Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 23 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 162Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #661 of 777 Old 07-01-2017, 05:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
I fixed the problem with the help window covering the app. There's a new version 1.22 for download with the change. If you're using the local .chm help file, I recommend you not use 1.20, as the help file dates back to February of this year and many changes have been made since. One recent important change to the help file is "The Two Ways of Specifying Filter Parameter Limits", which clears up an issue that confused several people in two different forums.

Edit: If you're still seeing the help file problem with 1.22, please download the 1.22 installer again. I made an error on the original upload and have since fixed it and uploaded again.
sdurani and pepar like this.

Last edited by andyc56; 07-01-2017 at 05:44 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #662 of 777 Old 07-01-2017, 05:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Perfect thx. You asked me to set the distance/gain ... to 0. What about phase. I know that the front subs are not in phase with back subs. I saw the phase in impulse. But considering that each sub is measured independently, its ok to keep all the phase to normal. MSO will figure it out if there is a phase issue b/w two subs?
One limitation of MSO is that it can't automatically optimize discrete parameters such as polarity normal/reverse. It only deals with continuously changeable parameters. You'll need to either reverse the polarity to get them to match, then do the measurements, of if you've already done the measurements and don't want to repeat them, insert a polarity inversion block in one or the other of the filter channels you define in MSO. In the end, you'll need to actually do the polarity reversal yourself, as MSO doesn't put this reversal information into the biquad text file.
andyc56 is offline  
post #663 of 777 Old 07-01-2017, 07:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I fixed the problem with the help window covering the app. There's a new version 1.22 for download with the change. If you're using the local .chm help file, I recommend you not use 1.20, as the help file dates back to February of this year and many changes have been made since. One recent important change to the help file is "The Two Ways of Specifying Filter Parameter Limits", which clears up an issue that confused several people in two different forums.

Edit: If you're still seeing the help file problem with 1.22, please download the 1.22 installer again. I made an error on the original upload and have since fixed it and uploaded again.
Cool. I'll uninstall the current version and install the new one. Thx for fixing the bugs real quick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
One limitation of MSO is that it can't automatically optimize discrete parameters such as polarity normal/reverse. It only deals with continuously changeable parameters. You'll need to either reverse the polarity to get them to match, then do the measurements, of if you've already done the measurements and don't want to repeat them, insert a polarity inversion block in one or the other of the filter channels you define in MSO. In the end, you'll need to actually do the polarity reversal yourself, as MSO doesn't put this reversal information into the biquad text file.
I haven't measured anything yet. Still figuring out the best place for subs at MLP to start with. Had a bit of an with NF subs placement but got much better now. So it's clear that I"ll set the polarity accordingly and then take the measurements. Any plans on including this feature in future?
harrisu is offline  
 
post #664 of 777 Old 07-01-2017, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I fixed the problem with the help window covering the app. There's a new version 1.22 for download with the change. If you're using the local .chm help file, I recommend you not use 1.20, as the help file dates back to February of this year and many changes have been made since. One recent important change to the help file is "The Two Ways of Specifying Filter Parameter Limits", which clears up an issue that confused several people in two different forums.

Edit: If you're still seeing the help file problem with 1.22, please download the 1.22 installer again. I made an error on the original upload and have since fixed it and uploaded again.
Tested new version. Fixed is working. Confirmed.
harrisu is offline  
post #665 of 777 Old 07-01-2017, 09:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Few observations/recommendations. Hope you wont mind.

1 - Can we have a check box next to names in Graphs like REW does? This will allow user to be able to see just one. I understand that we can right click and select properties and deselect there but its much longer. Having a check box next to name is a much quicker way.

2 - Grid (or ListView) at the bottom representing Output section, can we have horizontal lines on it? It will help to easily associate left column (Graph Data) from Right column (Cursor)

3 - When selecting a value in Graph Data in Output, can we highlight the whole row instead of the cell only?

4 - Config View --> Filters context menu, can we have "Add Parametric EQ" as first option since this is the only one that a user will be using multiple times.

5 - Under Config View --> Filters, would be great if we can re-arrange them using drag drop or adding (move Up/Down) in context menu of selected item.

6 - Inside "Associate Measurements With This Channel", it would be great to have a Filter text box. So when I'm say associating all the positions for sub1, instead of finding all of them, I can just type sub1 in filter box which will only show measurements that "Contains" sub1. Makes is much easier to select and also avoids the mistakes. Good naming convention will go a long way.

Last edited by harrisu; 07-01-2017 at 09:16 PM.
harrisu is offline  
post #666 of 777 Old 07-02-2017, 05:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Few observations/recommendations. Hope you wont mind.

