Excellent idea Lee! ...Like the Integra DHC-80.3 Surround Sound Processor for example. :b
Room Correction for 2 Channel?
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
Excellent idea Lee! ...Like the Integra DHC-80.3 Surround Sound Processor for example. :b
Lee:
I am using an Integra 80.2 and that is the basis upon which I made statement. That is, a $2000 SSP with well done room correction is a much better choice for me in my room than my previous SSP that was SEVEN times the price but did NOT have room correction.
Edorr: My previous SSP was a $14,000 Casablanca with NO room correction. And before the Casablanca, I had the Meridian – so I most certainly have heard a high end SSP(s) in my room. AND I had them (Casablanca and Integra) in the same room at the same time. My room is also very well treated with all four corners and soffits having built in bass traps, treated first and second reflection point, treated rear wall, ceiling etc. While imperfect, the room is still better than many and would never be considered a poor room. A friend has the more recent CBIII (non HDMI) but with digital outs, so is able run room correction (he has 4 stereo room correction devices) and there is still no contest and his room is close to perfect and designed by a very highly thought of room designer (Chris Huston). So this is great hardware with and without room correction - and the room corrected room is FAR superior. And in his and my opinion in his room, room correction does more to enhance the listening experience that the upgraded hardware did
BUT, my room is not perfect. Even perfectly matched speakers all of the way around STILL do not sound the same due to placement. For example, my rear speakers are near a corner and my sides (identical speaker to the rear speaker) are mid wall and sound significantly different than the rears.
With Audyssey in the 80.2, the speakers all sound much more the same and as a result, the sense of envelopment is far superior than in an SSP without correction.
Since I wrote my previous post in a semi drug induced state, maybe I did not make myself clear in what I was trying to communicate: FOR ME, a well designed and well executed multi-channel digital room correction enabled SSP, plays a much larger role IN MY ROOM AND TO MY EARS, than a more expensive SSP that has better DAC's, power supplies, etc) but either has an inferior room correction ability or none at all.
Since you stated
I guess we get to agree to disagree.
I am still looking for great room correction on great hardware (like the Lexicon might have been or the Casablanca III might be or some of the other current contneders).
OR (and preferably) great room correction (multi-channel) built into a PC based music server/media server. Then the cost of the hardware gets significantly reduced!
I just realized that I have taken my own thread off topic: this thread was originally started as 2 channel room correction and we have wandered off onto multi-channel !
Chuck, you just refreshed my memory; that's right you did mention before that you have the Integra DHC-80.2 pre/pro with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready.
And that is precisely why I am so much interested in your comments from this thread.
Because you are experimenting with all the very Best Room Correction, Calibration, and EQ systems out there. :b
* And now with the PC integration into that EQuation, this becomes even more interesting because of all the huge savings that we can all benefit from.
I guess that our personal computers are now an integral part of all that audio electronica.
And that means EQuing properly our own rooms acoustically and satisfactory. :b
And it's a fact that computers are used to programme and record room's measurements.
And that DSP chip programmers used them extensively.
Like Audyssey, Trinnov, TacT, and all that Jazz ...
And that is precisely why I am so much interested in your comments from this thread.
Because you are experimenting with all the very Best Room Correction, Calibration, and EQ systems out there. :b
* And now with the PC integration into that EQuation, this becomes even more interesting because of all the huge savings that we can all benefit from.
I guess that our personal computers are now an integral part of all that audio electronica.
And that means EQuing properly our own rooms acoustically and satisfactory. :b
And it's a fact that computers are used to programme and record room's measurements.
And that DSP chip programmers used them extensively.
Like Audyssey, Trinnov, TacT, and all that Jazz ...
Chuck,
Thanks for the memory jog! Doesn't the 80.3, for instance, now use a more powerful version of Audyssey? My Krell doesn't have room correction either, so I have no foundation for any critique.
Lee
Thanks for the memory jog! Doesn't the 80.3, for instance, now use a more powerful version of Audyssey? My Krell doesn't have room correction either, so I have no foundation for any critique.
Lee
Lee, both the DHC-80.2 and the DHC-80.3 use the same Audyssey MultEQ XT32 flavor,
and are both equally Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready.
* The DHC-80.3 might add 'Audyssey LFC' (Low Frequency Containment);
I'm not sure though. Here: http://www.audyssey.com/ca/node/520
And it adds (over the DHC-80.2) DTS Neo:X, a similar variation of Audyssey DSX with Width & Height surround channels.
