A better answer will be... yes, uses Umik-1 microphone connected by USB to a computer using Dirac Live® software for calibration. The computer is then connected by USB to the Dirac unit.

You are correct to LOL because I did not dig further at Dirac website for more detailed info to answer my question. My bad.

All the answers about the calibration at the below link...
https://www.minidsp.com/applications/digita...getting-started

Just need RCA interconnect cables to do calibration and when done, disconnect and return back to the XLR cables for the power amp. Hehehe... another silly question... who is selling Dirac locally here?

Thanks. Appreciated it. Lots of reading and catch up to do.

Oh... so, as I understand it from the info, that means the NanoAVR & NanoAVR HD calibration is not suitable for home theatre blurays as these Diracs do not support max 24bit 192KHz. I am more a home theatre person for concerts and movies and stereo hifi is secondary to me.

Thanks for your explanation.

Similar to the explanation by people who says that a LOT of SACD discs and DSD64 384KHz audio files are not recorded / mastered in 64bit 384KHz when in actual fact that the source have been "upsampled". Also the same debate will also be hurled on those "supposedly 4K movies" which were NOT originally filmed in 4K resolution especially for the older movies. Even humans with a perfect hearing can only hear from 20Hz to 20KHz so if its just only about our ability to hear the sound then what's the point of even going down the route of 48KHz or anything beyond 20KHz. The same situation for ribbon drivers which can reach 60KHz frequency.

Yes, I do agree its a "meaningless numbers game" because after all, each of us perceive sound differently. In the same room with the same amps and speakers playing the same song track, this is why a person who hears the speaker sound to be too harsh with poor bass but another who listened to it can say the bass is just right and punchy, warm and not harsh.

You do have a point. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I believe that you are an expert in home theatre and you do mean well. Thanks. Appreciated it.

I have just found out that there are factual reasons why frequencies above 48KHz are not used as stated in the link below...

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/...om-eq-interview



Mmm... where did I mention anything about Audyssey ability to do 24bit/192KHz because I DO know that Audyssey down samples to 48KHz. When I stated that bluray audio max to 24bit/192KHz was because I wondered why Dirac did not do 192KHz to achieve calibration closer to bluray 24bit 192KHz audio. My thoughts were... "if Dirac can do 192KHz, then it would be much better than Audyssey". Obviously I know now, the reasons for using max 48KHz have clearly been explained by Chris Kyriakakis from the link above. Its not about Audyssey doing 192KHz which I do know it does not.

I am new to this so forgive my stupidity in whatever questions I posted here as I have just started learning the "art" of using "devices" to correct room acoustics. As I continue to explore and research more, I do find it very very interesting indeed.

So true, so true. Room acoustics do play a very important role and proper PEQing is paramount. It does not mean anything for 24bit/192KHz if the microphone cannot even capture sound pressure above 24-30 kHz as explained by Chris Kyriakakis. Refer to link below...

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/...om-eq-interview

Thanks.

I also agree.

From the discussion standpoint here on audio calibration for the room acoustics, it is assumed that we use a high quality audio source for calibration. Yup, a high quality audio source track is a necessity for calibration.

http://www.3dotevents.com/exhibitors-2016/

Yup... I will be going on Friday morning and collect my few complimentary tickets for myself, my bro-in-law and 2 friends.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Jul 21 2016, 05:35 PM

http://av2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cd-768x1024.jpg

No BHP petrol voucher is ok for me but I can "get" the CDs from 2 kind dealers whom I patronize quite a lot where the second dealer actually will be buying 2 paid tickets (with CD and BHP voucher) as a gift for me. Hehe... you can guess but I will not disclose who.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Jul 21 2016, 08:14 PM

The first dealer who will be giving the complimentary tickets to me is actually buying the CDs for me. For that dealer, of course its cheaper for him to buy it... or "maybe free" because he is a big supporter of KLIAV. I don't know, as long as I can get a CD for four of us and the other 2 friends don't get it.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Jul 21 2016, 08:21 PM

Chong is there! I met him in Maxx room 8032, 8th floor. Maybe he left a short while only... maybe lunch?

KLIAV Friday 22nd July 2016, spent about 7+ hours absorbing the sights and sounds.

My personal vote for the best overall system sound with the help of the superb Avantgarde Acoustic speakers at My Hifi Shop’s room at Boardroom 1 (Level 4)



Fantastic large cinema screen and powerful audio with Atmos at AV Designs’ room at Starhill 6 (Starhill Conference Centre)



This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Jul 23 2016, 03:01 AM

KLIAV Friday 22nd July 2016

My Hifi Shop room...

Allow a dummy like me to chime in my personal views.

