Yamaha A3050 YPAO vs Manual PEQ results - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 24Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 08-27-2015, 06:08 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yamaha A3050 YPAO vs Manual PEQ results

I recently got my a3050 (been waiting forever!) and had always planned to manually EQ each channel using REW, the built in PEQ and my behringer FDP as I thought I could do a better job than YPAO.

The a3050 built in PEQ is certainly a powerful and useful tool, but is (needlessly?) limited by the set frequencies of the filters. Even with the 7 filter limit per channel, it would have been much simpler and would have given better results had I been able to specify more exactly the frequency on which to centre the filters.

You can make arguements about the benefit of chasing a perfect graph vs audible in room response, and I certainly subscribe to the minimal EQ theory of home room correction, at least for manual corrections. The exception seems to be Dirac etc where innumerable filters are able to completely flatten the frequency response as well as correcting in the time domain and so on.

Anyway, was I right? Was I wrong? Let me show you!

Oh, but please ignore my subwoofer response - it's obviously not balanced or corrected in these graphs.

Measurements were done with REW and a calibrated UMIK-1
The graphs are all to the same scale so are directly comparable even if the spls are different. All with 1/6 smoothing.

I almost exclusively used cut filters whereas YPAO boosts lots. Ultimately I don't think it makes much difference since I then needed to boost speaker levels or listen at a higher volume.

Ultimately most of my channels ended up at +/- 3db.

TLDR - YPAO flat does a decent job of equalising frequency response.
My manual EQ was ultimately almost identical (but possibly slightly worse).
YPAO must get individual speaker responses relatively flat to give the same overall combined response as my manual EQ (where my target was overall flattish response).

Edit - dunno how to annotate the graphs on this forum so:
Graph 1 - YPAO flat (pink) vs natural (green)
Graph 2 - YPAO front (pink) vs through (yellow)
Graph 3 - baseline response at MLP
Graphs 4-10 - uncorrected vs manually corrected speaker freq responses
Graph 11 - Manual PEQ combined all speakers response at MLP
Graph 12 - Manual (blue) vs YPAO (Yellow) all speakers combined response at MLP
Graph 13 - manual PEQ all speakers (blue) vs no PEQ (red) at MLP
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	YPAO flat.jpg
Views:	682
Size:	72.2 KB
ID:	911442   Click image for larger version

Name:	YPAO front.jpg
Views:	531
Size:	73.5 KB
ID:	911450   Click image for larger version

Name:	baseline MLP.jpg
Views:	430
Size:	61.5 KB
ID:	911458   Click image for larger version

Name:	FR.jpg
Views:	424
Size:	71.9 KB
ID:	911466   Click image for larger version

Name:	FL.jpg
Views:	380
Size:	70.5 KB
ID:	911474  

Click image for larger version

Name:	C.jpg
Views:	355
Size:	72.0 KB
ID:	911482   Click image for larger version

Name:	SBL.jpg
Views:	359
Size:	65.2 KB
ID:	911490   Click image for larger version

Name:	SBR.jpg
Views:	330
Size:	71.7 KB
ID:	911498   Click image for larger version

Name:	SL.jpg
Views:	331
Size:	76.3 KB
ID:	911506   Click image for larger version

Name:	SR.jpg
Views:	355
Size:	77.4 KB
ID:	911514  

Click image for larger version

Name:	manual full.jpg
Views:	403
Size:	60.2 KB
ID:	911522   Click image for larger version

Name:	manual vs YPAO flat.jpg
Views:	488
Size:	69.6 KB
ID:	911530   Click image for larger version

Name:	manual peq vs no peq.jpg
Views:	506
Size:	73.6 KB
ID:	911570  
virtualrain and PioManiac like this.

Last edited by James Ashford; 08-27-2015 at 06:23 PM. Reason: needed additional info for graph + added graph
James Ashford is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 06:08 AM
Member
 
jeffwp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Ashford View Post
I recently got my a3050 (been waiting forever!) and had always planned to manually EQ each channel using REW, the built in PEQ and my behringer FDP as I thought I could do a better job than YPAO.

The a3050 built in PEQ is certainly a powerful and useful tool, but is (needlessly?) limited by the set frequencies of the filters. Even with the 7 filter limit per channel, it would have been much simpler and would have given better results had I been able to specify more exactly the frequency on which to centre the filters.

You can make arguements about the benefit of chasing a perfect graph vs audible in room response, and I certainly subscribe to the minimal EQ theory of home room correction, at least for manual corrections. The exception seems to be Dirac etc where innumerable filters are able to completely flatten the frequency response as well as correcting in the time domain and so on.

