"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1252 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #37531 of 72532 Old 03-11-2011, 07:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
streetsmart88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Good question... Does the kit lock down the xovers or are they adjustable later by the user. ?


Perhaps our experts can chime in.

The Pro kit doesn't lock the xovers. You can change them after completing the calibration. The clearest fact is that when you change your speakers from "Large" (no xover) to "Small" (xover present), the sub activates (you can physically verify this) and the menu for the xover of the speakers appears.

Based on my understanding, the Pro kit will optimize the filter to whatever xover is pre-selected during the calibration process. Therefore, if you change the xover afterwards, it should theoretically be less optimized. Furthermore, you'd kinda ask yourself why you want to change the xover. Nonetheless, you can still do the change.

In any case, I pre-select "Large" for my front speakers (which can go down to 25 Hz) and then change to "Small" with an 80 Hz xover for action movies. Otherwise, I might toast my power amp.

Mark
streetsmart88 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #37532 of 72532 Old 03-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Senior Member
 
jtara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by drterb View Post


Why are the surrounds in front of the MLP? You're just trying to make use of all of the available space? Put in a popcorn stand in the back, LOL.

Conventional wisdom is that they belong somewhat behind and above the MLP. Really should be behind all listening positions (usually not an issue).

Maybe with the rears it's not a big deal.

But move the MLP forward and you kill a couple of birds.
jtara is offline  
post #37533 of 72532 Old 03-11-2011, 11:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Mattrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nothing wrong with the surrounds slightly in front of you in fact that's where they are meant to be if your running sb's as well.
Mattrix is offline  
post #37534 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 01:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by drterb View Post

I posted this a few pages back, but nobody bit so I figured I'd try one more time before I pull the trigger on a new Onkyo TX-NR3008.

Current speakers are green. MLP is the green X and is 17' from the screen. Screen (100") is the pink outline. Proposed wides are the red boxes. Everything is to scale except the size of the speakers.

The ceiling in this room is only 6'8". The heights would have to be 7' in front of the MLP to acheive a 45 deg angle, so I'm pretty sure using front heights is out.

In order to achieve the proper angle for the front wides, I would have to put them about 9' in front of the MLP (which would leave them 8' away from the rest of the front speakers). Will I get the desired effect from the front wides at this location?? Are they too far away from the front sound stage?? If I can't go 9.1, will the new receiver with Audyssey improve my 7.1 system (My current receiver is a Denon 4802)?? Any recommendations??

Hi drterb,

A couple of observations:
1) You should sit closer to the screen
2) Nearly all of your speakers aren't placed correctly
3) If possible you should turn everything by 180°
4) The screen is probably too big for the room

This is what it should look like (viewing angle 36° which is min. THX viewing distance):


Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #37535 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 161
^+1. Nicely done, markus. Excellent suggestions on better use of a very difficult room layout. And handily illustrated! (But you lost me with #3.)

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #37536 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattrix View Post

Nothing wrong with the surrounds slightly in front of you in fact that's where they are meant to be if your running sb's as well.

I've never seen anything forward of 90 degrees recommended for surrounds, as illustrated here and below.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #37537 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:19 AM
Senior Member
 
lightbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by LD500 View Post

Just read a huge number of pages on this thread and I gather that all A405 mics should work the same on my Denon 4311. However....

When I use the mic included with my Denon 4311 the high frequencies seem to be slightly exaggerated. I purchased a A405 mic off the internet and ran the Audyssey calibration again. The bass cut around 100Hz is slightly less (maybe 1-2 db) and the high frequency boost around 10KHz is slightly less (maybe 2-3 db) than the mic that came with my 4311.

Why is this? Just variation between mics since the toleranace allowed is 2db by Audyssey, and I just happen to have mics at two ends of the allowable spectrum, or are not all A405 mics the same? I don't know what receiver the internet sourced A405 was originally bundled with.

My AVR-4311 came with the A409 microphone.
lightbox is offline  
post #37538 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1987
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #37539 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 04:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1987
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Asking what is shown in certain graphs is "challenging someone"?

