TOPIC:

jmcomp124 wrote:

So I will wait for the right product or product revision to come up.

The point I'm a little unclear on in why you can't simply use the SHD you have but with a -10 dB attenuation set on the master volume? At least to properly see what you think of it? In practice if an attenuation like this was applied automatically or by you doing this manually, is the result not the same?

Ultrasonic wrote:

jmcomp124 wrote:

So I will wait for the right product or product revision to come up.

The point I'm a little unclear on in why you can't simply use the SHD you have but with a -10 dB attenuation set on the master volume? At least to properly see what you think of it? In practice if an attenuation like this was applied automatically or by you doing this manually, is the result not the same?

I want to be able to listen and compare with Dirac On vs Dirac off being the only variable. Now with -10dB and the 96Khz downsample, another two variables were introduced. So Oppo to the McIntosh pre 192Khz seems to be the best sounding. Again I have not tested many tracks and types of music. Through the Dirac measurements I know where my room problems are. I am trying EQ in the Roon and that mitigates the room issue. Of course, there are trade-offs. When dealing with a setup like this, it is best to tweak one parameter at time. If the above two issues I mentioned are addressed, I will revisit MiniDSP. I am also waiting for DiracLive on an Arcam AV40. That is in a Dolby Atmos setup. Not sure when it is going to happen, so it is a wait and see. Ideally, I would have preferred a separate setup like the MiniDSP SHD Studio dedicated for 2-Ch. The Optical output in the AV40 is still limited to 96Khz if and when Dirac is enabled. So it is a wait and see situation now... Hope that explains.

jmcomp124 wrote:

I want to be able to listen and compare with Dirac On vs Dirac off being the only variable. Now with -10dB and the 96Khz downsample, another two variables were introduced.

Well purely to compare just use -10 dB for both, and use music that isn't 192 kHz? Surely the majority of your music isn't at 192 kHz?

jmcomp124 wrote:

So Oppo to the McIntosh pre 192Khz seems to be the best sounding. Again I have not tested many tracks and types of music. Through the Dirac measurements I know where my room problems are. I am trying EQ in the Roon and that mitigates the room issue.

I've not used Roon to experiment with its EQ options but it if does this well then that's great. I'm not wedded to Dirac at all by the way, and so far my (positive) experiences with EQ to manage room mode effects have been manually applied. Actually, you could explore the manual approach yourself, which would have the advantage for you that you could ensure that no boost is applied at any frequency. I've done just this in the past.

jmcomp124 wrote:

If the above two issues I mentioned are addressed, I will revisit MiniDSP.

If I've understood you correctly, the -10 dB issue is not one that can be addressed in a way to remove what seems to be your core concern. Attenuation has to be applied somewhere if boosts are applied, so even if it were done automatically such that it wasn't obvious to you, it would still be there. If you're applying boosts in Roon and not having the same effect then it must be doing this.

Ultrasonic wrote:

jmcomp124 wrote:

I want to be able to listen and compare with Dirac On vs Dirac off being the only variable. Now with -10dB and the 96Khz downsample, another two variables were introduced.

Well purely to compare just use -10 dB for both, and use music that isn't 192 kHz? Surely the majority of your music isn't at 192 kHz?

jmcomp124 wrote:

So Oppo to the McIntosh pre 192Khz seems to be the best sounding. Again I have not tested many tracks and types of music. Through the Dirac measurements I know where my room problems are. I am trying EQ in the Roon and that mitigates the room issue.

I've not used Roon to experiment with its EQ options but it if does this well then that's great. I'm not wedded to Dirac at all by the way, and so far my (positive) experiences with EQ to manage room mode effects have been manually applied. Actually, you could explore the manual approach yourself, which would have the advantage for you that you could ensure that no boost is applied at any frequency. I've done just this in the past.

jmcomp124 wrote:

If the above two issues I mentioned are addressed, I will revisit MiniDSP.

If I've understood you correctly, the -10 dB issue is not one that can be addressed in a way to remove what seems to be your core concern. Attenuation has to be applied somewhere if boosts are applied, so even if it were done automatically such that it wasn't obvious to you, it would still be there. If you're applying boosts in Roon and not having the same effect then it must be doing this.