But the Audyssey programmation software is the same in both these models from this year and last year. ... If I'm wrong, please someone correct me.
and are both equally Audyssey MultEQ Pro Ready.
* The DHC-80.3 might add 'Audyssey LFC' (Low Frequency Containment);
I'm not sure though. Here: http://www.audyssey.com/ca/node/520
And it adds (over the DHC-80.2) DTS Neo:X, a similar variation of Audyssey DSX with Width & Height surround channels.
But the Audyssey programmation software is the same in both these models from this year and last year. ... If I'm wrong, please someone correct me.
Last edited:
It is unfortunate this stuff is a bitch to set up and haul around othewise we could do some A/B comparisons with different hardware and software configurations. I live within 30 minutes driving distance from you.
I'm with you on that one. My "ideal" architeture would be all digital front end (i.e. computer) as a music server / Xover / room correction sytem, with all digital outs, feeding an array of DACs (or a single MCH DAC, like the EMM labs). The actual content would be stored and managed in the cloud, allowing you to browse through 10 years worth of Blue Note life performance, than can be streamed 3D video / High Rez MCH audio into your (fully EQ'ed) basement. 10 years out may be?
All this stuff reminds me of Odyssee Motion Simulator, developed by Longueil (Montreal),
Quebec-based D-BOX Technology, Inc.
...Where specific movies on Blu-ray (mainly from FOX Studios) are specially encoded from that program (D-BOX) with the intended & added new dimension to the home theater experience by completely immersing viewers in on-screen action in order to bring exhilarating virtual reality to home entertainment.
Perhaps some Music Surround recordings would also adapt well to that kind of digital 'Sensation' programmation?
Do you guys know what I'm talkin' 'bout?
* http://www.d-box.com/en/about-d-box/
* http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec05/articles/dbox/history.htm
* http://www.didimala.co.za/conference_and_functions.htm
Quebec-based D-BOX Technology, Inc.
...Where specific movies on Blu-ray (mainly from FOX Studios) are specially encoded from that program (D-BOX) with the intended & added new dimension to the home theater experience by completely immersing viewers in on-screen action in order to bring exhilarating virtual reality to home entertainment.
Perhaps some Music Surround recordings would also adapt well to that kind of digital 'Sensation' programmation?
Do you guys know what I'm talkin' 'bout?
* http://www.d-box.com/en/about-d-box/
* http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec05/articles/dbox/history.htm
* http://www.didimala.co.za/conference_and_functions.htm
Last edited:
Is edorr actually Ed Orr who used to work at NDC (and a bank in California before that) many moons ago by any chance?
How to approach Digital Room Correction
Hi
Presently I listen to music through a variety of great headphones, headamp and a PC-based system. Very good but the tactile element of music is missing in headphone listening.
This type of listening does teach us a lot, about the contributions of the room especially in the bass. Short of Heroic Room treatment, bass reproduction in most rooms is disastrous. I also have come to see that some “Digital Room Correction” systems offer much more than mere “room” correction, some perform some interesting and to me worthwhile speaker correction.
This week-end I had the opportunity to set-up an Audio-Video system centered on a Denon AVR. The room is a Living Room in concrete and fairly large, I would estimate about (L XWXH) 20 x 25 x 12.. Heavy drapes and lot of furniture.. It is rather damped in the highs but the lows …were, to say the least, a whole different problem…I fired Audyssey and after much fiddling and reading, the results with Def tech speakers and subs (2) were very good… Audyssey worked better than I imagined or suspected… Resonances and boominess were very well dealt with. The most interesting thing to me was that the sound character up high did not change much… but in the bass it was the proverbial and audiophile-overused “night and day”.
My interest in Room Correction which up to then has been an “on”,” off”,” maybe” ,” I-don’t-know”, thing was rekindled.
For my next system and at least the next 2years, I will likely not have the luxury of a dedicated person-cave-type
of listening room. It will be shared with the family, likely include home theatre, some kind of screen,etc… It will be optimized however for 2-ch music, for now .. Down the road , I will acquire a dedicated room in a dedicated place and that will be my MAN-cave no other person-cave but that is at least 2 years down, in the meantime I must listen to music so .. here we go!
