Well the subs likely need to be within 6dB of the main emitter subs. However the surrounds used as support speakers would need bandwidth down to 30-40hz and be within 3dB of the main subs I think. There isn’t enough testing to be sure. They don’t need more output than the main subs, but if they are too far off the main subs, they won’t handle it.
Exciting times, with ever more capable processing. But back to first principles, an all out brute force room acoustic, eases subsequent processing heavy lifting. Vital to get the room right, or you're simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That said I do appreciate this content. Few if any, are out there discussing these particular challenges like this. Good stuff
@@FOH3663 well sure but remember that acoustically treating the room at such low frequencies is often prohibitive or even impossible. A demo was done at Trinnovs headquarters. They had enough woofers to do a very complete array with full steering. All optimally places. The end result was that any bass frequency could be played and you could walk around the room and hear no difference at all. Waveforming on and the bass is perfectly even. Waveforming off and even one inch could be a hugely audible and measurable difference. This room was in fact treated with bass traps. Slotted MDF panels covering acoustic fuzz with sizable air gaps existed all around the room. I’ve been in tons of treated studios and theater rooms. I’ve treated many myself. I’ve never experienced that trick in a treated room. The bass traps are just not that effective. So this really isn’t an alternative or a replacement. It’s a necessary augmentation to traditional treatment. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. The bass traps typically only work effectively down to 100-150hz. Below that their effect is marginal at best. That effect becomes more and more marginal as frequencies go lower. But by doing both you get something that can really help reduce the decay time all the way down to 20hz. It’s true that treatment eases the job. But we are still talking small changes at the lowest frequencies. The bigger job is actually ensuring that the bass decay control aligns between the analog acoustics and active acoustics.
Really appreciate the A.R.T content. I like to hear your opinion on my idea to include multiple subwoofers with a Denon once ART launches. At the moment they are limited to 4 sub outs. If they dont change that im curious of the idea to sum 4 subwoofers (one in each corner) with MSO via minidsp 2x4 HD and feed that as one virtual sub to ART and configue it as the main sub for LFE. Then do the same with another 4 subs in similar locations or maybe midwall instead of corner loaded. And use the second virtual sub consisting of 4 subwoofers as support.
@PoesAcoustics In the absence of having a 3d mic, which would be great and more should follow suit I think for room correction, what about this idea as a possible more cost effective approach still be viable for ART in wave cancellation. It is more work in setup and a bit more error prone than a 3d mic and would only yield technically a 2d layout for speaker placement. The idea is if you place the mic next to the woofer (as we are targeting
@@DavidAndrewsMBA simply placing the mic around the room is adequate at low frequencies to map the room. You don’t need to place it at each woofer. In fact having the mic too close to the woofer or any boundary would be problematic for mapping the room. What you really want is an understanding of the wavefront. The wavefront condition is unstable and inaccurate at the boundary condition.
In a video Gene did on room decay time, I think he said that we should aim for an even decay time across frequencies. If we let ART reduce the decay time below 150 Hz so that the bass frequencies decay faster than the rest, is that good? Or do we then need to address the other frequencies above 150 Hz to get it even across the full range again?
Wavelengths get larger, and decay times get longer, as you go lower in frequency. Unless you live in a glass bowl or an echo chamber... It's unlikely that the decay time below 150 Hz will be SHORTER than midrange frequencies.
@@keithlevkoff8579 agree. But if we use ART, I suppose decay times below 150 Hz could potentially be made much shorter than above 150 Hz? Is that desirable? Or do we rather want a "flat" decay across frequencies?
I wish I knew. Officially the launch partner no longer has exclusive rights. Others are supposed to be able to add it. But I haven’t heard Defintive timelines for anything. I thought NAD launched it in a 2 channel amp but it seems to have not materialized yet.
Strikes me that all of these correction systems are like trying to build Frankenstein's monster with bandaids. We need to learn how to use the reflected sound and speaker positioning and acoustic treatment as part of the system, not extraneous elements that need to be removed. We do NOT want to use direct sound only in building the sound fields in the room. I think in-wall speakers are a mistake whose spatial problems are not correctable with freq response or extra speakers with processing.
If we're making purchases or plans right now for a dedicated HT room, what specifically are the best policies for being ready to take full advantage of ART? Are 4 subs a high priority? And I believe you were suggesting surrounds with more bass extension could be useful?
