Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Camverton said:

FWIW I tend to point the mic up about 30 degrees from the horizontal and pointing to a point midway between the speakers in the horizontal plane.

Why point it up out of interest? Is your listening position very low relative to the tweeters so that this is pointing up at them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Okay found a little quiet window today and did a full Dirac Live session using the UMik with 90 deg file loaded and the mic in the upright position for all measurements . Nothing obvious in the session itself everything was completed as it should .

Saved the filter to the empty position 4 on my DDRC 22D and then started up the music . Not that much difference to the slot  one were I did the same measurments but mic pointing straight at the speakers . But there is a difference nothing in the bass / mid / treble sound all of that seems the same but the sound stage is different it seems wider and taller and everything sounds just a bit more spread out . I quite like it in the main music room and with the Quads and will leave position 4 as my current filter choice . Will do another one in the same room but for wide dispersion and see how that goes .

Will be also interesting to do a similar session on my upstairs active system which is in a much smaller room so not as much air as the music room . Will probably do that tomorrow and will let everyone know how that goes . In my view it is worth doing at least one filter using the mic at 90 deg even if it only gives you a slightly different perspective .

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere that the 2 mic calibration files, when used with the correct mic pointing direction, *should* give the same end result, all things being equal. To me that makes perfect sense because the calibration files are designed to do exactly that. In practice I can see that there's going to be slight differences depending on what the Dirac designers think are normal heights of ceiling/furnishings/construction of surfaces/etc etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ed Howarth said:

I remember reading somewhere that the 2 mic calibration files, when used with the correct mic pointing direction, *should* give the same end result, all things being equal. To me that makes perfect sense because the calibration files are designed to do exactly that.

That is true for sound incident from the direction the calibration is intended to be used for. However, if you point the microphone straight at the speakers you will get some boundary reflections incident from closer to 90°, and you can't somehow simultaneously use the end-on calibration for the direct sound from the speakers and the 90° calibration for the relevant boundary reflections. I think the logic of having the microphone pointing vertically upwards is that it will mean more of the reflections will be arriving from a similar direction as the direct signal from the loudspeakers, and so may give a slightly better result. How true this actually is I'll be honest I'm not totally convinced of.

Quote

In practice I can see that there's going to be slight differences depending on what the Dirac designers think are normal heights of ceiling/furnishings/construction of surfaces/etc etc.

I wouldn't personally have thought the people behind Dirac would have made an consideration of those last points at all, with what happens being entirely driven by the measurements. 

Edited by MartinC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably more technical than most would want, but in case it's of interest this is the most detailed explanation I've seen of what the Dirac Live algorithms do:

http://diracdocs.com/on_room_correction.pdf

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
Posted (edited)

Just a heads up that Dirac have introduced an update 3.0.8 and this fixes the bug that was causing the issues for 3.0.7 . I downloaded this and used it for my session on my active system with change of amplifiers and it worked without any issues at all .

Just to also mention that I am now doing all of the sessions using the 90 deg mic position . I do not think it makes a huge difference but it does seem to improve the imaging for my ears at least there seems to be greater width and depth which I suppose is to be expected as it is recording the sound in a more diffuse way . I can also see that other could well prefer the more focused straight ahead method . So what is really nice is that  you get the option .

Edited by bencat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For info., going by a user report on the miniDSP forum, there is still a compatibility issue of 3.08 with the SHD models unfortunately and I would stick with 3.05 for these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Sorry Martin I used a DDRC 24 today I should have made that clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bencat said:

Sorry Martin I used a DDRC 24 today I should have made that clear.

It's good it's working for you :).

Checking the change log I see you should now have the option to set a time delay before the measurements start, giving the option to leave the room prior to measurements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

It's good it's working for you :).

Checking the change log I see you should now have the option to set a time delay before the measurements start, giving the option to leave the room prior to measurements.

True and I think it could make a difference but I suspect that it would be very slight . Then you also have to consider that when you are listening to the music then your body is there as part of the room so perhaps it is better that your sound absorbtion and shape are part of the measurements . If they could make a head fitting which placed the mic in the center of your head level with your ears you could act as the mic stand for the first measurement .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bencat said:

True and I think it could make a difference but I suspect that it would be very slight . Then you also have to consider that when you are listening to the music then your body is there as part of the room so perhaps it is better that your sound absorbtion and shape are part of the measurements . If they could make a head fitting which placed the mic in the center of your head level with your ears you could act as the mic stand for the first measurement .

It's debatable as you say but I think I'd be inclined to leave the room myself. Your body won't be where it is for listening and also importantly won't be in exactly the same position for each measurement either. With REW I can get more repeatable measurements if I leave the room.

A microphone mounted you your head would have the issue of signal reflected from your head, which your ears wouldn't receive. Phobic posted some measurements recently actually where I questioned the presence of some very early reflections and it turned out to be because his head was right by the microphone :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Have to admit not fully convinced but there is only one way to be sure and that is to give it a try . Not tomorrow as I have too many other things like stained glass to think about but will do a session this week and do it with me out of the room see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bencat said:

Have to admit not fully convinced but there is only one way to be sure and that is to give it a try . Not tomorrow as I have too many other things like stained glass to think about but will do a session this week and do it with me out of the room see what happens.

I'd expect any difference to be pretty subtle to be honest. It would be interesting to know whether this feature has been added because the people behind Dirac think it will be a useful improvement, or perhaps because enough users were asking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
2 hours ago, MartinC said:

I'd expect any difference to be pretty subtle to be honest. It would be interesting to know whether this feature has been added because the people behind Dirac think it will be a useful improvement, or perhaps because enough users were asking for it.

I suspect the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

Just to let anyone know Dirac Live is now 3.9.0 version and again claims to solve the filter upload issue . I have tried using my DDRC 24 and loaded a project done in 3.8.0 and then tweaked and replaced in 3.9.0 and have had no issues . I have yet to try this on my DDRC 22D yet so can only say everything works on the DDRC 24 . MiniDSP Forum seems to say that there are still issues with 3.9.0 and most seem to advise staying with using 3.5.0 . So there you have it you pays your money and you take your choice .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.