Hi Markus. This seems to have got out of hand and I wish I hadn't posted those graphs now. I am well aware of the value of measuring and, in my own limited way, I use the tools at my disposal, which are Audyssey MultEQ XT, my SVS AS-EQ1 and the mics and mic stand, positioned in defined places - and my ears. MultEQ XT doesn't produce any graphs, or indeed any evidence at all in my Onkyo that it has done anything beneficial to the sound. But my ears tell me that there has indeed been a substantial benefit. Similarly, the EQ1 makes a huge and immediately noticeable improvement to the bass in my room, and it produces some sort of graph to support that. Forgive me if I don't undertake substantial additional measurements but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. The sole reason I put those graphs on here was, as I said at the time, because they seemed interesting. There was no Damascene conversion or revelation. I made no recommendations that everyone should move their subs apart by 2 inches and in fact I even said that I had not had any time to even listen thoroughly to the resulting bass in my room. I simply thought that it was interesting that the graphs showed such a difference despite such a small change in sub positions. FWIW, I doubt if I will hear a great deal of difference when I do listen seriously.

But, as Tom Hilton expressed with such superb eloquence in his long, thoughtful and considered response, it is - to me at least - fundamentally nonsensical to disregard the value of the human ear in evaluating what one hears in one's own listening room.

I would never presume to tell you how to spend your time, on your system in your home, and I would simply ask that you respect the same consideration when it comes to my time, my system and my home. You may want to sit measuring everything to the nth degree, but I don't. I am sure that many others on these forums feel the same way as I do. We use the tools at our disposal in the way we want to and we make the final judgement as to whether it is good or bad by using our ears. You mock these ears as "not being measuring instruments" but your mockery is groundless because our ears were never meant to be measuring instruments. They are the interface our brain uses in order to make sense of (and derive pleasure from) acoustical information that is present in our environment. As such, they are almost infinitely sophisticated. Again, as Tom put it so well, no measuring instrument in all of time has listened to something and derived pleasure from it. But if you prefer to measure, measure and measure some more before you can enjoy a movie or an opera or a jazz concert, that is your right and I support your right wholeheartedly. I just ask the same consideration in return. Please, Markus, don't pounce on me like you're Tom and I am Jerry, just sticking a whisker harmlessly out of my mousehole. A little lubrication works far more wonders than a ton of abrasion you know.

To be honest, my main passion isn't 'sound' or 'home theatre'. It's Movies. I watch hundreds of movies a year and derive huge pleasure from doing so. My interest in HT is there for one reason alone: to enable me to make the best of the movies in my own modest HT. Yes, I want to get as close as I can to what the director and sound mixer intended. I want the cinematography to be represented as closely as possible on my own screen as it was on theirs. I want the sound to be as close as I can to what the mixer heard. I want this, not because I care very much about sound or vision as such but because the closer I get to the original intentions of the creators, the greater the emotional impact on me. When that small, frightened 12 year old boy is spying on his father in Road To Perdition, and the brutal murder happens right in front of his eyes, I want my system to take me there - to put me in the place of that 12 year old boy. I want to feel his reactions and his fear. The violent, visceral impact of the gunshots is essential to that. But really, I could care less if there is a 2dB roll off at 8kHz that should be flat. How would I know what those gunshots sound like in real life? Why would I care, so long as the emotional content of the movie is maintained. When, to take another Tom Hanks movie as an example, he is leading the assault on the French beaches in Saving Private Ryan, I want to be there with him. I want the explosions to be deafening. I want to feel the bomb blasts. I want to be scared as bullets whizz from behind me, over my head. I want to instinctively duck as a mortar round explodes in front of me. In other words, I want to be there with Hanks and his men, experiencing something like the emotions they are experiencing. That, to me, is the be-all and end-all of my interest in the technology that makes it possible.