Yes to all. But remember. It’s not just bass extension. It’s output at that frequency. I can build a small surround speaker with bass to 40hz. But not enough output to matter.
Sounds almost like this is way beyond any household home theater capabilities. You would have to rewire your house to get the kind of power you would need for all those channels.
Yes but anything going to the minidsp would potentially be less controllable. Let’s say you had your four sub feeds go into a pair of Minidsps and 8 outs. You could only gain control in pairs. Like small arrays. Could be fine. Could cause issues.
Dirac ART was published as part of series of Ph D theses and patented many years ago. These were not just theoretical works but tried, experimented, tested, measured and proven. Variations have been used in the automobile industry for some 10 years, so it's been tweaked many times over. As others have stated both here and elsewhere, we want the PC plug in version. It will be a killer app.
As I noted. There is a huge difference between a car environment and a home . The concepts are sound. The implementation needs and will continue to improve.
@@PoesAcoustics Not only the concepts, sound in practice. The thesis environment was a regular room, if on the dry side. Car environments have their own challenges, no doubt, are engineered and speaker placements are fixed, measurements done by Dirac trained engineers etc. Trinnov meanwhile needs to publish one, just one, study, something meaningful, close to anything Dirac has published.
Agree, Dirac’s solution is so much more elegant and practical compared to wave forming which I’m not convinced is any more innovative than the double bass array method.
@@daryllim2036 it is. And actually Waveforming is the more elegant solution. Double bass array is an analog method of producing planar waves and elongating reflections. It’s not very effective in actual theaters with risers and any real texture. Waveforming is a digital version using individual driver control and advanced FIR filters to shape the wavefront and minimize reflections. One of the solutions is to optimally produce a planar wavefront. There are other solutions it can provide when a true planar wavefront is not possible or would yield less ideal results. It also can produce a more complete cancelation with less subwoofers using the same filters for the rear subs. It’s more elegant because it’s a solution that relies on simpler filters yet produced better results with less artifacts. Diracs solution is more universal. But it’s not elegant. It’s a complex brute force solution and one of its known problems is artifacts. I was actually skeptical and disappointed upon the release of Waveforming. I was very excited about ART. I now have fairly extensive hands on time with both and my impressions reversed. I do believe that ART is useful and future improvements will make it better. But what I can tell you is that in my experience it’s Waveforming that yields the better measured results and more elegant solution. I actually believe the biggest fix to ART is to implement specialized arrays and to reduce the reliance on surround speakers for correction. Which ultimately makes it more similar to Waveforming.
ART is allegedly coming to Monoprice HTP-1. This video gives me pause to buying it if it ever does. I already spent a lot to DLBC multi sub. I do think that was money well spent. My system has never sounded better. Thanks for the video.
Gene could move the Storm out and the Marantz AV10 (from the kitchen) into his main RBH room. The Marantz can route LFE into your main Left and Right speakers. Wonder when he is going to get the newer Sony projectors. Is Poe Acoustics going to be a Audio Advice Live?
The problem Gene has is inherent in ART. MARANTZ isn’t able to handle his system. Not even in the same ballpark of flexibility. Storm can route the LFE wherever you want. But Dirac can’t handle what he is doing with ART. It applies a highpass.
@@PoesAcoustics I thought I read in the Dirac/Storm manuals for ART, that a newer "infrasonic option" (I dont recall the name) was added to remove the HPF for the mains?
An intriguing and informative topic as always. Thanks so much for the video.
My pleasure!
Thanks for the great video.
Appreciate your support 🙏
Do we have any idea what kind of headroom our mains, subs, or surrounds might need below 150hz to accommodate Dirac ART? 3db? 6db?
Well the subs likely need to be within 6dB of the main emitter subs. However the surrounds used as support speakers would need bandwidth down to 30-40hz and be within 3dB of the main subs I think. There isn’t enough testing to be sure. They don’t need more output than the main subs, but if they are too far off the main subs, they won’t handle it.
Exciting times, with ever more capable processing.
But back to first principles, an all out brute force room acoustic, eases subsequent processing heavy lifting.
Vital to get the room right, or you're simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
That said I do appreciate this content. Few if any, are out there discussing these particular challenges like this.
Good stuff
@@FOH3663 well sure but remember that acoustically treating the room at such low frequencies is often prohibitive or even impossible.
