Anthem MRX Receivers - 310, 510, 710 Owners Thread & Tweaking Guide - Page 52 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1531 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:12 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Given that many systems use more than one sub, it is a surprise to me that ARC cannot handle two subs correctly. In Jerry's case, although he has 4 subs, they are in two distinct 'pairs' and so any system which can work effectively with dual subs (eg SubEQ HT) will be good for him.

Unless one is only concerned with optimising a single seat, dual subs are always a very good idea. They represent the easiest way to get lower seat to seat variation in bass. Given that ARC's intention is to enable a good result for more than one seat, it is surprising to me that the benefits of dual subs in that scenario have not been catered for.  So it isn't just Jerry's sophisticated setup that requires this consideration: it is any setup where the aim is to get good results across more than one seat.

Actually many people using the Anthem AVM and Statement pre pros have achieved excellent results with multiple subwoofers despite the same "limitation" in their implementation of ARC. I see no reason why the MRX implementation (in the new units) shouldn't be capable of the same.

Have you looked through the D2v "tweaking" thread here? Jerry's result is an outlier.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1532 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:17 AM
Member
 
Red Devil 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Laval, Qc Canada
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by symphara View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I did not try ARC with only one sub.  If four subs far exceed ARC's capabilities, that would certainly be a reason for me to look at a different AVR.


Clearly, makes me wonder why did you look at the MRX range to begin with. I didn't see any indication so far that the MRX would be able to eq multiple subs. Considering your sophisticated setup, I would have looked at far fancier options to begin with.

Given that many systems use more than one sub, it is a surprise to me that ARC cannot handle two subs correctly. In Jerry's case, although he has 4 subs, they are in two distinct 'pairs' and so any system which can work effectively with dual subs (eg SubEQ HT) will be good for him.

Unless one is only concerned with optimising a single seat, dual subs are always a very good idea. They represent the easiest way to get lower seat to seat variation in bass. Given that ARC's intention is to enable a good result for more than one seat, it is surprising to me that the benefits of dual subs in that scenario have not been catered for.  So it isn't just Jerry's sophisticated setup that requires this consideration: it is any setup where the aim is to get good results across more than one seat.
There's no problem with 4 sub but they have to be phase aligned with each other and have similar response before arc is done since the mrx only has one sub output.

It's always best to have and external dsp when dealing with a lot of sub.

Red Devil 24 is online now  
post #1533 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:24 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks Bob for the explanation. I am still not understanding something.  Ignore the distances by which the mic positions should be separated - I understand that: it is to enable ARC to get a 'picture' of the environment and it will spatially average the results in some way in order to attempt to create a good result over the area over which the measurements were taken.

What I don't understand is how ARC 'knows' what order of mic positions you have used when placing the mic. To do this, ARC would need to 'know' where the mic was positioned in space relative to the speakers (like Trinnov does with its unique '3D' mic). 

On the diagram below, X is the MLP and you can assume that all the positions are 24 inches distance from MLP and at least 24 inches from each other. On the top diagram (A) the mic has been placed using the 'side to side' method and on the bottom diagram (B) it has been placed 'moving around the circle in clock order which you say (to Jerry) will not yield a good result.
  1. How does ARC know whether I used A or B given that in each case the mic positions are identical?
  2. Why does it matter if I used A or B?
  3. How do my chosen mic positions fail to comply with "The rules are that #1 is centered ... and ALL positions ... must be spaced at least 24" inches apart."





EDIT: I also don't understand these two comments which seem to contradict each other:

"...and ALL positions (whether or not sequential) must be spaced at least 24" inches apart..."

and:

"...N+1 and N+2 positions will tend to be even further than 24 inches apart..."

'At least' 24 inches apart means that the distance between the mic must be no less than 24 inches. 48 inches IS no less than 24 inches. By definition you cannot have every mic position 24 inches from the other without the distance between some of the mic positions exceeding 24 inches.

This seems an extraordinarily complicated way to mandate the mic positions to me. Why not just use a simple diagram showing where, ideally, you would place the mic for each position? 

Thanks for your patience.

ARC can't possibly know if you use incorrect mic placement. It calculates under the assumption that you've followed the instructions. ARC *DOES* display a suggested mic placement chart at the start of Measurement.

