I will be using the Onkyo 875 and I was wondering if I could improve my bass by doing the following. First use my Velodyne SMS-1 to find the best location of 2 SVS Ultra 13s. After which I would take the SMS-1 out of the loop and install the Antimode 8033 to finilize the EQ process. OR would I be better off just getting the new SVS AS-1 . any thoughts ?

It's certainly doable, but you would be throwing away alot of money on the SMS just to use it to find a good location. A cheaper and simpler way (though not as exact), put the sub in your listening position...crawl around on the floor where you want the sub to go and try different positions...wherever it sounds best is the best spot.

Maybe you can find a place that rents the SMS-1.

I have it and i find it invaluable for getting the best out of my subwoofer.

I already own the sms-1 but have read alot of good results using the 8033 e.g. not only measures the freq. but takes in to account the time domain. I will always keep the sms-1 only using it differently. thanks for ht einput.

Did you try using Audysey MultEQ XT in your receiver?

Craig

Yes I did use the EQ in the 875 and result were not good.e.g. nulls and peaks. My ultras are located on the front wall just inside of the mains , which are towers. I have just recently ordered the antimode 8033 after reading all the exc. reviews and already own the sms-1. also, looking at the svs AE-1 PEQ . any thoughts on which way you would go. I will try what you say , based on your input on this forum...appears to be well respected. thanks george h.

Yes I did use the EQ in the 875 and result were not good.e.g. nulls and peaks.
When you say, "nulls and peaks", how did you determine that? With the SMS-1? Where did you measure? The SMS-1 ia a single point measurement device. Audyssey corrects an "area". If you want to measure the effects of Audyssey with the SMS-1, you need to take multiple measurements in the area EQ'd by Audyssey. Also, remember that the SMS-1 adds some latency, (time to process the signal), so you need to be sure to keep the distance setting measured by Audyssey, as that will correct for the latency.

My ultras are located on the front wall just inside of the mains , which are towers.
Are the towers set to "Full Range", or do you have them crossed over to the subs?

I have just recently ordered the antimode 8033 after reading all the exc. reviews and already own the sms-1. also, looking at the svs AE-1 PEQ . any thoughts on which way you would go.
Personally, I've had such good results with Audyssey MultEQ XT that I would try to optimize that route first. I think I PM'd you the Audyssey setup guide a while back. Did you use it when you ran Audyssey? How many points did you measure? Where they situated in the recommended configuration? Mic pointed straight up? Not too close to walls? Not outside the L/R speakers? Etc.

I have a friend coming over next week with the SVS AS-EQ1. We're going to run some measurements with a Sencore Audio Analyzer that can simultaneously measure 5 mic locations. We'll see what impact the AS-EQ1 has. Should be interesting.

Craig

After running Adyssey per your exc. guide lines, I then followed up with using the radio shack spl coupled with a test tone cd i got off the rives web site..started at 10 Hz to 150 in 1Hz increments if need then I plotted.Have you ever used the 8033...Also, I think I will wait for your results with Sencore Audio Analyzer vs the SVS AS-EQ1. where on the forum could I follow those results. thanks a bunch. I was hoping you would respond to this post. I only wish I had 1/10 the knowledge you had .But for sure keep me posted on the AS-EQ1...that might be the next one I try. OH, I almost for got the other questions..I did use xovers per your request via the guidelines and took all 8 readings. I might be trying to hard..

After running Adyssey per your exc. guide lines, I then followed up with using the radio shack spl coupled with a test tone cd i got off the rives web site..started at 10 Hz to 150 in 1Hz increments if need then I plotted.
Again, this is a single point measurement technique, comparing to Audyssey's multi-point measurement and "area" EQ. They aren't really comparable methods. If you want to optimize Audyssey for the single point of the measurement, take all 8 measurements at the exact same point. Audyssey should get that one point pretty flat. (Obviously, I'm not recommending that for your final Audyssey implementation. I'm just saying that if you want to compare Audyssey to a single point measurement and EQ system, you need to use Audyssey like a single point system.)

More importantly, how did the system *sound* with the Audyssey EQ?

Have you ever used the 8033
I have not. It has gotten some favorable reviews on the forum; Kal Rubinson for one. I'm sure it works well... for a single point EQ. :)

Also, I think I will wait for your results with Sencore Audio Analyzer vs the SVS AS-EQ1. where on the forum could I follow those results.
We'll either post them in the AS-EQ1 thread, or start a new thread. I'll PM you when we post.