1 - Can we have a check box next to names in Graphs like REW does? This will allow user to be able to see just one. I understand that we can right click and select properties and deselect there but its much longer. Having a check box next to name is a much quicker way.

2 - Grid (or ListView) at the bottom representing Output section, can we have horizontal lines on it? It will help to easily associate left column (Graph Data) from Right column (Cursor)

3 - When selecting a value in Graph Data in Output, can we highlight the whole row instead of the cell only?

4 - Config View --> Filters context menu, can we have "Add Parametric EQ" as first option since this is the only one that a user will be using multiple times.

5 - Under Config View --> Filters, would be great if we can re-arrange them using drag drop or adding (move Up/Down) in context menu of selected item.

6 - Inside "Associate Measurements With This Channel", it would be great to have a Filter text box. So when I'm say associating all the positions for sub1, instead of finding all of them, I can just type sub1 in filter box which will only show measurements that "Contains" sub1. Makes is much easier to select and also avoids the mistakes. Good naming convention will go a long way.
I can't make any promises, but I'm bookmarking this and adding it to my list of potential changes. I tend to be quick at fixing bugs once I reproduce them, but rather grumpy about adding new features.

Regarding ways to quickly add filters to one or more channels, the filter copy and paste feature works well for that. See "Copying and Pasting Filters" on the "tips and tricks" page. I just updated the page this morning when I realized that some of the information was out of date, so it's different from what's in the local .chm help file. I had to refresh the page in my browser to get the changes to show up.
pepar and Svenibaer like this.

Last edited by andyc56; 07-02-2017 at 05:25 AM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #667 of 777 Old 07-02-2017, 10:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I can't make any promises, but I'm bookmarking this and adding it to my list of potential changes. I tend to be quick at fixing bugs once I reproduce them, but rather grumpy about adding new features.

Regarding ways to quickly add filters to one or more channels, the filter copy and paste feature works well for that. See "Copying and Pasting Filters" on the "tips and tricks" page. I just updated the page this morning when I realized that some of the information was out of date, so it's different from what's in the local .chm help file. I had to refresh the page in my browser to get the changes to show up.
Cool. I'll keep posting ideas/enhancements as I go through the app. It will be totally up to you to decide if you'd like to include it. Back log is going to grow
harrisu is offline  
post #668 of 777 Old 07-04-2017, 11:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Finally got the subs working with each other. Time to get them optimize. Since I'll be using Dirac, it requires (recommends) 9 positions. I have 2 seats. So I place the mic based on the recommended locations from Dirac.

Now for MSO, does that meat I should take 9 readings (9 positions recommended by Dirac) for each sub?
harrisu is offline  
post #669 of 777 Old 07-04-2017, 02:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
You don't need to do 9 positions. With only 2 independently EQ'ed sub channels, the degrees of freedom available to optimize multiple positions are somewhat limited. I don't know what Dirac recommends for the measurement positions, but with MSO you should avoid measurement positions that are too close together. I'd do maybe 4, including the 2 seats. If you're feeling ambitious, you could do 6, defining a region that includes 2 positions each in front of and behind the two seats if they are side-by-side.
andyc56 is offline  
post #670 of 777 Old 07-05-2017, 01:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
You don't need to do 9 positions. With only 2 independently EQ'ed sub channels, the degrees of freedom available to optimize multiple positions are somewhat limited. I don't know what Dirac recommends for the measurement positions, but with MSO you should avoid measurement positions that are too close together. I'd do maybe 4, including the 2 seats. If you're feeling ambitious, you could do 6, defining a region that includes 2 positions each in front of and behind the two seats if they are side-by-side.
I don't have only 2 independely EQ'ed sub. I have 4. Minidsp 2x4 HD has 4 outputs. Here is my layout

Output 1: for 2 subs equidistance from MLP on the Front next to LCR.
Output 2: for 1 sub Behind MLP.
Output 3: for 1 sub 76" Behind and left to MLP
Output 4: for 1 sub 76" Behind and Right to MLP

As you can see, Output 3 and Output 4 are at equal distance from MLP, so theoretically, I can run them using only out output since they both need same delay from MLP. I'm a big confused with word "Independent". I think you mean a sub is independent if it can have its own Input/Output in minidsp 2x4 so that it can have its own filters/delay etc.....? If yes then I have 4 independent subs. So how many positions should I measure then?
Tx.
harrisu is offline  
post #671 of 777 Old 07-05-2017, 01:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
I don't have only 2 independely EQ'ed sub. I have 4. Minidsp 2x4 HD has 4 outputs. Here is my layout
Ah. I misunderstood your earlier post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Output 1: for 2 subs equidistance from MLP on the Front next to LCR.
Output 2: for 1 sub Behind MLP.
Output 3: for 1 sub 76" Behind and left to MLP
Output 4: for 1 sub 76" Behind and Right to MLP

As you can see, Output 3 and Output 4 are at equal distance from MLP, so theoretically, I can run them using only out output since they both need same delay from MLP. I'm a big confused with word "Independent". I think you mean a sub is independent if it can have its own Input/Output in minidsp 2x4 so that it can have its own filters/delay etc.....? If yes then I have 4 independent subs. So how many positions should I measure then?
There's information about that in the online documentation.