Anyway, was I right? Was I wrong? Let me show you!

Oh, but please ignore my subwoofer response - it's obviously not balanced or corrected in these graphs.

Measurements were done with REW and a calibrated UMIK-1
The graphs are all to the same scale so are directly comparable even if the spls are different. All with 1/6 smoothing.

I almost exclusively used cut filters whereas YPAO boosts lots. Ultimately I don't think it makes much difference since I then needed to boost speaker levels or listen at a higher volume.

Ultimately most of my channels ended up at +/- 3db.

TLDR - YPAO flat does a decent job of equalising frequency response.
My manual EQ was ultimately almost identical (but possibly slightly worse).
YPAO must get individual speaker responses relatively flat to give the same overall combined response as my manual EQ (where my target was overall flattish response).

Edit - dunno how to annotate the graphs on this forum so:
Graph 1 - YPAO flat (pink) vs natural (green)
Graph 2 - YPAO front (pink) vs through (yellow)
Graph 3 - baseline response at MLP
Graphs 4-10 - uncorrected vs manually corrected speaker freq responses
Graph 11 - Manual PEQ combined all speakers response at MLP
Graph 12 - Manual (blue) vs YPAO (Yellow) all speakers combined response at MLP
Graph 13 - manual PEQ all speakers (blue) vs no PEQ (red) at MLP
the yamaha 3050 manual implies that the frequencies are totally adjustable . pages 137 &138.
jeffwp is offline  
post #3 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 09:16 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm not sure about whether completely adjustable PEQ frequencies are being implied or inferred here, but I can assure you they are very much set. There are a fair few to choose from but all at (I think) 1/3 octave intervals. I haven't bothered to work it out...

Fully adjustable filters would be a massive improvement but presumably would use more processing power or something? There must be some reason for the filters to be at set frequencies but I don't know what it is.
Madmax67 likes this.
James Ashford is offline  
post #4 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 11:05 AM
Member
 
802Diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 23
This sure is interesting, but I wouldn't know how to interpret the graphs. All I see is vallies and hills, which I think wouldn't be advisable? What do I miss here?

802Diamond is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 11:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The graphs show the volume of the sound vs the frequency, ie how loud each frequency is.

So I guess the 'holy grail' is a flat in room response, at the main listening position (MLP) or, even better, across all of the seats. This way the individual's room and speakers are taken out of the equation and and bangs, crashes and zipping xwings are reproduced as intended in the studio.

However, human hearing is not a flat line. Particularly with age we get less sensitive to high frequencies and we are also relatively insensitive to low frequencies below 20Hz, which we often feel more than we hear.

We also are also relatively insensitive to changes in volume of less than a few dBs, and less aware of these volume changes the slower they happen. We are also more aware of large peaks in volume than dips.

So! Putting all this together we aim for as flat and smooth a line as possible from 20Hz to 20kHz. The common feeling is that a flat frequency response line (eg 85dB from 20Hz to 20KHz) does not sound right in a small room, as in most homes - so the target line is often tilted slightly 'downwards' so that the bass is slightly louder than the treble.

The graphs show uncorrected frequency/volume responses for the MLP for all speakers together, and each individual speaker, as well as my and YPAOs attempts to flatten/equalise each raw response through filters.

With software like DIRAC it is possible to get near perfect flat target 'curves' (or lines really!), but all the myriad tiny peaks and troughs in response are impossible to equalise with only 7 filters per channel.

In reality given the relative insensitivity of the human ear, you can argue that we do not need to achieve a ruler flat response, and the commonly accepted wisdom is that a response of +/- 3dB is pretty damn good and likely to sound very smooth. A response of +/-10dB or greater is likely to be perceived as quite a bit rougher, with large swings in volume at different frequencies and therefore less cohesive and natural.

All my graphs with peaks and valleys have the scale set to show those features more easily - if the scale was 0dB to 90dB for example, it would look like a nearly flat line.

All room correction software does its best to get the response to these targets. Some does better than others.

I thought I could do better than YPAO certainly but given the limitations of the yamaha PEQ it is difficult and YPAO does about as good a job as I could expect (or manage myself) with the tools that it has.

Whether any of this REALLY makes a significant difference in listening enjoyment is up in the air, and there is certainly at least a modicum of placebo effect but hey, part of the fun is setting it up and tinkering to get the sound 'perfect', even if no one else can tell the difference!