I am not an expert in any aspects of home cinema. What little I have learned has been thanks to the endless help of people on these forums and in this thread in particular. It restores my jaded faith in humanity that people will so selflessly give so much of their time and expertise to help others. I am staggered and in awe when I see people who have posted well over 10 or even 15 thousand times. In my own way, I try to put something back, when I can, by passing on what I have learned to others. If I make a mistake, as I am bound to, I apologise, correct it and try to learn. I am here to learn not to be lectured at.

To everyone who hoped that this particular discussion had faded away, I apologise for resurrecting it with this post, but promise you it will be my last word on the subject

Kind Regards,

Keith
kbarnes701 is offline  
post #37540 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 06:34 AM
Senior Member
 
voigtskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Atkinson NH
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
++++1 For Keith

EAP {First Fifty} OPPO BDP-83 BLU-RAY, Oppo BDP-93 First Batch Issued, Oppo BDP-103 First Batch Issued

 

voigtskins is offline  
post #37541 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 06:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
ghstudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

The Pro kit doesn't lock the xovers. You can change them after completing the calibration. The clearest fact is that when you change your speakers from "Large" (no xover) to "Small" (xover present), the sub activates (you can physically verify this) and the menu for the xover of the speakers appears.

Based on my understanding, the Pro kit will optimize the filter to whatever xover is pre-selected during the calibration process. Therefore, if you change the xover afterwards, it should theoretically be less optimized. Furthermore, you'd kinda ask yourself why you want to change the xover. Nonetheless, you can still do the change.

In any case, I pre-select "Large" for my front speakers (which can go down to 25 Hz) and then change to "Small" with an 80 Hz xover for action movies. Otherwise, I might toast my power amp.

Mark

For each speaker, the pro kit determines the frequency where the sound drops by -3db and it sets that as it's "crossover point"....it ignores any settings you may have made, other than that a speaker exists. It then equalizes the speaker for the full range above that frequency. If your speaker has a -3db point of 40hz, then audyssey will equalize that speaker from 40hz on up. You can then safely set your crossovers to any frequency above that point. You should not set your crossover point below that point because the speaker will be unequalized.

I was questioning that when you review the audyssey settings in the 4311 after doing a pro calibration, the crossover points are the values set during the calibration.....even though I manually changed them. The pro kit does allow you to change the crossovers in the software, but I didn't do that...I just left it at the audyssey determined values, assuming that I could then change it in the 4311. So my question was whether the manual crossover settings override those set by Audyssey when you are running the 4311 with the Audyssey equalization applied.

I think that manual crossover settings override those set during audyssey calibration...but I wanted to get some clarification here.
ghstudio is offline  
post #37542 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 06:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

But you lost me with #3.



Don't know how important the door is.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #37543 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,544
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstudio View Post

I was questioning that when you review the audyssey settings in the 4311 after doing a pro calibration, the crossover points are the values set during the calibration.....even though I manually changed them. The pro kit does allow you to change the crossovers in the software, but I didn't do that...I just left it at the audyssey determined values, assuming that I could then change it in the 4311. So my question was whether the manual crossover settings override those set by Audyssey when you are running the 4311 with the Audyssey equalization applied.

I think that manual crossover settings override those set during audyssey calibration...but I wanted to get some clarification here.

Here is my understanding of how the crossover settings work with the Pro Kit. After the readings have completed, Audyssey analyzes the results and presents several recommended crossover settings for each speaker, in descending order (i.e. the "best" crossover is listed first). You make your crossover selection and click the "next" arrow. Audyssey then calculates the "final" filter values, based on the crossover values you have selected, and downloads the values to the AVR. Audyssey also sets the crossover values in the AVR to the ones you selected in the software.

If, after you have evaluated the results and you want to experiment with different crossover values, you should launch the Pro software, load the measurement file, select different crossover values in the software, generate updated filter files, and load the updated filters into the AVR.

Manually changing the crossover values in the AVR results in a filter file that no longer matches the crossover values, and (IMO) is no longer "reference". I suspect that if I am wrong, someone will correct me.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #37544 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 12:50 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Your understanding is correct.

