You Opinions on the Best Receiver Auto-Calibration Tech for a Sub. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Hi all,

Well, the title asks it all. I have been trying to find information on the various auto-calibration methods, and for my regular home theater, Pioneer's MCACC was my preferred auto-calibration. However, I am building a different animal with a near-field multi-channel PC sound system. The one particular area I'm concerned with is getting the sub dialed in correctly. Since it's a compromised location and size, I think it's going to need major calibration/EQ changes to flatten out the response.

I have looked into the different calibrations in the past and the only ones that I found which calibrate the sub channel are:
Audyssey
HK's 'ezset/eq'



The ones that I know DON'T touch the sub channel at all other than a lowpass filter are:
Pio's MCACC
Yammy's YPAO



I cannot find much on Sony's DCAC and whether that would be an option or if it even touches the subwoofer channel in the calibration.

So, color me confused on the auto calibrations that are available. There has never been a comprehensive thread on all of them, only a few in depth threads on Audyssey and I think MCACC. Other than those two, it's been pretty tough to get deeper information on these auto-calibration technologies.

Which one would you guys recommend for tuning a near-field PC sub?

I'm planning on using the HDMI digital out from my video card to feed the receiver the audio, however, I have the option to buy a receiver with a 6-channel input, then utilize a an audio card with an analog output, then run PC software to auto calibrate, but have no experience in this area to know if this is a better route.
Timothy91 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
derrickdj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Pioneer's MCACC does touch the sub but not below 63 Hz. Under standing waves, in the menu there are 3 filters for the sub frequencies, Q- to adjust the bandwidth and attenuation. This is what a PEQ does. Time domains and phase is also well done by MCACC. The main benefit of additional EQ will be to boost the 20 Hz area and knock down one peak under 63 Hz if needed. Due to the length of the sound waves below 63 Hz, there is not much that needs to be done in most rooms. I have used subs with and without additional sub EQ and it is possible to get great sound both ways especially when using more than one sub. MCACC does a lot of things to get the whole system well integrated and sounding great. I have owned Denon, Onkyo,,Pioneer and Sony. Sony is not mention much on forums but has a good correction system and nice features also.

Klipsch RF 7 based HT 7.4, Pioneer SC 35, Acurus 200 Five, Dayton 18 Ultimxa Dual Sub Cab(2), Dayton 18 Ultimax Large Vented Sub Cab (2), on Berhinger I Nuke DPS amps, Samsung BDP F 7500, Asus/My Book Live HPC 4 TB

Yaquin VK 2100 amp, McIntosh XR 5 speakers, Samsung BDP F 7500
derrickdj1 is offline  
post #3 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 09:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by derrickdj1 View Post

Pioneer's MCACC does touch the sub but not below 63 Hz. Under standing waves, in the menu there are 3 filters for the sub frequencies, Q- to adjust the bandwidth and attenuation. This is what a PEQ does. Time domains and phase is also well done by MCACC. The main benefit of additional EQ will be to boost the 20 Hz area and knock down one peak under 63 Hz if needed. Due to the length of the sound waves below 63 Hz, there is not much that needs to be done in most rooms. I have used subs with and without additional sub EQ and it is possible to get great sound both ways especially when using more than one sub. MCACC does a lot of things to get the whole system well integrated and sounding great. I have owned Denon, Onkyo,,Pioneer and Sony. Sony is not mention much on forums but has a good correction system and nice features also.

I own a Pioneer receiver and did a lot of research and my own testing. After testing a Denon, a Harman Kardon and a Pioneer receiver, I chose the Pioneer because it just sounded cleaner and just plain 'better' after the calibration, while both the Denon and HK sounded 'worse' after their calibration. So, I chose the Pioneer based on 'real world' evaluation/comparison/listening and went with what my ears told me. However, I wasn't sure if a near-field scenario would favor one of the other technologies more. I've read that Pioneer's MCACC doesn't do anything at all with the sub channel though. Can you point me to a link where it shows that the sub channel is actually EQ'd? I'd like to read about that because when I did my previous research, there was zero information on it.

Also, are standing waves a big issue in the near-field/small room environment like they are in larger rooms? I wouldn't think smaller rooms would be such an issue with standing waves since it usually takes a little distance from the speakers before those interfere with and start cancelling out other bass tones. From what you describe, the MCACC could be the winner yet again, which would be cool. I just wish Pioneer would improve their EQ a bit more by adding more bands. 9-bands of EQ just isn't nearly enough. Not that it will matter that much, because these old Infinity Entra Point Five's are very nice sounding on their own natural curves.
Timothy91 is offline  
post #4 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 10:56 AM
 
BeeMan458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Magalia, CA
Posts: 8,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 801
Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT32.

Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

XT32 better than XT.

XT32 will do stereo subwoofers and has a better algorithm for multiple subwoofer setup but with mono, you have to make sure everything is gain balanced before running Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

There are separate EQ boxes, such as Anti-Mode, 8033S II or miniDSP that work a treat that are used in conjunction with Audyssey.

