Audyssey MultEQ-XT vs Dirac Live In H/T with 5 M/L Esl's (& 2-in ceiling rears)

[Esl Mike]

I've found the thread on setting up a multi-channel Martin Logan system to be quite informative.

However, I'm in the research phase of buying a new pre-pro for H/T purposes and wonder if either of the subject two room correction systems seems to work better with Esl's, specifically Martin Logan's? I realize that both systems have their advocates and detractors. However, I wondered if one or the other is preferred with dipole Esl's?

 

[RUR]

I've found the thread on setting up a multi-channel Martin Logan system to be quite informative.

However, I'm in the research phase of buying a new pre-pro for H/T purposes and wonder if either of the subject two room correction systems seems to work better with Esl's, specifically Martin Logan's? I realize that both systems have their advocates and detractors. However, I wondered if one or the other is preferred with dipole Esl's?

Functionally, Dirac is a significantly better RC product than any Audyssey implementation as it uses FIR filters above Schroeder vs. IIR filters. Every user I know who's taken the time to learn how to properly utilize Dirac, after using Audyssey, claims to hear significant improvement.

Personally, I use a different mixed-phase RC à la Dirac to run a pair of Summits for years with excellent results. I have a friend who uses the same RC on his Prodigy setup and who loves it. A CLX owner on this forum uses Lyngdorf's Room Perfect with excellent results. There's no reason your ESL system should present any difficulties, though everyone's MMV.

 

[JonFo]

I agree with the points RUR makes, Dirac and Trinnov are more advanced than Audyssey, but also require more care and effort to get great results.

I've managed to get good results out of Audyssey XT-32 Pro on the AV8802A preamp (with Atmos), but it took years of practice and all the tips I posted in the thread the OP mentions. But if I could, I'd immediately upgrade to a Trinnov Altitude 32.

But as far as 'friendly' to ESL, none are per-se, which is why measuring requires care so as not to overly weigh the rear-wave. Regardless of tech.

 

[Flak]

I only have hands on experience with Dirac Live and Sanders Model 10 ESLs but I can say the following...
ESLs have very limited side radiations but a strong back radiation, as strong as the front one actually.
Contrary to what many think and other solutions, Dirac Live's algorithm does'nt use the eight measurements after the first one at MLP for averaging them but for finding what changes depending on position.
The back radiations from ESLs will be bounced by one and often more walls before reaching the listener so they will attenuate and change with position because of the different and longer paths.
As a result Dirac Live will consider them as late reflections and will not correct them (that is appropriate, as mentioned by JonFo the rear wave is not overly weighted)

Flavio

 

[RUR]

I only have hands on experience with Dirac Live and Sanders Model 10 ESLs but I can say the following...
ESLs have very limited side radiations but a strong back radiation, as strong as the front one actually.
Contrary to what many think and other solutions, Dirac Live's algorithm does'nt use the eight measurements after the first one at MLP for averaging them but for finding what changes depending on position.
The back radiations from ESLs will be bounced by one and often more walls before reaching the listener so they will attenuate and change with position because of the different and longer paths.
As a result Dirac Live will consider them as late reflections and will not correct them (that is appropriate, as mentioned by JonFo the rear wave is not overly weighted)

Flavio

Thanks for this, Flavio. Mathias Johansson explains how Dirac handles late reflections, and much more, in this excellent interview with HTG:



Which is an excellent discussion of mixed-phase correction, in general.