Jeff
pepar is offline  
post #37545 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I've never seen anything forward of 90 degrees recommended for surrounds

Here's an ITU diagram.
LL
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #37546 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Here's an ITU diagram.

With Audyssey DSX providing wides, the surrounds should stay at 110°.

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is online now  
post #37547 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 01:52 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
counsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

With Audyssey DSX providing wides, the surrounds should stay at 110°.

I left mine at 90°. They sound fantastic.

My surround and surround backs are bipolar towers so YMMV.

doug.

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Counsil Basement HT
counsil is offline  
post #37548 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

With Audyssey DSX providing wides, the surrounds should stay at 110°.

a) I was addressing the general comment from Mr. Soundofmind.

b) Placing the surrounds at 110-deg would be a mistake. There is no precedence for a 7.1 layout (using 4 surrounds) with the Ls/Rs surrounds at 110 degrees. The world has converged on 30/90/150 as the nominal positions as attached per Dolby, DTS, THX, and WSR. One reason Audyssey might put them at 110-deg is just because they neglected to move them when adding the rears. Benign neglect, if you will. One other possibility is to favor DSX over straight 7.1 when DSX is turned off. But that is mere speculation on my part. I've asked Chris why they don't change their diagram to follow standard convention, but he did not reply. Not only does it reduce envelopment to put them at 110-deg, but it disconnects the seamlessness of the surrounds and fronts. I totally agree with Mattrix's comment that the surrounds can even be slightly in front of the 90-degree position with great results. This is supported by the ITU diagram already posted, and by JJ Johnston, now of DTS, who feels that 85-deg is the optimal location for the sides. He discusses such matters in his interview with Scott Wilkinson.

WRT drtreb's room layout, it is basically defined by the wide speakers. With Rw pushed as far forward as possible, that defines the MLP, and that is 10.5' from the screen. A 100" diagonal screen gives a 38-deg viewing angle, which is quite reasonable. The only way to go wider with the low ceiling would be to shift from a 16x9 screen to a 2.40:1 widescreen, but that brings extra complications for "CIH" projection.

Given all of the above, I submit that attached rendition for drtreb's consideration.
LL
LL
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #37549 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 6,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Audyssey also sets the crossover values in the AVR to the ones you selected in the software.

That's not my observation (with a 4311). By the way, it came as quite a surprise. I sometimes wonder if I should reset the AVR and start over but the output sounds fine and room measurements look reasonable.
bodosom is offline  
post #37550 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 02:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jmschnur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: VA MD DC area
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Using an Audyssey pro kit my center cinema I speaker the mulitpro program has a reported trim of 6 whilst a good phonic meter says it should be -.5 to match my left main. The Cinema i is 2.5' from front wall and 2' from ceiling aimed at listeners heads that are 10' away . MLP is about 4.5' from rear wall.

This result was 1st obtained with 12 measurements and then on another day with 15.


Normal Integra mic gave normal trims for center during a standard Audyssey calibration. The trim for the other 6 speakers are similar with the pro kit results. The Center speaker trim is close to the one obtaiined with my Phonic meter to match my left main.

Unit is Integra 80.2 xt32

All other pro kit trims and all xovers make sense. Corrected center trim sounds fine in system with my vantage lr speakers and nht dipole surrounds.

Thanks for your advice.
jmschnur is offline  
post #37551 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
ghstudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Here is my understanding of how the crossover settings work with the Pro Kit. After the readings have completed, Audyssey analyzes the results and presents several recommended crossover settings for each speaker, in descending order (i.e. the "best" crossover is listed first). You make your crossover selection and click the "next" arrow. Audyssey then calculates the "final" filter values, based on the crossover values you have selected, and downloads the values to the AVR. Audyssey also sets the crossover values in the AVR to the ones you selected in the software.

If, after you have evaluated the results and you want to experiment with different crossover values, you should launch the Pro software, load the measurement file, select different crossover values in the software, generate updated filter files, and load the updated filters into the AVR.

Manually changing the crossover values in the AVR results in a filter file that no longer matches the crossover values, and (IMO) is no longer "reference". I suspect that if I am wrong, someone will correct me.