What is available in term of 2-ch room correction? I personally know about TaCT, DeQX, Audyssey, Trinnov, DIRAC, ARC and also interesting things like DSP and the one for foobar, there is also the poorly known but apparently extremely high performance Room Correction and all-digital-approach of Behold and the forgotten but very much alive Z-system whose RDP-1 was at one time quite loved by audiophiles. I am frankly attracted to TaCT but increasingly like what I read about DeQX, seems it does more things… What I would like to see in this thread are discussions about different room and peaker correction systems and owners experiences. This is to me a subject of increasing importance.
Thanks for reading this long preamble … What are your thoughts, advices, questions, experiences.. In short share your knowledge with us
Hi
Presently I listen to music through a variety of great headphones, headamp and a PC-based system. Very good but the tactile element of music is missing in headphone listening.
This type of listening does teach us a lot, about the contributions of the room especially in the bass. Short of Heroic Room treatment, bass reproduction in most rooms is disastrous. I also have come to see that some “Digital Room Correction” systems offer much more than mere “room” correction, some perform some interesting and to me worthwhile speaker correction.
This week-end I had the opportunity to set-up an Audio-Video system centered on a Denon AVR. The room is a Living Room in concrete and fairly large, I would estimate about (L XWXH) 20 x 25 x 12.. Heavy drapes and lot of furniture.. It is rather damped in the highs but the lows …were, to say the least, a whole different problem…I fired Audyssey and after much fiddling and reading, the results with Def tech speakers and subs (2) were very good… Audyssey worked better than I imagined or suspected… Resonances and boominess were very well dealt with. The most interesting thing to me was that the sound character up high did not change much… but in the bass it was the proverbial and audiophile-overused “night and day”.
My interest in Room Correction which up to then has been an “on”,” off”,” maybe” ,” I-don’t-know”, thing was rekindled.
For my next system and at least the next 2years, I will likely not have the luxury of a dedicated person-cave-type
of listening room. It will be shared with the family, likely include home theatre, some kind of screen,etc… It will be optimized however for 2-ch music, for now .. Down the road , I will acquire a dedicated room in a dedicated place and that will be my MAN-cave no other person-cave but that is at least 2 years down, in the meantime I must listen to music so .. here we go!What is available in term of 2-ch room correction? I personally know about TaCT, DeQX, Audyssey, Trinnov, DIRAC, ARC and also interesting things like DSP and the one for foobar, there is also the poorly known but apparently extremely high performance Room Correction and all-digital-approach of Behold and the forgotten but very much alive Z-system whose RDP-1 was at one time quite loved by audiophiles. I am frankly attracted to TaCT but increasingly like what I read about DeQX, seems it does more things… What I would like to see in this thread are discussions about different room and peaker correction systems and owners experiences. This is to me a subject of increasing importance.
Thanks for reading this long preamble … What are your thoughts, advices, questions, experiences.. In short share your knowledge with us
I was very happy with the Lyngdorf RP-1 Frantz. It takes some time to get a good number of "snapshots" but it is time well spent. Not as flexible as the DEQX, then again what is, but I can say that it is a very transparent, fuss free, solution for both analog and digital. I didn't get to use the 2+2 crossover feature or as a stand alone DAC but I did enjoy being able to toggle between the provided curves. I stopped using it when my room was built since I no longer needed it but it was a Godsend for the old place. I would recommend trying it to anybody that has to adhere to strict WAF. Come to think of it, I do! Also much better than the Audyssey on my Marantz Pre Pro. This I ended up calibrating, Phonic in hand, manually eventually.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with Lyngdorf or any of their distributors BTW.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with Lyngdorf or any of their distributors BTW.
Hi Frantz,
I have almost 3 years hands-on with the TacT 2.2XP and now a couple of weeks with the Trinnov. Assuming by DEQX that you mean the HDP-Express or HDP-Pro "room correction" preamps, I've heard precisely one demo which I can briefly comment upon, but Nyal is the real expert 'round these parts. Because it's distantly related, I'm vaguely familiar with the Lyngdorf's basic functionality, but I have no hands on there, either. I use Audyssey in a bedroom HT, but I've not used it in what I would consider to be a high performance 2.x channel system.