There is, of course, an inherent symmetry in the speaker placements -- the viewing axis. It would be very weird to have a seating layout that doesn't align basically at right angles to that axis. Your two sample placements differ as one is 90 degrees swiveled from that axis. But also, look at the spacing between your 1 and 2, your 2 and 3, and your 3 and 4 in these two layouts (ignoring the fact that mic position #1 should actually be at the center). In your first chart there is more spacing between the 1->2 and the 3->4 sequential positions than in your second chart. The rule about alternating either side of #1 helps increase the spacing between mic positions even though the individual positions remain in the same locations. THAT'S what I meant by the N+1 to N+2 comment. Alternating either side of center, increases the number of cases where the spacing is greater than 24" -- along with maintaining symmetry.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1534 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
 
Originally Posted by symphara View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Given that many systems use more than one sub, it is a surprise to me that ARC cannot handle two subs correctly. In Jerry's case, although he has 4 subs, they are in two distinct 'pairs' and so any system which can work effectively with dual subs (eg SubEQ HT) will be good for him.

Unless one is only concerned with optimising a single seat, dual subs are always a very good idea. They represent the easiest way to get lower seat to seat variation in bass. Given that ARC's intention is to enable a good result for more than one seat, it is surprising to me that the benefits of dual subs in that scenario have not been catered for.  So it isn't just Jerry's sophisticated setup that requires this consideration: it is any setup where the aim is to get good results across more than one seat.

Irrespective of it being a good idea or not, real life usually means that we cannot do it, either because of space, cost, family or neighbours. I don't think that using 2+ subwoofers is all that common even among audiophiles, although admittedly I have nothing but anecdotal evidence for it.

 

Yes, I agree, there is no way to know. But in a thread like this one, I don't think we are talking about the 'regular' type of guy who has put a 5.1 system together, sat back, grabbed a beer and said "wow, this is great".  Most of the guys I interact with on AVS have two or more subs, but again, that is just anecdotal. The main thing is, if you want really smooth bass for more than one listening position, you really need two subs. Or more. Or, of course, you can go huge lengths treating the room and so on - but you will still probably need two subs.

 

My surprise wasn't that many people have only one sub. It was that a system like ARC, which aims to provide a good listening experience over more than one seat, does not have provision for setting up and EQing dual subs. It seems like an important omission to me. Even if few people have dual subs, those who do still want to set them up and EQ them well.

 

Of course, if you have two subs and they are identical and equidistant from the MLP, then you can set them up pretty well as one sub, using ARC so all is not lost.

 

 

Quote:

 
Nothing wrong with using 4 subs - he's got a very sophisticated setup, great stuff - but I wouldn't automatically assume that 2+ sub eq it is a must-have for every receiver, far less one advertised as .1 and not, say, .2.

 

There's no such thing as .2 of course. The standard is 5.1 even if you use several subs - the .1 just signifies the LFE channel and there is only one of those. I agree that the ability to optimise two subs is not a 'must-have' - there are workarounds such as I mention in my last sentence above. I am just surprised Anthem didn't include it in ARC. ARC is very sophisticated and very powerful in many ways, so this basic omission surprises me, that's all. 

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1535 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Given that many systems use more than one sub, it is a surprise to me that ARC cannot handle two subs correctly. In Jerry's case, although he has 4 subs, they are in two distinct 'pairs' and so any system which can work effectively with dual subs (eg SubEQ HT) will be good for him.

Unless one is only concerned with optimising a single seat, dual subs are always a very good idea. They represent the easiest way to get lower seat to seat variation in bass. Given that ARC's intention is to enable a good result for more than one seat, it is surprising to me that the benefits of dual subs in that scenario have not been catered for.  So it isn't just Jerry's sophisticated setup that requires this consideration: it is any setup where the aim is to get good results across more than one seat.

Actually many people using the Anthem AVM and Statement pre pros have achieved excellent results with multiple subwoofers despite the same "limitation" in their implementation of ARC. I see no reason why the MRX implementation (in the new units) shouldn't be capable of the same.

Have you looked through the D2v "tweaking" thread here? Jerry's result is an outlier.
--Bob

 

Yes, there are workarounds as I have just said to someone else. I was expressing my surprise that ARC doesn’t have in-built facilities for the optimisation of two subs that’s all. 

 

It is, as you say, perfectly possible to set up dual subs even if you don't have any REQ at all. It is just way more difficult - the thing that REQ is supposed to help with.

 

Only skimmed the DRv thread as my interest was/is ARC in the MRX series.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1536 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:44 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
I'd suggest you spend some move time in the D2v thread -- although granted that's pretty daunting as that thread is truly massive. ALL of the concerns you are raising have been discussed in there.

