advertisement


Experience with Accurate or Audiolense??

iansr

iansr

pfm Member
I’ve recently been reading up on the use and capabilities of these software packages. My interest was piqued after reading several articles by Mitch Barnett on Audiophile Style. I’ve previously read several equipment reviews by him and been extremely impressed by his balanced (subjective and objective) approach all matters hi fi related and his no bullshit style. He is one of the few reviewers who I would trust. I’m now reading his book on the use of DSP for active crossovers, speaker time domain correction and room correction.

Mitch was a sound engineer and he recounts how he worked in studios that had been optimised to produce accurate sound at the sound engineers seating position. The live end / dead end approach was a key component of such studios. He became so used to the great sound that he was experiencing at work that it spoiled his enjoyment of his domestic system, so much so in fact that for more than 10 years he stopped listening to his speakers and only listened via headphones. All that changed when he discovered what Accurate could do to greatly improve the time coherency and in room frequency response of his speakers. He has been evangelical on the subject ever since.

This story has prompted me to dive into this subject, but I’m interested to hear about the experiences of anyone who has implemented Accurate or Audiolense. If that’s you, please share some details of your experience and in particular what did it do the sound quality of your system?
 
I have used both ‘accurate’ years ago, it was quite daunting ( for me) a client has Audiolense it looks much more approachable, I can see their value in the studio or in speaker multi sub set-ups, personally I find just using REW’s ‘EQ’ filter below a few hundred hertz works really well.
I would speak to Mitch directly he posts on both computer audiophile and ASR and I believe runs a small business offering remote EQ.
BW Keith
 
Accurate is a big, big weapon but to use the full potential you really need to know what you are doing. The support is great and Uli Brüggemann is very kind and helpful. DIRAC is maybe a good alternative for home use because you can get it @ minidsp hardware products.

I'm no longer using any DSP/EQ stuff because to my ears the all sound unnatural in the long run. You get greater clarity but it also sounds more artificial to me.
 
There is a reason miniDSP gear is relatively cheap . . . Accurate and Audiolense are massively more powerful and, based on Mitch’s comments, are in a different league. I’m not for a moment suggesting that using them is a walk in the park but I’m certainly inclined to give it a go. If I get stuck then I’ll make use of Mitch’s services.
 
Having tried a few (correction software) I feel now that just reducing large standing room derived peaks in the low bass/minimal phase region of the FR is more to my taste.
Keith
 
The lack of responses confirms my suspicion that relatively few “audiophiles” have so far gone down this path. Yet the more you read about the speaker/crossover and room related issues that this type of software can solve, the more you become convinced that this is the way to go if you are serious about wanting to optimise your hi fi system. The apparent complexity will obviously put many people off but my research tells me that Audiolense is not too bad and there is plenty of support on forums. It’s not cheap software but based on all the reports I’ve read of the degree of improvement in SQ it can deliver, then its a screaming bargain. I’m going to try it and am currently deciding what kit I’m going to use to deliver the multi channels to my amplifiers.

Some may remember that famous quote from a journalist in the early 70s about Springsteen; “ I have seen the future of rock n roll, and his name is . . . . .” Well I now think I’ve seen the future of rock n roll, and I think the word will spread, albeit not as quickly as it did about Bruce!
 
Start with good loudspeakers, low bass and it’s interaction with the room is the main issue, remember that you should only eq minimal phase regions of the FR, you shouldn’t ‘boost’ room mode derived cancellations, if you have a deducted room then massive passive absorption, the brain tends to overlook cancellations but can’t ignore large bass peaks.
Keith
 
Audiolense only cuts frequencies and doesn’t boost them. There are good reasons for that. It’s sophistication is way beyond what most of us normally experience with our traditional hi fi set ups.
 
