a bass knob. The only thing that is changing is temp and humidity.
> 
> Unless I’m missing something, maybe it is changing when the dsp starts.
> Does the fir instruction start wierd? Does the dsp change in some way after each startup?
> 
> I don’t know, and I doubt it. But I don’t know! I do know that something is definitely changing day to day running Dirac forcing me to use my bass knob and it seems such an easy fix. It works.
> 
> 
> I’ll be the first one to uninstall my bass knob if someone can come up with a way that it dosent change the output by small amounts , I’ve come to the conclusion it’s the environment. I had to get that problem solved the first day I ran DL.
> That’s when this whole thing stared anyway, and it’s the exact same problem over 5 diffrent DL boxes so what gives there. But again, I’ll be happy to rip that thing out if we together can find a way that this isn’t a issue in car.
> This doesn’t happen in the hose at all.
> I definitely wouldn’t pose an argument with you for ****s n giggles, maybe you can figure out why for us. More brains the better right. I would be thrilled if my tunes were consistent, like exactly every day the exact same , and they are for the most part, but most part isn’t 100%


I would agree that temperatures and humidity cause a change in the sound... and you should be able to measure those differences with REW. I don't think I could live without bass control. There is too much variance in the music I listen to.


----------



## tonynca

That's one pretty curve. Must sound awesome. I'm guessing you have a pretty nice room to get that response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

I am testing the miniDSP again this morning. I am currently in the process of doing a manual tune using the Plugin and my traditional SysTune with microphone array method.

Step 1 - Verify speaker polarity and time alignment by impulse response.


I am using optical digital input. That means Inputs 7 & 8.

Bass Management set with 80 Hz LR24 slope.


Fired up impulse response and discovered that the following Outputs on the miniDSP are sending out inverted signals:

Output 2
Output 4
Output 6
Output 7


This is with Dirac turned off, and I also erased the Dirac configs from all Config slots prior to starting.



Anyone else notice this? The method to check polarity is to put the mic near the speaker and do an impulse response. The first peak should go up. If the first peak is down, then the speaker is in reverse polarity.


----------



## subterFUSE

Update 1:


I have completed my base tune using the Plugin.

I did not use any target curves. All I did was roughly tune each driver flat, and then applied crossovers. The 6 drivers that comprise the front stage were time aligned using impulse response before crossovers. The subwoofer was time aligned by using Phase Plot in SysTune after all drivers were equalized and crossed over.


Popped in Erin's latest NCSQ demo CD, which was the last thing I listened to when doing my most recent Dirac tune.

Verdict: This tune sound much better. The tonality is still a bit harsh but that is because I did not EQ for precision, only a rough EQ to flat. But the bass is alive and well. I could listen to this tune and be mostly happy.

Staging is very good. Center is solid, and sides are just outside the pillars, maybe 6 inches wider than the location of the midrange drivers.

The 7 snare drum test track has equal spacing between each drum hit.

So, I feel like this basic tune proves to me that without Dirac this DSP can sound great and I also have pretty good volume coming out of it.



Now I am going to measure a 3 channel Dirac with this base tune loaded up.
Let's see what Dirac can do to clean this up further.

To be continued.......


----------



## subterFUSE

Update 2


I have done the Dirac 3 channel measurement for Left Right and Sub.

I built a Target using the Whitledge Curve as my guide, with 20 Hz at 19 dB and 20kHz at -8 dB.

Optimized the filters and loaded them to Config 4.

Copied config 4 to Config 3 but turned off Dirac on Config 3.


Jumped in the car to do A/B listening comparison.


Config 3, base tune with no Dirac:

This tune sounds nice, with really good bass response. Stage is well laid out and subwoofer is anchored in the center of the stage up front.



Config 4 Dirac with Whitledge Curve

Bass response is noticeably reduced vs. Config 3, which is strange because of how much boost Dirac should be doing. Stage immediately gets deeper and wider with Dirac and the car boundaries seem more "transparent" although that's obviously a stupid word to use to describe sound. With Dirac the soundstage seems less "in your face." It's like moving from front row to a few rows back in the auditorium. The subwoofer is still well anchored to the front of the car, but with the reduced bass response there is less tactile feedback. Upper midrange and highs are a bit hot with this tune, also. It's not bad at low volume, but when I crank the volume to get more bass it gets a big harsh. This tune sounds better than the previous Dirac tunes I have used, but it is still not as tonally pleasing as the base tune I did on my own with the Plugin.


Config 2 - I loaded the Dirac Auto target to config 2

There is noticeably less bass on this tune vs. the Whitledge Dirac tune, which was to be expected. Compared to Config 3 (base tune) and Config 4 (Whitledge Dirac) this tune is unlistenable.


Config 1 - Whitledge Dirac but with reduced target curve from 2kHz to 20kHz

This is my best Dirac attempt yet. I took the Whitledge target and just pulled down the high end of the target a bit from about 2kHz to 20kHz. Most of the harshness from Config 1 is gone but I have the same bass response. I probably need to pull down the target a bit more into the 800-2000 Hz range which might smooth out the tonality a bit more.




Current impressions: Dirac still impresses with what it can do with the sound stage. The tonality is closer to what I want, but I am still not quite there. With continued tweaking of the target I should be able to get more pleasing results.

The good news is that once a good target has been found, we can save it for future use. In theory, it should be easy to retune the car and get the results we want without having to do as much back and forth adjusting.


----------



## Sonnie

Any chance you can post the REW response curves between your DL and non DL configs... if you have time. It would be interesting to see the response of the differences you are hearing.


----------



## oabeieo

And Erin loves when I’m wrong 

(But he’s a smart guy so whatever it’s all gravy Baybee) 

So I drew a rounded shape like a bass shelf of the sub starting at 38hz and made basically a circular shape shelfing the 20-38hz region with a rounded over target 

The sub seems a lot lot more stable now.... I haven’t (yet) has the issue 

All my music sounds the way it should (minus the old man 70s stuff I like) but spectral music sounds fine. I’ve been on 4 drives now and two night drives and so far so good! 

The extreme lows maybe Is what my target is deviant. 
Having it rounded off with my target definitely drops a little of the super lows (that my large sub likes) but it’s more punchy and actually sounds even more real and faithful to the recording. 

I haven’t looked on REW yet but so far again, no deviations yet on the bass. 


I chose this because when it would happen I could tell it was the extreme lows that seemed quieter when hot , shelving it changes how the sub gets power and maybe the LF is heating the amp up ???? Idk 

But so far it’s working


----------



## subterFUSE

Sonnie said:


> Any chance you can post the REW response curves between your DL and non DL configs... if you have time. It would be interesting to see the response of the differences you are hearing.




I forgot to do that before I unhooked the MiniDSP from the car. I will try to do it maybe tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

Update 3

I unhooked the MiniDSP from the Audi so I could drive it today. I have only been testing the MiniDSP sitting on the trunk floor not strapped down. So if I want to drive I take it out of the car.

So now I am listening to my Helix DSP Pro MK2 again.

The sound stage with the Helix is similar to the base tune I did this morning in the MiniDSP plugin. It’s an “in your face” sound without much depth or sense of space. Dirac definitely makes the car sound like a larger listening space. The stage expands deeper, wider and the music seems to surround you. It’s not that the imaging is pulling back. It’s just an added sense of space.

With The Helix tune and the non Dirac tune, all the sound comes from in front of you with a heavy focus on the center. With Dirac, the heavy center focus is subdued and the sound seems more relaxed and neutral.

I found myself missing the Dirac soundstage effect when I played the Helix again.

I will continue to play with Dirac more tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

oabeieo said:


> And Erin loves when I’m wrong
> 
> (But he’s a smart guy so whatever it’s all gravy Baybee)
> 
> So I drew a rounded shape like a bass shelf of the sub starting at 38hz and made basically a circular shape shelfing the 20-38hz region with a rounded over target
> 
> The sub seems a lot lot more stable now.... I haven’t (yet) has the issue
> 
> All my music sounds the way it should (minus the old man 70s stuff I like) but spectral music sounds fine. I’ve been on 4 drives now and two night drives and so far so good!
> 
> The extreme lows maybe Is what my target is deviant.
> Having it rounded off with my target definitely drops a little of the super lows (that my large sub likes) but it’s more punchy and actually sounds even more real and faithful to the recording.
> 
> I haven’t looked on REW yet but so far again, no deviations yet on the bass.
> 
> 
> I chose this because when it would happen I could tell it was the extreme lows that seemed quieter when hot , shelving it changes how the sub gets power and maybe the LF is heating the amp up ???? Idk
> 
> But so far it’s working


Good stuff. I’d like to see a picture of your target with those changes. Maybe put a 48db crossover to remove the low stuff, run Dirac, and then renewable the crossover. At 48db, depending on where your crossover points are, it may be too steep to interact with the midbass much so you get to have the Dirac cake (magic) and eat it too (deep bass). Once you’re done running Dirac, remove the deep bass crossover. Would be interesting to see measurements to make sure the 48db crossover doesn’t interfere with midbass.

Either way, good stuff, thanks for continuing to share your learnings.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Update 3
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to give us your detailed impressions.

I have a question: With the Whiteledge curve - how did you split it so that you had a seperate target for L/R (Midbass HP & up) & sub?


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I am testing the miniDSP again this morning. I am currently in the process of doing a manual tune using the Plugin and my traditional SysTune with microphone array method.
> 
> Step 1 - Verify speaker polarity and time alignment by impulse response.
> 
> 
> I am using optical digital input. That means Inputs 7 & 8.
> 
> Bass Management set with 80 Hz LR24 slope.
> 
> 
> Fired up impulse response and discovered that the following Outputs on the miniDSP are sending out inverted signals:
> 
> Output 2
> Output 4
> Output 6
> Output 7
> 
> 
> This is with Dirac turned off, and I also erased the Dirac configs from all Config slots prior to starting.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice this? The method to check polarity is to put the mic near the speaker and do an impulse response. The first peak should go up. If the first peak is down, then the speaker is in reverse polarity.


Did you have to invert these channels in order to accomplish the different tunes you created?


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> I have a question: With the Whiteledge curve - how did you split it so that you had a seperate target for L/R (Midbass HP & up) & sub?



I applied the full range curve the sub and to the linked Left+Right.

Then I deleted the target points that were not needed. i.e. for the sub I deleted all points above 80 Hz. For the mains I deleted all points below 8 Hz.

Then I dragged the windows to limit the correction as needed.



Tomorrow I might try doing an export from SysTune with the Whitledge curve but with crossovers applied using the Virtual EQ.


----------



## subterFUSE

Truthunter said:


> Did you have to invert these channels in order to accomplish the different tunes you created?



Yes, the channels have to be inverted on all tunes.

What I am saying is that the outputs from the DSP are electrically inverted on some channels. It's like a manufacturer defect.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Guys guys. Pictures tell a thousand words

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> And Erin loves when I’m wrong


I literally said “huh?” out loud when I read this. Look, Andy, I’m not sure what your issue with me is or why you have chosen to continually deride me in this thread but you need to stop. This thread is for us to learn about the minidsp and DL. For us to do it as a group. Any post I’ve made here is for that reason. And if that means disagreeing with each other then that’s ok. Yet, in your past few posts you’ve taken a pretty crappy attitude toward me, personally. And I don’t really understand why at all. I just simply request you stop it and stick to the topic rather than take unnecessary, condescending and passive aggressive shots at me. If you and I disagree then that’s fine. I won’t argue and take this thread any further OT. If you want to PM and air your grievances then you’re welcome to do so.


----------



## ErinH

subterFUSE said:


> Update 3
> 
> I unhooked the MiniDSP from the Audi so I could drive it today. I have only been testing the MiniDSP sitting on the trunk floor not strapped down. So if I want to drive I take it out of the car.
> 
> So now I am listening to my Helix DSP Pro MK2 again.
> 
> The sound stage with the Helix is similar to the base tune I did this morning in the MiniDSP plugin. It’s an “in your face” sound without much depth or sense of space. Dirac definitely makes the car sound like a larger listening space. The stage expands deeper, wider and the music seems to surround you. It’s not that the imaging is pulling back. It’s just an added sense of space.
> 
> With The Helix tune and the non Dirac tune, all the sound comes from in front of you with a heavy focus on the center. With Dirac, the heavy center focus is subdued and the sound seems more relaxed and neutral.
> 
> I found myself missing the Dirac soundstage effect when I played the Helix again.
> 
> I will continue to play with Dirac more tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In your previous post you mentioned having a couple different curves and that and one of them with the more attenuated high frequency range you noticed more depth, like the stage physically being further away from you. I’m wondering if that is more to do with the shape of your curves. Thoughts? How did that sync up to the helix tune, in regards to shape of the curve?


----------



## subterFUSE

OK here is a walkthrough for my process today doing the base tune before Dirac.



Step 1: Driver polarity verification and time alignment.

Using SysTune impulse response with a single microphone located in the center of head location, I checked the polarity visually on the graph. Here is a picture of the passenger side midbass speaker with normal polarity in the DSP plugin and no delay added.












Notice that the first peak of the impulse response is downward? That means the speaker is playing in reverse polarity. So I clicked the Invert button in the DSP plugin and got this IR result you see below.












Now the first peak is going up, which means the speaker is playing in positive polarity.



Several of the outputs on my miniDSP are backwards, so I had to test each one and click invert in the Plugin on the affected channels. Here is the Right side midrange driver.












And that same driver with the polarity inverted in the DSP.












I have attached a few more images that show the channels that had to be inverted in the DSP to get the speakers playing in correct polarity, but I won't put them all inline with this thread. They are labelled on the images, though.


Here is a picture of all the main front stage speaker impulse responses after I time aligned them. The subwoofer is not shown because I do not use impulse response to do my subwoofer delays. Sub delay gets done at the end of my process, so you will see that later on.










I have aligned the starting point of the first peak of each impulse response. Important - if you want to use this method you must do it without lowpass filters applied because when you eliminate high frequency data from the measurement the initial rise of the IR peak is too shallow to be easily readable.



Step 2: EQ individual drivers

My equalization is done with 5 microphones around the head position, spatially averaged in real-time by SysTune.

For this base tune, I did not use a target curve. My goal here was simply to get the speakers to play roughly flat within their expected frequency ranges. Then I wanted to let Dirac do its thing. The Dirac equalization is far superior to the basic 10 band parametric, so the less we can do with the parametric the theoretically better it should be. But I did want to get roughly flat before building my crossovers just to have some degree of consistency between left and right sides.

Here are the tweeters after about 4 bands of parametric EQ each.











And the midranges.











The midbasses.













I have run out of my maximum 10 images uploaded for this post, so I will continue in the next post.


----------



## ErinH

subterFUSE said:


> Several of the outputs on my miniDSP are backwards


Does this jive with the sysTune measurements using the Helix? Or do you literally mean the polarity of these channels is incorrect "out of the box"? If the latter, that's very odd. But if you mean you had to flip the polarity and that wasn't expected because you had to do with the Helix then no big deal. Just making sure I'm not misunderstanding you.


----------



## subterFUSE

Continued from my previous post above.....



With all of the drivers roughly equalized, here it what they look like.













Step 3: Crossovers

With the drivers roughly flat, I then applied crossovers. All Linkwitz 24dB slopes.

80 Hz
450Hz
3500Hz















Step 4: Time Alignment for Subwoofer

To do my subwoofer alignment, I use the Phase Plot.

To do that, I must turn off 4 of the 5 microphones and go back to a single mic at the center of the head location.


First, I want to check the phase coherence for the Left vs. Right midbass speakers.

The picture below shows the Impulse Response in the top window, and the Phase Plot in the bottom window. Since this is a midbass driver and it is crossed over from 80 Hz to 450 Hz, that is the region of the phase plot we are most concerned with. You will see a green line sloping down from left to right, and it then disappears into the bottom of the window and reappears at the top and then continues to slope down. That line is actually continuous, but we can't show it on the limited screen space available so the computer is inserting that jump to the top of the window, which is called a "wrap." The important things to look for in the phase plot are the slope and direction of the line.












Here is the Right midbass, same view.












And here is the Left vs. Right midbass viewed together.












Notice how the 2 phase traces overlap each other? That is what we are looking for. We want these 2 speakers to be in phase with each other between 80-450 Hz, and also a little bit above and below those frequencies. When the lines are on top of each other it means we are in phase. If the lines are separated, then we are out of phase. The farther apart the lines, the more out of phase.

The slope of the phase plot tells us if the delay setting is correct. Another term for the slope of the phase plot is the "group delay." If one plot has a steeper line than the other plot, it means that speaker has more delay on it so the sound is arriving later than the sound from the speaker with the shallower phase slope. If we add delay to the speaker with the shallower phase slope, it will cause the phase plot to tilt downward into a steeper slope.

So our goal is to get the phase slopes parallel and overlapping.

If the slopes are parallel but not overlapping, then it means we need to invert polarity. Inverting polarity will shift the phase plot without changing the slope of the phase plot. Delay changes the slope.

Add delay = steeper phase slope

Remove delay = shallower phase slope




This next picture shows the phase plots for the Midbass speakers playing together vs. the subwoofer with no delay.

The subwoofer is the purple line in both the top and bottom charts.

The first thing I want to point out here is the top chart of the Impulse Response. Do you see why I do not use impulse response to time align the subwoofer? Look at how slow the first peak of the subwoofer IR is. How can you see where it begins? Even if we zoom in a lot, it is still not easy to see.

The reason why it's so hard to see is because the subwoofer has a lowpass filter applied. The lowpass filter removes high frequency sounds from the signal. Since bass waves are larger than high frequency waves, the IR is not as sharp at the beginning.










The next thing to notice is on the bottom chart of the phase plots. Again, subwoofer is purple here.

What do we see?

The blue vs purple lines are roughly the same slope, although there is a little space between them. Let's see if we can do better.




Remember what i said above about how delay affects the phase plot?

Adding delay makes the phase tilt downward more. So, looking at the chart above, what would happen if I added delay to the subwoofer here?

The purple line will tilt downward into a more steep direction.

But is that the direction we want to be moving? No. The subwoofer purple line is already below the midbass blue line, so adding delay would make it tilt down more which takes us more out of phase, right?



So, instead we want to take delay away from the subwoofer which would make the subwoofer slope turn upwards to be less steep.

But how do we take delay away from the sub? We can do it by adding delay to the main speakers.

The way I handle this is by adding a fixed amount of time to all driver delays so that I can then have some delay on the sub that I can take away. So I added 3 ms to each driver delay.




Then I took away subwoofer delay until I got the purple line to move upward into a better overlap with the blue line.

Here is what it looks like after I took away almost 1 ms from the sub delay.

Purple line is the original sub, and then the green line is the sub with delay removed.












That's a little better now. The main area of interest is 80 Hz which is the crossover point, but we also care about a little bit above and below.





Lastly, here is a look at the entire left side playing vs. the entire right side.












It looks pretty good for only using 4 or 5 parametric EQ bands per speaker, does't it?


This is the tune from Config 3 in my Updates earlier today. The tune sounded pretty good tonally, although the soundstage was a bit forward and "in your face" vs. the Dirac tunes.





Tomorrow I will try to post measurements after Dirac was applied.


----------



## Truthunter

Polarity issue:

SubterFUSE's post's above about some of the outputs being reverse polarity made me check my initial project when I used a Dirac channel per speaker. I opened DLCT and loaded that initial project. I looked at each driver's "before" measured impulse response on the filter design tab. They all (Ch 1-7) showed the first peak going down which to me means they were all in polarity with each other.

Regardless, this issue is concerning. John, can share your findings with MiniDSP?


BTW, thanks for sharing your process in detail.


----------



## bertholomey

Awesome posts John - extremely helpful for me to read through them even though I’ve seen the process a few times first hand 

Though.....the post about putting back in the Helix made me a little sad 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## naiku

bertholomey said:


> Awesome posts John


Agreed, some really good information. Thank you for posting all of that, going to check the polarity on my outputs a little later.


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> I literally said “huh?” out loud when I read this. Look, Andy, I’m not sure what your issue with me is or why you have chosen to continually deride me in this thread but you need to stop. This thread is for us to learn about the minidsp and DL. For us to do it as a group. Any post I’ve made here is for that reason. And if that means disagreeing with each other then that’s ok. Yet, in your past few posts you’ve taken a pretty crappy attitude toward me, personally. And I don’t really understand why at all. I just simply request you stop it and stick to the topic rather than take unnecessary, condescending and passive aggressive shots at me. If you and I disagree then that’s fine. I won’t argue and take this thread any further OT. If you want to PM and air your grievances then you’re welcome to do so.




I was joking , I think you’ve known me long enough to know that.


It was this :



ErinH said:


> On the flip side, Reason #1 not to use a bass knob: Dirac Live
> 
> I don't want to beat a dead horse since this was discussed earlier. But using a bass knob to 'fix' the response pretty much defeats the purpose of what DL is doing. I get it... if you want more when you're driving and you're not that concerned about all the SQs then that's your call. I won't tell you that you can't do it or you shouldn't do it... I honestly don't care about that particular aspect. But to have a bass knob to correct for DL is counterproductive, at least as far as I see it.



Without even thinking what I’m trying to say, you “honestly don’t care about that particular aspect” when the point I’ve been trying to make is that I do care. 
And all I’ve been able to do to fix it is use a bass knob....than help us figure it out! Please. It’s a annoying problem that sucks , the bass it makes sounds so so good , the level is inconsistent. Maybe there is a better answer. 


It’s actually this argument that has prominent to try even harder to find out why this problem happens, I would like just as much as all of us to find out why the bass sounds inconsistent, and it measures inconsistent.

And so I’ve tryed adding a bass shelf , it sorta works. But not the way I would like, the bass knob just seemed to work better. 

I made that comment because it seems almost every time I try to help, the only, and I mean only comments I get (from some people hint hint) are negative or aimed at my statement or ways being arbitrarily wrong. There’s never any questions to me to ask where I’m coming from and on here (at least by a select few) I talk a lot and am not very articulate in my speech. That’s too much brain power for me, some of it is good and some of it is just speculation or ideas or just talking, i definitely try to leave contextual clues on all my statements. I’m definitely not always right, but please don’t take a suggestion and clairify to everyone how it’s wrong. That to me just feels like a intentional shut down on my input. 

No worries about the PM, just please if I say something that seems off let’s dig into it together and work it out and find out what is actually going on instead of saying words like “counterproductive “. 

Anyone could take any post and contextually spin something to find counterproductive parts to what there saying , and to go and quote some ppl with never anything positive and only negative things makes me loose my ****.
Remember my All pass thread? You stick up for me which I thought was awesome, but also had to point out to everyone that an apf will cause serious problems. Hell a peq can cause serious problems too. But at least you stuck up for me when others wouldn’t. Just please, you know what it means to be one of the top dogs as far as knowledge. A lot of ppl take everything you say as gold so any negative remark makes the other person look stupid. I also know enough to keep up, and I’ll stick up for myself and not afraid to do so. Just be fair in your comments, it’s mutual respect. That’s all 

Sorry 4 B loose cannon Erin. Can you help us figure the bass thing out?


----------



## oabeieo

subterFUSE said:


> . Delay changes the slope.
> 
> Add delay = steeper phase slope
> 
> Remove delay = shallower slope.



Are you talking just about time of flight being removed out of measurements? 


Are you suggesting using delay to align speakers for a better phase response before....


----------



## oabeieo

Doing an IB install with DL 

Ran measurements and the bass issue is even worse IB 

The response looks very good within 2db from 20-20k spent a few hours tuning.


This time in the enclosureless install you can’t even hear the subs playing at all. 
It’s like there not even on. What the **** the mic shows there on and the response looks just fine. 

Tried every combination of delay and crossovers I could with midbass to get the reinforcement on the bass as good as I can do I know there not fighting and lol 
I can’t even hear the subs. Bass knob does fix it but subs start to pop 


I wish someone would tell me if there manual cut and paste coefficients works good for IB 
In bass management advanced biquad entry and what’s a good slope and frequency


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> Just be fair in your comments


Seriously? I mean, you said this in the exact same post only two sentences before:



oabeieo said:


> Remember my All pass thread? You stick up for me which I thought was awesome, but also had to point out to everyone that an apf will cause serious problems. Hell a peq can cause serious problems too. But at least you stuck up for me when others wouldn’t.


You said it yourself: I 'stuck up' for you but I also noted an aspect that was of concern and shouldn't be ignored. How else can I be _more_ fair? 

So I (or anyone else) isn't permitted to note areas where we disagree? Are we only supposed to say "oh, yes, oab, you're absolutely right"? Come on, dude. Quit making it out like people here are trying to discredit you solely. We are talking audio. I made some posts that were noted as inaccurate earlier and I replied with "there you go". I didn't get mad and take a victim mentality. Heck, if anything, you're particularly being negative and condescending toward me and all I'm doing is simply asking you to stop doing it so we can continue this thread like adults and move on from the car audio drama and super-positioning of ourselves as someone to not be questioned. I'm here to learn and talk about this piece. That's all there is to it. 


And going back to the discussion about not using a bass level knob after DL, well, like I said, I don't want to beat that dead horse. Jscoyne and rockinridgeline both posted a response to that topic and rockinridgeline's post (here) pretty much summed up my thoughts. I was just reiterating that I think using a bass knob to fix DL before we understand what is going on is, indeed, counterproductive. I stand by that. We need to understand the baseline issues before we start trying to fix it. 

Hopefully we can move on to more fruitful discussion now.


----------



## naiku

ErinH said:


> Hopefully we can move on to more fruitful discussion now.


I feel like there should be a gif to go along with this, just can't quite think if the right one.

Back to the topic, I'm hoping to check the impulse of all my speakers later, curious if any of mine are backwards.


----------



## ErinH

naiku said:


> Back to the topic, I'm hoping to check the impulse of all my speakers later, curious if any of mine are backwards.


John said he was going to test his as well. With low level voltage we should be able to hook directly in to the pre-outs of our miniDSP and check to see what the results are. That would make sure we know we are getting the signal before it hits the amps and speakers. In similar news, I recently ordered some hardware to start doing large signal analysis on electronics and I plan to test this setup and compare it to the helix... maybe see if there's a better performing unit or if they're roughly the same (as the specs indicate; sans the pre-out voltage being a little higher on the Helix).


----------



## bnae38

ErinH said:


> John said he was going to test his as well. With low level voltage we should be able to hook directly in to the pre-outs of our miniDSP and check to see what the results are. That would make sure we know we are getting the signal before it hits the amps and speakers. In similar news, I recently ordered some hardware to start doing large signal analysis on electronics and I plan to test this setup and compare it to the helix... maybe see if there's a better performing unit or if they're roughly the same (as the specs indicate; sans the pre-out voltage being a little higher on the Helix).


What kind of hardware? Jw.. I love my prism sound dscope .


----------



## ErinH

bnae38 said:


> What kind of hardware? Jw.. I love my prism sound dscope .


Man, I wish. I looked at the dScope III as well as Virtins' offering. I also considered going old school with an HP 8903B. Lord knows an AP was waaaaay out of the question. I've been looking off and on for the past few years. Ultimately, however, I decided to go with a soundcard based measurement system. I haven't decided on the soundcard just yet but I did order the P Millet soundcard interface which takes high voltage input and pads them down to 1v so it won't fry the soundcard input. For soundcard I'm leaning toward focusrite 2i2 because that seems to be best bang for the buck. I wish I could swing the price of the RME ADI-2 DAC because that seems like the best of the best as far as tech specs are concerned. But that's just too far out of my ballpark as a hobbyist.


----------



## bnae38

ErinH said:


> Man, I wish. I looked at the dScope III as well as Virtins' offering. I also considered going old school with an HP 8903B. Lord knows an AP was waaaaay out of the question. I've been looking off and on for the past few years. Ultimately, however, I decided to go with a soundcard based measurement system. I haven't decided on the soundcard just yet but I did order the P Millet soundcard interface which takes high voltage input and pads them down to 1v so it won't fry the soundcard input. For soundcard I'm leaning toward focusrite 2i2 because that seems to be best bang for the buck. I wish I could swing the price of the RME ADI-2 DAC because that seems like the best of the best as far as tech specs are concerned. But that's just too far out of my ballpark as a hobbyist.



I hear ya, yes I would love an AP 555 with high bandwidth. That would be sweeet. Especially for looking at class D.

I was able to land a dscope analog only version (we use full version at work) on diyaudio forum. Had to buy the + licence to make it really fully usable, but all in all it was about 2.5k.. still not cheap. 

Anyway, dual gen/anslyzer is handy for measuring phase etc, I'm not sure how you'll manage that with pmillet interface and soundcard. Unless you have a dual system I suppose. Tbh I don't use that that often. Mostly looking at thdn. 

I looked into the pmillet interface as well before getting set up with my dscope. Focusright 2i2 seems to be a decent device too and could give you ability to run a dual system with the right software. 


But enough ot... happy measuring .

Edit: quant asylum makes an analyzer that is on the cheaper side. Fyi. It's max input voltage is on the lowish side (if you're looking at big amps), but pretty cool device.


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> Seriously? I mean, you said this in the exact same post only two sentences before:
> 
> 
> 
> You said it yourself: I 'stuck up' for you but I also noted an aspect that was of concern and shouldn't be ignored. How else can I be _more_ fair?
> 
> So I (or anyone else) isn't permitted to note areas where we disagree? Are we only supposed to say "oh, yes, oab, you're absolutely right"? Come on, dude. Quit making it out like people here are trying to discredit you solely. We are talking audio. I made some posts that were noted as inaccurate earlier and I replied with "there you go". I didn't get mad and take a victim mentality. Heck, if anything, you're particularly being negative and condescending toward me and all I'm doing is simply asking you to stop doing it so we can continue this thread like adults and move on from the car audio drama and super-positioning of ourselves as someone to not be questioned. I'm here to learn and talk about this piece. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> And going back to the discussion about not using a bass level knob after DL, well, like I said, I don't want to beat that dead horse. Jscoyne and rockinridgeline both posted a response to that topic and rockinridgeline's post (here) pretty much summed up my thoughts. I was just reiterating that I think using a bass knob to fix DL before we understand what is going on is, indeed, counterproductive. I stand by that. We need to understand the baseline issues before we start trying to fix it.
> 
> Hopefully we can move on to more fruitful discussion now.


Okay! Now we’re talkin. ! 


Please yes . Let’s figure this out.

I’ve got 200hrs into this install I have in the bay and the IB shows very similar to Jons response he posted up there ^^^ and I can’t even hear the subs at all 
I did the best job I possibly could do on his car and follows all the rules and norms and i swear I can’t even hear the subs.

To be precise , I can hear them so so so so barley at all it’s laughable.
A pair of 6” in the sorts of most cars put out more bass. 


At one point in my car when I had 15s sealed it was okay...actually decent , same type of response. 


I’ve just always used the ass knob and it works , and I’ve exausted my efforts.

Maybe I personally do need more ppl working on this problem together.
And collectively we can solve what Dirac is doing in a car and maybe come up with a better solution


----------



## ErinH

bnae38 said:


> I hear ya, yes I would love an AP 555 with high bandwidth. That would be sweeet. Especially for looking at class D.
> 
> I was able to land a dscope analog only version (we use full version at work) on diyaudio forum. Had to buy the + licence to make it really fully usable, but all in all it was about 2.5k.. still not cheap.
> 
> Anyway, dual gen/anslyzer is handy for measuring phase etc, I'm not sure how you'll manage that with pmillet interface and soundcard. Unless you have a dual system I suppose. Tbh I don't use that that often. Mostly looking at thdn.
> 
> I looked into the pmillet interface as well before getting set up with my dscope. Focusright 2i2 seems to be a decent device too and could give you ability to run a dual system with the right software.
> 
> 
> But enough ot... happy measuring .
> 
> Edit: quant asylum makes an analyzer that is on the cheaper side. Fyi. It's max input voltage is on the lowish side (if you're looking at big amps), but pretty cool device.


The QA caught my eye but according to a friend of mine who owns one they have a variable noise floor, getting worse with volume. I saw talk about that on the audiosciencereview forum as well. So that stinks. Otherwise, I would have bought one and just dealt with the 20Vrms limitation (which is sufficient for DSPs, headunits, etc).

As for the dual measurements, yea, that's one holdup that I continually forget. But, I can knock that out without the interface. For me, the interface is namely to look at the FR, THD+N, SNR, etc.... the basics. Also, it'll be a nice way to capture the clipping point in o-scope mode with the right software. I'm pretty new to this stuff so I may PM you in the future if I have questions if you don't mind.


----------



## bnae38

ErinH said:


> The QA caught my eye but according to a friend of mine who owns one they have a variable noise floor, getting worse with volume. I saw talk about that on the audiosciencereview forum as well. So that stinks. Otherwise, I would have bought one and just dealt with the 20Vrms limitation (which is sufficient for DSPs, headunits, etc).
> 
> As for the dual measurements, yea, that's one holdup that I continually forget. But, I can knock that out without the interface. For me, the interface is namely to look at the FR, THD+N, SNR, etc.... the basics. Also, it'll be a nice way to capture the clipping point in o-scope mode with the right software. I'm pretty new to this stuff so I may PM you in the future if I have questions if you don't mind.


Sure, if you have any questions feel free to pm me. Knew there were some issues with the QA but didn't know about that, bummer.

Trying to remember the software I had prior to my dscope. Think it was AudioTester. Not bad software, price was decent too.


----------



## oabeieo

I just went back to 2x4hds running fir linear phase crossovers and my ddrc22d running dirac , I miss all my usb cords and I miss my one oactave overlapping fir for my horns and kicks with 48db slopes that sound perfect , I miss the manual fir and playing with different designs, It’s not that the cdsp is inferior, it actually worked better in many ways (gain) and I will probably reinstall it after awhile, but for now, I want to work on this and bury a laptop using jriver and optical in/out sound card and do some really long impulses. 

So that’s a different setup so I won’t be contributing to this thread any more , you guys can find me in my dark corner (you know where it is) you got all the help you could possibly need. I think I’m better off doing things which is not and I repeat not looking at a picture of someone else’s (nice looking) measurements and saying this is how it is to be done. I’m against that always have been and I’ll just cause confusion and turmoil.
Looks can be one thing, how it sounds is another. Countless times I’ve went away from very good looking graphs done right because it just sounded or images better. 

The transfer function matching is important (thank you Dirac live) however the room decay time and how your brain interprets frequency dependent reflection is cause for me to say no to this and no to all this disagreement. Target responses are not doctrine, it’s a guideline. The room absolutely has things that should not be touched and left alone, but I still see these flat targets and responses. They shouldn’t match like that in REW systune or arta or whatever. Forcing a response can’t be the best sounding for every car. If yours sounds good with a target you want your lucky, some cars will do that and sound good but is it it’s best. some won’t and we need to respect that and other ways of achieving good sound not good measurements. 

The thing is at the end of the day, some of you know I’m right, some of you will disagree. I just know you can only make good looking measurements do so much, at some point subjectivity takes hold and those last little corrections must be made. It’s something you can’t be a ***** about to admit because you will get flamed for it. When it comes to phase measurements, if someone tries to tell you phase has to be a certain way above about 220-250hz there wrong. The 200-1k range is where phase manipulation can really be fun and make things sound special. Getting the soundstage way way outside the car and stuff like that, and I promise you it won’t look good on a graph or someone’s measurements they post up. That takes true thinking outside of things and isn’t boring. 

Enjoy your systems, make it fun and make it what you like. Learn why and how you got there. If you try to just make it only measure good your system will be severely limited and boring! Use the knowledge of goodcar audio only as a guide, but that’s it. It’s just a guide to know where your at at frequency and time. It surely does not have to be a certain way to sound it’s best in a car. In a home it’s a different story and the norms should be followed only because you can get physically farther than 60inches! 


I remember back in the 90s the iacsa rules were no more than 3db per oactave in response , and they encouraged some unusual responses, like high up in the midrange? Or a lot more bass. What happened to that. Everyone here does the same flat responses that are good , but are they the best for your car. Some cars hate 800hx range and it’s echoes are horrific and some cars love the 800hz range where it’s snappy and smooth. Which is yours? I bet that flat target sounds harsh as hell and the midrange isn’t very good. Dirac can make it better but you need to turn that down if the car doesn’t make it smoother anymore. Or add a lot of padding or something different with locations, or get off the doctrine mentality. Best of luck 

Enjoy


----------



## dgage

Oabeieo, I hope you don't disappear. I don't know why you feel you sometimes get attacked but I love your posts and enjoy seeing multiple viewpoints. I hope you decide to continue sharing your unique approaches and quest for knowledge.


----------



## tonny

oabeieo said:


> Doing an IB install with DL
> 
> Ran measurements and the bass issue is even worse IB
> 
> The response looks very good within 2db from 20-20k spent a few hours tuning.
> 
> 
> This time in the enclosureless install you can’t even hear the subs playing at all.
> It’s like there not even on. What the **** the mic shows there on and the response looks just fine.
> 
> Tried every combination of delay and crossovers I could with midbass to get the reinforcement on the bass as good as I can do I know there not fighting and lol
> I can’t even hear the subs. Bass knob does fix it but subs start to pop
> 
> 
> I wish someone would tell me if there manual cut and paste coefficients works good for IB
> In bass management advanced biquad entry and what’s a good slope and frequency



is it that there is no bass at all? or is it just clean and undistorted bass that sounds like there is a lack off bass? If the DL cleans up the bass response and puts all frequenties in time it can sound like there is less bass while there is the same volume in bass... it's just more clear with less overhang and better timed and then it can sound like less bass but it is less distortion over time.


----------



## Jscoyne2

I like to think of Dirac as an eq that fixes phase as well as amplitude because thats what it does. I still tune the same exact way.

I listen to banded noise and try to make center. 

I still add t/a to the left side to move image. 

I still use the same curves. 

Yada yada.

Its the same as the Helix or any other dsp with parametric, Dirac just does it far faster and with more precision but without us having to use parametric. It basically skips the part of a tune where we all start importing Rew autoeq files into the Dsp. It does that part with hybrid iir/fir for you. Cuz thats what we paid all this money for.

However, the biggest issue with how house curves work, is that they were all made using a set mic pattern. Its touched on and explained in the "house curve" thread years and years ago. I can find the thread if anyone really wants to know. But basically its like this.

The JBL curve was made from having a specific certain number of measurements in a very specific way, with the mic oriented in a certain way with a certain mic weight on it.

The mpl1 curve, the half whitledge curve. Ect ect. Each was made, with those above mentioned variables changed

Thus not a single one of them is going to work in any one of our vehicles. 

So why do we still advocate them? Well we have to have Something to match opposing drivers too. Interaural time difference and interaural intensity difference, demand that they be matched.

The fact that any curve has worked even slightly is because most of them are based on the fletcher munson curve which is designed to take into account how humans hear specific frequencies.

In my opinion, A curve shouldn't even look like a curve once you're done tuning. Both sides should be matched yes, but linear slopes from 20-20khz? Thats honestly preference. 

So what can we do?

Do your Dirac measurements. Save that file.

Now tune everything to a curve. Listen to it. Write down what needs work.

Tune to different curve. Say jbl this time around. Write down what needs work.

Do this a few times.

You'll find two things.

1. Anything that needs work across all curves is most likely a measurement issue, or a driver/install/crossover issue.

2. The one with the least amount of things to work on is the curve to start working from.

Imo, use the parametric eq in the plugin to make changes like raising or lowering frequencies or shelf filters. When you like those changes. Mirror them in the Dirac section and turn them off in the plug in section. This might take a lil work to get right but you'll get it.

Curves are there for a baseline and should never ever be even expected to sound good from the start. 

As for the low bass Dirac issue. Anyone who has this issue. Make sure your midbass and subs are in phase with each other. Dirac kept flipping my sub and making it cancel. 

If its good and in phase. Try raising the sub output 3db across the board and make your sub to midbass crossovers align with the higher output. If you're not having localizing issues or midbass bloom, there is no reason not to raise the bass output and match midbass to it. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

It’s kind of funny... I’ve been against people tuning to a single curve for years. I essentially quit using the RTA 4-5 years ago and have tuned, since then, by ear only using pink noise and test tones. This product is the only time since then I’ve actually used measurements to completely tune a system. And I’m reminded why I quit doing that. The car certainly provides its own complications and I think DL is good for rectifying some. However, we are going to have to get to a point where we choose the best target curve for our system because it’s definitely not a one size fits all case. For example, I wouldn’t tell someone using a wideband or highly directional horn to target a response that is flat above 2khz. Contrarily, I wouldn’t recommend someone using a small tweeter with omnidirectional response out to 16khz to target a curve that slopes downward, either. I think the parts of the system should dictate the response. And I’m sure there is a scientific correlation, similar to the rationale for why theaters use the “X-Curve”. I just can’t provide it more than some generic ones I mentioned above. This isn’t to say DL can’t be useful. Moreso that there needs to be a deeper understanding of why one curve may be more useful. I think some of you guys are working toward that and I look forward to there being some sort of general consensus so that others can benefit from the trial and error everyone here is helping with.


