"Official" Emotiva UMC-200 Thread - Page 20 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 10:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So, i'm new to the Emotiva world, and i've tried to skim through all 19 pages of these posts as well as stuff on the Emotiva Pro Boards, yet may have missed somewhere the answer to my question as i have seen places above where my issue has been discussed, yet i didn't find any easy resolution outside of using REW which isn't a simple solution that i can pursue in the near future.

General question: is there any simple way to adjust the sub level using test tones (either a test disc or built in ones) for a system which has:

L/R: full range (18 hz and up)
C/SL/SR: satellite variety (100 hz and up)
sub: 30-120hz (should mate extremely well with satellites)

what i am finding is that using the straight test tones, the sub output is too hot (as has been posted here). most notably, playing stereo music from an apple TV (sending lossless CD quality stream), the SW is active and swamping out the signal. movies didn't sound off, but maybe it's just because i'm more willing to have inflated bass with special effects.

anyway, has anyone come up with a simple fix? i'm really almost looking for something quick and dirty: like, using the built in test tones and recalibrating at -10db lower to have the SW act appropriately and balanced.

one solution, it simply to shut the SW off entirely. i'm only using it because i have it as part of the arsenal and thought it might fill in the bass more nicely for surround purposes and help augment the low frequency lightweight surround channels in particular. maybe this is just a poor choice and i just craigslist it.

alternatively, if and when i get around to it, i could use it on the surround channels in a high level input mode so that it is dedicated towards augmenting only those channels. (i still have 2 extra satellites, so i can at some point make this a 7.1 system...or as i'm proposing here, maybe a 7.0 system with the sub used exclusively with 2 of those channels)


some details (if you are still reading and curious):
- the satellites and sub are Gallo Acoustic Micros and the MPS powered sub. they formed a 5.1 system i used prior to the Emotiva UMC-200/UPA-500 combo. (Marantz receiver previously)
- since getting the UMC-200, i decided to mix this home theater setup by letting my mains from my 2 channel rig serve as the L/R channel (Magnepan 1.6s + REL Storm sub-bass system + Creek amplifier). i'm using 3 of the satellites as C/SR/SL channels, and ultimately may use the remaining two as rear surrounds when i have time to do all of the wiring and reworking --weeks away with a active 2 year old at home)
- ideally, i would love to tell the Emotiva, that when doing 2 channel stereo material (digital source like Apple TV) to just use the L/R channels, but it's clear that it's using the sub as well as the L/R, which matches what i believe the recommended (either here or Proboards) "stereo" setting does.
- thankfully, for analog stereo material, everything works as it should yet i confess to still nothing a slight degradation in soundstage and transparency when using this longer signal path between the preamp and amp stages of my creek through the UMC-200. i can only guess that it's either psychological or perhaps due to the digital potentiometer in the UMC-200 and longer cabling leading to this degradation...
Derek87 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 10:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek87 View Post
General question: is there any simple way to adjust the sub level using test tones (either a test disc or built in ones)
The short answer is, "No".

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 #573 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 11:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
The short answer is, "No".
i looked over the recommended default settings (i think you posted it way back when) for PCM -> Stereo

for my setup, would you recommend Direct instead? would that shut off the SW output?

ideally, for a 2 channel digital source like my AppleTV, i would want zero bass management (not use of SW) and just use of the front L/R.
Derek87 is offline  
post #574 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 11:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
Why do you want to shut off your sub? (Multiple) subwoofer is key to good bass reproduction.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cf...86&name=harman
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cf...80&name=harman

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 #575 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 11:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
Why do you want to shut off your sub? (Multiple) subwoofer is key to good bass reproduction.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cf...86&name=harman
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cf...80&name=harman
for two channel, stereo, i have a pretty flat frequency response with the L/R mains from 18 hz (down -2db) all the way up to the high frequencies. so i don't have any real need to augment that bass signature with a mid fidelity subwoofer that was designed to help out the low frequencies of the other channels which are very bass shy (flat to about 100-120db and then fall off).

i definitely agree that the subwoofer would help for multichannel (i.e., more than 2 channel stereo applications), but i don't know of any easy way to keep it in the system for those purposes without contaminating my stereo/2channel applications.