When a speaker throws out sound, it is what I consider the source from where the sound originates. As more and more sound producing source (I mean speakers) are added into the same room, the situation becomes more complex when factors such as destructive interference, multiple reflection points, multiple frequency speed of travel through the air, different audio delays of different speakers due to different locations, balancing the different sound pressure levels for multiple locations of sound sources to the focal sitting position where you enjoy the audio, room acoustics adjustment that need to cater to more speakers instead of only two... etc, etc... get my idea?

Its already difficult to get the right (no such thing as perfect) audio quality for a stereo HiFi system using 2 speakers... so I can imagine the complexity that more speakers can do when added into the room for a Home Theatre system.

Of course we don't actually listen to audio details that much when we play "Batman Vs Superman" bluray when powerful explosive effects boomed and crash into the room and we don't care about how sweet or rough Batman's vocals sound like as we only want the vocal to be clearly heard. As they always say... half the movie experience comes from the power of sound in a surround environment. If that is what you think is true... I will not disagree.

HOWEVER... have we forgotten something here? Home Theatre is not just about blockbuster movies. What happens when we listen to (for example) surround music from the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra playing a classical arrangement of a piece from Mozart? Do you want to hear a better definition of the strings (violins) from the right, the piano from the centre, the flute from the left and whatever instruments played in its full glory that you feel like as though you are actually sitting at the front row in the concert hall? Yes, stereo hifi of that concert can also give us that feeling but a surround system can project a much more encompassing feeling of being there by hearing the audience clapping their hands or someone coughing from behind or even be able to detect some echo coming from behind. Or indeed when I play the Celine Dion A New Day Live In Las Vegas bluray, at the start of the last song "My Heart Will Go On" (Titanic) where I enjoy the audio expansiveness of the solo violin coming from the right and watched a floating lady in white dress moving from left to right.

And what about SACD 5.1 surround? Also DVD Audio disc with DTS 5.1 surround? (SACD also have 2 channel stereo)

Sit alone in an actual cinema hall and listen to your friend talk... then bring that friend to your "small" room and listen to your friend talk again... acoustics are different, room size are different so you do hear the difference, maybe even "feel" the difference so... will just 2 speakers in front be able to project a better sound presence or will multiple speakers placed at strategic positions in the room be able to do it better? Of course two speakers in front will be more difficult to achieve such sound presence compared to multiple speakers BUT multiple speakers also introduce even more problems that need to be corrected such as destructive interference, overlapping sound, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, its just like the chicken and egg story... which comes first? 2 speakers (Stereo) is more difficult to achieve an expansive sound stage that covers the entire room which a concert demands. A home theatre 7.1 speakers introduces even more audio source points that causes various other problems too.

I was actually disappointed when I went to the KLIAV Show last month because I did not see one, yes none, home theatre exhibitor that demos any concert blurays such as Diana Krall In Rio, David Foster & Friends - Hit Man, Jackie Evancho - In Concert and many many other concerts to choose from. If there was one, its unfortunate for me to have missed it. Home theatre is not just about Bang, Kaboom, POW, crunch and cracking of gun fire where the loudness seems to be the highlight and where Dolby Atmos/DTS:X was the centre piece showcasing the "flying" audio effects above us. I am not talking about Hifi system exhibitors. Yes, I get it... powerful and strong audio experience for movies but what happened to Surround Music from Concerts? That was why I only sat for no more than 2 minutes in each Home Theatre exhibition room. My friend only spent just a few seconds in a few home theatre rooms and he left the show only after 2 hour there, 90 percent of the time was spent in "HiFi only" rooms.

Let's not go into "show me this, show me that, give me examples, I agree, I disagree, technically true or false, or whatever". The question of which is more difficult to achieve better audio quality... Stereo (or analogue) HiFi versus Home Theatre. Both have difficulties and when armed with the required (correct) knowledge, tools and HiFi/HT toys, it has become almost an art in trying to achieve the sound quality that is catered to your ears only and no one else, hehehe.

Me? Don't know what I am talking about. If I have not confused you, then I have done it to myself. If you say that I am wrong, I agree. If you say that I am right, I agree too!

As far as I am concerned, I keep an open mind and try to be more receptive to people giving me knowledge because I want to learn more about my hobby and be able to enjoy it at the same time.

Cheers, stay cool and enjoy the hobby that we all share.

This post has been edited by jamesleetech: Aug 12 2016, 04:21 AM

That was the main message that I was trying to convey. When a listener not only wants to hear good quality audio, that listener also demands to "feel the presence" of the audio, then it becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve. People will say that a 6 speaker setup is easier to achieve that sound presence compared to 2 speakers... but they forget about the fact that adding more speakers also adds in even more problems as I had described in my previous comment.

When hushymushy asked... "HT more complicated than audio???" As SSJBen correctly replied... "It depends."

Just like the "which comes first, chicken and egg" story... 2 channel stereo can be as difficult and complicated as your own demands for excellence. A person with 90% demands for 2 channel stereo analog audio will surely find it more challenging and more complex to achieve... compared to a person with 50% demands for 6 channels.