----------



## oliverlim

Just a quick note on some who have the APL1 and the 8x12DL. In my car with the same system and only the processor change, using the exact same mic with the same mic correction applied, using the same house curve applied, I now understand why it sounds "so different" 

Basically the APL1 measurements which I understand is base on a averaging of the whole front portion of the car over 150-200 samples base on Sound Pressure Response (direct and indirect?) frequency actually measures quite differently from the Dirac Live. Using the same curve, but using RTA for a sample around the driver area, APL1 tune is consistently around 5-8DB higher in the area around 200hz and below while also around 5-8b lower in the region around 3-5Khz upwards. So say I am using the MP1 curve, apl1 would have the "slope?" from around 16-18db difference from 20hz to 20khz. While the same MP1 curve under Dirac would only measure around 8-10db slope from 20hz to 20khz. 

So to get roughly the same tune on Dirac Live, the house curve used has to almost double in difference to be close to similar. Just thought this might help some folks who have the APL and 8x12DL.


----------



## naiku

Jscoyne2 said:


> As for the low bass Dirac issue. Anyone who has this issue. Make sure your midbass and subs are in phase with each other. Dirac kept flipping my sub and making it cancel.
> 
> If its good and in phase. Try raising the sub output 3db across the board and make your sub to midbass crossovers align with the higher output. If you're not having localizing issues or midbass bloom, there is no reason not to raise the bass output and match midbass to it.


I forget though, did you have to re-measure after inverting the sub? and if you did, then Dirac just flipped it again right? So, did you just end up inverting it and leaving it be?


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> I forget though, did you have to re-measure after inverting the sub? and if you did, then Dirac just flipped it again right? So, did you just end up inverting it and leaving it be?


Yea i remeasured with an inverted sub and it still flipped it. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

Jscoyne2 said:


> Yea i remeasured with an inverted sub and it still flipped it.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Makes me wonder if the time delay is wrong on the sub (or the midbass relative to sub). Flipping phase can alter where the phase wrap occurs even in absolute phase (meaning, if the sub itself is playing you can measure the response with the phase wrap of -180 to +180 occuring at x hz but by flipping the polarity the wrap will shift to a different frequency). If DL is trying to align the phase but the T/A is way off then I could see it bugging out. Not saying that's the answer. Just wondering out loud if that could be the issue.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> I am testing the miniDSP again this morning. I am currently in the process of doing a manual tune using the Plugin and my traditional SysTune with microphone array method.
> 
> Step 1 - Verify speaker polarity and time alignment by impulse response.
> 
> 
> I am using optical digital input. That means Inputs 7 & 8.
> 
> Bass Management set with 80 Hz LR24 slope.
> 
> 
> Fired up impulse response and discovered that the following Outputs on the miniDSP are sending out inverted signals:
> 
> Output 2
> Output 4
> Output 6
> Output 7
> 
> 
> This is with Dirac turned off, and I also erased the Dirac configs from all Config slots prior to starting.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice this? The method to check polarity is to put the mic near the speaker and do an impulse response. The first peak should go up. If the first peak is down, then the speaker is in reverse polarity.


So I'm 99% sure my unit is not exhibiting this issue.

I'm currently working on another attempt. I've eq'd individual drivers and then applied xovers similar to how Subterfuse recorded in his write up. Delay was calculated by distance. The output channels in the mixer tab are assigned as follows:

Output 1 = Left Tweeter
Output 2 = Right Tweeter
Output 3 = Left Mid
Output 4 = Right Mid
Output 5 = Left Midbass
Output 6 = Right Midbass
Output 8 = Sub

I listened to corrolated (mono) pink noise on each driver pair by themselves - So channels 1 & 2 (L&R tweeters) the 3 & 4 (mids), and 5 & 6 (Midbass).

In each case the noise was clearly eminating from the center.

If I flip polarity on one of the channels - the noise clearly pulls out to the speakers. 

I have not run or applied DLCT to this config slot yet.

My unit was originally a 8x12 V2. I purchased & installed the DL firmware upgrade.

I wonder if the units that were bought directly as the DL version exhibit this issue whereas the previous V2 units which were firmware upgraded to DL do not?


----------



## naiku

Went to try and get some new measurements earlier, pulled the USB cable and noticed it had a lot more slack than usual. Figuring it had come unplugged, I pulled it a little more and noticed it had been cut clean through. Had the seats folded down the other day and must have pinched and cut the cable when putting the seats back up. Quick hunt around for a new cable and back in business.



Truthunter said:


> My unit was originally a 8x12 V2. I purchased & installed the DL firmware upgrade.
> 
> I wonder if the units that were bought directly as the DL version exhibit this issue whereas the previous V2 units which were firmware upgraded to DL do not?


I just looked at the impulse response on mine (took a single measurement in DLCT, then looked at the impulse) and had to invert outputs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. It's weird, manual tunes never gave me any problems with this unit, so not sure if it is the DSP firmware (upgraded V2) or my wiring. I'll probably double check later, especially knowing that in the past I used those "My voice is in phase, my voice is out of phase" tracks and it always sounded right up on the center.

So, after inverting those 5 outputs and taking new measurements midbass and sub-bass sound improved to me, midbass is, for lack of a better word, punchier, while sub-bass is improved and up on the dash. Of course, since it was just a quick tune the upper end of things sounds really harsh again as I never bothered tweaking it. So, if I can combine the low end of this tune with the upper end of my other tune, all would sound good to me. I'll double check the inverted signal later and if that is good, measure with REW and then either try a new curve in DLCT or use PEQ/levels in the plug in to get rid of the harshness.


----------



## Truthunter

subterFUSE said:


> Update 2
> 
> 
> I have done the Dirac 3 channel measurement for Left Right and Sub.


Can you share your mic placements when doing the DLCT measurments?

Were you in the vehicle? 

How far away from eachother were the mic positions on each side?

On my last attempt I was in the vehicle and held the mic about an inch away from my ear and and 1.5-2in in whatever direction needed from there. So about a 3-4in square an inch away from my ear on both sides.
Initial measurement was taken by placing the mic right in front of my nose and reclining the seat back so that it ended up where the center of my head would be.

Would appreciate if anyone else would like to share their mic positions too


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> Would appreciate if anyone else would like to share their mic positions too


I do a much bigger box than you, I think I oabeieo had posted and i also read somewhere that the box should be fairly large. 

I take the measurements while sitting in the car, first position just ahead of my nose. Lower rear positions I will put down near my hips, lower front positions same height but parallel with my knees. Upper rear positions a little above my shoulders and upper front positions usually directly above the lower front positions, but sometimes I will put the upper front left position right against the side window.

Edit: Quiet at work today, so ran and took some new measurements. I think I have figured out, at least in my car, how to get the bass just right. Essentially while I loaded a half Whitledge curve, for the subwoofer I just dragged it to match the measured response and ignored what the curve said it should be. It still lines up well with the mid-bass (if I remember I will post up a screen shot later) and puts the sub level where I am happy. The other thing I did was just keep increasing the subwoofer level in the plugin 1dB at a time to get as much out of it without causing DLCT to clip (for me sub volume is at -3dB and level at-15dB). I also pulled down 3KHz and up by some random amount that looked good to me :laugh::laugh: which on the face of it has helped with the harshness I was experiencing. 

With Dirac on the stage pulls to the right a little, so I added 0.25ms to the right mid and midbass which appears to have helped. Pulling to the right is all down to microphone positioning though, I have found just an inch or two one way or another can have a big difference on the center and I am still experimenting with what sounds best in my vehicle. I might re-measure (again!!!) and try to get it centered up without having to add any delay manually. 

The one odd thing with this latest iteration is that my rear fill may as well be non existent. Previously, if I muted the rears you would notice they are not on, but they did not pull the stage back. With this latest tune I don't notice them at all, it could be as simple as tweaking the delay or the levels on the rears. No big deal though. 

Took a quick measurement with REW and the ~8dB drop at 55Hz is still there (which I would _really_ like to get rid of) as well as a small dip at around 450Hz which I am not as bothered about. But, overall a quick listen and it sounds good. I have a long drive coming up this weekend so can give it a really good listen and compare it to another preset I have saved. But, so far so good with this one.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

naiku said:


> I do a much bigger box than you, I think I oabeieo had posted and i also read somewhere that the box should be fairly large.


This is important to note, I recall reading 2 separate reviews of Dirac where the reviewer commented it was excellent except for tonality being a bit "dead". Using a wider box fixed the tonality issues for both reviewers. Now if the subwoofer level issues could be fixed once and for all.


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> It’s kind of funny... I’ve been against people tuning to a single curve for years. I essentially quit using the RTA 4-5 years ago and have tuned, since then, by ear only using pink noise and test tones. This product is the only time since then I’ve actually used measurements to completely tune a system. And I’m reminded why I quit doing that. The car certainly provides its own complications and I think DL is good for rectifying some. However, we are going to have to get to a point where we choose the best target curve for our system because it’s definitely not a one size fits all case. For example, I wouldn’t tell someone using a wideband or highly directional horn to target a response that is flat above 2khz. Contrarily, I wouldn’t recommend someone using a small tweeter with omnidirectional response out to 16khz to target a curve that slopes downward, either. I think the parts of the system should dictate the response. And I’m sure there is a scientific correlation, similar to the rationale for why theaters use the “X-Curve”. I just can’t provide it more than some generic ones I mentioned above. This isn’t to say DL can’t be useful. Moreso that there needs to be a deeper understanding of why one curve may be more useful. I think some of you guys are working toward that and I look forward to there being some sort of general consensus so that others can benefit from the trial and error everyone here is helping with.




I know I said I’m going to my corner but I couldn’t resist I had to comment on this 

Wow! We’re more alike than I thought. I got a huge smile when I read this and was super happy. Sometimes I get frustrated and so refreshing to hear this on here.

Sorry to but I’m but thanks for that. Makes me know I’m not loosin my mind sometimes and going off track.


----------



## oabeieo

So the whole sub thing


I found a solution, smaller subs! 


I took my box out and hooked my 10nw64s in tiny sealed boxes that play to 175
And run those off the sub channel (still using Dirac) 

And it hasn’t messed up at all 

Maybe something with large subs or ported boxes in a car. 

I got the IB setup to work also. It just had a huge hump at 100hz that Dirac seemed to ignore so when I would turn up the system all I could hear is a hollow sounding boomy 100hz peak that was horrible. I eq that and re measure and the IB sounded good. (Still kinda needed a bass knob I thought but wants as bad as the boxed subs at all. (I always forget how much I love IB)


----------



## oabeieo

Yes! Define a target that sounds good in your car. 
It’s so cool to be able to load a target but with so many resonances and reflections that are so close the power response is going to be up and down. 

Get a target that sounds good to you will always be better than using someone else’s target. 

What if 200hz sounds hollow in your car , what if 1.3k is way reflective , what if 2.5k is harsh on them soft domes , what if 630 or 800hz sounds echoey......

Pull that stuff down in the target so the tonal balance is better. It works so much better than using peq where your making a mess of the time domain Nd never knowing where your really at. That’s hit and miss anyways 

I use an rta when I first do an install just to learn how the car behaves and almost never use it after that (or rarely bring it out when I’m stumped) 

If something sounds bad or the stage isn’t right you know what to do to fix it and adherents to a target isn’t the answer, and if it is you got years of install work ahead of you to make those weird frequencies sound right.


----------



## dgage

oabeieo said:


> I found a solution, smaller subs!


That is most definitely not a solution. Now go wash your mouth out using such foul language on here.


----------



## oabeieo

dgage said:


> That is most definitely not a solution. Now go wash your mouth out using such foul language on here.


Oh don’t you worry....lol ...I’m putting an 18 in in just a few days! 

My AP idea just fizzeled on me, I really badly want IB 
In a hatchback I don’t know how I could pull that off.


I’m almost tempted to build a baffle board with some legs on it , like a little table looking thing and mount the 18 to it and let it cancel, it won’t cancel everything I will still get some response, an 18” dipole with a 25”x40” baffle should grab plenty of air, at least enough for me. I don’t like to bass out but I do like to hear it an I like the real lows to be audible. But pounding bass isn’t for me. 

It would be one hell of a 1st order enclosure. I hope I don’t get the problem 
There will be zero enclosure to ring and no “fb” .....hopefully I don’t waste a sheet of mdf for nothing and end up just hearing the suspension and come move. but I think that’s the direction next for me and hope it solves the bass issue and allows me to still have solid LF


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> Makes me wonder if the time delay is wrong on the sub (or the midbass relative to sub). Flipping phase can alter where the phase wrap occurs even in absolute phase (meaning, if the sub itself is playing you can measure the response with the phase wrap of -180 to +180 occuring at x hz but by flipping the polarity the wrap will shift to a different frequency). If DL is trying to align the phase but the T/A is way off then I could see it bugging out. Not saying that's the answer. Just wondering out loud if that could be the issue.


That’s a good point.

I think your on to something. , if you flip it , wherever the maximum phase is at could be where the midbass minimum phase wrap is at its half interger if I understand you right. 

So it flips it and the result is -180 only in one of the crossovers not the other. 

Like it almost isn’t accounting for the position of maximum phase. 


And if someone had midbass that plays into the 50s that could be a serious bass problem. Or like you said a timing issue, but don’t you think the delay offset would have to be substantially large to account for half the wavelength of 40-80hz , we would see delays in the 15-30ms range no? 

How would we test that? 

Or how could we implement a shift of a LR4 without changing frequency and without an fir handy.

Could someone apply a 2nd order APF and leave the sub xo turned off and measure that way than after turn off the all pass and turn back on the crossover?

2nd order goes back to 360- just like a lr4 just would have to dial the Q right .

I wonder if it’s a worthy experiment


----------



## oabeieo

I’m just saying. What if the attenuation between the two adjoining speakers is causing something weird in the target and how it phases the response to the target 


If you had the phase shift of a crossover but did not have the attenuation than defined the target I wonder if that problem would go away. 

However that would only work with discrete Dirac channels . A 2ch wouldn’t work because of the overlap would change the way the target is applied after......


By turning the crossover on after Dirac. Dirac will makes flat the response the way it’s algo does it’s thing based on how it interprets, and the crossover should perform perfectly to how it’s algo thinks things should be...if you add a crossover to a flat response it behaves perfectly.....


I guess that’s where my logic is ....no crossovers just a simulation of phase shift 
Than define a target , than turn off allpass , turn back on crossover and invert back to normal.


I pulled my multichannel out or I would surly try it


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Oh don’t you worry....lol ...I’m putting an 18 in in just a few days!
> 
> 
> 
> My AP idea just fizzeled on me, I really badly want IB
> 
> In a hatchback I don’t know how I could pull that off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m almost tempted to build a baffle board with some legs on it , like a little table looking thing and mount the 18 to it and let it cancel, it won’t cancel everything I will still get some response, an 18” dipole with a 25”x40” baffle should grab plenty of air, at least enough for me. I don’t like to bass out but I do like to hear it an I like the real lows to be audible. But pounding bass isn’t for me.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be one hell of a 1st order enclosure. I hope I don’t get the problem
> 
> There will be zero enclosure to ring and no “fb” .....hopefully I don’t waste a sheet of mdf for nothing and end up just hearing the suspension and come move. but I think that’s the direction next for me and hope it solves the bass issue and allows me to still have solid LF


Build a spare tire enclosure and cut out a few holes in the tire well. It Really won't take many to make an IB response.

Still. Just go sealed?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Build a spare tire enclosure and cut out a few holes in the tire well. It Really won't take many to make an IB response.
> 
> Still. Just go sealed?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Oh have you heard IB bass? 

Having no fb makes the bass soooooo nice 

The box colors the sound, you can hear the box ringing the box ringing is heard easily through a thin paper cone , it’s harder to hear through 3/4mdf but can still be heard 


l
My spare tire is only 4” deep my sub is 10” deep 


Unless I invert the sub and have a big ole magnet in my trunk 
I always thought inverted subs were corny and just a little teenager ish for me 
But it’s still an option 


Who makes a shallow 18” IB worthy sub 
Someone needs to invent that


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> Oh have you heard IB bass?
> 
> 
> 
> Having no fb makes the bass soooooo nice
> 
> 
> 
> The box colors the sound, you can hear the box ringing the box ringing is heard easily through a thin paper cone , it’s harder to hear through 3/4mdf but can still be heard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l
> 
> My spare tire is only 4” deep my sub is 10” deep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I invert the sub and have a big ole magnet in my trunk
> 
> I always thought inverted subs were corny and just a little teenager ish for me
> 
> But it’s still an option
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who makes a shallow 18” IB worthy sub
> 
> Someone needs to invent that




Yeah I could hear my single 12" ring my 3/4" thick 2cu ft box. 

We all need to drive vans to fit a coffin like this....


















































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Oh have you heard IB bass?
> 
> 
> 
> Having no fb makes the bass soooooo nice
> 
> 
> 
> The box colors the sound, you can hear the box ringing the box ringing is heard easily through a thin paper cone , it’s harder to hear through 3/4mdf but can still be heard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l
> 
> My spare tire is only 4” deep my sub is 10” deep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I invert the sub and have a big ole magnet in my trunk
> 
> I always thought inverted subs were corny and just a little teenager ish for me
> 
> But it’s still an option
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who makes a shallow 18” IB worthy sub
> 
> Someone needs to invent that


The excursion needed wouldn't allow for shallow. Period.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

Tonynca-overkill just called and they said you killed it.  That is just slightly overboard.


----------



## tonynca

dgage said:


> Tonynca-overkill just called and they said you killed it.  That is just slightly overboard.




That's not me. That's just an example of overkill. The owner of the coffin is Raymond over at magicbus.biz

Okay sorry to derail the thread. Now back to DSP chat. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## banshee28

oabeieo said:


> Oh don’t you worry....lol ...I’m putting an 18 in in just a few days!
> 
> My AP idea just fizzeled on me, I really badly want IB
> In a hatchback I don’t know how I could pull that off.
> 
> I’m almost tempted to build a baffle board with some legs on it , like a little table looking thing and mount the 18 to it and let it cancel, it won’t cancel everything I will still get some response, an 18” dipole with a 25”x40” baffle should grab plenty of air, at least enough for me.


 So I currently have a 15" IDMAX in IB through the ski-pass and its great! However would also be interested in making a 18" fit in there also. Not sure if I will have to build a manifold vs the baffle/wall I currently have. Also would the trunk be too small at this point? At a car show recently I did see someone have a 18" in the spare tire well with the back vented outside the car!!! :surprised:

That would be cool, but more work.


----------



## ErinH

Had some time tonight to mess around with this setup again. I don't have much time at all to post this so I'll be brief...


Round 2: much more success.
With my previous round of testing not bearing much fruit, I figured I'd start simple. Measure my system's curve, then get DL to match that. Then compare. I figure at least then I know I'm comparing the same tonality based curve. NOTE: I measured my system with my personal tune using a single mic location; center of the headrest. I also ran DL with the same single measurement location. 

So, what I did: 
1) Measure my system. Get the response curve of what I already know and enjoy.
2) Measure all 7 channels with DL. Let it tell me what it measures for time arrival and levels. Use those values in the minidsp. 
3) Measure DL in 2-channel mode. left+sub, right+sub.
4) Use #1 above and tell DL to match the 2-channels' response to my curve.
5) Let DL do its thing.
6) Listen to the results.


So, impressions off the cuff: 
The tonality is muuuuuch more to my liking. Sure beats those ... other ... curves. I'm biased, of course. But now I have at least a somewhat proper frame of reference. The 7-drum track isn't as spread out on the left between the first two beats as it is in my Helix tune. The 3-drum track I used to check for tonality between left/center/right doesn't have the same tonality on the sides (it should since it's the same note, just panned). Some things tend to smear to the right I noticed so I think there's something going on in the lower midrange/midbass. The depth is impressive; my car seemingly lends itself toward good depth (not bragging, just relaying feedback I constantly get about it) but it's improved with this DL tune. The kick drum on some songs is deeeeeeep in the stage. Some details are more noticeable (but that could more likely be due to the target curve not *exactly* matching to a 'T'). There's still some left side bias towards the ~80hz midbass suckout. Every car has this, especially the ones that cross their midbass too low (I let my sub fill it in for the most part; modes, whatchagonnado). Unfortunately, DL can't get close to fixing it in the current configuration I have so I will have to play some more with this as time permits; I may be able to get that better with crossover adjustments. Also, some of these issues could be due to the single mic measurement. But anyway, that's basically it. But for now, my impressions are this is much better than I thought it was a few nights ago. Lots of promise here. To be continued...


I have attached a picture of my curve measured in REW and the DL measurement/target (left and right, respectively). Yes, it's not a typical target curve. I arrived at it with ear tuning using test tones and pink noise. And, again, this was a single mic measurement (no averaging) so, for one, that dip at 2khz isn't really there when you sit in the car and listen. I wouldn't recommend copying it. It works in my car but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Besides, looking at it tonight I see a particular area I've been needing to fix and the measurements just confirmed it for me.


----------



## LumbermanSVO

oliverlim said:


> Just a quick note on some who have the APL1 and the 8x12DL. In my car with the same system and only the processor change, using the exact same mic with the same mic correction applied, using the same house curve applied, I now understand why it sounds "so different"
> 
> Basically the APL1 measurements which I understand is base on a averaging of the whole front portion of the car over 150-200 samples base on Sound Pressure Response (direct and indirect?) frequency actually measures quite differently from the Dirac Live. Using the same curve, but using RTA for a sample around the driver area, APL1 tune is consistently around 5-8DB higher in the area around 200hz and below while also around 5-8b lower in the region around 3-5Khz upwards. So say I am using the MP1 curve, apl1 would have the "slope?" from around 16-18db difference from 20hz to 20khz. While the same MP1 curve under Dirac would only measure around 8-10db slope from 20hz to 20khz.
> 
> So to get roughly the same tune on Dirac Live, the house curve used has to almost double in difference to be close to similar. Just thought this might help some folks who have the APL and 8x12DL.


This is why I only use Workshop for measuring frequency response. When I'm working outside of Workshop I'll still measure with it, but then dump the .DAT files that Workshop generates into REW to work off them. The only acoustic measurements I do outside of REW are in TDA.

The graphs in REW are easier to read than the graphs in Workshop, so often dump them in REW just to have a look.


----------



## oliverlim

ErinH said:


> Had some time tonight to mess around with this setup again. I don't have much time at all to post this so I'll be brief...
> 
> 
> Round 2: much more success.
> With my previous round of testing not bearing much fruit, I figured I'd start simple. Measure my system's curve, then get DL to match that. Then compare. I figure at least then I know I'm comparing the same tonality based curve.
> 
> So, what I did:
> 1) Measure my system. Get the response curve of what I already know and enjoy.
> 2) Measure all 7 channels with DL. Let it tell me what it measures for time arrival and levels. Use those values in the minidsp.
> 3) Measure DL in 2-channel mode. left+sub, right+sub.
> 4) Use #1 above and tell DL to match the 2-channels' response to my curve.
> 5) Let DL do its thing.
> 6) Listen to the results.


For item 2, do you have crossovers for the 7 channels in place during the Dirac measurements?


----------



## ErinH

Yes. Pretty arbitrarily set. I didn't use a pre-defined curve to help me set them. I picked crossover points that are reasonable based on my experience with this system and let Dirac sort 'em out in 2-channel mode since that's its bread and butter. The only reason I ran the 7 channel measurements was so DL would calculate the time delay and levels for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

Alright. Back to my helix tune. Still kicks the DL tune in the face. BUT, my tune is hours and hours worth of me sitting and listening and making adjustments. The DL tune is 10 minutes without me sitting in the car for a single second. So... like I said, it holds more promise for me now than it originally did. I look forward to getting some more time with it and trying some other ideas to correct the issues I noted above. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

ErinH said:


> Alright. Back to my helix tune. Still kicks the DL tune in the face. BUT, my tune is hours and hours worth of me sitting and listening and making adjustments. The DL tune is 10 minutes without me sitting in the car for a single second. So... like I said, it holds more promise for me now than it originally did. I look forward to getting some more time with it and trying some other ideas to correct the issues I noted above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup. Its like an ms8...that actually works. Just happens to be $1k.

Try the couch position and go from 2in from window(any closer gave me clipping. Hard reflections there), two inches to the right of your face, and around 15inches forward of your ear for the forward position. 

I had good luck with those. Keep your mic facing forward.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

ErinH said:


> Round 2: much more success.














ErinH said:


> 2) Measure all 7 channels with DL. Let it tell me what it measures for time arrival and levels. Use those values in the minidsp.


Did you bother doing any L/R level matching beforehand? Reading this it sounds like no, but just curious.


----------



## ErinH

naiku said:


> Did you bother doing any L/R level matching beforehand? Reading this it sounds like no, but just curious.


After DL ran the first time (in 7 channel mode) and I loaded those results in to the desired miniDSP slot, I pulled up the 'Dirac' tab and noted the levels (and time) values it had adjusted to. I then used those values to enter in to the miniDSP's output settings.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> After DL ran the first time (in 7 channel mode) and I loaded those results in to the desired miniDSP slot, I pulled up the 'Dirac' tab and noted the levels (and time) values it had adjusted to. I then used those values to enter in to the miniDSP's output settings.


Erin, can you share your mic positions when taking measurements for DLCT? Also, I assume you chose "chair"?


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> Erin, can you share your mic positions when taking measurements for DLCT? Also, I assume you chose "chair"?


Sure. I bought an old headrest from a junkyard some years back and cut a hole in the middle of it. I run my mic through that and put the electet at about where my ears would be if I were sitting in the car. That's for single mic measurements. I also have two other holes drilled out in the headrest on each side and will use those to get an average if I want to check things.


----------



## Truthunter

ErinH said:


> Sure. I bought an old headrest from a junkyard some years back and cut a hole in the middle of it. I run my mic through that and put the electet at about where my ears would be if I were sitting in the car. That's for single mic measurements. I also have two other holes drilled out in the headrest on each side and will use those to get an average if I want to check things.


That's a neat setup (holes in headrest). My question was more of where the mic was positioned for the 9 measurement positions Dirac needs:

The first position is usually right in the middle of where your head would be... 

What I'm asking is how far to the L/R, up/down, forward/aft was the mic positioned from that initial position?

And I assume you used the "Chair" listening environment as opposed to "Sofa" or "Auditorium" on the measurement tab?


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> That's a neat setup (holes in headrest). My question was more of where the mic was positioned for the 9 measurement positions Dirac needs:


He only took a single measurement for this tune.... 



ErinH said:


> And, again, this was a single mic measurement (no averaging)


----------



## Truthunter

naiku said:


> He only took a single measurement for this tune....


My Bad... I read that as one mic position to measure his initial curve in step 1:



ErinH said:


> 1) Measure my system. Get the response curve of what I already know and enjoy.



I didn't even realize Dirac would optimize based off just one measurement... thought all nine positions had to be completed before moving on to the filter design screen to optimize.


----------



## ErinH

Truthunter said:


> My Bad... I read that as one mic position to measure his initial curve in step 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't even realize Dirac would optimize based off just one measurement... thought all nine positions had to be completed before moving on to the filter design screen to optimize.


No worries. 

Yep, you can do just one measurement. After the first measurement is complete, rather than hitting the 'start' button to kick off another measurement, hit the 'proceed' button and it'll take you to the optimization window.


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Yeah I could hear my single 12" ring my 3/4" thick 2cu ft box.
> 
> We all need to drive vans to fit a coffin like this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Hooooooo hooooooo ... wow! 
Yes we do! 
My goodness! Now that is a van!


----------



## oabeieo

Try using Dirac only on your midranges 
Do manual tune on everything else 

That’s my fav so far.


----------



## oabeieo

Get ready for spaceship gang. I got good info.


So I’ve been doing some testing and have some solid answers for yalls 

1st off the bass issue is solved. It’s cabin gain attenuation caused by the room mode that seen in Dirac. I’ve moved my little 10” midbass subs to the rear of car and problem came back, put in middle of car problems go away.

If cabin gain is seen as a mode that is present in all positions it is as they say “robust correction “. So a couple points on that

1. If subs are in middle of car the room mode is severely lessened. Because energy is distributed evenly vs a piston of sub energy moving from back to front of car. . So the big peaks we love in our cabin gain is removed. 

2.im guessing by experimenting that Dirac is removing cabin gain because it’s seen as a mode in all seat but that would also be good for box resonances. So we’re hearing a more faithful corrected direct sound response from sub system when it’s mounted in trunk. Remove cabin gain and more direct sound , so it will be quieter than what we’re used to. If it’s algo keeps spl measurements seperate from acoustic gain, that’s why our RTA tunes are louder, it’s just an spl tune. Perhaps a more in depth REW sim would reveal. I don’t think the room sim goes small enough to put car dimensions in tho (I’ve tried it awhile back) 

3. My bass changing levels must be only a issue I’m having and is unrelated and a second issue that I’m confusing with this issue. Either my old man ears or something with my car. 
I’m thinking the sub box being removed is cooling my amps more now that the box is out. The bottom of the box (the wood itself) would get hot to the touch from bass amp under it.
I just thought amps got hot. Simultaneously that problem went away. (I wonder why) 
The smaller box back there it dosent happen. So there’s that. 


Now on to the crossovers, I have news for yalls .


First I did a new tune tonight, and it’s full blown spaceship, more spaceship than the C could get and here’s why at least for me. I made a whole new set of linear phase filters in FIR. 
And retuned to ddrc22d and HDs. I have zero crossover issues and Dirac I’m tellin ya guys is spaceship in every way. With the C I was having severe polar issues at crossover. 
One speaker sounded out of phase at crossover and the interaction sounded bad. 

So how to fix in the C 

What subterFUSE (John) is doing with systune surly looks promising. 
But I have a easier fix. (I hate tedious measurements and only do them when I really (in bold) want to know what’s going on) so a LR4 should sum at -360deg phase. If one speaker is not behaving itself it will sum different and Dirac moves the sum of the phase. 

In steep odd order filers like a LR4 or higher, on/off axis behavior of the speaker can change in polar response especially if the driver doesn’t behave on/off axis. Have a speaker that behaves itself is one thing but some of us like the speakers like horns that are wildly different polars at different angles of incidents. The stop band attenuation can cause some drivers to generally freak out in the phase department. 

So here’s the easy fix. Use even order LR2 and ignore the polar flip needed on complimentary crossovers, let Dirac resolve that.

Low order filters the speaker behaves itself much better in phase on/off axis. 
With low order filters the phase is more “blurred” and the need for a tuned crossover is lessened. They sum more in phase than out of phase even if no eq is applied in the stop-band for tuning. Essentially you could just turn on a LR2 and run Dirac and do nothing else. Not to mention the FIR coefficients can easily make smooth low order corrections which always sound better. Just because it is possible to get a high order filter to sound good in FIR dosent meant the fact that low order filters are expressed much much easier, the algo would have to resolve that better. It’s logical 


Ignore what I said about using Dirac only on mids , I retract that, 
Dirac live is amazing and the target should sound very good. 
I loaded a few pre made targets with low order filters and it’s one of the best tunes to date.

Go find your spaceship.


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Get ready for spaceship gang. I got good info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I’ve been doing some testing and have some solid answers for yalls
> 
> 
> 
> 1st off the bass issue is solved. It’s cabin gain attenuation caused by the room mode that seen in Dirac. I’ve moved my little 10” midbass subs to the rear of car and problem came back, put in middle of car problems go away.
> 
> 
> 
> If cabin gain is seen as a mode that is present in all positions it is as they say “robust correction “. So a couple points on that
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If subs are in middle of car the room mode is severely lessened. Because energy is distributed evenly vs a piston of sub energy moving from back to front of car. . So the big peaks we love in our cabin gain is removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.im guessing by experimenting that Dirac is removing cabin gain because it’s seen as a mode in all seat but that would also be good for box resonances. So we’re hearing a more faithful corrected direct sound response from sub system when it’s mounted in trunk.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. My bass changing levels must be only a issue I’m having and is unrelated and a second issue that I’m confusing with this issue. Either my old man ears or something with my car.
> 
> I’m thinking the sub box being removed is cooling my amps more now that the box is out. The bottom of the box (the wood itself) would get hot to the touch from bass amp under it.
> 
> I just thought amps got hot. Simultaneously that problem went away. (I wonder why)
> 
> The smaller box back there it dosent happen. So there’s that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now on to the crossovers, I have news for yalls .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First I did a new tune tonight, and it’s full blown spaceship, more spaceship than the C could get and here’s why at least for me. I made a whole new set of linear phase filters in FIR.
> 
> And retuned to ddrc22d and HDs. I have zero crossover issues and Dirac I’m tellin ya guys is spaceship in every way. With the C I was having severe polar issues at crossover.
> 
> One speaker sounded out of phase at crossover and the interaction sounded bad.
> 
> 
> 
> So how to fix in the C
> 
> 
> 
> What subterFUSE (John) is doing with systune surly looks promising.
> 
> But I have a easier fix. (I hate tedious measurements and only do them when I really (in bold) want to know what’s going on) so a LR4 should sum at -360deg phase. If one speaker is not behaving itself it will sum different and Dirac moves the sum of the phase.
> 
> 
> 
> In steep odd order filers like a LR4 or higher, on/off axis behavior of the speaker can change in polar response especially if the driver doesn’t behave on/off axis. Have a speaker that behaves itself is one thing but some of us like the speakers like horns that are wildly different polars at different angles of incidents. The stop band attenuation can cause some drivers to generally freak out in the phase department.
> 
> 
> 
> So here’s the easy fix. Use even order LR2 and ignore the polar flip needed on complimentary crossovers, let Dirac resolve that.
> 
> 
> 
> Low order filters the speaker behaves itself much better in phase on/off axis.
> 
> With low order filters the phase is more “blurred” and the need for a tuned crossover is lessened. They sum more in phase than out of phase even if no eq is applied in the stop-band for tuning. Essentially you could just turn on a LR2 and run Dirac and do nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore what I said about using Dirac only on mids , I retract that,
> 
> Dirac live is amazing and the target should sound very good.
> 
> I loaded a few pre made targets with low order filters and it’s one of the best tunes to date.
> 
> 
> 
> Go find your spaceship.


So maybe i missed it but how is the sub dilemma fixed? Shouldn't it only be attenuating the sub based on the curve we set? What am i missing?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So maybe i missed it but how is the sub dilemma fixed? Shouldn't it only be attenuating the sub based on the curve we set? What am i missing?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


The curves have substantially less bass than what a RTA tune provides (spl for spl) seems the Dirac is accounting for the room mode and saying “this is x amount of dB. And it is but it’s also not. I think the algo is more precise than we’re used to that’s all with cabin gain. It’s changing the way the sub sounds in the car. You hear bass instead of the room. We hear the room as louder even tho dB for dB it’s not 

Having the subs in middle of car made it very consistent with a rew/rta made target. 


My level changiything while hot days must be a totally seperate issue based on my findings. It has to be. I think it’s a me issue


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> The curves have substantially less bass than what a RTA tune provides (spl for spl) seems the Dirac is accounting for the room mode and saying “this is x amount of dB. And it is but it’s also not. I think the algo is more precise than we’re used to that’s all with cabin gain. It’s changing the way the sub sounds in the car. You hear bass instead of the room. We hear the room as louder even tho dB for dB it’s not
> 
> 
> 
> Having the subs in middle of car made it very consistent with a rew/rta made target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My level changiything while hot days must be a totally seperate issue based on my findings. It has to be. I think it’s a me issue


So basically, do sub on its own channel. Eq within like 2 db of its normal response or bring the level of the desired sub curve up to match with the sub so you can do very very little eq and then use a knob/gain to actually dial it in to a level that matches the rest of the curve that isn't having cabin gain issues.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> So basically, do sub on its own channel. Eq within like 2 db of its normal response or bring the level of the desired sub curve up to match with the sub so you can do very very little eq and then use a knob/gain to actually dial it in to a level that matches the rest of the curve that isn't having cabin gain issues.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Not exactly.


Just learn to listen to the sub different or turn it up 

If you slow down (pull back phase) so the room mode is not late (which it would be ) the room mode still remains. You can’t “get rid” of that. But you can change the timing so the mode (which is louder and is what we hear the most of) is the direct sound, the mode is heard evenly in both ears. So you can’t really tell if it’s the sub or the mode. Because it acts as one pistonic air motion.
Not to mention when phase is pulled back, the frequency seemes quieter compare s to the rest of the spectrum. And I’ve done that many times in rephase 

I do that intentionally on my horns , the big horns have a mode at 3.6k internally, it depends on what angle your listening to them if you hear that mode or not as it’s masked by the exit and your angle , but more straight on and not so far off axis I can pull back the phase and the measured response 
Stays the same and the lower harmonic sounds more natural. The upper harmonic is so small it’s not even noticed. But that frequency sounds a lot quieter.


----------



## ErinH

I did some more testing today and wanted to do a little experiment if you guys are willing to help out.

I have taken a binaural recording of my system using 4 different settings. Note: by 'binaural' what I mean is, I sat in the car and played the same song with 4 different tunes and I recorded them using stereo mics, in my ears, via Audacity and then saved those files. To get the proper "you are sitting there where I was" effect, it would be best to listen to these files with headphones. 

Again, there are 4 wav files: One of them is my manual tune and the other 3 are variants of a DL tune. 

I'd appreciate if you guys took a listen and let me know what you think. i.e., if you can tell a difference, if there's a clear preference for you, etc. Unfortunately these aren't studio quality but maybe they'll be good enough for this task. I tried to match them as equally as I could;,without about +/- 0.5dB.

This isn't a trick question. Just looking to see if a) these files work well enough to be useful, b) if you have one or two that you like the sound of more and c) whatever other input you have. No winner here. Purely subjective feedback I'm seeking. I'm curious if there will be a consensus or preference and also if there will be similar feedback in comparisons.


Here's the link. Again, remember to wear headphones for this to be more useful. TIA.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1s_rMfPpX7a78RYZvuH1TYoAQhEnqRfNi


----------



## naiku

Ok... Definitely noticeable differences, 4 sounded best to me, 3 sounded kind of flat, 1 was just slightly worse than 4 and 2 seemed to be missing a bit of the low end.

I got to listen to mine a good bit yesterday (10 hours in the car will do that) and what's weird is that a curve I loaded where I basically matched the curve to the sub, is that on a tune where the subwoofer is on its own channel, the output is way too low, but on a tune with the sub tied into the front speakers instead of a separate channel, it's boomy and too much. With both I changed the curve to match the subs measured response and the sub level was the same during measurements. Weird though that the sub volume shows -2 and +3 (iirc) with the plus being the boomy output. Trying to find the happy medium.


----------



## oabeieo

Wow that’s really cool . That’s a good recording. 

Num1 wouldn’t play.

2,3,4 all sounded really good. 

I’m re listen tonight with my “Greg Brady “ headphones as the wife calls them.

I was listening on ear buds and they all sounded the same ( but there earbuds that are cheap 5$ kind)


Edit: although even on earbuds I could definitely localize the vocal 
Not phasy at all which is unusual for a recording of a car


----------



## GreatLaBroski

#4 sounded the best to me, #2 was slightly honky in the upper male vocals to my ears. The 4th one felt like it had more "space" (I don't want to call it a soundstage cause, yeah, headphones.). It sounded involving and interesting.


----------



## ErinH

Thanks for the feedback thus far. Interesting comments. 


Let's just keep in mind, again, that this isn't a 'studio' recording by any stretch so this isn't something I'd write a thesis on. But it's just a fun little experiment. I'll share what the files are after I get some more feedback. Keep it comin', fellas.


----------



## oabeieo

#2 had some horn loading in the 800-1.5k range 

#3 was the best behaved and spectral (probably the one I say is best not boring )

#4 sounded to have more bass but also sounded way more in your face and seemed almost as if Dirac live was missing. It sounded boring IMO


Still can’t get #1 to play

And for ****s and giggles I put it in the car and lo and behold I had a center a left and a right your timing must be very good 
Where it should have sounded very defused


----------



## oabeieo

Do you guys do know I think all systems are boring that you don’t have Dirac

I’m only saying that because I’m the biggest fan boy ever


----------



## ErinH

oabeieo said:


> #2 had some horn loading in the 800-1.5k range
> 
> #3 was the best behaved and spectral (probably the one I say is best not boring )
> 
> #4 sounded to have more bass but also sounded way more in your face and seemed almost as if Dirac live was missing. It sounded boring IMO
> 
> 
> Still can’t get #1 to play
> 
> And for ****s and giggles I put it in the car and lo and behold I had a center a left and a right your timing must be very good
> Where it should have sounded very defused



Not sure why #1 won’t play for you Andy. Seems to be working for everyone else. :/


----------



## oabeieo

Maybe my dum old phone . (iPhone 6) 

I desperately need a new phone....


I’ll try the download link instead. I was playing from the web player


----------



## oabeieo

got #1 to work 

(It was the web player)

So #1 has best center 
Seemed as if the left wassnt as much of a issue as 3
But sounded a lot like it 

New fav #1 (but it’s close 3 is also seemed good)

2# still hear somewhere near 1k loading too much 

4# still the worst the center drifts to the left (in that 1kish area) 


That a cool test.


----------



## oliverlim

1 is too lean. no warmth at all. 

2 is slightly warmer but seems to lack low end.

3-4 seems the most balanced with 4 being the most airer. Almost sibilant so 3 might be better in that effect. Both 3 and 4 does seems to have some chestiness to the vocals though.