As I mentioned before, if you can measure at two additional positions in front of the seats and two behind, that will roughly define a rectangular region with the seats somewhere in the middle. With 4 independently-controlled sub channels you'll be in good shape to get improvements at those 6 total positions.
andyc56 is offline  
post #672 of 777 Old 07-05-2017, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Ah. I misunderstood your earlier post.



There's information about that in the online documentation.

As I mentioned before, if you can measure at two additional positions in front of the seats and two behind, that will roughly define a rectangular region with the seats somewhere in the middle. With 4 independently-controlled sub channels you'll be in good shape to get improvements at those 6 total positions.
Sweet. Thx.
harrisu is offline  
post #673 of 777 Old 07-07-2017, 08:08 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Jag768's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Sweet. Thx.
There's even an application note from miniDSP specific for use of REW and a miniDSP for running MSO: link.
andyc56 likes this.
Jag768 is offline  
post #674 of 777 Old 07-07-2017, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag768 View Post
There's even an application note from miniDSP specific for use of REW and a miniDSP for running MSO: link.
Yep. Here is the context from their article

Quote:
Generally, at least as many measurement positions as subs are required. (3 positions for 3 subs, 4 positions for 4 subs, etc.) However, you can do more. The goal is to "sample" the response of the subs around the listening area. Too many measurements will however make for a lot of work and slow down the optimization. In our example run, we are using five measurement positions.
harrisu is offline  
post #675 of 777 Old 07-08-2017, 09:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
I was running the optimizer and saw this many times coming in Output window. What does it mean?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Frequency Response Error.PNG
Views:	209
Size:	8.8 KB
ID:	2225841  
harrisu is offline  
post #676 of 777 Old 07-08-2017, 10:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
I was running the optimizer and saw this many times coming in Output window. What does it mean?
It's a running tally of the composite frequency response error described in the documentation. Each time a solution is found that improves the value of this composite error, the output window is updated as shown. These improvements might be very small, but given that the optimization takes a long time, I saw it as useful to update the display whenever an improved solution is found, to avoid the false impression that the software might be hung.

Last edited by andyc56; 07-08-2017 at 10:19 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #677 of 777 Old 07-08-2017, 10:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
It's a running tally of a composite frequency response error as described in the documentation. Each time a solution is found that improves the value of this composite error, the output window is updated as shown. These improvements might be very small, but given that the optimization takes a long time, I saw it as useful to update the display whenever an improved solution is found, to avoid the false impression that the software might be hung.
Thx Andy. I took 4 positions and after running optimization fro 10 minutes with MLP to be optimized, the results are stunning. I haven't compared in REW yet but in MSO, the after results are just jaw dropping. If it really did what its showing then I just have no words of how amazing this software really is. Will update tomorrow with before/after in REW.

One feature that would be very helpful is when viewing graphs, if we can see before/after, that'd be great. For example, keeping a copy of each FR before optimization is run and then after optimization is done and show them on top of each other (or letting user offset) would be great.

Also, if I run optimization for say 10 minutes and then for 30 minutes, does next one run on top of the first one and start from scratch? Don't know if that makes a difference.
harrisu is offline  
post #678 of 777 Old 07-08-2017, 10:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
One feature that would be very helpful is when viewing graphs, if we can see before/after, that'd be great. For example, keeping a copy of each FR before optimization is run and then after optimization is done and show them on top of each other (or letting user offset) would be great.
This is what the "configurations" feature is designed for. You can create a configuration without optimization, along with graphs that show its performance. Then you can clone this configuration (using Config, Clone from the main menu). By default, this will clone all graphs associated with the original configuration. If you then optimize the cloned configuration, you'll have two graphs, one of the original configuration and a second of the cloned one. You can then create a third graph, which combines traces from the original, un-optimized configuration with those from the optimized one. That's how I did the before/after graph on the main MSO page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Also, if I run optimization for say 10 minutes and then for 30 minutes, does next one run on top of the first one and start from scratch? Don't know if that makes a difference.
This is a more complex question that gets into lots of details of the implementation of the optimizer code. It's late, so I'll defer that until tomorrow.
harrisu likes this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #679 of 777 Old 07-09-2017, 10:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Found a bug.
1 - Add two graphs.
2 - Make One of the Graph show Cursor.
3 - Switch to other graph.
4 - Switch back to the graph that had cursor.

