Best Paid S/W DSP POLL

[dallasjustice]

I consider Acourate, Audiolense and DIRAC Live the top s/w DSP ("DRC") solutions. Which one sounds best? I have owned all 3. I would say I only have sufficient experience with acourate and DIRAC Live to evaluate them. Feel free to vote even if you haven't owned the software. As long as you have some experience you should vote on your favorite. Sorry if if I didn't include your favorite PEQ. I don't put PEQ in league with these 3.

 

Full disclosure: I recently switched to Acourate from Dirac; not trying to influence the poll results. :-)

 

Michael.

[retro]

Well, I voted Dirac. I also have an Audiolense-license, but it's been many years since i tried it. I might give it another try.

 

Acourate is something I would like to try, but I understand it's a lot more difficult to use..?

Is there a fully functioning trial of Acourate..??

[dallasjustice]

Thanks Retro for voting!

 

You can play with the interface but you can't build your own convolution filters in demo mode. If you could, then you wouldn't need to buy the software. :-) However, Uli will do the work for you and convolve your files for free. It's a good thing because I honestly wouldn't have wanted to buy the software if I had to do that much learning just to hear a demo. For me, the right starting point in deciding whether to use software is the final product. Once I knew my result was better than Dirac, it was easier to learn the new procedure. In the process, I was forced to learn some new (to me) concepts. For example, I never really understood what a "step response" was and how it related to standing waves. Dirac displays an impulse response which is very helpful, but with the step response it's much easier to identify the LF ringing issues that need to be corrected.

 

You will see a screen that has 3 graphs when you build the filter: FR (magnitude response), group delay and step response (or impulse if you want). Uli helped me to understand how to use all three of these together to identify potential areas to address. One of the issues with DRC is "pre-ringing." He showed me how to identify where the pre-ringing happens and how to correct for it in a way that doesn't cause a sonic penalty. I still don't fully understand how "pre-ringing" occurs. (I think it's an interaction the FIR filter has with my room correction curve). Uli has some decent documentation but he is also willing to teach as well.

 

I can't remember the details of Audiolense setup procedure. I've read some say Acourate is a little easier but I don't know for sure. There is no question Acourate takes more learning than Dirac. Dirac is totally automated. Acourate is partially automated. It's tough to recommend Acourate to anyone that's never used any DSP before. I think it could be intimidating to some. It depends on how willing to learn and how patient someone is. There's no shortage of help from Uli. A friend, who is expert at Audiolense and MCH setups, tells me he thinks Audiolense is easier to incorporate MCH. I don't know if that's really true.

 

So far, I've only used Acourate for 2CH "room correction." I expect things to get more complex when I add in speaker correction and the 2 mono subs using a MCH DAC/ADC. Once I get my new Lynx Hilo, I'll report back on it. I expect good things.

 

Well, I voted Dirac. I also have an Audiolense-license, but it's been many years since i tried it. I might give it another try.

 

Acourate is something I would like to try, but I understand it's a lot more difficult to use..?

Is there a fully functioning trial of Acourate..??

[sshd]

I can't remember the details of Audiolense setup procedure. I've read some say Acourate is a little easier but I don't know for sure.

 

And here you have the problem with your poll.

 

You can find plenty of users of one piece of software, and a few who have tried two. But noone have done enough testing to make a fair comparison of all three.

 

A 2-ch comparison can be done for free:

- Dirac has 14 days trial

- Audiolense has built-in player for 2-ch mode and a 14 days money back

- Acourate will give you 2 convolved songs

 

But 2-ch speaker and room correction is simply not interesting. The real magic when you remove the crossovers and let the dsp control each driver individually. Dirac cannot do anything like this. Audiolense can and is very easy to use, but only with it's own crossover. Acourate can do this, but only with standard crossovers like Linkwitz-Riley or Butterworth. So in the end you are comparing apples with oranges.

[dallasjustice]

You right. It sounds like you don't have much experience with Acourate. I think a lot of folks have demoed all 3. My question has to do with sound, not features. Acourate offers a variety of crossovers in addition to the ones you mentioned.