Currently we have REW loaded in the computer and use the headphone out to feed the test signal to the front stereo RCA in connectors on the AVR.

Measurements are then sent to the computer, via a USB connection to calculate and graph the measurements.
BeeMan458 is offline  
post #5 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 12:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT32.

Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

XT32 better than XT.

XT32 will do stereo subwoofers and has a better algorithm for multiple subwoofer setup but with mono, you have to make sure everything is gain balanced before running Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

There are separate EQ boxes, such as Anti-Mode, 8033S II or miniDSP that work a treat that are used in conjunction with Audyssey.

Currently we have REW loaded in the computer and use the headphone out to feed the test signal to the front stereo RCA in connectors on the AVR.

Measurements are then sent to the computer, via a USB connection to calculate and graph the measurements.

In my PC gaming setup, I will be doing 65% games, 25% music (I will be auditioning just about all new downloadable music on this rig), 10% movies (as I already have a main HT setup, no need to watch many movies at my PC). I will only have 1 subwoofer and 4 (or, if I can fit it under the monitor, 5) Infinity Entra Point Five's as satellite speakers (circa 1999 flavor). I love these as satellite PC speakers and have already heard another PC audio setup with these playing music. It was THE best sounding PC speaker setup ever (and at near-field, man it would be tough for a $10g's speaker setups to beat how clean, neutral, spacious and precise it sounded, and yeah, I've heard high end setups). That's why I went with the Infinity Entras for this setup because I know how good these can sound.

I'm leaning 'heavily' towards just biting the bullet and paying out the $500 it costs for the sealed SVS SB-1000 sub (as the Entra's are a sealed speaker also). Afterall, I expect that this setup will be with me for many, many years ahead, so why not spread the cheddar thick on this one? (and if I'm not loving it, I can send it back)

I already know that the Pioneer auto-calibration sounds fantastic. I was just worried about the sub-channel possibly not getting any adjustment. I want to confirm through some official source that MCACC does EQ on the sub channel. I'm skeptical of the information Derrickdj provided because in all my reading, the 63Hz bass adjustment was ONLY for the satellites, IF you set them to "full" range. I haven't read previously that MCACC did anything at all to the sub channel except lowpass it, then match the satellite's highpassed bass to the phase of the sub (again, all processing in the satellite channels and none in the sub). But I could be wrong and really want to know. Because if it's true that MCACC EQs the sub (at least down to 63Hz), then it seems like the most attractive option for me because I love how MCACC tuned my main home theater in the living room.

You're trying to sell me on Audyssey XT32, but will it really give me that much better a tune in the sub channel than MCACC? Pioneer seems to defend their choice of bass tune and argue very vehemently that multi-channel subwoofers are bad for phase, etc and they don't recommend people do it. The principles that MCACC were developed under seem to match THX-design theory, and I subscribe to that theory because it happens to be how virtually all theaters and mixing stages were designed to adhere to. THX uses one channel for bass (multiple subs are okay but not subs on multiple channels possibly playing the same bass frequencies). All bass in the professional multichannel setups are sent through a single channel when mixed and mastered. It might be best if an auto-calibration is developed to adhere to these design specs. MCACC does this and also applies phase matching, standing wave adjustment and reverb correction. The ONLY criticism I have of MCACC is that there seems to be too few EQ bands (only 9), which won't do enough to correct very difficult rooms or accommodate a "settlement" for multiple listening positions.

Aside from that, Audyssey is a very complex and stalwart technology. I've read up on it. However, I was not highly impressed with it when I auditioned it the Audyssey XT from a Denon receiver 3 years ago during my research phase when I built my home theater.

I also don't know ANYTHING, nor can I find ANYTHING on the technology implementation of Harman's 'ezset/eq' auto calibration. I also evaluated it 3 years ago and found it to sound more 'muddy' and the mix was more 'crowded' than when no correction at all was put on.

Anyway. I enjoy reading about anything you can add to this discussion as there are so few "technical" comparisons between the competing "auto correction" technologies.
Timothy91 is offline  
post #6 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 05:16 PM
 
BeeMan458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Magalia, CA
Posts: 8,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Anyway. I enjoy reading about anything you can add to this discussion as there are so few "technical" comparisons between the competing "auto correction" technologies.

Can't help you there as I don't know poop about MCACC. I have Audyssey, MultEQ XT and XT32 is reportedly head-n-shoulders above XT and Audyssey is reported better than MCACC. I made up for this shortfall by adding an Anti-Mode, 8033S II and discovered how to steer the graph using, gain, phase and level controls for both the center channel and each of the separate subwoofers. Two points, I can only share personal experience and give opinions based on other people's reported personal experience.

