Digital correction: Why is there resistance?

[mojave]

Because anytime you make a conversion, you degrade the sound. A copy can never be better than the original.....

The process uses for digital room correction is no different than what is used for active crossovers. The difference is where the microphone is located. I don't understand how you think that adds a layer of degradation. Passive crossovers change the frequency, power response, and off axis response of drivers in a less accurate way.

 

[Al M.]

While digital room correction may be beneficial (I would need to hear it), instead of correcting a bad or mediocre room (and most rooms are) as such, I'd first make the room better with acoustic treatment. You can read from my review, linked to in my signature, about the miracles that this can accomplish.

Once you have taken care of room reflections in a natural way, then you can think about digital correction on top of that. Yes, acoustic treatment may not be able to do so much about the frequency response in your room (speaker positioning can), but I would bet that taking care of room reflections that way beats digital impulse correction by a mile.

As for the price, acoustic treatment is certainly more expensive than a $ 329 program, but still just a fraction of the cost of a more aspiring high-end system. I certainly might say that acoustic room treatment perhaps has been the most significant of all upgrades to my system (the total cost in my system was $ 6K, the cost of tube traps and sound panels at the time of my review was $ 3K, including shipping).

In any case, I guess all can agree that getting your room right is paramount for the performance of your system.

 

[dallasjustice]

Further, whatever improvement it offers applies to a very small area. Move even an inch or two and the response might well be worse.

That's not how DIRAC works. You should try it out. It takes several measurements in a 3D shape and uses a proprietary method to integrate them so that the measurement more closely resembles how you would hear the music in a predefined area. Of course, it doesn't help much if you decide that you want to listen to music in a totally different part of the room.

 

[Al M.]

O.k., I just saw that on the previous page of the thread Ethan linked to an article that points out that EQ and DSP are no substitute for acoustic room treatment. Just like I thought would be the case.

 

[dallasjustice]

I guess the normal rule that says "you don't have an opinion unless you've actually tried it" doesn't apply to DSP?

 

[microstrip]

I guess the normal rule that says "you don't have an opinion unless you've actually tried it" doesn't apply to DSP?

Dallasjustice,

Yes, it applies. But there is also a rule that says that if you have an enthusiastic opinion in WBF about something you will be asked to support it.

 

[Scott W]

I am very anti-DSP, but I really liked what I heard at Michael's house and I have to say DIRAC appears to be far more technological advanced then past DSP systems. Now having said that I think I will have no need for it, but I am keeping an open mind.

 

[FrantzM]

yes we can. Anytime you change a digital file, it can not be any better than the original.

Again

an interesting position... Do you take into account what happen to the signal once it gets out of the speakers membrane? At that level the amount of damage is more significant than those brought in by digital conversion or correction but if it is only a preference then by all means ..Prefer away

 

[Bruce B]

I guess the normal rule that says "you don't have an opinion unless you've actually tried it" doesn't apply to DSP?

DIRC does not change the laws of physics. Like Ethan said, you can not make up for a room null. The only way to do that is called a room remodel.

 

[Al M.]

I guess the normal rule that says "you don't have an opinion unless you've actually tried it" doesn't apply to DSP?

Again, I admitted that DSP might be beneficial, so I am certainly open to that possibility, but I think it would be a tall order for you to convince anybody on a technical level that digital impulse correction is just as good as eliminating unwanted room reflections by acoustic treatment. Perhaps you want to try, I would be listening.

 

[Bruce B]

The process uses for digital room correction is no different than what is used for active crossovers. The difference is where the microphone is located. I don't understand how you think that adds a layer of degradation. Passive crossovers change the frequency, power response, and off axis response of drivers in a less accurate way.

Yes, and they all degrade the sound. Why add another layer??

 

[Al M.]

Dallasjustice,

Yes, it applies. But there is also a rule that says that if you have an enthusiastic opinion in WBF about something you will be asked to support it.

Precisely.

 

[Scott W]

Dallasjustice,

Yes, it applies. But there is also a rule that says that if you have an enthusiastic opinion in WBF about something you will be asked to support it.

Michael has been pretty much single handedly supporting it here at WBF. DIRAC should be very proud.

 

[FrantzM]

So I take it the room degrade the sound much less ...

 

[Bruce B]

So I take it the room degrade the sound much less ...

The room is something you have control over without changing the original signal. You can alter listening/speaker position, add subs or use room treatments.

 

[dallasjustice]

The room is something you have control over without changing the original signal. You can alter listening/speaker position, add subs or use room treatments.

What happens after you've done all of that (spent thousand on building a new listening room, room treatments, acousticians, and measurement gear) and you discover that your room still imparts a large coloration on the sound? All of the above, is the best approach to the greatest playback transparency. Bruce, I've never been to your room, but I feel comfortable saying that there's always room for improvement, no matter how hard you've tried to make it perfect.

Michael.

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, I've never been to your room, but I feel comfortable saying that there's always room for improvement, no matter how hard you've tried to make it perfect.

Michael.

I'll be the first to admit my room could be better. There are no perfect rooms because the laws of physics don't stop at your doorway. But I would much rather live with the deficiencies of a room and the associated equipment than to alter the original signal, not knowing if that was truly what the performer had intended.

I just feel that using any type of DSP room correction should be a last resort after exhausting all other possibilities. I also feel that it is a cop out when people don't want to put in the work in the rest of their system and are looking for an easy way out.

 

[dallasjustice]

I'll be the first to admit my room could be better. There are no perfect rooms because the laws of physics don't stop at your doorway. But I would much rather live with the deficiencies of a room and the associated equipment than to alter the original signal, not knowing if that was truly what the performer had intended.

If you weren't at the recording session, how would you ever know what the performer intended? You think their room might have had a few imperfections as well?

 

[Bruce B]

If you weren't at the recording session, how would you ever know what the performer intended? You think their room might have had a few imperfections as well?

I know the performer approved the release of the file (download/LP/tape) and we have to assume that it was done in a reasonably correct room. That's all we have to go by.

 

[Al M.]

I just feel that using any type of DSP room correction should be a last resort after exhausting all other possibilities. I also feel that it is a cop out when people don't want to put in the work in the rest of their system and are looking for an easy way out.

My feelings as well.