The TacT is a single measurement point device, but has otherwise excellent flexibility. Target curves are infinitely adjustable by the user and as many as nine may be saved in the pre-sets. Many more may be saved in the computer and it comes with three dozen or so, as delivered. Target curves and correction down to as low as 1Hz. Upper correction limit may be set as low as 300Hz, IIRC. Separate PEQ function may be laid on top of the target curve, if desired. Highly flexible crossover management - Linkwitz Reilly up to 144dB/octave. Mono or stereo bass, with a "subwoofer diversity" setting which uses the FR measurements from two subs to complement one another. Steep learning curve, but once I learned the software I had zero problems.
Lyngdorf is a multi-measurement position device, though correction may be chosen for multi-seat or sweet spot. Small number of provided target curves. Don't believe there's much, if any flexibility to alter those curves - perhaps Jack can comment upon this aspect.
Based upon the DEQX demo I heard @ RMAF, I believe that it corrects both amplitude and phase, that it applies up to +-3dB to the measured speaker response and has no target curve tweakability. I was told that it did have low/mid/high passband tilt function to adjust spectral balance to taste. I believe it, too, has separate PEQ which can be used to further tweak FR. Hopefully, Nyal can add to or correct any/all of this!
Still early days with the Trinnov, but it corrects amplitude or phase or both, as directed by the user. Excellent target curve flexibility with 29 presets. Every aspect of either is user selectable e.g. user-defined boost and cut max levels, IIR (bass) only, FIR (mids/highs) only, or both. User-selectable # of filters. Separate FIR filters and/or EQ may be overlaid. Corrects early reflections based on a user-specified # of cycles. Late reflection smoothing adjustable from 1/6 to 1 octave. Highly adjustable Xovers. Bass management mode. 2D remapping within the span of the speakers. 3D remapping if using, say, a height speaker as part of an HT. NB: I haven't used remapping and so can't comment on that functionality. Highly flexible I/O. Many, many other features I've yet to explore, but I think those are the high points.
As for listening impressions, although I felt that the DEQX made a huge difference @ the RMAF demo - bypass/amplitude correction/phase and amplitude correction - that's certainly not hands-on, nor is it a comparison in my system.
I thought that the TacT made a huge difference in soundstage clarity. In part, simply by reducing the FR variation and thus unmasking otherwise "hidden" frequency bands. I also suspect that some of this is due to the fact that both L & R channels, which had variant FR due to the acoustic asymmetry in my room, were now essentially identical, as corrected. Nice solid center image. NB: All of this was accomplished in a room already well-treated with absorption & diffusion via ASC, etc.
Again, still tweaking the Trinnov, but the center image is now rock-solid. Some varying dissatisfaction I had about specific HF effects with the TacT is now simply gone. The corrected amplitude isn't appreciably different, so I suspect that this is a result of either phase correction, early/late relfections correction, or both. Bass response, which in the TacT was ideal @ the LP, but pretty boomy sitting in the sofa at the back of my room, is now quite good.
A final reiteration of both Mark Seaton and Kal's spot-on observations in another thread. Both TacT and Trinnov are not set and forget devices, but both provide degrees of flexibility/tweakability which will amply reward the diligent user.
Hope that helps, Frantz! Happy to answer any specific questions as best I can.
Ken
I have almost 3 years hands-on with the TacT 2.2XP and now a couple of weeks with the Trinnov. Assuming by DEQX that you mean the HDP-Express or HDP-Pro "room correction" preamps, I've heard precisely one demo which I can briefly comment upon, but Nyal is the real expert 'round these parts. Because it's distantly related, I'm vaguely familiar with the Lyngdorf's basic functionality, but I have no hands on there, either. I use Audyssey in a bedroom HT, but I've not used it in what I would consider to be a high performance 2.x channel system.
The TacT is a single measurement point device, but has otherwise excellent flexibility. Target curves are infinitely adjustable by the user and as many as nine may be saved in the pre-sets. Many more may be saved in the computer and it comes with three dozen or so, as delivered. Target curves and correction down to as low as 1Hz. Upper correction limit may be set as low as 300Hz, IIRC. Separate PEQ function may be laid on top of the target curve, if desired. Highly flexible crossover management - Linkwitz Reilly up to 144dB/octave. Mono or stereo bass, with a "subwoofer diversity" setting which uses the FR measurements from two subs to complement one another. Steep learning curve, but once I learned the software I had zero problems.