I've no experience with computer based sound systems because I use a headphone based sound system. The computer sound card is a XONAR, Essence, STX with a high end power supply. The headphones are attached to a USB supplied DAC (Stello, DA100, Signature) and an analogue headphone Amp (Burson Audio, HA160) which is designed to compliment the Sennheiser, HD-650 headphones being used.

(that's my story)

...cool.gif

This thread may shed some light.

-
BeeMan458 is offline  
post #7 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 06:30 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT32.

Anything with Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

XT32 better than XT.

XT32 will do stereo subwoofers and has a better algorithm for multiple subwoofer setup but with mono, you have to make sure everything is gain balanced before running Audyssey, MultEQ XT.
Just a nomenclature correction... Audyssey XT32 doesn't do "stereo" subs. It will do "dual" subs. However, they are both sent the same a "mono" signal in terms of EQ. The only differences between the Sub1 and Sub2 outputs are their level and distance settings. Audyssey "pings" each sub individually on the first set of pings. These pings are used to determine the level and distance settings. It then pings both subs together and it continues to do so for the rest of the pings. These additional "combined" pings are used to calculate the EQ filter taps for the combined subwoofer output.

Craig
SanchoPanza likes this.

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #8 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 06:46 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

In my PC gaming setup, I will be doing 65% games, 25% music (I will be auditioning just about all new downloadable music on this rig), 10% movies (as I already have a main HT setup, no need to watch many movies at my PC). I will only have 1 subwoofer and 4 (or, if I can fit it under the monitor, 5) Infinity Entra Point Five's as satellite speakers (circa 1999 flavor). I love these as satellite PC speakers and have already heard another PC audio setup with these playing music. It was THE best sounding PC speaker setup ever (and at near-field, man it would be tough for a $10g's speaker setups to beat how clean, neutral, spacious and precise it sounded, and yeah, I've heard high end setups). That's why I went with the Infinity Entras for this setup because I know how good these can sound.

I'm leaning 'heavily' towards just biting the bullet and paying out the $500 it costs for the sealed SVS SB-1000 sub (as the Entra's are a sealed speaker also). Afterall, I expect that this setup will be with me for many, many years ahead, so why not spread the cheddar thick on this one? (and if I'm not loving it, I can send it back)

I already know that the Pioneer auto-calibration sounds fantastic. I was just worried about the sub-channel possibly not getting any adjustment. I want to confirm through some official source that MCACC does EQ on the sub channel. I'm skeptical of the information Derrickdj provided because in all my reading, the 63Hz bass adjustment was ONLY for the satellites, IF you set them to "full" range. I haven't read previously that MCACC did anything at all to the sub channel except lowpass it, then match the satellite's highpassed bass to the phase of the sub (again, all processing in the satellite channels and none in the sub). But I could be wrong and really want to know. Because if it's true that MCACC EQs the sub (at least down to 63Hz), then it seems like the most attractive option for me because I love how MCACC tuned my main home theater in the living room.

You're trying to sell me on Audyssey XT32, but will it really give me that much better a tune in the sub channel than MCACC? Pioneer seems to defend their choice of bass tune and argue very vehemently that multi-channel subwoofers are bad for phase, etc and they don't recommend people do it. The principles that MCACC were developed under seem to match THX-design theory, and I subscribe to that theory because it happens to be how virtually all theaters and mixing stages were designed to adhere to. THX uses one channel for bass (multiple subs are okay but not subs on multiple channels possibly playing the same bass frequencies). All bass in the professional multichannel setups are sent through a single channel when mixed and mastered. It might be best if an auto-calibration is developed to adhere to these design specs. MCACC does this and also applies phase matching, standing wave adjustment and reverb correction. The ONLY criticism I have of MCACC is that there seems to be too few EQ bands (only 9), which won't do enough to correct very difficult rooms or accommodate a "settlement" for multiple listening positions.
ALL Audyssey XT32 receivers and pre/pro's are also THX certified and follow THX requirements. Tomlinson Holman, (the TH in THX), is one of the founders of Audyssey. The two work synergistically in an XT32-based receiver or pre/pro.

The subwoofers in an XT32-based receiver are NOT "multi-channel" subs. They are all running the same signal, just like a THX-based, mono- subwoofer system. The *only* difference is that Audyssey allows different level and distance settings for the subs. These can be used to tune the subwoofer system to the room. Or, they can be bypassed if the user desires to do so, (like me.) The "key" is to achieve flat FR at the LP or area. The other huge advanatge to Audyssey is their Dynamic EQ, which compensates for levels below reference level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Aside from that, Audyssey is a very complex and stalwart technology. I've read up on it. However, I was not highly impressed with it when I auditioned it the Audyssey XT from a Denon receiver 3 years ago during my research phase when I built my home theater.
I too have heard Audyssey-based system that I was underwhelmed with. It takes the ability to "see" and tweak the response post-Audyssey to get the best results from it. However, if you are willing to go to those lengths, the final result can be fabulous! Here is the process I went though to get there: http://www.avsforum.com/t/759877/seaton-sound-submersive1/4500#post_19446901

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #9 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

ALL Audyssey XT32 receivers and pre/pro's are also THX certified and follow THX requirements. Tomlinson Holman, (the TH in THX), is one of the founders of Audyssey. The two work synergistically in an XT32-based receiver or pre/pro.