Cursor gone.
harrisu is offline  
post #680 of 777 Old 07-09-2017, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
@markus767 , question regarding Dirac+MSO. Following your instructions, I gained matched my subs using Dirac till they all together got to -12 and making sure that all subs are contributing equally. Then I took readings in REW for all subs for for a total of 6 positions. Fired up MSO and optimized. Once optimization completed, I Normalized gain/delay as stated here in minidsp guide for mso https://www.minidsp.com/applications...-sub-optimizer. Exported the filters and imported them in 2x4 HD. Then ran Dirac and found out that sub channel is no longer at -12. What ended up happening is that MSO applied the cuts on filters to get optimum results and that reduced total gain of subs which Dirac clearly shows in "Output & Levels" section.

What do you think I should do to bring subs to -12? Increasing them individually I think can make the optimization less effective.
harrisu is offline  
post #681 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 03:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Also, if I run optimization for say 10 minutes and then for 30 minutes, does next one run on top of the first one and start from scratch? Don't know if that makes a difference.
It's a little bit of both.

The optimizer keeps an "inventory" of 100 solution vector candidates, where a solution vector is a 1-dimensional array containing all the parameters of all the filters in the configuration whose "Optimization allowed" property (as seen in the Properties window) is True. When the optimizer starts, these consist of 1 vector whose components are the parameter values in the filter objects of the UI. The other 99 have values that are randomly generated, constrained to the limits for each parameter established in the Properties window (or the Application options dialog), with a uniform distribution for each parameter value. As the optimization runs, these vectors wander around the solution space and tend to "cluster" in multiple regions of good solutions.

When the optimization ends (or if you stop it) and you choose to save the results, the best solution of the 100 is pushed into the filter objects in the UI. If you don't alter any filter parameters in the UI to change the results from the previous optimization, you'll still have the best solution from the previous run when you run the optimization again. However, the other 99 solution vector candidates will be randomly generated again. In this case, the second run will never have a solution worse than the best solution from the previous run, but it will take some time for the other 99 vectors to "catch up" to approximately where they were at the end of the previous optimization, and for the "clustering" to take place. For this reason, you'll get better results with one long run of, say, X minutes than with two shorter ones of X/2 minutes.

It's not feasible to save the full state of all 100 solution vector candidates, as one may have altered filter parameters or changed which filters are used and how many, thereby changing the solution vector dimension or invalidating the mapping between parameters in the filter objects and their indices in the candidate solution vectors.
pepar and Svenibaer like this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #682 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 08:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
It's a little bit of both.

The optimizer keeps an "inventory" of 100 solution vector candidates......
Thx for the explanation. For better resutls, I keep the Optimizer time run to 2 and test out. After completion, the message dialog comes up asking to keep or discard. Since its a message dialog, there is no way to view the results in detail before clicking yes. So my only option is to click Yes and then observe and then Rest. To Reset, I close the file and open it. I think it'd be a great feature if we can add a Reset button.

Here is another interesting observation (rather concerning). I made a 5 point optimization last night. After optimization, I Reset Gain/Delay. Then when I checked delays on each channel (4 channels), I noticed that channel 3 has a delay of 40. The reason that this is rather concerning is based on the sub location. Here is my setup

Channel 1: 1 Sub located 75" away from MLP on left side
Channel 2: 1 Sub located 75" away from MLP on right side
Channel 3: 2 Subs 165" away from MLP
Channel 4: 2 Subs 165" away from MLP

Subs for channel 3 are sitting on top of subs for Channel 4. The only difference is that Channel 4 subs are oriented to the back wall and Channel 3 subs are oriented to sides walls. Channel 1 which is 75" away has a delay of 4.x and channel 3 has a delay of 40 and Channel 4 has no delay. That's a big difference specially b/w channel 3 Vs channel 4. Should I be worried? I mean could it be a possibility that this is an indication of something is wrong with my setup? Generally, the farthest sub shouldn't have any delay and channel 4 has none (which is correct) but channel 3 sitting right on top of channel 4 subs has 40

I took readings of subs in REW with acoustic timing reference signal for each signal. Same speaker (Left) was used for all the readings. I had subs distance set to 0. Only possible confusion/concern with my setup is that I have 88-a (Dirac) in the chain. It was disabled though. But even when its disabled, it keeps the delay. So wondering if its the delay caused by 88-a that's making Channel 3 to be 40.