Now I am getting very confused! I don't believe that Audyssey sets any filters differently based on the crossover point selected......in fact, the Audyssey recommendation is that after Audyssey setup is run in a processor, the crossovers should be manually changed to 80hz (pre xt32).

Now you and Prepar are suggesting that Audyssey Pro software does some extra processing that takes into account the crossover point....and that to change the crossover points, you should rerun the pro software.

I would sure like Chris to chime in on this....because it is different than every recommendation I have ever seen from Audyssey.

Further, I have never seen a choice of crossover points in the pro software (V2 or V3). I am shown levels and crossover points for each speaker which are, as far as I know, the -3db points...but no choices other than, I guess, I could raise them if I wanted to.

So I'd like someone to clarify how Audyssey Pro software deals with crossovers....and if manually changing the crossovers in a processor after doing a pro calibration throws off the calibration. This would be a significant change......
ghstudio is offline  
post #37552 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
streetsmart88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Here is my understanding of how the crossover settings work with the Pro Kit. After the readings have completed, Audyssey analyzes the results and presents several recommended crossover settings for each speaker, in descending order (i.e. the "best" crossover is listed first). You make your crossover selection and click the "next" arrow. Audyssey then calculates the "final" filter values, based on the crossover values you have selected, and downloads the values to the AVR. Audyssey also sets the crossover values in the AVR to the ones you selected in the software.

If, after you have evaluated the results and you want to experiment with different crossover values, you should launch the Pro software, load the measurement file, select different crossover values in the software, generate updated filter files, and load the updated filters into the AVR.

Manually changing the crossover values in the AVR results in a filter file that no longer matches the crossover values, and (IMO) is no longer "reference". I suspect that if I am wrong, someone will correct me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Your understanding is correct.

Jeff

I agree that this is the optimum way to do it because Chris has stated that Audyssey Pro builds a filter which is tailored to the selected xover (or at least that's how I understood him).

However, it's a bit of a hassle to do it that way. I believe that on the fly, you can change the xover at the AVR and, as long as it is not below the -3 db point and while it will not be optimal, it will work - as an example, I mentioned that you can change your speaker settings from "Large" to "Small", set a xover of 80 Hz and you can immediately physically verify that the subwoofers are activated and the bass is transferred to the subs.


Mark
streetsmart88 is offline  
post #37553 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundofMind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE MI
Posts: 7,962
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

Here's an ITU diagram.

Thnx, Roger. I pick up something new nearly every day on AVS forum. Surrounds at 60 seems pretty far forward, I've never tried that. I've lived with surrs at 85 for a long time and that was OK, but not ideal as I'm too close to the back wall for surr back(s). I've installed DSX wides now and they enhance envelopment considerably. Now I'm in the process of trying out new surrounds at 95-100.
Quote:


... One reason Audyssey might put them at 110-deg is just because they neglected to move them when adding the rears. Benign neglect, if you will. One other possibility is to favor DSX over straight 7.1 when DSX is turned off...

Perhaps a more likely reason is simply that with Audyssey's new DSX technology and their emphasis on DSX wides>DSX heights> surr back. With wides and no surr backs, surrounds at 100-20 should enhance envelopment, right? I think part of the problem with the discussion is the new DSX permutations of what constitutes 7.1, 9.1, etc.

Yes, I still like playing with Dalis.

SoundofMind is offline  
post #37554 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 04:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 8,732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Thnx, Roger. I pick up something new nearly every day on AVS forum. Surrounds at 60 seems pretty far forward, I've never tried that. I've lived with surrs at 85 for a long time and that was OK, but not ideal as I'm too close to the back wall for surr back(s). I've installed DSX wides now and they enhance envelopment considerably. Now I'm in the process of trying out new surrounds at 95-100.

Let me make sure we are talking about the same thing wrt surrounds forward of the 90-deg midline. That is only recommended when there are also rear surrounds included in the system. >>I'm too close to the back wall for surr back(s)<< tells me you have one pair of surrounds, and if so, then I am not recommending angles less than 90-degrees, and neither is ITU.