The subwoofers in an XT32-based receiver are NOT "multi-channel" subs. They are all running the same signal, just like a THX-based, mono- subwoofer system.

I was speaking moreso about the "bass" used in the satellite channels under the sub crossover frequency. Some people use additional subwoofers in-line with satellite speakers to reproduce "full range" on each channel (something I was contemplating doing in the past). The THX concept is that ALL BASS, from ALL CHANNELS are routed into the subwoofer channel under 80Hz. Audyssey let's you break this standard. I can understand allowing a different crossover frequency, but to allow the same bass from alternate speakers to play along with the sub gives risks of phase cancellation. Which is why Pioneer argues very strongly that that's why they INSIST that all satellite speakers use the SAME crossover frequency with the sub and Pioneer's MCACC also phase-corrects all the satellite channels to be coherent with the subwoofer's output. This concept is in line with the THX standard. I find it very odd that a person who was a part of THX would develop a tuning system that violated some basics in his own standard. Hmm....

It seems that Audyssey was partially developed to satisfy the gearheads (allowing potential phase problems) while Pioneer tells the gearheads straight-up what the science is. Everyone thinks your fronts have to be giant towers and your rears tiny cubes, when actually you should just buy fully capable speakers for all channels for high-passing @ 80Hz for the SPL you intend in your room. Fronts should have narrow vertical dispersion and the rears should be as close to omni-directional as possible. If you're to run full range on the satellites, then you better setup the system in a way that doesn't cause phase cancellation (which may require a serious acoustic expert to help avoid).

Anywho......back to the topic. For near-field calibration, are there any benefits to one auto-calibration technology over another? That is something I don't have any info on. I'm hoping someone might have come across an interesting nugget in that regard.
Timothy91 is offline  
post #10 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 08:16 PM
 
BeeMan458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Magalia, CA
Posts: 8,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 801
Pretty much, in the case of Audyssey, all speakers are set to small and the crossovers are set to 80Hz. It's not the law but in my understanding, it is the forum's de facto standard.

Setting up Audyssey isn't the problem but getting rid of those nasty, left behind, nulls at the main listening position is what's makes life so rough.
BeeMan458 is offline  
post #11 of 23 Old 07-06-2013, 10:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
derrickdj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Pioneer does not state that it EQ's the sub. They talk about standing wave correction and the use of subwoofer filters. Since frequency are targeted or can be, bandwidth can be narrowed or widen and attenuation or boost of targeted frequencies can done. A parametric EQ does all these things and also uses filters, what is the difference besides going below 63 Hz.. I have use non-identical subs, ported with seal , 2 ported, 12 in with 15 inl subs with my Pioneer SC 35 and was able to get a great sound in the room using MCACC. I actually had the hardest time integrating 2 identical subs I have sub EQ, Berhinger 3000 DSP for below 63 Hz and the main use is to bump up the 20 Hz band and no real peaks to knock down under 63 Hz. Ask others where are the problem peaks in their system to get a better ideal of what sub EQ is doing for them.

Auddyseey is a nice system also that I used with my Denon avr. I just prefer MCACC

Klipsch RF 7 based HT 7.4, Pioneer SC 35, Acurus 200 Five, Dayton 18 Ultimxa Dual Sub Cab(2), Dayton 18 Ultimax Large Vented Sub Cab (2), on Berhinger I Nuke DPS amps, Samsung BDP F 7500, Asus/My Book Live HPC 4 TB

Yaquin VK 2100 amp, McIntosh XR 5 speakers, Samsung BDP F 7500
derrickdj1 is offline  
post #12 of 23 Old 07-07-2013, 03:45 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

I was speaking moreso about the "bass" used in the satellite channels under the sub crossover frequency. Some people use additional subwoofers in-line with satellite speakers to reproduce "full range" on each channel (something I was contemplating doing in the past). The THX concept is that ALL BASS, from ALL CHANNELS are routed into the subwoofer channel under 80Hz. Audyssey let's you break this standard.
I'm not sure what your point is... Sure, Audyssey-based receivers let you run speakers "full range." Audyssey-based receivers also let you use other crossovers than the THX 80 Hz crossover. But so does every other receiver on the market today, including Pioneer receivers with MCACC. They all have "full range" or "large" settings. How is Audyssey doing anything different than Pioneer when setting speakers to "Large"? They both "let you break this, (THX), standard." Furthermore, Audyssey doesn't mandate or even encourage users to you use subwoofers on the main channels; in fact they totally discourage that and recommend the use of subwoofers on the subwoofer output and Bass Management: http://www.audyssey.com/blog/2009/05/small-vs-large
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