Lyngdorf is a multi-measurement position device, though correction may be chosen for multi-seat or sweet spot. Small number of provided target curves. Don't believe there's much, if any flexibility to alter those curves - perhaps Jack can comment upon this aspect.
Based upon the DEQX demo I heard @ RMAF, I believe that it corrects both amplitude and phase, that it applies up to +-3dB to the measured speaker response and has no target curve tweakability. I was told that it did have low/mid/high passband tilt function to adjust spectral balance to taste. I believe it, too, has separate PEQ which can be used to further tweak FR. Hopefully, Nyal can add to or correct any/all of this!
Still early days with the Trinnov, but it corrects amplitude or phase or both, as directed by the user. Excellent target curve flexibility with 29 presets. Every aspect of either is user selectable e.g. user-defined boost and cut max levels, IIR (bass) only, FIR (mids/highs) only, or both. User-selectable # of filters. Separate FIR filters and/or EQ may be overlaid. Corrects early reflections based on a user-specified # of cycles. Late reflection smoothing adjustable from 1/6 to 1 octave. Highly adjustable Xovers. Bass management mode. 2D remapping within the span of the speakers. 3D remapping if using, say, a height speaker as part of an HT. NB: I haven't used remapping and so can't comment on that functionality. Highly flexible I/O. Many, many other features I've yet to explore, but I think those are the high points.
As for listening impressions, although I felt that the DEQX made a huge difference @ the RMAF demo - bypass/amplitude correction/phase and amplitude correction - that's certainly not hands-on, nor is it a comparison in my system.
I thought that the TacT made a huge difference in soundstage clarity. In part, simply by reducing the FR variation and thus unmasking otherwise "hidden" frequency bands. I also suspect that some of this is due to the fact that both L & R channels, which had variant FR due to the acoustic asymmetry in my room, were now essentially identical, as corrected. Nice solid center image. NB: All of this was accomplished in a room already well-treated with absorption & diffusion via ASC, etc.
Again, still tweaking the Trinnov, but the center image is now rock-solid. Some varying dissatisfaction I had about specific HF effects with the TacT is now simply gone. The corrected amplitude isn't appreciably different, so I suspect that this is a result of either phase correction, early/late relfections correction, or both. Bass response, which in the TacT was ideal @ the LP, but pretty boomy sitting in the sofa at the back of my room, is now quite good.
A final reiteration of both Mark Seaton and Kal's spot-on observations in another thread. Both TacT and Trinnov are not set and forget devices, but both provide degrees of flexibility/tweakability which will amply reward the diligent user.
Hope that helps, Frantz! Happy to answer any specific questions as best I can.
Ken
Hi
Presently I listen to music through a variety of great headphones, headamp and a PC-based system. Very good but the tactile element of music is missing in headphone listening.
This type of listening does teach us a lot, about the contributions of the room especially in the bass. Short of Heroic Room treatment, bass reproduction in most rooms is disastrous. I also have come to see that some “Digital Room Correction” systems offer much more than mere “room” correction, some perform some interesting and to me worthwhile speaker correction.
This week-end I had the opportunity to set-up an Audio-Video system centered on a Denon AVR. The room is a Living Room in concrete and fairly large, I would estimate about (L XWXH) 20 x 25 x 12.. Heavy drapes and lot of furniture.. It is rather damped in the highs but the lows …were, to say the least, a whole different problem…I fired Audyssey and after much fiddling and reading, the results with Def tech speakers and subs (2) were very good… Audyssey worked better than I imagined or suspected… Resonances and boominess were very well dealt with. The most interesting thing to me was that the sound character up high did not change much… but in the bass it was the proverbial and audiophile-overused “night and day”.
My interest in Room Correction which up to then has been an “on”,” off”,” maybe” ,” I-don’t-know”, thing was rekindled.
For my next system and at least the next 2years, I will likely not have the luxury of a dedicated person-cave-type
What is available in term of 2-ch room correction? I personally know about TaCT, DeQX, Audyssey, Trinnov, DIRAC, ARC and also interesting things like DSP and the one for foobar, there is also the poorly known but apparently extremely high performance Room Correction and all-digital-approach of Behold and the forgotten but very much alive Z-system whose RDP-1 was at one time quite loved by audiophiles. I am frankly attracted to TaCT but increasingly like what I read about DeQX, seems it does more things… What I would like to see in this thread are discussions about different room and speaker correction systems and owners experiences. This is to me a subject of increasing importance.
Thanks for reading this long preamble … What are your thoughts, advices, questions, experiences.. In short share your knowledge with us
Same here Frantz, same here.
* Properly positioned microphone measurements gives me a vast sound quality improvement with
2-channel Stereo music listening in my own room from Audyssey. :b
...And from all the audio spectrum frequencies.
- I will be back in this thread to elaborate more from my own experience, in my own room, with my loudspeakers, and what Audyssey does to my ears at the end.
And how I have everything setup, including Audyssey's mic positioning.
Last edited:
I was very happy with the Lyngdorf RP-1 Frantz. It takes some time to get a good number of "snapshots" but it is time well spent. Not as flexible as the DEQX, then again what is, but I can say that it is a very transparent, fuss free, solution for both analog and digital. I didn't get to use the 2+2 crossover feature or as a stand alone DAC but I did enjoy being able to toggle between the provided curves. I stopped using it when my room was built since I no longer needed it but it was a Godsend for the old place. I would recommend trying it to anybody that has to adhere to strict WAF. Come to think of it, I do! Also much better than the Audyssey on my Marantz Pre Pro. This I ended up calibrating, Phonic in hand, manually eventually.
I have no affiliation whatsoever with Lyngdorf or any of their distributors BTW.
Which Marantz pre/pro model Jack?
The case for Room Correction
Hi
This post is prompted by the very thoughtful and kind reply from RUR, thread going on about Bruce B room and speaker calibration and finally by my own turns and curve in my audiophile journey. I will share my thoughts with the collective and hope I will derive more enjoyment from my music collection, the ultimate goal for me.
First let’s put aside some misconception. What one wants from a transducer is a faithful reproduction of the electrical signal without emphasizing any portion, specific frequency over the other…. IOW we want our transducer to be as linear as possible. We want that to happen in our room. Unless the transducer is designed for our specific room the chance of taking it and dropping it in a room and to see that happen is as good as winning the Lotto each week for a month. Yet it is that we , audiophiles, claim possible and in most ways with a fervor which is as close to a religious belief as I have seen in any hobby.
Most speakers in most rooms behave in a very unfaithful way. Unless heroic actions are taken to treat the room, most rooms exhibits these aberrations and many room have peaks and valley in the order of several dB some time up to 20 dB or even more. Yet , we and surprisingly, some reviewers almost reject the notion of room treatment .. you can then tell the reaction of the same crowd toward Digital (oh the dreaded word0 Room Correction.
I have been on the fence, I like the concept but never, fully committed myself toward even trying it.. I will talk about it, inquire, ask but never bit the (relatively speaking) modest financial bullet. OR even the benign trial.
One more thing: I am fully invested in the multiple subwoofers configuration. Not because of any particular attraction to a frequency band (bass-head snicker) but rather that listening sessions and my measurements coincide in the conclusion that multiple subs in different part of the room either the Harman/ Sean Olive method or the Geddes method produce the best inmost any rooms whether in 2-CH or MC. Tried it, looked weird, sounded best, measured best.
Thus I am interested in DRC but it will be used in a 3-subs Geddes set-up. I like the time alignment possible with any of these.. TacT or DeQX can retard or advance subs and mains to coincide in time at the listening position. As matter of fact if you have subs in your system DRC of any kind are the only way you can have true coherence of all the transducers at the listening position. Unless you use one of the new AV receivers out there which perform the same trick rather easily ..No other way. Let’s take the example of mains with subs .. ANY subs. The subs are in the back of the main, thus their output arrives a little bit later than that of the mains .. if they are in the front .. their output arrives earlier than that of the mains … It is true our brain/ear apparatus take a little while to process bass information about 50 ms in around 60 Hz, still you don’t have true convergence .. with something like a TaCT or DeQX .. easily done… to the ms or the Hz…
What does one lose when one uses a TaCT in a entirely digital chain? I listen to mostly digital music anyway but have inherited about 1200 LP and some tapes and am in the process of acquiring TT, arms, -Cart, R2R and head amp. But my question remains what does a person lose with a TaCT in an all-digital system.. Even if one decides not to use the DAC in the TaCT using as a only DRC.. What does one lose? Has anybody used such a configuration, that is follow the TaCT with a DAC of supposedly higher performance in the Digital to analog conversion chores? Has anyone used a TaCt or any other DRC with a 3-sub system or used the TacT exclusively to tame the low bass where most room are not good anyway.. I would have loved to leave everything from 500 Hz and up alone relying on passive approach to tame them (maybe some speaker correction in the audible range but not room correction above 500 Hz)..
