it sounds like it would be easier, and possibly simpler, to dedicate 1 or more subs to the v low end; i.e. a mono sub to something like 30-40Hz (or whatever) and then treat the next subs as a woofer. Do you use those Pro audio tech speakers in your 2 channel system? just curious where you cross them now as they seem pretty capable in themselves.
Dirac live vs Acourate vs Audiolense
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
For two channel use I don't use any subs, and rely entirely on the Pro Audio Tech woofers in the left and right main speakers. Those give me solid low end response into the mid 30s on each of the left and right speakers. (But, when run as a pair, the response falls of in the lower 50s due to a phase mismatch from 50hz on down between the Left and Right woofers.)
For multichannel use I cross over to five subs run as a single mono channel at 60hz. Doing that avoids all the phase issues of left and right main speaker woofers.
For two channel listening I face the normal audiophile conundrum: I either have to run the left and right mains full range and blend a sub in below that (a-la many REL installations), which avoids inserting crossover electronics into the left and right main speaker feeds, or, I have to insert a crossover for the left and right mains. The former is problematic because my left and right mains have good individual response into the mid 30s. The latter is problematic because I am inserting another device into my signal chain, losing part of my "purist two channel" simplicity.
For two channel use I feed a two channel MSB dac ... I don't have a multichannel dac and don't use Acourate for crossover duties. So, to insert a crossover for two channel listening, I'd have to use something like a JL Audio or Pass Labs outboard crossover downstream of the MSB and VTL preamp.
You could use the Trinnov as a crossover and do for bass management in 2 channel mode. You would use the MSB DAC downstream connected digitally for mains, and you can use the DAC(s) of the Trinnov for your subs. I used to do precisely that with Avalon mains and 2 x JL Sub (mono) through a Trinnov, using my MSB DAC for mains, and Trinnov DAC for subs. Worked like a charm.
I am moving from Lynx out of my server to a pink faun I2S card, which would also work with MSB I2S Pro. This seems to be even more promising. But running through the Trinnov would give you the bass management options, allowing to integrate the subs in 2 channel mode.
So does Acourate. It would be much simpler and probably a better integration to use Acourate.
If acourate has the same bass management functionality, cutting out one box (Trinnov) and cable out of the chain is always a good idea. This is precisely why I consolidated all my digital processing on a single box (server) and sold the Trinnov.
It's really Jriver which makes it possible to merge multiple setups into one system. I think Trinnov is good stuff but box solutions are always a compromise, IMO.
The Trinnov is great for what it does, but it's not the very best there is for two channel. I don't use the Trinnov at all in my two channel rig (my two channel rig is Server -> USB -> MSB -> XLR -> VTL -> Speakers). I also don't use J River at all for any multichannel playback, greatly preferring to use my MSB and other sources through the Trinnov.
The Lynx is an interesting idea. I could go from the Core Audio server to a multichannel Lynx (or maybe a Pink Faun i2s, but I'm not sure that will works as the MSB network connection, while it uses a CAT6 cable, does not adhere to traditional i2s protocols, and I suspect the clocks are not as good as those in the MSB), and then have two channels of the Lynx feed the MSB stack and another channel (or two) feeding subs that are dedicated to two channel use, with Acourate doing the crossovers in the server. I might face time alignment issues though, as it's not obvious that the MSB has the exact same latency for different input sample rates.
Last edited:
You would use a pair of analog out from the Hilo to the subs. The AES channel pair goes to the MSB for your fullrange R/L. The clock is imbedded in the AES. I think the MSB has an optional asynchronous FIFO buffer. If the FIFO is on it won't work unless you use the sync. I'm not sure if your MSB has a sync connection. If you turn the FIFO buffer off, it should all be synchronous.
In that configuration where/how would volume control happen? It currently happens in my VTL?
I'm virtually certain the MSB would be asynch, but, the actual timing mismatch might be very small given that I'd be dealing with bass signals below 50hz (pretty large waves). I definitely want to use the clock in the MSB for timing, as it's by far my highest quality clock source, and, right next to the critical DAC stage.
I'm virtually certain the MSB would be asynch, but, the actual timing mismatch might be very small given that I'd be dealing with bass signals below 50hz (pretty large waves). I definitely want to use the clock in the MSB for timing, as it's by far my highest quality clock source, and, right next to the critical DAC stage.
Won't work. If you use reclocking with the MSB, the delay is somthing like 0.5 sec. You subs will be out of sync with mains. You need to turn reclocking off. I always did this using the MSB in Multu Channel mode (with the Trinnov).
Hi,
I'm looking into Accurate and Dirac.
Is there a basic difference of where Dirac uses an approach to measure and correct for multiple spaces in a room because as they put it, "a perfect correction in one single point most always implies degradation everywhere else." And Acourate focuses on one ideal listening position.
Does the Dirac multi position approach produce a more even, and compromised, response? Does the Accurate approach produce a more ideal single listening position at a greater compromise to the rest of the room?
This specifically could apply to my room, I think, because it is a large workspace where I'm moving around a lot.
I'm looking into Accurate and Dirac.
Is there a basic difference of where Dirac uses an approach to measure and correct for multiple spaces in a room because as they put it, "a perfect correction in one single point most always implies degradation everywhere else." And Acourate focuses on one ideal listening position.
Does the Dirac multi position approach produce a more even, and compromised, response? Does the Accurate approach produce a more ideal single listening position at a greater compromise to the rest of the room?
This specifically could apply to my room, I think, because it is a large workspace where I'm moving around a lot.
I know nothing about Acourate but have been using Dirac for about 5 or 6 years. Initially running in my PC server for 2 channel and now on an SSP for multi-channel. From my experience, when running the Dirac processor to create the filters, if you space the measurements too close together, you run the risk of creating filters where there are some large peaks in the filters which can possibly cause harshness on occasion. If you space the measurements further apart (even sometimes further than is recommended for a single seating position), that never occurs and I get the very best sound I have ever had in my room.
My recommendation: experiment -- A LOT!!
My recommendation: experiment -- A LOT!!
I do not know where to direct you for further reading, but the single point vs. spatially averaged, multipoint measurement debates have been quietly festering for awhile. I am strongly in the multipoint camp.
My understanding is that acoustic measurements of any kind will vary bigly at various points around the room. This is inevitable in room acoustics. You cannot measure every point in the room. The best you can do is to sample the sound field at various points, and combine those points with a "smart" weighted average, not a simple arithmetic average.
I think multipoint can give a truer picture for a larger area vs. the single point sample size = one. Every individual measurement in a room will have some purely local response issues at that point plus general and common room response issues. General room response issues can better be revealed via multipoint sampling with smart averaging techniques, since the multiple points are compared, weighted and combined. Via single point, general and local response issues are indistinguishable.
Understand also that it adds considerably to cost, complexity, etc. for the makers of room correction suites to use multipoint vs. single point. The makers who do use it have done considerable research, and they have concluded the added cost and complexity yield greater accuracy and better results for users. If not, they would have every incentive to simplify via single point.
Meanwhile, I really like Dirac and its ease of learning/use is extraordinarily good. It also sounds great to me. It is indispensable. I used Audyssey XT/32 w. Audyssey Pro prior to that.
I do not know about the current status of Uli's arguments or of his software. I do know he argued "to the death" in favor of his single point process several years ago. He lost me, probably forever, at that precise moment. But, perhaps, you need to google those old threads and see for yourself.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |