"Official" Audyssey thread Part II - Page 34 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 13498Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 09:03 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,293
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1078 Post(s)
Liked: 552
Yes. Adding or deleting spkrs from the configuration settings causes Audyssey to drop out.
pepar is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 09:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaranddeeman View Post
Does Audyssey disables itself, if you set center to "none" (and it is and was actually present during Audyssey run).
I just want to temporarily enable or disable the center and want to know if Audyssey will be lost in this process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Yes. Adding or deleting spkrs from the configuration settings causes Audyssey to drop out.
Jeff,

I don't believe that is quite right. I agree that you can't add channels without disabling Audyssey, but you can disable them. Audyssey will certainly continue to run if you disable your subs, or your satellite channels, and I believe that it will if you prefer to use a phantom center, as well. It would be pretty easy to test, in any event. Audyssey light, or not, DEQ wouldn't engage if Audyssey were off, so you could tell immediately.

Regards,
Mike
mthomas47 is offline  
post #993 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 11:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
First, turning off all EQ to your four height speakers wouldn't necessarily make them sound the same.
That's not actually my goal for doing this.

Quote:
Second, I don't believe that temporarily wiring 4 speakers into one channel and running the 75Hz test tone would work. It would completely mess-up the distance and trim settings, even if the calibration ran, and the EQ were set.
Distance, crossover and level settings can all be changed manually without turning off Audyssey. Unfortunately, EQ cannot.

Quote:
If you could go into a little detail on what the problem is with your current XT-32 calibration, it would help. I believe you when you say that the reasons for wanting to do this are complicated. But it can't be more complicated than trying to problem-solve a problem without being able to define it. I like problem-solving, but I'm in the dark on this one.
I warned you that this gets complicated.

I have a 7.1.6 Dolby Atmos system with height speakers in the Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear locations. In order to achieve this, I have to run 3 AV receivers simultaneously. My primary Atmos receiver (the Denon 5200W) decodes its maximum speaker count of 7.1.4, using Top Front and Top Rear positions. All four height channels are exported through the pre-outs to a pair of secondary AVRs. The TF-Left and TR-Left channels go to the stereo inputs on one AVR. The TF-Right and TR-Right channels go to the third AVR. Each of the secondary AVRs uses ProLogic II to extract a center channel (Top Middle) between them.

In order for the PLII matrixing to work properly, each secondary AVR has to receive a 100% identical signal from the left and right (really front and rear) channels, so that it can interpret any mono content in common between them and direct it to the center. That means, in the primary AVR, those two channels must be set for the same level, the same crossover, the same distance, and the same EQ. If any one of those parameters differs between the front and the rear channels, the secondary AVR interprets the signal as stereo and will not extract it to the center.

I can manually change the volume level, crossover and distance settings to match in the primary AVR. (If necessary, I can adjust the channel levels in the secondary AVR afterwards.) However, different EQ settings between the front and rear causes the PLII matrixing in the secondary AVR to fail. Sounds that should come from the middle either come from the front and rear, or are spread between all three channels.

Currently, the only way to get the PLII center extraction to work is to turn off Audyssey in the primary AVR. With all EQ settings at 0, I then manually match the other parameters (level, crossover, distance) and everything works properly. Sounds that belong in the Top Middle channel come out exclusively from the Top Middle speaker.

The problem, of course, is that I can't benefit from Audyssey room correction or Dynamic EQ. I like those features. The sound quality in my room is a little flat without them.

Because I can't manually tweak Audyssey settings, I am willing to sacrifice the accuracy of the EQ in the height channels (where accuracy is less critical) so long as the signal from those channels is output with identical settings, thus allowing the downstream PLII decoder to work properly.

Even if the height channels wind up with inaccurate EQ, I will be able to calibrate their levels and do some tweaking in the secondary AVRs. Meanwhile, all of my 7.1 ground channels should once again benefit from Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ.

So here's the question: Before doing an Audyssey calc, if I were to temporarily wire the TFL and TRL channels to play back through the same speaker (TFL for example), and then do the same with the channels on the other side, what's the likelihood that Audyssey will actually assign them identical EQ settings? If that somehow worked, I would then fix the wiring afterwards so that the channels actually play back through the correct speakers.

My fear is that I'll go through this whole exercise and do a full Audyssey calc, only to find at the end that the microphone picked up very subtle differences in room tone or ambient noise between one test tone and the next, and assign those speakers different EQ anyway. If that happened, it would hamper the downstream PLII processing and defeat the purpose of the experiment. I'd be better off not using Audyssey.

Does that help you make sense of their weird request?

Thanks.
garygarrison likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
 
post #994 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
That's not actually my goal for doing this.

Distance, crossover and level settings can all be changed manually without turning off Audyssey. Unfortunately, EQ cannot.

I warned you that this gets complicated.

I have a 7.1.6 Dolby Atmos system with height speakers in the Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear locations. In order to achieve this, I have to run 3 AV receivers simultaneously. My primary Atmos receiver (the Denon 5200W) decodes its maximum speaker count of 7.1.4, using Top Front and Top Rear positions. All four height channels are exported through the pre-outs to a pair of secondary AVRs. The TF-Left and TR-Left channels go to the stereo inputs on one AVR. The TF-Right and TR-Right channels go to the third AVR. Each of the secondary AVRs uses ProLogic II to extract a center channel (Top Middle) between them.

In order for the PLII matrixing to work properly, each secondary AVR has to receive a 100% identical signal from the left and right (really front and rear) channels, so that it can interpret any mono content in common between them and direct it to the center. That means, in the primary AVR, those two channels must be set for the same level, the same crossover, the same distance, and the same EQ. If any one of those parameters differs between the front and the rear channels, the secondary AVR interprets the signal as stereo and will not extract it to the center.

I can manually change the volume level, crossover and distance settings to match in the primary AVR. (If necessary, I can adjust the channel levels in the secondary AVR afterwards.) However, different EQ settings between the front and rear causes the PLII matrixing in the secondary AVR to fail. Sounds that should come from the middle either come from the front and rear, or are spread between all three channels.

Currently, the only way to get the PLII center extraction to work is to turn off Audyssey in the primary AVR. With all EQ settings at 0, I then manually match the other parameters (level, crossover, distance) and everything works properly. Sounds that belong in the Top Middle channel come out exclusively from the Top Middle speaker.

The problem, of course, is that I can't benefit from Audyssey room correction or Dynamic EQ. I like those features. The sound quality in my room is a little flat without them.

Because I can't manually tweak Audyssey settings, I am willing to sacrifice the accuracy of the EQ in the height channels (where accuracy is less critical) so long as the signal from those channels is output with identical settings, thus allowing the downstream PLII decoder to work properly.

Even if the height channels wind up with inaccurate EQ, I will be able to calibrate their levels and do some tweaking in the secondary AVRs. Meanwhile, all of my 7.1 ground channels should once again benefit from Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ.

So here's the question: Before doing an Audyssey calc, if I were to temporarily wire the TFL and TRL channels to play back through the same speaker (TFL for example), and then do the same with the channels on the other side, what's the likelihood that Audyssey will actually assign them identical EQ settings? If that somehow worked, I would then fix the wiring afterwards so that the channels actually play back through the correct speakers.

My fear is that I'll go through this whole exercise and do a full Audyssey calc, only to find at the end that the microphone picked up very subtle differences in room tone or ambient noise between one test tone and the next, and assign those speakers different EQ anyway. If that happened, it would hamper the downstream PLII processing and defeat the purpose of the experiment. I'd be better off not using Audyssey.

Does that help you make sense of their weird request?

Thanks.
Hi Josh,

It does help me to understand what you are trying to do, and why. But, I have no idea whether or not it would actually work. It seems to me that the only way it could work is if you treated all four height speakers as a single channel. That is what you had originally proposed doing. Is that still what you meant when you said "and then do the same with the channels on the other side"? Any division of the 4 height speakers into multiple channels would undoubtedly result in different filters being set.

If you wired all 4 into a single channel, I can't quite decide whether the test tones would work with sound coming from four places, or what that would do to an amplifier, trying to make 4 speakers simultaneously produce a 75Hz test tone. But if Audyssey even let you proceed with the calibration, then I think that the filters set (however bizarre they might be) would be the same for all 4 speakers. And then, as we have agreed, you could manually change crossovers, distances, and levels to make them identical. (I think that they would already be identical, just identically wrong.)

But once identical, would you ever be able to change them after that, or would resetting any of them invalidate the process again, and negate the ability of PLII to pass them as a mono signal? If you could never change them, then having all 4 height channels with the same trim level doesn't sound like a good idea from a sound quality or imaging standpoint, irrespective of how good or bad the EQ for those speakers was. I'm a little stumped!

Something else that I just thought of is, what happens when, after running Audyssey, you try to rewire the speakers into the proper channels? Wouldn't Audyssey detect that as adding new channels and invalidate the calibration, thereby disabling Audyssey? In that case, you would just be better off leaving them as they are, and running them as a single mono channel. But I don't know what that would do to your AVR, with 4 speakers on one channel. Actually, I suspect that I do know.

I know you were hoping for a better answer than, you'll just have to try it, but I think you are breaking new ground here, and I am not aware of any precedent for it. Perhaps Chris K., who hangs out on Facebook, could give you a definitive answer to this, but even he might tell you that only by trying it would you be able to find out how well it actually works, and what it might do to your AVR in the process. I am not really seeing a way to make this work.

I wish I could help more.

Regards,
Mike

I decided to come back and make one more, hopefully final, edit to this post. I think that in order to preserve the identical Audyssey filters, thereby enabling PLII to pass the signal, the 4 height speakers would have to remain wired into the single channel. And I think you could get around the amplifier issue by running something like a 400 watt monoblock amp to drive the 2 Ohm (?) or whatever load.

But the harder problem to resolve would still be having 4 height speakers playing the same sounds, at the same levels, from 4 different locations. It seems to me that that would defeat the whole purpose of having them to enhance the surround experience. What might work better, though, would be to run either two front height speakers or two rear height speakers, as a single monaural channel. The two front heights, for instance, would create a phantom center that might still enhance the front soundstage in a way that simultaneous front and rear speakers would not. Just a thought.
garygarrison likes this.

Last edited by mthomas47; 08-20-2016 at 02:40 PM.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #995 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 04:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 627 Post(s)
Liked: 752
Josh,

You may already know how this is done. JBL once printed a method of running a mono signal through 4 speakers without an impedance disaster. It was called something like "series by parallel," and avoided the impedance falling to about 2 Ohms, offending the amplifier in the way Mike pointed out it might. I think it involved wiring two nominally 8 ohm speakers in series, which would give you 16 Ohms, then doing the same with the other pair of speakers, producing two independent 16 Ohm circuits, then wiring these two whole circuits in parallel, which would bring the whole conglomerate down to 8 Ohms nominal, which the amplifier would like. Caution: I am not qualified to offer this as a suggestion, so don't do it until an electrical engineer or physicist responds, unless you are one, in which case, this post was unnecessary. I have no idea whether the speakers would stay in phase (maintain proper polarity), but you could use a 1.5V battery and see if all four cones move in the same direction (either all out, or all in).

OR, to minimize location differences that would otherwise cause Audyssey to use different EQ, could you temporarily put all 4 height speakers together, on the same wall, cheek by jowl and chin by top? The resulting EQ wouldn't be particularly accurate, but your other channels should be EQ's well by Audyssey.

OR, if you have a mixing board, could you mix the channels into a mono signal before handing them over to PLII?

I'm not sure whether Audyssey "sees" any of the above as adding or subtracting channels. If it does, it may turn off.

This is sounding more and more like a set of questions for Chris K. at Audyssey.
mthomas47 likes this.

Last edited by garygarrison; 08-20-2016 at 04:33 PM.
garygarrison is offline  
post #996 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 05:40 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
You may already know how this is done. JBL once printed a method of running a mono signal through 4 speakers without an impedance disaster. It was called something like "series by parallel," and avoided the impedance falling to about 2 Ohms, offending the amplifier in the way Mike pointed out it might.

...

OR, to minimize location differences that would otherwise cause Audyssey to use different EQ, could you temporarily put all 4 height speakers together, on the same wall, cheek by jowl and chin by top? The resulting EQ wouldn't be particularly accurate, but your other channels should be EQ's well by Audyssey.
I think I may not have explained my proposed solution clearly enough. I don't want to wire two speakers together (either in series or in parallel) so that the same sound plays out of them. I was thinking something like this:

In one of the two secondary AVRs, I leave the pre-outs from the primary AVR connected to the appropriate stereo inputs. However, I would then wire the speaker terminals for both the left and the right to the same speaker (for example, the Top Front speaker). When the test tone for the left plays, it comes out of the Top Front speaker. When the test tone for the right plays, it comes out of the same Top Front speaker. As far as either AVR knows, the left and right are connected to two separate speakers. Yet the sound the Audyssey mic measures should theoretically sound the same. Hopefully, Audyssey applies the same EQ to both left and right.

Because test tones are each isolated to one specific channel, and because they play individually, I shouldn't have an issue with audio from two channels conflicting or merging when they go to the same speaker.

If this works, when everything is done the Top Front speaker will actually be EQed correctly. Only the Top Rear speaker will have inaccurate EQ, because it's using a filter meant for Top Front. (The Top Middle channel that PLII derives will also be inaccurate for the same reason.) So long as all 7.1 of my ground speakers, my two subwoofers, and the two Top Front channels are all correct, I think I can live with that.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #997 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 06:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
It seems to me that the only way it could work is if you treated all four height speakers as a single channel. That is what you had originally proposed doing. Is that still what you meant when you said "and then do the same with the channels on the other side"? Any division of the 4 height speakers into multiple channels would undoubtedly result in different filters being set.
What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other.

Quote:
If you wired all 4 into a single channel, I can't quite decide whether the test tones would work with sound coming from four places, or what that would do to an amplifier, trying to make 4 speakers simultaneously produce a 75Hz test tone. But if Audyssey even let you proceed with the calibration, then I think that the filters set (however bizarre they might be) would be the same for all 4 speakers. And then, as we have agreed, you could manually change crossovers, distances, and levels to make them identical. (I think that they would already be identical, just identically wrong.)
See my response to Gary above.

Quote:
But once identical, would you ever be able to change them after that, or would resetting any of them invalidate the process again, and negate the ability of PLII to pass them as a mono signal? If you could never change them, then having all 4 height channels with the same trim level doesn't sound like a good idea from a sound quality or imaging standpoint, irrespective of how good or bad the EQ for those speakers was. I'm a little stumped!
The signal from the primary Atmos AVR needs to be identical in all respects. The Top Front and Top Rear will be set for the same trim level and I can never touch that. (As I'm currently doing it without Audyssey, I have both Top Front and Top Rear set for +5 dB.) If that were the only control I had over those speakers, it might result in one being inappropriately louder than the other. (When properly level matched, my Top Front speaker should only be +3 dB. I've bumped it up 2 dB too loud.)

Fortunately, I can compensate for that in the second AVR by adjusting trim levels there. When I pull the trim for the Top Front speaker down to -2 dB, it offsets the inappropriate gain. Doing it that way will not affect the center channel extraction. The key point is that the PLII decoder believes that it's receiving a mono signal, not a stereo signal. The trims are applied after the decoding.

Consider what happens when you're using just a single AVR. You have three channels across the front of your room, and you play a movie that's encoded as 2.0 mono (some classic film in black & white). When calibrated, your left speaker may have a 2 dB higher gain than the right, yet center channel matrixing still works when the AVR receives a mono signal.

What I have to do in the primary AVR is make sure that the signal is indeed mono. If the trim or the EQ in that receiver differs for one channel, the downstream AVR will read it as stereo and won't matrix correctly.

Quote:
Something else that I just thought of is, what happens when, after running Audyssey, you try to rewire the speakers into the proper channels? Wouldn't Audyssey detect that as adding new channels and invalidate the calibration, thereby disabling Audyssey?
I'm not going to change my Amp Assign settings. I'm going to physically attach speaker wire to the wrong speaker. I'll change it after Audyssey is complete, and Audyssey will never know the difference.

Quote:
I know you were hoping for a better answer than, you'll just have to try it, but I think you are breaking new ground here, and I am not aware of any precedent for it.
Oh great, this wasn't something I especially wanted to be a pioneer for.

Thanks for trying, though. If nothing else, talking this out is helping me to formulate a plan.
garygarrison likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #998 of 3823 Old 08-20-2016, 08:44 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.
garygarrison likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #999 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 12:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 627 Post(s)
Liked: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.
When I finally found the 8 mic positions that seemed to work the best, I ran the calibration a few times. My results varied slightly, too. But I had a hard time getting the one mic into exactly the same 8 positions each time. I stopped doing re-runs about two or three years ago when the last run produced really good sound.
D Bone and audiofan1 like this.
garygarrison is offline  
post #1000 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 05:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.
Hi Josh,

You are very welcome for any meager help I gave you, considering that I misunderstood how you were wiring things. FWIW, I don't think that minor variations from calibration to calibration would have an effect on what you are trying to achieve. As long as your calibration technique were diligent, what difference would it make if a trim level varied slightly from the last one you did? In theory, as long as everything were correct for your current calibration, then all of your settings and filters would be internally consistent, and you would achieve your objective.

One problem that I still foresee is contained in this passage: "When the test tone for the left plays, it comes out of the Top Front speaker. When the test tone for the right plays, it comes out of the same Top Front speaker. As far as either AVR knows, the left and right are connected to two separate speakers. Yet the sound the Audyssey mic measures should theoretically sound the same. Hopefully, Audyssey applies the same EQ to both left and right."

I can see how to make this work for two speakers, but I can't quite see how to make it work for four. But that may just be my own inability to visualize this as well as you can, so be patient with me. I was initially confused about how you could wire two speakers together in such a way that sound would only come out of one of them. I thought that sound would have to come from both of them when the test tone is played. And that wouldn't be a problem from an EQ standpoint (the same filters would be set as a hybrid of the two sounds) as long as Audyssey treated the test tones as valid, and allowed the calibration to proceed. But even if the sound only comes out of a single speaker, for the speaker pair, I still don't see how you can get away without using two channels in this scenario, And if you are using two channels, you can't get identical EQ for the four speakers.

It is extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible, that Audyssey could ever apply the same EQ to two separate channels. That's the whole point of playing test tones through every channel on a separate basis. It's so that Audyssey can set thousands of filters for each channel, based on that channel's specific interaction with the room. If two speakers could be identical in every way, their placement within a room, and the resulting room/speaker interaction, would rob them of that identicality. Audyssey attempts to return them to some correspondence by EQing the room/speaker interaction to about +/- 3db at every frequency. I know you know all this, but unless I am misunderstanding something again (which is very possible ) you may be overlooking it in your desire to accomplish this.

The two sub "channels" (one channel, in fact) in XT-32 are the only ones where Audyssey truly EQ's (sets identical filters) the two channels as one. The only thing that Audyssey does differently for the two sub "channels" is to set timing and trim level independently. But all other channels are fully independent.

I want your plan to work! And I am not taking pleasure in finding potential issues with it, so I hope that I am somehow misinterpreting things again. Personally, I might still try it anyway, out of sheer stubbornness, hoping to bully PLII into doing what I wanted it to. But I believe, as I said in my previous post, that any plan which involves running your four speakers into more than one channel is doomed from the standpoint of identical EQ.

I still think that the idea is extremely ingenious, and would like to know how things turn out if you decide to try it.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I'm not going to delete my post because I enjoyed trying to think it through, but it appears that I was still misinterpreting something important, involving the use of three AVR's.

"What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other."

Now it finally all makes sense. Duh! And I can't see any reason why it shouldn't work. Well, that was easy.
garygarrison likes this.

Last edited by mthomas47; 08-21-2016 at 06:41 AM.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1001 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 06:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
ggsantafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Solar Powered in the Land of Enchantment
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Liked: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other.



See my response to Gary above.



The signal from the primary Atmos AVR needs to be identical in all respects. The Top Front and Top Rear will be set for the same trim level and I can never touch that. (As I'm currently doing it without Audyssey, I have both Top Front and Top Rear set for +5 dB.) If that were the only control I had over those speakers, it might result in one being inappropriately louder than the other. (When properly level matched, my Top Front speaker should only be +3 dB. I've bumped it up 2 dB too loud.)

Fortunately, I can compensate for that in the second AVR by adjusting trim levels there. When I pull the trim for the Top Front speaker down to -2 dB, it offsets the inappropriate gain. Doing it that way will not affect the center channel extraction. The key point is that the PLII decoder believes that it's receiving a mono signal, not a stereo signal. The trims are applied after the decoding.

Consider what happens when you're using just a single AVR. You have three channels across the front of your room, and you play a movie that's encoded as 2.0 mono (some classic film in black & white). When calibrated, your left speaker may have a 2 dB higher gain than the right, yet center channel matrixing still works when the AVR receives a mono signal.

What I have to do in the primary AVR is make sure that the signal is indeed mono. If the trim or the EQ in that receiver differs for one channel, the downstream AVR will read it as stereo and won't matrix correctly.



I'm not going to change my Amp Assign settings. I'm going to physically attach speaker wire to the wrong speaker. I'll change it after Audyssey is complete, and Audyssey will never know the difference.



Oh great, this wasn't something I especially wanted to be a pioneer for.

Thanks for trying, though. If nothing else, talking this out is helping me to formulate a plan.
Check out this link from the Dolby Atmos Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attach...8&d=1439761981
It should take you to a pdf. file created by AVS contributer Scott Simonian - my understanding is that Scott has sucessfully implemented a 7.1.6 system with the addition of one receiver. I'm sure he'd be willing to share his process with you in greater detail.

ggsantafe is offline  
post #1002 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
FWIW, I don't think that minor variations from calibration to calibration would have an effect on what you are trying to achieve. As long as your calibration technique were diligent, what difference would it make if a trim level varied slightly from the last one you did? In theory, as long as everything were correct for your current calibration, then all of your settings and filters would be internally consistent, and you would achieve your objective.
My point was that I'm afraid that, even if I play the two test tones out of the same speaker in the same location, Audyssey will still find them to be slightly different than one another and apply different EQ.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #1003 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 11:42 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post
Check out this link from the Dolby Atmos Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attach...8&d=1439761981
It should take you to a pdf. file created by AVS contributer Scott Simonian - my understanding is that Scott has sucessfully implemented a 7.1.6 system with the addition of one receiver. I'm sure he'd be willing to share his process with you in greater detail.
Scott and I have corresponded in the "Beyond 7.1.4" thread. The current implementation I'm running with 3 AVRs was developed by Scott, and is affectionately knows as "Scatmos." Prior to recent changes, I had developed my own method for deriving 7.1.6 using a total of 2 AVRs ("Zatmos"), but Scott's method is better and I have upgraded.

Scott doesn't use Audyssey or any EQ, so he's not having these same problems I am.

When I was running 2 AVRs for Zatmos, I didn't comprehend these problems with EQ matching, and actually didn't realize how poorly the second AVR was matrixing. Since obtaining a copy of the Dolby Atmos demo disc that has 7.1.6 test tones, I discovered how hard it is to get this right.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #1004 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
My point was that I'm afraid that, even if I play the two test tones out of the same speaker in the same location, Audyssey will still find them to be slightly different than one another and apply different EQ.
I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.
garygarrison likes this.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1005 of 3823 Old 08-21-2016, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 627 Post(s)
Liked: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.
... hundreds of filaments later ....
mthomas47 likes this.
garygarrison is offline  
post #1006 of 3823 Old 08-22-2016, 08:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.
It's going to be a few days before I have time to do this. In the meantime, I'll try to watch a bunch of stuff with Audyssey off and see how much I really miss it.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #1007 of 3823 Old 08-22-2016, 09:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It's going to be a few days before I have time to do this. In the meantime, I'll try to watch a bunch of stuff with Audyssey off and see how much I really miss it.
If Audyssey is helping a lot up in the mid-range and higher, that's one thing. But if it's only making a significant difference in the modal region, there might be easier ways to improve the EQ without having to jump through so many hoops. Something like a miniDSP, for instance, might be a good alternative.
D Bone likes this.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1008 of 3823 Old 08-22-2016, 10:24 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,747
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2478 Post(s)
Liked: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
If Audyssey is helping a lot up in the mid-range and higher, that's one thing. But if it's only making a significant difference in the modal region, there might be easier ways to improve the EQ without having to jump through so many hoops. Something like a miniDSP, for instance, might be a good alternative.
My system is complex enough, and I've already spent far too much money on it. I'm trying to accomplish this without introducing any additional components.
mthomas47 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #1009 of 3823 Old 08-23-2016, 02:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
The way that Audyssey EQ's multiple subs has always been very confusing. It was confusing before Chris clarified how it works, and it is still confusing now. I am going to post a comment I made, and then the response, and I would like to get some additional opinions on this. I don't believe that Audyssey can EQ two subs with different capabilities, no matter how they are connected, without immediately "hearing" and identifying the F3 point of the lesser sub, and stopping the EQ at that F3 point of the lesser sub. I don't think it's possible to trick Audyssey with a Y-connector now, any more than it was before XT-32 offered the Sub 1, Sub 2 channels. But I may be completely misunderstanding something here, so please help me out on this. Thanks!

"I like what Audyssey is doing for you. I think you would do just fine just adding the MBM on a Y-cable off of sub1 and time align yourself so Audyssey can do its magic. You could even try just placing the MBM nearfield, flipping the MBM phase to 180° and letting Audyssey work from there.
Marc,"

"I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter. My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point.

Just as an added note to that, as far as I can tell Audyssey didn't change its actual sub EQ methodology when they developed SubEQ. So, previously people were using multiple subs into one sub channel, and that made time alignment and level matching more difficult. But the subs were always EQed as one. When Audyssey added the second sub port, it gave people the opportunity to time align and level match subs more easily, but Audyssey continued to EQ however many subs were in the system based on their combined response. So, one weak link in the chain would still result in a loss of EQ below that point.

I have been trying to think through a way around this, and discussing it with some other people, and so far I am coming up empty. If there is a way to trick Audyssey into ignoring the fact that an MBM rolls-off at about 50Hz, or a weaker sub rolls off wherever, so that Audyssey will still EQ the other sub, or subs, in a system down to their in-room F3's, I'm not seeing it so far. I have been hoping that with enough subs, going to 15Hz for instance, the Audyssey mic just wouldn't notice an MBM rolling off at 50Hz. But as sensitive as the Audyssey mic is, I'm not sure whether that is really a workable idea or not, even with a lot of subs.

For the time being, until someone demonstrates a feasible workaround, I would assume that Audyssey will stop EQing at the detected F3 point of a sub, no matter how it is configured, and that incorporating an MBM into a system would require either sacrificing EQ below its roll-off point, or adding outboard EQ in the form of something like a miniDSP.

I certainly could be missing something here, but if I am, I would like to understand your idea better.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I think I see what you are saying here, or at least what you could be saying. If you ran Audyssey with just one sub in play, and then attached a second sub to that same channel with a Y-splitter, Audyssey wouldn't know that you had added a second sub, and would consequently continue to EQ the first sub down to its F3 point. Of course, the trade-off would be that Audyssey would then apply the same EQ to the second sub, as well, potentially trying to boost it below its F3 point."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47
Marc,

I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter. My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point.


"No, in this case Audyssey will only see the two as single sub with the F3 point of the deeper sub."

Quote:
Just as an added note to that, as far as I can tell Audyssey didn't change its actual sub EQ methodology when they developed SubEQ. So, previously people were using multiple subs into one sub channel, and that made time alignment and level matching more difficult. But the subs were always EQed as one. When Audyssey added the second sub port, it gave people the opportunity to time align and level match subs more easily, but Audyssey continued to EQ however many subs were in the system based on their combined response. So, one weak link in the chain would still result in a loss of EQ below that point.

"Just about every system out there time aligns and EQs multiple subs as one. You would be one bad MF if you could manually EQ each sub separately, and get better results."

Quote:
I have been trying to think through a way around this, and discussing it with some other people, and so far I am coming up empty. If there is a way to trick Audyssey into ignoring the fact that an MBM rolls-off at about 50Hz, or a weaker sub rolls off wherever, so that Audyssey will still EQ the other sub, or subs, in a system down to their in-room F3's, I'm not seeing it so far. I have been hoping that with enough subs, going to 15Hz for instance, the Audyssey mic just wouldn't notice an MBM rolling off at 50Hz. But as sensitive as the Audyssey mic is, I'm not sure whether that is really a workable idea or not, even with a lot of subs.

"The Y-splitter is the work around. Audyssey only detects however many subs connected to sub1 out as a single sub. "
Quote:
Edit: I think I see what you are saying here, or at least what you could be saying. If you ran Audyssey with just one sub in play, and then attached a second sub to that same channel with a Y-splitter, Audyssey wouldn't know that you had added a second sub, and would consequently continue to EQ the first sub down to its F3 point. Of course, the trade-off would be that Audyssey wouldn't EQ the second sub (an MBM, in this case) at all. Is that what you meant?

"No, with the Y-splitter Audyssey will do its thing on both subs combined. You just have to manually time align or stack them so they are equidistant from MLP.

I had difficulty time aligning the MBMs with the subs so I made the change to Y the two subs as sub1 and Y the two MBMs as sub 2. The MBMs are equidistant from the MLP. The PSA subs are ±1' from MLP."
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1010 of 3823 Old 08-23-2016, 02:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
I decided to clarify one aspect of my own thinking simply because the subject can be confusing. I have assumed that if two subs are connected by a Y-splitter, that their respective gains will then be set to produce "X" SPL, whether "X" is 75db, or 78db, or 80db. Then, at the point that the lesser sub drops out (lets say a mid-bass module set for 50Hz) the combined SPL of the two subs will necessarily drop as well. So, that even if the stronger sub continues unabated down to 15Hz, Audyssey will "recognize" the combined F3 point of the two subs as about 50Hz, which is where the combined volume necessarily dropped. And, consequently, Audyssey will stop setting filters for the sub (or pair) at about 50Hz, or whatever that combined F3 point is.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1011 of 3823 Old 08-23-2016, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,611
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
I decided to clarify one aspect of my own thinking simply because the subject can be confusing. I have assumed that if two subs are connected by a Y-splitter, that their respective gains will then be set to produce "X" SPL, whether "X" is 75db, or 78db, or 80db. Then, at the point that the lesser sub drops out (lets say a mid-bass module set for 50Hz) the combined SPL of the two subs will necessarily drop as well. So, that even if the stronger sub continues unabated down to 15Hz, Audyssey will "recognize" the combined F3 point of the two subs as about 50Hz, which is where the combined volume necessarily dropped. And, consequently, Audyssey will stop setting filters for the sub (or pair) at about 50Hz, or whatever that combined F3 point is.
Mike,

Here's a Q&A I had with Chris on the subject:

Q: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

A: Hi Feri,
If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.

Q: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.

A: Yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.
mogorf is online now  
post #1012 of 3823 Old 08-23-2016, 03:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
Mike,

Here's a Q&A I had with Chris on the subject:

Q: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

A: Hi Feri,
If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.

Q: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.

A: Yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.

Hi Feri,

Thanks for responding. I believe that is an older conversation that you had with Chris. I think that he clarified things sometime within the last year (?) when he said that Audyssey would simply stop setting filters at the combined F3 point of the subs. Since then, I believe that most of us with multiple subs have made assumptions similar to those in my post.