Thoughts, comments, experience sharing, suggestions, critics (but no flames please) welcome appreciated and expected. More later …
P.S. MArty here has , I believe a system with Tubes (VTL) electronics an Pipedreams speakers with Dual JL Audio Gotham subwoofers .. I would like him to chime him about his particular configuration and hat he has achieved apparently one of the best system around form those who have heard it .. Pinging Marty
Audioguy has always been a proponent of DRC, he is now using Audyssey but (seems to) always had a taCT or other DRC in his signal chain. I need his input as well... Especially what he uses for DAC with the TaCT(when he used it and why he no longer uses the taCT.
I , of course need the advice of RUR who has used several of these DRC and would like to have his take on one that would perform best in a non-dedicated listening environment situation, that I will soon face
Hi
This post is prompted by the very thoughtful and kind reply from RUR, thread going on about Bruce B room and speaker calibration and finally by my own turns and curve in my audiophile journey. I will share my thoughts with the collective and hope I will derive more enjoyment from my music collection, the ultimate goal for me.
First let’s put aside some misconception. What one wants from a transducer is a faithful reproduction of the electrical signal without emphasizing any portion, specific frequency over the other…. IOW we want our transducer to be as linear as possible. We want that to happen in our room. Unless the transducer is designed for our specific room the chance of taking it and dropping it in a room and to see that happen is as good as winning the Lotto each week for a month. Yet it is that we , audiophiles, claim possible and in most ways with a fervor which is as close to a religious belief as I have seen in any hobby.
Most speakers in most rooms behave in a very unfaithful way. Unless heroic actions are taken to treat the room, most rooms exhibits these aberrations and many room have peaks and valley in the order of several dB some time up to 20 dB or even more. Yet , we and surprisingly, some reviewers almost reject the notion of room treatment .. you can then tell the reaction of the same crowd toward Digital (oh the dreaded word0 Room Correction.
I have been on the fence, I like the concept but never, fully committed myself toward even trying it.. I will talk about it, inquire, ask but never bit the (relatively speaking) modest financial bullet. OR even the benign trial.
One more thing: I am fully invested in the multiple subwoofers configuration. Not because of any particular attraction to a frequency band (bass-head snicker) but rather that listening sessions and my measurements coincide in the conclusion that multiple subs in different part of the room either the Harman/ Sean Olive method or the Geddes method produce the best inmost any rooms whether in 2-CH or MC. Tried it, looked weird, sounded best, measured best.
Thus I am interested in DRC but it will be used in a 3-subs Geddes set-up. I like the time alignment possible with any of these.. TacT or DeQX can retard or advance subs and mains to coincide in time at the listening position. As matter of fact if you have subs in your system DRC of any kind are the only way you can have true coherence of all the transducers at the listening position. Unless you use one of the new AV receivers out there which perform the same trick rather easily ..
No other way. Let’s take the example of mains with subs .. ANY subs. The subs are in the back of the main, thus their output arrives a little bit later than that of the mains .. if they are in the front .. their output arrives earlier than that of the mains … It is true our brain/ear apparatus take a little while to process bass information about 50 ms in around 60 Hz, still you don’t have true convergence .. with something like a TaCT or DeQX .. easily done… to the ms or the Hz…What does one lose when one uses a TaCT in a entirely digital chain? I listen to mostly digital music anyway but have inherited about 1200 LP and some tapes and am in the process of acquiring TT, arms, -Cart, R2R and head amp. But my question remains what does a person lose with a TaCT in an all-digital system.. Even if one decides not to use the DAC in the TaCT using as a only DRC.. What does one lose? Has anybody used such a configuration, that is follow the TaCT with a DAC of supposedly higher performance in the Digital to analog conversion chores? Has anyone used a TaCt or any other DRC with a 3-sub system or used the TacT exclusively to tame the low bass where most room are not good anyway.. I would have loved to leave everything from 500 Hz and up alone relying on passive approach to tame them (maybe some speaker correction in the audible range but not room correction above 500 Hz)..
