Dirac validation

[dallasjustice]

N

I would love to hear why have you made the switch, would you share your considerations?

Thanks,
Ron

I use a pair of mono subs integrated with a 3 way setup. The outcome is a stereo system with mono subs with 47hz, 12db per octave NT crossover and the same for RL speakers. Subs are on front and backwalls in a quasi-Geddes/Toole setup.

Reasons why Acourate is better:
1. Acourate can accommodate my setup. DIRAC cannot.
2. Acourate uses 64 bit floating FIR filters which include a great volume control all under a single dither stage. DIRAC does not.

If you want to use a digital volume control with DIRAC, you will be applying multiple layers of dither which is undesirable. Also, if one wants to use a digital crossover with DIRAC, it's best for technical reasons to use an an external unit like the DEQX. That's what I did. In this case, I was applying at least 3 levels of dither to the signal. DIRAC is really NOT designed for advanced DSP setups.
3. Acourate sounds much better in my setup.

I think DIRAC Unison may address some of these issues in the future. We will see. Since it took them at least 2 years to implement 192khz, I am not holding my breath for any big improvements in the near term.

 

[Ron Kuper]

Very interesting, Thanks!

Not nearly as advanced setup as yours but might give Acourate a try only for the XO part. Driving me nuts at the moment knowing about those XO dips unseen by DIRAC or timing and phase issues if I'm using BM at the PrePro while measuring.

Also now with JRiver WDM driver one could theoretically use a convolution filter system wide similarly to DAP (latency issues might be a challenge though).

 

[dallasjustice]

Also now with JRiver WDM driver one could theoretically use a convolution filter system wide similarly to DAP (latency issues might be a challenge though).

I use it and it works well. Online audio latency is an issue but not with Netflix since Netflix video can be delayed.