Jump to content

Anthem ARC vs DiracLive


Foxman

Recommended Posts

I posted this on another forum where I had asked about the difference between these competing room calibration products. Just a follow-up for anyone who might have the same question I had regarding the difference between ARC and DiracLive. On my system, DiracLive seemed to soften or numb the highest frequencies in its calibration. The DiracLive calibration made a stunning difference in my room, in fact, it was the best my system had ever previously sounded by a wide margin. It was my first experience with room calibration of any type.

 

Full disclosure, I was running a Processor that pre-dated HDMI. A 2001/2002 Rotel unit that still performed as well as the day I brought it home. I matched it with a MiniDSP DDRC-88A/B with DiracLive which fed into my 5x120w Rotel Amp. I transitioned to a 2016 model Anthem AVR as a processor running the same Rotel Amp. Could that be the cause of the outcome? Perhaps to a degree. I felt that while running the Anthem (no ARC) and the DiracLive with the MiniDSP, I heard a more lively sound than using the Rotel processor, but not nearly as lively as when I ran ARC and pulled Dirac out of the line.

 

I was skeptical about the quality of ARC and reluctant to let go of my stand-alone DiracLive box because I had a pre-disposed bias toward Dirac based on my experience with the results of Dirac and with some who said DiracLive was the best of the room calibration software. I also thought the ARC microphone wasn't up to the task comparative to the Umic-1, again, just based on so much praise for Umic-1.

 

A couple of observations about ARC. 1st, ARC provided a much more lively result than DiracLive. Back are my higher frequencies that I was missing, which I mistook for just the result of room correction on Dirac's calibration of my room. 2nd, ARC appears to be a more advanced calibration specific to Anthem products in that it discovers the sweet spot for the crossover point on all channels relative to that speaker's performance. Normally, I would have balked at this because it set a crossover point for my center at an unusually high crossover (180) compared to the setting I would have chosen (80). Why is that? Because in my system, since Klipsch does not make a true (traditional) Heritage center for my Forte speaker's, I was forced to compromise either timbre by using another Klipsch center or a make and model with matching timbre, in my case, the Crites Center channel designed to timbre match the Heritage.... but is a 4ohm speaker with different capabilities. So, the sweet spot for the crossover is what it is. Amazingly, based on the content I have watched so far, that high crossover point has not created the obvious localized bass response from my subs that I would have suspected. So, in addition to the return of the full benefit of my system's high frequency, the net result is a much better calibration of my speaker's capabilities, which has yielded a much more robust sound output. Finally, overall, so far, I feel as though ARC is a better product, at least a more advanced product. 

 

I still have much to learn about ARC and how to tweak the calibration, and I still have much content to watch/listen to observing the nuances, but the early results are, ARC is better, not by a mile, but better non-the-less. I hope this helps someone else down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...