TOPIC:

So the new nanoAVR DL costs 549 including the Dirac license (and a surround one at that) and the license is explicitly stated as costing 250$. So can now somebody explain why I just paid 600$ for my Dirac license in the DDRC-22D??? (899 minus 299 for the openDRC which is identical hardware)

Somebody is kidding here, right?

Hello Beauvais,

A very good question, let's try to explain.. Though they both have the word "Dirac Live", that algorithm runs in a lot of configuration to fit the hardware platform. With that regards the DDRC is a no compromise, 96k (faster Dirac can run on hardware/software) and longer tails to perfect the room correction of a Hifi stereo setup.

nanoAVR on the other hand is doing multichannel and having as a main target multichannel is limited to 48k. As for the hardware side, the flexibility of the DDRC platform (i.e. multiple IO) vs the standard package of the nanoAVR platforms (HDMI in/out only) is key for economy of scale and software/firmware simplicity.

DevTeam

I too gave a thought about the price issue.

Then I did some maths using my local dealer MiniDSP prices.
He does not sell the DDRC-22 series yet nore the NanoAVR DL.
Cumulating all module kits + the Umik-1 + a chassis + the Dirac Licence it concluded that I saved money buying my ready to go DDRC-22A.

Then it is true that the NanoAVR DL is at a sweet price, but I would never go for that unit.
HDMI only ... not to jitter friendly and this is out of the question for listening to music.
24b/48kHz limitation ... no go either for music.
Compared to Audyssey Pro XT32 in the case of the Nano, Dirac would not perform much better.
I think the Nano is a wonderfull addition to a HT system that does have an active correction or a very basic one.
In my HiFi setup the DDRC-22 came just in time. I was looking for a compact affordable and powerfull active correction processor.
Currently the DDRC-22s are the only products under the $1000 that can perform.
Others would have been a DSpeaker (no way I gonna get one of those), Trinnov (sexy but too expensive), second hand Accuphase DG series (still too expensive), pro gear (no way for many reasons), a second hand Audyssey AliSEQ (good luck to find one of those, and very limited resolution compared to Dirac Live), a Marantz AX1000 (these should end in a museum).

devteam wrote:

With that regards the DDRC is a no compromise, 96k (faster Dirac can run on hardware/software) and longer tails to perfect the room correction of a Hifi stereo setup.

By 96kHz you mean its internal computing? Because its frequency response doesn't extend past 20kHz (whether or not that would be desirable is another debate). So does it upsample a 44.1k signal for example for higher calculation precision? Otherwise I can not see what the advantage of the "96kHz" label should be. Can you be more specific about the 48kHz vs. 96kHz issue? Because that appears to be the 350$ difference!

devteam wrote:

As for the hardware side, the flexibility of the DDRC platform (i.e. multiple IO) vs the standard package of the nanoAVR platforms (HDMI in/out only) is key for economy of scale and software/firmware simplicity.

DevTeam

But that's what I'm saying?? Having a multi-purpose box like the (D)DRC, it should by any economy of scale logic become cheaper, not more expensive!!

At the end of the day there is a multichannel 48kHz version of Dirac to be had for 250$, whereas I paid 600$ for a 2 channel version of Dirac at 96kHz (whatever the higher sampling rate means in reality).

Sorry, not cool.