A demo was done at Trinnovs headquarters. They had enough woofers to do a very complete array with full steering. All optimally places. The end result was that any bass frequency could be played and you could walk around the room and hear no difference at all. Waveforming on and the bass is perfectly even. Waveforming off and even one inch could be a hugely audible and measurable difference. This room was in fact treated with bass traps. Slotted MDF panels covering acoustic fuzz with sizable air gaps existed all around the room.
I’ve been in tons of treated studios and theater rooms. I’ve treated many myself. I’ve never experienced that trick in a treated room. The bass traps are just not that effective. So this really isn’t an alternative or a replacement. It’s a necessary augmentation to traditional treatment. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. The bass traps typically only work effectively down to 100-150hz. Below that their effect is marginal at best. That effect becomes more and more marginal as frequencies go lower. But by doing both you get something that can really help reduce the decay time all the way down to 20hz. It’s true that treatment eases the job. But we are still talking small changes at the lowest frequencies. The bigger job is actually ensuring that the bass decay control aligns between the analog acoustics and active acoustics.
Really appreciate the A.R.T content. I like to hear your opinion on my idea to include multiple subwoofers with a Denon once ART launches.
At the moment they are limited to 4 sub outs. If they dont change that im curious of the idea to sum 4 subwoofers (one in each corner) with MSO via minidsp 2x4 HD and feed that as one virtual sub to ART and configue it as the main sub for LFE. Then do the same with another 4 subs in similar locations or maybe midwall instead of corner loaded. And use the second virtual sub consisting of 4 subwoofers as support.
@PoesAcoustics In the absence of having a 3d mic, which would be great and more should follow suit I think for room correction, what about this idea as a possible more cost effective approach still be viable for ART in wave cancellation. It is more work in setup and a bit more error prone than a 3d mic and would only yield technically a 2d layout for speaker placement.
The idea is if you place the mic next to the woofer (as we are targeting
@@DavidAndrewsMBA simply placing the mic around the room is adequate at low frequencies to map the room. You don’t need to place it at each woofer. In fact having the mic too close to the woofer or any boundary would be problematic for mapping the room. What you really want is an understanding of the wavefront. The wavefront condition is unstable and inaccurate at the boundary condition.
In a video Gene did on room decay time, I think he said that we should aim for an even decay time across frequencies. If we let ART reduce the decay time below 150 Hz so that the bass frequencies decay faster than the rest, is that good? Or do we then need to address the other frequencies above 150 Hz to get it even across the full range again?
Wavelengths get larger, and decay times get longer, as you go lower in frequency.
Unless you live in a glass bowl or an echo chamber...
It's unlikely that the decay time below 150 Hz will be SHORTER than midrange frequencies.
@@keithlevkoff8579 agree. But if we use ART, I suppose decay times below 150 Hz could potentially be made much shorter than above 150 Hz? Is that desirable? Or do we rather want a "flat" decay across frequencies?
Is DIRAC ART going to have a wide release anytime soon? I have an AudioControl X9 with 4 subs and I would love to try it
I wish I knew. Officially the launch partner no longer has exclusive rights. Others are supposed to be able to add it. But I haven’t heard Defintive timelines for anything. I thought NAD launched it in a 2 channel amp but it seems to have not materialized yet.
@@PoesAcoustics It seems as you referred to in the video that they are still tweaking it.
Fascinating listen Matthew 👍
Thanks!
Strikes me that all of these correction systems are like trying to build Frankenstein's monster with bandaids. We need to learn how to use the reflected sound and speaker positioning and acoustic treatment as part of the system, not extraneous elements that need to be removed. We do NOT want to use direct sound only in building the sound fields in the room. I think in-wall speakers are a mistake whose spatial problems are not correctable with freq response or extra speakers with processing.
If we're making purchases or plans right now for a dedicated HT room, what specifically are the best policies for being ready to take full advantage of ART? Are 4 subs a high priority? And I believe you were suggesting surrounds with more bass extension could be useful?
Yes to all. But remember. It’s not just bass extension. It’s output at that frequency. I can build a small surround speaker with bass to 40hz. But not enough output to matter.
One of the best and useful videos for room eq. Excellent
Thank you!
Sounds almost like this is way beyond any household home theater capabilities. You would have to rewire your house to get the kind of power you would need for all those channels.
Not at all. But do keep in mind that high end home theaters have multiple dedicated circuits. I have 3 in the closet and two in the room for my setup.
Matt did you attend MWAVE this year? It looked like the JTR room had a sub placed next to each bed layer surround
I wasn’t able to make it but yes that is what they did.