Of course its more challenging for people who have demands similar to Rob Hahn who has a million US dollar pocket. In comparison, my 5.1 HT system costing peanuts is much more easier to setup because its impossible for me to demand for more excellence when my bank manager disapproves. A person with an extremely high demand for 2 channel analog audio will of course find it more difficult to achieve to his/her level of standards compared to my HT 5.1 costing far far less.

Many of us just don't have the means to achieve that crazy level of audio quality. Herein lies the "fun" part for most of us... how to squeeze the most out of our system by using the least amount of money such as using DIY acoustic panels, using various absorbers and reflectors, various audio calibration methods, etc, etc.

I can give my unqualified opinion only. I do believe that you expected me to answer RM 100K HT should be more complicated and yes, it is my view. As I have said earlier, I have already said that I believe that a HT system with more speakers should be more difficult and more challenging to attain the best sound.

In my previous post I have given my extremely long reasons for my opinion so I will not repeat them here. Suffice to say that I "believe" that additional speakers in a HT system means introducing more problems that need to be corrected as opposed to only 2 speakers for HiFi.

So true... more speakers doesn't mean more complex. But... 2 speakers for analogue HiFi also do NOT mean its more complex too. THAT.. is what I personally believe.

For music (including concerts, not movies), its already understood by everyone here that achieving the "best" reproduction is the ultimate aim. The methodology for HiFi (Stereo) and HT are BOTH very complex and I don't view either one as being more complex than the other one. Equally I can also say that only serious Home Theatre people will understand on this point so...by saying that "only serious hifi people will understand" do not bring us any closer to resolving which is (so-called) more complex.

Even if actual comparisons are made using the same system and the same "Hotel California by Eagles" song (LP for HiFi Stereo AND SACD 5.1 for HT) is played, there will be people who says that the HiFi version don't sound good enough and needs further "improvement" and the HT version is already good enough... BUT we are humans... there will be others who feels the other way round. I can bet you on this.

I am not saying that your are wrong and in fact I repeat that I do agree on your view about the complexity of HiFi. What I do disagree is when comparisons are made that professes this or that is more complex, more difficult to achieve, more efforts required, or whatever.

When you expressed your view that having more speakers do not mean more complex, so be it. Its your belief and also my belief too. Its just that the difficulties and complexities for both HiFi and HT are both as complex as anyone of us demand on the quality to achieve. I do have a friend who have a RM 90K HiFi system and is totally satisfied but when he was exposed to "poison" from other people's over RM 100K system, that friend now have "achieved" a higher level of listening demand and he then quest to learn more on trying to achieve the best audio quality such as natural sound, a good soundstage, better details, blah, blah blah.

It has always been the aim of audiophiles to achieve the audio quality that closely resembles the kind of audio presence that the sound engineer wants us to hear. The feeling of being there, sitting in front of the artist. No doubt its a dream that nobody can 100% reach.

As I stated previously, analogue HiFi (vinyl) is very difficult to achieve the audio "live presence" because of so many factors such as the turntable that needs lots of additional adjustments that includes reduction of vibration and hum, etc etc. Then, on the other side, the HT has more speakers that "covers" more areas in the room so its logical to believe that we can achieve "live presence" much easier BUT that is NOT the case because adding more speakers also adds in more problems that need more adjustments such as reducing more destructive interference, more reflections need to be solved, just to name a few.

Good discussion here. I hope I did not open a can of worms, hehehe. I have spoken and repeated my view that both are equally complex. For me, its does NOT matter which one wins or lose. I only demand what my own ears tells me... I will now sit quietly enjoying my Decca Phase 4 LP on my turntable.

If I were to say that "we need RM100K Hifi Stereo Versus RM600K for HT 7.1" to make a better comparison... I will surely open the door for all sorts of energetic replies such as "HiFi Stereo can also be extremely expensive too" or "its not about price, its about using the least amount of money to get the best possible quality" and other kinds of interesting replies. What I am hoping to hear (no pun intended) are innovative replies for me to enjoy, hehehe. No, no, no... I will not say "RM 100K versus RM 600K.

To the BIG boys like George Lucas, Richard Attenborough (deceased) or Steven Spielberg, they do not compromise on their personal home theatre... I can only have it in my wildest dreams!

Before Attenborough's death, he sold his family home (which have attached offices, Beaver Lodge, AND a sound-proofed cinema) for £11.5 million... so I wonder how much his home cinema costs? If he had invited me to his home cinema... I would have quickly pawned off my trousers to buy a plane ticket to go there to experience it, LOL!

Discuss you can, criticize me you can BUT do stay cooooool!

Actually music (and concert) lover from blurays to SACD to CD to Vinyl LPS to FLACs/DSD audio files.