[Trismos]

I have read several different posts on active cross-overs (the Behringers et al) and I see they have their supporters and detractors - like most things. In another couple of threads I threw out there a 'where should I go from here' post and had many thumbs up on acoustical room treatments as a very good 'next upgrade'. Then I came across a 6-Moons review that I had seen before but didn't pay particular attention to until today on the Spatial software package which garnered them a 6-Moons 2011 Lunar Eclipse award. (Take from that what you will).

Well this certainly makes sense to me. And much more attractive than taking my listening room and adding a bunch of diffusers, absorbers, and traps to an already small space.

But this is why I've come to value this community so much. What may seem obvious to me after a cursory examination of things I am not expert about may change with the input of others more experienced in the area. And I learn something new.   

So how about it? The Spatial package seems to be the evolution started by the TacT's of the world where now a customer can let a Spatial technician actually do your room correction for you over the internet. The downside of this particular package is it's Apple OS based which is a minor thing to most people and nothing at all to many.

Are there any PC based DRC packages that don't require one to become a computer wizard? I've just started looking into this so I imagine in the next few days I'll have learned a bit more on my own. I expect I'll learn alot more from the good people here.

My apologies if this has been dealt with extensively elsewhere. If that's the case, please point me in the right direction.

Kind regards,

Dave

[Trismos]

And actually I've learned something already that should have been obvious: DRC works best in a room that's already acoustically sound.... no pun intended. Acoustic Frontiers has a great 'primer' on DRC and points this out.

edit..... Holy crap. Primer my foot.

Dave

[targa02]

Hi,

I was recently made aware of the following PC-based digital room correction software (AudioLense): 

http://www.juicehifi.com/index.html

I have no connection, nor have I talked to anyone who has used AudioLense.

I do have/use Spatial Computer room correction software and my experience is very similar to Srajan's at 6moons.  Running A/B comparisons is quite easy and quick.  The difference is dramatic.  Similar to listening to a poor/mediocre recording (no room correction) versus a great recording (with room correction).  I highly recommend Spatial!  My room has some acoustical room treatments (4 panels 60"x24"x4" fiberglass), but adding more was not an option.  I have no connection to Spatial Computer, other than being a happy client!

[Big Red Machine]

My experience with room correcting processors is I received a 6% improvement.  That is what the software told me.  So that meant my room was pretty good to start in its treated state and I did not need to invest in a much more costly electronics solution.

In the end I suspect that many standard rooms can be treated mechanically to such an extent that DRC may not be necessary (2 channel).  Of course you end up with modes in every room and if that really bugs you and you are limited in what you can physically do, then using electronics to attack those modes can help.

I use a digital crossover in the HT for bass response because the modes are there and I cared enough to try and smooth the response out.  In my 2 channel room I am very happy with mechanical solutions.

[Syrah]

The experts here (oh which I am not one) will say that room treatement takes care of many problems that digital correction does not - ringing, echoes, etc.

In my experience the best solution was both.  I use a DBX Driverack PA that is only hooked up to my bass section (subs and woofers, biamped).  I found that, without room treatement, I really had to turn down the bass to avoid one-note bass (i.e. the sound of a souped up Camero driving by).  This helped avoid the sin of commission (crappy sounding bass) in favour of the sin of omission (less bass at the crappy sounding frequencies).

Once treated, the bass was so much cleaner, that I could crank it up on the DBX, that gave me awesome tight clean bass.

I'd go for corner bass traps (at a minimum) and digital room correction.

My vote is for both.

[mikeeastman]

I agree, both. I also have the Spatial system, which I really like, but then I had an acoustical consultation and treatment by Jeff Headback. Which is also done remotely , the combination is incredible. 

[bunnyma357]

I use both - I have 4 GIK Monster Bass Traps and 3 - 442 panels. My room is pretty bad - almost a cube 10.5 x 10 x 9 and they made a world of difference, but I still had some bad modes at the listening position.  So, I also use an IKMultimedia ARC Plug-In, which will work with any Mac or PC music player that can use VST, RTAS, or AU plug-ins, I use it with Pure Vinyl on a Mac - it is limited to 96kHz and below.

The combination of the 2 give me very nice musical sound - I think the less the Digital correction has to do, the more natural the results will be, so I would start with physical room correction.

It looks like the ARC plug-in is currently on sale for $199, which includes a measurement mic, but you do need to have some sort of interface to power a phantom mic and input that signal into your cpu. I already had a pro audio interface for Pure Vinyl, so that was a non-issue for me.

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/arc/features/


Jim C

[bpape]

DRC can address frequency response issues (or preferred changes). As was previously stated, it cannot address reflections, decay times, and in most cases - modal nulls.  It is also only applicable to one seat in many cases which for pure 2 channel listening may or may not be acceptable.

Both have their place in a system.  Personally, I prefer to address the room to allow the equipment that I own to sound the way that it sounds on its own - that's why I bought it.  There are certainly situations where the room causes issues that are difficult to address with treatment though.