I can see the value if you have traditional loudspeakers, which require sub integration, adjusting phase, delay etc or perhaps in a studio environment where a very flat target curve ( horizontal) is required, or in a multi seat environment, my experiences with Genelec GLM , Trinnov, Dirac is that in a domestic environment less is more, ameliorating the large ( minimum phase) peaks is enough.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts after you have experimented, Audiolense of the two is more approachable.
Keith
 
Keith, I suspect you probably don’t fully appreciate just how powerful and flexible Audiolense is - just one example; you can choose whatever target FR curve you want. There is lots of research that confirms what FR curve most people prefer, and it isn’t a horizontal straight line. Audiolense makes it easy to programme a variety of curves and compare them. As I say, just one example.

I’ll certainly post my thoughts once I’ve implemented it, but don’t hold your breath as it will be well into 2021.
 
I have experimented with Audiolense and years ago Accurate, you can adjust target curves in REW, you still need a method of implementing those filters of course, but EQ is now available in playback software, Roon, dacs RME and loudspeakers themselves, kii and Dutch&Dutch’s 8C.
Keith
 
iansr said:
There is a reason miniDSP gear is relatively cheap . . . Accurate and Audiolense are massively more powerful and, based on Mitch’s comments, are in a different league. I’m not for a moment suggesting that using them is a walk in the park but I’m certainly inclined to give it a go. If I get stuck then I’ll make use of Mitch’s services.
Click to expand...
There are minidsp with and without DIRAC and DIRAC is very good too, much more easier to use / user friendly compared to Accurate which is only software based and you aren't allowed to sell it if you will not use it any longer.
 
My understanding is that Dirac is indeed easier to use, but it can’t do a lot of what Acourate and Audiolense can do. I wouldn’t be interested in this stuff if Acourate was the only option as it seems for too complicated from what I’ve read. However I’ve read the Audiolense manual and Mitch’s articles about it and it doesn’t sound too daunting- famous last words I know . . .
 
I've used several DRC programs, I like Audiolense the best. It's simpler to use, and does the job well. The basic version works fine, the more expensive version does stuff like matching the impulse/timing response of the system so that you further improve the results.
BTW, for a relatively modest fee, Mitch Barnett will closely consult with you on implementing DRC and will help you create optimal convolution files for your system/room. All remotely, of course.
I'd done a pretty good job on my own, but with his help the results definitely got kicked up a notch.
 
firedog: thanks for your post, you've increased my determination to try it. I'll be doing the full monty - XO, TTD and DRC. Initially I'll see where I get to on my own but its great knowing there is Mitch to fall back on.
 
I've used extensively DIRAC via minidsp, various digital EQ's, YPAO, D-Speaker, Room EQ etc.

Hands down, D-speaker 2.0 was the most effective and also the easiest to use - I'm mostly speaking from the set/forget vantage as well as efficacy standpoint. However, to my ears, I never thought any of them completely transparent. Perhaps some psycho-acoustic aspect here, I can't be sure..

I agree with Keith that simply ameliorating problematic modes may be best, perhaps via Roon EQ or similar. Or if one has a setup with subs or home theatre, than such an implementation such as those mentioned above is likely for the best and will categorically sound better.

I don't doubt the potential of any of the above - in fact, it seems to be the way ahead - and perhaps Audiolense is the ticket, but right now, from an efficacy/ user point of view, my experience of DSP/Room correction left me unsatisfied.
 
@barryb At least half of the appeal for me of Audiolense is what it can do when used for crossovers - it sorts things in ways which are simply not possible with analog filters. The room correction is just the icing on the cake.
 
iansr said:
@barryb At least half of the appeal for me of Audiolense is what it can do when used for crossovers - it sorts things in ways which are simply not possible with analog filters. The room correction is just the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Just for info in case you don't know, you can do same with mini-dsp's proprietary software, with which you can add Dirac via their various packages too. Of key consideration here I think is the DAC performing the duties. I believe some of their higher end pieces are well regarded.
 
Yeah I’ve some experience of miniDSP gear. It’s relatively cheap, but sometimes you only get what you pay for . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top