There is another option. Use the miniDSP balanced PEQ for the low frequency module. My Von Schweikerts VR5/6 allows bi-amping. That way I keep the mids and high untouched by DSP or any other processing. While it is true 192Khz is not the common case, I am not trying to optimize for the common case. For just casual listening, I could use the Arcam AV20 in 2-ch stereo mode which is a pretty good setup per se. I think the right approach with Dirac is to be conservative and focused with target curves so boosts and cuts are minimal. My biggest ROI in sound quality came from the McIntosh MC275, the C2600 brought a little bit more but lesser ROI. While trying to squeeze out the best performance possible within my budget and setup, it felt like I was getting negative ROI with the SHD. It just didn't sound right. In my mind, there is no right or wrong here when it comes to decisions, it is what one personally feels comfortable with and what your ears tell you. The discussion here is good as it provides more and more inputs and then comes solutions out of those inputs.

jmcomp124 wrote:

There is another option. Use the miniDSP balanced PEQ for the low frequency module. My Von Schweikerts VR5/6 allows bi-amping. That way I keep the mids and high untouched by DSP or any other processing.

This is closer to what I've been doing for about the last year. With my 2x4 HD I applied EQ only to my subwoofer, which I crossover to my main speakers with a steep crossover at 120 Hz (48 dB/octrave LR). The signal for my main speakers still passed through the miniDSP but the only processing applied was the crossover filter and a time delay.

What I think you were proposing wouldn't be a good idea though, since passing only the bass signal through a miniDSP will delay it relative to the to the mid and high frequency signals.

jmcomp124 wrote:

While it is true 192Khz is not the common case, I am not trying to optimize for the common case. For just casual listening, I could use the Arcam AV20 in 2-ch stereo mode which is a pretty good setup per se.

That makes sense provided all the music you want to 'seriously' listen to is available in high res. For me the vast majority is not and so my main priority is how my system sounds with more typical music. Musical tastes will obviously be a big factor here.

jmcomp124 wrote:

I think the right approach with Dirac is to be conservative and focused with target curves so boosts and cuts are minimal.

I would like there to be a some control in Dirac over what sort of corrections it applies as well but its target market is more for people who want the process to be as automated as possible I think. You can of course limit how much Dirac changes the response by altering the target curve. For example, if you make the target curve follow a dip in the measured response then it won't apply a boost there.

jmcomp124 wrote:

My biggest ROI in sound quality came from the McIntosh MC275, the C2600 brought a little bit more but lesser ROI. While trying to squeeze out the best performance possible within my budget and setup, it felt like I was getting negative ROI with the SHD. It just didn't sound right. In my mind, there is no right or wrong here when it comes to decisions, it is what one personally feels comfortable with and what your ears tell you. The discussion here is good as it provides more and more inputs and then comes solutions out of those inputs.

Sorry, what does ROI mean?

I completely agree about there being no right or wrong. I will make changes to my system based on what I enjoy listening to most .

Ultrasonic wrote:

jmcomp124 wrote:

There is another option. Use the miniDSP balanced PEQ for the low frequency module. My Von Schweikerts VR5/6 allows bi-amping. That way I keep the mids and high untouched by DSP or any other processing.

This is closer to what I've been doing for about the last year. With my 2x4 HD I applied EQ only to my subwoofer, which I crossover to my main speakers with a steep crossover at 120 Hz (48 dB/octrave LR). The signal for my main speakers still passed through the miniDSP but the only processing applied was the crossover filter and a time delay.

What I think you were proposing wouldn't be a good idea though, since passing only the bass signal through a miniDSP will delay it relative to the to the mid and high frequency signals.

jmcomp124 wrote:

While it is true 192Khz is not the common case, I am not trying to optimize for the common case. For just casual listening, I could use the Arcam AV20 in 2-ch stereo mode which is a pretty good setup per se.

That makes sense provided all the music you want to 'seriously' listen to is available in high res. For me the vast majority is not and so my main priority is how my system sounds with more typical music. Musical tastes will obviously be a big factor here.

jmcomp124 wrote:

I think the right approach with Dirac is to be conservative and focused with target curves so boosts and cuts are minimal.

I would like there to be a some control in Dirac over what sort of corrections it applies as well but its target market is more for people who want the process to be as automated as possible I think. You can of course limit how much Dirac changes the response by altering the target curve. For example, if you make the target curve follow a dip in the measured response then it won't apply a boost there.

jmcomp124 wrote:

My biggest ROI in sound quality came from the McIntosh MC275, the C2600 brought a little bit more but lesser ROI. While trying to squeeze out the best performance possible within my budget and setup, it felt like I was getting negative ROI with the SHD. It just didn't sound right. In my mind, there is no right or wrong here when it comes to decisions, it is what one personally feels comfortable with and what your ears tell you. The discussion here is good as it provides more and more inputs and then comes solutions out of those inputs.

Sorry, what does ROI mean?

I completely agree about there being no right or wrong. I will make changes to my system based on what I enjoy listening to most .