I can understand allowing a different crossover frequency, but to allow the same bass from alternate speakers to play along with the sub gives risks of phase cancellation.
Again, I don't understand your point... Audyssey, and MCACC, and every other automated RC system corrects for these phase issues by setting the speaker distances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Which is why Pioneer argues very strongly that that's why they INSIST that all satellite speakers use the SAME crossover frequency with the sub and Pioneer's MCACC also phase-corrects all the satellite channels to be coherent with the subwoofer's output. This concept is in line with the THX standard.
Just using the same crossover frequency for all speakers doesn't ensure a phase-shift free crossover. How does Pioneer ensure a perfect crossover splice? Does MCACC evaluate each speakers' roll-off to ensure it uses the ideal crossover slope for the specific speakers in use? Of course not. No receiver-based RC system is going to do that. So Pioneer's MCACC doesn't do anything more to ensure an optimal splice, without phase shift, than any other RC system. You would need to spend a LOT more $$$ to get that kind of flexibility.

Pioneer's system is very limiting in terms of what speakers it can be used with. People on a limited budget can't focus their funds on the front soundstage and skimp on their surrounds. Using a single crossover frequency forces those folks to buy surrounds with enough bass extension to be used with the same crossover as the front, or to cross the fronts over as high as the surrounds so there is not a "hole" in the bass from the surrounds. The complete lack of flexibility of Pioneer's Bass Management system is one of the reasons I refuse to use Pioneer receivers. The other is that it doesn't EQ the subwoofer channel.

And this: "...and Pioneer's MCACC also phase-corrects all the satellite channels to be coherent with the subwoofer's output. " just means that MCACC sets the speaker and subwoofer distances, the same as every other competent room correction system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

I find it very odd that a person who was a part of THX would develop a tuning system that violated some basics in his own standard. Hmm....
I prefer to think that he's evolved beyond the early set of standards. rolleyes.gif He realized that the original standards could be improved upon and he helped found Audyssey to push the standards, and the limits, beyond what THX could provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

It seems that Audyssey was partially developed to satisfy the gearheads (allowing potential phase problems) while Pioneer tells the gearheads straight-up what the science is.
I don't know what a "gearhead" is in this context, (and I don't want to know either), but Audyssey addresses phase issues as well as any other receiver-based RC system. It sets the relative "distances" of the speakers, which then invokes time delays to ensure that the sounds from all the speakers arrive at the listening position at the same TIME and in PHASE with each other. However, as with any other RC system, (including MCACC), these settings are only "correct" for one location and will be incorrect for every other location. If Pioneer is doing something more than that, please provide a link to the "straight-up science," (something more than some marketing jargon, please.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Everyone thinks your fronts have to be giant towers and your rears tiny cubes, when actually you should just buy fully capable speakers for all channels for high-passing @ 80Hz for the SPL you intend in your room. Fronts should have narrow vertical dispersion and the rears should be as close to omni-directional as possible. If you're to run full range on the satellites, then you better setup the system in a way that doesn't cause phase cancellation (which may require a serious acoustic expert to help avoid).
What needs to be done, other that to set the proper delays for all the speakers?

And "omni-directional surrounds??? Seriously? That's so last century. Back when the surround signals were matrixed from the main channels, and they only contained ambiance information, multi-directional surrounds were fine... even beneficial. However, since the advent of discreet surround channels some 21 years ago in 1992, sound mixers have been placing directional sound cues in the surround channels. Monopolar speakers will provide much better directionality for those surround cues than will "diffuse" sounding dipoles or omni-directional speakers. And THX has NEVER recommended omni-directional speakers. They've always recommended dipoles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Anywho......back to the topic. For near-field calibration, are there any benefits to one auto-calibration technology over another? That is something I don't have any info on. I'm hoping someone might have come across an interesting nugget in that regard.
Some benefits to Audyssey MultEQ over MCACC:
1. Multi-point measurement, up to 8 positions, (MCACC uses a single point measurement system)
2. Acoustic analysis of room acoustics based on spatial averaging with weighting of multiple positions, (MCACC bases its' analysis on a single point measurement)
3. Time-based as well as frequency-based room correction with FIR filters and tens of thousands of filter taps, (MCACC uses a few bands of parametric EQ)
4. Actual EQ of the entire subwoofer output, including the LFE channel and all re-directed bass, (MCACC doesn't EQ the subwoofer output)
5. Audyssey Dynamic EQ corrects for volume-based loudness compensation
6. Audyssey DSX allows for Heights and Wides for soundstage enlargement and increased envelopment.

Should I go on?