Bryan

[JohnR]

To OP: the cost of the computer is relatively insignificant when considering "high end" solutions of this nature. Personally, I am sold on active speakers, where you get DRC "free" as part of what you are doing anyway. When you consider the overall picture which includes how your drivers behave in an acoustic three-dimensional space, you begin to see digital processing as a part of the overall solution that interacts with the acoustic properties of your room, rather than as something to be tacked onto whatever you currently have (and are not willing to change).

Just my 2c.

[firedog]

I've used both in the past (Tact, Lyngdorf, and panels). Currently have only panels.  Both work. Agree with earlier posters that the ultimate solution is to do acoustic correction and then DRC on top of that.

If you don't want to add lots of panels to a room, try just corner bass traps. There are some that are fairly unobtrusive, and fabrics can match your decor. Bass traps alone make a huge difference in most setups. Several of the companies that sell panels will advise you. GIK gave me advice and didn't try to sell me anything. Per my request, they recommended 3 increasing levels of correction (and budget), based on pictures and measurements of my room.

The really good DRC electronics are quite pricey, but very convenient. Audiolense is a good solution, but requires quite a bit of user involvement and some basic computer savvy. It's advantage is that it makes use of an existing computer, so you only invest in the software and a mic, and not in  the hardware.

[firedog]

DRC can address frequency response issues (or preferred changes). As was previously stated, it cannot address reflections, decay times, and in most cases - modal nulls.  It is also only applicable to one seat in many cases which for pure 2 channel listening may or may not be acceptable.


Bryan

I think this is incorrect. Some DRC is designed to work in multiple positions, and some even has options for single or multiple position listening, or ability to use different corrections based on listening position. I believe some of the better programs also address timing issues. See TACT and Lyngdorf, for example.

[oboaudio]

Getting great acoustics requires many bass and midrange traps that have reflective
membranes (this prevents the room from being to dead at high frequencies)
I have ASC tube traps and GIK bass traps and the entire ceiling acts as a membrane
absorber for lower frequencies.    All these traps are placed uniformly around the
entire perimeter of the room which gives one a very consistent sound field.    One
can walk around the room and get the feeling of great space.   The final result of all
of this is transparency and great voice reproduction (intelligibility).      No digital
equalization is required and the less electronics one has the lower the noise floor.
Here is a diagram of the room that I use with my loudspeakers.   

[bpape]

I think this is incorrect. Some DRC is designed to work in multiple positions, and some even has options for single or multiple position listening, or ability to use different corrections based on listening position. I believe some of the better programs also address timing issues. See TACT and Lyngdorf, for example.

Yes - you can set it up for different EQ for different positions - but it's still for one listener to a point.  Any problems that occur in all seats can be addressed.  However, there are many times where you may have a peak in one seat and a null in another seat at the same frequency.  EQ/DRC cannot correct these.  EQ/DRC also has typical issues with modal nulls.  Simply raising the level of a frequency where 2 waves are colliding and cancelling just makes each of the 2 cancelling waves louder, and they will still cancel. 

Bryan

[RUR]

Looks like Dirac is about to Beta their Dirac Live Room Correction Suite, which operates with either PC or Mac.  http://www.dirac.se/en/consumer-products/dirac-live.aspx

Note the application to Beta test @ bottom.

nb: I'm an enthusiastic TacT owner with no Dirac affiliation. 

[Hipper]

I use both - Auralex foam and a Behringer DEQ2496 (see my gallery).

If I were allowed only one of them, I'd choose room treatment and try and solve other issues by moving things about.

Some people have a hang up with tampering with the sound but as recording engineers don't seem to agree on how best to present recordings of music, I think it's important to be able to make adjustments to give a sound that I like.

I should add that in my limited experience, there is no magic wand if you want to do this yourself. There's a lot to learn (and get wrong!).

[saisunil]

Active speakers, external crossovers, DRC, acoustic panels, media servers etc. is making me think about my 2-channel system from scratch ...

Most of these issues do not apply to a headphone system 
I would love to see, as a couple of people suggested - a hybrid solution from one vendor -- hint hint bryan    that looks at the final outcome - your room and uses whatever tools to create a good acoustical environment for 2-Channel playback ...
Cheers
PS: I have been noticing a positive trend on AC - where differences co-exist in a respectable manner and the whole experience is enriching 

[bpape]

Hint hint????   

I don't think we're going to be getting into the electronics business any time soon.

We do have a couple new things on the horizon though.  Stay tuned....

Bryan

[JohnR]

However, there are many times where you may have a peak in one seat and a null in another seat at the same frequency.  EQ/DRC cannot correct these.  EQ/DRC also has typical issues with modal nulls.

Bryan - you seem to be implying that acoustic treatment is able to remove all peaks and nulls across all listening seats. Short of building an anechoic chamber, is this actually true?

[bpape]

It is possible certainly.  The trick is to be able to do it and not over deaden the room.  In reality, it is a combination of seating and speaker location couple with proper treatment.  Now, if you have a problem at 25Hz, no, you're not going to fix that with treatment without something impractically thick in most cases.

For the nulls, sure.  A null is simply 2 waves colliding and cancelling.  If you can remove or reduce the intensity of one of the 2 waves, the resulting cancellation is gone or at least reduced in intensity. 

[JohnR]

Do you have graphs that demonstrate this?