Got further into the video.... If it comes out on Masimo products, they'll get a TON more comments on it.. haha
Can dirac art and my mini dsp be used together? If not why not?
Most likely not. I doubt Dirac would allow the software to be licensed on MiniDSP devices. Been waiting years for Dirac Live Bass Control
Yes but anything going to the minidsp would potentially be less controllable. Let’s say you had your four sub feeds go into a pair of Minidsps and 8 outs. You could only gain control in pairs. Like small arrays. Could be fine. Could cause issues.
Dirac ART was published as part of series of Ph D theses and patented many years ago. These were not just theoretical works but tried, experimented, tested, measured and proven. Variations have been used in the automobile industry for some 10 years, so it's been tweaked many times over. As others have stated both here and elsewhere, we want the PC plug in version. It will be a killer app.
The Dirac equation is superficially similar to the Schrödinger equation for a massive
As I noted. There is a huge difference between a car environment and a home . The concepts are sound. The implementation needs and will continue to improve.
@@PoesAcoustics Not only the concepts, sound in practice. The thesis environment was a regular room, if on the dry side. Car environments have their own challenges, no doubt, are engineered and speaker placements are fixed, measurements done by Dirac trained engineers etc. Trinnov meanwhile needs to publish one, just one, study, something meaningful, close to anything Dirac has published.
Agree, Dirac’s solution is so much more elegant and practical compared to wave forming which I’m not convinced is any more innovative than the double bass array method.
@@daryllim2036 it is. And actually Waveforming is the more elegant solution.
Double bass array is an analog method of producing planar waves and elongating reflections. It’s not very effective in actual theaters with risers and any real texture.
Waveforming is a digital version using individual driver control and advanced FIR filters to shape the wavefront and minimize reflections. One of the solutions is to optimally produce a planar wavefront. There are other solutions it can provide when a true planar wavefront is not possible or would yield less ideal results. It also can produce a more complete cancelation with less subwoofers using the same filters for the rear subs.
It’s more elegant because it’s a solution that relies on simpler filters yet produced better results with less artifacts. Diracs solution is more universal. But it’s not elegant. It’s a complex brute force solution and one of its known problems is artifacts.
I was actually skeptical and disappointed upon the release of Waveforming. I was very excited about ART. I now have fairly extensive hands on time with both and my impressions reversed. I do believe that ART is useful and future improvements will make it better. But what I can tell you is that in my experience it’s Waveforming that yields the better measured results and more elegant solution. I actually believe the biggest fix to ART is to implement specialized arrays and to reduce the reliance on surround speakers for correction. Which ultimately makes it more similar to Waveforming.
We need to get back to basics boys! I started 25 years ago with one subwoofer. Currently I am using 8. When is enough enough?
Nothing wrong with more. The extra subs helps increase bandwidth and dynamic range, reduce distortion, and improve seat to seat consistency.
ART is allegedly coming to Monoprice HTP-1. This video gives me pause to buying it if it ever does. I already spent a lot to DLBC multi sub. I do think that was money well spent. My system has never sounded better. Thanks for the video.
I wouldn’t be afraid of it. It’s getting better every day. You just need to be sure your speakers support its capabilities.
Hope Dirac release soon their ART version for PC (plugin version).🤞
The beta I got to use was the PC app.
Want you to demo my anthem 1140
I’ve calibrated those before. Decent receivers.
Matt.... Miso is for cooking.... Silly.
Gene could move the Storm out and the Marantz AV10 (from the kitchen) into his main RBH room. The Marantz can route LFE into your main Left and Right speakers.
Wonder when he is going to get the newer Sony projectors.
Is Poe Acoustics going to be a Audio Advice Live?
The problem Gene has is inherent in ART.
MARANTZ isn’t able to handle his system. Not even in the same ballpark of flexibility.
Storm can route the LFE wherever you want. But Dirac can’t handle what he is doing with ART. It applies a highpass.
@@PoesAcoustics I thought I read in the Dirac/Storm manuals for ART, that a newer "infrasonic option" (I dont recall the name) was added to remove the HPF for the mains?
@@DavidAndrewsMBAyes but it’s still there. They are working to fix it.
I’ll never be able to acquire Dirac art .
48 and 64 channel processors.
You guys are crazy. 😂😂😂
More needed than you think. Just wait until you try to design a high channel count system with Waveforming or ART.