Just in terms of EQ, Audyssey's ability to optimize the subwoofer channel is, IMO, worth the price of admission. It can take 3 subwoofers and EQ them in the time domain and frequency domain to yield this response:



That is just Audyssey EQing 3 subs with an 80 Hz crossover, +1/-0 from 15 Hz to 80 Hz. MCACC can't *touch* that.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #13 of 23 Old 07-07-2013, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Can't help you there as I don't know poop about MCACC. I have Audyssey, MultEQ XT and XT32 is reportedly head-n-shoulders above XT and Audyssey is reported better than MCACC. I made up for this shortfall by adding an Anti-Mode, 8033S II and discovered how to steer the graph using, gain, phase and level controls for both the center channel and each of the separate subwoofers. Two points, I can only share personal experience and give opinions based on other people's reported personal experience.

I've no experience with computer based sound systems because I use a headphone based sound system. The computer sound card is a XONAR, Essence, STX with a high end power supply. The headphones are attached to a USB supplied DAC (Stello, DA100, Signature) and an analogue headphone Amp (Burson Audio, HA160) which is designed to compliment the Sennheiser, HD-650 headphones being used.

(that's my story)

...cool.gif

This thread may shed some light.

-

BeeMan

I too have XT32 but Im keen to know more about Anti-Mode with fours subs up front and two in the rear.
I see they have a new one, is there any advise you can offer as I know nothing about using this product?
Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual Core

http://verkkokauppa.planeetta.net/epages/Planeetta.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/vlsi/Products/AMDualCore/SubProducts/AMDualCore-0001
RapalloAV is offline  
post #14 of 23 Old 07-07-2013, 06:21 PM
 
BeeMan458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Magalia, CA
Posts: 8,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 801
Hi RapalloAV

Can't help too much, if that. I'm using XT and an Anti-Mode, 8033S II with three subwoofers. All three are to one of the room's corners. Two are stacked on one side of a great chair and the third is on the other side of the same chair. I have no knowledge of how the Dual Core can help you with your subwoofer system. I have three subwoofers in one corner of the room and you have six, four on the front and two on the back. Well beyond my pay grade. tongue.gif

I have the stacked subs connected via a "Y" and the other tied directly into the Anti-Mode box. All subs are on a same length subwoofer cable of fifteen feet or approximately five meters. With the AVR main menu for the subwoofer level set to +/-0, each of the subwoofer's gain, using a handheld sound meter, is output matched at a measured 70dB - 72dB, at a measured thirty-nine inches. The main listening position is approximately nine feet from the middle of the three subwoofers.

Now that the subwoofers are positioned and output matched, Anti-Mode is run. After Anti-Mode's EQ program is run, then I run our version of Audyssey, MultEQ XT.

After these two EQ programs are run, I go into the AVR's main menu, make sure all speakers are set to small and the speaker crossovers are set to 80Hz.

Using REW as a visual aid, I tweak the subwoofer's output with the gain setting, the phase and LPF setting to get the best possible graph. I also use the AVR's level setting for the center channel as in our case, I can steer the graph a bit using the center channel level's control.

It's not much but I do hope it gives you some ideas to try.

-
BeeMan458 is offline  
post #15 of 23 Old 07-07-2013, 06:34 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

BeeMan

I too have XT32 but Im keen to know more about Anti-Mode with fours subs up front and two in the rear.
I see they have a new one, is there any advise you can offer as I know nothing about using this product?
Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual Core

http://verkkokauppa.planeetta.net/epages/Planeetta.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/vlsi/Products/AMDualCore/SubProducts/AMDualCore-0001
Contact forum member bsoko2. He's had the Dual Core since it first came out and he has 4 subwoofers. http://www.avsforum.com/u/7760336/bsoko2 He'll help you out. Here's his theater: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1416077/bsoko2-new-ht-june-2012

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #16 of 23 Old 07-07-2013, 10:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Timothy91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

And "omni-directional surrounds??? Seriously? That's so last century. Back when the surround signals were matrixed from the main channels, and they only contained ambiance information, multi-directional surrounds were fine... even beneficial. However, since the advent of discreet surround channels some 21 years ago in 1992, sound mixers have been placing directional sound cues in the surround channels. Monopolar speakers will provide much better directionality for those surround cues than will "diffuse" sounding dipoles or omni-directional speakers. And THX has NEVER recommended omni-directional speakers. They've always recommended dipoles.