 

And here you have the problem with your poll.

 

You can find plenty of users of one piece of software, and a few who have tried two. But noone have done enough testing to make a fair comparison of all three.

 

A 2-ch comparison can be done for free:

- Dirac has 14 days trial

- Audiolense has built-in player for 2-ch mode and a 14 days money back

- Acourate will give you 2 convolved songs

 

But 2-ch speaker and room correction is simply not interesting. The real magic when you remove the crossovers and let the dsp control each driver individually. Dirac cannot do anything like this. Audiolense can and is very easy to use, but only with it's own crossover. Acourate can do this, but only with standard crossovers like Linkwitz-Riley or Butterworth. So in the end you are comparing apples with oranges.

[wgscott]

Do either of the other two run on OS X? (I haven't kept up since I got Dirac.)

[dallasjustice]

Do either of the other two run on OS X? (I haven't kept up since I got Dirac.)

You need to create filters on windows. But I know Jriver OSX has a convolution engine. So, yes, you could use the convolution filter on OSX for either Acourate or audiolense.

[aljordan]

My room correction history is as follows: I own current versions of both Acourate and Audiolense, I've done the demo of Dirac, I've programmed a wrapper around the open source DRC program for easier configuration so I have a lot of experience with it, I own a Holm Acoustics DSPre 1, and I've used another VST plugin based package that I can no longer remember the name of. I've been using drc in one form or another for about 8 years. The best sound I've been able to get is via Acourate, followed closely by the Holm DSPre 1.

 

Alan

[dallasjustice]

Thanks Alan. I know there aren't many people interested in DSP compared to hifi in general. But the folks I know involved with DSP seem much less religious about their DSP choices than say speakers or DSD. I think most of us are after the same thing; great music. I know I am willing to try new things. It's painful at first but can be hugely rewarding later on.

 

 

My room correction history is as follows: I own current versions of both Acourate and Audiolense, I've done the demo of Dirac, I've programmed a wrapper around the open source DRC program for easier configuration so I have a lot of experience with it, I own a Holm Acoustics DSPre 1, and I've used another VST plugin based package that I can no longer remember the name of. I've been using drc in one form or another for about 8 years. The best sound I've been able to get is via Acourate, followed closely by the Holm DSPre 1.

 

Alan

[3ll3d00d]

A friend, who is expert at Audiolense and MCH setups, tells me he thinks Audiolense is easier to incorporate MCH. I don't know if that's really true.

From what I have seen of audiolense, it is definitely true. Acourate is designed for stereo so there is a fair amount of manual effort required to implement a mch setup. For starters you need n-1 workspaces (measurements) where n = no of main channels.

[rcohen]

But 2-ch speaker and room correction is simply not interesting. The real magic when you remove the crossovers and let the dsp control each driver individually. Dirac cannot do anything like this. Audiolense can and is very easy to use, but only with it's own crossover. Acourate can do this, but only with standard crossovers like Linkwitz-Riley or Butterworth. So in the end you are comparing apples with oranges.

Tell me more about the real magic.

 

I'm currently using Dirac, and I've been really happy with it, but I keep wondering about Acourate and Audiolense XO for more ambitious setups, like active crossovers, routing mid bass to the closest sub, and support for more channels (Atmos, etc).

[rcohen]

What's the target curve iteration like with these other programs?

 

One of the great things about Dirac is that it has a great curve editing UI, and you can quickly iterate and AB test between multiple curves.

[dallasjustice]

Acourate's target curve is more better. :-)

 

What's the target curve iteration like with these other programs?

 

One of the great things about Dirac is that it has a great curve editing UI, and you can quickly iterate and AB test between multiple curves.

[3ll3d00d]

What's the target curve iteration like with these other programs?

 

One of the great things about Dirac is that it has a great curve editing UI, and you can quickly iterate and AB test between multiple curves.

Acourate has a powerful target curve editor that lets you design pretty much any curve you want by combining simple points that you drag up and down with other options (notch filters, high shelf, low and high pass). You can also design a curve in some other program, export it as a text file (frequency vs magnitude) and import that in as a curve. Alternatively you could create a curve from anything you can create in acourate itself. Basically it means you can easily create literally any curve you can think of.