But that's why I am seeking clarification now, because for years, the quote you posted from Chris was the prevailing wisdom--that it was possible to damage a weaker sub by over-driving it, because Audyssey would EQ below the F3 of the weaker sub, or that a stronger sub would somehow be limited by the weaker sub, and have its own frequency response curtailed.

Chris said it was neither of those things, but that Audyssey would simply stop setting filters at the combined F3 point so that a weaker sub would not be damaged. I have forgotten who pinned him down a little more on the subject, and I wouldn't want to bet exactly when it happened. But I recall it as being after the thread split. And if Audyssey does, in fact, stop EQing at the combined F3 point of the subs, then I believe it would have to work as I suggested in my post.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Looking back at Post 92 in this thread, it appears that the new information was available to us before the threads split. If I have time, I will try to find the original conversation with Chris from the old thread. But that may take a while. I had originally thought it was about a year ago, and then I remembered it as being part of this new thread. Apparently, that first instinct was the correct one.

Last edited by mthomas47; 08-23-2016 at 03:52 PM.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1013 of 3823 Old 08-23-2016, 04:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1014 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 05:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
asere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1587 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Guys I redid Audyssey after we changed the family room flooring from carpet to tile. Now I added bass traps at the MLP and an area rug in the middle of the room.
Do I need to redo Audyssey once more?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
asere is offline  
post #1015 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 06:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,611
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
This is what I was looking for, Page 2643 from February of this year.

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
Mike, the link doesn't take me there. Can you give the post#?
mogorf is online now  
post #1016 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 06:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post
Guys I redid Audyssey after we changed the family room flooring from carpet to tile. Now I added bass traps at the MLP and an area rug in the middle of the room.
Do I need to redo Audyssey once more?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Outstanding! The bass traps and the area rug should help. You already know the answer to your question. You just changed the speaker/room interaction, so the old filters are no longer relevant.
garygarrison likes this.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1017 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 06:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
asere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1587 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
Outstanding! The bass traps and the area rug should help. You already know the answer to your question. You just changed the speaker/room interaction, so the old filters are no longer relevant.
I will gladly redo audyssey when the kids are asleep
Do you think the traps are too high? I could bring them down some but they stick out about 5.25 inches and head would get in the way.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
asere is offline  
post #1018 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 06:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
Mike, the link doesn't take me there. Can you give the post#?

Hi Feri,

That's strange, the link works for me. I would just go to Page 2643. It's a fairly lengthy discussion that runs for most of that page, starting as I recall, with that same quote from Chris. And I misremembered when I said that Chris had revised the communication that you cited. This was evidence that Audyssey does not, in fact, EQ below the F3 point of the weaker sub in a multi-sub system. It's a sufficiently complicated subject that I think even Chris may have trouble keeping it all straight. I certainly do.

Regards,
Mike
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1019 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 06:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mthomas47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,799
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3407 Post(s)
Liked: 5018
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post
I will gladly redo audyssey when the kids are asleep
Do you think the traps are too high? I could bring them down some but they stick out about 5.25 inches and head would get in the way.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

That's a tough call. I believe that bass traps are most effective in corners where walls meet. The spot where the wall meets the ceiling would work well, but they might look pretty weird there. You could pull them down to floor level, below the sofa, but then you would lose some of the broadband benefit.

I would probably move the sofa at least 12" away from the wall, and move them down some. That would have two benefits. First, you would get fewer secondary reflections from the wall right into your ears if you moved the seating away from the wall a little. Second, with the traps down at ear level, you could absorb some of those secondary reflections to start with. A wall directly behind your head like that is not likely to help your sound quality, but you can certainly mitigate its effects.

Regards,
Mike
garygarrison likes this.
mthomas47 is offline  
post #1020 of 3823 Old 08-24-2016, 07:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
asere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1587 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
That's a tough call. I believe that bass traps are most effective in corners where walls meet. The spot where the wall meets the ceiling would work well, but they might look pretty weird there. You could pull them down to floor level, below the sofa, but then you would lose some of the broadband benefit.

I would probably move the sofa at least 12" away from the wall, and move them down some. That would have two benefits. First, you would get fewer secondary reflections from the wall right into your ears if you moved the seating away from the wall a little. Second, with the traps down at ear level, you could absorb some of those secondary reflections to start with. A wall directly behind your head like that is not likely to help your sound quality, but you can certainly mitigate its effects.

Regards,
Mike
Yeah, GIK was the one to suggest placing traps there because of where the couch is and being broadband it would help with all frequencies. So far it has helped I think just how I have them. When watching a bass heavy movie the bass is more spread out vs before my wife would complain it would hurt her ears with the pressure.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
asere is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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