i should note that i'm a long time 2 channel audiophile guy who is trying to make use of my nice main speakers and amp from that set up, even for casual listening, by streaming (for convenience) Apple lossless files for my 1000+ CD library. head to head, i still prefer my dedicated CD player for those albums, but nothing can beat the simplicity of pulling up an album quickly when one's hands are full with a 2 year old running around

(i rarely have the time to sit and listen to music uninterrupted anymore, hence the decision not merge my 2 systems and not let have my 2 channel system used for nothing except for a couple hours a month in the rare instance when i can listen in peace)

if i really wanted to revert back to my old system for a dedicated listening session, it's not too hard. it's a matter of 5 minutes of shuffling cables.
Derek87 is offline  
post #576 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 11:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek87 View Post
for two channel, stereo, i have a pretty flat frequency response with the L/R mains from 18 hz (down -2db) all the way up to the high frequencies.
Is this something you have measured or is it just an assumption?

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 #577 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Is this something you have measured or is it just an assumption?
measured using a stereophile test CD and analog sound level meter.

the Magnepan 1.6s are flat to 40 hz, and are down -3db at 36hz. the REL sub-bass picks up the remaining portion of the low frequency portion of the spectrum wired as "high level" as suggested by REL to give the most coherent sound.

i have happily used this "speaker system" for the past 16 years and i have long ago stopped upgrading my 2 channel rig. in fact, the only reason for going with the Emotiva for my home theater system was my HT's Marantz receiver stopped decoding digital inputs suddenly a month ago.
Derek87 is offline  
post #578 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
With measurements I meant multiple measurements within the listening area taken with "real" measurement equipment.

Those RELs are subs, so why don't you simply set "Front L/R > Large" and "Subwoofer > None"?

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 #579 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
With measurements I meant multiple measurements within the listening area taken with "real" measurement equipment.

Those RELs are subs, so why don't you simply set "Front L/R > Large" and "Subwoofer > None"?
markus,

i have taken multlple measurements in different seats in the listening area and they all are very good. i'm not going to say ruler flat as i've heard some audiophile friends exaggerate , but if i recall correctly (these measurements were done 8 years ago when i moved into this house), i was at worst +/- 3 db from a reference level (70-80db...i can't recall what i used) over the whole frequency spectrum. regardless, the bottom line is the stereo source material sounded great on my 2 channel rig and i was happy with it.

and yes, one of my questions/suggestions i raised above was potentially to just give up and turn SW to None. (Front L/R are already set to Large)

the reason for me coming here was me trying to make the best use of my equipment and thought the SW would help things for the surround channels when used for home theater applications.

are there any modes that would convert the PCM to use just the Front L/R channels (i.e., 2.0 stereo) on the UMC-200? and still allow use of the SW for 5.1 channel applications?

if not, i guess my best choice, for now, is to set SW-> None, and then way until i can invest time and hard wire the Sub to the surround channels (using the sub's built in high pass filter on the high level inputs), and then set the surround channels to Large.*

this is probably the "best solution" but not something i can easily do at this time (requires running additional wiring and in the process, repositioning my current surround channels, setting up two additional channels (rear surrounds), and hoping that the newly positioned side surrounds would be out harms way from my two year old daughter)

i haven't had time to evacuate the house of my wife and daughter to try the Emo_Q mic and calibration. but based on what i have read here, the planar speakers will give me funky measurements.

* the nice thing about the sub is it was designed to be used with these satellites. either in a 5.1 system or a 2.1 system. so it blends nicely with them. its by no means a earth shaker (i think it only reaches to about 32hz or so), but worked well enough for home theater applications.
Derek87 is offline  
post #580 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
With the setting in my last post low frequencies from other speakers and LFE are routed to L/R.

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 #581 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
With the setting in my last post low frequencies from other speakers and LFE are routed to L/R.
yes, i understand.

but is there any way to use the SW for multichannel applications (5 or 7 channels)?

would there be any benefit to doing so? (i.e., helping out the surround channels in the low frequency department)

or, are my Main L/R more than sufficient to reproduce the low frequencies in all applications (stereo through 7 channel applications)?
Derek87 is offline  
post #582 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
Well, you've said your stereo subs go down to 18Hz Low frequencies from the surround channels are also routed to front L/R.