Anyway I hope that was moderately useful and explained what these room correction graphs are all about
James Ashford is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 11:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 4,488
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1227 Post(s)
Liked: 790
I think the PEQ for subs is at 31Hz. I think they added the manual PEQ as a way to potentially make good improvements but by no means did they intend it to be used as the ultimate tool.

YPAO in my 3050 did a better job than XT 32 in my old Denon. At least it sounds better to my ears. I plan to eventually run REW and do some manual adjustments, but right now I just want to enjoy my new receiver.

You might like this...
http://simplehomecinema.com/2014/10/...dvanced-topic/
802Diamond likes this.

Last edited by KidHorn; 08-28-2015 at 12:05 PM.
KidHorn is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 08-28-2015, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I guess that was my point - to see if I could do better than YPAO manually with the same tools, and I found out that no, I can't.

YPAO does as good a job as can be expected (or I believe, possible) with the limited PEQ available.

It improves and flattens the overall frequency response as well or better than I can do manually.

Therefore, I'd suggest - run YPAO and be happy that the result is likely pretty decent and can't easily be improved.

I think the manual PEQ should be reserved for specific goals like reducing bass boominess from the centre channel for example.

Outside of that I would just run YPAO and enjoy the receiver as you said.
I don't think there is much 'hidden potential' to be unlocked from hours of fiddling with the manual settings.
802Diamond and Madmax67 like this.
James Ashford is offline  
post #8 of 36 Old 08-30-2015, 07:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,138
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 521 Post(s)
Liked: 203
OK, bottom line. I own a X4000 and like XT32. I am debating on waiting for the X6200 or just get the 3050 now. Will the 3050 do well enough? I know, that's pretty subjective, but how much worse is YPAO than XT32. Plus I thought the 3050 had the YPAO with RSC so it should be better. :-)

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 08-30-2015, 11:53 AM
Member
 
802Diamond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Ashford View Post
Anyway I hope that was moderately useful and explained what these room correction graphs are all about
Moderately?

Txs for the explanation. I learned sth today, that much is true (and also learned that I am a rookie in REQ... )

802Diamond is offline  
post #10 of 36 Old 08-31-2015, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Curious on the 6200 vs 3050 question. I'm in the same boat.
MarkMul1 is online now  
post #11 of 36 Old 08-31-2015, 10:58 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've never used XT32 so can't comment. I'd be very interested to see any data from someone who measured their room pre and post XT32 correction to see what sort of results it can achieve, and compare that indirectly against YPAO, or even better someone who has data directly comparing YPAO and XT32 in the same setup.

I can say that I think the A3050 is a cracking receiver and that YPAO does a good job within it's limits.

XT32 may have higher limits or just do a better job, I just don't know.

I would say however, that if you're interested in equalising your sub I think YPAO is inadequate. The lowest filter is 31.5Hz, which I think is just too high, and there is not enough choice of frequencies, which is important with the bass.

All my rooms have had a large mode at 20-25Hz and YPAO does nothing for that.

I use a behringer FDP for the sub and get a perfect response with it, so if you have something like that then I think A3050 is a great choice
Madmax67 likes this.
James Ashford is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Starting to pre read the 3050 manual, probably get 3050 late Friday.

I see the YPAO has the angle / height measurement option. I'm curious if you guys used it or not.
MarkMul1 is online now  
post #13 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 10:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 4,488
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1227 Post(s)
Liked: 790
The angle measurement is only used for Yamaha DSPs. It won't effect equalization.

I switched from XT32 on a Denon 4311 to YPAO on a 3050 and the 3050 sounds better, including the bass. One of the reasons I got the 4311 is it's supposedly superior eq of bass, but it never sounded great. It was OK. I think whether or not YPAO or XT32 is better is dependent on your room and equipment.

I mainly got the 3050 because I had a couple of older Yamaha receivers and they never have problems. I'm getting too old to bother sending a receiver in for repair.
ndabunka and Madmax67 like this.
KidHorn is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 11:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Chucka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Southern Connecticut
Posts: 430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 36
In a 5.0 setput WITHOUT a sub, do the filters of YPAO (3050) go down low enought to properly adjust the frequency response of full range speakers. With no sub, would XT32 or YPAO be expected to perform better in these lower frequencies.
Madmax67 likes this.
Chucka is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LowTech1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,198
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 814 Post(s)
Liked: 212
I've had the Onk 818 with XT32 for about 3 yrs. XT32 does work very well. I think the reason some guys like YPAO more is because XT32 flattens the sub/subs more. When I ran YPAO with the 2050 a few times, I think I like how the bass sounded myself. Honestly, I can't tell much of a sound difference between the Onk 818 and the 2050. It might be there,but unless you can A/B it on the fly,it might be hard to hear. I did like the dual sub eq on the 2050.
Madmax67 likes this.
LowTech1 is online now  
post #16 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 12:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cesar123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,030
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 361 Post(s)
Liked: 537
^^

If I'm not mistaken the Onkyo 818 has Audyssey MultEQ XT32 but not Sub EQ HT. Those are different things.

