I'm wondering what's the expert's opinion about Dirac Live.
I'm a bit skeptical about this product since acoustic treatments can correct things Dirac do.
Also there's not a lot of measurements of before and after Dirac corrections. As mentioned in another forum there's no second measurements to verify if Dirac corrections were apply correctly. It's a little "suspicious" since that it's a usual required step when equing.
I am an avid user of Audiolense(software DSP). I am still yet to learn many things, ill be honest still in the process in understanding how to read an impulse response measurement and group delay. I can only do basic corrections with the ones offered and ones that I have taken from other experts from the Audiolense forum, the learning curve is intense.
That said, I have over 30 traps in my small room, nearly 40% covered with about 4 traps 15cm thick and the rest 10cm thick and a massively large panel overhead and a hand tufted rug on the floor reflection points with all other reflection points covered. Point being is that technically the benefit I get from Audiolense is in the time domain and not the other claims it makes. I am even thinking of getting a digital DSP in future to configure my sub woofer direct from the DSP(and potentially use digital crossovers in future which I can do with Audiolense but you need a multichannel DAC which is expensive) but this still won't give me Time Domain correction as you would need FIR filters on the Digital DSP and I haven't delved deeper into this yet. So I will still use my Audiolense at the end of it all with or without a digital DSP management system.
Taking a step back, I am a big fan of DSP well at least Audiolense. I only do not use the convolusion when listening to live recordings, otherwise with all other recordings it tightens up the bass and kills a lot of the timing issues with my speaker. which is obvious without it off. I know speakers usually take in consideration timing and I even have 4th order crossover between my tweeter and mid but Audiolense really tightens up the sound even when I have a great speaker. But I will add it does make more difference on cheaper speakers as your more expensive speaker takes in consideration timing issues more seriously so your correcting less with the more complicated speakers.
I don't believe many of the claims made by DSP computer software but considering I have a very well treated room, a descent analogue crossover crossing over two low Q 12inch subwoofers the bass is tight and punchy and I nearly have a flat frequency curve with only minimal correction needed to achieve this.
Conclusion, I have read many of Ethan's tests on Dirac or on DSP software and his clear with his results and in details explains the benefits and disadvantages. IMHO, if your room is well treated and you have a 4 way system(more than a 2 way) you will benefit from the time domain correction and if your speakers have 1st or 2nd order crossovers you will benefit more than if you had more complicated loudspeakers.
I am not an expert on this so if anyone wants to argue I am happy to understand other opinions and my lack of understanding on it.
Never used any of that stuff. All I have going right now is an EQ notch on my interface's output around 66Hz to reduce an SPL peak. The result is balanced in a decent radius around my LP.
I hear a lot of positive things about DSP and would like to try it. However, my next step is probably to replace my panels with 2' fluffy ones on the side walls and 1' thick ones for the ceiling. Seeing what the super chunks did, I think it'll help with a number of issues I'm having.
After that, maybe some DSP. Shouldn't hurt to try.