----------



## naiku

Tomorrow....



ErinH said:


> All 4 are exactly the same


:laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Tomorrow....


When did he say that 0_0

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Lol seriously 

Greg Brady disagreed ( my Klipsh HP-3’s )

Something was different even if it was just levels 

Maybe he means he’ll reveal the answers tomorrow and that’s his guess what he’ll say. 



??


----------



## Jscoyne2

1 has better T/a Imo, and seems cleaner. drums are more placeable.
2. is a little bloomy X>1000
3. sounds a lot like 1 but is a littler higher in high frequencies.
4. I like 4 more i think, perhaps a touch too many highs.

This is also i think maybe a moot experiment considering all our headphones aren't eq'd to flat.

Volumes also seem to be a lot different. So that should make a big difference.


----------



## tonynca

Jscoyne2 said:


> 1 has better T/a Imo, and seems cleaner. drums are more placeable.
> 
> 2. is a little bloomy X>1000
> 
> 3. sounds a lot like 1 but is a littler higher in high frequencies.
> 
> 4. I like 4 more i think, perhaps a touch too many highs.
> 
> 
> 
> This is also i think maybe a moot experiment considering all our headphones aren't eq'd to flat.
> 
> 
> 
> Volumes also seem to be a lot different. So that should make a big difference.




I was thinking just that. Unless you're running some type of headphones correction software like sonarworks reference 4 with Waves NX. It's hard to tell correct placement and tonal balance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

Jscoyne2 said:


> This is also i think maybe a moot experiment considering all our headphones aren't eq'd to flat.
> 
> Volumes also seem to be a lot different. So that should make a big difference.



Well, I'm asking for opinions based on the comparisons rather than asking you to give evaluations on an absolute scale. Also, I couldn't match loudness levels exactly - since these are different curves - but I did take time to match the overall SPL. Still, this isn't perfect and that's why I said it wasn't anything I'd base a thesis on. But, it's a fun little experiment, nonetheless.


----------



## naiku

Just curious, but if the majority of the tune sounds good, but the sub bass is lacking, would using a shelf filter work to bring that back? or is it going to end up potentially screwing up more than it fixes? 

Listening to one of the tunes I had earlier today, really the only thing lacking is the sub bass (ignoring the dip at 55Hz, I'll figure that out another day). I was just wondering if adding a shelf filter would improve things at all without having to re-measure with Dirac.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

Jscoyne2 said:


> moot experiment considering all our headphones aren't eq'd to flat.
> 
> Volumes also seem to be a lot different. So that should make a big difference.


Agreed, I'm going to re-listen on a better set of headphones and better DAC that have a more "reference" response curve.


----------



## ErinH

naiku said:


> Just curious, but if the majority of the tune sounds good, but the sub bass is lacking, would using a shelf filter work to bring that back? or is it going to end up potentially screwing up more than it fixes?
> 
> Listening to one of the tunes I had earlier today, really the only thing lacking is the sub bass (ignoring the dip at 55Hz, I'll figure that out another day). I was just wondering if adding a shelf filter would improve things at all without having to re-measure with Dirac.



If all the channels are affected the same way, with something like an input eq,then you’re fine. But I’m gonna guess you’re talking about using just the shelf for the sub. If that’s the case then it alters the interaction with the midbass. 
You could try doing the same thing to the sub and midbass channels, though. Just watch the excursion on those midbass drivers.


----------



## naiku

I was planning to use the shelf on both sub and midbass, have used one previously and it seemed to work well. Think I just used 1.5dB maybe 2. Listening today, it's really not far off from where I'd really be happy, just needs that little extra.

I might try it temporarily, but at the same time knowing the sub can be louder without it, might just try another curve.


----------



## oliverlim

naiku said:


> Just curious, but if the majority of the tune sounds good, but the sub bass is lacking, would using a shelf filter work to bring that back? or is it going to end up potentially screwing up more than it fixes?
> 
> Listening to one of the tunes I had earlier today, really the only thing lacking is the sub bass (ignoring the dip at 55Hz, I'll figure that out another day). I was just wondering if adding a shelf filter would improve things at all without having to re-measure with Dirac.


I have been using this shelf as well and wondering the exact same thing. I tried increasing both the sub and mid bass shelf gain by 2db but it did
Not seem to make a appreciable difference to my sub bass. Let me know if this works for you. I be increasing it further to see how it sounds.


----------



## ErinH

Ok. For those who did the listening exercise, here’s the decoder ring and the corresponding color target curves (set to the same SPL @ 1khz)
1 (red) = My personal, manual, Helix tune
2 (green) = DL tune, curve set to emulate my personal Helix tune, using 1 single mic measurement
3 (green) = Same as #2 but using 9 mic placements in roughly the pattern DL suggested using the ‘chair’ technique
4 (blue) = DL tune, modified “Wisdom” curve with little more low end using the same 9 mic placements as #3.
Note: All of the DL tunes were done via two-channel measurements with the sub playing on either channel (sub is mixed mono so if the left is playing then only the left signal is passed to the sub, etc).











Now pair that info up with the feedback here and you’ll find it’s quite interesting. Especially the comments regarding #2 vs #3. They’re actually the same with the only difference being the number of mics measurements used (1 vs 9, respectively). In the car, what I heard was a more focused center in the midrange area but I didn’t notice a change in tonality that I recall, at least. You guys may recall my earlier post where I said the DL tune I created using the single mic measurement location and based on my personal helix curve had some pull to the right. That’s not there with the 9-mic position tune. 



After listening to all of the tunes in my car (as well as the recordings I made), I prefer the tonality of #4. The staging of all are quite fine but there’s still a difference I hear in the car that doesn’t translate as well to the recordings and that’s the low end. DL tunes have better focus in the higher frequencies but I still do a better job myself with the lower frequency range because of some of the suckouts. My personal tune has a wider left stage and extends further outside the car and, again, I think this is due to how I’ve tuned the Left/Right response below 400hz. DL did a superb job blending the bass along the curve the ways I told it to, though, and there is no longer an issue with getting the sub level right.


----------



## naiku

oliverlim said:


> I have been using this shelf as well and wondering the exact same thing. I tried increasing both the sub and mid bass shelf gain by 2db but it did
> Not seem to make a appreciable difference to my sub bass. Let me know if this works for you. I be increasing it further to see how it sounds.


Sure thing, will make sure to let you know how it works for me, if it works at all. 



ErinH said:


> and there is no longer an issue with getting the sub level right.


Any tips on this? it seems to be the biggest issue with mine, I either end up with way too much (when combining the sub with L / R) or way too little (with the sub on it's own channel).


----------



## ErinH

naiku said:


> Any tips on this? it seems to be the biggest issue with mine, I either end up with way too much (when combining the sub with L / R) or way too little (with the sub on it's own channel).


It’s hard to know for sure. It could be the curve or it could be an issue DL can’t correct (such as a phase issue in the crossover region or an enclosure related issue). 

I'd start with what you're telling DL to correct. What do the raw response measurements of your left and right midbass and your sub look like (with your selected crossover engaged, and also without them)? Now, when you play them all together what do you measure in REW? Maybe there's something going on there that needs to be addressed before you tell DL to go to work.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Hey Erin. Did you test to see if the cdsp will use any other mics other than the umik

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

Nope. I can if no one else does, though.


----------



## Robot Chicken

Random question in the middle of this thread  So I just picked up my CDSP and before I spend the $330 on the upgrade I wanted to ask - does anyone out there regret spending the $$$ for DL?


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Hey Erin. Did you test to see if the cdsp will use any other mics other than the umik
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Only works with UMIK


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Robot Chicken said:


> Random question in the middle of this thread  So I just picked up my CDSP and before I spend the $330 on the upgrade I wanted to ask - does anyone out there regret spending the $$$ for DL?


Nope

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

For beginners and intermediate users I doubt you could tune better than DL. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Robot Chicken

tonynca said:


> For beginners and intermediate users I doubt you could tune better than DL.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I will never be a professional at tuning (I don't have the patience for hours with REW) but I do love great sound!! Thanks for the comments all - guess I will take the plunge.

Gone are the days when a 5 band EQ in the dash with a happy face made of the sliders was called SQ - guess i am dating myself


----------



## tonynca

Robot Chicken said:


> I will never be a professional at tuning (I don't have the patience for hours with REW) but I do love great sound!! Thanks for the comments all - guess I will take the plunge.
> 
> 
> 
> Gone are the days when a 5 band EQ in the dash with a happy face made of the sliders was called SQ - guess i am dating myself




Read the beginning of this thread. Try to skim through the entire thing if you can. You will get the most out of that $366. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Read the beginning of this thread. Try to skim through the entire thing if you can. You will get the most out of that $366.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



There’s also 366$ of me being a jerk somewhere along the way.


----------



## Redliner99

Oabeieo helped me set up my helix mini tonight and I have found audio bliss. He took time out of his day to do amazing things for me and my setup the dude is shear genius. Not to mention his Fit with no subs sounded absolutely sick with what he called just a "so so" tune. We will be meeting up again again to hear it after his next step and some tuning so I can get mind blown again 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

Thanks, 

Can’t go wrong with frogs, zapco and helix . 
Alex system turned out nice. Want to work on gains a little , 
Check your input gain on helix that’s what we forgot. But F it you have no noise 
It sounds really nice. Could just roll with it as is. But it also might be worth a peak to see if your helix has a input gain, if so crank it up a little more and gain amps down a little note 

For as high as we had those gains not a speck of noise , that zapco is impressive for that I must say. Most amps would be singing the alternator song


----------



## Holmz

oabeieo said:


> There’s also 366$ of me being a jerk somewhere along the way.


Me too, and during a leap year to boot.:mean:


----------



## Jscoyne2

Stay on topic guys

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

Was just looking at some of the measurements I had taken on a pair of presets I have loaded...

1 - 4 channel Dirac (Left Front inc Sub, Right Front inc Sub, Left Rear, Right Rear)
2 - 5 channel Dirac (Left Front, Right Front, Left Rear, Right Rear, Sub)

Number 1 above the sub is too much, if I look at the Dirac measurement 30Hz is 8.1dB, 40Hz about 10dB and 50Hz is about 8.4dB. An average of about 8.8dB across the range.

Number 2, the sub level is barely noticeable, 30Hz is 3dB, 40Hz 4.4dB and 50Hz 3.8dB, average of about 3.7dB across them.

What's interesting is that when making the sweeps, I am 99% sure that the subwoofer levels were the same for both, even if they were not exactly the same (due to me trying to get as much subwoofer output in the sweep as possible) they have never been 5dB different. At most 1-2dB difference with me slowly increasing the sub to get it measuring as loud as possible without clipping. Not sure if it all means anything, but just something I had noticed.


----------



## oliverlim

I have a few great tunes now. But I am still having issue with getting my sub integrate fully. I still hear my sub coming from behind me on some songs. Esp for those with lots of very Low bass content. Pop rock is pretty much ok. I tried Dirac tunes with per channel per driver and also my current preferred 3 Dirac channel with one each for left and right and one Dirac channel for sub. I even tried one 3
Dirac channel with TA on each individual driver. Still facing the problem. 

From the Dirac tab I see that it delays the left and right about the same amount as my measurement or my previous amount when using another dsp. So everything looks correct. In my previous audison bit one HD with and without apl1 I could get sub to be in front of me totally in front.

I am using LR24 at 80hz for my sub and mid bass. Does this mean I need to start experimenting with a steeper slope? Is there a change in measuring method to help with this issue?


----------



## Jscoyne2

oliverlim said:


> I have a few great tunes now. But I am still having issue with getting my sub integrate fully. I still hear my sub coming from behind me on some songs. Esp for those with lots of very Low bass content. Pop rock is pretty much ok. I tried Dirac tunes with per channel per driver and also my current preferred 3 Dirac channel with one each for left and right and one Dirac channel for sub. I even tried one 3
> Dirac channel with TA on each individual driver. Still facing the problem.
> 
> From the Dirac tab I see that it delays the left and right about the same amount as my measurement or my previous amount when using another dsp. So everything looks correct. In my previous audison bit one HD with and without apl1 I could get sub to be in front of me totally in front.
> 
> I am using LR24 at 80hz for my sub and mid bass. Does this mean I need to start experimenting with a steeper slope? Is there a change in measuring method to help with this issue?


Check midbass and sub summing via a mic. Sub or a midbass may be out of phase.


----------



## rockinridgeline

oliverlim said:


> I have a few great tunes now. But I am still having issue with getting my sub integrate fully. I still hear my sub coming from behind me on some songs. Esp for those with lots of very Low bass content. Pop rock is pretty much ok. I tried Dirac tunes with per channel per driver and also my current preferred 3 Dirac channel with one each for left and right and one Dirac channel for sub. I even tried one 3
> 
> Dirac channel with TA on each individual driver. Still facing the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> From the Dirac tab I see that it delays the left and right about the same amount as my measurement or my previous amount when using another dsp. So everything looks correct. In my previous audison bit one HD with and without apl1 I could get sub to be in front of me totally in front.
> 
> 
> 
> I am using LR24 at 80hz for my sub and mid bass. Does this mean I need to start experimenting with a steeper slope? Is there a change in measuring method to help with this issue?


If you measure sub and midbass separately with rew, where do the response curves cross?

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

Redliner99 said:


> Oabeieo helped me set up my helix mini tonight and I have found audio bliss. He took time out of his day to do amazing things for me and my setup the dude is shear genius. Not to mention his Fit with no subs sounded absolutely sick with what he called just a "so so" tune. We will be meeting up again again to hear it after his next step and some tuning so I can get mind blown again


Did he also mitigate the ground loop hum?


----------



## oabeieo

Holmz said:


> Did he also mitigate the ground loop hum?


It had no noise. 

The zapco gains were dam near pegged and you had to put you ear on the tweeter to hear noise 

His car sounded good and tuned easily. No noise 

But I did space the fact that the mini6 has a input gain. Alex thinks that’s for analog in only he’s usb in ? But his usb almost seems like the headphones jack in iPhone because volume is unlocked on the phone and it won’t charge with camera adapter. 

I’ll have to get him back for a 2nd session but for what we did in 3hrs his car is very nice sounding.


----------



## Redliner99

oabeieo said:


> It had no noise.
> 
> 
> 
> The zapco gains were dam near pegged and you had to put you ear on the tweeter to hear noise
> 
> 
> 
> His car sounded good and tuned easily. No noise
> 
> 
> 
> But I did space the fact that the mini6 has a input gain. Alex thinks that’s for analog in only he’s usb in ? But his usb almost seems like the headphones jack in iPhone because volume is unlocked on the phone and it won’t charge with camera adapter.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll have to get him back for a 2nd session but for what we did in 3hrs his car is very nice sounding.




I tested this very theory will make a new thread about it 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Any new developments?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

I've been doing some playing around but not a whole lot. I've got a skeleton of my review started but haven't had time to add to it since my last post last week since a) it is stupid hot and b) I've been busting my tail at work to get prepped for a big presentation at the end of the month. 

I will say that I'm really impressed by what DL can do in ten minutes. I think for a newcomer it's a definite recommendation. And, if I'm being honest - based on some of the cars I've heard at everything from little ol' meets in someone's backyard all the way up to the cars at finals - some people who pride themselves on their tuning skills would legitimately be better served letting DL handle that task for them as well, assuming they don't have any weird issues that cannot be fixed at all. I hope to get this review wrapped up in the next few weeks so I can have all my experiences and thoughts rolled up in to a single post and maybe people can make an informed purchase decision based on that rather than me trying to post in various threads in the future.


BTW, I posted my results for the 'listening comparison experiment' you guys did and only Ian replied. I figured there would have been more talk about it given how vastly different some of the responses were vs what the tunes the files were recorded based on. Especially those cases where people thought #2 & #3 sounded completely different but were the same curve with the only difference being the number of mics used.


----------



## willis36

So is this thing light years above what an MS8 can do as far as tuning goes?


----------



## ErinH

willis36 said:


> So is this thing light years above what an MS8 can do as far as tuning goes?


IMHO, for stereo tuning, yes. 

But remember, the MS-8 was more than just a stereo auto tune. It had logic 7 capability with built in amplification.


----------



## Jscoyne2

ErinH said:


> Ok. For those who did the listening exercise, here’s the decoder ring and the corresponding color target curves (set to the same SPL @ 1khz)
> 1 (red) = My personal, manual, Helix tune
> 2 (green) = DL tune, curve set to emulate my personal Helix tune, using 1 single mic measurement
> 3 (green) = Same as #2 but using 9 mic placements in roughly the pattern DL suggested using the ‘chair’ technique
> 4 (blue) = DL tune, modified “Wisdom” curve with little more low end using the same 9 mic placements as #3.
> Note: All of the DL tunes were done via two-channel measurements with the sub playing on either channel (sub is mixed mono so if the left is playing then only the left signal is passed to the sub, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now pair that info up with the feedback here and you’ll find it’s quite interesting. Especially the comments regarding #2 vs #3. They’re actually the same with the only difference being the number of mics measurements used (1 vs 9, respectively). In the car, what I heard was a more focused center in the midrange area but I didn’t notice a change in tonality that I recall, at least. You guys may recall my earlier post where I said the DL tune I created using the single mic measurement location and based on my personal helix curve had some pull to the right. That’s not there with the 9-mic position tune.
> 
> 
> 
> After listening to all of the tunes in my car (as well as the recordings I made), I prefer the tonality of #4. The staging of all are quite fine but there’s still a difference I hear in the car that doesn’t translate as well to the recordings and that’s the low end. DL tunes have better focus in the higher frequencies but I still do a better job myself with the lower frequency range because of some of the suckouts. My personal tune has a wider left stage and extends further outside the car and, again, I think this is due to how I’ve tuned the Left/Right response below 400hz. DL did a superb job blending the bass along the curve the ways I told it to, though, and there is no longer an issue with getting the sub level right.


Could you show me your mixer of this? curious of what the sub looks like. and how you sent it to dirac.


----------



## ErinH

It’s summed mono. Left and right in, summed together and out a single channel. The same way the majority of people do it in most installs. Nothing fancy.


----------



## oabeieo

Ha Erin, I wouldn’t have ever guess that was the difference.....
#3 was still my favorite....

At least confirm for us that #3 was a better mic...lol


(Now watch guys he’s going to say #3 was a salvaged Bluetooth mic or something )


----------



## oabeieo

ErinH said:


> I've been doing some playing around but not a whole lot. I've got a skeleton of my review started but haven't had time to add to it since my last post last week since a) it is stupid hot and b) I've been busting my tail at work to get prepped for a big presentation at the end of the month.
> 
> I will say that I'm really impressed by what DL can do in ten minutes. I think for a newcomer it's a definite recommendation. And, if I'm being honest - based on some of the cars I've heard at everything from little ol' meets in someone's backyard all the way up to the cars at finals - some people who pride themselves on their tuning skills would legitimately be better served letting DL handle that task for them as well, assuming they don't have any weird issues that cannot be fixed at all. I hope to get this review wrapped up in the next few weeks so I can have all my experiences and thoughts rolled up in to a single post and maybe people can make an informed purchase decision based on that rather than me trying to post in various threads in the future.
> 
> 
> BTW, I posted my results for the 'listening comparison experiment' you guys did and only Ian replied. I figured there would have been more talk about it given how vastly different some of the responses were vs what the tunes the files were recorded based on. Especially those cases where people thought #2 & #3 sounded completely different but were the same curve with the only difference being the number of mics used.



Love it..... for a early review sample , i feel the same 

And I’ve said it a few times, I may not be the best tuner , I have years and years or tuning behind me , and tho it’s not perfect either and has some drawbacks, after I’m done with Dirac and all the fine tuning required, it still beats me. 
It can tune better than me most of the time if you take in consideration all the issues with the car, grear, install ...it overall does a better job than I can.

Although there are some thing in my manual tune I like more, but again, everything considered it’s pretty good and can do the task quite well. 

Can’t wait to see your full review.


----------



## naiku

ErinH said:


> IMHO, for stereo tuning, yes.
> 
> But remember, the MS-8 was more than just a stereo auto tune. It had logic 7 capability with built in amplification.


Yep, the DL is great for stereo tuning, but the MS8 was more flexible in the types of set up you could run with it. Not to mention, even though the DL is better than the MS8 with a stereo tune, we also have to remember that the MS8 was released almost 10 years ago. IMO the fact the MS8 is still talked about shows how great of a unit it was (had one myself, sold it as I wanted to learn how to manually tune). 



oabeieo said:


> And I’ve said it a few times, I may not be the best tuner , I have years and years or tuning behind me , and tho it’s not perfect either and has some drawbacks, after I’m done with Dirac and all the fine tuning required, it still beats me.
> It can tune better than me most of the time if you take in consideration all the issues with the car, grear, install ...it overall does a better job than I can.


I think I wrote something similar early in this thread (or maybe in the other 8x12 thread). There are certainly going to be guys out there who can produce a better tune manually, but for the majority of us, especially taking into account the time saved, Dirac does an incredible job.


----------



## oabeieo

Well it does 5.1 and 7.1

We have 8ch

It just needs the decoder upstream

So with a different approach, maybe DL will beat ms8 in surround tuning

Anyone have a decoder they want to give up , I’ll try it .


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

oabeieo said:


> Well it does 5.1 and 7.1
> 
> Anyone have a decoder they want to give up , I’ll try it .


Hmmm... well if you have a means of powering it for your testing, I have an Outlaw Audio 975 home audio unit (smallest I know of) with multiple Dolby and DTS up-mix options you can toy with...


----------



## oabeieo

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Hmmm... well if you have a means of powering it for your testing, I have an Outlaw Audio 975 home audio unit (smallest I know of) with multiple Dolby and DTS up-mix options you can toy with...



Does it use a wall wart? 

Can I convert it to 12v and isolate it ? 

If it’s a simple +/- voltage ac on a pair of regulators or something I could do that. 

The multi volt devices I don’t care to spend too much time converting. 
Usually try to tag in at the first dc feed or even at the ac rail voltage if it’s that type. Transformers are a slam dunk if it has one. 


If it’s easy sure, I won’t use an inverter tho. That’s pretty much pointless as you probably know . 

If your okay with surgery on it I’m down 
Yeah send me pics of it if ya can.


There should be a sticker or embossment on it that says what it’s input voltage is or it’s running voltage. Almost everything has that.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

I’m down for a little surgery. 

I’ll pull it out of storage tomorrow to check for a sticker.

Here are some of the online pics.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Sorry for the delay! Long day of work -_-

So no wallwart dongle. It’s a direct AC wire into the unit. So in that case, no sticker with specs. But near the AC input it specs 120v~60hz 25w. 

Cranked it open and it has toroidal transformer. 

From what I can see there is 5.6v out lead and an M+6v lead from power supply board to inputs on the decoder board.

You know better what I’m looking at here. Think it’s convertable without too much hassle?


----------



## oabeieo

It looks like a fairly decent size transformer 

Looks like maybe a pair of regulators .

I see 4 wires coming out of the transformer, more than likely +/- voltage with a ground 

Maybe two voltages , I’m going to guess split voltage (more common) easy to test, looks like a slam dunk , got to figure out if that whole memory and timer is needed at all to run it. 


Yeah pm me let’s do it I’ll send you my info thanks! 

Just a disclaimer: if I let the genie out you can’t hold it over my head lol 
(I can wrap tape around it to keep the smoke in if ya want lol) kidding


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

oabeieo said:


> if I let the genie out you can’t hold it over my head lol
> (I can wrap tape around it to keep the smoke in if ya want lol) kidding


The magic lamp is on its way to you


----------



## oabeieo

Doing another C 

This time my my installer buddy , 6-4-tweet 
Lexus LX
3 amps 
Amp pro 
Optical switch to Android 
10” in passenger footwell 
I think he’s doing a bunch of ARC and Morel 

Should be sweet


----------



## JamesRC

Hey guys. I'm just trying to come up to speed on what Dirac Live does. Do you just set your crossovers and let it do the rest of the tune based on the model you choose (couch or chair)? It does time alignment, EQ, etc?


----------



## oabeieo

JamesRC said:


> Hey guys. I'm just trying to come up to speed on what Dirac Live does. Do you just set your crossovers and let it do the rest of the tune based on the model you choose (couch or chair)? It does time alignment, EQ, etc?



Read this thread in its entirety. Should give you an idea 


But yes to all


----------



## oabeieo

So finally a cool day did some work on my car 


Something to try if you have a 4way and your mid can play down to 200

I’ve noticed in my car with all my Dirac configurations and devices 
That Dirac strictly makes the impulse match on both sides as much as it can while making the impulse as clean as possible with its given power to compute 

In my car I’ve measured it has the phase mostly flat and around the lower midrange it starts to advance. 

My midbass play from 70(LR4) 300(LR2) 

Using the 12db crossover between the mid definitely for me helps it move the sum of both the midbass and mid to make a sum of what you hear blend better for me. And for me it’s because my 10s are behind me and the 8s in front of me so the shallower slopes definitely help blending. 

But the sum still is on a incline after.


So I used delay on the midbass and took 4ms out of the midbass 


The midrange when I ran Dirac i set everything all speakers to 8ms Except the sub is at 0 

Leaving it where Dirac definitely sounds more correct. But my stage isn’t as wide and is low.

Moving the phase in the midrange positive moves the stage up, so I didn’t want to mess with that, as Dirac made it sound excellent, so by pulling the phase back on midbass the stage rises by using delay ( another way of doing the same thing without altering the delicate midrange) and the overall ambiance got bigger as the decay time has been intentionally increased , but not enough to smear the impulse, 4ms out of the midbass is not even one cycle near crossover to mid and a fraction of a cycle to sub. Than adjusted the sub back the same degree and that side lines up.


I measured flatter overall phase with all kinds of shifting the IR or windowing, the impulse is a tiny bit wider but looks virtually the same, (not two peaks or any nonsense)


----------



## Jscoyne2

Did a pretune and a lmb,rmb,left horn, right horn, sub tune. Then did a just left and right and sub(3 channel) tune.

I hate to say it but the left right sub one is far better.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonnie

JamesRC said:


> Hey guys. I'm just trying to come up to speed on what Dirac Live does. Do you just set your crossovers and let it do the rest of the tune based on the model you choose (couch or chair)? It does time alignment, EQ, etc?


What I have found works the best for me thus far is to measure the distance from my nose to each speaker and input the distance for each speaker (Outputs tabs - Delay), as well as the x-over for each speaker... other than the rear fill speakers... I leave them at the default until after the measurement, then I enter the x-over and 20ms delay for those and adjust gain as necessary. I do not enter any delay for the sub either. After entering delay and x-over's... I run Dirac, but I only measure from right around my head. I've tried moving the mic around like some of the others mentioned here, but to me the results are not as good as what I get by keeping the mic close to where my head is normally positioned. The imaging and sound stage are not as good when the mic moves around too much. When I move the mic around or get it too far from my head, the imaging and sound stage seem to get confused. Same thing happens in my dedicated listening room... I don't try to optimize for an entire couch... as I don't care what others are hearing... I am trying to get my main listening position the best it can be... and that means keeping the mic right where my head is located. If I move my mic around, I sacrifice some imaging and sound stage... and more particularly depth acuity. Either way... while it is much better than using the MS-8 in my vehicle... it's still not as good as my dedicated listening room... nor would I expect it to be in a vehicle with all the reflections going on.

Steve Cook of Audio X (I think he has several world records ... quite a few in SQ) installed my wife's Lexus system... and he begged us to enter it in some of the SQ trials (just not anything we really care much about doing), as he thought it was one of his best... and no doubt it sounds fabulous. However my RAM with the C-DSP and Dirac Live sounds better to me than her Lexus, which I never thought I'd say that (and Steve Cook might not think it sounds better). He spent several weeks with her car... several hours tuning... it was not cheap by any means, but she wanted the best. Now I wonder after 4-5 years, if he couldn't make hers sound even better... something tells me he could.

I absolutely do NOT discount what these guys are doing either, as they appear to be having good success with it... just giving you the option of what I am doing for your trial and error, if you so choose. I am still trying some of the different things I have read here... experimenting... always trying to improve on what I am hearing.


----------



## tonynca

Sonnie said:


> What I have found works the best for me thus far is to measure the distance from my nose to each speaker and input the distance for each speaker (Outputs tabs - Delay), as well as the x-over for each speaker... other than the rear fill speakers... I leave them at the default until after the measurement, then I enter the x-over and 20ms delay for those and adjust gain as necessary. I do not enter any delay for the sub either. After entering delay and x-over's... I run Dirac, but I only measure from right around my head. I've tried moving the mic around like some of the others mentioned here, but to me the results are not as good as what I get by keeping the mic close to where my head is normally positioned. The imaging and sound stage are not as good when the mic moves around too much. When I move the mic around or get it too far from my head, the imaging and sound stage seem to get confused. Same thing happens in my dedicated listening room... I don't try to optimize for an entire couch... as I don't care what others are hearing... I am trying to get my main listening position the best it can be... and that means keeping the mic right where my head is located. If I move my mic around, I sacrifice some imaging and sound stage... and more particularly depth acuity. Either way... while it is much better than using the MS-8 in my vehicle... it's still not as good as my dedicated listening room... nor would I expect it to be in a vehicle with all the reflections going on.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Cook of Audio X (I think he has several world records ... quite a few in SQ) installed my wife's Lexus system... and he begged us to enter it in some of the SQ trials (just not anything we really care much about doing), as he thought it was one of his best... and no doubt it sounds fabulous. However my RAM with the C-DSP and Dirac Live sounds better to me than her Lexus, which I never thought I'd say that (and Steve Cook might not think it sounds better). He spent several weeks with her car... several hours tuning... it was not cheap by any means, but she wanted the best. Now I wonder after 4-5 years, if he couldn't make hers sound even better... something tells me he could.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely do NOT discount what these guys are doing either, as they appear to be having good success with it... just giving you the option of what I am doing for your trial and error, if you so choose. I am still trying some of the different things I have read here... experimenting... always trying to improve on what I am hearing.




What DSP was your wife running? It appears that you're a home theater guy who experience true imaging and you noticed how focused everything is when you don't have complex car interior reflections destroying your stereo image. 

Dirac Live utilizing FIR filters and linear phase EQ is probably a big contributor to its excellent staging.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonnie

tonynca said:


> What DSP was your wife running? It appears that you're a home theater guy who experience true imaging and you noticed how focused everything is when you don't have complex car interior reflections destroying your stereo image.
> 
> Dirac Live utilizing FIR filters and linear phase EQ is probably a big contributor to its excellent staging.


It's the Zapco DSP-Z8 Processor.

You hit the nail on the head... https://www.cedarcreekcinema.ws ... and we've done several full blown speaker evaluations and quite a few professional reviews in this room. It sounds better than anything we've ever heard at the big audio shows, including those $100K+ rooms, although they are at somewhat of a disadvantage having to deal with those rooms and do their setups within a few days... while I've had years to deal with mine... and a LOT of different ears in the house for a week at a time. 

So yes... chasing the home sound in the car is no doubt a challenge. My guess is there is a specific sound that the pro car audio guys are accomplishing with their setups (a good as it gets for the vehicle type of sound). Possibly what Steve did with the Lexus is something close to that, although that may have improved over the years to be something better. I'm just not really sure what it is. Erin doesn't live too terribly far from me... maybe one day I'll get a chance to hear his system and get a better idea of what you guys consider SQ competition ready for the vehicle.


----------



## oabeieo

Sonnie said:


> It's the Zapco DSP-Z8 Processor.
> 
> You hit the nail on the head... https://www.cedarcreekcinema.ws ... and we've done several full blown speaker evaluations and quite a few professional reviews in this room. It sounds better than anything we've ever heard at the big audio shows, including those $100K+ rooms, although they are at somewhat of a disadvantage having to deal with those rooms and do their setups within a few days... while I've had years to deal with mine... and a LOT of different ears in the house for a week at a time.
> 
> So yes... chasing the home sound in the car is no doubt a challenge. My guess is there is a specific sound that the pro car audio guys are accomplishing with their setups (a good as it gets for the vehicle type of sound). Possibly what Steve did with the Lexus is something close to that, although that may have improved over the years to be something better. I'm just not really sure what it is. Erin doesn't live too terribly far from me... maybe one day I'll get a chance to hear his system and get a better idea of what you guys consider SQ competition ready for the vehicle.



I been reading your postings very curious about your cars. 
They both sound intriguing. I would imagine your cars are no different than any of ours. Sounds like you have the right installer also  

I do a lot of home audio and headphone audio as well , the biggest difference at least for me is the room adds so much to the sound in a car and being offset 
Getting used to the soundstage being close and trapped and constructed instead of just throwing a chair directly between the speakers and letting nature do the rest. We don’t have it that lucky. 

I use pro audio drivers and horns in my car although they definitely add a artifact, (resonance and paper cones) type of sound offer a much more powerful midrange experience with strong vocal. 

I do a lot of systems and car audio drivers being far more damped definitely sound more natural, without a doubt and are much easier to get a good timbre 

So it depends what your after , a natural sound or a “live sound” type of presence to it. 

Both can be very good and both can be extremely challenging.

Ultimately if you can re create a soundstage and have a center left and right 
That anyone that listens can distinguish your on a good path, and IMO the rest is subjective for the most part.


----------



## Sonnie

Yep... I think that sound stage being so close and not spreading out as far as it does in my home system is definitely part of it... as is the depth. For example the horn at the beginning for Cassandra Wilson's Strange Fruit is left of center and really deep... sounds like it's behind the wall in my home, but in car it's just at the windshield... too close to me.

The C-DSP does a good job of giving me a better sound stage than I've experienced in the past. I think it's better than the Lexus, as is the imaging, although the Lexus is still good, not complaining, but there are two different sounds... truck vs car too, so that is probably making a difference.

Hard to measure subjective... right... we all probably like a little something different. I bet my system would sound bass heavy to a lot of the pros, but I have to get past the road noise... as I don't listen too much just sitting in a non-moving vehicle. 

I need to go to some of the car audio shows. I thought maybe one day I'd grow out of it, but it ain't happening... 57 and still enjoying it.


----------



## ErinH

Sonnie said:


> Erin doesn't live too terribly far from me... maybe one day I'll get a chance to hear his system and get a better idea of what you guys consider SQ competition ready for the vehicle.


FWIW, barring something unforeseen happening, I'm retiring the civic after October and getting a new car. I plan to start gutting the civic right after finals in mid-October. So, if you really do want to get a listen just keep that in mind. Though, I'll definitely be doing a system in my next car. 

Edit: Saw you like bass heavy. I have 10" midbass and 15's for subs. High sensitivity pro audio drivers with compression highs. So I'm with you.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Officially like chair more than couch setting.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Did a pretune with chair vs a no tune with chair. Same crossovers. 

Initial impressions say doing a pretune is beneficial. It gets everything just a little bit more precise. Stage width and such seem to stay the same.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH

Jscoyne2 said:


> Officially like chair more than couch setting.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Like I said in one of my earlier posts, for me measuring at the seated position with nine locations in and around the head area seem to work the best. I’m not sure why anyone would do couch unless they were shooting for a two-seat car (which even then it would be severely compromised from both seats). I mention this in the review I wrote which I plan on posting hopefully this weekend. It’s already written I just need to add some pictures to it and post it.


----------



## Holmz

ErinH said:


> Like I said in one of my earlier posts, for me measuring at the seated position with nine locations in and around the head area seem to work the best. I’m not sure why anyone would do couch unless they were shooting for a two-seat car (which even then it would be severely compromised from both seats). I mention this in the review I wrote which I plan on posting hopefully this weekend. It’s already written I just need to add some pictures to it and post it.


I agree from a TA sense that the chair is optimal for at least 1 position.

However one could argue that from an EQ perspective it may be good to use multiple positions.

I suppose that one could compair the multiple position REW measurements versus a "chair's EQ" REW measurements?

Whether one has a two-person tune and a chair tune, and could switch between them as the passengers get in and out of the car... at least a 2 position REW and single chair TA could be better for the passenger, than a chair tune.

^This^ is more of a question to Erin??


----------



## Sonnie

Holmz said:


> I suppose that one could compair the multiple position REW measurements versus a "chair's EQ" REW measurements?


I did this for the home. It's pretty much either good for one person, thus measure from the main/primary listening position head area and get that one seat optimal... OR... it's marginally better for some listening positions, but not necessarily all. In the case in my room where I have 7 seats... I measured primary... other 6 seats and primary again for the 8th measurement. It was somewhat better for the primary listener, but nothing I would live with... and it was marginally better for a few seats, but marginally worse for other seats. I even went so far as to try to optimize for just my front 3 seats... still a no go for me in the primary seat, although it did improve all 3 seats... but none were worth keeping in my opinion.

Here's my thing... I'm the only one that really cares what it sounds like in the room... for the most part. If a serious listener comes in... like when we do evaluations and reviews... we all use the primary listening position. Otherwise... when other folks come in the room, it's typically family and friends and we are watching a movie... they could literally hang from the ceiling and think it sounds great... they don't care if it has a null at 70Hz or a peak at 30Hz. So... I optimize for the premium seat only... that way I get the best I can get it to be for me... and it's still not all that bad for everyone else... in fact it's about the same as it would be if you measured every other seat... some marginally better, some not.


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Officially like chair more than couch setting.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk






ErinH said:


> Like I said in one of my earlier posts, for me measuring at the seated position with nine locations in and around the head area seem to work the best. I’m not sure why anyone would do couch unless they were shooting for a two-seat car (which even then it would be severely compromised from both seats). I mention this in the review I wrote which I plan on posting hopefully this weekend. It’s already written I just need to add some pictures to it and post it.




Try your normal chair measurement points you like, the last two measurements should be the forward high two measurements 

On those try putting the mic for the right one right in front of where the passenger would be sitting , like at there chest maybe 4” in front of that 

Than the left one put about 4” in front of your chest. Between chest and eye level for both 



Chair and sofa are the same algo. It’s just different measurement points as a “suggestion “ you can try your own. 


What I like about having 1 measurement point in the passenger area is getting that part of the car averaged as part of the response. 

It took my about 6mo to figure out that out, after being a dedicated chair tune only, I couldn’t get good luck with sofa , 


My favorite is a mix chair on left and half chair and half sofa on right.


After tuning chair for a few months I was noticing some of the right channel seemed like it had diffrent tonality than the left and the eq was imbalanced at 2-5khz using horns I knew I had to get the right side of the car in the measurement because the right side has slightly different response on different axesses. So maybe it’s just me. But definitely worked so much better I still have to say again. 

After putting one measurement point in passenger seat everything just worked from that point on


----------



## Sonnie

Can you post some of your Routing and Mixer screens? I'd like to see how some of you have your different setups routed and mixed. I know several of you tried some different mixes, etc. Thanks!


----------



## LumbermanSVO

ErinH said:


> Like I said in one of my earlier posts, for me measuring at the seated position with nine locations in and around the head area seem to work the best.


I've had the same experience with the APL hardware/software. Sure, the hardware is packaged for a car, but the software wasn't designed with a car in mind. So the software engineers want you to spread out the measurements over a much bigger area than you need/want for a car.


----------



## ErinH

Just posted my review. Decided to make it a separate thread so it wouldn't get lost in the shuffle here. I purposely kept it out of "tutorial" territory because there's plenty of manuals on how to set things up but I did add my own $.02 here and there. Hopefully it's useful to those curious about the product but I imagine if you're part of this conversation in this particular thread then you already have one anyway.  

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/foru...ons/420475-minidsp-c-dsp-8x12-dirac-live.html


----------



## Holmz

Sonnie said:


> I did this for the home. It's pretty much either good for one person, thus measure from the main/primary listening position head area and get that one seat optimal... OR... it's marginally better for some listening positions, but not necessarily all. In the case in my room where I have 7 seats... I measured primary... other 6 seats and primary again for the 8th measurement. It was somewhat better for the primary listener, but nothing I would live with... and it was marginally better for a few seats, but marginally worse for other seats. I even went so far as to try to optimize for just my front 3 seats... still a no go for me in the primary seat, although it did improve all 3 seats... but none were worth keeping in my opinion.
> 
> Here's my thing... I'm the only one that really cares what it sounds like in the room... for the most part. If a serious listener comes in... like when we do evaluations and reviews... we all use the primary listening position. Otherwise... when other folks come in the room, it's typically family and friends and we are watching a movie... they could literally hang from the ceiling and think it sounds great... they don't care if it has a null at 70Hz or a peak at 30Hz. So... I optimize for the premium seat only... that way I get the best I can get it to be for me... and it's still not all that bad for everyone else... in fact it's about the same as it would be if you measured every other seat... some marginally better, some not.


It is hard to argue with one that ^tried it^.
Thanks for the input sir.


----------



## ErinH

Holmz said:


> It is hard to argue with one that ^tried it^.
> Thanks for the input sir.


I tried it to see if I could use it for two seat help. Like I said, I don’t know why you’d expect good results for a single seat. *shrugs*


----------



## Sonnie

My guess is the best position for trying to improve for both front seats is to put the mic in the dead center between the two front seats about ear level on the first measurement, then hit each seat around where the head would be for the remainder. 

I might actually try that just to see what the difference is. I have an extra preset.