 

[dallasjustice]

I really like the HF and LF rolloffs as well in Acourate. Every speaker is different. But you can usually tell where your speaker is starting to get outside its comfort zone and roll it off to help minimize distortion.

 

In many ways I don't think DIRAC is even comparable to Audiolense XO and Acourate. The lack of crossover support in DIRAC is a major issue for me. I personally think everyone should use subwoofers. THE right way to incorporate subs into Stereo setup isn't possible with DIRAC. That's a problem that DIRAC should address. Maybe it will be addressed in the future with DIRAC's newer stuff like "Unison." Who knows? But for now, Acourate and Audiolense are way ahead, IME.

 

Acourate has a powerful target curve editor that lets you design pretty much any curve you want by combining simple points that you drag up and down with other options (notch filters, high shelf, low and high pass). You can also design a curve in some other program, export it as a text file (frequency vs magnitude) and import that in as a curve. Alternatively you could create a curve from anything you can create in acourate itself. Basically it means you can easily create literally any curve you can think of.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]14338[/ATTACH]

[wgscott]

I take it "the right way" isn't speaker-level connections (which is what Rel and B&W suggest is the best way with their subs)?

 

I agree, the lack of crossover capabilities is Dirac's biggest limitation. But for what it is, it seems to do well (and you can import/export the target curve function as an ascii text file, btw.)

[dallasjustice]

I take it "the right way" isn't speaker-level connections (which is what Rel and B&W suggest is the best way with their subs)?

 

More than 2 channels, crossovers and delays are needed to incorporate subs.

[wgscott]

My guess is your investment in equipment is 10, 20, or more times as great as mine...

[dallasjustice]

My guess is your investment in equipment is 10, 20, or more times as great as mine...

 

Maybe but that's nothing to brag about. The less I spend on DACs the better my system sounds. :-)

 

EDIT: I don't think system cost is that important. Look at Mitch Barnet's system. I bet your system is more expensive than his.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/556-advanced-acourate-digital-xo-time-alignment-driver-linearization-walkthrough/

[rcohen]

I use my pre-pro for bass management and time alignment, and Dirac seems to work well with that. I just don't have as much flexibility as I'd like.

 

What about the mixed phase stuff? Can Acourate and Audiolense XO do that? How important is that?

 

Do Acourate and Audiolense XO have channel limits? Dirac is limited to 8 channels unless you get a Datasat.

[dallasjustice]

I don't think there are limits to the number of channels.

 

Mixed phase refers to DIRAC's filter. I don't know about that. All I know is that Acourate sounds MUCH better in my system.

 

I use my pre-pro for bass management and time alignment, and Dirac seems to work well with that. I just don't have as much flexibility as I'd like.

 

What about the mixed phase stuff? Can Acourate and Audiolense XO do that? How important is that?

 

Do Acourate and Audiolense XO have channel limits? Dirac is limited to 8 channels unless you get a Datasat.

[rcohen]

I don't think there are limits to the number of channels.

 

Mixed phase refers to DIRAC's filter. I don't know about that. All I know is that Acourate sounds MUCH better in my system.

Can you try to describe the difference in how it sounds?

[dallasjustice]

Can you try to describe the difference in how it sounds?

 

I really don't like doing that. It reminds me of all of those phony Hifi magazine reviews. Fortunately, there's no need to try. Anyone can test for free.

[Kal Rubinson]

I use my pre-pro for bass management and time alignment, and Dirac seems to work well with that. I just don't have as much flexibility as I'd like.

I do not know your system but, if the Dirac is run on a device that feeds into the pre-pro, you cannot get proper EQ with BM. EQ needs to come after the BM since it is intended to correct speaker output not a source channel.

[rcohen]

I do not know your system but, if the Dirac is run on a device that feeds into the pre-pro, you cannot get proper EQ with BM. EQ needs to come after the BM since it is intended to correct speaker output not a source channel.

What makes you say that?

 

How is it different than a crossover in a speaker?