MRX in the new units is much closer to what's in the D2v than was the case with the first generation MRX units.

As you can imagine, many people with multiple subs don't take extra care to set them up ahead of time for best ARC Measurement, Some of them just luck out of course, some of them aren't sensitive to the difference, and many of them find that ARC has enough correction range that it can adjust to the variation in the combined output of the set of subs due to less than optimal inter-sub Phase adjustment, just as it does for less than optional physical positioning of the subs.

In that thread, the topic of how to do it "right" has come up multiple times. For most people the most important step in getting the best for their subs is proper sub placement to begin with. I.e., best coupling of each sub with the room. The Quick Measure tool in ARC works well for that (true in the MRX units as well). The second most important step is proper procedure in making the measurements. The mic placement rules are simple enough, and it is pretty well established that ignoring them produces poorer results with ARC. Getting the combo of subs in best Phase match with the mains is the third important step. That leaves getting the subs themselves in best Phase match with respect to EACH OTHER. Although that certainly helps -- by reducing the amount of correction ARC has to do -- it is definitely lower priority than the other three in most cases.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1537 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks Bob for the explanation. I am still not understanding something.  Ignore the distances by which the mic positions should be separated - I understand that: it is to enable ARC to get a 'picture' of the environment and it will spatially average the results in some way in order to attempt to create a good result over the area over which the measurements were taken.

What I don't understand is how ARC 'knows' what order of mic positions you have used when placing the mic. To do this, ARC would need to 'know' where the mic was positioned in space relative to the speakers (like Trinnov does with its unique '3D' mic). 

On the diagram below, X is the MLP and you can assume that all the positions are 24 inches distance from MLP and at least 24 inches from each other. On the top diagram (A) the mic has been placed using the 'side to side' method and on the bottom diagram (B) it has been placed 'moving around the circle in clock order which you say (to Jerry) will not yield a good result.
  1. How does ARC know whether I used A or B given that in each case the mic positions are identical?
  2. Why does it matter if I used A or B?
  3. How do my chosen mic positions fail to comply with "The rules are that #1 is centered ... and ALL positions ... must be spaced at least 24" inches apart."





EDIT: I also don't understand these two comments which seem to contradict each other:

"...and ALL positions (whether or not sequential) must be spaced at least 24" inches apart..."

and:

"...N+1 and N+2 positions will tend to be even further than 24 inches apart..."

'At least' 24 inches apart means that the distance between the mic must be no less than 24 inches. 48 inches IS no less than 24 inches. By definition you cannot have every mic position 24 inches from the other without the distance between some of the mic positions exceeding 24 inches.

This seems an extraordinarily complicated way to mandate the mic positions to me. Why not just use a simple diagram showing where, ideally, you would place the mic for each position? 

Thanks for your patience.

ARC can't possibly know if you use incorrect mic placement. It calculates under the assumption that you've followed the instructions. ARC *DOES* display a suggested mic placement chart at the start of Measurement.

There is, of course, an inherent symmetry in the speaker placements -- the viewing axis. It would be very weird to have a seating layout that doesn't align basically at right angles to that axis. Your two sample placements differ as one is 90 degrees swiveled from that axis. But also, look at the spacing between your 1 and 2, your 2 and 3, and your 3 and 4 in these two layouts (ignoring the fact that mic position #1 should actually be at the center). In your first chart there is more spacing between the 1->2 and the 3->4 sequential positions than in your second chart. The rule about alternating either side of #1 helps increase the spacing between mic positions even though the individual positions remain in the same locations. THAT'S what I meant by the N+1 to N+2 comment. Alternating either side of center, increases the number of cases where the spacing is greater than 24" -- along with maintaining symmetry.
--Bob

 

Bob, don't take those sketches literally - they are to help describe my point that is all. I did say that X was the MLP - the 1,2,3 and 4 are the next mic positions. Sorry, I thought that was clear.  The spacings are not to scale - they are just ti illustrate the point.

 

I didn’t ask if ARC knows if one uses incorrect mic placement. I asked how it knows the order that one has used for the placements. Left/right or 'around the clock'. Now you seem to be saying that it isn't necessary to use this left/right placement and I am more confused than ever. In your reply to Jerry you said it was important and his 'round the clock' method was wrong.

 

"... increase the spacing between mic positions even though the individual positions remain in the same locations.." doesn’t make sense to me either, sorry.

 

Is it not just the case that the mic positions need to be at least 24 inches apart and that the first has to be at the MLP?  Isn't that the easiest way to explain it and all this left/right, alternating, round the clock stuff is a red herring?