----------



## naiku

This unit can be maddening at times... After reading Erin's review (well worth a look if you've not read it already) I decided to try a couple new things. I had a document saved with a bunch of the EQ I had used in my last manual tune along with time delays. Plugged all that in, checked my L/R levels and went into DLCT.

Took all 9 measurements around my head, get to the filter design tab and the right side level is so much lower than the left I didn't even bother going any further with optimization. Opened REW and compared left and right levels, they're right on where they should be, basically the same level between the two, the only real differences being a couple dips. No idea why in DLCT the right was showing as about 10dB or more lower than the left. Nothing in the plug in showed any reason for it, just the DLCT measurement had the difference.

At that point the combination of humidity making it feel like I was losing weight through sweating (ewww) and being annoyed with the weird level difference I gave up for the day.


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> This unit can be maddening at times... After reading Erin's review (well worth a look if you've not read it already) I decided to try a couple new things. I had a document saved with a bunch of the EQ I had used in my last manual tune along with time delays. Plugged all that in, checked my L/R levels and went into DLCT.
> 
> 
> 
> Took all 9 measurements around my head, get to the filter design tab and the right side level is so much lower than the left I didn't even bother going any further with optimization. Opened REW and compared left and right levels, they're right on where they should be, basically the same level between the two, the only real differences being a couple dips. No idea why in DLCT the right was showing as about 10dB or more lower than the left. Nothing in the plug in showed any reason for it, just the DLCT measurement had the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> At that point the combination of humidity making it feel like I was losing weight through sweating (ewww) and being annoyed with the weird level difference I gave up for the day.


I noticed that as well. Did a full pretune, same spots both in rew amd and dlct and they are totally different. Ihink its best to actually tune with peqs via what dlct shows. Erin did say its not averaging (which is what rew does), but rather its showing you what can and should be fixed. 

Thus it'll be a bit tricky to use peqs with but for whatever reason. I liked my pretuned version much much more than without a pretune. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oliverlim

Just managed to try a proper rear fill for the first time. I have to say, its also the first time where my right and left position is actually outside my door! Really cool effect. 

However, what I was looking for was more depth or for the soundstage to be further from me or more onto the bonnet. One issue I had was I could only add 15ms to the rear as the Cdsp 8x12DL max delay was 20ms? Is this right? Is there a way I could add just another 5ms to it through some trick? 

On a longer listening session, found that the 15ms delay, 300-3K bandpass and 6db down, did result in a narrower sound stage or that the soundstage was pulled back slightly. I may have to play with reducing the levels by 7-8db to counter the lack of delay. Any tips on how I can make rear fill better is most appreciated.

Oh, I think measuring the 9 positions just in areas around your head does result in a better tune. But I have not sat in the passenger or in the rear to see if those positions got alot worse


----------



## Sonnie

That's about what I am using on my rear fills... 350-3500... and on the routing tab...










Have you tried reducing the target curve on your midrange response by about 2-3db say between 500-1000Hz to see if that might push it out a little. The effect is different in each vehicle.


----------



## naiku

oliverlim said:


> Just managed to try a proper rear fill for the first time. I have to say, its also the first time where my right and left position is actually outside my door! Really cool effect.
> 
> However, what I was looking for was more depth or for the soundstage to be further from me or more onto the bonnet. One issue I had was I could only add 15ms to the rear as the Cdsp 8x12DL max delay was 20ms? Is this right? Is there a way I could add just another 5ms to it through some trick?


Weird, I can set 20ms delay on my rear fill channels. I'll double check at some point, but fairly confident I have had them set at 20ms. Think at the moment I have them around 14ms or so. 

I will say with rear fill it is a lot of trial and error, where are your rear speakers located? With mine I have tried them initially in the rear doors (lower front of the rear door card) and they added width there but not a whole lot. Moving mine back towards the trunk and up higher (I have a wagon, think of the little plastic shelf at the sides of the trunk) made a huge difference in the effect that I got from using it. 

I have mine at 0dB in the routing, but then pull the levels down on the output tabs until I can just hear the rear fill, but where it does not pull the entire stage rear ward. All this reminds me that on the last tune I tried I had forgotten to zero the delays on my rear fill before taking the dirac measurements, need to redo that with them set to zero.


----------



## subterFUSE

Might be able to plug an output to an input and then route to another output to get double the delay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oliverlim

naiku said:


> This unit can be maddening at times... After reading Erin's review (well worth a look if you've not read it already) I decided to try a couple new things. I had a document saved with a bunch of the EQ I had used in my last manual tune along with time delays. Plugged all that in, checked my L/R levels and went into DLCT.
> 
> Took all 9 measurements around my head, get to the filter design tab and the right side level is so much lower than the left I didn't even bother going any further with optimization. Opened REW and compared left and right levels, they're right on where they should be, basically the same level between the two, the only real differences being a couple dips. No idea why in DLCT the right was showing as about 10dB or more lower than the left. Nothing in the plug in showed any reason for it, just the DLCT measurement had the difference.
> 
> At that point the combination of humidity making it feel like I was losing weight through sweating (ewww) and being annoyed with the weird level difference I gave up for the day.


I had somewhat a similar issue when I wsa trying to redo my measurements for the rear fill and doing a 9 average on a more focused area around my head. One of the measurements set had my subwoofer TA all wrong. I also noticed that the Minidsp app seems to have a bug? in the remembering the subwoofer volume levels. This cause me a number of issue if I do not notice it. 

E.g. My slot 1 memory setting has the subwoofer main volume at 0db. but my output subwoofer levels are -5. When I save this setting and load it into another memory slot say 2. The subwoofer main volume for that setting would automatically be -5. It would just take that subwoofer output levels and use it as the subwoofer main volume. If I do not change it back to 0db or notice that, I would think that there is something wrong with my tune. Worse, is if I decide to do a tune with that "wrong" value.

Also I notice now that my DLCT automatically uses a -4db or so value for my subwoofer while leaving all other channels at 0db. I recall it used to show all as 0db previously. Not sure if there is any implications. Or I should change it back to 0db and reduce my subwoofer channels more on the main minidsp program screen.





Sonnie said:


> That's about what I am using on my rear fills... 350-3500... and on the routing tab...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried reducing the target curve on your midrange response by about 2-3db say between 500-1000Hz to see if that might push it out a little. The effect is different in each vehicle.


Yes. I use that same combi for the routing tab. I will give 350-3500 a try and reduce the 500-1000hz level by about 2-3db to see what that does. Thanks!




naiku said:


> Weird, I can set 20ms delay on my rear fill channels. I'll double check at some point, but fairly confident I have had them set at 20ms. Think at the moment I have them around 14ms or so.
> 
> I will say with rear fill it is a lot of trial and error, where are your rear speakers located? With mine I have tried them initially in the rear doors (lower front of the rear door card) and they added width there but not a whole lot. Moving mine back towards the trunk and up higher (I have a wagon, think of the little plastic shelf at the sides of the trunk) made a huge difference in the effect that I got from using it.
> 
> I have mine at 0dB in the routing, but then pull the levels down on the output tabs until I can just hear the rear fill, but where it does not pull the entire stage rear ward. All this reminds me that on the last tune I tried I had forgotten to zero the delays on my rear fill before taking the dirac measurements, need to redo that with them set to zero.


The max amount allowed is 20ms. But My rear are currently set to around 3.x and 4.x respectively. So even at 19/20, it is only around 16ms of additional delay. 

Mine is a hatch, and the rear placement is exactly like in your case. Behind the rear passenger seats on a shelf at the side just at or behind the C pillar facing up. I have to say that placement/position does have a auto surround effect. I noticed that when I was using the Dirac volume test for each of the channel. It almost always tricks me that both speakers are having output at the same time. 

I hear you on the things to remember before tuning. We should do a check list

1. Check that the subwoofer main volume is at 0db.

2. Remember to zero out your rear fill channels delays


----------



## oliverlim

subterFUSE said:


> Might be able to plug an output to an input and then route to another output to get double the delay.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Forgot about this trick. Might be the easiest and cheapest way to do this. I assume that if I do it this way, I have to half every setting? e.g crossover previously at 24LR, I now need to use 12LR instead as it is doubled?


----------



## subterFUSE

oliverlim said:


> Forgot about this trick. Might be the easiest and cheapest way to do this. I assume that if I do it this way, I have to half every setting? e.g crossover previously at 24LR, I now need to use 12LR instead as it is doubled?



Only do crossovers on 1 set. Leave 1 set flat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oliverlim

subterFUSE said:


> Only do crossovers on 1 set. Leave 1 set flat.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Honestly did not think of that! it makes sense to do it this way.


----------



## naiku

oliverlim said:


> I also noticed that the Minidsp app seems to have a bug? in the remembering the subwoofer volume levels. This cause me a number of issue if I do not notice it.
> 
> E.g. My slot 1 memory setting has the subwoofer main volume at 0db. but my output subwoofer levels are -5. When I save this setting and load it into another memory slot say 2. The subwoofer main volume for that setting would automatically be -5. It would just take that subwoofer output levels and use it as the subwoofer main volume. If I do not change it back to 0db or notice that, I would think that there is something wrong with my tune. Worse, is if I decide to do a tune with that "wrong" value.


I think someone else reported that subwoofer bug to MiniDSP a while back, I get the same thing happen with mine. Sometimes I also find that if I try to adjust the main volume, the plug in either does not let me or takes several attempts until it accepts a value I type in there.



oliverlim said:


> I hear you on the things to remember before tuning. We should do a check list
> 
> 1. Check that the subwoofer main volume is at 0db.
> 
> 2. Remember to zero out your rear fill channels delays


That's not a bad idea, I know with the MS8 there was a whole bunch of tips / tricks put together.


----------



## oabeieo

Sonnie said:


> That's about what I am using on my rear fills... 350-3500... and on the routing tab...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried reducing the target curve on your midrange response by about 2-3db say between 500-1000Hz to see if that might push it out a little. The effect is different in each vehicle.


On the inverted side I’ve actually mixed back in using level on the canceling set and had excellent rear fill, I didn’t like how much L-R is canceled and echoing, 

I reduced the level 2db more than the non inverted and I really liked that quite a bit. Put just enough back in so it wasn’t so phasy


----------



## oliverlim

oabeieo said:


> On the inverted side I’ve actually mixed back in using level on the canceling set and had excellent rear fill, I didn’t like how much L-R is canceled and echoing,
> 
> I reduced the level 2db more than the non inverted and I really liked that quite a bit. Put just enough back in so it wasn’t so phasy



I do not quite understand what you mean about mixing back in using level on the cancelling set. Could you explain it?


----------



## drop1

Am I understanding correctly that DL does frequency based phase correction of eq swings?


----------



## oabeieo

Just wanted show off 
Some before and after 

Dam that’s a nice lookin impulse 






fallout new vegas all legendary creatures


----------



## oabeieo

The 2.0 is out!

For 2ch devices . Ddrc22d and ddrc24 



I’m running it now . Got the release downloaded and it’s sick



I like sofa focus with 17 measurements. Man it sounds good


----------



## naiku

Do you think MiniDSP will work on getting the 2.0 version out for the C-DSP?


----------



## tonynca

Damn. That's some good match.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Damn. That's some good match.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I got to stay ahead of everyone ...lol hehehe 




naiku said:


> Do you think MiniDSP will work on getting the 2.0 version out for the C-DSP?


Yes ....I’m sure there working on it now 


But it’s sooo sick 

The 17measurement points makes it soo much better 

The center is so much stronger , the auto target is so intuitive and awesome 
It looks at your response instead of some plain old target that is for anything 



So basically system is 


Ddrc22d optical in with 2.0 out to everything 

Goes in optical splitter into two devices one is 

Than into a 2x4hd with manual fir for sub and midbass (linear phase crossovers)

The other is a ddrc24 running Dirac 1.0 going to horns and midrange (8s) 



I ran 1.0 first and make horns and 8s flat. Just literally a straight line flat 
(That’s why that impulse I posted was sooo awesome lookin it was flat) 

Than did my own fir on sub and midbass 


Than ran 2.0 over everything. 


Oh wow! Oh boy o boy


----------



## oabeieo

It’s sorta complicated setup definitely 


So first ran 1.0 with optical in and analog out to the horns and 8s 
Using plain minimum phase crossovers supplied in the ddrc24. Non linear phase 
, the 2ch Dirac still smooths the twist between the horns and midrange 
It does nothing about the phase twist at the beginning of the 8s as it’s the beginning of the response and the entire impulse is shaped off its time signature.


Than I calculated the IR shift (peak) caused by the ddrc24 (17.66ms) 

I added that delay to the 2x4hds and than subtracted the delay that the manual fir for the midbass and sub from rephase, which subsequently aligned to midbass to the beginning of the 8s in time domain, so a linear phase filter mating up to non linear phase filter , the result was linear phase all the way through as the alignment was based on the angle of the 8 in other dsp. 

The LF is important to have linear phase so that’s why I chose manual fir instead of a 2nd ddrc24. The manual linearization makes Dirac work so excellent in LF especially the midbass to sub integration. So using minimum phase crossover on the 24 where horns and 8s are we’re a non issue, the time shift is so small Dirac would sum n smooth with no ill crossover effects afterwards. 

So midbass was 17.66ms-5.33ms and the peaks like up perfect 

The sub is the 17.66ms -10.66ms so I set that in it’s delay box 

Measurement in rew and verified, saw a single peak and GD and excess GD we’re looking good, phase lookin good no wrapping (which indicates delay still in measurement as well as IR) so the math added up perfectly down to .01ms 


Than ran 2.0 over everything.



Measurement in rew L and R the impulse is almost picture perfect. Between left and right. Imaging is superb, better than I’ve ever gotten actually. Stage is high (which has been a problem for my car with kicks and the car only being 9” wide)

Got to say this is a killer setup now. It’s what I wanted 

Having linearized the crossovers and response in fir on midbass and sub really makes Dirac work nice. There’s zero interaction issues between channels. (Crossover cancellations as result of Dirac processing) which was a big problem for me in the Cdsp. 


I make a recommendation in the minidsp forum for a multi sharc Cdsp if anyone can add a + to that on there would be great. (Near name on my post) 
If the CDsp had a future makeover and had multiple sharcs and Dirac 
Oh man. But that’s something if they consider it years out. But would be the shiznit. 

If I can figure out the delay offset I’m sure code could be written to do that. 
It wasn’t hard. Just basic math.


----------



## tonynca

Man... You're making me want to test one of these units out, when they release update for CDSP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

tonynca said:


> Man... You're making me want to test one of these units out, when they release update for CDSP.


I know. He’s a ****ty hype man. Lol! Talk about a sales pitch. He must be one of those social networking experts.


----------



## oabeieo

dgage said:


> I know. He’s a ****ty hype man. Lol! Talk about a sales pitch. He must be one of those social networking experts.



The funny thing is I’m not even a mini dealer (yet) no sales pitch 
Just pure awesomeness. 

As if 2/4/6/8 ch Dirac in the Cdsp isn’t enough (it’s quite competent indeed) 


When a product can add 10’ of soundfield depth and have perfect imaging and a perfect impulse response in 10min I would say it sells itself. 


Or the old ways of 400+hrs in a hot car for a mediocre at best impulse riddled with loud spots and echoes.



I haven’t logged into my Facebook since 2013. (Too much rifraf being married and all kinds of past relationships that want to do something dumb like say hello. ) lol


----------



## naiku

oabeieo said:


> When a product can add 10’ of soundfield depth and have perfect imaging and a perfect impulse response in 10min I would say it sells itself.


This is still the biggest point for me, once you get a feel of how to use the software then it takes all of 10 minutes to get a really nice tune set up. 

I have a slight issue with a current tune on mine (center is shifted left, turns out it was because I had the laptop on my lap when taking measurements). Since I know what level to set DLCT at for measurements without clipping, it will take me no time at all to take a new set of measurements, optimize it to a curve I like and done. It's a massive time saver.


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> The funny thing is I’m not even a mini dealer (yet) no sales pitch
> 
> Just pure awesomeness.
> 
> 
> 
> As if 2/4/6/8 ch Dirac in the Cdsp isn’t enough (it’s quite competent indeed)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a product can add 10’ of soundfield depth and have perfect imaging and a perfect impulse response in 10min I would say it sells itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the old ways of 400+hrs in a hot car for a mediocre at best impulse riddled with loud spots and echoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven’t logged into my Facebook since 2013. (Too much rifraf being married and all kinds of past relationships that want to do something dumb like say hello. ) lol



I was playing with the Bit One HD and swapping between IIR and FIR tune. Geesus - the IIR variant was smudgy and narrow. They were tuned to the same target curves L+R. The FIR tune created a bigger soundstage instantly. I would swap back and forth and it was like going from hearing music through a radio vs being there with the music. Halographic is how I would describe it.

Some people would say if you match the magnitude of the freq response that you'll match the phase but you simply can't match every single frequency perfectly. FIR filters retaining phase information and not distorting that info creates such great staging and clarity. Transients are sharp and fast to decay. They don't linger around. Music just sounds much more dynamic. 

What the CDSP-DL does extra is basically putting a team of acoustic engineers in your car and automating their knowledge of interpreting what's going on when such and such measures occurs, then put decades worth of knowledge into a tune within 10 mins. I haven't heard what the CDSP could do yet, but I trust someone with your caliber of knowledge would only be impressed when the sound is right.

I'm almost positive that anyone who does single point measurement is getting less than 100% of their system's potential. Hell even ppl who are doing spatial averaging is probably doing it wrong because Dirac weighs multi point measurements differently. When we tune with REW we weigh all measurements equally which isn't right. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop1

I hate all yall. I want some new amps and a new head unit and yall got me stuck thinking about this thing.


----------



## oabeieo

AND 



In 2.0 you can use any mic 


I have my umm6 from (uugh I cant think of it now that place that calibrated them) anyway third party calibration from audio lab 


And I love love love it l ❤


----------



## SkizeR

tonynca said:


> I was playing with the Bit One HD and swapping between IIR and FIR tune. Geesus - the IIR variant was smudgy and narrow. They were tuned to the same target curves L+R. The FIR tune created a bigger soundstage instantly. I would swap back and forth and it was like going from hearing music through a radio vs being there with the music. Halographic is how I would describe it.
> 
> Some people would say if you match the magnitude of the freq response that you'll match the phase but you simply can't match every single frequency perfectly. FIR filters retaining phase information and not distorting that info creates such great staging and clarity. Transients are sharp and fast to decay. They don't linger around. Music just sounds much more dynamic.
> 
> What the CDSP-DL does extra is basically putting a team of acoustic engineers in your car and automating their knowledge of interpreting what's going on when such and such measures occurs, then put decades worth of knowledge into a tune within 10 mins. I haven't heard what the CDSP could do yet, but I trust someone with your caliber of knowledge would only be impressed when the sound is right.
> 
> I'm almost positive that anyone who does single point measurement is getting less than 100% of their system's potential. Hell even ppl who are doing spatial averaging is probably doing it wrong because Dirac weighs multi point measurements differently. When we tune with REW we weigh all measurements equally which isn't right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How did you even generate (or calculate?) the fir filters? Or did you just leave phase "flat"?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

SkizeR said:


> How did you even generate (or calculate?) the fir filters? Or did you just leave phase "flat"?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk


Nick - I've been meaning to post a reply in the Helix thread with regards to what you posted but haven't had a chance. I will do so later. 

But here is a quick post for now. The Bit One HD is end-user friendly in my opinion. They set up all the FIR filters for you and maintain the phase relationship required to keep active speakers in sync. I don't need to assign any taps or do any setup, Audison did all that. I just enter my crossover points and EQ as I please. 

Look here:


Do you see the gray lines? Those lines are showing the limits of how much you could EQ at the lower end of the spectrum with FIR EQ nodes. Audison did all the setup and bundled it up so it's easy for you to use. The line moves as you move your EQ node. Download the software and try it. 

People should use IIR filters to EQ the low end; however, it's a double edge sword, I notice smearing when I use IIR excessively. I think it's messing up the phase when I introduce the IIR filter, but if I cut only a bit it's OK.

There is a reason why the Bit One HD doesn't offer individual EQ for each driver. They need to maintain the phase relationship (electronically) for FIR filters between tweeters, mids, woofers. So they give you a channel EQ for left, right, rear left, rear right, center, sub.

I know you tried FIR in the past Nick but that was 2 years ago before Bit One HD v2 firmware and C-DSP DL. You really need to get either of these processors and have another go at it. If you tell me they suck and you hear no difference. I will just admit I suck at tuning and lack skills to put out a tune that's comparable to your level of skills. But I will tell you this. Every Helix car I've listened to, I have never heard this type of imaging or staging. I haven't been in many, only 4-5, but they were all running proper gear.

Everyone who demo'ed my car has commented on how detailed the stereo image is. No, I was not running the Focal Utopia M at the time, it was my old setup. It's not even the speakers, I know because I could A/B my IIR tune vs FIR tune.

I urge you to try it since you have customers, who will probably benefit from you suggesting them new tech that works.


----------



## oabeieo

I’ve looked at the bitonehd and installed one


The for works fine at high frequency, it has a ridiculous low tap count iirc 

It’s done on a graphic , so your magnitude needs to be flat before applying any filter at least an oactave past desired xo 

And you have limited other fir functions as well. 


I’m not sure what chip is in it , Xilinx or Analog devices would be my guess but no idea 

It would definitely take REW to see the acoustic impulse otherwise flying blindly


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> I’ve looked at the bitonehd and installed one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The for works fine at high frequency, it has a ridiculous low tap count iirc
> 
> 
> 
> It’s done on a graphic , so your magnitude needs to be flat before applying any filter at least an oactave past desired xo
> 
> 
> 
> And you have limited other fir functions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what chip is in it , Xilinx or Analog devices would be my guess but no idea
> 
> 
> 
> It would definitely take REW to see the acoustic impulse otherwise flying blindly


Did you play with bit one hd v2 firmware? It's 1 month new. More EQ nodes than original fir firmware. The old firmware was pretty crappy lol. 

450mhz analog device sharc



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Nick - I've been meaning to post a reply in the Helix thread with regards to what you posted but haven't had a chance. I will do so later.
> 
> But here is a quick post for now. The Bit One HD is end-user friendly in my opinion. They set up all the FIR filters for you and maintain the phase relationship required to keep active speakers in sync. I don't need to assign any taps or do any setup, Audison did all that. I just enter my crossover points and EQ as I please.
> 
> Look here:
> 
> 
> Do you see the gray lines? Those lines are showing the limits of how much you could EQ at the lower end of the spectrum with FIR EQ nodes. Audison did all the setup and bundled it up so it's easy for you to use. The line moves as you move your EQ node. Download the software and try it.
> 
> People should use IIR filters to EQ the low end; however, it's a double edge sword, I notice smearing when I use IIR excessively. I think it's messing up the phase when I introduce the IIR filter, but if I cut only a bit it's OK.
> 
> There is a reason why the Bit One HD doesn't offer individual EQ for each driver. They need to maintain the phase relationship (electronically) for FIR filters between tweeters, mids, woofers. So they give you a channel EQ for left, right, rear left, rear right, center, sub.
> 
> I know you tried FIR in the past Nick but that was 2 years ago before Bit One HD v2 firmware and C-DSP DL. You really need to get either of these processors and have another go at it. If you tell me they suck and you hear no difference. I will just admit I suck at tuning and lack skills to put out a tune that's comparable to your level of skills. But I will tell you this. Every Helix car I've listened to, I have never heard this type of imaging or staging. I haven't been in many, only 4-5, but they were all running proper gear.
> 
> Everyone who demo'ed my car has commented on how detailed the stereo image is. No, I was not running the Focal Utopia M at the time, it was my old setup. It's not even the speakers, I know because I could A/B my IIR tune vs FIR tune.
> 
> I urge you to try it since you have customers, who will probably benefit from you suggesting them new tech that works.



Nick is beyond ready for a DL unit. 
Although some fir is better than none. 
If it was to be manual fir , rephase seems the only good (and few others) way to apply one properly all within a single app. 

Rephase = import impulse , convolve - export, load , offset delay, done 


The problem with this is you can’t see the phase of the speaker as you make changes , so you would have to 


Measure in rew , send to rephase , copy the exact control limits of the bitHD in rephase and simulate it. Than apply the changes within bitHD 


You would need an exact tap count todo that tho, I don’t remember in the bitHD where it shows that on each channel


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> Did you play with bit one hd v2 firmware? It's 1 month new. More EQ nodes than original fir firmware. The old firmware was pretty crappy lol.
> 
> 450mhz analog device sharc
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It’s a sharc at 450mhz 

So 8192taps if I add samples right at 48k 

That’s pretty dope actually


And no I haven’t seen it


----------



## oabeieo

And fir eq i would imagine is minimum phase (if they did there job in design it right) 

If your getting ringing in a filter it’s because it’s linear phase eq on a inband 


You can use linear phase eq only on stop band and it can only be cut in eq or it will sound smeared or echoes (pre ringing) 

So not sure what your hearing or what it’s actually doing.

Do you have the user manual that talks about the fir 

You should make a bitHD thread and post all that stuff up


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> And fir eq i would imagine is minimum phase (if they did there job in design it right)
> 
> 
> 
> If your getting ringing in a filter it’s because it’s linear phase eq on a inband
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can use linear phase eq only on stop band and it can only be cut in eq or it will sound smeared or echoes (pre ringing)
> 
> 
> 
> So not sure what your hearing or what it’s actually doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the user manual that talks about the fir
> 
> 
> 
> You should make a bitHD thread and post all that stuff up



HAHA SORRY EVERYONE. Back to CDSP chat. Thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

tonynca said:


> HAHA SORRY EVERYONE. Back to CDSP chat. Thank you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Seriously make a thread 
And post as much info as you can . 


I’m curious about all what it does


----------



## tonynca

oabeieo said:


> Seriously make a thread
> And post as much info as you can .
> 
> 
> I’m curious about all what it does


Yeah, I was planning to make a video to show all the features of the software. Sort of a guide to getting good sound with that unit.


----------



## oabeieo

Oh I’m really lovin’ it now 

Total of 5 sharcs running. Making sure nothing is duplicated (wasting fir)

I can really tell the difference especially in the HF with more sharcs.


Not just seperate Dirac sweeps but seperate Dirac channels on completely different machines. It’s almost exactly the same as running a single sharc being completely honest and not showing off , but the HF (above 2.5k) is noticeably smoother every time I add a sharc. 


If I run just my horns on it’s own Dirac machine it’s absolutely clean and zero harshness at all. Once I add the mid the HF gets only a tincy tiny bit harsh at extreme volume (using the same default target.


So. Again. I’m really liking it now. 

I finally have a anchored center that is so strong everyone that listens to it always asks if I have speakers in the dash (thank you 2.0!) 


image host server url


----------



## dgage

Oabeieo - Adding a Sharc? What do you mean? Thanks. And thanks for the great info you add to this thread.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

He's adding multiple MiniDSP's (2x4hd's I assume). Each one has an Analog Devices SHARC which is the DSP chip. So when he says he's adding more SHARCs he means more Mini's.


----------



## ckirocz28

MiniDSP gave ErinH a shout out in their newsletter, for his review of this unit.


----------



## drop1

Is there a way to run DI with a smaller cdsp? I'd like to keep my helix and run a mini after.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Dirac units are:

DDRC22D (digital) 
SHD Studio (upgraded DDRC22D with 2 sets of digital outs)

These can be placed in front of your Helix digital input. For a Stereo R + L Dirac Live (I’m using this method with a DDRC22D and Helix).

DDRC88A (not small)
DDRC24 (upgraded 2x4HD)

These can be placed before or after the helix analog inputs/outputs. Usually suggested to run the Dirac unit upstream your DSP.


----------



## tonynca

drop1 said:


> Is there a way to run DI with a smaller cdsp? I'd like to keep my helix and run a mini after.




I would think you should be doing the opposite. Use a 2 channel Minidsp with DL then outputting that signal into your Helix then use it as an expensive crossover. Because any further EQing you're doing in Helix's IIR filters would probably just distort phase information. 

I'm going to let Andy chime in since he's an expert with this daisy chaining stuff. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

drop1 said:


> Is there a way to run DI with a smaller cdsp? I'd like to keep my helix and run a mini after.


You really shouldn't have to tbh. Dirac have unlimited eq. It may be a little annoying to always go back to DLCT but it is unlimited eq.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Jscoyne2 said:


> You really shouldn't have to tbh. Dirac have unlimited eq. It may be a little annoying to always go back to DLCT but it is unlimited eq.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Unlimited EQ sounds highly fishy to me. It's running a 400mhz AD Sharc CPU. I don't know what it does to set up its FIR filters to allocate its taps but maybe someone here who knows could chime in. I know Dirac Live uses a combination of IIR and FIR filtering since it says so on their website but it certainly isn't unlimited haha. FIR filtering is very taxing on the CPU.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong and show me some info from either Minidsp or Dirac to confirm unlimited EQ nodes. Cause they found a way to do something that's KICKASS. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

So does Dirac use T/a settings to move phase at all so it can optimize its tap use?


----------



## Jscoyne2

tonynca said:


> Unlimited EQ sounds highly fishy to me. It's running a 400mhz AD Sharc CPU. I don't know what it does to set up its FIR filters to allocate its taps but maybe someone here who knows could chime in. I know Dirac Live uses a combination of IIR and FIR filtering since it says so on their website but it certainly isn't unlimited haha. FIR filtering is very taxing on the CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love it if someone could prove me wrong and show me some info from either Minidsp or Dirac to confirm unlimited EQ nodes. Cause they found a way to do something that's KICKASS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So im not very knowledgeable on taps or fir or the like but what i meant was amplitude wise. Its has a 10db boost limit but it draw whatever curve you give it perfectly. 

If you're thinking about something like autoeq and a helix. Youll get close to the curve, especially with 31 bands but it still wont be perfect 

But with dirac, its perfectly on point to whatever curve you draw. Every time. 

And its doing phase correction.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Jscoyne2 said:


> So im not very knowledgeable on taps or fir or the like but what i meant was amplitude wise. Its has a 10db boost limit but it draw whatever curve you give it perfectly.
> 
> If you're thinking about something like autoeq and a helix. Youll get close to the curve, especially with 31 bands but it still wont be perfect
> 
> But with dirac, its perfectly on point to whatever curve you draw. Every time.
> 
> And its doing phase correction.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




I'm not sure if you read this yet but this is what Dirac Live will do for you: https://live.dirac.com/technical-information/

It's good info but kind of vague.

If you were referring to the target curve having unlimited flexibility in terms of how you want to draw your target curve, then I think that's an illusion. The real meat of the work is being done behind the scene through those measurements you made in the car. The type of filtering they apply and how accurate the correction could be is still limited by the CPU power available to them. I'm sure when they have a 1ghz SHARC processor at their disposal the correction is only going to get better. 

There's a guy over on REW forums that's from Dirac. Maybe I should post a thread over there to shed some more light into this. Doubt he'll spill the beans on their trade secrets though. 

You asked about if Dirac does phase correction. No idea. They do time alignment, which is different from phase correction.

More info about phase vs delay: Phase vs. Delay

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

I think the term "phase correction" is somewhat vague and also being a little misunderstood.

IIR filters can correct phase. It's not some special thing reserved only for FIR filters.

If you have a measurement and there is a peak somewhere, and you use IIR filters to flatten the peak, then you will also be correcting the phase at that point. Peaks and dips in frequency response will have shifts in the phase response. Flatten the frequency response and you will also be smoothing the phase response.


What FIR filters can do is "linearize" the phase response. Linear phase means that all frequencies play with the same phase at the same time. Think of it like frequency-dependent time alignment. You are able to delay different frequencies by different times to make their phase line up perfectly.

With normal delay, we can only get 2 speakers phase coherent across a certain range of frequencies. Move higher or lower in frequency, and the phase alignment will drift.

With linear phase this does not happen. Whatever frequency the speakers play, they would be in phase.

But doing linear phase FIR filters will require a ton of processing power, depending on how far into the bass regions we want to correct.

I do not think Dirac is doing linear phase. The next time I tune a Dirac system I will measure the phase and see if it is linearized or not.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

tonynca said:


> I'm going to let Andy chime in since he's an expert with this daisy chaining stuff.


He already has. DDRC22D > optical splitter > 3x 2x4HD for manual FIR or 3xDDRC24 for even more DL

Claims to prefer it over the CDSP DL actually.

I don’t the know the trade secrets behind the algorithm. But putting DDRC 22D, 88A, or 24 in front of your existing DSP will accomplish what you seek. Depends on what your system layout it is and how many taps your are desiring.


----------



## drop1

subterFUSE said:


> I think the term "phase correction" is somewhat vague and also being a little misunderstood.
> 
> IIR filters can correct phase. It's not some special thing reserved only for FIR filters.
> 
> If you have a measurement and there is a peak somewhere, and you use IIR filters to flatten the peak, then you will also be correcting the phase at that point. Peaks and dips in frequency response will have shifts in the phase response. Flatten the frequency response and you will also be smoothing the phase response.
> 
> 
> What FIR filters can do is "linearize" the phase response. Linear phase means that all frequencies play with the same phase at the same time. Think of it like frequency-dependent time alignment. You are able to delay different frequencies by different times to make their phase line up perfectly.
> 
> With normal delay, we can only get 2 speakers phase coherent across a certain range of frequencies. Move higher or lower in frequency, and the phase alignment will drift.
> 
> With linear phase this does not happen. Whatever frequency the speakers play, they would be in phase.
> 
> But doing linear phase FIR filters will require a ton of processing power, depending on how far into the bass regions we want to correct.
> 
> I do not think Dirac is doing linear phase. The next time I tune a Dirac system I will measure the phase and see if it is linearized or not.


Is this like linear phase eqs used in music production?


----------



## tonynca

subterFUSE said:


> IIR filters can correct phase. It's not some special thing reserved only for FIR filters.
> 
> I do not think Dirac is doing linear phase. The next time I tune a Dirac system I will measure the phase and see if it is linearized or not.


Yup, IIR filters could only correct phase in minimum-phase regions of the freq response. If you do a bunch of sweep around your listening position in REW, switch to the group delay tab, generate the minimum phase, look at the excess group delay, the non-minimum regions phase are displayed as peaks.



Dirac is not linear phase. They use some proprietary mix-phase correction methods which is probably a mix of IIR + FIR. Would like more info on the exact methods but I doubt that's publicly available.

Quote from the Dirac link I posted:

Implementation for best accuracy

Traditional EQ uses IIR filters for lowest processor usage

Many room correction filters use FIR filters for ease of implementation and optimization

IIR and FIR filters both have their pros and cons. At Dirac we use a proprietary filter structure that achieves maximum performance at much less processor usage than regular FIR filters. This filter structure also has great numerical properties, and thus doesn’t produce any digital noise.​
Digital noise they're referring to is probably pre-ringing associated with FIR filtering when trying to correct lower frequencies. Again, they're vague. I can't be sure what digital noise they're referring to exactly but I could only assume it's pre-ringing.

Here's some more detailed info from Audioholics: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/dirac-live-update

Interesting paragraph from that article:

By ignoring the time domain, conventional equalization routines can fail to address the causes of an erratic frequency response, and *they can even make the overall sound quality worse by distorting important phase relationships between speakers.* Changing the arrival of sound in a frequency band from one speaker in a stereo pair by just a few milliseconds can have substantial effects on the imaging and soundstage. A complete reparation of the signal in any normal listening situation involves attention paid to the time domain as well as the amplitude response domain. Dirac Live approaches the time domain by using filters to tame irregularities in the early-reflection time arrival in sound at the measured positions. While lateral early reflections have been shown to be beneficial, front and rear early reflections can be problematic. Dirac Live does not address late-reflections since they are too position-dependent to address well via processing. Late-reflections can add a sense of spaciousness, but those who do want to rid themselves of late-reflections are advised to use acoustic treatments for that goal. .

Dirac Live works by analyzing measurements made with a microphone at multiple positions clustered around the main listening position. It then finds and corrects issues in the time domain that were common in all measurements. Reflective acoustic energy can be significantly reduced in favor of direct sound, and this can give the end sound much greater clarity and less coloration. After the decay times have been reduced, Dirac Live then goes to work on the frequency response to shore up problems without damaging time domain corrections. The result is a flatter response across all listening positions with far quicker decay times.​


----------



## tonynca

drop1 said:


> Is this like linear phase eqs used in music production?


It's exactly that.



These are different tools used to solve different problems. One is not better than the other. They each have their own purposes.

I want to share a post by the author of REW, John Mulcahy:

A car environment is no more minimum phase than a room, the reflections bouncing around in both cases give rise to non-minimum phase regions. Outside the bass region applying the same EQ to left and right can help avoid imaging problems in rooms, largely because the direct signal reaching the ears from each speaker is usually more similar between left and right than our measurements might suggest. Filters affect phase as well as amplitude, but with an FIR filter it is possible to decouple those effects while an IIR filter's phase response is inextricably linked to its magnitude response. *When applying an IIR filter to a modal resonance that's a good thing, since the filter can correct both the magnitude and phase effects of the resonance.*​


----------



## drop1

I wonder how bad a 2way with passives would trip it up. 

At the crossove region you have overlapping areas of the drivers. Due to being on passives the tweeters receive the same ta as the mids. 

I'm curious as to how DI would see that and try to correct for it.


----------



## drop1

So, I'm about ready to order. 
I read somewhere that you have to purchase the DI liscense separately. In the minidsp site, it says the DDRC comes with a DI liscense for $399 total . Just wanting to verify that this is correct?


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Dirac Live was originally meant to work for home audio loudspeakers. Loudspeakers usually incorporate passive crossovers. Shouldn’t trip it up.


----------



## drop1

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Dirac Live was originally meant to work for home audio loudspeakers. Loudspeakers usually incorporate passive crossovers. Shouldn’t trip it up.


My concern is the tweeters ar usually same plain mounted on home speakers. My drivers side tweet is about 4 inches closer than the mid. 
No matter, I still believe it will sound better judging by everything I've read so far.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

drop1 said:


> So, I'm about ready to order.
> I read somewhere that you have to purchase the DI liscense separately. In the minidsp site, it says the DDRC comes with a DI liscense for $399 total . Just wanting to verify that this is correct?


Which model are you purchasing?

The CDSP 8x12 with Dirac Live included is $899:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/car-audio-dsp/cdsp-8x12-dl

If you already have CDSP 8x12 then go to this link to purchase a DL license for $329:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/cdsp-8x12-to-8x12-dl-detail


----------



## drop1

Bnlcmbcar said:


> drop1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm about ready to order.
> I read somewhere that you have to purchase the DI liscense separately. In the minidsp site, it says the DDRC comes with a DI liscense for $399 total . Just wanting to verify that this is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Which model are you purchasing?
> 
> The CDSP 8x12 with Dirac Live included is $899:
> https://www.minidsp.com/products/car-audio-dsp/cdsp-8x12-dl
> 
> If you already have CDSP 8x12 then go to this link to purchase a DL license for $329:
> https://www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/cdsp-8x12-to-8x12-dl-detail
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the DDRC 24. It's small and the site days it comes with dirac.
https://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series/ddrc-24


----------



## tonynca

Bnlcmbcar said:


> He already has. DDRC22D > optical splitter > 3x 2x4HD for manual FIR or 3xDDRC24 for even more DL
> 
> 
> 
> Claims to prefer it over the CDSP DL actually.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t the know the trade secrets behind the algorithm. But putting DDRC 22D, 88A, or 24 in front of your existing DSP will accomplish what you seek. Depends on what your system layout it is and how many taps your are desiring.




That's a crapload of DSP $$$, which is a crapload of processing power ontap to tailor only the active freq regions of each driver. I could see why he would prefer it over single C-DSP DL. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop1

Part of me wants to limit a system to $100 worth if raw drivers and $100 worth of amplification and run full DI just to see what happens lol


----------



## Truthunter

drop1 said:


> Part of me wants to limit a system to $100 worth if raw drivers and $100 worth of amplification and run full DI just to see what happens lol


Don't. It's not a magic wand


----------



## drop1

Truthunter said:


> drop1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of me wants to limit a system to $100 worth if raw drivers and $100 worth of amplification and run full DI just to see what happens lol
> 
> 
> 
> Don't. It's not a magic wand <img src="http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Razz" class="inlineimg" />
Click to expand...

It sure sounds like one lol


----------



## ckirocz28

Truthunter said:


> Don't. It's not a magic wand


I think you mean "It's not a Bose system". Because they're basically dirt cheap drivers and amps with massive dsp/eq-ing.


----------



## ckirocz28

drop1 said:


> Part of me wants to limit a system to $100 worth if raw drivers and $100 worth of amplification and run full DI just to see what happens lol


I say, go for it! We expect a full report/review with measurements, too.


----------



## dgage

drop1 said:


> So, I'm about ready to order.
> I read somewhere that you have to purchase the DI liscense separately. In the minidsp site, it says the DDRC comes with a DI liscense for $399 total . Just wanting to verify that this is correct?


That is correct. It is the 2-channel version and includes Dirac and supposedly already has Dirac 2.0, which hasn’t been released to the 8x12DL yet.