THX SHOULD have recommended omni-directional because that design accomplished the intended effect of multiple surround speakers from two speakers better than dipole, AND the omni-directional speaker maintains the 'spacial cues' because of the nice slice of 'direct' sound, then delivers the additional 'effect' of multiple speakers with the 'indirect' reflection from the omnidirectional dispersion. I've gone around in yarns on this before with others. Trust me. Omni-directional speakers in small-medium rooms are total win and deliver PRECISELY what Lucasfilm describes as their goal. To emulate a real movie theater. Di-pole is 'okay'. Omni-directional is the 'tits'.
Quote:
Some benefits to Audyssey MultEQ over MCACC:
1. Multi-point measurement, up to 8 positions, (MCACC uses a single point measurement system)

For the record, this setup if for a PC that will have a single listening postiion, so this isn't something necessary.
Quote:
2. Acoustic analysis of room acoustics based on spatial averaging with weighting of multiple positions, (MCACC bases its' analysis on a single point measurement)
3. Time-based as well as frequency-based room correction with FIR filters and tens of thousands of filter taps, (MCACC uses a few bands of parametric EQ)
4. Actual EQ of the entire subwoofer output, including the LFE channel and all re-directed bass, (MCACC doesn't EQ the subwoofer output)
5. Audyssey Dynamic EQ corrects for volume-based loudness compensation
6. Audyssey DSX allows for Heights and Wides for soundstage enlargement and increased envelopment.

Should I go on?

Just in terms of EQ, Audyssey's ability to optimize the subwoofer channel is, IMO, worth the price of admission. It can take 3 subwoofers and EQ them in the time domain and frequency domain to yield this response:



That is just Audyssey EQing 3 subs with an 80 Hz crossover, +1/-0 from 15 Hz to 80 Hz. MCACC can't *touch* that.

Craig

I only will be running a single sub in my setup here. But what I was discussing before is the Pioneer engineers' stern stand that a single bass crossover frequency is best to avoid potential problems. They directly stated that Audyssey may have phase issues with bass due to having multiples speakers using different crossover frequencies in relation to the subwoofer. I'm just going off what the Pioneer engineers stated they believe. It's sounds reasonable to me because in my car stereo design, I had to change crossover slopes in my midbasses order to avoid phase cancellation with my trunk subs. So I know that one driver can cancel another driver's sound out when crossing over the top of each other. Anyway, regardless, I admit Audyssey is advanced, but I haven't heard it sound better than MCACC....yet. Perhaps a different venue with different acoustics and different speakers might be necessary for me to get a better sampling of what Audyssey can do? I'd like to believe it's better, because it certainly looks more complex in it's implementation, especially in the EQ section. I'm not sure 'why' MCACC had a 'cleaner' sound with a audible improvement in clearing up the mix. I could hear more sounds in the mix with MCACC, while the other auto-calibrators seemed to make the mix sound more 'crowded' without good intelligibility of individual elements within the mix. That's a VERY important aspect to sound quality for me. MCACC sounded 'better' when turned on than off. Audyssey and HK's ezset both sounded 'worse' when turned on and the whole sound 'opened up' when they were turned 'off'. I can't explain it any better than that. I look at all the fancy engineering tricks from Audyssey and I admit that when I see that, I 'want' it to sound better. But when I did my evaluation, it just....didn't. Maybe I will have a different opinion if I tried it again on another system in another venue.
Timothy91 is offline  
post #17 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 06:18 AM
 
BeeMan458's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Magalia, CA
Posts: 8,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 801
Where were you when listening to the Audyssey and HK EQ setup? Were you in a store where setup is questionable at best or someone's home where care and knowledge was brought to bear regarding individual system setup and everything was measured, graphed and subwoofers positioned accordingly?
BeeMan458 is offline  
post #18 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 06:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,936
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Just a nomenclature correction... Audyssey XT32 doesn't do "stereo" subs. It will do "dual" subs. However, they are both sent the same a "mono" signal in terms of EQ. The only differences between the Sub1 and Sub2 outputs are their level and distance settings. Audyssey "pings" each sub individually on the first set of pings. These pings are used to determine the level and distance settings. It then pings both subs together and it continues to do so for the rest of the pings. These additional "combined" pings are used to calculate the EQ filter taps for the combined subwoofer output.

Craig

Not all XT32 receivers include dual sub calibration. The Onkyo 818 is the only one that I'm aware of that has XT32 but not dual sub.
KidHorn is online now  
post #19 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 06:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
primetimeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 3,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Is it possible the OP doesn't like the high frequency roll off and or midrange compensation of Audyssey?
primetimeguy is online now  
post #20 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 02:34 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Where were you when listening to the Audyssey and HK EQ setup? Were you in a store where setup is questionable at best or someone's home where care and knowledge was brought to bear regarding individual system setup and everything was measured, graphed and subwoofers positioned accordingly?
BeeMan makes an excellent point. Although Audyssey is an "automated" system, it still benefits greatly from user intervention at every step of the process; pre-Audyssey, during the EQ process and post-Audyssey. If care and knowledge are not applied at every phase of the process, the result can be less than optimal. This forum is littered with posts from people unhappy with their Audyssey result. Almost invariably, when queried, we find that they've missed some important human intervention in the setup process that caused the result to be suboptimal. In fact, these problems are so widespread that 2 different forum members have taken the time to write setup guides and FAQ's to help others get more optimal results:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=21782993&postcount=51803
If the Audyssey-based systems Timothy heard were not properly setup, then it is no surprise that what he heard was not optimal.