FYI: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries...vs-MultEQ-XT32
Madmax67 likes this.

Yippee-ki-yay...
cesar123 is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 01:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
virtualrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 973
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 841 Post(s)
Liked: 313
Yamaha A3050 YPAO vs Manual PEQ results

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Ashford View Post
I guess that was my point - to see if I could do better than YPAO manually with the same tools, and I found out that no, I can't.

YPAO does as good a job as can be expected (or I believe, possible) with the limited PEQ available.

It improves and flattens the overall frequency response as well or better than I can do manually.

Therefore, I'd suggest - run YPAO and be happy that the result is likely pretty decent and can't easily be improved.

I think the manual PEQ should be reserved for specific goals like reducing bass boominess from the centre channel for example.

Outside of that I would just run YPAO and enjoy the receiver as you said.
I don't think there is much 'hidden potential' to be unlocked from hours of fiddling with the manual settings.

Thank you very much. This is incredibly helpful for those of us who have no option other than to trust YPAO to do its thing... It's reassuring to know its doing a reasonably good job.
ndabunka and zpatter1 like this.

SONY 75X850C | YAMAHA RX-A2050 | 5 DAYTON AUDIO APA150 | KLIPSCH RP 5.2.4
virtualrain is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Stanton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 3,116
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked: 649
It's good to know that YPAO does a respectable job!
I left everything alone except my center channel speaker (as you mentioned). I'm to the point where the dialog quality is better than anything I've had before, but still having some problem "bottoming out" my center speaker with a 100Hz cut-off. I'm wondering how high I can raise that cut-off without affecting dialog: 125Hz, 200Hz? I also adjusted my PEQ frequency bands to center more around dialog frequencies (500 Hz to 8 kHz).

Yamaha RX-A2050 AVR (5.0.2)
(4) Polk Monitor 10B's (R/L F/R), (2) Polk Monitor 4's (TM), Polk CS300 center channel
Analog: B&O TX2 Turntable, Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1
Digital: Pioneer CLD-99 Elite LD, Panasonic DMP-UB900 UHD Blu-Ray
LG 65EF9500 4K OLED
Stanton is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 05:02 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Have a look at this - http://www.behindthemixer.com/how-eq...telligibility/

Remember raising the crossover will just send those same frequencies to the sub so shouldn't in theory make the dialogue any clearer. In practice it probably does help a bit, but the other option is to use a wide cut filter for the centre channel.

I'd suggest to find a scene with dialogue that sounds muffled or boomy and continue raising the frequency of your cut filter until it clears up without losing gravitas. If suggest starting around 100Hz as there is little vocal energy below there.

Of course the problem with this approach is that you cut all low frequencies to the centre channel and it could potentially affect sounds other than voice. However since voice is the most important part of the centre channel output I'm happy to make that sacrifice.

You could also give small boosts to aid clarity etc as suggested in the link above.

Personally I raise my crossover a bit for the centre, use a cut filter and port plugs, and use a tiny amount of the YPAO vocal lift and I've never been happier with speech intelligibility.

Let us know how you get on!
Madmax67 likes this.
James Ashford is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 05:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,153
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Good to hear about YPAO. I am also coming from a Denon.

So the Angle / height is for the Yamaha DSP's. Is everyone using the angle contraption or just the mic without the angle 4 posiistion thing?

Thanks
MarkMul1 is online now  
post #21 of 36 Old 09-01-2015, 07:12 PM
Member
 
jeffwp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucka View Post
In a 5.0 setput WITHOUT a sub, do the filters of YPAO (3050) go down low enought to properly adjust the frequency response of full range speakers. With no sub, would XT32 or YPAO be expected to perform better in these lower frequencies.

in all channels except subs manual ypao can adjust any seven [your pick] of the following frequencies.......31 39 49 62 78 99 125 157 198 250 315 398 500 630 793 1000 1260 1590 2000 2500 3170 4000 5040 6350 8000 10100 12700 16000 hz. in subs you have freq 31 62 125 and 250hz that you can adjust.
Skylinestar likes this.