----------



## drop1

dgage said:


> drop1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm about ready to order.
> I read somewhere that you have to purchase the DI liscense separately. In the minidsp site, it says the DDRC comes with a DI liscense for $399 total . Just wanting to verify that this is correct?
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. It is the 2-channel version and includes Dirac and supposedly already has Dirac 2.0, which hasn’t been released to the 8x12DL yet.
Click to expand...

Great. I'd like to try it feeding the helix in the aux or digital port and compare it to my best tunes.


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Not sure exactly which frequencies yet, it's towards the higher end of female vocals. Need to give it a longer listen to be sure though.
> 
> Anyway, so I knocked down the mids by 4dB and increased the subwoofer by 3dB, then re-measured. I think I am experiencing the same thing that Ryan did with his measurements and the sub...
> 
> 
> 
> The sweep sounded louder, visually they looked larger on the DLCT measuring screen, I also just compared the sub response on the filter design tab and it is exactly the same, despite me turning it up. Weird.
> 
> Anyway, took new measurements, loaded my target and now making some real good progress with this. Latest REW (1/6 smoothing) response looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking if I can cure that dip around 55Hz that I may well be completely happy with this particular tune.


I havent gotten through this thread all the way but whenever i have a freq that is REALLY standing out to me but i cant figure out what it is. I play the song thats making it noticeable and then i turn on the RTA on Rew and put the mic right next to my ear. There was an Adele song where everytime she got really high pitched, it was like OWE! So i did that method and saw a HUGE peak at like 2k.

If that doesnt work then just put a high shelf filter on 1khz with something like -6 gain. It should slaughter anything peaky. Just slowly move the freq up and eventually you'll find the area that gets peaky again.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> Continued from my previous post above.....
> 
> 
> 
> With all of the drivers roughly equalized, here it what they look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Step 3: Crossovers
> 
> With the drivers roughly flat, I then applied crossovers. All Linkwitz 24dB slopes.
> 
> 80 Hz
> 450Hz
> 3500Hz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Step 4: Time Alignment for Subwoofer
> 
> To do my subwoofer alignment, I use the Phase Plot.
> 
> To do that, I must turn off 4 of the 5 microphones and go back to a single mic at the center of the head location.
> 
> 
> First, I want to check the phase coherence for the Left vs. Right midbass speakers.
> 
> The picture below shows the Impulse Response in the top window, and the Phase Plot in the bottom window. Since this is a midbass driver and it is crossed over from 80 Hz to 450 Hz, that is the region of the phase plot we are most concerned with. You will see a green line sloping down from left to right, and it then disappears into the bottom of the window and reappears at the top and then continues to slope down. That line is actually continuous, but we can't show it on the limited screen space available so the computer is inserting that jump to the top of the window, which is called a "wrap." The important things to look for in the phase plot are the slope and direction of the line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the Right midbass, same view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the Left vs. Right midbass viewed together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the 2 phase traces overlap each other? That is what we are looking for. We want these 2 speakers to be in phase with each other between 80-450 Hz, and also a little bit above and below those frequencies. When the lines are on top of each other it means we are in phase. If the lines are separated, then we are out of phase. The farther apart the lines, the more out of phase.
> 
> The slope of the phase plot tells us if the delay setting is correct. Another term for the slope of the phase plot is the "group delay." If one plot has a steeper line than the other plot, it means that speaker has more delay on it so the sound is arriving later than the sound from the speaker with the shallower phase slope. If we add delay to the speaker with the shallower phase slope, it will cause the phase plot to tilt downward into a steeper slope.
> 
> So our goal is to get the phase slopes parallel and overlapping.
> 
> If the slopes are parallel but not overlapping, then it means we need to invert polarity. Inverting polarity will shift the phase plot without changing the slope of the phase plot. Delay changes the slope.
> 
> Add delay = steeper phase slope
> 
> Remove delay = shallower phase slope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This next picture shows the phase plots for the Midbass speakers playing together vs. the subwoofer with no delay.
> 
> The subwoofer is the purple line in both the top and bottom charts.
> 
> The first thing I want to point out here is the top chart of the Impulse Response. Do you see why I do not use impulse response to time align the subwoofer? Look at how slow the first peak of the subwoofer IR is. How can you see where it begins? Even if we zoom in a lot, it is still not easy to see.
> 
> The reason why it's so hard to see is because the subwoofer has a lowpass filter applied. The lowpass filter removes high frequency sounds from the signal. Since bass waves are larger than high frequency waves, the IR is not as sharp at the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next thing to notice is on the bottom chart of the phase plots. Again, subwoofer is purple here.
> 
> What do we see?
> 
> The blue vs purple lines are roughly the same slope, although there is a little space between them. Let's see if we can do better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what i said above about how delay affects the phase plot?
> 
> Adding delay makes the phase tilt downward more. So, looking at the chart above, what would happen if I added delay to the subwoofer here?
> 
> The purple line will tilt downward into a more steep direction.
> 
> But is that the direction we want to be moving? No. The subwoofer purple line is already below the midbass blue line, so adding delay would make it tilt down more which takes us more out of phase, right?
> 
> 
> 
> So, instead we want to take delay away from the subwoofer which would make the subwoofer slope turn upwards to be less steep.
> 
> But how do we take delay away from the sub? We can do it by adding delay to the main speakers.
> 
> The way I handle this is by adding a fixed amount of time to all driver delays so that I can then have some delay on the sub that I can take away. So I added 3 ms to each driver delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I took away subwoofer delay until I got the purple line to move upward into a better overlap with the blue line.
> 
> Here is what it looks like after I took away almost 1 ms from the sub delay.
> 
> Purple line is the original sub, and then the green line is the sub with delay removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little better now. The main area of interest is 80 Hz which is the crossover point, but we also care about a little bit above and below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, here is a look at the entire left side playing vs. the entire right side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks pretty good for only using 4 or 5 parametric EQ bands per speaker, does't it?
> 
> 
> This is the tune from Config 3 in my Updates earlier today. The tune sounded pretty good tonally, although the soundstage was a bit forward and "in your face" vs. the Dirac tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tomorrow I will try to post measurements after Dirac was applied.


You should make this a separate thread. This is very informative.


----------



## Jscoyne2

subterFUSE said:


> The way I handle this is by adding a fixed amount of time to all driver delays so that I can then have some delay on the sub that I can take away. So I added 3 ms to each driver delay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I took away subwoofer delay until I got the purple line to move upward into a better overlap with the blue line.
> 
> Here is what it looks like after I took away almost 1 ms from the sub delay.
> 
> Purple line is the original sub, and then the green line is the sub with delay removed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little better now. The main area of interest is 80 Hz which is the crossover point, but we also care about a little bit above and below.


Why not set everything at like 10ms and really bring that sub back like 6ms until it lines up quite a bit more?


----------



## subterFUSE

Jscoyne2 said:


> Why not set everything at like 10ms and really bring that sub back like 6ms until it lines up quite a bit more?




You could try that. But keep in mind that for subs to be phase aligned with the mains we only need them to be within about 60 degrees of phase through the entire crossover region. Getting to perfect phase alignment is not required for good results. There will still be summation with 60 degrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

Has anyone considered doing the first T/A measurement while not sitting in the car? For any drivers near your legs. The t/a is going to be off because of reflections. Im going to try this and see what happens.


----------



## tonynca

subterFUSE said:


> You could try that. But keep in mind that for subs to be phase aligned with the mains we only need them to be within about 60 degrees of phase through the entire crossover region. Getting to perfect phase alignment is not required for good results. There will still be summation with 60 degrees.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Is there a reason why a tolerance of 60 degrees is acceptable? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

Jscoyne2 said:


> Has anyone considered doing the first T/A measurement while not sitting in the car? For any drivers near your legs. The t/a is going to be off because of reflections. Im going to try this and see what happens.




I have been sitting in the back seat and holding the mic in front of the headrest. I did a 7 channel TA / gains run last night - and the measurements were very similar to what was achieved using Systune (mic stand in the back seat - no one in the car). I haven’t had a chance to run it again while sitting in the driver’s seat, but I likely won’t - I preferred the Dirac runs that were taken without me being in that seat. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## subterFUSE

tonynca said:


> Is there a reason why a tolerance of 60 degrees is acceptable?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




That’s just a generally accepted approximation that is used, based on how the physics work. Think of phase coherence like trying to read newspaper with a magnifying glass. In the center of your magnifying glass the words are in focus. As you move to the sides they get blurry but still legible. Outside the glass they get blurry and you can’t read them.

When we use raw delay to correct phase between drivers, it behaves similar to the magnifying glass. We can get good coherence over a certain range but not everywhere. The goal is to put the center of that magnifying glass over the middle of the crossing region, and get the sides to be just enough in focus to still read them.

Make sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## banshee28

Thanks for the replys on the other post oabeieo, figured this is prob the best thread for the technical discussions... 



oabeieo said:


> So Dirac can boost no more than 10db.


 So this sounded concerning to me as i have read here so many times you really dont want to boost much, if any, and when you need to only a few dbs. 



oabeieo said:


> From a strictly SQ standpoint, I just keep my target below the “0db line” and try to stay close to the bottom of my response. That will ensure the inversion will be all cuts. Like setting rew not to boost anything.


Then reading this, it sounds like if want to mostly cut and not boost much this is the way to do it! 

Also I read on here before when someone asked but I could not find the answer, where can we see the corrections Dirac applies? I am using DDRC-24 as that's all I have, but the only thing I can see is the TA delay and gain on the Ch. 1-2 Inputs. Is it possible to see this, or is it "hidden" from the user? 

Last question for now... Using the DDRC-24, I have Ch 1-2 out to L/R and Ch 4 out to SUB (Computer Desk setup), and I'm still working through various testing and setting scenarios. On my last tune, I noticed a tiny bit of delay for example on Ch-1 and a tiny bit of gain on Ch-2. However, that is going to impact my SUB since its using L/R summed for its signal, right? Is this correct, or should I change the setup? I know its a 2-ch Dirac, but it should still properly work with SUB.


----------



## oabeieo

subtwrFUSE is right , and I love his analogy. 

Raw delay can only be used to align phase to a HPF it dosent work for a low pass. Meaning, you can use raw delay to align a sub to a midbass by changing the subs delay and that’s about it. 

You can also use delay to line up the lowpass of a midbass to the highpass of a midrange or tweeter than use delay to align the sub to the midbass (in a 3 way)


----------



## oabeieo

banshee28 said:


> Thanks for the replys on the other post oabeieo, figured this is prob the best thread for the technical discussions...
> 
> So this sounded concerning to me as i have read here so many times you really dont want to boost much, if any, and when you need to only a few dbs.
> 
> 
> 
> Then reading this, it sounds like if want to mostly cut and not boost much this is the way to do it!
> 
> Also I read on here before when someone asked but I could not find the answer, where can we see the corrections Dirac applies? I am using DDRC-24 as that's all I have, but the only thing I can see is the TA delay and gain on the Ch. 1-2 Inputs. Is it possible to see this, or is it "hidden" from the user?
> 
> Last question for now... Using the DDRC-24, I have Ch 1-2 out to L/R and Ch 4 out to SUB (Computer Desk setup), and I'm still working through various testing and setting scenarios. On my last tune, I noticed a tiny bit of delay for example on Ch-1 and a tiny bit of gain on Ch-2. However, that is going to impact my SUB since its using L/R summed for its signal, right? Is this correct, or should I change the setup? I know its a 2-ch Dirac, but it should still properly work with SUB.



It shouldn’t impact the sub that much. But it definitely could do a tiny bit. The sub will still sum both sides and play what it’s playing 

When you run your measurements on the input matrix try to turn on all 4 checkboxes for sub so left and right RCAs play left and right simultaneously. That should correct any errors as far as the sub goes .


So 10db of boost. It can cut as much as needed. 

If the entire target has let’s say 25db variance and the sub section is above the 0db line it will push down the levels. But it definitely depends on the response against it. 

The variance in the target could also be considered boat if it’s extreme enough.


If you stay below the 0db line and put your correction at the bottom of the response do it only cuts and than it’s a non issue 

It’s okay tho to be above the response a little when passing over the big dips 
OTOH if the dips are that big it might be better to take the gain losses and put the target down even lower. You’ll know if it dosent sound good up high


Or make a v shape in the target over the big dips. That also sounds good and saves gain


----------



## Mahapederdon

oabeieo said:


> After 2 hours this nerdy guy finally went live
> 
> Whallah I pretty sure I sucked at explaining it and can re do but hey I put something for yalls right before putting the kids to bed
> 
> https://youtu.be/vPkNq8d-wuk


Thanks for making this video. It answered some of the q's I had.


----------



## oliverlim

Mahapederdon said:


> Thanks for making this video. It answered some of the q's I had.



I just watched this video as well. Thanks for making it.

U used the forward mic with the 0 degree mic file in this video. I recall that is what Minidsp instructions were to use. However, somewhere in this thread, many mentioned that you get better results with the 90 degree mic file and pointing the mic upwards.... Which is better and whats the difference between both for the end result?

I also noted that you stated in the video that you preferred the sofa setting measurement instead of the chair. Is there actually a difference in the algorithm or its just a visual show of the points for measurements?


----------



## oabeieo

oliverlim said:


> I just watched this video as well. Thanks for making it.
> 
> U used the forward mic with the 0 degree mic file in this video. I recall that is what Minidsp instructions were to use. However, somewhere in this thread, many mentioned that you get better results with the 90 degree mic file and pointing the mic upwards.... Which is better and whats the difference between both for the end result?
> 
> I also noted that you stated in the video that you preferred the sofa setting measurement instead of the chair. Is there actually a difference in the algorithm or its just a visual show of the points for measurements?



So in Dirac 1.7 the algo is the same. It’s just different measurements points as suggesting good points if that was your seating arrangement. 

If you do chair on sofa you get chair and vise versa. 

So basically what I was saying is do the chair measurements on the left side and part chair part sofa on the right . 

Meaning, experiment with your car a little, but definitely try getting one or two measurements in the passenger area. 

I like chair on Left and on right do the chair “box” except the top forward measurement point I put where passenger seat is . 

Getting at least one measurement point helps. You can hear what’s going on over there indirectly. Especially if the passenger side has any horn loading or off axis behavior that can affect the stage all over. 

When it was first released they said use the 90deg file. The general consensus among users is that the normal 0deg works better. You want the direct sound as much as possible. That way Dirac can differentiate between reflected sound vs direct sound. It’s only the last oactave that it makes a difference. Do what you like , it will still work with either mostly the same.


----------



## oabeieo

in that video I also talk about moving the mic forward or back to get the center right by adding or decrease path length difference. 

I also want to say, depending if speakers are low or high mounted moving the mic lower can also add PLd and the correct phase information needed to get that center nailed down.


If your speakers are low in the doors by moving the mic down will also add PLD and move the center to the right. 

Just don’t move the mic to the left or right....(yeah it’s not good). Keep it parallel with the physical center of your body , just try different spots around your head or chest until you get the center. You will find it eventually and it will work every time.


----------



## Robot Chicken

oabeieo said:


> So in Dirac 1.7 the algo is the same. It’s just different measurements points as suggesting good points if that was your seating arrangement.
> 
> If you do chair on sofa you get chair and vise versa.
> 
> So basically what I was saying is do the chair measurements on the left side and part chair part sofa on the right .
> 
> Meaning, experiment with your car a little, but definitely try getting one or two measurements in the passenger area.
> 
> I like chair on Left and on right do the chair “box” except the top forward measurement point I put where passenger seat is .
> 
> Getting at least one measurement point helps. You can hear what’s going on over there indirectly. Especially if the passenger side has any horn loading or off axis behavior that can affect the stage all over.
> 
> When it was first released they said use the 90deg file. The general consensus among users is that the normal 0deg works better. You want the direct sound as much as possible. That way Dirac can differentiate between reflected sound vs direct sound. It’s only the last oactave that it makes a difference. Do what you like , it will still work with either mostly the same.


Quick Question - in your video you had a front Left Right setup but what would you do if you have rear fill? still keep the mike pointed to the front with a 0 degree calibration file? BTW - like the others have stated - appreciate you taking the time to make the VID


----------



## oabeieo

Robot Chicken said:


> Quick Question - in your video you had a front Left Right setup but what would you do if you have rear fill? still keep the mike pointed to the front with a 0 degree calibration file? BTW - like the others have stated - appreciate you taking the time to make the VID



Try it .

On the systems I did with rears I was doing a front calibration simultaneously so I used normal 0deg 

But definitely try it .

It works fine for me as I attenuated the HF anyways on rears


----------



## naiku

Got a question for some of the experts here, I have gotten a preset set up now that I am happy enough with, until I turn the volume up past about 25 on my head unit (loudest I typically go is 30, think the head unit goes to 40). Anyway, at that point some vocals and instruments become painfully harsh. 

The problem I am having is, that I can't see anything obvious when looking at the RTA that tells me where that harshness is coming from. 










I took that at volume 30, so the harshness with music would be as bad as it gets. Nothing really obvious jumps out at me, the only thing I see that could be the problem is around 1.5-2KHz there is about a 2dB peak. Assuming that is the root of the problem, can I use PEQ after Dirac to knock it down? If I do that, does it not then mess with the overall Dirac corrections? 

If I look in DLCT, the measured response is above my target curve, so it should be pulling it down anyway. So, I can't remove the peak before running Dirac since it does not exist.


----------



## tonynca

Take down a lot of 2-5khz

Like 5db worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

Take a look at the decay times via the REW waterfall graph. Take one at a good volume and at volume 30 and comparing those would be a good start.

https://www.gikacoustics.com/understanding-decay-times/


----------



## Jscoyne2

naiku said:


> Got a question for some of the experts here, I have gotten a preset set up now that I am happy enough with, until I turn the volume up past about 25 on my head unit (loudest I typically go is 30, think the head unit goes to 40). Anyway, at that point some vocals and instruments become painfully harsh.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I am having is, that I can't see anything obvious when looking at the RTA that tells me where that harshness is coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took that at volume 30, so the harshness with music would be as bad as it gets. Nothing really obvious jumps out at me, the only thing I see that could be the problem is around 1.5-2KHz there is about a 2dB peak. Assuming that is the root of the problem, can I use PEQ after Dirac to knock it down? If I do that, does it not then mess with the overall Dirac corrections?
> 
> 
> 
> If I look in DLCT, the measured response is above my target curve, so it should be pulling it down anyway. So, I can't remove the peak before running Dirac since it does not exist.


Look at distortion charts for any spikes.

Is there anything DL is boosting

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

dgage said:


> Take a look at the decay times via the REW waterfall graph. Take one at a good volume and at volume 30 and comparing those would be a good start.
> 
> https://www.gikacoustics.com/understanding-decay-times/


Thanks, will have to figure out how to read them, but at least just comparing at say volume 20 and volume 30 may be a good idea and might show something obvious.



Jscoyne2 said:


> Is there anything DL is boosting


Just looked at DL and there is a dip on the right side, almost exactly at 1.5dB that Dirac is boosting back up to the target. The dip is not there on the left, only on the right. There are a couple other smaller dips it is likely boosting as well, those are up around 7KHz. Going to take a measurement of the right side mid only, see if I am remove the dip before DLCT and then see if that makes a difference.


Edit: Quick update, went out to the garage and measured the right mid with REW, no dip shows up on the mid with REW, so there was nothing to fix. Played both left and right mids together, still no dip like shows up in DLCT. While out there I added a high shelf filter to the tweeters at 7.5KHz, Q of 0.9 and -4dB to match where the dip around 7KHz is (it starts at around 5KHz, pretty consistently until 7KHz). 

Back into DLCT and took a new set of measurements, this time there is no dip at 1.5KHz, not sure if before it was a weird measurement or what exactly, but it's not there now, so DLCT is not having to boost it. The dip from 5-7KHz is also gone, so no need for it to boost there either. I ended up cutting my entire target curve down by 2dB, meant I lost a little overall volume, but the entire target curve is now above or pretty much on my measured response. 

A quick listen, and I really do mean quick, the harshness appears to be gone. I'll have a better idea in a couple days, but so far so good. Annoyingly, the center sounds like it may be just right of center. It's an easy fix, but I am not going to mess with it just yet, have a head cold and all kinds of congestion so it could be just fine. So, fingers crossed it's resolved. I have 4 presets saved now, all just slight variations on each other, assuming the harshness is gone from this latest one, then I'll move it to slot 1 (from slot 4) and use the other 3 to tinker around with different settings, configurations etc. I'm hosting a meet here next weekend, so will be good to have some others listen and give me some feedback as well.


----------



## Sonnie

My thinking is that boost... and you don't have enough slop from about 2K up... as tonynca stated... pull it on down. That 2-5kHz range can be brutal on the ears. You may have to pull it on down even more... say start at about 1kHz with a 2db cut and slope it down out to 10kHz with a 7-8db cut. I have to do this same thing even in my home theater, and with my dash speakers firing straight up into the windshield... mine looked similar to yours and ended up having to pull it down more.


----------



## tonynca

Sonnie said:


> My thinking is that boost... and you don't have enough slop from about 2K up... as tonynca stated... pull it on down. That 2-5kHz range can be brutal on the ears. You may have to pull it on down even more... say start at about 1kHz with a 2db cut and slope it down out to 10kHz with a 7-8db cut. I have to do this same thing even in my home theater, and with my dash speakers firing straight up into the windshield... mine looked similar to yours and ended up having to pull it down more.




Yeah the reflections in the car are just too powerful with all the glass and hard surfaces. Those freqs will hurt.

From what I noticed 7khz and up tends to be a bit less harsh and if you like that sparkle boost 10khz and up to get that silky sparkle HiFi sound. 

But people should start rolling off starting at 1khz and riding the slope back up from 5-6khz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

naiku said:


> Got a question for some of the experts here, I have gotten a preset set up now that I am happy enough with, until I turn the volume up past about 25 on my head unit (loudest I typically go is 30, think the head unit goes to 40). Anyway, at that point some vocals and instruments become painfully harsh.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I am having is, that I can't see anything obvious when looking at the RTA that tells me where that harshness is coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took that at volume 30, so the harshness with music would be as bad as it gets. Nothing really obvious jumps out at me, the only thing I see that could be the problem is around 1.5-2KHz there is about a 2dB peak. Assuming that is the root of the problem, can I use PEQ after Dirac to knock it down? If I do that, does it not then mess with the overall Dirac corrections?
> 
> 
> 
> If I look in DLCT, the measured response is above my target curve, so it should be pulling it down anyway. So, I can't remove the peak before running Dirac since it does not exist.


From my experience with the standard 8x12, those maximums (max input 4v, maximums displayed in the vu meters, 0 db levels, 4v output) are hard limits, they are absolute, exceeding any of those by the tiniest amount will result in digital clipping. If I need boost, I reduce the level by an equal amount before that boost is applied. Just make sure you never exceed 0 db anywhere, or you'll get that hard to identify digital clipping. Oh, by the way, I think that harshness is digital clipping.


----------



## naiku

I'll listen to it for a few days and then maybe change things around a little. I don't have anything over 0dB, master volume at -3dB, most speakers are at around -5dB on the output sliders etc. 

On another preset there is no harshness, I think on that one though the target curve does drop more after about 2khz, so we'll see. Listened a little earlier but only quietly as the kids were in the car with me and I don't want to damage their hearing!! I don't want to damage mine either, but really don't want to damage theirs.


----------



## ckirocz28

naiku said:


> I'll listen to it for a few days and then maybe change things around a little. I don't have anything over 0dB, master volume at -3dB, most speakers are at around -5dB on the output sliders etc.
> 
> On another preset there is no harshness, I think on that one though the target curve does drop more after about 2khz, so we'll see. Listened a little earlier but only quietly as the kids were in the car with me and I don't want to damage their hearing!! I don't want to damage mine either, but really don't want to damage theirs.


Loud rock music is good for the little ones! Just roll off the top end.
As for your harshness, it's obviously not digital clipping with those levels, maybe it's just over compensating somewhere for a dip that isn't audible. My 80prs does that really well, boosting the piss out of an inaudible dip, that's why I bought my 8x12.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Side note. I've had good success with not being in the car for the first center measurement. Seems to give me a better center. Just taped my mic to the headrest.



Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Souths1der

I need to sum all 8 of my factory high-level inputs to get a full signal for teh 8x12DL. Any ideas how I can make that happen? I'm really interested in picking one of these up to play with, currently using the Helix Pro MK2.


----------



## tonynca

Use your Helix to sum the hi level then output the summed signal to channel AB as full range which then goes to the Minidsp.

But really what car do you have that requires 8 channel of summing? You really only need the front speakers and the sub signal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Souths1der

Jaguar XF with the Meridian system. The factory system has x-overs applied to the tweeters, midrange, midbass, and sub.

I had thought about just using the Helix as you suggested, but man that makes it one expensive line out converter. I was hoping that selling it could defray some of the 8x12 cost.


----------



## tonynca

Souths1der said:


> Jaguar XF with the Meridian system. The factory system has x-overs applied to the tweeters, midrange, midbass, and sub.
> 
> 
> 
> I had thought about just using the Helix as you suggested, but man that makes it one expensive line out converter. I was hoping that selling it could defray some of the 8x12 cost.



Isn't that system 5.1/7.1? Unless you have the option to play standard stereo, it's not gonna work so well with the CDSP. You might want to create a new thread asking. 

My opinion about summing is that it's crap. You're losing out so much because that signal is so colored by mediocre processing that by the time the CDSP gets its hands on it, it's turd.

A clean source and hi-res content is top of the priority list in my system. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Souths1der

tonynca said:


> Isn't that system 5.1/7.1? Unless you have the option to play standard stereo, it's not gonna work so well with the CDSP. You might want to create a new thread asking.
> 
> My opinion about summing is that it's crap. You're losing out so much because that signal is so colored by mediocre processing that by the time the CDSP gets its hands on it, it's turd.
> 
> A clean source and hi-res content is top of the priority list in my system.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have the "base" Meridian. The step up is the one with the center channel. Yeah, I didn't like how the factory amp in my old car summed and ended up just using a HEC card in the Helix and bypassing everything. Might have to go that route again if I want to use this.


----------



## oabeieo

I did two jl slash series 800/8s going post amp into the amps 
With focal flax replacements and it was so nice sounding 

No dsp , just channel for channel hi level in to 13channels


Needless to say, the factory dsp work was pretty good 
And hi level out of factory amp wasn’t that horrible. 

Pretty nice system definitely.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Found a glitch tonight. Idk if its REW or the minidsp plug in but if you pick the minidsp 2x4hd to export to in Rew. It will halve all frequencies when importing to the plug in..which is obviously bad.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> Found a glitch tonight. Idk if its REW or the minidsp plug in but if you pick the minidsp 2x4hd to export to in Rew. It will halve all frequencies when importing to the plug in..which is obviously bad.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


It's probably REW, use the generic eq target and specify the correct sample rate, that's probably where the error is. You using the Beta version?


----------



## oabeieo

Jscoyne2 said:


> Found a glitch tonight. Idk if its REW or the minidsp plug in but if you pick the minidsp 2x4hd to export to in Rew. It will halve all frequencies when importing to the plug in..which is obviously bad.
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk




Use minidsp96k


----------



## Jscoyne2

oabeieo said:


> Use minidsp96k


Will do

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jscoyne2

The minidsp 96k only had 6 outs tho. So that kinda ruins the point of it..

Its fine. i can just input them manually into the Plugin. Its not That big of a deal.

I do find the there is some discrepancies between what Rew shows and what Dirac shows. I believe you said something about it ignoring Modes? Though im seeing differences in the higher frequencies as well. I have a feeling it has to do with levels being different than they are in Rew. Even when im leaving them alone. I have it set as a 2+sub. So the levels between drivers may be a little different. Doesn't exactly matter as the Dirac EQ takes care of it anyway.

I went back to the way i used to set T/a with using nulls. It helps that my Horns and Midbass are like right the **** on top of eachother so T/a can be off and still within margin of error.

Im finding that i Really like the wisdom curve that comes inside the Dirac files, as well as putting a high shelf filter on 1k with a gentle slope. 

I have this Helix dsp.2 just sitting on my desk now. What a paperweight next to this Dirac 

All sounds perrrrrrrrtyyyy damnnnnn gooooood.

I guess i won't be mad at Oab for getting my hyped up when i had cash burning a hole in my pocket....


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> The minidsp 96k only had 6 outs tho. So that kinda ruins the point of it..
> 
> 
> 
> Its fine. i can just input them manually into the Plugin. Its not That big of a deal.
> 
> 
> 
> I do find the there is some discrepancies between what Rew shows and what Dirac shows. I believe you said something about it ignoring Modes? Though im seeing differences in the higher frequencies as well. I have a feeling it has to do with levels being different than they are in Rew. Even when im leaving them alone. I have it set as a 2+sub. So the levels between drivers may be a little different. Doesn't exactly matter as the Dirac EQ takes care of it anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> I went back to the way i used to set T/a with using nulls. It helps that my Horns and Midbass are like right the **** on top of eachother so T/a can be off and still within margin of error.
> 
> 
> 
> Im finding that i Really like the wisdom curve that comes inside the Dirac files, as well as putting a high shelf filter on 1k with a gentle slope.
> 
> 
> 
> I have this Helix dsp.2 just sitting on my desk now. What a paperweight next to this Dirac
> 
> 
> 
> All sounds perrrrrrrrtyyyy damnnnnn gooooood.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess i won't be mad at Oab for getting my hyped up when i had cash burning a hole in my pocket....


Use the generic eq setting then specify the correct sample rate when exporting, you'll have to uncheck 10 of the eq bands before optimization.


----------



## GreatLaBroski

MiniDSP has a firmware upgrade for the C-DSP 8x12 DL which is supposed to be handling sub volume control issues.


----------



## oabeieo

GreatLaBroski said:


> MiniDSP has a firmware upgrade for the C-DSP 8x12 DL which is supposed to be handling sub volume control issues.




I saw that , let’s try it


----------



## Truthunter

GreatLaBroski said:


> MiniDSP has a firmware upgrade for the C-DSP 8x12 DL which is supposed to be handling sub volume control issues.


I loaded the firmware update & new revision plug-in 2 days ago. All is working well so far... but never really had the subwoofer volume control issues as I don't have the subchannel assigned in the plugin for it. I do appreciate that the "IP address" thingy scrolls with the rest of the screen now.


----------



## zacjones99

So I want to use a Z-400.2LX as a sub amp but it doesn't have a remote bass knob option. I like having a bass knob... How functional is the minidsp 8x12 bass knob? It spins endlessly, so I assume to reset it back to zero you just tap out of mode 1 into mode 2, then back to mode 1 again to reset the sub gain to baseline... Anyone using this feature and do they miss a dedicated bass knob? I also have a Z3KD with an actual bass knob, which I may go with depending on user feedback on the minidsp bass knob workaround.


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> [email protected]&$ your right
> 
> Forgot about that, maybe a feature request for future
> Updates .
> 
> 
> Okay than,
> 
> In that instance you could add a 20hz HPF in biquad to all other speakers under advanced in one of the peq banks , you would have to use the minidsp biquad spreadsheet or online calc to make it and just cut and past the coefficients into a peq slot s for all output channels
> 
> 
> The only reason he wants to do that in the input is so all speakers exhibit the same phase shift so it becomes inaudible
> 
> So yeah that would work , you would loose a peq slot but with Dirac it’s nil anyways for the most part.



So if my sub amp applies a non-defeatable 24db/oct SSF at 10hz, to minimize the phase shift I should apply a similar biquad to all outputs except the sub in the CDSP?


----------



## zacjones99

subterFUSE said:


> A question on Bass Management and the high pass filter setting....
> 
> 
> Before I ask the question, I need to review a scenario in car audio subwoofer setup for some background info.
> 
> Generally, a good way to setup a subwoofer is to tune the main speakers first and get them all dialed and running well as a group, and then define the subwoofer and the main speaker group as a 2-way system and tune the sub to match the mains. This method would mean that we have optimized our midbass to midrange crossover region well and have a good blend that maintains good phase alignment through the crossover point.
> 
> Now, we combine the subwoofer with our midbass and set the sub crossover point so that it blends well with our midbass. Good phase alignment through the crossover point, etc...
> 
> At this point, some of us might be finished. But some people might have reason to want to add a subsonic filter to their subwoofer for protection. Maybe they have a ported sub, or maybe they are IB and have a sub with a strong motor that can easily reach XMax if not careful. Whatever the reason for wanting a subsonic filter, there is always a problem presented by adding a high pass filter to just the subwoofer channel.
> 
> That problem is that when we put a high pass filter on a channel, there is a phase effect. For example, a Linkwitz 24 dB high pass filter at 20 Hz will cause a forward rotation of phase of 180 degrees at 20 hz. That forward rotation of phase at 20Hz will affect frquencies both above and below 20Hz, and it can even affect the phase response in the crossover point with the midbass. (60 Hz, for example, like many of us use)
> 
> 
> What is the solution to this problem?
> 
> The solution is actually very simple in theory, but not simple because most car audio DSPs do not give us the tools we need to fix it.
> 
> The solution is that we need crossover filters on the inputs of the DSP, not just on the outputs. If we add a 20 Hz high pass filter to the input of the DSP, that means the forward rotation of phase caused by the high pass would get applied to all of the speakers in the system equally. If all speakers get phase shifted by the same amount, then the net effect is that there would be no phase offset created between different drivers. We could have our subsonic filter "cake" and eat it, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Now..... back to Bass Management.
> 
> 
> It looks to me like the Bass Management is designed to work as an input highpass and lowpass. So, could we set the high pass to 20Hz as a subsonic filter that gets applied to all speakers in the car? A system-wide high pass, in other words.



Subterfuse you've made several excellent contributions to this thread and I really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful posts. I'm still in the process of installing my amps and speakers but the CDSP-8x12 DL is already in. Your posts in this thread will be extremely helpful as a reference while I'm setting up and tuning with the CDSP.

I'm wanting to install a Zapco Z3KD for the sub but the amp has a built-in, non defeatable 24db/oct SSF that can be adjusted all the way down to 10hz. I hadn't considered it before, but now I'm having concerns about the phase rotation you mentioned in the above post.

I can think of a few workarounds to potentially minimize or mitigate this complication:

(1) My head unit has an adjustable HPF that can be applied to the SPDIF out as low as 20hz. If I apply the HPF from the HU at 20hz, so the DSP sees only a 20hz-20khz signal at the inputs, will the additional SSF at 10hz on the subwoofer (which is below the previously applied 20hz HPF) still potentially alter the phase at 60hz? Or will the forward rotation of phase be mostly cancelled out by the HPF at 20hz earlier in the chain?

(2) Another option would be to simply use another sub amp that doesn't have the non-defeatable SSF.

(3) Then there's the biquad approach or the workaround Oabeieo suggested.

(4) Alternatively, did you ever pursue finding a workaround using just the CDSP 8x12DL with it's bass management applying a SSF to all inputs? Ideally I would find a way to apply a 10hz SSF to all inputs EXCEPT the subwoofer, and use the 10hz SSF on the amp to bring the subwoofer channel in line.

My guess is that unless I can find a simple solution to this issue, I will likely install both amps in a temporary fashion, set up with the Z3KD on the sub and get it to sound the best I can. Save a preset. Then set up with the Z-400.2 LX on the sub and get it to sound the best I can. Save a preset, compare the two and go from there.


----------



## Jscoyne2

So is tapatalk dead for anyone else since the redo?


----------



## jtrosky

Tapatalk is working for me (I'm using it to type this). However, the quoting function doesn't seem to work...


----------



## ckirocz28

Jscoyne2 said:


> So is tapatalk dead for anyone else since the redo?


It's requiring me to login every time I visit.


----------



## Jscoyne2

it straight up doesnt work for me.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Jscoyne2 said:


> it straight up doesnt work for me.


Had to log out and back in. Seems okay now

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

zacjones99 said:


> I can think of a few workarounds to potentially minimize or mitigate this complication:
> 
> (1) My head unit has an adjustable HPF that can be applied to the SPDIF out as low as 20hz. If I apply the HPF from the HU at 20hz, so the DSP sees only a 20hz-20khz signal at the inputs, will the additional SSF at 10hz on the subwoofer (which is below the previously applied 20hz HPF) still potentially alter the phase at 60hz? Or will the forward rotation of phase be mostly cancelled out by the HPF at 20hz earlier in the chain?


This will not work because the sub amp SSF will still cascade and cause 180 degrees of phase rotation.



> (2) Another option would be to simply use another sub amp that doesn't have the non-defeatable SSF.


This is the best option.





> (4) Alternatively, did you ever pursue finding a workaround using just the CDSP 8x12DL with it's bass management applying a SSF to all inputs? Ideally I would find a way to apply a 10hz SSF to all inputs EXCEPT the subwoofer, and use the 10hz SSF on the amp to bring the subwoofer channel in line.


In theory, the bass management idea should work. You would but no high pass on the sub, and a 10Hz 24dB high pass on the mains.

Then you would use the crossovers in the plugin to cross the speakers.

Whether it works in reality, TBD. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zacjones99

subterFUSE said:


> This will not work because the sub amp SSF will still cascade and cause 180 degrees of phase rotation.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the best option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In theory, the bass management idea should work. You would but no high pass on the sub, and a 10Hz 24dB high pass on the mains.
> 
> Then you would use the crossovers in the plugin to cross the speakers.
> 
> Whether it works in reality, TBD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for the reply and your input. I think I'll go with the bass management solution for now. I can try it with and without on a second preset and see if there's any measurable or audible difference between the two settings, which would indicate that there is a possibility that it successfully applied the filter and performed the phase rotation on the mains.


----------



## zacjones99

Isn't it also possible to apply a negative filter to just the subwoofer channel to remove the amplifier's SSF at 10hz? Is there a way to do this in the miniDSP without hogging all the DSP resources?


----------



## 01LSi

Just bought this and fired it up. OSX Mojave. I’m stuck at the Dirac Live app with the level meter. When I hit play I hear the test tone (pink noise) coming from the speaker but the mic meter doesn’t show anything. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## subterFUSE

01LSi said:


> Just bought this and fired it up. OSX Mojave. I’m stuck at the Dirac Live app with the level meter. When I hit play I hear the test tone (pink noise) coming from the speaker but the mic meter doesn’t show anything.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dirac MAC app does not work. Have to use PC. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 01LSi

subterFUSE said:


> Dirac MAC app does not work. Have to use PC.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



( that’s what I figured, was hoping I could finally leave windows/bootcamp 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bertholomey

There is a thread on the MiniDSP forum about this problem - I’m having the same issue, and I’m hoping they fix it - I so desperately want to use my Mac for the Plugin and DL. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## oabeieo

@zacjones

Subterfuse is right on the subsonic, and I’ve done used a peq in the minidsp and added a HPF , there’s a thread on the minifourm that explains how to do it, going to the crossover section and turning on a filter and clicking “advanced” and copy and pasting the biquads into a peq dosent work. You have to build the filter a different way. Can’t remember how. On the minifourm there’s a thread called “solved adding biquad crossover “ or something to that effect it’s easy to find.


On another token. If you have that subsonic on your sub amp what you can do also is this with the 8x12DL.

If your subsonic is a 24db BW you could add a peq to every speaker that’s not sub at 20hz low shelling filter with a Q of .7 or even better yet a 10hz peq peak filter with a Q of 1.4 -3db to push the magnitude back into proper or close to alignment with the sub.


When you run Dirac it will convolve and bunch up or stretch out the impulse and correct for any of the problems from the subsonic filter. If you don’t add the HP, low shelf, or PEQ to the mains Dirac could potentially use all its fir power trying to fix that because of the low frequency. Or it may ignore it. Even if the low shelf or peq is close it will take tremendous strain off the fir to correct for it. But the thing is we don’t know how it resolves it because the filters are locked away. 
I’m almost certain it wouldn’t use fir on that and would simply make it part of the iir allpass it creates for the entire transfer function.

More than likely it would go down like this.
Dirac would insert a delay into the impulse somewhere and convolve everything in the higher bands above the sub to match the sub timing using far less taps. It would create an allpass essentially that corrects for everything else making the sub the baseline timing reference and than solve only group delay in the sub.

It’s quite impressive how a computer can look at a problem and find the best route to take to get there.

So with Dirac there’s things you can do to help it a little bit honestly the subsonic shouldn’t be that big of a issue. It should be able to resolve it.

Maybe that is why subterfuse hasn’t done it yet, what’s the point. It’s not a issue post correction.

Ideally, of course we have to say a different amp is ideal. Or if you could match a HPF to the mains that’s exactly like the subsonic. Again, not necessary with Dirac.


----------



## 01LSi

Ok now I’m on windows 10 bootcamp and when I click the PEQ tab and start typing, clicking, or even hovering over the PEQ window the window vanishes from sight.

So I have to hit the PEQ tab again and rush to get what I want in there before it vanishes again. And keep rushing and hoping it doesn’t disappear mid clicking or simply hovering.