Thoughts, comments, experience sharing, suggestions, critics (but no flames please) welcome appreciated and expected. More later …
P.S. MArty here has , I believe a system with Tubes (VTL) electronics an Pipedreams speakers with Dual JL Audio Gotham subwoofers .. I would like him to chime him about his particular configuration and hat he has achieved apparently one of the best system around form those who have heard it .. Pinging Marty
Audioguy has always been a proponent of DRC, he is now using Audyssey but (seems to) always had a taCT or other DRC in his signal chain. I need his input as well... Especially what he uses for DAC with the TaCT(when he used it and why he no longer uses the taCT.
I , of course need the advice of RUR who has used several of these DRC and would like to have his take on one that would perform best in a non-dedicated listening environment situation, that I will soon face
Frantz, a quality digital Room EQ system will enhance your analog 2-channel Stereo music listening experience.
Big time. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from the analog to digital conversion.
Sorry for the short post, but it is the main line; at least my opinion from personal experience.
Big time. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from the analog to digital conversion.
Sorry for the short post, but it is the main line; at least my opinion from personal experience.
I guess the trouble is that few of us can give an opinion of different systems here, we usually have 'one not the other'.
For example, in my case I use the deqx, yet cannot compare that (sonically at least) with other units such as tact etc etc. I spose the best we can hope for is that they are as transparent as each other, and maybe are reduced to (simply) differing features offered?
And, another factor worth mentioning is user ability?
At this point I must admit I am struggling to know what to say next, I mean it would not help (you) much to say I am very happy with the results. It is highly probable that you would be happy with results from any unit of these types you used (with the caveat it has been set up properly, the user ability I alluded to just now)
I don't quite know how you take the next step, whether it is blind faith or a decent demo (in your own system somehow). In all likelihood you could go with whatever unit that gives you a good demo! (ie, you would be happy with any of these units that deliver what you need)
Maybe that is your first point of call? Are you able to articulate what it is you need? If, for example it is only room correction in the bass, then you might not need the ability to go fully active (as I do with the deqx), and why pay for features you won't use!
I dunno about anyone else, but I certainly am wary about projecting my feelings (about the deqx) on to anyone else. I reckon they need to go thru the same procedure as I did, a bit of research yada yada, and decide for themselves. (yeah, a bit hard if you don't know)
All that means is that I don't want the 'responsibility' of nudging someone in any direction, that HAS to be their decision. Just as it was for me.
I agree with you completely with your comments (for example) about delaying/aligning subs with the rest of the signal. tIME IS ONE OF THE (OOPS) overlooked aspects in audio. Most look at frequency response *only*, not knowing that dips and peaks can be caused by simply changing 'time'. And yet, they then proceed to apply eq based on that graph. Of course that can lead to less than optimum results if what they are trying to eq is time based (rather than amplitude based). Fix the time, THEN eq if needed.
If pushed, I'd forgo fr for time. Rather have both tho!
Dunno if this helped, am simply trying to point out that few of us can have valid comparative opinions on multiple units.
My setup is a TacT 2.2 mini in front of active ATC 20-2 monitors and a REL sub. The Mini has no analog inputs but is otherwise the same as the XP sonically and in terms of RC functionality. Can't tell you about multiple subs or using another DAC as my path is Squeezebox/TacT/ATCs-REL, but in a room with mostly hard surfaces and less than ideal placement of speakers and sub, using the TacT as a DAC/RC was the hands down winner vs. a number of other good quality conventional DACs and preamp and preamp combos I tried. Sub integration was good from the automatic setup, a bit of tweaking made it basically seamless.
In my treated main room, I've tried the TacT, Audyssey and Meridian RC, and decided to use neither. I'm going to experiment with one of the DSP antimode devices or a DEQX at some point, but this will only be for below 200hz or so. I don't want to touch anything above that -- my experience in this room is that the cure is worse than whatever the disease may be. I have a couple of Paradigm Sub 1s for HT/LF -- the correction program built into those works well but is of course working only below 100hz or so.
In my treated main room, I've tried the TacT, Audyssey and Meridian RC, and decided to use neither. I'm going to experiment with one of the DSP antimode devices or a DEQX at some point, but this will only be for below 200hz or so. I don't want to touch anything above that -- my experience in this room is that the cure is worse than whatever the disease may be. I have a couple of Paradigm Sub 1s for HT/LF -- the correction program built into those works well but is of course working only below 100hz or so.
Similar threads