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 #583 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 12:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
Well, you've said your stereo subs go down to 18Hz Low frequencies from the surround channels are also routed to front L/R.
ok. got it.

yes, the REL (it's single sub-bass system mated with the L/R channels, not a pair of units) does go to 18 hz (flat to 20 and down -2 db at 18z when i measured it eons ago; in fact, it was spec'd to be down to 16hz -3db, but i measured a large roll off after 18hz using my test CDs). it was the only subwoofer that i found to blend well with the Maggies, even those costing more.

so, in short, the Gallo sub is redundant. i'll remove it and maybe give it away to a friend trying build a system. (it wasn't cheap at the time ($750), but certainly is not in the same league as the REL)

Last edited by Derek87; 11-10-2014 at 12:52 PM.
Derek87 is offline  
post #584 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 01:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
Well, the sub isn't redundant. You could have probably better results if you would integrate mulltiple subs and get rid of that high level input routing. But this approach would require measurements and probably EQ.

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 #585 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 02:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
Well, the sub isn't redundant. You could have probably better results if you would integrate mulltiple subs and get rid of that high level input routing. But this approach would require measurements and probably EQ.
the high level input approach for the surround channels, would seem to have some merit regardless of my choice of calibration measurements and ultimate balancing of the 5-7 channels.

my strategy would be to:
1. calibrate the sub, wired in high level with the satellites together as a stereo set. this would at least set the sub level properly relative the to the satellites it is augmenting.

2. (this is wear things get murky given the test tones chosen by Emotiva):

- use Emotiva's test tones to balance channels and measure distances.
- use EmoQ (again, i don't think this will work well from what i'v read, but i admit to not having tried)
- use test tones from another disc (i think i have some that came with my Oppo blu ray player) to even out the channels.
- install bootcamp/VMware on my Mac and use something like REW to use the Manual EQ within the UMC-200.

the last way is probably the best, but i'm probably several weeks from carving time to attempt this. as i noted, i'm probably weeks away from doing step 1!

in short, i came to this forum looking for quick (even if temporary) solutions. it seems that turning of the SW output on the UMC-200 is the first step and then blindly trusting that the pink noise test tones given by the UMC-200 are useful enough for a first shot, quick and dirty calibration.

(the levels of the surrounds vs the center channel are about 1db different than what i previously had set up for the levels of the C vs SL/SR on the Marantz), so that's not too far off. (of course, assuming that my Marantz calibration wasn't butchered)
Derek87 is offline  
post #586 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 02:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
You can either waste lots of time and then learn how to use REW or use REW right away. It runs natively on a Mac. No need for virtualization.

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 #587 of 598 Old 11-10-2014, 02:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
^
You can either waste lots of time and then learn how to use REW or use REW right away. It runs natively on a Mac. No need for virtualization.
sound like wise advice given my circumstances, i definitely want to use my time wisely on this one. i'll live with things as is (SW off) until i can do better)

i still wonder if i can find a nice mode that forces it to just use the front L/R for 2 channel stereo sources (again, digital. i'm good to go as far as analog is concerned), regardless of how well i calibrate things for multichannel input. but maybe it's just a quirk of the UMC-200 that such an option isn't possible.

thanks for the info on REW being native for Mac. that's good news.
Derek87 is offline  
post #588 of 598 Old 11-15-2014, 08:22 AM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I'm working with REW, and trying to set precise time alignment. I'm noticing that setting delays the way one would expect isn't producing desired results? Maybe my loop back is off, it seems that the distances reported are a bit larger than the physical distance measured. (physical distance is 7', but reported as about 10?) I'm kinda inexperienced regarding the nuances of REW, is there a specific forum about REW with the UMC-200? One nice thing about REW, is that it does have the UMC-200 eq parameters and it predicts rather nicely.
oatmeal769 is online now  
post #589 of 598 Old 11-15-2014, 08:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
^
First make sure that loopback is working correctly.

Post screenshots how you have REW set up for loopback. What mic and audio interface are you using?

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 #590 of 598 Old 11-15-2014, 01:23 PM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Agreed, need to be sure loopback is correct first. That's an issue which is puzzling me. I've got some advice over on the other forum, but I still don't have a 'definitive' answer as to which is right. Based on that advice, I'm currently using the HDMI out from my NVIDIA video card and ASIO4ALL as the driver for the send to the UMC. I like it because I don't have to constantly switch cables out, but I'm fine with changing that if need be.

I use a Behringer UM2 USB as a mic pre. Channel 1 inputs the mic, I have the loop back run on the second in/out channel of that.

I also have available an Emu 1212M on board audio card, which has it's own ASIO drivers, or I can use ASIO4ALL. The Emu card isn't currently in use.

I also tried the loopback to analyze my PC motherboard's onboard audio, and the soundcard analysis wasn't too shabby - but I've been told not to use that either. I would be able to use JAVA with that though, which seems more stable.

I'm using a Dayton EMM 6 Mic
oatmeal769 is online now  
post #591 of 598 Old 11-15-2014, 01:28 PM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I seem to be able to get decent measurements of sweeps, but I'm completely confuzzled as far as time alignment, phase, group delay, etc. which I think ought to be dealt with first. The other site doesn't seem to have much of a tutorial regarding this.
I don't want to be adding all kinds of crazy filters to 'fix' something that is better fixed elsewhere.
oatmeal769 is online now  
post #592 of 598 Old 11-15-2014, 02:37 PM
Member
 
neo_2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
neo_2009 is online now  
post #593 of 598 Old 11-16-2014, 03:06 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 View Post
Agreed, need to be sure loopback is correct first. That's an issue which is puzzling me. I've got some advice over on the other forum, but I still don't have a 'definitive' answer as to which is right. Based on that advice, I'm currently using the HDMI out from my NVIDIA video card and ASIO4ALL as the driver for the send to the UMC. I like it because I don't have to constantly switch cables out, but I'm fine with changing that if need be.

I use a Behringer UM2 USB as a mic pre. Channel 1 inputs the mic, I have the loop back run on the second in/out channel of that.

I also have available an Emu 1212M on board audio card, which has it's own ASIO drivers, or I can use ASIO4ALL. The Emu card isn't currently in use.

I also tried the loopback to analyze my PC motherboard's onboard audio, and the soundcard analysis wasn't too shabby - but I've been told not to use that either. I would be able to use JAVA with that though, which seems more stable.

I'm using a Dayton EMM 6 Mic
Use the Behringer interface for measurements with a loopback signal. HDMI could add variable timing that we want to prevent by using loopback.

In REW set up loopback in Preferences > Soundcard. Set "Input Channel" to the channel you want to use for measurements. The other channel will be used as loopback when Preferences > Impulse Response Calculation > Use Loopback as Timing Reference is checked.
Check the level meter in Preferences > Soundcard. Run Levels > Check Levels. Read the help text, it holds important information and changes once you've clicked "Check Levels" ("Use Main Speakers to Check/Set Levels"). You'll see signal levels in Out, In and Ref In when everything is setup correctly. The Levels button in the main window will also bring up a level meter.

Once loopback is working, measure each speaker by using the same preamp output for all measurements. Make sure all speaker distance settings in the UMC-200 are set to 0.
For example use the left preamp output. Connect the left speaker to the left preamp ouput and measure, then connect the center speaker to the left output and measure and so forth until you have measured all speakers.

Then click the Overlays button in the main window. Click the Impulse button and switch the display to % FS. You should see something like this:



The leftmost peak is your reference point. Measure the time delay for each speaker from that reference point and set the values accordingly in your UMC-200.

In the example above the closest speaker is "ls" (left surround). Then the signal from "c" (center) arrives at the listening position. The delay is 2.762ms which corresponds to a distance of 0.95m/3.1ft. So you would set ls = 0 and c = 3.1ft in your UMC-200.
In order to get the subwoofer delay into the ballpark measure the delay at the point where the subwoofer impulse peak starts to rise. In the example above the sub delay is already pretty much in line with the first peak. So in this example the UMC-200 subwoofer distance would be 0.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 10.56.22.jpg
Views:	145
Size:	185.2 KB
ID:	369378  
neo_2009 likes this.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 11-16-2014 at 08:05 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #594 of 598 Old 11-16-2014, 11:17 AM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Outstanding, this is much more logical to me, thank you.