I might be trying to hard.. :)

Craig

I have not. It has gotten some favorable reviews on the forum; Kal Rubinson for one. I'm sure it works well... for a single point EQ. :)Link: http://www.stereophile.com/hirezplayers/music_in_the_round_34/index1.html

AS-EQ1 review in September.

AFTER READING YOUR COMMENTS i PROBABLY WILL SEND THE 8033 BACK , SELL THE SMS-1 AND WAIT FOR YOUR REVIEWS OF THE as eq1..BECAUSE i THINK THIS WILL BE THE NEXT BEST UNIT FOR eq THE BASS FREQ. WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR RESULTS. AND AGAIN YOU ARE JUST SIMPLY A SUPER PERSON FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER EVERYONES REQUESTS. SEE YA AND HAVE A NICE DAY. GEORGE H.

George,

I would still like to hear the answer to this question:

"More importantly, how did the system *sound* with the Audyssey EQ?"

Craig

I guess , being a novice it did sound ok but to be honest I dont think I am qualified really to know what sounds good or what it is suppose to sound like. Do you have any dvd's or cd's that would be good for a sound test...I do have several blu-rays I could play ..but just what is it do you listen for to know if in fact you system is sounding the best it can. I am sure if people were honest they would say the same thing..well most of us....george h.

I guess , being a novice it did sound ok but to be honest I dont think I am qualified really to know what sounds good or what it is suppose to sound like.
Not "qualified"??? Sure you are. You're alive aren't you? The sounds that are reproduced by your system are just sounds that exist in life, many of which you probably have a personal "reference" for. They should sound as similar to the "real life" sounds as possible.

For example, if you're listening to a jazz group, you should be able to follow every note of the bass line as a distinct note; not just a mish-mash of deep bass sounds booming away in the background. You should be able to hear the bass guitar as a distinct instrument from the kick drum... and you should be able to tell if it's an acoustic, standup bass or an electric bass. These cues are in the fundamentals of the sounds and in the harmonics. It takes a "high resolution" system to allow you to hear them.

In a subwoofer/room system, the sub could be the world's best sub, putting out absolutely flat frequency response with no overhang or ringing. However, the room could play havoc with the final "sound" you hear. Room modes, resonances, standing waves, whatever you want to call them, can create the peaks and nulls that overlay the final sound. Those problems can not only cause one frequency to be a lot louder than another frequency, but it can cause one frequency to stay in the room *longer* than another.

In addition, those problems can vary from point to point within the room. At one point you could have a huge peak at one frequency and a null at another. Just a foot away, the peaks and nulls could be completely different, and at different frequencies. You can verify this with your SMS-1. Set it up at the primary listening position and use it to get flat frequency response at that position. Then move it one seat to the left or right and see what the FR looks like. Even with the 1/3 octave smoothing of it's display, I can assure you, the response will be different.

Another interesting exercise is to play a single frequency test tone and walk around your room. You can literally walk into and out of the peaks and nulls for that frequency in your room. You could actually "map" the peaks and nulls. Then, change the frequency by 1 Hz and repeat the procedure. The physical points of the peaks and nulls change. If you did every frequency from 20 to 80 Hz, you would end up with a different "map" for every frequency!

Equalization attempts to even out the frequency response anomalies in the room. Pick a single point in your room. Measure it and it will have a whole bunch of peaks and nulls at different frequencies. You can then place EQ bands to reduce the peaks at the peak frequencies. (Nulls can't be EQ'd because nulls are "cancellations".*) With peak-reducing EQ, you've reduced the peaks at one point in the room... but what about other points in the room? You will have made them worse!!! This is the inherent problem with a single point measurement/single point EQ system. You can make ONE point in the room "perfect", but you will probably make every other point in the room worse.

Now, think about this: You have two ears. Which ear do you EQ for? :eek: What if that ear moves a little bit? :eek::eek: What if your "best friend", who has two ears, sits 2 ft away from you? :eek::eek::eek:

Now, you need to equalize over a much bigger area than just that one single point... However, the EQ filters you've set for the one point have just made the FR worse... for the "second" ear... for the ears that have moved... and for your friend. :confused::confused::confused:



Enter Audyssey. Audyssey measures at multiple points in space, (8 for MultEQ XT, 32 for the "Pro" version and the SVS AS-EQ1). It then uses some "grouping" algorithms and some "fuzzy logic" to set filters to EQ the "space", not just the single point. (This is all very proprietary "secret sauce" kind of stuff, and they won't tell you exactly what it's doing or how it does it. But for me and many others, it's completely obvious that it works. :) )

