Opinions are in previous posts
8 responses Add your response
I use Anthem Room Correction 2.0. Wasn't too keen on it when it first became available. As processors have gotten better, so has the room correction. ARC 2.0 really does a nice job; sound-stage is deep and wide and the frequency response is nicely balanced. My room has been treated with lots of acoustic panels, but room correction takes the rough edges off.
I considered that as an option, after getting my new electronics and new speakers "dialed in" to the room, sounding great, all bets were off when I added a pair of subwoofers. The new "man cave" had all sorts of terrible resonances.
Instead of doing room correction with an electronic device, instead I downloaded REW (Room EQ Wizard) and purchased a miniDSP UMIK-1 USB calibration microphone and added strategically-placed bass traps, to control the resonances and make sure the newly-placed bass trap didn't adversely effect the mid and high frequencies.
Now the system sounds awesome!
I too am considering DIRAC but before taking the plunge I spent fair amount of time working on speaker placement and room treatments as ejr1953 recommends. According to my spl meter I am pretty much getting +-2db from 20-1000hz. Needless to say, the sound has improved dramatically. I may get the usb calibration mic and the 2 week trial of DIRAC or REW and measure my room to see if there are any other areas I can address.
I use Acourate. Been using it for 2 years. Initially I only used it for room correction. Eventually implemented active crossovers (within Acourate) between subwoofers and the 3-way speakers, then added a pair of monoblocks and added another active crossover on the woofers of the 3-way speaker. So now I have a 3-way active system with tweeter and midrange being in one channel and keeping the passive xo. Next up is time aligning the channels. Acourate is very powerful. Very powerful, but involved. There is no going back, though :-)
Before jumping into Acourate I compared it to Dirac. In comparison, Dirac is not as powerful, it's a lot more expensive if you want to go multi-way, but it's a lot simpler to implement. It is simpler because you have less freedom to customize to various system settings.
Working on room acoustics is wise. The less you need to correct digitally, the better.
Before adopting Acourate I was using REW, with a measurement mic and outboard soundcard. Please note USB mics, and outboard USB soundcards like mine, have a ADC built in. This is OK initially...but it now has become an issue for me as the internal clock differs from the DAC internal clock and that becomes an issue when you want to time-align drivers accurately.
Two years ago I was worried about digital processing. But I ended up trading my Lamm pre and purist 2-channel DAC and USB-to-SPDIF converter for a Lynx Hilo working as 6-channel DAC and using the digital volume control from JRiver. My system sounds better now. I actually still hold the Lamm but that's more related to my affection - I know it will not make it back into the system.
For those interested in learning about Acourate, these are what inspired me: