The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 64 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1891 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 06:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjf_uk View Post

That's not good, I'm not happy.

It's less than great, given that one of the really big advantages of Pro is its ability to save and reload measurements thus making experimentation really easy. I guess it's no so bad if it is just a reporting problem on the trims and distances. If that is the case, then all we need to do is make a note of them after the initial calibration and enter them manually fir reloads. My worry is that the actual filters are not being reloaded for the subs. I think I will 'Ask Audyssey'.
kbarnes701 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1892 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

IIRC it has been observed in this thread that there is a bug in the Pro s/w which means that when using two subs, and continuing a calibration by reloading a saved measurements file, the subs are not properly dealt with.

Well, I just made a new 8 point calibration, which I didn't like as much as the 14 point one made the other day. So I reloaded the earlier calibration. No additional measurements or changes of any sort. When I went into Setup to double check the results, I notice that my subs are unchanged from the last-used settings - both in terms of distance and trims. The correct measurements for the subs had not been loaded. I reloaded the measurements and checked it again - same result.

It seems that this bug does not only affect the subs when adding new positions to an existing calibration. It affects the subs simply when reloading a previous set of measurements.

The question is, is this just a reporting error, or are the sub measurements actually not been loaded to the prepro? I manually changed the distances and trims to what was reported the first time I ran the calibration - but obviously I can't change any filters etc.

If I start an entirely new calibration, I am assuming that it will set the subs correctly for that calibration, and that it is only a reloading that causes the problem.

Does anyone know if it is a reporting error or an actual fail to reload the sub measurements? If it is the latter, then it totally wipes out the advantage of being able to reload prior calibrations after experimenting with different mic setups.

It sounds fine BTW. Any thoughts from the experts?

Keith, there are actually two distinct issues with the Pro kit and dual subs.

The first issue has to do with adding additional measurements to an existing measurement file. After you load the measurement file and attempt to add the first new measurement point, The Pro software re-calculates the sub distance and trim again. Since the new measurement point is likely not back in the MLP, the distance and trim values will now be incorrect. I reported this to Luke, and he advised me that this was indeed a "bug", caused by insufficient processing resources allocated to Audyssey by the AVR manufacturer. Luke advised that instead of adding measurement points, one should start over with a completely new set of measurements. This only affects two-sub configurations.

The second issue arises when you restore a previous calibration by loading a measurement file, re-calculating the filters and downloading the results to the AVR. In this scenario, Pro will set the trims and distances for both subs to the same values, regardless of what the original values were. After consulting with Luke, he advised me that the filters are being re-loaded properly, and that I should simply manually re-set the sub trims and distances to the correct values, assuming of course that I had written them down. Luke also said that this is a correctable issue, and that it might be included in the next software release.

I hope I have explained this clearly.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #1893 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
@keith...

well, there's good news, indifferent/bad news, and more good news, based upon other posts you made and a possible explanation of the audyssey "after" graph anamoly vs. what you are hearing...

good news: looking at the numbers, you can see "why" the dip is occuring... that axial room mode centered at 70.6hz (and to a somewhat lesser extent the tangential mode that follows) are what is causing that...

the indifferent/bad news: your square room is biting you here... short of tearing out walls, it is what it is...

more good news: dual subwoofer positioning can help with this... and judging by what you are hearing, has...

the rest of it... here's what i think has happened...

when you first reported back, you noted that you had lost your bass slam when using the suggested audyssey xovers... as this would be consistent with the area covered by the dip, that makes sense...

you then followed aj's suggestion of setting the xovers to 80hz... bingo, the bass slam was back.. this leads me to believe that the positioning/eq'ing of the subwoofers is dealing with that axial mode "better"... as you are now feeding that frequency range to the subs... i bet if you meaured it, that dip is gone (or at least significantly ameliorated)...

tying it back to the graphs... since they are a "predicted" result, and they are giving you "proposed" xovers, i am going to make a small assumption that they are showing you the predicted result with the first proposed xover... which, given what you "heard" with the two different xover settings, would seem to make sense...

thus, if my logic is correct (which is always questionable ), there really aren't any "inconsistencies" in the results, even though there appears to be on the surface...

it does raise the question of why the software didn't select 80hz as the appropriate xover though...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #1894 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Hi Harrison,

I re-did the calibration today using my old 8 point measurements. The dip at 60Hz is unchanged. I preferred the 14 point calibration for SQ so reverted to it. I will start trying to relocate the subs next week and see what that brings.

Thanks for cogent observations, which are very helpful.

Keith, have you measured independently of Audyssey or is this 60 Hz dip in the Audyssey before and after graphs?

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1895 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

yea, we could... and while i don't diasagree that i could pick one over the other, unfortunately, it would only be an exercise, not a test...

...while some, like som, have repeatable success with the process, others, like me, don't get consistent results... it is the one really aggravating thing about my a100...so i don't use it... the best way to deal with aggravation is to avoid it entirely...

Yeah, I don't think I'll be doing the blinded A/B/x I mentioned anytime soon myself, as I have nothing more to prove in my book irt Pro improving SQ. Sorry to hear the usual "fixes" for the occasionally reported unreliability of Webcontrol LOAD haven't worked for you. Given that, I can entirely understand that you ignore the feature. I had occasional problems saving usable files with my AVR 4310. It ultimately needed the network board replaced, though I'm not sure that explained it. The A100 does seem to play well with my computer and OS.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #1896 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 650
^ Interesting comments, Chris. With the initial lower crossover setting, the main speakers were handling the 70 Hz range, while with the higher crossover setting, the subs handle this frequency range. Since the subs and mains are in different positions in the room, the 70 Hz mode gets addressed differently depending on the crossover frequency, if I understand you correctly. This would account for the "better" result with the 80 Hz crossovers.

I have always felt that selecting crossovers in Pro should be based on careful measurements of bass response, not simply on the recommended crossover order. Keith's example seems to support this.

Keith, I believe you mentioned that you were going to post some OmniMic measurements now that you have a Pro calibration. We are all on the edge of our seats waiting for the data!
AustinJerry is online now  
post #1897 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
@keith...

part 2....

also, when taking your as-eq1 results into consideration with all of that (dip in the pre-cal, flat in the predicted post cal), i'm liking my theory even more...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #1898 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

^ Interesting comments, Chris. With the initial lower crossover setting, the main speakers were handling the 70 Hz range, while with the higher crossover setting, the subs handle this frequency range. Since the subs and mains are in different positions in the room, the 70 Hz mode gets addressed differently depending on the crossover frequency, if I understand you correctly. This would account for the "better" result with the 80 Hz crossovers.

I have always felt that selecting crossovers in Pro should be based on careful measurements of bass response, not simply on the recommended crossover order. Keith's example seems to support this.

Keith, I believe you mentioned that you were going to post some OmniMic measurements now that you have a Pro calibration. We are all on the edge of our seats waiting for the data!

yea, jerry, that's spot on... since that area is completely dominated by room modes in his room, by crossing at the higher number, it is allowing the duals to excite the room modes in combination with one another, thus cancelling out the negative effects of the mode to a certain extent (illustrating why duals can be a better solution for many)...

i'd agree on selecting xovers by measurement... although pro is supposed to select the "best" one, this appears to be a case where it was woefully incorrect... "trust, but verify" comes to mind...

yes we are!!! i want to see some pictures to find out if i'm just full of hot air here...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #1899 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:54 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

Jeff,
For us non-engineer younglings, how do we use the results of a room mode calculator practIcally after Pro calibration?

Say you go to a website like http://www.bobgolds.com/Mode/RoomModes.htm and enter in 24x17x9.5 (my own dimensions). Assume you have a couple of sealed subs and OmniMic measurement handy. What next?

Thanks,
Stuart

There are a lot of different calculators out there and some are daunting. I use this one that is very simple and, on the "waves" tab, has really pretty wavy lines.

For example - if you head is halfway between the celiing and floor, left and right walls and front and rear walls, you will have nulls at 24Hz, 33Hz, 59Hz, 71Hz, 100Hz and 178Hz. And you will have peaks at 47, 66, 119, 94, 133 and 238. This is a very bad place to have your head.

pepar is offline  
post #1900 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 07:56 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks, Jeff. I did that. But I am struggling to interpret the results. What should I be looking for?

Plug in your room dims and look for a dip that jives with your after measurement.
pepar is offline  
post #1901 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:02 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


It seems that this bug does not only affect the subs when adding new positions to an existing calibration. It affects the subs simply when reloading a previous set of measurements.

The question is, is this just a reporting error, or are the sub measurements actually not been loaded to the prepro? I manually changed the distances and trims to what was reported the first time I ran the calibration - but obviously I can't change any filters etc.

I have never noticed any anomalies when reloading different calibrations. But then I never manually changed any settings. Could it be manual changes somehow mess it up?

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #1902 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:03 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

There's so much info I've had to make 4 screen caps of it! I don't know what's important and what isn't so couldn't risk editing the screenies.

Any advice gratefully received. Thanks.

Wow, I can see why you are at sea.
pepar is offline  
post #1903 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:05 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

it is...

when it works... while some, like som, have repeatable success with the process, others, like me, don't get consistent results... it is the one really aggravating thing about my a100....

so i don't use it... the best way to deal with aggravation is to avoid it entirely...

I think the use of the feature in this manner is ... "off label."
pepar is offline  
post #1904 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:09 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


The second issue arises when you restore a previous calibration by loading a measurement file, re-calculating the filters and downloading the results to the AVR. In this scenario, Pro will set the trims and distances for both subs to the same values, regardless of what the original values were. After consulting with Luke, he advised me that the filters are being re-loaded properly, and that I should simply manually re-set the sub trims and distances to the correct values, assuming of course that I had written them down. Luke also said that this is a correctable issue, and that it might be included in the next software release.

I hope I have explained this clearly.

Whoa, new information!! For me anyway. Unfortunately, my 5508 is away at A/B/X camp so I can't check it right now. I will be retrieving it in the next few days, reloading a calibration .. and checking this.

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #1905 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:14 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Sorry for the redundancy there while I got caught ...
pepar is offline  
post #1906 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:16 AM
 
mjf_uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The second issue arises when you restore a previous calibration by loading a measurement file, re-calculating the filters and downloading the results to the AVR. In this scenario, Pro will set the trims and distances for both subs to the same values, regardless of what the original values were. After consulting with Luke, he advised me that the filters are being re-loaded properly, and that I should simply manually re-set the sub trims and distances to the correct values, assuming of course that I had written them down. Luke also said that this is a correctable issue, and that it might be included in the next software release.

Thanks, I hope that the filters are being re-loaded correctly. Now how long do we have to wait for a new software release and is this problem going to be sorted out. My confidence in Audyssey has been somewhat affected by recent events.
mjf_uk is offline  
post #1907 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Keith, there are actually two distinct issues with the Pro kit and dual subs.

The first issue has to do with adding additional measurements to an existing measurement file. After you load the measurement file and attempt to add the first new measurement point, The Pro software re-calculates the sub distance and trim again. Since the new measurement point is likely not back in the MLP, the distance and trim values will now be incorrect. I reported this to Luke, and he advised me that this was indeed a "bug", caused by insufficient processing resources allocated to Audyssey by the AVR manufacturer. Luke advised that instead of adding measurement points, one should start over with a completely new set of measurements. This only affects two-sub configurations.

OK, thanks AJ. Got it. That wasn't my issue of course - I didn't add any new measurements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The second issue arises when you restore a previous calibration by loading a measurement file, re-calculating the filters and downloading the results to the AVR. In this scenario, Pro will set the trims and distances for both subs to the same values, regardless of what the original values were.

It didn't quite do that here - what it did was nothing. It left both the trim and the distance to the way they had been set by the earlier 8 point calculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

After consulting with Luke, he advised me that the filters are being re-loaded properly, and that I should simply manually re-set the sub trims and distances to the correct values, assuming of course that I had written them down. Luke also said that this is a correctable issue, and that it might be included in the next software release.

If the filters are being reloaded properly then it's not an issue AFAIAC. I can easily enter the correct distances and trims manually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I hope I have explained this clearly.

Absolutely. Thanks for taking the time.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1908 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

@keith...

well, there's good news, indifferent/bad news, and more good news, based upon other posts you made and a possible explanation of the audyssey "after" graph anamoly vs. what you are hearing...

good news: looking at the numbers, you can see "why" the dip is occuring... that axial room mode centered at 70.6hz (and to a somewhat lesser extent the tangential mode that follows) are what is causing that...

the indifferent/bad news: your square room is biting you here... short of tearing out walls, it is what it is...

more good news: dual subwoofer positioning can help with this... and judging by what you are hearing, has...

the rest of it... here's what i think has happened...

when you first reported back, you noted that you had lost your bass slam when using the suggested audyssey xovers... as this would be consistent with the area covered by the dip, that makes sense...

you then followed aj's suggestion of setting the xovers to 80hz... bingo, the bass slam was back.. this leads me to believe that the positioning/eq'ing of the subwoofers is dealing with that axial mode "better"... as you are now feeding that frequency range to the subs... i bet if you meaured it, that dip is gone (or at least significantly ameliorated)...

tying it back to the graphs... since they are a "predicted" result, and they are giving you "proposed" xovers, i am going to make a small assumption that they are showing you the predicted result with the first proposed xover... which, given what you "heard" with the two different xover settings, would seem to make sense...

thus, if my logic is correct (which is always questionable ), there really aren't any "inconsistencies" in the results, even though there appears to be on the surface...

it does raise the question of why the software didn't select 80hz as the appropriate xover though...

Wow! Thanks so much for that, Chris. It all makes sense to me. I will measure with my OmniMic next week and confirm the response at the MLP wrt to the bass.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1909 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

Keith, have you measured independently of Audyssey or is this 60 Hz dip in the Audyssey before and after graphs?

It's in the before graph as well. I will measure independently next week. Can't do it today - have domestic duties to undertake
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1910 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

^ Interesting comments, Chris. With the initial lower crossover setting, the main speakers were handling the 70 Hz range, while with the higher crossover setting, the subs handle this frequency range. Since the subs and mains are in different positions in the room, the 70 Hz mode gets addressed differently depending on the crossover frequency, if I understand you correctly. This would account for the "better" result with the 80 Hz crossovers.

Makes sense doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I have always felt that selecting crossovers in Pro should be based on careful measurements of bass response, not simply on the recommended crossover order. Keith's example seems to support this.

The loss of bass slam with the XOs set at 40Hz was so immediately obvious, I noticed it within a few seconds of playing my first test content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Keith, I believe you mentioned that you were going to post some OmniMic measurements now that you have a Pro calibration. We are all on the edge of our seats waiting for the data!

I will do it first thing next week. I have to cook dinner tonight for some friends and am being urged to 'get on with it'.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1911 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 08:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

@keith...

part 2....

also, when taking your as-eq1 results into consideration with all of that (dip in the pre-cal, flat in the predicted post cal), i'm liking my theory even more...

Yes - it was there before wasn't it. And eliminated more or less by the EQ1, which of course looks only at the bass frequencies... hence, no anomaly. Great thinking!
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1912 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I have never noticed any anomalies when reloading different calibrations. But then I never manually changed any settings. Could it be manual changes somehow mess it up?

Jeff

Could be. I changed the XOs remember - that is why I reloaded the measurements the first time. I didn't notice any issues on that occasion because it was the only calibration I had done, so there was no 'prior' calibration for the results to 'stick' at. When I did the new 8 point calibration and then decided to reload the 14 pointer made earlier, the bass trim and distances remained where set for the 8 pointer. So long as Luke is right and the filters are being correctly loaded, it's no biggy to enter the trim and distances manually, so long as you made note of them of course!
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1913 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:04 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1914 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


It's in the before graph as well. I will measure independently next week. Can't do it today - have domestic duties to undertake

Yes, but the "before" graphs are [Audyssey proprietary] averages across the entire listening area. I know we've had this discussion before, but I can't stress enough that you don't hear that response at any particular listening position. Audyssey is doing exactly what a room correction EQ should do, and for those that care only about making all seats as equally good as possible optimizing only those averaged Audyssey measurements is the way to go. But if you have an MLP or two that you care a bit more about than other positions in the listening area, using the Audyssey averaged measurements is not the way to optimize those positions - and the worse the room, ie. - square, the more that applies. As a ROOM correction system Audyssey has to deal with ALL modes in the measured area even if it isn't in YOUR favorite position. In fact, it treats ALL positions equally although its clear you have positions that matter far more to you. That is not a knock on Audyssey, that is absolutely the way to optimize a room, sacrificing individual greatness for the good of the whole(pure communism vs pure capitalism). But by utilizing Audyssey as a "base layer" of EQ and then optimizing the positions most important to you with focused measurements its possible to compromise between the extremes(a Republic).

You do hear something different with your ears than is represented by a single mic measurement due to HRTF and other factors, but doing circular sweeps with a mic around the head area or taking multiple single measurements at each listening position and overlaying or averaging them is the technique to get a better picture of the FR you will here at that particular position. But certainly those measurements are far more representative of what you will hear at those particular positions than the Audyssey averaged measurements of the entire listening area.

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1915 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

Yes, but the "before" graphs are [Audyssey proprietary] averages across the entire listening area. I know we've had this discussion before, but I can't stress enough that you don't hear that response at any particular listening position. Audyssey is doing exactly what a room correction EQ should do, and for those that care only about making all seats as equally good as possible optimizing only those averaged Audyssey measurements is the way to go. But if you have an MLP or two that you care a bit more about than other positions in the listening area, using the Audyssey averaged measurements is not the way to optimize those positions - and the worse the room, ie. - square, the more that applies. As a ROOM correction system Audyssey has to deal with ALL modes in the measured area even if it isn't in YOUR favorite position. In fact, it treats ALL positions equally although its clear you have positions that matter far more to you. That is not a knock on Audyssey, that is absolutely the way to optimize a room, sacrificing individual greatness for the good of the whole(pure communism vs pure capitalism). But by utilizing Audyssey as a "base layer" of EQ and then optimizing the positions most important to you with focused measurements its possible to compromise between the extremes(a Republic).

Gooddoc, I take all your points on board and they seem to be verified by what I actually hear in the room, at my MLP. I don't care about optimising the whole room one bit - I care about getting the best result I can, at my own seat (the MLP).

In my circumstances, what would you do to get the best result at my MLP? How would you deploy the Audyssey mic etc? Should I take all my measurements around the MLP and if so, in what sort of pattern and how many? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this as I have sympathy with your views wrt to the graphs, as I have said before. I am certainly willing to experiment, especially now that I can easily go back to former calibration if I prefer it.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1916 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:39 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 24,935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 131
OK, I now remember looking at my sub distances recently in the context of this conversation and they were in fact set to the correct - and very different - distances after a dozen reloads.
pepar is offline  
post #1917 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,647
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

OK, I now remember looking at my sub distances recently in the context of this conversation and they were in fact set to the correct - and very different - distances after a dozen reloads.

Then it has to be the changing of something that is the problem. On a straight reload it seems not to be an issue from your experience. I changed the XOs and that then of course requires calculations to be made. That must be where the bug raises its ugly little head.

Now I know the problem it's an easy workaround (write down the sub trims and distances!). I am sure I will be doing more calibrations <<img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" />> and I'll remember to keep them untouched if I want to reload them. From what Luke says, they may fix this in a s/w update anyway.
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1918 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

There are a lot of different calculators out there and some are daunting. I use this one that is very simple and, on the "waves" tab, has really pretty wavy lines.

For example - if you head is halfway between the celiing and floor, left and right walls and front and rear walls, you will have nulls at 24Hz, 33Hz, 59Hz, 71Hz, 100Hz and 178Hz. And you will have peaks at 47, 66, 119, 94, 133 and 238. This is a very bad place to have your head.


I have been using the mode calculator for a long time, and it is one of the simplest to use. I tried to place my mains and subs at points that minimized peaks and troughs. In the attached example, one might expect slightly over-emphasized bass at 87 Hz due to the sub placement at a peak spot in the third harmonic. REW measurements support this expectation.
LL
AustinJerry is online now  
post #1919 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 10:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Whoa, new information!! For me anyway. Unfortunately, my 5508 is away at A/B/X camp so I can't check it right now. I will be retrieving it in the next few days, reloading a calibration .. and checking this.

Jeff

This was posted previously, so perhaps you overlooked it. The list has been sent to Luke for confirmation, but no response back yet. Regarding the third issue on the list, I didn't get the impression that Luke felt it was a high priority, given that the work-around is reasonably simple (provided you log sub distances and trim levels for each save measurement file).
AustinJerry is online now  
post #1920 of 5614 Old 04-22-2012, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,831
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

OK, I now remember looking at my sub distances recently in the context of this conversation and they were in fact set to the correct - and very different - distances after a dozen reloads.

Interesting. IIRC, you are not using a Denon AVR. It's possible that this issue only affects Denon receivers. I would have no way of testing this out.
AustinJerry is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Denon Avr4310ci Receiver , Audyssey
Gear in this thread

    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