BeeMan's second point about using measurements to verify and optimize Audyssey is also on the mark. Audyssey only pings the speakers for its' pre-Audyssey measurements. It never re-pings the result to verify that it has optimally set all the parameters. Human intervention can often improve upon, or optimize some of these parameters, especially the crossover frequency selections and the subwoofer distance settings.

Furthermore, most Audyssey setups remove the "boom" and overhang from the bass. Often, new users will react: "Where did my bass go???" In fact, their bass didn't go anywhere... it was just the lingering room affects that disappeared. Still, they were so used to hearing all that boom, that they missed it when it was gone. They judged the bass to be worse, when in fact it was much more accurate.

In addition, many people like their bass "hot," or calibrated to be louder than the speakers. Audyssey calibrates the subwoofer level(s) to be equal to the speakers at Reference Level. The bass is turned down, relatively speaking, but then when listening below RL, the bass is perceived to be even weaker. This is the reason Dynamic EQ was developed, but still, this is another reason people say: "Where did my bass go???"

Chris Kyriakakis has written an excellent article about this phenomenon: http://www.audyssey.com/blog/2009/05/reference-vs-preference

Finally, when doing these types of comparisons, (comparing Audyssey to MCACC, in any type of environment,) it is absolutely essential that the levels be as closely matched as possible. It is a well-established fact that when a listener is presented with 2 sound systems and is asked to evaluate them for sound quality, if one is even slightly louder than the other, it will be perceived to be "better." The only fair way to perform these types of evaluation is to exactly level-match the two systems.

This phenomenon is even a problem when comparing Audyssey-on to Audyssey-off. Because Audyssey removes the excessive bass, ti will generally sound quieter when it's on than when it's off. It is critical to level-match the Audyssey-on SPL with the Audyssey-off SPL to do a fair comparison.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #21 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 02:35 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Not all XT32 receivers include dual sub calibration. The Onkyo 818 is the only one that I'm aware of that has XT32 but not dual sub.
Correct. Thank you for clarifying.

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #22 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,678
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy91 View Post

Which one would you guys recommend for tuning a near-field PC sub?

I'm planning on using the HDMI digital out from my video card to feed the receiver the audio, however, I have the option to buy a receiver with a 6-channel input, then utilize a an audio card with an analog output, then run PC software to auto calibrate, but have no experience in this area to know if this is a better route.

 

As long as you're going to measure (wink.gif), you're going to become familiar with REW, at which point you can just use the incredible Equalizer APO:

https://sourceforge.net/p/equalizerapo/wiki/Documentation/


Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #23 of 23 Old 07-08-2013, 03:16 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,334
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 326
To go back to the original question, there are some new RC systems available that have some interesting new features. I don't have any "opinions" on these because I don't have any experience with them, but I think they are interesting and have potential:

YPAO with RSC:
Quote:
YPAO™ R.S.C. (Reflected Sound Control) Sound Optimization with Speaker Angle Measurement

YPAO analyzes room acoustics and performs speaker angle measurements, then calibrates audio parameters to achieve optimum sound at any of several listening positions. It employs Reflected Sound Control to correct early reflections for studio-quality sound. It also provides DSP Effect Normalization, which varies the CINEMA DSP parameters according to the reflected sounds.

Dirac Live:
Quote:
Dirac Live Room Correction Suite
Powerful sound optimization for your hifi system

Would you like to improve the sound from your audio system and correct the distortions introduced by your room? Then we have the perfect solution for you. The Dirac Live Room Correction Suite™ allows the user to analyze their audio system and room, and by the push of a button apply cutting edge sound optimization used by some of the world's finest brands. Because the solution is totally computer based, there is no need for costly hardware.

Trinnov:
Quote:
Acoustic Analysis

The Optimizer includes a professional acoustic and speaker measurement system that handles true multipoint analysis. A detailed acoustic report is generated and displayed in a flexible interface that helps users highlight relevant informations.
(Trinnov is not "new" but it's availability in a receiver based product is fairly recent: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/music_in_the_round_42/ )

Steinway-Lyngdorf:
Quote:
Model P1 Surround Processor

A testament to audio engineering at its best, the backbone of the Model P1 surround sound processor is a true digital multi-channel signal path. It is the ultimate product in its field and is testament to Steinway Lyngdorf’s technical prowess

The P1 Processor utilizes the proprietary RoomPerfect™ room adaptation technology, and True Bass Steering bass management that ensures seamless integration of woofers and speakers. Furthermore, it has the Steinway Lyngdorf Digital link which, unlike most HDMITM capable surround sound processors, keeps any HDMI™ audio stream entirely in the digital domain when distributing it to the amplifiers in the system.
The RoomPerfect system is now available as a standalone unit from McIntosh: MEN220 Room Perfect room correction ($4500)

As I said, I have no experience with any of these, but they all look "interesting."

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off