 

What I was trying to discover is:

 

  1. How does ARC know whether I used A or B given that in each case the mic positions are identical? (It would have to know if left/right is OK and round the clock is not).
  2. Why does it matter if I used A or B?
  3. How do my chosen mic positions fail to comply with "The rules are that #1 is centered ... and ALL positions ... must be spaced at least 24" inches apart."

 

And, how the two following statements reconcile themselves against each other:

 

"...and ALL positions (whether or not sequential) must be spaced at least 24" inches apart..."

and:

"...N+1 and N+2 positions will tend to be even further than 24 inches apart..."

 

Why is 'at least 24 inches apart' somehow different to 'more than 24 inches apart'?

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1538 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

As you can imagine, many people with multiple subs don't take extra care to set them up ahead of time for best ARC Measurement, Some of them just luck out of course, some of them aren't sensitive to the difference, and many of them find that ARC has enough correction range that it can adjust to the variation in the combined output of the set of subs due to less than optimal inter-sub Phase adjustment, just as it does for less than optional physical positioning of the subs.
 

 

Yes, but none of that applies to Jerry who knows exactly what he is doing and why. Using the same setup, XT32 delivered a measurably superior result, as evidenced by Jerry's graphs. If XT32 can do it, why can't ARC? 

 

I do think having to do so much manual preparation, which as you say is beyond the abilities of many, is not all that compatible with a REQ system that purports to automate the process. It's not the biggest deal though I agree.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1539 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 06:56 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
^ I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference.

Did you miss the rule that positions after #1 have to alternate either side of #1 -- symmetrically? I stated it clearly enough, above.

In Jerry's chart if he goes "around the clock" that's violated. In your first chart you don't go "around the clock". Yes 2 follows 1 in clock order, but then you are back to the other side for 3 and back again for 4.

In your second chart you do go "around the clock" (backwards), and it clearly violates the placement rule in the 2nd line above.

You ask how can ARC know you have broken the rule? It doesn't of course. It calculates assuming your 2 is on the other side of center from 1 and your 3 back on the same side as 1 and your 4 on the same side as 2. Since that's NOT the case in your 2nd layout, I would expect the 2nd layout to produce poorer results.

I presume your next question will be how ARC incorporates that dependency into its math. I don't know. Nevertheless, people who use mic placements contrary to this rule tend to get poorer results.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1540 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 07:04 AM
Senior Member
 
JasonT35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 41
I would have loved to have seen Jerry's REW measurements based off the calculated results ARC provided.

No offense to Jerry at all but the cutoffs were changed from ARC recommendation and the subs cutoff was lowered. I think this caused a problem. Also the REW pre ARC measurement for the subs was not the same as the measurement from the MRX which is weird to me.. I'm wondering if it's because of the mics or software?

Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2
Ascend Acoustics HTM-200SE
Powersound Audio XV15
Anthem MRX 510
Rega RP1
JasonT35 is online now  
post #1541 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 07:41 AM
Member
 
symphara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

There's no such thing as .2 of course.

Hmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excerpt from official presentation of the Denon 4520 
AV-Art. Created by Denon. The new leader of the Denon AVR range comes with 190 W x 9 channel power amplifier and an 11.2 channel processing capability with DSX and dts NeoX.

At this stage it sounds like we're debating semantics more than anything. Yes .1 is the LFE channel, while .2 seems to mean "2-sub output and the ability to eq two subs", unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding it.

I'm currently busy with work and I'll sign off from this thread saying this: while his charts worried me enough to make sure I get a MRX on loan before paying for it, I retain doubts as to the meaning of the comparison (does it translate to superior/inferior sound quality), and the source of his sub integration problems (phase mismatch, perhaps an inability of the MRX to deal with 2+ subs etc). The latter would not interest me since I don't plan to have more than one sub in the foreseeable future. Any more bass would bring down the house.
symphara is offline  
post #1542 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 07:58 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, but none of that applies to Jerry who knows exactly what he is doing and why. Using the same setup, XT32 delivered a measurably superior result, as evidenced by Jerry's graphs. If XT32 can do it, why can't ARC? 

I do think having to do so much manual preparation, which as you say is beyond the abilities of many, is not all that compatible with a REQ system that purports to automate the process. It's not the biggest deal though I agree.