Last edited by jeffwp; 09-02-2015 at 05:57 AM. Reason: more info
jeffwp is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 09-02-2015, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stanton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 3,116
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Ashford View Post
Have a look at this - http://www.behindthemixer.com/how-eq...telligibility/

Let us know how you get on!
Thanks! I bookmarked that page and will re-visit when I get my permanent HDMI display (still a few weeks away) so I can actually see what I'm doing. Your other comments make a lot of sense; raising the center channel cut-off obviously didn't solve my problem (had some "bottoming out" on a movie last night). I will report back when I make some adjustments.

Yamaha RX-A2050 AVR (5.0.2)
(4) Polk Monitor 10B's (R/L F/R), (2) Polk Monitor 4's (TM), Polk CS300 center channel
Analog: B&O TX2 Turntable, Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1
Digital: Pioneer CLD-99 Elite LD, Panasonic DMP-UB900 UHD Blu-Ray
LG 65EF9500 4K OLED
Stanton is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 09-06-2015, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stanton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX USA
Posts: 3,116
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked: 649
I've made some modifications to my center channel PEQ and am reporting back on results if anyone is having trouble with their center channel speaker setup. As previously mentioned, I ran YPAO, copied those (auto) settings into the (manual) mode, and then proceeded to alter the center channel settings for 2 reasons:
  1. Dialog clarity (didn't want to take "dialog level" beyond +1 and didn't like "dialog lift")
  2. Reduce "bottoming out" of center speaker which was not designed for full range (this has became worse since going from DD to TrueHD)

I did 2 things which greatly improved my center channel performance:
  1. Change speaker setting to "small" and set crossover/cutoff @120 Hz (started @80 Hz and rose until it eliminated the "bottoming out"
  2. Modified the PEQ settings (both frequency bins and gain/cut) per the link/article posted above

Essentially I cut frequencies below 500 Hz which reduced some of the "boominess" and added gain to frequencies in the range 1-4 kHz (with Q=1) which boosted the range from just below 1 kHz to around 5 kHz. The 7 frequency bands I used were: 125/250/500/1000/2000/4000/8000 (basically 7 octaves covering the common speech frequencies of 400-4000 Hz). I still have a slight bit of "bottoming out" left in my left front speaker (but not the right--could be due to the fact that YPAO EQ'd them slightly differently), but I'm not going to mess with anything because it's only at very loud listening levels and the center channel speaker was much more obnoxious (plus I don't want to mess with 2-channel music listening which is great).
Madmax67 likes this.

Yamaha RX-A2050 AVR (5.0.2)
(4) Polk Monitor 10B's (R/L F/R), (2) Polk Monitor 4's (TM), Polk CS300 center channel
Analog: B&O TX2 Turntable, Nakamichi Cassette Deck 1
Digital: Pioneer CLD-99 Elite LD, Panasonic DMP-UB900 UHD Blu-Ray
LG 65EF9500 4K OLED

Last edited by Stanton; 10-02-2015 at 01:55 PM.
Stanton is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 09-10-2015, 06:34 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffwp View Post
in subs you have freq 31 62 125 and 250hz that you can adjust.
But then there are just 4 bands with fixed frequencies to adjust? Filmmixer says there are 4 bands with 10 frequencies to choose from?!? I'm confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

The sub bands are all 31.5 > 250Hz, with 10 preset stops in between, and yes, the two subs have completely separate EQ, distance and level controls.
Madmax67 likes this.
mukes is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 09-10-2015, 06:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 13
If found this here:

avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/1474980-official-yamaha-aventage-rx-a1030-rx-a2030-rx-a3030-cx-a5000-mx-a5000-thread-7.html#post23544117
mukes is offline  
post #26 of 36 Old 09-10-2015, 07:54 AM
Member
 
jeffwp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: melbourne australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mukes View Post
But then there are just 4 bands with fixed frequencies to adjust? Filmmixer says there are 4 bands with 10 frequencies to choose from?!? I'm confused.
to give some detail ........ i am using the remote, accessing the yamaha menu and these were the settings i found . i notice filmmixer is using a web or mobile phone menu used on the 3030 yamaha . i hope that the web menu gives that added flexibility but i havn,t explored it myself yet. cheers .jeff.
jeffwp is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 09-15-2015, 05:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mukes View Post
But then there are just 4 bands with fixed frequencies to adjust? Filmmixer says there are 4 bands with 10 frequencies to choose from?!? I'm confused.
This will clear things up:
>>I would have loved to post a snapshot of my receiver web setup, but as i am new to this forum i can't post links or images until a have a post count of 5 or greater.... <<<