Do you have any dvd's or cd's that would be good for a sound test...I do have several blu-rays I could play
I like hi-rez audio (DVD-A and SACD) for music demos. A couple of my favorites are:
Donald Fagan, Morph The Cat (DVD-A) (best recording I've ever heard! Thank you Elliot Scheiner!)
Seal, Best (DVD-A)
The Eagles, Hotel California (DVD-A)
Fleetwood Mac,Rumours(DVD-A)
The Beatles, Love (SACD)

(Editorial Comment: It is really unfortunate that these formats died such an untimely death. Still, the hi-rez audio scene could be revived by using the h-def audio codecs, TrueHD and HDMA. I am surprised and disappointed that no one has picked up the ball and run with this.)

In terms of movie demos, all the usual (BluRay) suspects:
M&C
WOTW
FOTP
Live Free or Die Hard
King Kong
Matrix
etc.

..but just what is it do you listen for to know if in fact you system is sounding the best it can.
I listen for dynamics, articulation and resolution. I also listen for any "holes" in the response, (missing information), and for any exaggerations at any one frequency. In order to achieve these goals, you need a system capable of flat frequency and temporal, (time), response, wide dynamic range, large volume swings with minimal compression/distortion, and with "effortless" response.

You also need a room that has minimal impact on the sound. (Room acoustics are more important than *any* EQ system!) In order of importance, one should address sound system optimization in this order:

1. Speaker/Subwoofer placement
2. Listening position placement
3. Room Acoustics
4. Electronic EQ

That's right... EQ is 4th, (and last) on the list. EQ should only be used as the "icing on the cake", after you've addressed and optimized the other, more important, parameters. Too many people make it the "first option", without addressing the more important issues.

Craig

*Raising the level of a null: If you try to raise a cancellation by adding more energy to it, you just cancel it MORE! All you do is use valuable amplifier power and driver excursion with no benefit to the problem. :(

[Anti-mode 8033]I'm sure it works well... for a single point EQ. :)

Anti-mode 8033 is not a single-point EQ.

Anti-mode 8033 is not a single-point EQ.
You are correct. The Anti-Mode 8033 is a 2-point EQ. Sorry for the confusion.

Craig

Craig, a short novel ...no doubt...but a good one...thanks for the plain and simple explanination , because I now think I can finally figure out what the heck I am really trying to do with all the various types of EQ. I am going to sample some of the recommended dvd and cd per your request and just listen for those sounds you described. Know of any web sites that goes in to the explanination of room acoustics. Thanks for taking the time to provide a mountain of useful info. that I and others can "take to the bank".george h.

You are correct. The Anti-Mode 8033 is a 2-point EQ. Sorry for the confusion.

Craig

Actually you can measure more than two points but at some point you will run out of filters. 24 max so some from the first cal will be thrown away as you add more sweeps. I just picked one up and it was way worth the money. My room is pretty flat already but it really cleared up all the muddy sounding frequencies by fixing the decay time. Very nice!

Ron

Actually you can measure more than two points but at some point you will run out of filters. 24 max so some from the first cal will be thrown away as you add more sweeps. I just picked one up and it was way worth the money. My room is pretty flat already but it really cleared up all the muddy sounding frequencies by fixing the decay time. Very nice!

Ron
+1 on the effectiveness of the Anti-Mode 8033. It is doing an excellent job of eq'ing my dual, non co-located PB12-Ultra/2's. I came from the extreme tweaker's camp with the BFD DSP1124/soundcard/mic/REW combination and have achieved much better mileage with the 8033, although I'd consider my knowledge in the tweakers' camp relatively limited.

Having said that, the author of the excellent REW reported and defended in a testing / comparison thread started by him over at the HTS what to me is a glowing recommendation of the 8033, positing that the 8033 can achieve similar results in a fraction of the time that would be taken by a tweaking expert using the BFD/REW combination. And that is not a small statement to make in favor of using the 8033. :cool:

On my part, I have no experience with either Audyssey or the SEQ-1, but ackowledge the very large majority good things I have read about them.

A small, friendly shot at Craig John - I think you can make an excellent case of pushing - most probably rightly - the effectiveness and desirability of Audyssey-based products without making the 8033 seem any less desirable or worthy than it actually is, especially as you have no experience with the 8033.

Just my 2 cents. :)

duwdu