Any suggestions? Do I have to find a way to get windows 7 now or something and see if that helps?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> @zacjones
> 
> Subterfuse is right on the subsonic, and I’ve done used a peq in the minidsp and added a HPF , there’s a thread on the minifourm that explains how to do it, going to the crossover section and turning on a filter and clicking “advanced” and copy and pasting the biquads into a peq dosent work. You have to build the filter a different way. Can’t remember how. On the minifourm there’s a thread called “solved adding biquad crossover “ or something to that effect it’s easy to find.
> 
> 
> On another token. If you have that subsonic on your sub amp what you can do also is this with the 8x12DL.
> 
> If your subsonic is a 24db BW you could add a peq to every speaker that’s not sub at 20hz low shelling filter with a Q of .7 or even better yet a 10hz peq peak filter with a Q of 1.4 -3db to push the magnitude back into proper or close to alignment with the sub.
> 
> 
> When you run Dirac it will convolve and bunch up or stretch out the impulse and correct for any of the problems from the subsonic filter. If you don’t add the HP, low shelf, or PEQ to the mains Dirac could potentially use all its fir power trying to fix that because of the low frequency. Or it may ignore it. Even if the low shelf or peq is close it will take tremendous strain off the fir to correct for it. But the thing is we don’t know how it resolves it because the filters are locked away.
> I’m almost certain it wouldn’t use fir on that and would simply make it part of the iir allpass it creates for the entire transfer function.
> More than likely it would go down like this.
> Dirac would insert a delay into the impulse somewhere and convolve everything in the higher bands above the sub to match the sub timing using far less taps. It would create an allpass essentially that corrects for everything else making the sub the baseline timing reference and than solve only group delay in the sub.
> 
> It’s quite impressive how a computer can look at a problem and find the best route to take to get there.
> 
> So with Dirac there’s things you can do to help it a little bit honestly the subsonic shouldn’t be that big of a issue. It should be able to resolve it.
> 
> Maybe that is why subterfuse hasn’t done it yet, what’s the point. It’s not a issue post correction.
> 
> Ideally, of course we have to say a different amp is ideal. Or if you could match a HPF to the mains that’s exactly like the subsonic. Again, not necessary with Dirac.


Wow thanks again for the detailed explanation. 

Even without the phase shift issues that I could likely have overcome I should have been more diligent with equipment selection before I picked up that Z-3KD. I simply overlooked the fact that the bandpass crossover section (LPF and HPF) is non-defeatable. I'm not going to use it not only because of the phase issues that I may have been able to correct, but also the slope on the SSF ended up being all wrong for my install. That 24db SSF is great for a ported enclosure, but not a great choice for an IB setup. If I do end up applying a SSF it will be a 6db slope at 25hz to maximize output and stay within excursion, applied to all channels just to be on the safe side. Thanks again for taking the time to lay it all out.


----------



## viking1

Hey everyone just a general question since this device has 12 channels of output and many here are doing multichannel active systems: What do you generally do for amplifiers? Does you have like 6 amplifiers or something? You’ve got like 4 tweeters that only need a few watts each. Then you’ve got a bunch of woofers that need much more and of course subs that then need a sub amp. Then if you’ve got a center channel, well now you’ve suddenly got an odd number of both tweeters and woofers, but no one makes 3 channel amps that aren’t sub amps.

I wish someone made some kind of modular amp for these kinds of systems, maybe like Outlaw Audio does for home theater. Anyway, any advice on how you generally manage the somewhat complicated needs of all these many different channels would be appreciated.

id love to do an all active system with multi- channel upmixing, but scared of what kind of amplifier farm it would entail and miles of copper that would need to be layed.


----------



## Jscoyne2

viking1 said:


> Hey everyone just a general question since this device has 12 channels of output and many here are doing multichannel active systems: What do you generally do for amplifiers? Does you have like 6 amplifiers or something? You’ve got like 4 tweeters that only need a few watts each. Then you’ve got a bunch of woofers that need much more and of course subs that then need a sub amp. Then if you’ve got a center channel, well now you’ve suddenly got an odd number of both tweeters and woofers, but no one makes 3 channel amps that aren’t sub amps.
> 
> I wish someone made some kind of modular amp for these kinds of systems, maybe like Outlaw Audio does for home theater. Anyway, any advice on how you generally manage the somewhat complicated needs of all these many different channels would be appreciated.
> 
> id love to do an all active system with multi- channel upmixing, but scared of what kind of amplifier farm it would entail and miles of copper that would need to be layed.


You know 5 and 6 channel amps are a thing right? One channel per speaker. So a 3 way plus sub is usually a 4 channel, 2 channel and a mono. Most don't run center channel. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## dgage

For main speakers I plan to buy a MMATS 6150Hifi and for rear (fill) speakers (or center), I may just end up using a Mosconi Pico2 tiny amplifier.


----------



## viking1

Yes. The odd number channel in all the amps I know of is typically a subwoofer amp with hundreds of watts. Not exactly what one is generally looking for in a tweeter amp. Center channels don’t make much sense currently when none of the good upmixing algorithms like Logic7 etc are available on the aftermarket. But nonetheless some people still do do upmixing and like the results. Too bad there aren’t any elegant amplifiers for it that I can find, however. It’s only a matter of time I suppose. But right now that’s a major discouragement from going all active, at least from how ai see things.


----------



## viking1

dgage said:


> For main speakers I plan to buy a MMATS 6150Hifi and for rear (fill) speakers (or center), I may just end up using a Mosconi Pico2 tiny amplifier.


Yes I was looking at those same ones myself . But what about the tweeters? I guess you must be doing half passive?


----------



## dgage

viking1 said:


> Yes I was looking at those same ones myself . But what about the tweeters? I guess you must be doing half passive?


They get 150w though the gain is usually turned down some. Tweeters don’t use that much power Really can handle less than 50w really but since their frequency range is up high, it’s no problem when installed correctly (don’t forget the 47mf capacitor to protect the tweeter when running active).









Pink Noise, White Noise and Why Your Tweeters Never Get 150 ...


What’s the difference? I’ve always read and been told that “White noise is equal energy at every frequency and pink noise is equal energy in every oct...




www.audiofrog.com





i know what you mean but it seems it is more expensive/difficult to make a tiered amplifier so I’d rather have more power for the mids and midbasses than worry about a smaller set of channels for the tweeter.


----------



## viking1

Yes I’d like something like 5x30 watt amp for tweets, 5x100 for mids, 2x175 watt amp for midbasses, and 1x500 wat amp for sub. That right there would be 4 amps even if they existed and of course they don’t because no one makes 5 channel amps like that. But with Dirac it’s definitely advantageous to have separate channels for tweeters. It’s silly to have chunky passive crossovers that eat power and can only color the sound, introduce phase problems.

It would at least be nice if someone made a 10 channel amp like that with the 5 channels for tweets and 5 for mids.


----------



## dgage

Do a search for some of the older multi-channel amp threads as this has been discussed before and there are a few tiered amps out there. And a couple 8-ch amps.


----------



## josby

viking1 said:


> Hey everyone just a general question since this device has 12 channels of output and many here are doing multichannel active systems: What do you generally do for amplifiers? Does you have like 6 amplifiers or something?
> 
> id love to do an all active system with multi- channel upmixing, but scared of what kind of amplifier farm it would entail and miles of copper that would need to be layed.


It shouldn't be too hard. You could do something like an Audison AP F8.9 plus a JL Audio HD600/4. That would give you 12 channels (8x85W plus 4x150W,) and would fit in a space a bit over a square foot (about 17"x10", and only 2" high). Helix V Eight would be another choice for a small 8-channel amp with good power. Or the Alpine PXE-0850S if you can get by with less power.

EDIT: oops, that doesn't leave much for a sub. So JL HD900/5 instead, and let one of the channels in it or in the 8-channel go unused.


----------



## viking1

I wonder if it would be possible for MiniDSP to offer upgrade for Dirac Unison capabilities, should they finally be made available to the aftermarket rather than exclusively car manufacturers. That would be a game changer and make car audio truly interesting to me. Right now ai want good sound in my car but am reluctant to invest when the industry as whole is still the same technology as 40 years ago. Feels like buying a horse and buggy right before Model T comes out.

I wonder what Dirac will show at CES this week. Hartman isn’t going to release anything to aftermarket ever, I don’t think. https://www.dirac.com/ces2020


----------



## viking1

Does anyone know if the C-DSP 8x12 is theoretically upgradeable to Dirac Unison (i.e., fundamentally capable of incorporating digital multichannel upmixing)?


----------



## jtrosky

Just thinking out loud, wouldn't it be nice if amps just had a single source of "wattage" that all channels could "share" as needed - dynamically. This way, each channel would take what it needs, when it needs it. Is something like this not possible?

So let's say you bought a 1200 watt amp. Each channel would just use what it needs from that 1200 watts. Obviously, the wattage needed would fluctuate - the 1200 watts would just be a single "pool" of power and each channel used what it needed at the moment.


----------



## Truthunter

jtrosky said:


> Just thinking out loud, wouldn't it be nice if amps just had a single source of "wattage" that all channels could "share" as needed - dynamically. This way, each channel would take what it needs, when it needs it. Is something like this not possible?
> 
> So let's say you bought a 1200 watt amp. Each channel would just use what it needs from that 1200 watts. Obviously, the wattage needed would fluctuate - the 1200 watts would just be a single "pool" of power and each channel used what it needed at the moment.



The new PG Ti3 amps do something kind of like this called "Power Shift".



> *POWER SHIFT*
> Phoenix Gold’s exclusive feature to allow you to direct power where it is needed. Active system design has never been easier. Why waste output power when it can be redirected to the channels that can better utilize it.
> Insane amplifier efficiencies and output are achieved with *POWER SHIFT. *With *POWER SHIFT* deactivated, the amplifier will produce equal power to all channels (with similar gain settings). To activate *POWER SHIFT* first power down the amplifier; then switch the front panel selector to ON. Power up the amplifier and the front panel indicator will verify *POWER SHIFT* is active. Output power from the front channels is redirected to the rear channels.
> For an active 2-way front stage, this is the perfect setup, the amplifier shifts from 225w per ch @4Ω to a more usable 150w front ch 300w rear ch setup, into 2Ω the amp produces 200w per channel on 1&2 plus 400 per channel on 3&4. Since the gain controls will be set to similar levels as the amplifier is producing different output power instead of severely turning down the front gains to compensate, the power levels are extremely linear thru the full output range. Audiophiles rejoice!
> Another option is a powerful passive front stage and bridge the rear channels to a subwoofer. In this configuration, the front channels would get a respectable 150w per ch @ 4Ω plus a whopping 800w @ 4Ω mono for a subwoofer;


----------



## rton20s

zacjones99 said:


> Wow thanks again for the detailed explanation.
> 
> Even without the phase shift issues that I could likely have overcome I should have been more diligent with equipment selection before I picked up that Z-3KD. I simply overlooked the fact that the bandpass crossover section (LPF and HPF) is non-defeatable. I'm not going to use it not only because of the phase issues that I may have been able to correct, but also the slope on the SSF ended up being all wrong for my install. That 24db SSF is great for a ported enclosure, but not a great choice for an IB setup. If I do end up applying a SSF it will be a 6db slope at 25hz to maximize output and stay within excursion, applied to all channels just to be on the safe side. Thanks again for taking the time to lay it all out.


24dB SSF @ 10Hz is too high and steep for an IB install? That SSF will actually have less impact on your low end response than even a 1st order Butterworth filter at 20Hz. See the comparison below based on some IB subs I have and plan to use in my wife's car. 
Yellow: 10Hz LR4 SSF, 250Hz BW2 LPF | Red: 20Hz BW1 SSF | Green: No Filters









Now, if you plan to run those subs with a really high low pass filter then I suppose the 12dB low pass filter built into the amp could have some impact on phase. But, in most installations it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Jscoyne2

Any news on 2.0?


----------



## DavidRam

*Just wanted to publicly post a HUGE THANK YOU to Truthunter for helping me with the MiniDSP/Dirac process last night! The results are amazing!!*


----------



## zacjones99

The 


DavidRam said:


> *Just wanted to publicly post a HUGE THANK YOU to Truthunter for helping me with the MiniDSP/Dirac process last night! The results are amazing!!*


The DIYMA community comes through again! Good lookin' out Truthunter!

I'll be setting mine up in a few weeks for the first time, and I could really use a hand getting me through that initial setup as well... any volunteers? 

I'm doing a 3-way up front with Hybrid X3's in the stock 330i door location and C-pillars for rear fill, X1 tweeters on-axis in the sails and midbass v1 is GB60 in stock door card location. Eventually I want to move the mids to the dash and the midbass to the kicks, but I need to get this thing up and running in a bad way. The Joying e46 SPDIF head unit is in, and the 8x12DL is mounted in the CD changer rack in the trunk. All that stuff is wired and done. Now I need to get my trunk situated -- a stealth install -- Z150.6AP mounted upside down with fans under the rear deck, the IDMAX15 downfiring IB in the spare tire well, and a pair of Z-400.2's for sub and midbass duty mounted over the sub. I'm almost there after years of planning and putting this project off for various reasons. I'm so close I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel!


----------



## naiku

Where are you located? I ran rear fill with mine previously and can help get you up and running.


----------



## zacjones99

Naiku thanks for the offer, it's greatly appreciated. I will gladly take you up on it when the time comes. I'm in Roseville, CA. I'll let you know when I'm getting close. Thanks! Zac.


----------



## Theslaking

Verify please. 

Switching to off only changes the voltage input from 2-4 or 8-12 correct? Just making sure I'm reading this correctly.


----------



## Truthunter

Theslaking said:


> Verify please.
> 
> Switching to off only changes the voltage input from 2-4 or 8-12 correct? Just making sure I'm reading this correctly.


That's how I read it too... though I have not changed those switches for my setup so can't confirm with experience.


----------



## Bridgehl4

Thanks all for your contributions to this thread. After reading all, I can do the tuning myself without no big issues. The result is quite good.

By the way, what are your favorite target curves?


----------



## Theslaking

Truthunter said:


> That's how I read it too... though I have not changed those switches for my setup so can't confirm with experience.


It would be cool if I could shoot shut unused inputs off mechanically. Not really necessary due to software but who doesn't like extra protection.


----------



## rain27

This thread is full of convolutedness (I made up the word for this thread, lol).

In reading nearly all of it, I come away not knowing whether it’s actually good or not. Even within the same post, it can go from ecstatic to not really. And through the span of the thread, it goes from elation to gradual discontent at times. 

The same person might say the system sounds great, but then follows by saying the subwoofer output is too low and the overall volume is too low as well (these two things are why 99% of people get aftermarket systems to begin with!).

This reminds me of the old MS-8 thread in that there was initial praise, followed by issues that suggested such extensive manual manipulation that it no longer seemed like an auto-tune at all.

Is it all good now?

Is there a uniform, repeatable process, whereby you can get an identical tune each time?


----------



## Theslaking

I'm sure if anyone replies in summary,(as in a 1 sentence answer), it will be happiness.


----------



## bertholomey

rain27 said:


> This thread is full of convolutedness (I made up the word for this thread, lol).
> 
> In reading nearly all of it, I come away not knowing whether it’s actually good or not. Even within the same post, it can go from ecstatic to not really. And through the span of the thread, it goes from elation to gradual discontent at times.
> 
> The same person might say the system sounds great, but then follows by saying the subwoofer output is too low and the overall volume is too low as well (these two things are why 99% of people get aftermarket systems to begin with!).
> 
> This reminds me of the old MS-8 thread in that there was initial praise, followed by issues that suggested such extensive manual manipulation that it no longer seemed like an auto-tune at all.
> 
> Is it all good now?
> 
> Is there a uniform, repeatable process, whereby you can get an identical tune each time?


I’m sure my reply won’t be satisfying, and it is just typed words unless you could hear my car, and you may come away from that experience still not satisfied. But I’m happy with my system - maybe not 100% satisfied, but nearly 90%. 

At the present time, I have three main tunes on the car. 1) 3511 crossover point between tweets and mid range 2) 2000 crossover point between tweets and mid range 3) same as 1 but with a 2db dip in the curve around 2.5k for the rowdy stuff (Smashing Pumpkins, Flyleaf, Breaking Benjamin). 

All three with the same method. Crossovers, Time Alignment (obtained by completing a 7 channel run), no EQ or levels in the Plug-In, 2 channel Dirac with a curve that I have developed based off a 1/2 Whitledge curve. All three sound very similar because of the curve (I believe). I perceive a lot of detail, staging/ imaging that is better than when I used other processors, and bass response that is accurate. A local friend has heard the car several times, and two trusted friends will hear it next weekend and will tell me if it is decent to their ears or if it needs to be set on fire and rolled down a hill. 

But to answer your question - I get repeatable results that provides a sound I’m happy with. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## rain27

bertholomey said:


> I’m sure my reply won’t be satisfying, and it is just typed words unless you could hear my car, and you may come away from that experience still not satisfied. But I’m happy with my system - maybe not 100% satisfied, but nearly 90%.
> 
> At the present time, I have three main tunes on the car. 1) 3511 crossover point between tweets and mid range 2) 2000 crossover point between tweets and mid range 3) same as 1 but with a 2db dip in the curve around 2.5k for the rowdy stuff (Smashing Pumpkins, Flyleaf, Breaking Benjamin).
> 
> All three with the same method. Crossovers, Time Alignment (obtained by completing a 7 channel run), no EQ or levels in the Plug-In, 2 channel Dirac with a curve that I have developed based off a 1/2 Whitledge curve. All three sound very similar because of the curve (I believe). I perceive a lot of detail, staging/ imaging that is better than when I used other processors, and bass response that is accurate. A local friend has heard the car several times, and two trusted friends will hear it next weekend and will tell me if it is decent to their ears or if it needs to be set on fire and rolled down a hill.
> 
> But to answer your question - I get repeatable results that provides a sound I’m happy with.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Glad to hear it. I appreciate the response as well. Any special method for mic placement when running Dirac or straight from the manual?

My goal right now is to try out different speakers in the car without having to manually tune each setup. If Dirac can do what it does consistently, it would allow for the speakers themselves being the only variable and not the tune.

I know that with past auto-tune dsps, people would have a difficult time getting the same auto-tune result even when using the same exact settings (including the crossovers) with the same exact speakers and in the same locations.


----------



## ckirocz28

Theslaking said:


> Verify please.
> 
> Switching to off only changes the voltage input from 2-4 or 8-12 correct? Just making sure I'm reading this correctly.
> 
> View attachment 269895


That is correct, I recommend using a magnifying glass to verify they are all where they should be. I had one that was switched on, took about a month to figure out where the clipping was coming from.


----------



## ckirocz28

Bridgehl4 said:


> By the way, what are your favorite target curves?
> View attachment 270070


The AudioFrog curve works perfectly for me, but I have a standard 8x12, most of the DL guys seem to like the Wisdom curve or a modified version of it.


----------



## naiku

bertholomey said:


> But I’m happy with my system - maybe not 100% satisfied, but nearly 90%.


I've heard an earlier iteration of this car and I'd be 90% satisfied as well  In all seriousness, I've heard including mine 4 cars with DL now, all running various equipment in a variety of locations and they all sound great.

I'm completely satisfied with mine, I have zero desire to do anything with it other than enjoy listening to it. Someone with a more critical ear may point things out, but I'm happy. My process is repeatable, manually set crossovers, use Dirac to get levels, then run a 2 channel Dirac and done.



rain27 said:


> Any special method for mic placement when running Dirac or straight from the manual?


This will be the biggest thing to figure out as what works in my car, or simply to my preference, might not be correct for yours. I believe we all follow the manual, but other than the center initial microphone measurement, the other 8 can vary. Some make smaller size boxes with the mic positioning, others larger boxes. I find i like the larger box, but I believe @bertholomey and @Truthunter use a smaller box.


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Looks like Dirac 3.0 is a go on miniDSP’s DDRC-24 and DDRC-22 as well as the multichannel DDRC-88A and DDRC88-D..

Version 3.0 incorporates Dirac Live Bass Control support for better integration of subwoofers:








Digital room correction – Dirac Live - Dirac







live.dirac.com





Hopefully the C-DSP 8x12DL gets 2.0 or 3.0 support!


----------



## naiku

Bnlcmbcar said:


> Hopefully the C-DSP 8x12DL gets 2.0 or 3.0 support!


It might already


----------



## Bnlcmbcar

Nice! Your right looks like 3.0 is go!


----------



## brusty

Installed the C-DSP 8x12DL yesterday in between my Alpine PXA-H800 and my amps. Alpine is processing stereo SPDIF input from my factory nav through Dolby Pro Logic II to 5.1 surround, then sent into the C-DSP and processed as 6 discrete Dirac Live channels. All crossovers and delays set on the C-DSP. Tuned to a modified Wisdom curve the first go-around.

I can't compare how this sounds to Dirac Live 2.0. I was fortunate enough to encounter the previous version of DL software not asking for microphone permission on my MacBook Pro...so I updated everything fresh to fix the problem.

So I'm running Dirac Live 3.0...but not actively splitting a 20Hz-20kHz signal into its constituents...the sub channel is already separated by the Alpine. All channels connected straight via 6 RCA cables.

Regardless...best audio I've heard in a car, if not in any context. Expansive, holographic soundstage. The cliche of hearing things in music I've never heard before this setup.

I'll certainly tweak the curve, but this is, in general, "it".


----------



## ckirocz28

So, now that this thing is seeing widespread use, can anyone tell me how often the software needs to connect to the internet, beyond the initial license verification? Can a Dirac tune be run offline?


----------



## datooff

I'm already using Dirac live 3 with C-DSP 8x12. Still buggy and crashes often, but it works even on m


----------



## Truthunter

I've been using Dirac 3.0 for a few weeks now... first as a beta and now as the release. Only once had to unplug the USB & reconnect it to the processor for it to connect without giving me some weird error when I would launch D3 during beta testing. But never had D3 crash on me or lock up once while in use. I'm using a dell latitude with Windows 10 on it.



ckirocz28 said:


> So, now that this thing is seeing widespread use, can anyone tell me how often the software needs to connect to the internet, beyond the initial license verification? Can a Dirac tune be run offline?


In 1.0 it seem to only need to connect when loading the filter correction file to the DSP.

But I think 3.0 is different. You need to actually sign into your Dirac account In order to save files and be able to load them later. Also, unlike 1.0, there is no way to load a saved file and adjust things in the filter design screen without being connected to the DSP.


----------



## datooff

So I've used Dirac the first time ever. Still learning.
I ran 5 channel dirac first (2way+sub), got the levels and delays of each speaker.
Then I ran 2 channel with a chair location. (left tw+left midbass+1 sub output and right tw+right midbass + 2nd sub output). I used Harman's +10db curve (low end boost).
I did just 1 center measurement.

Good things: the center of the stage is awesome. But it's too narrow at the center. (Kind of when most instruments are at the center).
What I don't like - is the synthetic sound, don't know how to call it properly. Maybe - overly compressed or something. 
I'm sure there are a lot of mistakes and room for improvement.


----------



## naiku

Truthunter said:


> You need to actually sign into your Dirac account In order to save files and be able to load them later.


I don't think you need to do this, I'll double check later, but am fairly certain I don't have a Dirac account, yet have been able to both save and load a file.



datooff said:


> Good things: the center of the stage is awesome. But it's too narrow at the center. (Kind of when most instruments are at the center).


How far apart were your microphone measurements? I get both a solid center stage, but also plenty of width. Same with any other car running Dirac I've listened to, they don't sound narrow in the center at all. 

I take my measurements about shoulder width apart and about that distance front to back as well. YMMV of course as everyone's car is different.


----------



## datooff

naiku said:


> I take my measurements about shoulder width apart and about that distance front to back as well. YMMV of course as everyone's car is different.


I did just 1 center measurement, not 9. Wasn't moving it. But I will do measurements for all positions. I think this will play a big role.


----------



## brusty

datooff said:


> I did just 1 center measurement, not 9. Wasn't moving it. But I will do measurements for all positions. I think this will play a big role.


Definitely take your 9 measurements and relisten.

That synthetic sound is likely partly a result of the tune that resulted from that single measurement. When I first got the PXA-H800 and ran Imprint (its autotune), I first used a single measurement point (out of a total of 6 possible IIRC for a single seat optimization). The resulting curve as well as the corrected impulse response would look amazing on the filter prediction (the process was similar to Dirac Live), but the nature of the sound was as you described.

Because of the myriad issues resulting from the volume of a car cabin, the reverberant nature of the chamber, the sheer amount of glass surface in any car leading to reflections galore...you've got to measure at multiple points to handle curve-fitting above the Schroeder frequency (~300Hz in a typical car) without overcorrecting. To a point, more data will result in a better tune, so long as the algorithm (or tuner) knows what to do with the information...what to address and what to ignore relative to how humans perceive sound. From my single tune and based on reading the mid-level papers published by the Dirac team...Dirac Live will do a good job of interpreting what you feed it, so long as you feed it.

There's a good chance you'll want to tweak the curve after the tune is complete and filters are applied, but I imagine the overall system response will sound more natural to you with more measurements to inform the algorithm's behavior.


----------



## datooff

brusty said:


> Definitely take your 9 measurements and relisten.


Sure, I will re-set the tune today. Including the amp gains and will take 9 measurements.
As for the 5/7 channel run (when we want to get the delays & levels) - are 9 measurements also necessary?

Another noob question about the routing of the sub in the Minidsp itself. I'm confused because I've seen screenshots with different variations.
I have 2 subs running from 1 channel amp. I run 2 RCA's from the MiniDSP outputs (out 5 & 6) to the amp inputs - 2 RCA in.
I use SPDIF input (split into 7&8 channels in the Minidsp first tab). In the MIXER tab - I summed outputs 5&6 into 1 channel ( for example - Dirac 5).
In the Dirac/Routing tab - do I also have to sum the signal?

UPDATE:
Re-adjusted the gains and crossovers a little. Ran 9 measurements with 2 channel Dirac (left+sub output 1, right + sub output 2). And I'd have to say - I'm impressed. The tonality and stage are much better, everything blends nicely. I especially like the higher frequencies. But, as anyone is experiencing - there's just not enough bass. I tried to pull the target in the bass region a few times, it became a little bit better, but still, it's just not enough. I want it to be tactile (2x15 IB subs). Anyone found a solution to make the bass right?


----------



## hella356

So does it seem safe to update to the newest firmware? I've never liked the fact that full utilization of the DSP requires an internet connection, and this seems to have gotten even worse. It's a bit of an issue for me, since all work on the car is done in my garage at the back of my property. No WiFi signal from the house, and spotty cell phone connection to tether the laptop to. But if the upgrade is worthwhile, sound-wise, I guess I'll give it a go. Anyone know if the firmware can be reverted back if there are issues with the new?


----------



## brusty

hella356 said:


> So does it seem safe to update to the newest firmware?


Nothing to compare to prior here, but no problems to note - updated to solve the problem I had with the Dirac Live software not requesting mic access. No visibility on whether the firmware can be reverted back, unfortunately.



datooff said:


> Re-adjusted the gains and crossovers a little. Ran 9 measurements with 2 channel Dirac (left+sub output 1, right + sub output 2). And I'd have to say - I'm impressed. The tonality and stage are much better, everything blends nicely. I especially like the higher frequencies. But, as anyone is experiencing - there's just not enough bass. I tried to pull the target in the bass region a few times, it became a little bit better, but still, it's just not enough. I want it to be tactile (2x15 IB subs). Anyone found a solution to make the bass right?


Glad to hear the first part! : )

From skimming your past posts, we've got similar taste in sub setups - I have a single AE SBP15, infinite baffle of course. And I also like tactile bass - think sub-30Hz. Why I went IB.

I tuned to this curve created by banshee28

I chose that curve as a starting point, not an assumed end point, knowing two things:

1) It would likely need steeper dropoff in the treble based on the proximity of most of my frequency coverage to glass and the listener (coaxes in top of doors play 280Hz and up are effectively aimed at the opposite doors' glass, center channel plays 100Hz and up firing into the windshield...not to mention a certain degree of horn loading from the intersection of the windshield and dash. (I made a custom 5/8" open cell foam microsuede-topped dashmat to trap some of the highest frequency effects, but can't do everything and has negligible effect until the highest frequencies based on physics.)

2) It would likely need a rise in bass in that lowest ~half octave down to 20Hz. I.e. a smooth rise to 20Hz rather than flat from 60 to 20. That's partly based on the kinds of music I listen to...everything from classical to hip hop, but enough hip hop with subterranean 808 lines that don't come out as ear-level for the whole melodic passage note to note without a steady rise in the amplitude of frequency response as you descend. It's also based on my typical listening volume, which is relatively loud, but not ridiculous (think 80, maybe 85db). So Fletcher Munson likely has some effect, even relative to the volume the studio engineer likely listened at while making the mix. (Meaning that while producers DO boost the lowest bass regions based on their own hearing to compensate, if I'm not listening quite as loud, and I'm also dealing with overcoming low-frequency exhaust noise in my car, I'll still need that slight slope in the lowest bass...if I'm listening to music with semi-meaningful frequency content that low...which I am. I can name several tracks with an 808 line that goes close to and even below 20Hz.)

So. I haven't tweaked the curve yet...but from my past tuning and general ear ability, Dirac Live tuned to what I fed it. Other responsibilities are taking precedent for me right now, but I'll measure with REW within the next week to confirm, as well as tweak to tonal taste with a 31 band EQ in the signal path (laptop), measure the final resulting response with pink noise, then tune to that. And I'll share what I tuned to, with the caveat that I only vouch for it in my car with my particular selection of speakers, placement, crossovers, deadening, listening volume...you get the picture. 

*Post a screenshot of the curve you're tuning to, or attach the export if you can. What kind of music are you listening to?*

Perhaps an unnecessary additional note, but seems pertinent since you mentioned liking the higher frequencies (possibly the detail you hear)...depending on your cabin and front stage setup, you might also need more treble attenuation than your curve is dictating, which could solve a large portion of your bass conundrum. In the past, I'd put massive bass boosts in the custom curves I'd tune to in the lowest frequencies...and for the aforementioned reasons, I'll likely still need a smooth boost at the very bottom...but make sure subtly louder-than-tonally-accurate treble isn't preventing you from hearing (and also feeling) your lowest bass. All of these curves are just starting points. The nature of the install (especially speaker location and crossover choice, i.e. where you're actually sending parts of your frequency response) dictates how you tweak it IMO.

Hope you enjoyed the book : D and let us know what you tuned to and what you measure, etc. We will both get there!


----------



## datooff

Had to retune the crossovers manually and do manual EQ in minidsp. I have some big problem with midbass in the listening position due to the cabin. ( The measurement is perfect when measured nearside in the legs 60-300 very linear). But in the listening position I have a 13db peak from 180-300 Hz in the left midbass and 125-200 peak right side). 

Dirac shows this problem, but it still leaves a dip between sub and midbass. So I have to solve this as much as I can first.

Anyway.
There's a new feature In Dirac live 3 called Bass Control. Anyone used it? I don't see it.
Maybe this feature will solve the lack of bass problem.


----------



## Truthunter

Unfortunately, from what some of us were told during beta testing, MiniDSP is not supporting the bass control add-on for multi-channel Dirac at this time.


----------



## datooff

Truthunter said:


> Unfortunately, from what some of us were told during beta testing, MiniDSP is not supporting the bass control add-on for multi-channel Dirac at this time.


This is sad.


----------



## Truthunter

datooff said:


> This is sad.


Tbh, after reading the bass control user manual and watching a couple of videos where Dirac research explains what it does - It seems to me it's just an automated way to properly set up crossover slopes & delay to ensure proper phase relationship between the subwoofer and woofer.. which most of us are familiar with all ready. Though, it would be cool for Dirac to handle crossover relationships between drivers. I'm willing to bet that in the future miniDSP will accommodate this add-on functionality... Just maybe not in the near future.


----------



## Jscoyne2

datooff said:


> Had to retune the crossovers manually and do manual EQ in minidsp. I have some big problem with midbass in the listening position due to the cabin. ( The measurement is perfect when measured nearside in the legs 60-300 very linear). But in the listening position I have a 13db peak from 180-300 Hz in the left midbass and 125-200 peak right side).
> 
> Dirac shows this problem, but it still leaves a dip between sub and midbass. So I have to solve this as much as I can first.
> 
> Anyway.
> There's a new feature In Dirac live 3 called Bass Control. Anyone used it? I don't see it.
> Maybe this feature will solve the lack of bass problem.


if you have peaks in that super low midrange. I'd take a look at your midbass enclosure. If its in kicks or in an enclosure. Its too small.


----------



## datooff

Jscoyne2 said:


> if you have peaks in that super low midrange. I'd take a look at your midbass enclosure. If its in kicks or in an enclosure. Its too small.


It's in the doors. The measurement is great when I place the microphone in the legs, but when the mike is at the head position - that where's the problem. The same thing with the doors slightly open.


----------



## Sonnie

Have any of you running Dirac 3 been getting the following? Getting "Low signal-to-noise level".


----------



## datooff

Sonnie said:


> Have any of you running Dirac 3 been getting the following? It's quiet as a mouse in my truck... can't seem to get past this.


Had this. You need to be in a very quiet place.


----------



## Sonnie

It was actually the Dirac Channel Configuration. I had not changed it after changing up the Mixer channels, so it was measured "Unused" channels that were not set to "Unused". I was use to setting the channel config inside the Dirac Live program, but it's done in the CDSP program now.


----------



## 01LSi

Does anyone know where I can get a mic arm that's this flexible or have a similar go to?


----------



## dgage

I don’t have a link to one like that. I know someone on here made a seat cradle out of plumbing pipe and fittings with multiple locations to put the microphone. And here’s another idea for a moving microphone stand designed by ErinH.









How-To: Build a MMM rig for RTA purposes


This is my second video and I'm learning. It isn't perfect (I need better garage lighting and a better mic) but it's the journey, right?... Anyway, in this video I'll teach you how to DIY your own Moving Microphone Measurement (MMM) setup to use with an RTA system to EQ your stereo system's...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## lucas569

My brain needs rest.... been reading this thread for 2 days ! On page 39 so far! Great reading here.


----------



## Truthunter

lucas569 said:


> My brain needs rest.... been reading this thread for 2 days ! On page 39 so far! Great reading here.


It was nice to meet you last weekend. Got your rca splitters sorted yet?


----------



## Truthunter

lucas569 said:


> My brain needs rest.... been reading this thread for 2 days ! On page 39 so far! Great reading here.


BTW, there is another info packed thread on here too: MiniDSP C-DSP 8x12 with Dirac Live


----------



## ErinH

01LSi said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a mic arm that's this flexible or have a similar go to?
> 
> <snip>



I got one off Amazon a few years back. They don't sell the same one anymore but this looks like it and is under $10.






Amazon.com: Gator Frameworks Flexible Black Gooseneck for Microphones; 13" Length (GFW-MIC-GN13) : Musical Instruments


Buy Gator Frameworks Flexible Black Gooseneck for Microphones; 13" Length (GFW-MIC-GN13): Microphone Cables - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



amzn.to


----------



## lucas569

Truthunter said:


> It was nice to meet you last weekend. Got your rca splitters sorted yet?


those arrive Monday but I also traced down a bad rca wire. Replaced that and now I have the mid bass speakers running but only at half the power I wanted to give them but hey it’s progress.

been tuning by ear for days got it sounding way better... waiting on Umik to arrive as well. If I can get it to sound half as good as your car I’d be super happy!


----------



## brusty

datooff said:


> It's in the doors. The measurement is great when I place the microphone in the legs, but when the mike is at the head position - that where's the problem. The same thing with the doors slightly open.


Hey datooff! Just catching up on this thread now.

Those peaks in the frequency response you're seeing from the midbasses are likely a result of their placement in your car - namely, that they're close to or partially in your footwells. The dimensions of the footwell cavity cause those peaks and dips based on reinforcement and cancellation - constructive and destructive interference based on the wavelengths within that frequency range that interact with that cavity and alter the response as measured at ear level.

In other words, what you're measuring at your listening position vs. nearfield to the drivers themselves is normal for most car audio setups. My car exhibits a very similar frequency response in those ranges at the listening position, as do most cars. If you measure from the front passenger's seat listening position, you'll probably see that frequency response characteristic swap speakers - a big peak from 180-300Hz on the right side, and a peak from 125-200Hz on the left side.

One solution to that sort of "problem" is moving some of the sound energy elsewhere in space. That means changing your crossover points to avoid those issues by having speakers that are less proximal to the footwells play those frequencies.

My car has a savage null somewhere between 300 and 350Hz if memory serves when I have my midbass drivers playing that frequency range. So I cross them over at 280Hz. I can get away with that because I have 4" coaxial drivers covering the upper part of my response, so they can play down to 280Hz without issue, and I don't have a giant audible dip in my response as a result. Obviously that took some fabrication and cutting, but having done it, I'd never go back. Even with proper timing, you can still get a certain degree of localization cue and tell where the sound ENERGY is coming from on some tracks.

So having the vast majority of my octaves played by speakers close to shoulder and ear height vs. next to my knees makes a huge difference. I just have to adjust my curve accordingly and gradually cut the response as frequency rises in an area where most people measure flat response to sound tonally accurate...because all of that sound energy is close to reflective surfaces and my ears, so there's less attenuation from absorption than you'd see with midbasses playing higher. Hence it'd sound too bright/harsh with a typical Andy or Wisdom curve.

Tl;dr -- if you don't want to go crazy cutting into your car to put bigger drivers in the top of your doors or fabricate enclosures for your A pillars as some do, it's generally better to cut those peaks down to level and not worry about the dips as much, since they're inherently less audible than peaks. Dirac will do a lot of heavy lifting, but IMO it's generally a safer bet to cut peaks than try to boost nulls or seeming dips in response. You can ALWAYS remove energy from a response, but there's no guarantee that adding energy in a certain frequency range will get you a perceptibly or measurably louder response. It's just physics.

If you lose headroom (overall volume capability) from doing this, you can always boost your output on all channels by the same amount. I have the miniDSP boosting all channel outputs to my amps by +12dB for this reason. Clarity is pristine, and on the appropriate tracks, impact is unreal but controlled. Part of why I'm still on this thread is I want anyone reading to get to this point as well, because it makes listening to music in your car like hearing songs for the first time.

Also haven't forgotten I promised to post my response curve progress. Planning to measure for front passenger's seat optimization tonight, so I'll be sure to take screenshots of the measured response as well as post a text dump of the curve I'm tuning to now.


----------



## lucas569

My buddy says I got a mic you can borrow! 🤦🏻‍♂️


----------



## Sonnie

01LSi said:


> Does anyone know where I can get a mic arm that's this flexible or have a similar go to?
> 
> View attachment 275047


This is what I have... 25 Inch Webcam Stand - Flexible Desk Mount Clamp Gooseneck Stand for Logitech Webcam C930e,C930,C920, C922x,C922, Brio 4K, C925e,C615 by Pipishell:Amazon:Electronics


----------



## bnae38

Anyone used this for a 2-seat tune with center? If so, how are you liking it?


----------



## datooff

brusty said:


> Hey datooff! Just catching up on this thread now.


Yes, I measured the drivers from the opposite (ex. passenger side) and got reflected results. There is a dip at 400hz too. 
I also tried filtering them around that 200-300hz range and it looks better on the graph, but with the tiny full ranges that can't play too low - it's not a solution. Even if the graph looks fine.
So, if in this case - big 4" midranges on the dash/pillars + crossing the midbass even lower would work well - I definitely won't do this to the existing car.
I will PEQ those peaks+Dirac and will live with it.


----------



## 01LSi

Sonnie said:


> This is what I have... 25 Inch Webcam Stand - Flexible Desk Mount Clamp Gooseneck Stand for Logitech Webcam C930e,C930,C920, C922x,C922, Brio 4K, C925e,C615 by Pipishell:Amazon:Electronics


Yes!!!!!!! THANK YOU


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brusty

datooff said:


> I will PEQ those peaks+Dirac and will live with it.


Sounds reasonable. Still haven't gotten a chance to measure - honestly still tweaking my curve as time passes. But slowly, so I don't do anything rash.


----------



## Dan668

I just installed the latest firmware, and using Dirac Live 3. Anyone having issues uploading a target curve?


----------



## Truthunter

Dan668 said:


> I just installed the latest firmware, and using Dirac Live 3. Anyone having issues uploading a target curve?


Unlike Dirac 1, Dirac 3 requires the target curve file to have additional information above the freq/amplitude figures. If you save a target curve from Dirac 3 then open the file with .txt editor you'll see the additional information required. It can be copied and pasted into the target file your trying to use and it should upload to Dirac 3.


----------



## zacjones99

For a 3-way + trunk sub + upfront sub + 2-way rear system, what would be the best piece to add upstream of the CDSP-8X12DL at this point? Is the DDRC-88D/BM a worthwhile upgrade over a DDRC-22D?

When installing either of these DDRC's, is it preferable to have the unit installed up front to be able to access the controls? When a DDRC is used in conjunction with a CDSP, does the DDRC then become the better option to control the system volume? Also, for presets, is it best to use the DDRC to switch presets, or the CDSP, or both? 

I was initially planning on using the CDSP remote (which is already installed up front) for volume control. But if it's preferable to have the DDRC up front, I'm considering butchering the case and removing the components of the DDRC to get the thing mounted up front by the shifter. Just not sure if it's worth the trouble vs what would be a pretty simple DDRC installation in the trunk next to the CDSP unit.

Also, I'm not very familiar with the bass management add-on for the DDRC-88D, and how it could be integrated together with a CDSP-8x12DL. Would I be able to take advantage of the bass management feature in this installation?

