TOPIC:

I don't understand what the fuss is about.
Dirac isn't revolutionary, by using IIR and FIR they can make the processing lighter on overheads making it perfect for hardware ports. It has a nice front end for end users thats simplified and great averaging/multiple measurement analysis. All they have done is port it to run on the Minidsp Sharc board. Most users would struggle to get as good a result as what this software can automate, but you can't do much else with the software.
What hasn't been mentioned is.... Are the filters generated to send to the minidsp identical to the Native computer filters of Dirac Live.
There is limited power on the hardware and I wouldn't be surprised if the filters have a few less taps/biquads.
Deqx uses multiple sharc's to achieve its multichannel power remember.

The end result is the sound though, and Dirac can sound great.

It's up to the user. If you want to run on hardware DSP, minidsp give you whatever you need.
Either a closed automated way for room correction or a more open professional route with your choice of more powerful Software filter generation such as Acourate (which can give you automated filters too). Both will cost the same amount and have the same hardware.

djreflux wrote:

I don't understand what the fuss is about.

Me either, really... With regard to the comment about miniDSP and Dirac making their technology more mainstream, isn't that exactly what's been done here? The DDRC is the lowest cost standalone Dirac processor, by a long margin (factor of 10? 20?). For those that want stereo not multichannel/HT, it's the only one (I think - ?)

if the cost is too high, there are alternatives. e.g. OpenDRC with AcourateDRC, which is also quite automated. It doesn't do the same thing, but it's also roughly half the price (total). And of course for those who would like to roll their own and come up with the best combination of IIR and FIR for themselves then there's the OpenDRC and open-source software. But it's a learning curve (which was my interpretation of devteam's earlier comment "it's far to..."). There are choices here...

I just wanted to comment on "it's the low-end market that needs the correction most and is the biggest customer for it". For a $200 pair of ceiling speakers, why not just use a regular miniDSP with a few curves to even the thing out and it will sound a lot better already! In the high end market though, you might well care more about the impulse response because it's the one thing you can't do any other way. Doesn't matter how much or how well-reviewed your electronics and speakers are or how much room treatment you have, you can't change the impulse response that way. I would have thought that for someone aiming for a state of the art system, that would come up on the radar sooner or later.

Anyway, those were my thoughts after taking the time to reread the last few pages

Hi Guys,

DIRAC is such a brilliant tool and the results are unbelievable if you have the chance to compare un-DIRACed and DIRACed speakers in a normal listing environment, that at least half of the discussion in this thread would not have come up.
If you hear the improvements in sound quality even in "bad" rooms and even on high cost speakers, than the price of this nice piece of equipment is nearly peanuts.
I was waiting with patience for a DIRAC hardware solution since the last 2 years, because I hate PCs in my chain.
Now it's there and I'm going to order it.

Best regards

Thomas

>> I was waiting with patience for a DIRAC hardware solution since the last 2 years, because I hate PCs in my chain.

+1

/Stefano

>> I was waiting with patience for a DIRAC hardware solution since the last 2 years, because I hate PCs in my chain.
> +1

But I'll also wait for the Macintosh version of MiniDSP Dirac Series, because I hate PCs on my desktop too!

/Stefano

Yes, i don't like PCs either. But i have been surprised to check how small devices like Android tablets with Viper, or a RaspberryPi with Brutefir can perform convolutions of fairly big FIRs ( 32.000 taps / channel), though the problem with those devices is connecting them with the rest of the gear. But non intrusive and powerfull enough (way more powerfull than a sharc processor), they are.

A Raspberry or Cubox with digital inputs and outputs able to work in full duplex would be a real killer product for DRC, but the guys involved in development for those platforms are more on funky things like high res material, DSD, XBMC or MPD jukeboxes and stuff like that...

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a "fuss".

This is simply a matter of marketing and economics. To those that already know they want and need this kind of product, the price is almost immaterial.

And that is less than 1% of the possible audience for it.

