Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

NOTE: This is a "Community" forum. Please be mindful that community members are here to help as part of a community effort. We therefore appreciate your effort in keeping this forum a happy place!

If you have a specific issue (e.g. hardware, failure) and want help from our support team, please use our tech support portal (Support menu - > Contact Us).
Thanks a lot of your help in making a better community.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: A solution for NanoAvr-DL bass management weakness

A solution for NanoAvr-DL bass management weakness 1 year 11 months ago #39517

  • rhollan
  • rhollan's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 185
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 0
smygolf wrote:
It should alway go thru the subs if you use bass management (speakers as small)
So it dosent matter if BM is first or last the subs are always getting a signal and LFE signal goes seperate.
So whats up with Arcam im not sure!!

If you dont use BM (speakers as Large) the subs only gonna work with the LFE.
Like this graph, speakers as small and without BM (you cant do this in a receiver but you can in Nanoavr HD)
i.imgur.com/mIbHigz.png


From AVS forum....
In Arcam's implementation DL does not know that it measures sat & sub at the same time. It thinks it would see a single speaker. So what happens is that it calculates delays based on each measurement. This is done by looking at the impulse peak. The impulse peak is dominated by the speaker with higher frequency content, i.e. the sat and not the sub. As a result the sub in each sat measurement does not get the proper delay but is delayed based on the sats distance. Things get worse when DL now measures through the LFE. This will find the proper delay of the sub but now the sub gets delayed and in the end the earlier measured response for the sub/sat combination is no longer valid. In other words DL will base its correction on a response that is no longer valid.

DL is a single speaker solution. You have to provide it with single speaker responses. Arcam's implementation doesn't (unless all speakers are set to large).

All these problems go away when DL is implemented downstream of bass management.

And how is this a problem if the speakers are distance and level aligned downstream of DL, in the AVR?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

A solution for NanoAvr-DL bass management weakness 1 year 11 months ago #39521

  • RenPa
  • RenPa's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 0
If I understood correctly Markus767, If you optimise the sub delay (with REW for instance) to get the best smoothest response in the xo range and put the distance settings into the AVR and the level into the AVR before Dirac calibration you mitigate the problem; the price to pay is you can't change delay or level after calibration. I am not an expert.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: rhollan

A solution for NanoAvr-DL bass management weakness 1 year 11 months ago #39522

  • rhollan
  • rhollan's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 185
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 0
RenPa wrote:
If I understood correctly Markus767, If you optimise the sub delay (with REW for instance) to get the best smoothest response in the xo range and put the distance settings into the AVR and the level into the AVR before Dirac calibration you mitigate the problem; the price to pay is you can't change delay or level after calibration. I am not an expert.

Yeah, that's the impression I get. I don't see that price as so expensive, as overall volume should be all you care about beyond setup. So, why is Dirac not a bit more explicit about this? Are we all missing something? At least some of us should be smart enough to figure it out if we are.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: devteam