One issue though, you said, "In the example above the closest speaker is "ls" (left surround). Then the signal from "c" (center) arrives at the listening position. The delay is 2.762ms which corresponds to a distance of 0.95m/3.1ft. So you would set ls = 0 and c = 3.1ft in your UMC-200."

Wouldn't you want to delay the signal of the closest speaker (in your example, the ls) rather than the farthest? If you delay the farther speaker more, it will cause even more mismatch, wouldn't it?

I'm guessing that once I align properly, Group delay will take care of itself, and there's not a lot I can do about phasing?

From here I can then begin equalizing?
oatmeal769 is online now  
post #595 of 598 Old 11-16-2014, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 View Post
Outstanding, this is much more logical to me, thank you.

One issue though, you said, "In the example above the closest speaker is "ls" (left surround). Then the signal from "c" (center) arrives at the listening position. The delay is 2.762ms which corresponds to a distance of 0.95m/3.1ft. So you would set ls = 0 and c = 3.1ft in your UMC-200."

Wouldn't you want to delay the signal of the closest speaker (in your example, the ls) rather than the farthest? If you delay the farther speaker more, it will cause even more mismatch, wouldn't it?
An example, if you set a speaker to 0ft and another one to 10ft then the UMC-200 will delay the speaker set to 0ft. The speaker with the largest distance setting will be the reference point. All other speakers will be delayed accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 View Post
I'm guessing that once I align properly, Group delay will take care of itself, and there's not a lot I can do about phasing?
Not sure what specifically you're referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 View Post
From here I can then begin equalizing?
Yes.

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 #596 of 598 Old 11-16-2014, 01:52 PM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
An example, if you set a speaker to 0ft and another one to 10ft then the UMC-200 will delay the speaker set to 0ft. The speaker with the largest distance setting will be the reference point. All other speakers will be delayed accordingly.
Oh! Got it. I've done this before in live sound/PA, where it works as I described. Here the UMC-200 does it kinda backward to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Not sure what specifically you're referring to.
Well, the group delay for each will be as closely aligned as possible now (I think), and there isn't any adjustment for phasing.


Thanks again.
oatmeal769 is online now  
post #597 of 598 Old 11-17-2014, 05:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,410
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 863 Post(s)
Liked: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 View Post
Well, the group delay for each will be as closely aligned as possible now (I think), and there isn't any adjustment for phasing.
If the free field (!) phase response varies from speaker to speaker then you need to fix that based on the free field response. You would need to measure in an anechoic chamber or outside to get rid of reflections. For higher frequencies gating the in-room impulse response can be a good approximation to free field conditions but you're loosing frequency resolution. The shorter the gate the coarser the frequency resolution

So at higher frequencies the in-room phase response can be misleading because it contains reflections. At lower frequencies where the room completely dominates the response it's trial and error in order to get the splice between sub and satellites right.
oatmeal769 likes this.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 11-17-2014 at 05:46 AM.
markus767 is offline  
post #598 of 598 Old 11-17-2014, 10:27 PM
Member
 
oatmeal769's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I measured and PEQ'd each speaker separately, from the same channel as you mentioned. Really, it's not nearly as hard as some had made it out to be. You swap a connector for each measurement = no biggie. Setting the 11 PEQ points on each speaker is WAY more tedious.
I'd already played around with room placement for my sub (which ended up in a completely different spot) and crossover points. Anyway, I wish there was a way to quantify the subjective, but so far I'm really happy with the results - it sounds MUCH better to me subjectively. The channel separation and "localization" of sounds is vastly improved, and the overall sound of my system is much better, and more balanced. I didn't use any "house curve", I generally prefer most audio pretty flat, but I may play around with some.

I'd say EMO-Q might (or might not) get you in the ballpark, but now that I've had time to do it, REW REALLY makes a difference. For ~ $80 investment in equipment, it's a no brainer. What a great tool.
oatmeal769 is online now  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Emotiva Umc 200 7 1 Home Theater Preamp Surround Processor , Onkyo Tx Nr3008 9 2 Channel Network Home Theater Receiver , Denon Avr 2312ci Receiver
Gear in this thread - 2312ci by PriceGrabber.com

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