Or I have nothing to be worried about?

Last edited by harrisu; 07-10-2017 at 09:02 AM.
harrisu is offline  
post #683 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 09:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
If you're only letting the optimization run for 2 minutes, then that's not nearly enough.

You should set a sensible maximum delay for each delay block based on the difference in distance between the most distant sub and the sub in that channel. Compute the nominal delay, then add maybe 5 msec to that to get the maximum.

2 stacked subs should never be on separate channels with separate EQ. Having separate channels of EQ with multiple subs requires having significant distance between the subs.
andyc56 is offline  
post #684 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 10:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
If you're only letting the optimization run for 2 minutes, then that's not nearly enough.

You should set a sensible maximum delay for each delay block based on the difference in distance between the most distant sub and the sub in that channel. Compute the nominal delay, then add maybe 5 msec to that to get the maximum.

2 stacked subs should never be on separate channels with separate EQ. Having separate channels of EQ with multiple subs requires having significant distance between the subs.
I ran for 10 minutes.

Quote:
2 stacked subs should never be on separate channels with separate EQ. Having separate channels of EQ with multiple subs requires having significant distance between the subs
Let me see if I understand it correctly. I have two subs (let's call it Pair 1) 4 feet apart from each other and are connected to one amp output and therefore is fed to one channel. Then I have 2 more subs (say Pair 2)same way just sitting on top of bottom subs. Are you saying that Pair 1 and Pair 2 shouldn't be set as separate channels since their distance is identical from MLP?
harrisu is offline  
post #685 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 10:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
2 stacked subs should never be on separate channels with separate EQ. Having separate channels of EQ with multiple subs requires having significant distance between the subs.
Just reread your statement. How about if I make a pair by stacking them up (instead pairing them horizontally, pair them vertically). Then I"ll have two pairs of stack subs 4 feet apart? Is that good enough?
harrisu is offline  
post #686 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 01:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
@markus767 , question regarding Dirac+MSO. Following your instructions, I gained matched my subs using Dirac till they all together got to -12 and making sure that all subs are contributing equally. Then I took readings in REW for all subs for for a total of 6 positions. Fired up MSO and optimized. Once optimization completed, I Normalized gain/delay as stated here in minidsp guide for mso https://www.minidsp.com/applications...-sub-optimizer. Exported the filters and imported them in 2x4 HD. Then ran Dirac and found out that sub channel is no longer at -12. What ended up happening is that MSO applied the cuts on filters to get optimum results and that reduced total gain of subs which Dirac clearly shows in "Output & Levels" section.

What do you think I should do to bring subs to -12? Increasing them individually I think can make the optimization less effective.
Simply raise gain of each sub by the same amount.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #687 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 01:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Simply raise gain of each sub by the same amount.
Got it thx. By the way, I did a quick 10 minutes optimization a couple of days ago and got a super flat response from 0-100. Almost like drawing a flat line. I'm still working thru some challenges but once done, will post before/after results. This MSO stuff is crazy. Best part is that once I collect all the readings, I can experiment with different configurations and see which gives best result right on my couch :-).
harrisu is offline  
post #688 of 777 Old 07-10-2017, 11:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrisu View Post
Got it thx. By the way, I did a quick 10 minutes optimization a couple of days ago and got a super flat response from 0-100. Almost like drawing a flat line. I'm still working thru some challenges but once done, will post before/after results. This MSO stuff is crazy. Best part is that once I collect all the readings, I can experiment with different configurations and see which gives best result right on my couch :-).
A flat frequency response isn't actually too hard to achieve. It's hard to improve the time domain at the same time though.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #689 of 777 Old 07-12-2017, 09:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 450
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
A flat frequency response isn't actually too hard to achieve. It's hard to improve the time domain at the same time though.
Does MSO improve the time domain or its Dirac that does it?
harrisu is offline  
post #690 of 777 Old 07-13-2017, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
wpbpete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Hi Guys,

First, Thanks you @andyc56 and everyone involved for providing this wonderful software to the community

I was all ready to tackle it this morning when I read on the Minidsp app that MSO should be done before Dirac and the minidsp 2x4... Well, I already had the 2x4 set up with REW and I ran the NanoAvr-DL over it yesterday. It actually sounds pretty good just a little too flat.

So first dumb question, do I have to clear everything and start with MSO?
What's the appropriate sequence ie: Mcacc>MSO>2x4>Dirac?
Start all over???

Also I'm confused over which one to run, Subs and Mains or Subs only. What's the criteria for this choice?
tia
wpbpete is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

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