Thanks for the pointer about time delay. Good point. ROI = Return Of Investment

Ultrasonic wrote:

I've been having a bit of a look into the issue of how to avoid digital clipping with Dirac but there seems to be a distinct lack of good information. This old post gave some information:

www.minidsp.com/forum/dirac-series-suppo...nting-clipping#39111

I'm wondering though if a control that was present in Dirac v1 has been removed for Dirac v2? I don't see any way of setting an attenuation to allow for boosting within the Dirac application now?

You are correct that the user settable attenuation in Dirac v1 which defaulted to 10dB is no longer even visible in v2, However v2 operates identically to the v1 defaults in respect of its apparent attenuation. I am, umm, fortunate to have rather large SBIR suckouts which make the behavior obvious without a sub. Both Dirac versions fail to lift suckout dips by any more than 10dB suggesting that the 10dB default attenuation was maintained.

entripy wrote:

Both Dirac versions fail to lift suckout dips by any more than 10dB suggesting that the 10dB default attenuation was maintained.

That the maximum boost applied is the same at 10 dB suggests that at least a 10 dB attenuation would be sensible to prevent digital clipping in v2, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this is applied automatically in v2. I guessed above that it may well be as it seemed logical to me but the OP's experience makes me question this.

In your own experience of going from v1 to v2, have you used sufficiently equivalent configurations that you'd have noticed if using v2 gave a noticeably louder (10 dB) result than v1? If not then this would be much more suggestive that there is automatic attenuation applied in v2.

Ultrasonic wrote:

entripy wrote:

Both Dirac versions fail to lift suckout dips by any more than 10dB suggesting that the 10dB default attenuation was maintained.

That the maximum boost applied is the same at 10 dB suggests that at least a 10 dB attenuation would be sensible to prevent digital clipping in v2, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this is applied automatically in v2. I guessed above that it may well be as it seemed logical to me but the OP's experience makes me question this.

In your own experience of going from v1 to v2, have you used sufficiently equivalent configurations that you'd have noticed if using v2 gave a noticeably louder (10 dB) result than v1? If not then this would be much more suggestive that there is automatic attenuation applied in v2.

Yes, I upgraded both SHD systems I have with no other system changes and the levels didn't seem to change. One only started working after support supplied a new executable but that was just to get the USB connection working on the PC, it didn't upgrade the SHD in any way.

In principle the attenuation could be variable depending on what is measured, with a limit of 10dB maximum attenuation. I think I would have noticed that after I introduced a sub to fill the suckout though, because I was using an underpowered amp at the time I set the sub levels rather high which caused the bass response to be around 10dB above the target everywhere*. If the Dirac attenuation had been variable depending on measured response one would assume the resulting attenuation would tend towards 0dB. I did not notice an overall gain increase though which seems to suggest that the attenuation is fixed. Not exactly proof, I don't recall any deep dips outside the bass region but maybe I've forgotten about them. I didn't notice any gain change but perhaps I was just distracted by other things and turned something down without thinking.

(* this causes Dirac to cut the bass by 10dB to mains (and sub) and so uses less mains power. Since Dirac can attenuate without limit but only use 10dB gain it is rather more capable of reducing measured responses over the target than increasing responses under the target. )

Thanks @Entripy, that's interesting.

As it happens I've used a sub with the gain set relatively high and then used larger attenuation in order to minimise dips in the bass region without applying any boosts at all. (Implemented manually on a 2x4 HD rather than with Dirac.)

I just spotted this:

support.minidsp.com/support/solutions/ar...-turn-on-dirac-live-

Ultrasonic wrote:

I just spotted this:

support.minidsp.com/support/solutions/ar...-turn-on-dirac-live-

But I'm sure I recall advice from devteam in this forum where they said you could set volume to anything. And DLCT certainly had 10dB attenuation to take account of possible boost.

So as usual we have imperfect information. Some lacking, some inconsistencies.

But if Dirac Live 2 removed the attenuation my volume is typically around -20dB so I wouldn't know if a maximum of -10dB was required.

Wondering since a product like DDRC-22D does not have digital attenuation/volume control (or does it), how does it handle this situation? Do they internally use -10dB attenuation at the volume output stage after Dirac filters are applied?

jmcomp124 wrote:

Wondering since a product like DDRC-22D does not have digital attenuation/volume control (or does it), how does it handle this situation? Do they internally use -10dB attenuation at the volume output stage after Dirac filters are applied?

DDRC-22D has a front panel volume control according to its Product Brief.

Dear reader,
The problem with "THD" could probably been seen and managed with extra to add overload indicator(s) on the allready available OLED display, which shows up when overload in the digital domain occurs. (should go very fast on and delayed off)
The devteam could probably add this feature to the firmware/software of the SHD's
best regards,
mollie