Thanks. Zac.


----------



## bertholomey

zacjones99 said:


> For a 3-way + trunk sub + upfront sub + 2-way rear system, what would be the best piece to add upstream of the CDSP-8X12DL at this point? Is the DDRC-88D/BM a worthwhile upgrade over a DDRC-22D?
> 
> When installing either of these DDRC's, is it preferable to have the unit installed up front to be able to access the controls? When a DDRC is used in conjunction with a CDSP, does the DDRC then become the better option to control the system volume? Also, for presets, is it best to use the DDRC to switch presets, or the CDSP, or both?
> 
> I was initially planning on using the CDSP remote (which is already installed up front) for volume control. But if it's preferable to have the CDSP up front, I'm considering butchering the case and removing the components of the DDRC to get the thing mounted up front by the shifter. Just not sure if it's worth the trouble vs what would be a pretty simple DDRC installation in the trunk next to the CDSP unit.
> 
> Also, I'm not very familiar with the bass management add-on for the DDRC-88D, and how it could be integrated together with a CDSP-8x12DL. Would I be able to take advantage of the bass management feature in this installation?
> 
> Thanks. Zac.


Those are all great questions.....there may be one or two folks on here that MAY be able to answer.......but not many of us are using another 2 channel with the 8x12.


----------



## oabeieo

The 8x12DL is the most powerful dsp from minidsp... as far as what you get 

The 8x12DL has a ton more than the 88bm and is way smaller.... 

Go for the 8x12DL, and a ddrc22d upstream if you want to go balls to the wall


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> The 8x12DL is the most powerful dsp from minidsp... as far as what you get
> 
> The 8x12DL has a ton more than the 88bm and is way smaller....
> 
> Go for the 8x12DL, and a ddrc22d upstream if you want to go balls to the wall


I have a CDSP 8X12 DL already, just trying to decide between ddrc 22d and ddrc 88d/bm. Only a couple hundred extra for the 88d and it offers a bass management upgrade. 

Whichever one I get, should I make the extra effort to install it up in the dash to access the controls?

I'm doing android HU w/ SPDIF out, to DDRC 22 or 88, to CDSP 8x12DL, to amps. I was going to use CDSP remote for volume and presets and it's already wired up into the dash area, but is it better to use DDRC for volume when installed upstream of a CDSP8x12? If so I'd have to tear the DDRC apart a little to get it mounted up near the dash, as the housing is too big for the location I have in mind. Much easier would be to install DDRC in the trunk, but only if controls not needed up front.

Also when installing a DDRC upstream a CDSP 8x12DL, are you able to make use of the additional 4 presets on the DDRC, giving you a total of 8 presets?

Lastly, would the bass management feature be worth the $300 it would cost to upgrade from a 22d to the 88d/bm? Would I even be able to utilize the bass management on the 88D in this scenario, upstream a CDSP8X12DL?

Thanks a ton. I really appreciate all your contributions on the forum and taking the time to explain some insanely complex concepts.


----------



## Truthunter

zacjones99 said:


> I have a CDSP 8X12 DL already, just trying to decide between ddrc 22d and ddrc 88d/bm. Only a couple hundred extra for the 88d and it offers a bass management upgrade.
> 
> Whichever one I get, should I make the extra effort to install it up in the dash to access the controls?
> 
> I'm doing android HU w/ SPDIF out, to DDRC 22 or 88, to CDSP 8x12DL, to amps. I was going to use CDSP remote for volume and presets and it's already wired up into the dash area, but is it better to use DDRC for volume when installed upstream of a CDSP8x12? If so I'd have to tear the DDRC apart a little to get it mounted up near the dash, as the housing is too big for the location I have in mind. Much easier would be to install DDRC in the trunk, but only if controls not needed up front.
> 
> Also when installing a DDRC upstream a CDSP 8x12DL, are you able to make use of the additional 4 presets on the DDRC, giving you a total of 8 presets?
> 
> Lastly, would the bass management feature be worth the $300 it would cost to upgrade from a 22d to the 88d/bm? Would I even be able to utilize the bass management on the 88D in this scenario, upstream a CDSP8X12DL?
> 
> Thanks a ton. I really appreciate all your contributions on the forum and taking the time to explain some insanely complex concepts.


Have you actually used the 8x12DL yet?... reason I ask is because I see your wanting "Bass Management" and the CDSP DL has that feature already on it's input configuration / Bass Management screen?

Now, perhaps your referring to the newly released Dirac "Bass Control" which is a different function. From what I've read it automates the process of insuring the midbass/sub is in phase at the crossover point all while maintaining the overall desired target. It is an extra cost add-on IF the processing unit being used is configured and enabled to utilize it by the manufacturer. At this time, I don't believe any MiniDSP products offer the add-on "Bass Control" option.


----------



## zacjones99

Truthunter said:


> Have you actually used the 8x12DL yet?... reason I ask is because I see your wanting "Bass Management" and the CDSP DL has that feature already on it's input configuration / Bass Management screen?
> 
> Now, perhaps your referring to the newly released Dirac "Bass Control" which is a different function. From what I've read it automates the process of insuring the midbass/sub is in phase at the crossover point all while maintaining the overall desired target. It is an extra cost add-on IF the processing unit being used is configured and enabled to utilize it by the manufacturer. At this time, I don't believe any MiniDSP products offer the add-on "Bass Control" option.


You're absolutely right. I haven't set up the CDSP 8x12DL yet, and was hoping to get everything in place before I started messing with it.

And right again, I was trying to refer to the new bass control feature, which it appears is not the bass management add-on for the DDRC88, so no reason at all to get the 88 over the 22 then. 

So like oabeieo said, and like others have done, the DDRC22D is the one to get. 

Thanks for helping me clear that up. I guess at this point I'll hold off on the DDRC until I get more familiar with the CDSP.


----------



## HCWLSU101

Did any of you have issues connecting to the DSP? I installed the plug-in but can’t seem to be able to connect to the DSP. It appears it has power as the remote is on and I have sound.


----------



## oabeieo

HCWLSU101 said:


> Did any of you have issues connecting to the DSP? I installed the plug-in but can’t seem to be able to connect to the DSP. It appears it has power as the remote is on and I have sound.


try win 10....

mare you in a Mac by chance ?


----------



## viking1

Hi, I am considering installing my first aftermarket car audio system in ages to a BMW M240i. I am thinking 4" mids (Morel Hybrid) and tweets (Peerless) all around, including centre channel, which means 10 channels consumed by highs. Then two 8" mid basses (Jenhertz) in the factory underseat locations for a total of 12 channels.

But then I also wanted to have a sub in the trunk, which puts me at 13 channels.

Anyone have advice on the best MiniDSP setup for such an arrangement? I would actually like to use the new Harmony product in conjunction with external amplifiers for the midbasses and sub. However, it's not clear to me how I would get good integration of the sub.

Any advice on the best way of getting an active setup with Dirac in this car would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully, I'm not childishly naive about how complicated this would all be. I have been using a DDRC-24 at home and have been dazzled by how good my stereo+sub setup sounds via Dirac.

In the car, I was hoping to have 3 modes: One optimised for driver, one optimised for passenger, and one that sounds good for everyone when road tripping with full car.


----------



## Jscoyne2

viking1 said:


> Hi, I am considering installing my first aftermarket car audio system in ages to a BMW M240i. I am thinking 4" mids (Morel Hybrid) and tweets (Peerless) all around, including centre channel, which means 10 channels consumed by highs. Then two 8" mid basses (Jenhertz) in the factory underseat locations for a total of 12 channels.
> 
> But then I also wanted to have a sub in the trunk, which puts me at 13 channels.
> 
> Anyone have advice on the best MiniDSP setup for such an arrangement? I would actually like to use the new Harmony product in conjunction with external amplifiers for the midbasses and sub. However, it's not clear to me how I would get good integration of the sub.
> 
> Any advice on the best way of getting an active setup with Dirac in this car would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully, I'm not childishly naive about how complicated this would all be. I have been using a DDRC-24 at home and have been dazzled by how good my stereo+sub setup sounds via Dirac.
> 
> In the car, I was hoping to have 3 modes: One optimised for driver, one optimised for passenger, and one that sounds good for everyone when road tripping with full car.


There's a lot to unpack in this question. May i suggest making this its own thread?

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## viking1

Jscoyne2 said:


> There's a lot to unpack in this question. May i suggest making this its own thread?
> 
> Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


Ok, I will do that, but is it not common to need more than 12 channels in active setups?


----------



## Jscoyne2

viking1 said:


> Ok, I will do that, but is it not common to need more than 12 channels in active setups?


Generally. In a car. The simpler the better. 

Houses and cars are entirely different beasts

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

viking1 said:


> Hi, I am considering installing my first aftermarket car audio system in ages to a BMW M240i. I am thinking 4" mids (Morel Hybrid) and tweets (Peerless) all around, including centre channel, which means 10 channels consumed by highs. Then two 8" mid basses (Jenhertz) in the factory underseat locations for a total of 12 channels.
> 
> But then I also wanted to have a sub in the trunk, which puts me at 13 channels.
> 
> Anyone have advice on the best MiniDSP setup for such an arrangement? I would actually like to use the new Harmony product in conjunction with external amplifiers for the midbasses and sub. However, it's not clear to me how I would get good integration of the sub.
> 
> Any advice on the best way of getting an active setup with Dirac in this car would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully, I'm not childishly naive about how complicated this would all be. I have been using a DDRC-24 at home and have been dazzled by how good my stereo+sub setup sounds via Dirac.
> 
> In the car, I was hoping to have 3 modes: One optimised for driver, one optimised for passenger, and one that sounds good for everyone when road tripping with full car.


the 8x12dL is your choice

you can do a driver and a passenger

For the all seats just use driver 
it can’t sound correct for all seats so make a choice , all other seats will sound good , just won’t have choice imaging ..... spectral balance should be decent (enough for someone that could care less about SQ).
The driver and left rear passenger will have better sound ...... that’s how I would do it , or put mic in center of car on 1st measurement and have it have bad imaging for everyone lol


----------



## HCWLSU101

Got mine installed finally. The software is extremely trying at first and not very intuitive. I finally was able to run measurements in Dirac today and I must be doing something wrong - it sounds terrible. I’m sure it’s user error..


----------



## bertholomey

HCWLSU101 said:


> Got mine installed finally. The software is extremely trying at first and not very intuitive. I finally was able to run measurements in Dirac today and I must be doing something wrong - it sounds terrible. I’m sure it’s user error..


Feel free to post screenshots and ask questions. This unit can help a car sound amazing. 

I recently completed 4 tunes - one for each configuration. 

1 - decent amount of EQ to get a good tune in the Plug-In, at least 4 or 5 bands per driver, crossovers, time alignment - 2 channel Dirac

2 - same crossovers and time alignment as PS1, no EQ in Plug-In - 2 channel Dirac - truly sounds amazing - especially for an installer - get the install down, pick crossovers / TA - run a 2 channel - Boom! Done - 90% of customers would be blown away with this preset in my car. 

3 - 3 channel tune - minimal EQ in Plug-In - primarily shelf filters, same crossovers / TA as the other two presets - 3 channel Dirac run - trying to manage the sub to mid bass transition a little better. 

4 - 3 channel tune - much like #3, the EQ that I used was mono-EQ based on feedback from my friend Ryan - and a 3 channel Dirac tune. This is the one I’m listening to the most. 

I used to do the 9 point Dirac measurements while sitting in the driver’s seat, very small box around my head. 

After discussing things with my friend John, I set up to tune outside the car - I purchased a stand and gooseneck (thanks Ryan!), and I’m using a much larger box now. I was talking with John, and he referenced the diagram - saying the forward and rearward measurements look to be 6”-12” in front/behind the head in the tight imaging diagram. 

This would be a fun discussion point with one of the Dirac engineers - what are the positive / negative affects in a car with a very close box - right around the head, vs a more forward / rearward box - I’m still using shoulder width. I need to do an A/B comparison soon. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## THX0849

I've been on the fence between this unit (or the Harmony version) and the Helix V Eight. I haven't been able to mess around with the MiniDSP software as it's user only. How difficult is it really? I'm pretty comfortable with the Helix software now more than ever having had a DSP 2 for a bit. I can't say i enjoy sitting for hours trying to get a tune in,but it's not horrible either. So hard to choose, ugh. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

bertholomey said:


> This would be a fun discussion point with one of the Dirac engineers - what are the positive / negative affects in a car with a very close box - right around the head, vs a more forward / rearward box - I’m still using shoulder width.


Sounds like a video for @ErinH to set up.



THX0849 said:


> How difficult is it really? I'm pretty comfortable with the Helix software now more than ever having had a DSP 2 for a bit. I can't say i enjoy sitting for hours trying to get a tune in,but it's not horrible either. So hard to choose, ugh.


The software is not bad at all, the Helix software, IMO, is a more polished program, but the MiniDSP software is just as easy to use once you get into it. 

Really, no matter what DSP you go with, the software is going to have a learning curve to it. Both the main MiniDSP plug in and Dirac are easy to use. Do they have quirks, yep, but those are few and far between in my experience and overall it's been reliable and simple for me. Both manually (I had an 8x12 with no dirac) and using Dirac.


----------



## HCWLSU101

THX0849 said:


> I've been on the fence between this unit (or the Harmony version) and the Helix V Eight. I haven't been able to mess around with the MiniDSP software as it's user only. How difficult is it really? I'm pretty comfortable with the Helix software now more than ever having had a DSP 2 for a bit. I can't say i enjoy sitting for hours trying to get a tune in,but it's not horrible either. So hard to choose, ugh.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


it’s not horrible, but the Helix is much more intuitive. I’m five days in and finally getting adjusted but I’m still not there.


----------



## HCWLSU101

bertholomey said:


> Feel free to post screenshots and ask questions. This unit can help a car sound amazing.
> 
> I recently completed 4 tunes - one for each configuration.
> 
> 1 - decent amount of EQ to get a good tune in the Plug-In, at least 4 or 5 bands per driver, crossovers, time alignment - 2 channel Dirac
> 
> 2 - same crossovers and time alignment as PS1, no EQ in Plug-In - 2 channel Dirac - truly sounds amazing - especially for an installer - get the install down, pick crossovers / TA - run a 2 channel - Boom! Done - 90% of customers would be blown away with this preset in my car.
> 
> 3 - 3 channel tune - minimal EQ in Plug-In - primarily shelf filters, same crossovers / TA as the other two presets - 3 channel Dirac run - trying to manage the sub to mid bass transition a little better.
> 
> 4 - 3 channel tune - much like #3, the EQ that I used was mono-EQ based on feedback from my friend Ryan - and a 3 channel Dirac tune. This is the one I’m listening to the most.
> 
> I used to do the 9 point Dirac measurements while sitting in the driver’s seat, very small box around my head.
> 
> After discussing things with my friend John, I set up to tune outside the car - I purchased a stand and gooseneck (thanks Ryan!), and I’m using a much larger box now. I was talking with John, and he referenced the diagram - saying the forward and rearward measurements look to be 6”-12” in front/behind the head in the tight imaging diagram.
> 
> This would be a fun discussion point with one of the Dirac engineers - what are the positive / negative affects in a car with a very close box - right around the head, vs a more forward / rearward box - I’m still using shoulder width. I need to do an A/B comparison soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks, I will post some pics and questions in the next couple of days. The gain structure and levels are what is confusing me the most. I can’t wrap my head around what the plugin and Dirac are doing.


----------



## doeboy

I think the idea is to set the time alignment, crossovers, and using the EQ to flatten any really bad spots(if they exist) then let dirac do the rest.


----------



## HCWLSU101

I am hoping someone can help me understand a little more about the gain settings. I am running one measurement using a Dirac channel for each speaker to get levels and time alignment. My gains were set with a scope at full undistorted volume on the headunit. The result is that it significantly cuts the subwoofer and mid bass speakers to level set all speakers. Is this normal? I trying to do some EQing before the measurements and it didn't sound right.












This is the resulting curve after entering in the delays and gains from the previous run:











And this is after making some changes to the house curve.











I feel like I am really losing output as I am cutting levels to level set everything and then cutting again to put a slope on my house curve. Is there something I am missing?










When I export the curve back to the plugin and connect, the master volume and sub volume are attenuated to -32 for master and -16 for the subwoofer. Is this a safety setting so it isn't loud when it switches over? I wasn't sure if I could raise the sub or master volume and its effect on the overall curve. There is nothing listed above because I was offline when I made the screen shot.

Are you guys level setting prior to running Dirac? What about adjusting for acoustical crossover slopes? The tune is getting better, but I can still beat it with a manual tune on the Helix which makes me believe I am still doing something wrong - I am not a good tuner by any means. 

Also, one more question. When performing the microphone calibration for all the speakers, should I be adjusting the volume of each so they match each other or just make sure each falls within the blue range? 

Thanks for any help!


----------



## doeboy

My step-by-step setup guide for the miniDSP C-DSP 8x12 DL


I created a thread back in August 2019 on tuning my 2019 RAM with the miniDSP C-DSP with DL, but several things have changed since then, and I decided I'd do another write-up on how I've tuned my 2020 RAM truck. I posted this over at AV NIRVANA, but we are not a car audio forum, so I figured it...




www.diymobileaudio.com





Sonny has a great write up here. Take a look at that. You may want to reach out to him after reading his post. Friendly guy and could probably give you some pointers.


----------



## bertholomey

HCWLSU101 said:


> Thanks, I will post some pics and questions in the next couple of days. The gain structure and levels are what is confusing me the most. I can’t wrap my head around what the plugin and Dirac are doing.


I sent a PM with a video.....it may be helpful to post here further questions about what made sense and what didn't make sense.


----------



## DaveG

bertholomey said:


> I sent a PM with a video.....it may be helpful to post here further questions about what made sense and what didn't make sense.


@bertholomey would you mind sending it to me as well please? Or just post it here. Thanks Dave


----------



## HCWLSU101

Thanks Jason,

This was extremely helpful. I see you had some of the same questions I did throughout the process. I do have an additional question on amp gains. What level of master volume do you set to? I see when you come back into the plugin your sub and master volume are -30 ish and like -15. Mine does the same but I barely have any volume when at this level. Again, thank you for the help.


----------



## Truthunter

HCWLSU101 said:


> I am hoping someone can help me understand a little more about the gain settings. I am running one measurement using a Dirac channel for each speaker to get levels and time alignment. My gains were set with a scope at full undistorted volume on the headunit. The result is that it significantly cuts the subwoofer and mid bass speakers to level set all speakers. Is this normal? I trying to do some EQing before the measurements and it didn't sound right.
> 
> View attachment 291373
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the resulting curve after entering in the delays and gains from the previous run:
> 
> View attachment 291370
> 
> 
> 
> And this is after making some changes to the house curve.
> 
> View attachment 291371
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I am really losing output as I am cutting levels to level set everything and then cutting again to put a slope on my house curve. Is there something I am missing?
> 
> View attachment 291372
> 
> 
> When I export the curve back to the plugin and connect, the master volume and sub volume are attenuated to -32 for master and -16 for the subwoofer. Is this a safety setting so it isn't loud when it switches over? I wasn't sure if I could raise the sub or master volume and its effect on the overall curve. There is nothing listed above because I was offline when I made the screen shot.
> 
> Are you guys level setting prior to running Dirac? What about adjusting for acoustical crossover slopes? The tune is getting better, but I can still beat it with a manual tune on the Helix which makes me believe I am still doing something wrong - I am not a good tuner by any means.
> 
> Also, one more question. When performing the microphone calibration for all the speakers, should I be adjusting the volume of each so they match each other or just make sure each falls within the blue range?
> 
> Thanks for any help!


When using a Dirac channel per speaker - Dirac uses the default curve (I believe the wisdom curve) to calculate levels. This curve does not have enough low end output IME for a typical vehicle system. I found Dirac still defaults to this overall curve even if custom targets per driver are set that have proper relative driver levels which follow an overall final target (such as JBL or Half Whiteledge curve). So I don't use the levels a Dirac per channel config calculates when setting up for the final 2/3 channel Dirac optimization. I set levels that produce measurement that roughly follow along the final target when measured before Dirac. These can be confirmed with measurement either through REW or a single measurement in Dirac. This can be taken a step further with adjusting and confirming acoustic xovers too but found that it's not really necessary to achieving very good end results.

The time delay figures show in the Dirac tab screenshot above looked to be unusually high. I found this occurs if there is a a LP filter affecting the sub channel when measuring a Dirac per channel config. Verify no LP filter is applied to the Sub channel when measuring a Dirac per channel config. Some systems use a "bass" amp that has an undefeatable LP that can effect the delays Dirac calculates even when set to it's highest frequency. In those cases, I suggest trying delays calculated by physical distance instead and comparing the final audible results... Sometimes those delays seem to produce better results.

The master volume which is set after performing a Dirac optimization will match the master volume level set in the Dirac level setting screen. Remember, the test signal Dirac uses is generated internally in the DSP post routing. So it will not signify what is optimal when using the main system source. I usually turn the master volume back up to -3db - 0db.

The sub level is similar - I found it will end up being whatever Dirac calculated for the sub channel level. I believe those two level are tied together... what ever the sub channel level is will match the "sub volume level". I actually stopped using "sub volume level" option because of this and the fact that changing it will also change the phase relationship between the sub and the rest of the drivers. Instead I just setup another preset with a target that is more bass heavy when mood/music calls for it.

As far as the driver volume levels in the "level setting" screen prior to measuring a Dirac per driver config - I found just getting them within the blue range is sufficient.

Hope this helps.


----------



## bertholomey

DaveG said:


> @bertholomey would you mind sending it to me as well please? Or just post it here. Thanks Dave


OK - apply all of the normal disclaimers here.......after watching the video again a while ago, I thought I should have done that, or I should have said this......the video is not the only way to do it or likely even the best way to do it.......you know, all of that stuff. If the video helps solve one thing for one person - then it was worth it 


My MiniDSP tuning video


----------



## bertholomey

Truthunter said:


> When using a Dirac channel per speaker - Dirac uses the default curve (I believe the wisdom curve) to calculate levels. This curve does not have enough low end output IME for a typical vehicle system. I found Dirac still defaults to this overall curve even if custom targets per driver are set that have proper relative driver levels which follow an overall final target (such as JBL or Half Whiteledge curve). So I don't use the levels a Dirac per channel config calculates when setting up for the final 2/3 channel Dirac optimization. I set levels that produce measurement that roughly follow along the final target and rough when measured before Dirac. These can be confirmed with measurement either through REW or a single measurement in Dirac. This can be taken a step further with adjusting and confirming acoustic xovers too but found that it's not really necessary to achieving very good end results.
> 
> The time delay figures show in the Dirac tab screenshot above looked to be unusually high. I found this occurs if there is a a LP filter affecting the sub channel when measuring a Dirac per channel config. Verify no LP filter is applied to the Sub channel when measuring a Dirac per channel config. Some systems use a "bass" amp that has an undefeatable LP that can effect the delays Dirac calculates even when set to it's highest frequency. In those cases, I suggest trying delays calculated by physical distance instead and comparing the final audible results... Sometimes those delays seem to produce better results.
> 
> The master volume which is set after performing a Dirac optimization will match the master volume level set in the Dirac level setting screen. Remember, the test signal Dirac uses is generated internally in the DSP post routing. So it will not signify what is optimal when using the main system source. I usually turn the master volume back up to -3db - 0db.
> 
> The sub level is similar - I found it will end up being whatever Dirac calculated for the sub channel level. I believe those two level are tied together... what ever the sub channel level is will match the "sub volume level". I actually stopped using "sub volume level" option because of this and the fact that changing it will also change the phase relationship between the sub and the rest of the drivers. Instead I just setup another preset with a target that is more bass heavy when mood/music calls for it.
> 
> As far as the driver volume levels in the "level setting" screen prior to measuring a Dirac per driver config - I found just getting them within the blue range is sufficient.
> 
> Hope this helps.



I'm so glad you stepped in here Ryan - much better explanation than what I could give  


When I do the 2 channel or 3 channel - and use the target curve I want - I don't have levels set in the plug in - I only have crossovers, EQ, Time Alignment in the plug in - from my experience, levels are 'handled' within the Dirac run.


----------



## HCWLSU101

Thanks to all of you. Between the video and the emails above I believe I have a much better understanding of how everything works. Now I just need some time tomorrow to try again.


----------



## HCWLSU101

Getting closer but still not all the way there. I may just need to tweak crossover points and the overall curve. Are most of you measuring in the driver's seat or out of the seat?


----------



## Truthunter

HCWLSU101 said:


> Getting closer but still not all the way there. I may just need to tweak crossover points and the overall curve. Are most of you measuring in the driver's seat or out of the seat?
> View attachment 291637


I see a difference in sub output between left and right.... Are there two subs with separate amp channels powering each?

I've always measured while seated in the listening position. But I know several that measure while outside the car.


----------



## HCWLSU101

Truthunter said:


> I see a difference in sub output between left and right.... Are there two subs with separate amp channels powering each?
> 
> I've always measured while seated in the listening position. But I know several that measure while outside the car.


One sub/ one amp. I saw that too yesterday. It might be because I was in the backseat and shifted a certain way that blocked the sound on one side. I am getting close but struggling on time alignment. I disabled the low pass on the sub and my values went down considerably and look better but my stage is still a little to the right. I might try measuring the distances and see how that sounds. I feel like the sub is not blending well which I think is time alignment.


----------



## squiers007

bertholomey said:


> I'm so glad you stepped in here Ryan - much better explanation than what I could give
> 
> 
> When I do the 2 channel or 3 channel - and use the target curve I want - I don't have levels set in the plug in - I only have crossovers, EQ, Time Alignment in the plug in - from my experience, levels are 'handled' within the Dirac run.
> 
> 
> View attachment 291545
> 
> 
> View attachment 291546


Wouldn't you want to set your relative gains for tweeter/mid/woofer/sub if running a 2 or 3 channel Dirac tune? With a 2/3 channel Dirac tune the levels of the individual drivers relative to one another are not being set? I know Dirac can pull down various areas to match the target curve, but I wonder if it would have less work to do if the levels of each driver were already close to the target? Similar to applying some pre-Dirac EQ?


----------



## bertholomey

squiers007 said:


> Wouldn't you want to set your relative gains for tweeter/mid/woofer/sub if running a 2 or 3 channel Dirac tune? With a 2/3 channel Dirac tune the levels of the individual drivers relative to one another are not being set? I know Dirac can pull down various areas to match the target curve, but I wonder if it would have less work to do if the levels of each driver were already close to the target? Similar to applying some pre-Dirac EQ?


You are likely wondering correctly - I used to put levels in, and then saw Dirac was manipulating things to get to the curve, so I stopped putting them in there. 

I completed a factory reset yesterday - wiped all 4 presets - starting over. I had a judge over to the house, and he pointed out some things that were wrong, and I’m pretty sure they were caused by me futzing with time alignment after Dirac. In the Plug-In, I have the TA (roughly) taken from a 7 channel run (done in the past, maybe with different crossovers, etc) - I do whatever EQ in the Plug-In, then run a 2 or 3 channel Dirac. 

The center image of the voice will be slightly off, and I would use a counting track to line the 3-way up adjusting slightly in TA. When he came over Saturday, I did this function only a few minutes before he got there (I had done 4 new Dirac runs a week or so ago). What he was hearing was weird layering of the voice.....and the stage was a little bit of a horseshoe - center far, left side closer and right side closer, but not as much. Also, the images (especially the voice) wasn’t very tight. 

All of this was verified with the same tracks on my 2 channel system. So I wiped everything, and I’m starting a new tune (with Ryan’s assistance). I completed a new 7 channel, got new TA, factory reset, plugged those TA values in, perfectly centered with only crossovers. Using REW, I’m setting relative levels between groups of speakers, and will eventually make some EQ cuts (probably using stereo EQ). Then run a 3 channel Dirac run. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HCWLSU101

I am waiting for your results. Just curious - How much will eq and crossover points effect the initial time alignment setting? Can you run the initial 7 channel Dirac run to get time alignment and then try different crossover settings or do you need to start all over? I’m sure I’m overthinking this process.



bertholomey said:


> You are likely wondering correctly - I used to put levels in, and then saw Dirac was manipulating things to get to the curve, so I stopped putting them in there.
> 
> I completed a factory reset yesterday - wiped all 4 presets - starting over. I had a judge over to the house, and he pointed out some things that were wrong, and I’m pretty sure they were caused by me futzing with time alignment after Dirac. In the Plug-In, I have the TA (roughly) taken from a 7 channel run (done in the past, maybe with different crossovers, etc) - I do whatever EQ in the Plug-In, then run a 2 or 3 channel Dirac.
> 
> The center image of the voice will be slightly off, and I would use a counting track to line the 3-way up adjusting slightly in TA. When he came over Saturday, I did this function only a few minutes before he got there (I had done 4 new Dirac runs a week or so ago). What he was hearing was weird layering of the voice.....and the stage was a little bit of a horseshoe - center far, left side closer and right side closer, but not as much. Also, the images (especially the voice) wasn’t very tight.
> 
> All of this was verified with the same tracks on my 2 channel system. So I wiped everything, and I’m starting a new tune (with Ryan’s assistance). I completed a new 7 channel, got new TA, factory reset, plugged those TA values in, perfectly centered with only crossovers. Using REW, I’m setting relative levels between groups of speakers, and will eventually make some EQ cuts (probably using stereo EQ). Then run a 3 channel Dirac run.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro




[

QUOTE="bertholomey, post: 5899813, member: 9210"]
You are likely wondering correctly - I used to put levels in, and then saw Dirac was manipulating things to get to the curve, so I stopped putting them in there. 

I completed a factory reset yesterday - wiped all 4 presets - starting over. I had a judge over to the house, and he pointed out some things that were wrong, and I’m pretty sure they were caused by me futzing with time alignment after Dirac. In the Plug-In, I have the TA (roughly) taken from a 7 channel run (done in the past, maybe with different crossovers, etc) - I do whatever EQ in the Plug-In, then run a 2 or 3 channel Dirac. 

The center image of the voice will be slightly off, and I would use a counting track to line the 3-way up adjusting slightly in TA. When he came over Saturday, I did this function only a few minutes before he got there (I had done 4 new Dirac runs a week or so ago). What he was hearing was weird layering of the voice.....and the stage was a little bit of a horseshoe - center far, left side closer and right side closer, but not as much. Also, the images (especially the voice) wasn’t very tight. 

All of this was verified with the same tracks on my 2 channel system. So I wiped everything, and I’m starting a new tune (with Ryan’s assistance). I completed a new 7 channel, got new TA, factory reset, plugged those TA values in, perfectly centered with only crossovers. Using REW, I’m setting relative levels between groups of speakers, and will eventually make some EQ cuts (probably using stereo EQ). Then run a 3 channel Dirac run. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
[/QUOTE]


----------



## bertholomey

HCWLSU101 said:


> I am waiting for your results. Just curious - How much will eq and crossover points effect the initial time alignment setting? Can you run the initial 7 channel Dirac run to get time alignment and then try different crossover settings or do you need to start all over? I’m sure I’m overthinking this process.


Well, I honestly can’t tell you......it might not affect much, or it may change everything. Like other issues......run Dirac - measure in REW......seem some weird peak on the Left Mid Range at a particular frequency.....do a little EQ in the Plug-In post Dirac - will that kill all the phasing and impulse response improvement......I’m not exactly sure. I’m pretty sure I was breaking things by adjusting TA after Dirac, but I was at a loss for getting everything to be centered without doing it. I’ll let you know how it works out when I get some more time with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HCWLSU101

bertholomey said:


> Well, I honestly can’t tell you......it might not affect much, or it may change everything. Like other issues......run Dirac - measure in REW......seem some weird peak on the Left Mid Range at a particular frequency.....do a little EQ in the Plug-In post Dirac - will that kill all the phasing and impulse response improvement......I’m not exactly sure. I’m pretty sure I was breaking things by adjusting TA after Dirac, but I was at a loss for getting everything to be centered without doing it. I’ll let you know how it works out when I get some more time with it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



When the weather gets better I’m going to experiment a little more. I may try a tune with 12db slopes also and see where that lands. If Dirac will fix the phase issues why not?


----------



## HCWLSU101

I was able to test a little today and decided to run a second order tune. Ran the time alignment first and then two channel tune. It was much better and actually sounds good. The issue I am having is the stage is biasing to the right side. I’m not sure why. I’m wondering if I should set levels before time alignment.


----------



## bertholomey

HCWLSU101 said:


> I was able to test a little today and decided to run a second order tune. Ran the time alignment first and then two channel tune. It was much better and actually sounds good. The issue I am having is the stage is biasing to the right side. I’m not sure why. I’m wondering if I should set levels before time alignment.


That is what I’m keen to see / hear when I run the 3 channel....it seems perfectly centered right now with TA (from the 7 channel - then factory reset to dump everything out of the Dirac tab), crossovers, and levels (-2, 0, -5, -3, 3, 3, 4 from left tweeter to sub).....

When I run a 2 channel or 3 channel - if the center image is slightly off - I’m NOT going to futz with the TA to get it centered. I’m going to likely put the routing / mixing tabs to 2 or 3 other Dirac channels (or do factory reset) - then pull up Dirac project and just measure the first measurement again - moving the mic either forward or back from the ‘normal’ spot. Then re-saving the project. The hope is that everything stays in phase while moving the entire stage (maybe?). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HCWLSU101

I guess I’m just not a Dirac kind of person. I simply can’t get a decent tune from the device. I am have started having ms-8 nightmares Again. I bought the unit to expedite my tuning process and so far I’ve spent hours of my time to no avail.


----------



## naiku

Are you still having an issue with your stage pulling to one side? If so, try moving your initial microphone position back a little. If you have it too far forward, Dirac will add delay/lower levels on the left speakers causing your stage to shift right. Give that a try and see if it makes a difference, you only need to move it a short distance (this assuming that your stage is only shifted slightly right). 

I have not set up a tune on mine in months, so I can't remember for sure, but I think I did set levels initially using REW. 

No need to have MS8 nightmares, I had an MS8, no nightmares and no problems with it. 

If you end up deciding you really don't like Dirac and want to sell your DSP, let me know.


----------



## dumdum

HCWLSU101 said:


> I was able to test a little today and decided to run a second order tune. Ran the time alignment first and then two channel tune. It was much better and actually sounds good. The issue I am having is the stage is biasing to the right side. I’m not sure why. I’m wondering if I should set levels before time alignment.


Probably reflections moving the perceived location of one or more drivers to the right of there actual position, where you put drivers isn’t nesc the boundary’s of the stage, for example my left driver the stage is 6-8” inside the driver, and the right driver is 2-3” outside the driver, so the centre is approx 4-5” off centre but it is exactly between stage left and stage right, most people don’t even notice this until someone shows them with technical tracks 👍🏼


----------



## squiers007

dumdum said:


> Probably reflections moving the perceived location of one or more drivers to the right of there actual position, where you put drivers isn’t nesc the boundary’s of the stage, for example my left driver the stage is 6-8” inside the driver, and the right driver is 2-3” outside the driver, so the centre is approx 4-5” off centre but it is exactly between stage left and stage right, most people don’t even notice this until someone shows them with technical tracks 👍🏼


So are you saying that the center position is technically correct in this example? Or should you try to pull it back to the physical center of the vehicle somehow?


----------



## dumdum

squiers007 said:


> So are you saying that the center position is technically correct in this example? Or should you try to pull it back to the physical center of the vehicle somehow?


I am saying it doesn’t always end up at the centre point of the vehicle due to reflections, play a left/right/centre track and it will soon show up where left, right and centre are, first do it with tweeters only, then mids only, then midbass only, normally it’s very rare for the passenger side to be at the speaker, especially if cross firing, and it’s also fairly normal for the drivers side to be outside the drivers location with side window reflections also


----------



## dumdum

If you use levels to artificially make it the centre of the vehicle then you will squash one side or the other of the stage and make it uneven


----------



## squiers007

dumdum said:


> I am saying it doesn’t always end up at the centre point of the vehicle due to reflections, play a left/right/centre track and it will soon show up where left, right and centre are, first do it with tweeters only, then mids only, then midbass only, normally it’s very rare for the passenger side to be at the speaker, especially if cross firing, and it’s also fairly normal for the drivers side to be outside the drivers location with side window reflections also


Right, this part makes sense to me. 



dumdum said:


> If you use levels to artificially make it the centre of the vehicle then you will squash one side or the other of the stage and make it uneven


So if I understand you correctly you are stating that due to the perceived locations of the left and right stage the perceived center may not be located at the physical center of the vehicle and that an attempt to make these two positions match would mess with your overall imaging (stage width, depth, etc.)

If my above statement is correct, then if you were to be judged on a setup like this would you lose points for the center image not being "centered" in the vehicle? And if so how do you correc this? Thanks for your replies btw @dumdum


----------



## dumdum

squiers007 said:


> Right, this part makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> So if I understand you correctly you are stating that due to the perceived locations of the left and right stage the perceived center may not be located at the physical center of the vehicle and that an attempt to make these two positions match would mess with your overall imaging (stage width, depth, etc.)
> 
> If my above statement is correct, then if you were to be judged on a setup like this would you lose points for the center image not being "centered" in the vehicle? And if so how do you correc this? Thanks for your replies btw @dumdum


That is correct, it is very hard to consistently get an image bigger than the speakers on both sides

I compete in Emma and you get an amount of points per side, and also you get marked on the spacing of left, right, centre, left centre, right centre the left be right also give marks as per the pic attached for width











http://www.emmanet.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018EMMASQJudge-book-V2018.3.pdf



This is the link to the current judge book and how it’s scored

generally to open the soundstage up you will move the drivers towards you in the cabin, this has more effect on the passenger side which is generally more problematic, you may then lose a point or two for depth to the sound stage, it’s a big balance, it’s very hard, nigh on impossible to get full marks for width, depth to stage and depth of stage, height is easier as it’s just getting everything in phase even if the drivers are chest height in my case, the stage presents as being in front of the ears/eyes

I hope this explains somewhat


----------



## dumdum

In my car I’m likely a 5.5 on the passenger side, and a 6.5 on the driver side

the centre is 4” ish to the right of centre, I can move the passenger side drivers a touch and gain a bit of width, but then I lose a mark on depth, but the centre is more in the physical centre of the car due to both sides being a 6.5, it makes no odds where the centre is as long as it’s equally centred between left and right for the l/r/c/lc/rc test, where all the sounds must come from each location in a stack so to speak... the bell is a pain in the arse if you ever get to listen to an Emma cd


----------



## bertholomey

dumdum said:


> In my car I’m likely a 5.5 on the passenger side, and a 6.5 on the driver side
> 
> the centre is 4” ish to the right of centre, I can move the passenger side drivers a touch and gain a bit of width, but then I lose a mark on depth, but the centre is more in the physical centre of the car due to both sides being a 6.5, it makes no odds where the centre is as long as it’s equally centred between left and right for the l/r/c/lc/rc test, where all the sounds must come from each location in a stack so to speak... the bell is a pain in the arse if you ever get to listen to an Emma cd


I have to listen to those staging tones again in my set up.......my ears / mind sometimes plays tricks on me with those tones - even in the two channel, sometimes they don’t stack up. Very good tools though, and I like the EMMA scoresheet for staging. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## HCWLSU101

dumdum said:


> Probably reflections moving the perceived location of one or more drivers to the right of there actual position, where you put drivers isn’t nesc the boundary’s of the stage, for example my left driver the stage is 6-8” inside the driver, and the right driver is 2-3” outside the driver, so the centre is approx 4-5” off centre but it is exactly between stage left and stage right, most people don’t even notice this until someone shows them with technical tracks 👍🏼



I started leaning this direction last night after several sessions in the truck. I believe it may be my tweeters throwing everything off and causing the stage to shift. I also believe they may be causing some harshness. They are located in the A-pillars as shown in the picture below (Red Circle):











In this location they are aimed at an angle toward the glass which causes the reflection to end up somewhere near the center of the window. It's great if you want a centered image with no time alignment on the tweeters. The left side is also more off axis than the right side. I may try to move them to the a-pillars as shown above to see what changes. I have some extra tweeters I could stick there to try out. I also believe it may help greatly with widening the stage.


----------



## squiers007

I'm confused. You mentioned that your tweeters are in the pillar "circled in red", but there are tweeters in the sails circled in Green? Is this not a picture of your setup and just a reference?


----------



## HCWLSU101

Typing while doing something else... I meant to say relocate them to the sail panels - picture in green. This is someone else’s truck for reference.





squiers007 said:


> I'm confused. You mentioned that your tweeters are in the pillar "circled in red", but there are tweeters in the sails circled in Green? Is this not a picture of your setup and just a reference?


----------



## thehatedguy

Jason,

Mark told me I should look into one of these after hearing what they did for your car.


----------



## bertholomey

thehatedguy said:


> Jason,
> 
> Mark told me I should look into one of these after hearing what they did for your car.


Yes sir - I think you would have a good time with it J.......I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts if you had a chance to work with it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## thehatedguy

Mark loved it...he said a lot of great things about your car and the Dirac too.


----------



## bertholomey

thehatedguy said:


> Mark loved it...he said a lot of great things about your car and the Dirac too.