The other issue is that DSP promised us a complete revolution in how speakers are made and sound. This revolution has not come to fruition, despite almost happening as long as 10 years ago. At first this might have been because the cost was necessarily high. That is no longer the case. The first attempts were pretty clumsy, regardless of quality as they didn't actually address HOW people wanted it.

I think MiniDSP has been on the right track to helping create a DSP Evolution, but hasn't yet helped with a digital REvolution. I think they're playing safe, and so the world will just have to keep waiting.

What will no doubt happen is that companies like Sonos and Bose will end up being on the forefront of it and will take the largest share of the pie.

@John Ashman, I'm guessing you haven't used the (free) Dirac trial?

I really don't need to use it (also, I have a Mac). I know exactly what impulse response correction does. But that doesn't mean it has to cost a lot of money. This is the why DSP hasn't taken off in speaker systems.

What MiniDSP and Dirac Live should be plotting is not to build $900 processors, but how to get MiniDSP boards into every custom install amplifier or stereo amplifier on the planet with DiracLive preloaded for under $100/board.

I really don't need to use it (also, I have a Mac). I know exactly what impulse response correction does. But that doesn't mean it has to cost a lot of money. This is the why DSP hasn't taken off in speaker systems.

What MiniDSP and Dirac Live should be plotting is not to build $900 processors, but how to get MiniDSP boards into every custom install amplifier or stereo amplifier on the planet with DiracLive preloaded for under $100/board.

John, the free trial runs on a Mac.

That's fine. But it misses the point. You're looking at the small picture, which is whether I think the software is worth it. Of course it is, if I'm looking to buy it.

But that's not how things work in a marketplace. If you need to buy room correction, then yes, obviously, because the options are sparse. But in the real world, this device isn't competing against other processors, but all other possible desired products. Do I want processing? Or a bike? Or new rims? Or a toy house for the kids?

The big picture isn't the DIY audience or the stereo buffs. This is a different product than an active crossover which requires a special level of commitment. This is something a dealer can drop into hundreds of homes without having to tear apart someone's speakers and modify them.

Also, it's not like I'm holding my breath or anything. It is what it is, I'll just have to deal with as it stands, but chances are, I'll have to move to Acourate in order to offer up a more sellable price point for customers. As I understand it, I can buy Acourate once and download the files into multiple boxes, versus the equivalent of having to pay for the software with each box.

DSP hasn't taken off? I beg to differ. Embedded DSP is in dozens of devices. It's not revolutionary sure but it's normally implemented in manufacturing as an acoustic space system.
It's not easy to implement for the average person at all, that is what Dirac have done. They spent the money to be able to supply a system that's foolproof to the layman and that costs money. Your paying for their investment as an end user in an industry that is notorious for inflated "prestige".
Any reasonable sized company in the market would just implement their own DSP.
... Unless they market heavily and generate a "buzz" brand that increases consumer confidence.

Again, everyone is missing the broader issue. Sure, we can have 1000 people try to pay for a large investment, or we can have 1,000,000 people pay for it.

The more attractive and sellable and applicable the product, the more people buy and the faster you recoup the investment.

I'm discussing economics and marketing 101 here.

What Dirac is doing that is smart is getting their product into cars. But the custom install market is rather large as well and for the hundreds of thousands, even millions, who have such systems, having something that a dealer can take and call up an old customer and say "hey, i have something that can really revolutionize the sound of your system" at an attractive price is pretty good for paying back investment.

I already outlined how you only have to sell 2x more for 2/3rds the price to make more money. And 3x more at about half the price.

And, yes, at the price Dirac wants, it would drive many companies, especially the Japanese to develop their own solutions. The goal should be, of course, to make it not worth their while to do so and capture the larger market, as Audyssey largely did.

Hi John, would this dealer be the one running the calibration, or the customer? If the former, would that be included in the price, or an extra charge? (Just trying to better understand...)