Quote:


Perhaps a more likely reason is simply that with Audyssey's new DSX technology and their emphasis on DSX wides>DSX heights> surr back. With wides and no surr backs, surrounds at 100-20 should enhance envelopment, right? I think part of the problem with the discussion is the new DSX permutations of what constitutes 7.1, 9.1, etc.

Yes, it can be confusing as we have multiple options for 7.1 and 9.1.

And even for basic 5.1, there is no real harm placing the surrounds at 90-deg. That's actually where THX recommends, and it works very well even with direct radiators.
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #37555 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 05:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
ghstudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

I agree that this is the optimum way to do it because Chris has stated that Audyssey Pro builds a filter which is tailored to the selected xover (or at least that's how I understood him).

Mark

Could you point me to a reference where Chris actually said that the curve is tailored to the crossover. This can't happen in a processor implementation, but it might be possible in the Pro Software.

I have never seen Chris suggest that you should set your crossovers in the Pro Software vs setting it on your processor....and it's not on the pro site or pro software instructions as far as I can recall.
ghstudio is offline  
post #37556 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 06:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
streetsmart88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstudio View Post

Could you point me to a reference where Chris actually said that the curve is tailored to the crossover. This can't happen in a processor implementation, but it might be possible in the Pro Software.

I have never seen Chris suggest that you should set your crossovers in the Pro Software vs setting it on your processor....and it's not on the pro site or pro software instructions as far as I can recall.

Given the way that the Pro kit works (it asks you to pre-select the xover point), one could actually guess that this is the way it works but you're right, it's not clear in the documentation. There are also some discussions after that remark by Chris. You can change the xover manually but it will not be optimized.

Look at post #25421.

Mark
streetsmart88 is offline  
post #37557 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
ghstudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Given the way that the Pro kit works (it asks you to pre-select the xover point), one could actually guess that this is the way it works but you're right, it's not clear in the documentation. There are also some discussions after that remark by Chris. You can change the xover manually but it will not be optimized.

Look at post #25421.

Mark

Thans and Wow! Chris and his brethren at Audyssey should hang their heads in shame over not making this clear in the documentation to Audyssey installers and pro it owners, of which I am one.
ghstudio is offline  
post #37558 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 08:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,544
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 747 Post(s)
Liked: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstudio View Post

Thans and Wow! Chris and his brethren at Audyssey should hang their heads in shame over not making this clear in the documentation to Audyssey installers and pro it owners, of which I am one.

Pages 27 and 28 of the MultEQ Pro User Guide:

"The crossover recommendations are derived from the room measurements and are optimized for the in-room response of the speakers. They are listed from top to bottom of the drop-down menu. The top-listed number is the best recommended crossover setting. Other values below it are also possibilities, but have lower recommendation scores.

The Audyssey filter calculation is optimized based on your selected crossover frequency setting in the Crossover drop-down menus.
You may select your own crossover values for channel pair. However, Audyssey recommends using the displayed crossovers on this screen.

Click the -> button to calculate the correction filters and proceed to the next screen."

You could certainly argue that these instructions could be improved upon. That's why we participate in this forum!
AustinJerry is online now  
post #37559 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 10:52 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quintana Roo ... in my mind
Posts: 25,073
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Yeah ok you could argue it but its pretty clear as it is.
pepar is offline  
post #37560 of 72532 Old 03-12-2011, 11:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 298
how do I place the mic positions for Audyssey MultEQ on a double theater seat.the website explains for a sofa for 3 person but I have a double theater seat for seating two persons only. just left and right no center seat i will really appreciate your help thanks.

losservatore is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Tags
Audyssey , Receivers Amplifiers , Kef Kht1005 2se 5 1 Subwoofer Satellite System With C4 Subwoofer Gloss White , 5 6 7 1 7 2 Or 8 1 8 2 One Or Two Subwoofer Compatible 16 Banana Post 2 Rca Speaker Wall Plate For H
Gear in this thread - Kht1005 by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off