4 bands with 10 frequencies each to choose from.
mukes is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 09-16-2015, 04:49 AM
Senior Member
 
docrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Okatie, SC
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 210 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I have run the YPAO several times on my 3050, without moving the position of the mic or making any other changes to the system. My 7.2.4 HT is totally silent during the running of the single position and multi-angle measurements. I have been getting markedly different values (especially for levels and subwoofer distances) each time that I run YPAO. Has anyone else experienced this issue? I have a vintage Radio Shack SPL meter and am prepared to use it for getting correct speaker levels, but I'm no longer sure what decibel level and weighting scale is recommended for the white noise generated by the 3050 test tone. What volume setting is recommended for the 3050 during the generation of the test tone (0 dB?)?

BTW, once I obtain a final manual level setting, can anyone point me to an article which would then allow me to make use of the spectrum analyzer that I've just downloaded to my phone (since the YPAO PEQ would no longer be valid)? Any suggestions would be really appreciated!
docrog is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 09-16-2015, 05:08 AM
Member
 
DaveMcLain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanton View Post
I've made some modifications to my center channel PEQ and am reporting back on results if anyone is having trouble with their center channel speaker setup. As previously mentioned, I ran YPAO, copied those (auto) settings into the (manual) mode, and then proceeded to alter the center channel settings for 2 reasons:
  1. Dialog clarity (didn't want to take "dialog level" beyond +1 and didn't like "dialog lift")
  2. Reduce "bottoming out" of center speaker which was not designed for full range (this has became worse since going from DD to TrueHD)

I did 2 things which greatly improved my center channel performance:
  1. Change speaker setting to "small" and set crossover/cutoff @120 Hz (started @80 Hz and rose until it eliminated the "bottoming out"
  2. Modified the PEQ settings (both frequency bins and gain/cut) per the link/article posted above

Essentially I cut frequencies below 500 Hz which reduced some of the "boominess" and added gain to frequencies in the range 1-4 kHz (with Q=1) which boosted the range from just below 1 kHz to around 5 kHz. The 7 frequency bands I used were: 120/250/500/1000/2000/4000/8000 (basically 7 octaves covering the common speech frequencies of 400-4000 Hz). I still have a slight bit of "bottoming out" left in my left front speaker (but not the right--could be due to the fact that YPAO EQ'd them slightly differently), but I'm not going to mess with anything because it's only at very loud listening levels and the center channel speaker was much more obnoxious (plus I don't want to mess with 2-channel music listening which is great).
Down around 400hz or so is a problem area because so many things create sound in that range. This is certainly a problem area in music because just about every instrument produces sound at 400hz. Pulling that down a couple of db and at the same time giving a slight boost at around 3-3500hz should really bring out the dialog without being obvious. If you pick it up a couple of db at 3K you might also add about 1/2 that amount at around 5k, see how that sounds and if you can make it seem natural with your setup.
DaveMcLain is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 03-17-2016, 06:17 PM
Member
 
highmr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Ashford View Post
I recently got my a3050 (been waiting forever!) and had always planned to manually EQ each channel using REW, the built in PEQ and my behringer FDP as I thought I could do a better job than YPAO.

The a3050 built in PEQ is certainly a powerful and useful tool, but is (needlessly?) limited by the set frequencies of the filters. Even with the 7 filter limit per channel, it would have been much simpler and would have given better results had I been able to specify more exactly the frequency on which to centre the filters.
Did you check if RSC was doing anything in the time domain, not just frequency response? This would be a difference with full manual EQ. Not sure what happens if you start by copying over settings - RSC might be retained even as you adjust.

LCR: Hsu HB-1 MK2, HC-1 MK2..........Subwoofers: Rhythmik D15SE, Hsu VTF-2 MK4
Receiver: Denon 1712CI, 2310CI........Networking: Roku 3, WDTV Live......Other: MiniDSP 2x4 RevB
Blu-Ray: Oppo BDP-80, Sony S590.....TV: Samsung PN60F8500, Panasonic TC-50PU54
Atmos/DTS-X: 5.1.4; RSL C34E speakers; receiver TBD
highmr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors
Gear in this thread



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