Separate names with a comma.
I did ask exactly those questions. No answer.
Backer #32. Guess it sold fast that first hour... so two to three weeks after the first shipping week, I suppose.
If you believe Floyd Toole, who wrote the book on speakers in real-world listening rooms, the 'room correction' built into receivers usually does more harm than good above 300 Hz or so (depending on room dimensions), and since the Smyth supports 'direct bass', the absence of channel-specific 'room/speaker EQ' shouldn't be a problem, unless your speakers have a poor anechoic frequency response on and /or (15-30 degrees) off axis. But in that case, you need better speakers, and no electronic correction can help much anyway. The wavelengths get so short for most music/audio that there aren't enough data points in the 'correction' process to make EQ work for even a single user. So electronic EQ only makes sense for the bass, but you will probably get better bass using Smyth 'direct bass' than with room EQ. So the 'raw' ('uncorrected') signal will generally sound better than the Audyssey/Dirac/etc.,-massaged signal in a normally reflective room. And that agrees with my listening experience: the speakers sound better without the 'room correction', no matter how complex (and costly) the correction algorithm.
Basically you're right except for Dirac, this is something else than Audyssey etc. and most users of a Dirac system report good to very good results.
But you can't replicate the Dirac-correction with the Realiser anyway (it should have the filter capacity but it's not implemented I think).
I do my own measurements and manual corrections via PEQ in the Yamaha, not rely on an automatic.
Dirac Live is available as a software module from MDS for the DSP board used in the Realiser (http://www.mds.com/products/audio-2/apm-89l/). If enough customers contact the Smyths and ask for Dirac (and possibly show some willingness to pay extra to use it), it may get implemented one day, after "everything else" is finished.
Well, it's a complex problem, and the problem with doing EQ by ear, is that what sounds better with one program, may sound worse with another, which is the reason for automating it. But I am not convinced by anecdotal 'evidence', because 'most users' can very easily be wrong. I don't think the limitations imposed by the acoustics can be so easily brushed aside. Dirac is the popular brand now, largely, I think, because using it is harder than earlier algorithms, so it has the cachet of being the latest thing and is more complex to use than Audyssey, ARC, et al., but 'most users' isn't good enough for me. Most people probably prefer LP to CD as an audio format, which is patently absurd on its face.
I could bring an 8 channel A/D converter with AES/EBU out. Even buying a second one should be essentially a non-issue given the overall cost for such an event for all participants together.
I don't think so.
You're aware that modern corrections methods like Dirac, Audyssey XT32, Acourate etc. aren't simple PEQs?
Do you REALLY believe that...?
And then theres the question will there be enough computing power be left to do that? I'll have my doubts.
I'm not that optimistic.
Remember that there are 4 DSPs. Dirac would run on the DSPs that handle Dolby/DTS, as well as PEQ, according to the block diagram. I would be a bit surprised if MDS offered this and it could not run on a single board. On the other hand, the storm audio ISP uses the very same DSP board from MDS in addition to another board with 2 SHARCs (see here https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282496&d=1505349927). Since either the SVS *or* Dirac would be needed, Dirac could run on the SHARCs in the Realiser.
A madman is one way to describe me. I was a preorder customer who never thought he support the full price, but here we are. Smyth found my weak spot, I’m a bit obsessive when it comes to technology, so much so that I’m finishing a second degree in the industry. I honestly would have waited for my much cheaper preorder to ship, but the prospect of wait however long it would take to get to my order vs. getting the thing before now was too tough for me to pass up. I’m of course starting to realize (or realise) that I’m going to be in for some early adopter pain, but I’ll find a way to overcome it and get the A16 setup how I want. Just disappointed that it’s not going to be quite as easy as I thought.
I sent James a message on Facebook Messenger last night about it since that’s how I did all of my communication for processing my order. I saw the read receipt, but he never responded so that’s probably not a good sign.
Unfortunately, it’s a recurring behavior with James. Whenever he doesn’t like the question, he simply doesn’t answer. I don’t know why he does that. That’s not very professional...
Ask him about Brexit and it’s complete silence. Ask about A16 features that are missing, same story... and of course, anytime someone asks about the delivery schedule, they shouldn’t expect for an answer back.
Even an « I don’t know yet » would be better...
I’ve seen the stark contrast in real time between questions he wants and doesn’t. He honestly couldn’t have been more helpful when working on paying the difference. He spent hours helping me because doing an international wire transfer like they wanted was not going to work at either of the institutions I bank at.
In the few days since I’ve asked two questions. If I could get a copy of the manual as a PDF and if measurement sweeps have to be done via analog outputs. Both have been seen as FB Messenger shows you read receipts, both have gone unanswered. You’re right a simple “the digital manual isn’t ready yet” would have sufficed, but instead silence.
Yes, I am aware that they are not simple PEQ. I used to believe in Trinnov, but I now think that it is overkill, way too complex and expensive; the speaker remapping they can do is remarkable and unique, but I think it is probably not needed for most applications. The main problem in my mind is the data bottleneck at the front end: too few data points. Also, these 'room correction' systems discount the power of the human brain/sensorium to adapt to imperfect conditions, so that their corrections are so simple and crude by comparison with what our nervous systems already do. It is almost like applying finger paint to improve a Rembrandt.
It might be different when using the A8/A16 for music, instead of movies, but all this talk of "needing" to be able to EQ the speakers had me scratching my head. Maybe I just don't have the super golden ears that most around here claim to have, but my Denon didn't have any special speaker EQ that I am aware of, other than the delay distance you input, and I was recording in a DEAD AS FK basement that had concrete floors and walls, and my PRIRs actually sound good to me. It might be an issue for those who are trying to replicate as close as possible the sound they are used to if they have their own high end Atmos setup, and that's what they want to hear over headphones, but all I know is that the PRIRs I have, even if they are not 1:1 what my speakers are capable of (due to the room), sound fantastic, and vastly superior to the next best virtualization.
I don't know if you are sending your questions to his email directly or what, but what I have noticed is that if I try sending an email to the address Andy, Mike and Lorr supplied, any one of them, or even someone else might end up responding as though they all check those emails, and any one of them might reply. James also doesn't seem like the technical guy, so if he doesn't know the answer, he might not even bother to ask the others who are in crunch mode (maybe, finally...). Yes, an "I don't know" is better, but some people just prefer to not say anything at all. Although from the marketing guy, that is not the most professional.