We'll never know for sure what happened in Jerry's case. My experience following ARC posts for several years tells me something got screwed up. Whether it was procedural, or a hardware fault or a bug in the new ARC software we'll never know since there's no way to check at this point. Your gut tells you that Jerry's results are definitive. My experience says they are an outlier -- a mystery that would be nice to clear up.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1543 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,122
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 457 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post


We'll never know for sure what happened in Jerry's case. My experience following ARC posts for several years tells me something got screwed up. Whether it was procedural, or a hardware fault or a bug in the new ARC software we'll never know since there's no way to check at this point. Your gut tells you that Jerry's results are definitive. My experience says they are an outlier -- a mystery that would be nice to clear up.
--Bob

 

Since we are debating something that will likely never be resolved (since I no longer have the MRX), it would be nice to move on now to other more interesting topics.

AustinJerry is online now  
post #1544 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

^ I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference.

Did you miss the rule that positions after #1 have to alternate either side of #1 -- symmetrically? I stated it clearly enough, above.

In Jerry's chart if he goes "around the clock" that's violated. In your first chart you don't go "around the clock". Yes 2 follows 1 in clock order, but then you are back to the other side for 3 and back again for 4.

In your second chart you do go "around the clock" (backwards), and it clearly violates the placement rule in the 2nd line above.

You ask how can ARC know you have broken the rule? It doesn't of course. It calculates assuming your 2 is on the other side of center from 1 and your 3 back on the same side as 1 and your 4 on the same side as 2. Since that's NOT the case in your 2nd layout, I would expect the 2nd layout to produce poorer results.

I presume your next question will be how ARC incorporates that dependency into its math. I don't know. Nevertheless, people who use mic placements contrary to this rule tend to get poorer results.
--Bob

 

I am asking you why you have to alternate? What difference does it make if you don't?

 

You have explained it now. ARC assumes that mic positions are made in a specific order/way. it's odd that it does that given that it never measures distances from the mic positions to the speakers.

 

Thanks.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1545 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by symphara View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

There's no such thing as .2 of course.

Hmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excerpt from official presentation of the Denon 4520 
AV-Art. Created by Denon. The new leader of the Denon AVR range comes with 190 W x 9 channel power amplifier and an 11.2 channel processing capability with DSX and dts NeoX.

At this stage it sounds like we're debating semantics more than anything. Yes .1 is the LFE channel, while .2 seems to mean "2-sub output and the ability to eq two subs", unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding it.

I'm currently busy with work and I'll sign off from this thread saying this: while his charts worried me enough to make sure I get a MRX on loan before paying for it, I retain doubts as to the meaning of the comparison (does it translate to superior/inferior sound quality), and the source of his sub integration problems (phase mismatch, perhaps an inability of the MRX to deal with 2+ subs etc). The latter would not interest me since I don't plan to have more than one sub in the foreseeable future. Any more bass would bring down the house.

 

.2 is just marketing. I guess it means 'two subs', but .1 has a proper meaning: the LFE channel, and there is only one of those. 

 

Two subs aren't really meant to give "more bass". They are meant to enable a smoother bass response across a wider area: IOW to reduce seat to seat variation.

OzHDHT likes this.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1546 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:51 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
^ I started off believing it was simply a matter of increased spacing. If you alternate either side, then in most typical layouts the spacing between sequential positions is larger. As in

5 -- 4 -- 1 -- 2 -- 3, vs

4 -- 2 -- 1 -- 3 -- 5, which has wider spacing between sequential positions.

But based on some of the cases where people tried non-symetrical, but still widely spaced configuration, it looks like ARC uses the assumption of symmetry as well. HOW it uses it I do not know.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1547 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:54 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Two subs aren't really meant to give "more bass". They are meant to enable a smoother bass response across a wider area: IOW to reduce seat to seat variation.

Exactly. By the time you do proper volume trim on your pair of Subs, you get the same output level as a single sub except in regions where the single sub can't produce enough output (e.g., is too small for the room).
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1548 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 08:56 AM
Member
 
mazpri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ol Europe
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