You will need to come to Greensboro in May when we have another Spring meet  There will be several cars with the MiniDSP. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## squiers007

bertholomey said:


> You will need to come to Greensboro in May when we have another Spring meet  There will be several cars with the MiniDSP.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm going to have to try and make it down for this. I'm up near Lynchburg so it would be a short drive. Hopefully I'll have my install done and dialed in by then.


----------



## HCWLSU101

HCWLSU101 said:


> I guess I’m just not a Dirac kind of person. I simply can’t get a decent tune from the device. I am have started having ms-8 nightmares Again. I bought the unit to expedite my tuning process and so far I’ve spent hours of my time to no avail.



So I decided this weekend to adjust time alignment with measurements and tones and then perform some EQ and acoustic crossover alignment prior to running Dirac. I have everything adjusted via EQ and timing and the stage is dead center and the stage is wide. I'm not sure why I cant get close to the same with time alignment via Dirac, but the stage is always far right. I tried moving the mic back further, etc. and the result was always the same. This is were I landed (I did not add in the sub). 










I am hoping someone can assist with where to measure during Dirac. Should I follow the directions and placement on the screen or is there a better method? Thanks for any help.


----------



## Jscoyne2

HCWLSU101 said:


> So I decided this weekend to adjust time alignment with measurements and tones and then perform some EQ and acoustic crossover alignment prior to running Dirac. I have everything adjusted via EQ and timing and the stage is dead center and the stage is wide. I'm not sure why I cant get close to the same with time alignment via Dirac, but the stage is always far right. I tried moving the mic back further, etc. and the result was always the same. This is were I landed (I did not add in the sub).
> 
> View attachment 292423
> 
> 
> I am hoping someone can assist with where to measure during Dirac. Should I follow the directions and placement on the screen or is there a better method? Thanks for any help.


Follow the directions. Try moving the initial first measurement(center) 6-12in to the right or left. See if that helps with stage move or not. 

Also what are you using to check where the stage is? Music? Or some kind of tone? Or?

Otherwise. After Dirac is done. Try changing the t/a on the driver's just a tad. Might be able to get what you want.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## naiku

I know @Mashburn has issues with his being shifted right, not sure what the fix was though, he might chime in here though. 

I ran a new tune on Saturday, with levels all at zero, no PEQ and no TA, felt counterintuitive to set everything at zero. But, the result is a strong center and a lot more impact than I had previously, my midbass measured below the curve some, but the mids and tweeters were at the curve, so I may tweak things to try again as I am not sure if Dirac boosted the midbass to meet the curve, it sounds good though. The low end is putting a grin on my face.


----------



## Kalvins

HCWLSU101 said:


> So I decided this weekend to adjust time alignment with measurements and tones and then perform some EQ and acoustic crossover alignment prior to running Dirac. I have everything adjusted via EQ and timing and the stage is dead center and the stage is wide. I'm not sure why I cant get close to the same with time alignment via Dirac, but the stage is always far right. I tried moving the mic back further, etc. and the result was always the same. This is were I landed (I did not add in the sub).
> 
> View attachment 292423
> 
> 
> I am hoping someone can assist with where to measure during Dirac. Should I follow the directions and placement on the screen or is there a better method? Thanks for any help.


Sorry if this has bin written hier before.
I had the same problem with my setup, that stage was moved to the right, i also had bass issues. Initially i did my setup as ErinH described, with that i had all of the issues written above. Recently i run 5 channel Dirac just for TA (i have 2way active Front and Sub), but what i did different is i didnt set any crossover for Sub, for woofer only low pass and for tweeter high pass. It came out with totally difrent TA numbers compared with running 5ch Dirac with all crossovers set. After this i run 2ch Dirac with crossovers and TA in place, but NO speaker levels set. This was it for me. I had perfect Center image and awesome Base!!! I hope this helps someone...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HCWLSU101

This is interesting. I may try a time alignment with limited crossovers to only protect the drivers and see what results I get. I need to get out there this afternoon and run a Dirac session with the tune above to see what results I get. I am concerned that since it can't apply time alignment correctly that it may also have issues with all other aspects of Dirac...


----------



## HCWLSU101

Does anyone know how to import a house curve. I looked to see if they were stored anywhere in the program directory and couldn’t find anything. I am assuming they have to be in a certain format?


----------



## Jscoyne2

HCWLSU101 said:


> Does anyone know how to import a house curve. I looked to see if they were stored anywhere in the program directory and couldn’t find anything. I am assuming they have to be in a certain format?


I made a tutorial that sorta covers this way back when it first came out on v1 of Dirac. So idk if this is still applicable but maybe it'll help.



http://imgur.com/a/gXameY7


Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## HCWLSU101

I believe 2.0 may be different. It keeps giving me a not in expected format error


----------



## Kalvins

HCWLSU101 said:


> I believe 2.0 may be different. It keeps giving me a not in expected format error


First go to save target curve in dirac app. Then open saved target curve with notepad. Edit numbers or paste from a nother target file. Then load newly edit target file to dirac


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HCWLSU101

Thanks!


----------



## HCWLSU101

Thanks!


----------



## HCWLSU101

Anyone found anything interesting lately while tuning?


----------



## oabeieo

HCWLSU101 said:


> Anyone found anything interesting lately while tuning?


Just music bliss....


----------



## captainobvious

Have you guys found that you have more than enough volume with this dsp or is the 4.5v output leaving you running out of volume?


----------



## naiku

Plenty of volume here, I've not turned the head unit up much past about 80% and that's been more than enough for me.


----------



## Truthunter

Same here - plenty of volume even with all amp channels at minimum gain - though I'm using some old dinosaur amps that don't require much input voltage. 

I found this to be strange question... With proper gain structure isn't it a moot point?


----------



## oabeieo

captainobvious said:


> Have you guys found that you have more than enough volume with this dsp or is the 4.5v output leaving you running out of volume?


this unit has plenty of output

Your doing too many cuts or levels aren’t right and netting low signal as result.... I went through the same thing trying to achieve the ultimate in clean sound just to later realize it was a speaker issue (echoing reflections) that was the cause...I kept lowering my target lower and lower and cutting outputs trying to get rid of some nasties... (harshness in midrange and boomy crossover between sub and midbass) 

ypu could try using complimentary quadratic crossovers for highly reflective environment , an odd order butt will net a 0db sum and fix the power response. (No peaking and flat magnitude) and they also have “phase tracking” characteristics like a LR except the sum is 90deg , however the sum will be in phase.


----------



## oabeieo

I would give it a try

The net result should be a all pass with a Q of 1 (N+1)


----------



## bertholomey

I would agree with the above that if everything is set up correctly, the unit can provide adequate output even when an iPhone is a source. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## captainobvious

Truthunter said:


> Same here - plenty of volume even with all amp channels at minimum gain - though I'm using some old dinosaur amps that don't require much input voltage.
> 
> I found this to be strange question... With proper gain structure isn't it a moot point?


Primarily asked because not all 4v (rated) outputs are created equal  Some may claim a certain amount but it may exist only under certain conditions (channel gain maxed, X amount of input voltage, EQ boost, etc.) But yes, 4v _should_ be enough to drive most modern car audio amps to clipping....



Lastly- Is everyone still finding best results by doing 2 channel corrections instead of multichannel (individual speaker) corrections?


----------



## captainobvious

oabeieo said:


> this unit has plenty of output
> 
> Your doing too many cuts or levels aren’t right and netting low signal as result.... I went through the same thing trying to achieve the ultimate in clean sound just to later realize it was a speaker issue (echoing reflections) that was the cause...I kept lowering my target lower and lower and cutting outputs trying to get rid of some nasties... (harshness in midrange and boomy crossover between sub and midbass)
> 
> ypu could try using complimentary quadratic crossovers for highly reflective environment , an odd order butt will net a 0db sum and fix the power response. (No peaking and flat magnitude) and they also have “phase tracking” characteristics like a LR except the sum is 90deg , however the sum will be in phase.


I don't have/use one of these currently, probing for experiences is all


----------



## naiku

captainobvious said:


> Lastly- Is everyone still finding best results by doing 2 channel corrections instead of multichannel (individual speaker) corrections?


Yep, I tried a 3 channel a few times, but think for now I have settled on a 2 (at least I am 99% sure it is a 2 and not 3).... but, I am debating trying a 7 channel again at some point soon. Primarily because the tune I am running I did not set TA or levels, but let the DSP handle it all and I've been really happy with the result. Since I have 3 spare presets, I was debating trying to find time to do a similar thing but with individual speakers.


----------



## Truthunter

The best result I've experienced so far has still been 2ch. I've tried a couple of 3ch and they were close... I would like to experiment more with 3ch. In theory, a strategically configured 3ch should make it easier to deal with the typical one seat tune challenge of ~80hz pull to the driver's door.


----------



## oabeieo

captainobvious said:


> I don't have/use one of these currently, probing for experiences is all



Ooh okay well even with IIr and non DL it still stands 



Truthunter said:


> The best result I've experienced so far has still been 2ch. I've tried a couple of 3ch and they were close... I would like to experiment more with 3ch. In theory, a strategically configured 3ch should make it easier to deal with the typical one seat tune challenge of ~80hz pull to the driver's door.



Try 48 db slopes at 90hz of above that dip let the sub fill it in but you’ll need steeper slopes it pull it off (with 2ch tune for sure ;-) )


----------



## DirtyBumOak510

Hello everyone.

I've run DiracLive and taken new measurements about 15 times. I've changed the depth on my horns a few times, installed a new subwoofer, and also was just trying to learn the software and measurements. In my house it was super strait forward, however in the car I consistently keep getting a few quirks. The tunes sound great after a little adjustment (5-10 minutes), but I'm trying to figure out if I'm doing anything wrong that is causing these consistent quirks. 

The two main things that I'm running into is that ...

1. Image skewed right.
I'll run DL with a Dirac channel for each speaker in order to get TA values etc. (D1 = left horn, D2= Right horn, D3= Left MB, D4 = Right MB, D5 = Subwoofer) Originally I heard people saying take the "one" measurement, but recently I've decided to take all the measurements , partially just to confirm that I have a solid center image and to see if my original measurement is what is causing the issue. When running a Dirac Channel on each speaker, I have a f***** perfect center image. I'd dare to say that I wouldn't move it an inch. The seven drum tracks are all evenly spaced. Far left and Far right are really wide. The "three voices" from IASCA are crisp and clear and in their appropriate locations. Everything seems right. BUT! ....
As soon as I put it on 3 Stereo Dirac channels (D1 Left horn + midbass, D2 - Right horn + midbass, D3= Subwoofer) - on the DL screen, it always wants to make a cut to my left side, which pulls my image to the right. Typically it pulls it so that it is directly under my rear view mirror, a little to the left of my passengers sails. Every time I can remember using the Stereo 3-channel setting, it always makes a cut on the left side and pulls everything right.

2. Mid-bass/Midrange is low
I use HLCDs starting at 800hz, everything above that is pretty damn close to dialed in, everytime. I have to make a few small tweaks on my DL Target curve to adjust 3khz+ but its not huge. My subwoofer is predictable and typically matches the curve pretty well. But my midbass (80hz-800hz) are almost always about 3-6db low. It's enough that I almost always want to give them a boost on the "output" tabs, but I also don't want to do that because I assume it will affect what DL is doing. My recent method is to adjust the target curve accordingly to bump up the 80-800hz accordingly.

I'm fine with having to tweak it, as it really only takes about 10 extra minutes. I did 4 completely different presets, with different curves, crossovers, etc last night within an hour, and got everything to hit my target curves. I'm super pleased with the software, but I'm trying to figure out how to get more consistently accurate results.

A few things I know that could be throwing off some of my results.

A. DL uses sweeps and 9 point location. I'm using REW with Pink Noise and the Moving Mic method. I'm hitting (approximately) the same box with my moving mic that DL asks for in its 9 point measurements. Typically I'm taking a ~ 30 second measurement with figure 8's around my ears and nose, while bobbing and weaving a little bit to make my box a little bigger. 
B. I'm a dumbass and often realize that the next day. The first few times I used DL I didn't bother reading what measurements it was asking for, so I just based it off the picture, so I was taking Left Upper measurements instead of Right Upper. My image wasn't so good on those ones ....
C. I take all my measurements, both in REW and DL, while I'm in the driver's seat. 
D. I've never been to a competition or even really listened to anyone else's car, so sometimes I'm limited to what I understand as reality as opposed to what is reality.

I'll attach a few REW images to show the amplitude problems. One shows the low midbass SPL that is post DL correction, the second shows what it looks like once I've fixed it by using the house curve in DL. I'm also attaching my soundstage issue. Again, when using a DL channel on each driver, I get a good center stage, but as soon as I use the DL Stereo (L + R + Sub) It skews right - DL shows that it cuts the left side by ~1db on the current measurement.


----------



## Petererc

Try routing ( mixer tab) sub to D1 and D2.
My guess Dirac is cutting the right side because the sub is making it hotter than the left


----------



## DirtyBumOak510

Petererc said:


> Try routing ( mixer tab) sub to D1 and D2.
> My guess Dirac is cutting the right side because the sub is making it hotter than the left


I'll try that. Currently, I have the sub going to bass management on its own Dirac channel. It's actually the opposite of what you stated in terms of L and R. DL keeps cutting the left when I run Stereo Dirac channels (L + R + Sub). It attenuates the Left channels (Dirac 1) which pulls the center to the right. The subwoofer is on the Right side of the car (albeit only off center by about 12"). 
Last time it happened I "fixed" it by changing the output tabs to pull the image back to center. I don't want to change TA, Output levels, etc after Dirac has already done its thing. I assume that is changing what DL was fixing. I am working under the assumption that it's better to adjust the House Curve rather than changing TA and output levels on the Output tab. I know that Andy OAB and a few others said that they adjusted the TA levels or output levels but as ErinH said ... I think this is then warping what DL is doing in terms of its magic sprinkles.


----------



## Petererc

reading comprehension has never been my strong point. I re read what you posted and there it was plain as day.
i have no experience using bass management. Was looking in the manual at it yesterday, then just went for the two channel tune. Still amazes me how good Diac makes it. I did like you run separate channels for TA and plug in those numbers for two channel. I let Dirac do everything else. i have level matched to the curve with REW in the past, can’t prove it’s better or worse. 
A suggestion would be to try a two channel tune without bass management


----------



## doeboy

Well I debated on keeping the MS8 and putting it in. I am pretty limited in space and wanted a good reason to upgrade plus something a bit smaller. Don't have the Dirac license yet and wanted to play around with REW and the UMIK-1.


----------



## rockinridgeline

DirtyBumOak510 said:


> I'll try that. Currently, I have the sub going to bass management on its own Dirac channel. It's actually the opposite of what you stated in terms of L and R. DL keeps cutting the left when I run Stereo Dirac channels (L + R + Sub). It attenuates the Left channels (Dirac 1) which pulls the center to the right. The subwoofer is on the Right side of the car (albeit only off center by about 12").
> Last time it happened I "fixed" it by changing the output tabs to pull the image back to center. I don't want to change TA, Output levels, etc after Dirac has already done its thing. I assume that is changing what DL was fixing. I am working under the assumption that it's better to adjust the House Curve rather than changing TA and output levels on the Output tab. I know that Andy OAB and a few others said that they adjusted the TA levels or output levels but as ErinH said ... I think this is then warping what DL is doing in terms of its magic sprinkles.


 Just noticed your post. I've been using the mindsp for a while. I've had mixed results with Dirac. I've competed with dirac on once but the other times I wasn't happy with what it was doing in the midbass.

You didn't mention or post anything about your target curves when using Dirac live. If you are using half whitledge and you are using Dirac live 3 channel. you will have to create target curves for DL for the L ch minus sub, R ch minus sub, and then sub. It would be helpful to see screen shots of what DL is showing as measurements to be compared to your REW measurement.

One other thing to note, if you have a cancellation like you noted with your midbass, when you draw the DL curve, you need to draw the curve into the null. Otherwise DL is going to try to fix that null, which it can't. No tuning can, because it is a null. LMK if this all makes sense.


----------



## DirtyBumOak510

rockinridgeline said:


> Just noticed your post.


Ridgeline - Thanks for the response. My bad it took me a while to get back to you. I'll try and take some REW shots next time I do it. I've done a few re-tunes because I swapped out some speakers and changed a few things around. I'm doing a big final tune in the next few weeks to get 3 presets nailed so that I can ride around for a few months and take notes now that I have my final (for now) speakers installed. 

The one thing I have noticed is that everytime I run DL I have a super wide soundstage, awesome imaging, my right side soundstage wraps around to almost the middle of the passenger seat door ... but my center is always a tiny bit right of where it should be. I have to experiment with setting new levels to avoid any cuts, so while I'm doing that I figured I would play around with maybe taking my measurements 3 inches to the left, or 3 inches to the right. The one thing I noticed is that if I move my head side to side, I can change where the center image is coming from. So maybe thats it ...

I'll post some shots and thoughts after I do my next big chune


----------



## Truthunter

DirtyBumOak510 said:


> ... my right side soundstage wraps around to almost the middle of the passenger seat door ... but my center is always a tiny bit right of where it should be.


The limit of the right side stage is almost to the middle of the passenger window. How about the left side?

The center will be in the "center" of the left & right stage limits. Sometimes that doesn't end up being visually centered on the dash. It happens in a lot of cars and it's not acceptable to most.

Trying different mic positions is an option. But an easy quick way to adjust is just reducing level of the side it's pulling to. I will do it in the routing tab because it will affect the entire side with one adjustment. And it usually only needs very little - most the time an adjustment of -0.5db or less is enough.

Hope this helps


----------



## DirtyBumOak510

Truthunter said:


> The limit of the right side stage is almost to the middle of the passenger window. How about the left side?
> 
> The center will be in the "center" of the left & right stage limits. Sometimes that doesn't end up being visually centered on the dash. It happens in a lot of cars and it's not acceptable to most.
> 
> Trying different mic positions is an option. But an easy quick way to adjust is just reducing level of the side it's pulling to. I will do it in the routing tab because it will affect the entire side with one adjustment. And it usually only needs very little - most the time an adjustment of -0.5db or less is enough.
> 
> Hope this helps


1. Stage Width
Far left is almost at the glass under my A pillar. Far right is the door handle of my passenger seat. Far right is REALLY far right. It sounds kind of badass in terms of how far right it goes. The center doesn't bug me tremendously, as there is still great differentiation of placement on stage. My big BUT with that however is that since we sit on the far left, if anything I'd rather my stage be skewed left so that center was more in front of me. I definitely wouldn't tune it so that center was where my steering wheel is, but I think I'd like it to be more centered.

2. Pull Left using Routing Tab
Previous to DL I would have adjusted center with adjusting the amplitude of left vs right. Does this change not affect phase? I know that Time (TA) affects phase ... I'm realizing now that maybe I had lumped them together as affecting phase and so I figured I'd let DL do the heavy lifting.


----------



## Truthunter

DirtyBumOak510 said:


> 2. Pull Left using Routing Tab
> Previous to DL I would have adjusted center with adjusting the amplitude of left vs right. Does this change not affect phase? I know that Time (TA) affects phase ... I'm realizing now that maybe I had lumped them together as affecting phase and so I figured I'd let DL do the heavy lifting.


Adjusting level of a singe driver will change the phase relationship between it and another driver that it is xover'd to. But adjusting amplitude of an entire side does not change the phase of the side being adjusted or it's phase relationship to the other side. So considering that, using a 3rd Dirac channel for the sub takes some extra consideration...

For a configuration using a 3rd Dirac channel for the sub:
If routing L/R to the 3rd Dirac channel in the routing tab - Reduce level of the side it's pulling to equally in both that side Dirac channel and that side of the Sub's Dirac channel.
If using Bass Management in the Input tab to do so - Reduce level equally of the side it's pulling to in the routing tab and the same side in the Input tab feeding Bass Management.

Hope that makes sense. If not, I can post some screen shots.


----------



## oabeieo

Truthunter said:


> The limit of the right side stage is almost to the middle of the passenger window. How about the left side?
> 
> The center will be in the "center" of the left & right stage limits. Sometimes that doesn't end up being visually centered on the dash. It happens in a lot of cars and it's not acceptable to most.
> 
> Trying different mic positions is an option. But an easy quick way to adjust is just reducing level of the side it's pulling to. I will do it in the routing tab because it will affect the entire side with one adjustment. And it usually only needs very little - most the time an adjustment of -0.5db or less is enough.
> 
> Hope this helps


I agree with this 

Just turning down that entire side retains impulse shape, using TA wil destroy the calibration...... and the all pass applied in the calibration sometimes make the TA work backwards for a few frequencies...

Meaning, if stage is too far to the left adding TA to the left may make it sound fuzzy but adding TA to the right brings it center.... which only sorta works to +/- .3ms however simply turning down the side that’s too loud would be the proper way to solve it....

I’ve noticed in some cars the center is a bit diffuse on some songs amd nailed down on others .... that means to me that recording and your specific car and all the hundreds of variables makes it correct for that recording 

As long as the relative polarity track works properly on the iasca disk it passes my ears test ....


----------



## oabeieo

DirtyBumOak510 said:


> 1. Stage Width
> Far left is almost at the glass under my A pillar. Far right is the door handle of my passenger seat. Far right is REALLY far right. It sounds kind of badass in terms of how far right it goes. The center doesn't bug me tremendously, as there is still great differentiation of placement on stage. My big BUT with that however is that since we sit on the far left, if anything I'd rather my stage be skewed left so that center was more in front of me. I definitely wouldn't tune it so that center was where my steering wheel is, but I think I'd like it to be more centered.
> 
> 2. Pull Left using Routing Tab
> Previous to DL I would have adjusted center with adjusting the amplitude of left vs right. Does this change not affect phase? I know that Time (TA) affects phase ... I'm realizing now that maybe I had lumped them together as affecting phase and so I figured I'd let DL do the heavy lifting.



The problem with that is the acoustic origin is off set and no time aligning or phase shifting can “fix” without detrimental issues to the sound field and having instruments placed correctly. 

The sound should come from between the speakers, so the center of car.

It’s subjective, so do as you will, I would just get used to the stage being farther to the right , because the speaker is actually farther to the right..... I used to think like you so I sympathize with this a lot. Once I could start to see the dash board as the “stage” and my seats for the show are always left of center.... the vocalist is singing in the center.... I am not in the center..... as long as the vocalist is where they would be in a real life situation and my car is the arena and I’m on the left I got used to it and now I can hear the stage correctly 

I can predict amd prove any sound track where placement is known in any SQ recording. That’s really cool and 99% of the time my regular music sounds better 

If you want a more immersive sound add some rears and shape them properly.... that should get you that headphone like immersion with a front image 

I like immersive headphone effect with a Proper front stage simultaneously... that’s really cool also ..... but after a few tracks the rears bug me and aren’t a faithful interpretation


----------



## squiers007

Thought some of you might be interested to see where I ended up mounting my OLED remote, plus this thread needed a bump anyway! Had to do a little bit of cutting on the backside of this coin holder, but overall the fit is pretty good, I can reach it without having to lean over, the drawer still closes so I can hide it if needed, and as a bonus I can see it through the cutout in my steering wheel without having to move my head. Hope everyone is still loving there Dirac setup!


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

How does PEQ applied based on near field speaker measurements then running Dirac, vs PEQ applied based on moving mic averages at listening position affect the outcome?

Should we be doing both?

If we set electrical crossovers eq near field, wouldn't we want to still adjust them so the acoustical crossover at the listening position is correct? I'm aiming for 24db/octave acoustically for phase, unless Dirac will just fix it.

How does pre tuning to a target curve mix into this?

Some say to eq the driver near field first then let Dirac do the rest. Eq the speaker, and let Dirac fix the room.

Also something to add. If you have a car with a factory eq curve that can't be defeated, just loop the outputs to a set of inputs, run the outputs via rca to your calibrated sound card, use REW auto eq to flatten the response then paste the biquad into your outputs of the channels before the loop. 

Thanks for all of the info so far!


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> How does PEQ applied based on near field speaker measurements then running Dirac, vs PEQ applied based on moving mic averages at listening position affect the outcome?
> 
> Should we be doing both?
> 
> If we set electrical crossovers eq near field, wouldn't we want to still adjust them so the acoustical crossover at the listening position is correct? I'm aiming for 24db/octave acoustically for phase, unless Dirac will just fix it.
> 
> How does pre tuning to a target curve mix into this?
> 
> Some say to eq the driver near field first then let Dirac do the rest. Eq the speaker, and let Dirac fix the room.
> 
> Also something to add. If you have a car with a factory eq curve that can't be defeated, just loop the outputs to a set of inputs, run the outputs via rca to your calibrated sound card, use REW auto eq to flatten the response then paste the biquad into your outputs of the channels before the loop.
> 
> Thanks for all of the info so far!


use peq close measurements, only knock down big peaks in the crossover... that’s it

You just really want the crossovers to have a smooth shape in down , and not be too picky about getting it so exactly smooth, it already should be mostly smooth on all the drivers except maybe the tweeter or midrange 

the reason is you want the crossovers to sum the best they can.

any changes you make to the audio signal literally stretches the entire time domain, and the lower frequencies are the most movement. If you play the same amount of EQ on the same bands in the same Qs to all of the speakers to equally they will all have the same time shift. So you will not be able to hear or detect a change in time.

you are only sensitive to face changes if there’s more than one speaker, and they have slightly different phase responses. Otherwise you can’t hear the changes.

Dirac will surly still make it sound good with lots of eq on each output.... but it will sound sterile and lack liveliness. Over processed.

being your working with sums, only change what you want to shape.... use crossovers first tho

As far as your factory dsp , just leave it, let Dirac handle the room correction amd the un-doing of any time alignment or all passes with its calibration..... it will be destructive to the signal to try and “fix” it first, just to go and put most of it back the way it was. (As the factory dsp probably didn’t sound too bad and was made for the room also) work your gain structure around the factory signal, leaving it on tact...


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

The reason for doing eq on the factory signal was that Dirac live doesn't send it's signal through the radio. It's signal comes from the minidsp and it won't see what's happening. The factory eq had huge swings and a 80hz high pass filter.


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> The reason for doing eq on the factory signal was that Dirac live doesn't send it's signal through the radio. It's signal comes from the minidsp and it won't see what's happening. The factory eq had huge swings and a 80hz high pass filter.


you can try it but I would be willing to bet it sells better leaving the factory signal as is, and then building off of that

it it has an 80hzHp you can’t boost the lows to try n get lows ... it will sound awful


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> The reason for doing eq on the factory signal was that Dirac live doesn't send it's signal through the radio. It's signal comes from the minidsp and it won't see what's happening. The factory eq had huge swings and a 80hz high pass filter.


OK I am understanding what you’re saying now....

use a different source first and foremost

But if you just can’t, i’ve never done this so I don’t know if it works but do you think it would be possible to get two channels from your mini DSP outputs and run them to the aux in on your deck, and send those to two direc channels.... 

I am not sure what the game structure would look like or how that would all come together or if it would even work, you need a different source.... 

What kind of car is it


----------



## squiers007

oabeieo said:


> OK I am understanding what you’re saying now....
> 
> use a different source first and foremost
> 
> But if you just can’t, i’ve never done this so I don’t know if it works but do you think it would be possible to get two channels from your mini DSP outputs and run them to the aux in on your deck, and send those to two direc channels....
> 
> I am not sure what the game structure would look like or how that would all come together or if it would even work, you need a different source....
> 
> What kind of car is it


The other option (though costly) would be to pickup a 2x4 HD and use the output from that as the input to the 8x12

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## oabeieo

he needs to get his summing issues and try and do away with that ****

Maybe just pick up the rear signal if it’s full range for the rear speakers and maybe the factory sub, put a little speaker under the dash for navigation guidance and Bluetooth phone calls


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

It's a 10th gen Accord EX. Using rew I found the high pass is more like 50hz LR 12. This is using the front speaker signals from a t harness.


















Above is the before and after using REW auto EQ. It ended up tilting the high end slightly but Its close enough for now, I didn't calibrate the soundcard.

Ignore the level difference, I didn't set the deck to the same volume. The auto eq biquad is mostly cuts.

I pasted the biquad on the outputs of my first set of inputs and looped it back to unused inputs.

I do not have an aux input. Only USB input.

Dirac should make a way to play a file through your source and we wouldn't have to waste inputs and outputs to do input EQ.


----------



## oabeieo

ExplsvCookie257 said:


> It's a 10th gen Accord EX. Using rew I found the high pass is more like 50hz LR 12. This is using the front speaker signals from a t harness.
> 
> View attachment 312319
> 
> View attachment 312320
> 
> 
> Above is the before and after using REW auto EQ. It ended up tilting the high end slightly but Its close enough for now, I didn't calibrate the soundcard.
> 
> I pasted the biquad on the outputs of my first set of inputs and looped it back to unused inputs.
> 
> I do not have an aux input. Only USB input.
> 
> Dirac should make a way to play a file through your source and we wouldn't have to waste inputs and outputs to do input EQ.


if it were only that easy it has to calculate The impulse that it’s putting to the speakers down to the sample. So a external noise source would not work

but I hear what you’re saying

so you have eight channels of input,
Can you put the factory sub on one, and do the fronts, add a minimum on the rest of the seven channels of input?

just use the factory filters as your crossovers! I try and do that every chance I get when I have to go post amp integration into the Dsp.

I would be desperately looking online for an amp pro or a Zen module, or I would be using the factory low level inputs. and just not have volume on the steering wheel or on the radio (if it is volume over data) and just use the DSP remote as a master volume. And then add a sub a bass knob somewhere else..

I would never sacrifice that amount of sound quality just because I want to press the volume button on my steering wheel


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

I do not have a factory sub just front and rear channels rear is much softer, I will have to check if it is full range but I believe it's not.

How would eq on the factory signal effect impulse if I'm measuring the pink noise signal it's self before the speaker and amps? 

These are not microphone measurements they are measured on the rca outputs of the dsp.


----------



## datooff

Hi, guys. Maybe someone had this problem too. I'm using input 7&8 from coax. But my right side (outputs 2 and 4 / tweets and midbasses) are louder than the closer side (it's visible on the output tab). What am I doing wrong? (they have separate amps/ tried inverting the polarity) Thank you.


----------



## Anu2g

datooff said:


> Hi, guys. Maybe someone had this problem too. I'm using input 7&8 from coax. But my right side (outputs 2 and 4 / tweets and midbasses) are louder than the closer side (it's visible on the output tab). What am I doing wrong? (they have separate amps/ tried inverting the polarity) Thank you.


Is that after a Dirac calibration? Check out the Dirac tab in the C-DSP software (note: you'll only be able to look at that with your computer plugged into the DSP)


----------



## datooff

Anu2g said:


> Is that after a Dirac calibration? Check out the Dirac tab in the C-DSP software (note: you'll only be able to look at that with your computer plugged into the DSP)


No, before. The levels are untouched, but the signal on the output tabs is higher on the right side. This is visible in rew - the right side is louder by ~4db.


----------



## doeboy

datoof I have the same issue but its about 10db quieter and seems to only be impacting preset 1. working through it with minidsp


----------



## datooff

Yes, I thought about this and tested today - I don't have this issue on the preset 2 with the exact same input/routing settings.
By the way - there's also a difference in level when routing tweets and midbass as left right (ex. Dirac 1 and Dirac 2) and routing each output to the separate Dirac channel (ex. Dirac 1,2,3,4).


----------



## ExplsvCookie257

I have the exact same problem as those above. 

This happened after updating to the newest version of Dirac live.

I have not updated the cdsp firmware yet which could be the problem.

I had it on preset 1 after running Dirac then thought well I'll copy preset 1 to slot 2 and put the Dirac tune on slot 2. Same problem.

I ended up copying everything to slot 3 and that fixed it. Even tried zeroing out everything on slot 1 and 2 and it shows the right side louder with and without Dirac live on. 

Resetting the cdsp didn't work either.


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> The 8x12DL is the most powerful dsp from minidsp... as far as what you get
> 
> The 8x12DL has a ton more than the 88bm and is way smaller....
> 
> Go for the 8x12DL, and a ddrc22d upstream if you want to go balls to the wall


Oabeieo much thanks for all your contributions I really appreciate your sharing your knowledge with us. 

So I got a great deal on a DDRC-22D, and I understand that there is benefit to having it in the chain, and that I'm to install it upstream of the C-DSP 8x12 DL, but I'm otherwise unsure on what the benefit is or how to integrate it. My signal chain is Android head unit coaxial digital output -> DDRC-22D -> C-DSP 8x12DL -> amps.

I'm hoping that you or some of the miniDSP DL gurus can help me with a couple questions for integrating the DDRC-22D:

(1) What is the advantage or benefit of having a DDRC-22D in the chain?

(2) Would I simply install the DDRC-22D but bypass all processing, then follow the newly released guide and tune with the C-DSP 8x12DL, and then finally run DL on the DDRC-22D? 

(3) I imagine that integrating the DDRC-22D is not so simple as that, so if it's not that simple, what would the steps be?

(4) I have the option to install the DDRC-22D in the trunk next to the C-DSP (easy) or to remove the metal case and install the circuit boards and display panel up front in the console (difficult but I'd get real time access to DDRC controls). Would it be preferable to use the presets on the DDRC or the C-DSP or both? Can you see a real benefit to having access to the DDRC-22D control panel up front or is having the remote for the C-DSP up front enough? 

Thanks again! Zac.


----------



## Theslaking

What am missing? 

The DDRC-22D is a Dirac processor and the 8x12 DL is a Dirac processor so why would you use both?


----------



## bertholomey

Theslaking said:


> What am missing?
> 
> The DDRC-22D is a Dirac processor and the 8x12 DL is a Dirac processor so why would you use both?



Actually, several of us have discussed this and have had plans to implement it. John Kiser is already using the 8x12DL + DDRC-22D (I’m pretty sure that is the model he is using) to great affect. 

Zac, I wish I knew the answers to your questions. Yes, it is wired in before the 8x12DL, you would complete a tune on the 8x12DL, then tune with the 22D. 

One thought was to use the 8x12DL to get the system to flat - use the 8x12DL processing to overcome speaker placement, reflections (to a small degree) ——-then use the 22D for you final curve, your final sound preference. 

Some have used the 22D with the PS8 and some with the Helix. Very similar concept - stacking processors isn’t anything new - and I’m sure it can be debated whether the juice is worth the squeeze. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Anu2g

You would use the 8x12 to time-align/eq each individual channel (i.e. 7 channels) with Dirac without any crossovers. Then after that, add the XOs, and group into 2 channels, then use the DDRC to run Dirac to do a 2 channel tune


----------



## zacjones99

bertholomey said:


> Actually, several of us have discussed this and have had plans to implement it. John Kiser is already using the 8x12DL + DDRC-22D (I’m pretty sure that is the model he is using) to great affect.
> 
> Zac, I wish I knew the answers to your questions. Yes, it is wired in before the 8x12DL, you would complete a tune on the 8x12DL, then tune with the 22D.
> 
> One thought was to use the 8x12DL to get the system to flat - use the 8x12DL processing to overcome speaker placement, reflections (to a small degree) ——-then use the 22D for you final curve, your final sound preference.
> 
> Some have used the 22D with the PS8 and some with the Helix. Very similar concept - stacking processors isn’t anything new - and I’m sure it can be debated whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Very interesting. Thanks for the tips!


----------



## zacjones99

Anu2g said:


> You would use the 8x12 to time-align/eq each individual channel (i.e. 7 channels) with Dirac without any crossovers. Then after that, add the XOs, and group into 2 channels, then use the DDRC to run Dirac to do a 2 channel tune


Anu2g thanks for the clarification!!

Just to confirm-- If I'm setting up the 8x12 to group into 2 channels for the DDRC, I would use the 8x12 and a flat target curve to time-align, EQ and determine XO points for each individual channel and group into 2 channels, then use the DDRC to do a 2 channel tune using my preferred target curve. Is that right? I guess I could try both a flat target curve and my preferred target curve on the 8x12 to see if it made a noticable difference.

But I'm definitely getting ahead of myself here. It seems like the best course for now would be to install the DDRC in the trunk next to the CDSP and bypass it. Then proceed with following the guide and get my preferred target curve set up on the 8x12. Once I get that done I could add a second preset to the 8x12 grouping into 2 channels, and make a second preset on the DDRC to run a 2 channel tune. At that point with the touch of a couple presets I could toggle back and forth to compare the results. And finally after becoming familiar with the results and the equipment I could make a decision on whether moving the DDRC up front would be worthwhile. 

So I'll install the DDRC next to the 8x12 and leave it be for now. Thanks!! Zac.


----------



## Theslaking

bertholomey said:


> One thought was to use the 8x12DL to get the system to flat - use the 8x12DL processing to overcome speaker placement, reflections (to a small degree) ——-then use the 22D for you final curve, your final sound preference.


That's extreme SQ! It does make sense though.


----------



## Anu2g

zacjones99 said:


> Anu2g thanks for the clarification!!
> 
> Just to confirm-- If I'm setting up the 8x12 to group into 2 channels for the DDRC, I would use the 8x12 and a flat target curve to time-align, EQ and determine XO points for each individual channel and group into 2 channels, then use the DDRC to do a 2 channel tune using my preferred target curve. Is that right? I guess I could try both a flat target curve and my preferred target curve on the 8x12 to see if it made a noticable difference.
> 
> But I'm definitely getting ahead of myself here. It seems like the best course for now would be to install the DDRC in the trunk next to the CDSP and bypass it. Then proceed with following the guide and get my preferred target curve set up on the 8x12. Once I get that done I could add a second preset to the 8x12 grouping into 2 channels, and make a second preset on the DDRC to run a 2 channel tune. At that point with the touch of a couple presets I could toggle back and forth to compare the results. And finally after becoming familiar with the results and the equipment I could make a decision on whether moving the DDRC up front would be worthwhile.
> 
> So I'll install the DDRC next to the 8x12 and leave it be for now. Thanks!! Zac.


Sounds like a great plan! I'd be very interested to hear about the results flipping between the two approaches.


----------



## oabeieo

zacjones99 said:


> Anu2g thanks for the clarification!!
> 
> Just to confirm-- If I'm setting up the 8x12 to group into 2 channels for the DDRC, I would use the 8x12 and a flat target curve to time-align, EQ and determine XO points for each individual channel and group into 2 channels, then use the DDRC to do a 2 channel tune using my preferred target curve. Is that right? I guess I could try both a flat target curve and my preferred target curve on the 8x12 to see if it made a noticable difference.
> 
> But I'm definitely getting ahead of myself here. It seems like the best course for now would be to install the DDRC in the trunk next to the CDSP and bypass it. Then proceed with following the guide and get my preferred target curve set up on the 8x12. Once I get that done I could add a second preset to the 8x12 grouping into 2 channels, and make a second preset on the DDRC to run a 2 channel tune. At that point with the touch of a couple presets I could toggle back and forth to compare the results. And finally after becoming familiar with the results and the equipment I could make a decision on whether moving the DDRC up front would be worthwhile.
> 
> So I'll install the DDRC next to the 8x12 and leave it be for now. Thanks!! Zac.


so I did that same thing when I had an 8x12dl and it was stellar

altho, that was before “the method” was discovered….

i now have a fully linear phase system, and the method with just an 8x12dl nets a sound that almost identical….. it will work but I don’t think you need it so much tbh

If you have the ddrc22 then go for it , if you haven’t got it yet and are thinking about buying it go for a flex instead with optical out

That will give you two optical outs, you only can use one into your dL but the flex or shd will give you peq where the 22 won’t

it would be nice to have a gloabal eq upstream…. Rn you have to do gloabal eq at all the outs of the DL. Kinda a pain when want to listen and shape sound

I have a 22 and I wish I had a shd ….. but anyway… I would use my flex but it’s 48k (I have a 96k system and want to keep it like that) a DL is 48k so it would be nil for u 

best of luck


----------



## zacjones99

oabeieo said:


> so I did that same thing when I had an 8x12dl and it was stellar
> 
> altho, that was before “the method” was discovered….
> 
> i now have a fully linear phase system, and the method with just an 8x12dl nets a sound that almost identical….. it will work but I don’t think you need it so much tbh
> 
> If you have the ddrc22 then go for it , if you haven’t got it yet and are thinking about buying it go for a flex instead with optical out
> 
> That will give you two optical outs, you only can use one into your dL but the flex or shd will give you peq where the 22 won’t
> 
> it would be nice to have a gloabal eq upstream…. Rn you have to do gloabal eq at all the outs of the DL. Kinda a pain when want to listen and shape sound
> 
> I have a 22 and I wish I had a shd ….. but anyway… I would use my flex but it’s 48k (I have a 96k system and want to keep it like that) a DL is 48k so it would be nil for u
> 
> best of luck


Interesting. Thanks for the input. I wondered if with the development of the guide and a solid method with the 8x12DL that the DDRC might not be necessary. Sounds like the new Flex would be the upstream device if I were to go that route. But I've definitely got other parts of my install I should probably focus on. I just tried to fit the DDRC into my trunk and it wouldn't quite fit in the spot I had planned for it. Just a little too bulky. Hmm. Might just put it back up for sale and move on.


----------