My surprise wasn't that many people have only one sub. It was that a system like ARC, which aims to provide a good listening experience over more than one seat, does not have provision for setting up and EQing dual subs. It seems like an important omission to me. Even if few people have dual subs, those who do still want to set them up and EQ them well.
Hi - i think there is no need to be surprised at all. It was mentioned in several posts that ARC is limited (differently per series) in how complex a filter set and EQing can be. That leads to the product manager decision to be made if multiple subs - with all the things related to it (audio paths, connectors, menu, software(s), support, test scenarios, pricing, what else) - is worth implementing or not. As far as i understand the current situation -> Anthem just didn't come to the conclusion it would be as long as manual multi sub optimization combined with given ARC does the trick for almost(?) all end users and especially pros providing setup service. I must admit i have no clue what would be the benefit of it, the Geddes paper made me think manual optimization is just fine and doable for up to 4 subs by ppl who are geeky enough to go for it. I just accept that by price and market target constraints they decided it's a no go for current MRX - let alone the philosphy to rather focus on what they think is essential for their perfect AVR per $ -> DPL-IIz got axed also.
However, it will be intresting to see whether the market pushes them into that multi sub direction - sooner or later - or if already their next Statement line freshup will see such feat.
mazi
mazpri is online now  
post #1549 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 09:09 AM
Member
 
symphara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

.2 is just marketing. I guess it means 'two subs', but .1 has a proper meaning: the LFE channel, and there is only one of those. 
Sigh. As I said, semantics. To you it's just marketing, to me it's the advertised ability to send signal to, and eq two subwoofers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Two subs aren't really meant to give "more bass". They are meant to enable a smoother bass response across a wider area: IOW to reduce seat to seat variation.
Fortunately I don't really have this problem. I don't see much seat to seat bass variation and frankly I care only about the MLP. Two subs at the same SPL level would be worse than useless - for me, of course.
symphara is offline  
post #1550 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 09:11 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
^ Even the top of the line Anthem Statement D2v pre-pro has only one Sub output signal. It has 4 jacks (2 RCA and 2 XLR) for physical connection of up to 4 subs, but all of those jacks carry the same signal (disregarding the standard 6dB differential between RCA and XLR). So it's the same deal as with the current MRX AVRs. You adjust distance, volume trim and Phase for your set of Subs *BEFORE* doing ARC Measurement. ARC hears the set of Subs playing as a combo and corrects the output of that combo to deal with room issues and for best match with the main speakers.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1551 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,122
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 457 Post(s)
Liked: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazpri View Post


Hi - i think there is no need to be surprised at all. It was mentioned in several posts that ARC is limited (differently per series) in how complex a filter set and EQing can be. That leads to the product manager decision to be made if multiple subs - with all the things related to it (audio paths, connectors, menu, software(s), support, test scenarios, pricing, what else) - is worth implementing or not. As far as i understand the current situation -> Anthem just didn't come to the conclusion it would be as long as manual multi sub optimization combined with given ARC does the trick for almost(?) all end users and especially pros providing setup service. I must admit i have no clue what would be the benefit of it, the Geddes paper made me think manual optimization is just fine and doable for up to 4 subs by ppl who are geeky enough to go for it. I just accept that by price and market target constraints they decided it's a no go for current MRX - let alone the philosphy to rather focus on what they think is essential for their perfect AVR per $ -> DPL-IIz got axed also.
However, it will be intresting to see whether the market pushes them into that multi sub direction - sooner or later - or if already their next Statement line freshup will see such feat.
mazi

 

If you are unconvinced of the advantages of multiple subs, and room correction that equalizes two sub channels, you might find this analysis interesting: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495869/austinjerrys-set-up/0_20#post_23859810.  I am still waiting to see a similar analysis using ARC and pre-correction phase matching.

AustinJerry is online now  
post #1552 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 09:32 AM
Member
 
mazpri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ol Europe
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 20
^ which adds to my doubts about additional EQing of multi subs beeing worth the hassle, i hope Anthem is right on that - on the other side the D2 design was back then, MRX-10 series is now, next is...(?) As long as nobody stands up and proves automated EQing is adding a lot - that isn't manually achievable by following Geddes suggestions - i'm happy with the way of ARC and it's price wink.gif

^2: following up on AustinJerry superb work - i'm pretty convinced mulit subs do help a lot on various situations - it's just not clear to me what is the difference in doing it Geddes like manually plus ARC vs. doing all automatically - and what would be the price tag for the latter when provided by Anthem wink.gif
mazpri is online now  
post #1553 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cfraser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto area, Canada
Posts: 1,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by symphara View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cfraser View Post

Jerry is being coy: the Denon 4520 is a superior piece to the Marantz 7008, if you need to put gear from the same manufacturer on a feature/performance hierarchy totem pole. Whether you could hear the SQ difference is debateable, if there even is any, but technically the 4520 is the more advanced unit.
I very much doubt that, but it's not my intention to transform this into a Marantz vs Denon debate. It's subjective preference. There's no need to beat me into submission with yours.

I was not stating an opinion, where did you get that idea? I was merely stating that Jerry was being polite to you, since you seemed uninformed about the piece of gear he was using (not his only quality AVR BTW). Do a little research on the Denon/Marantz sites, you should be able to determine in less than a minute which AVR Denon/Marantz deems superior, without even looking at the price tags. I am a previous AVM50 owner, and also have certain QUALITY Anthem gear in my system, I like to support local business, I am not biased by brand, only individual pieces of gear. Denon is cheap and getting cheaper IMO, apparently, and Marantz will be the future higher-end brand, but that's to be seen beyond a single pre-pro.
cfraser is online now  
post #1554 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Two subs aren't really meant to give "more bass". They are meant to enable a smoother bass response across a wider area: IOW to reduce seat to seat variation.

Exactly. By the time you do proper volume trim on your pair of Subs, you get the same output level as a single sub except in regions where the single sub can't produce enough output (e.g., is too small for the room).
--Bob

 

Yup. Us Audyssey users are used to thinking in terms of THX Reference Level, as that is what Audyssey aims to calibrate to. That is 85dB average, 105dB peak and 115dB peak for the LFE channel. So in a properly calibrated system, at 0dB on the MV those are the levels that should be achieved in-room (assuming the system is capable of it of course).  Regardless of the room EQ used, if one wishes to achieve Movie Reference Level, that is what one should be aiming for - including a flat response at Reference Level. Audyssey includes Dynamic EQ which compensates for human hearing as level is reduced from MV of 0dB. I assume that Anthem units have some similar technology?  THX Loudness Plus is another technology that does similar things, but of course is only available on THX-certified units (Onkyo mostly in the mainstream).

 

One of the nice things that I liked about ARC is the easy ability to shape a house curve to one's own preference.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1555 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Pariseau View Post

^ I started off believing it was simply a matter of increased spacing. If you alternate either side, then in most typical layouts the spacing between sequential positions is larger. As in

5 -- 4 -- 1 -- 2 -- 3, vs

4 -- 2 -- 1 -- 3 -- 5, which has wider spacing between sequential positions.

But based on some of the cases where people tried non-symetrical, but still widely spaced configuration, it looks like ARC uses the assumption of symmetry as well. HOW it uses it I do not know.
--Bob

 

This was the part I didn't 'get' - that ARC has been programmed to expect that the second mic position will have a specific spatial relationship to the first mic position and so on. I still don't quite see the purpose of it, but at least I now understand what is going on. I can't see why they would do it that way, or what benefits it has over and above simply putting the mic at the MLP for position #1 and then spaced at xx inch intervals around the listening area.  

 

This is the sort of stuff that I am used to seeing people dig down into - once one understands why they do it a certain way, it can actually help improve the way one uses the software and can lead to better results, especially for people who don't quite fit into the 'standard' situation - eg L-shaped listening seat. Seems better to me than just accepting what the manufacturers tell us on blind faith.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1556 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:44 AM
Read the FAQ!
 
Bob Pariseau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 251 Post(s)
Liked: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yup. Us Audyssey users are used to thinking in terms of THX Reference Level, as that is what Audyssey aims to calibrate to. That is 85dB average, 105dB peak and 115dB peak for the LFE channel. So in a properly calibrated system, at 0dB on the MV those are the levels that should be achieved in-room (assuming the system is capable of it of course).  Regardless of the room EQ used, if one wishes to achieve Movie Reference Level, that is what one should be aiming for - including a flat response at Reference Level. Audyssey includes Dynamic EQ which compensates for human hearing as level is reduced from MV of 0dB. I assume that Anthem units have some similar technology?  THX Loudness Plus is another technology that does similar things, but of course is only available on THX-certified units (Onkyo mostly in the mainstream).

One of the nice things that I liked about ARC is the easy ability to shape a house curve to one's own preference.

Anthem's approach is to have people calibrate to 75dB SPL, as a more typically tolerable level for home theater use. However, having done that, the calibration level corresponds to -10dB on Main Volume during normal listening. So if you really want the 85dB SPL level you just bring the volume up to 0dB. Typically the Max Volume (safety) setting defaults to +10dB Main Volume.
--Bob

Anthem D2/D2v/AVM50/AVM50v/ARC1 tweaking guide. -- Need personal consultation/training? PM me!
Bob Pariseau is offline  
post #1557 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by symphara View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

.2 is just marketing. I guess it means 'two subs', but .1 has a proper meaning: the LFE channel, and there is only one of those. 
Sigh. As I said, semantics. To you it's just marketing, to me it's the advertised ability to send signal to, and eq two subwoofers.
 

 

 

No, it isn't a semantic difference. .1 has a proper, defined meaning: the LFE channel. All systems are x.1 regardless of the number of subwoofers they use.  .2 doesn't actually mean anything - it can mean whatever one wants it to mean. 

 

Quote:

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Two subs aren't really meant to give "more bass". They are meant to enable a smoother bass response across a wider area: IOW to reduce seat to seat variation.
Fortunately I don't really have this problem. I don't see much seat to seat bass variation and frankly I care only about the MLP. 

 

You are very fortunate if you can get good consistent bass across several seats from just one sub. Most people struggle with this. I too care only about the MLP but I still use two subs. Mostly to handle some difficult room modes.

 

Quote:
 Two subs at the same SPL level would be worse than useless - for me, of course.

 

Well yes, if you don't have significant seat to seat bass variation with one sub and no other room-related issues.

OzHDHT likes this.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1558 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Saturn94's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by snix View Post

Quote:

So the 1.1.7 firmware definitely fixes the majority of the source locking/muting issue. Not perfect but much much better, and at least it doesn't aggressively mute after 1 second of silence.

Unfortunately it didn't have any effect on the two other major issues. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the anemic bass on any source except Multi PCM 3/2 is *not* normal/expected and that I have a bad unit. I'll take it in to my local dealer where I bought it so they can test it out for themselves and maybe I can try a different unit to verify.

I can tell the difference in sound quality between the Marantz and the Anthem. I strongly prefer the Anthem so I'm hoping I really do have a bad unit - I'd hate to think this was intentional...

Please keep us posted.

As someone who is looking for a potential replacement for my AVM20, I've been following this thread with great interest. I must admit there are some things I'm reading here that are giving me pause; bass issues, broken Anthem Logic modes, muting issues, lack of response to email inquiries (back when I bought my AVM20 in 2003, Anthem was very responsive to emails; has that changed?).

My "local" dealer (1.5hr drive each way), only offers a 7 day return window. Subtract time for work and other daily responsibilities, that really doesn't give me much time to evaluate the MRX, particularly given I have zero experience with room correction programs. For this reason I'm reading as much as I can to be as prepared as I can should I decide to give an MRX a try.

Saturn94 is offline  
post #1559 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 10:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 17,369
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazpri View Post


Hi - i think there is no need to be surprised at all. It was mentioned in several posts that ARC is limited (differently per series) in how complex a filter set and EQing can be. That leads to the product manager decision to be made if multiple subs - with all the things related to it (audio paths, connectors, menu, software(s), support, test scenarios, pricing, what else) - is worth implementing or not. As far as i understand the current situation -> Anthem just didn't come to the conclusion it would be as long as manual multi sub optimization combined with given ARC does the trick for almost(?) all end users and especially pros providing setup service. I must admit i have no clue what would be the benefit of it, the Geddes paper made me think manual optimization is just fine and doable for up to 4 subs by ppl who are geeky enough to go for it. I just accept that by price and market target constraints they decided it's a no go for current MRX - let alone the philosphy to rather focus on what they think is essential for their perfect AVR per $ -> DPL-IIz got axed also.
However, it will be intresting to see whether the market pushes them into that multi sub direction - sooner or later - or if already their next Statement line freshup will see such feat.
mazi

 

If you are unconvinced of the advantages of multiple subs, and room correction that equalizes two sub channels, you might find this analysis interesting: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495869/austinjerrys-set-up/0_20#post_23859810.  I am still waiting to see a similar analysis using ARC and pre-correction phase matching.

 

I have been searching for that but to no avail!  Thanks for reminding me where it was. It is a superb example of the benefits of multiple subs.

kbarnes701 is online now  
post #1560 of 2961 Old 03-11-2014, 11:21 AM
Senior Member
 
TommmyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I just sent an email off to Anthem and one of their technicians said that Quick Measure can be left running. Doesn't need to be stopped after a few measurements. I was corresponding with him about my microphone maybe being defective but just thought I would ask him anyway. So it isn't exactly "live" measurements but can adjust things and wait for the update without stopping it.

Here is his reply-



"It is meant to keep playing while adjusting but there is a lag time. Once you have your speaker in a new position give your Quick Measure 5-10 seconds to correct itself as it takes new measurements."
TommmyJ is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Anthem Mrx710 , Anthem Mrx510 , Anthem Mrx310
Gear in this thread - Mrx710 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