Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs - Page 64 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 9Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1891 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 02:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 Damn it, I came very close this evening to buying the 1124P just to play around with, but I restrained myself :)  I need to learn more first.

Okay, so let us know when you buy it tomorrow.

biggrin.gif


Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1892 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 02:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD1225 View Post

Be careful with the Behringer items, i tried an 1124P and it introduced a, hum that i couldn't tame. I returned it and bought a MiniDSP.

 

Ok thanks. The MiniDSp looks more complicated somehow, which is what has put me off. But I have a long way to go... 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1893 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

You can pretty much assume based on what Chris K. said here in the past years that x=32taps wink.gif

No way to verify, but OK Igor, let's assume for the sake of discussion.smile.gif
Quote:
You still can't compare FIR taps with PEQ bands. You can do much more useful stuff with 12 PEQ bands than with 32 taps of 2EQ... wink.gif

Unfortunalety 2EQ has no taps in the subwoofer channel, pity isn't it? smile.gif But I thought we were discussing MultEQ XT32 here with 512 x (assumed) 32 = 16,384 taps! smile.gif
Quote:
And even hundreds of taps will not be nearly as useful for low frequency EQ as just few PEQ bands.

Care to expand on that a bit? smile.gif
mogorf is offline  
post #1894 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 02:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post


Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

What do you think a 12 point PEQ will additinally do for you? 512 + 12 = 524, or 5120 + 12 = 5130, eh? tongue.gif
You still can't compare FIR taps with PEQ bands. You can do much more useful stuff with 12 PEQ bands than with 32 taps of 2EQ... wink.gif And even hundreds of taps will not be nearly as useful for low frequency EQ as just few PEQ bands.

Yes, this is what I have been reading about over the last couple of days. PEQ is a terrific tool when used for this purpose. Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ, as evidenced by his arithmetic above - he's adding apples to oranges and coming up with bananas.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1895 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 02:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 Damn it, I came very close this evening to buying the 1124P just to play around with, but I restrained myself :)  I need to learn more first.

Okay, so let us know when you buy it tomorrow.

biggrin.gif

 

LOL!  You know me too well..... 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1896 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 03:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alan P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 136
I've also come *this* close to buying a BFD, but I'm still determined to wrap my head around the MiniDSP before I pull the trigger. From my limited knowledge of both, the MiniDSP looks to be a much more flexible and useful tool than a stand-alone PEQ.
Alan P is online now  
post #1897 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, this is what I have been reading about over the last couple of days. PEQ is a terrific tool when used for this purpose. Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ, as evidenced by his arithmetic above - he's adding apples to oranges and coming up with bananas.

Keith, seems not only Igor but you also missed the fact that 2EQ has no taps (repeat: no taps) for the subwoofer channel!! mad.gif BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! smile.gif Why not move on?! cool.giftongue.gif
mogorf is offline  
post #1898 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 03:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
IgorZep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

No way to verify, but OK Igor, let's assume for the sake of discussion.smile.gif
No way to verify... to 100%... but wouldn't you agree that 16,384 is more than 10,000 advertised 'points' and still close enough "power of two" number smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Unfortunalety 2EQ has no taps in the subwoofer channel, pity isn't it? smile.gif
Guess why wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Care to expand on that a bit? smile.gif
This is why I mentioned 2EQ... And have you guessed why it has no taps in the sub? This is because that comparable number of taps in this channel would do precisely nothing to the frequency response in the sub range wink.gif While just a few PEQ would do quite much.
IgorZep is offline  
post #1899 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 03:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
IgorZep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Keith, seems not only Igor but you also missed the fact that 2EQ has no taps (repeat: no taps) for the subwoofer channel!! mad.gif BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! smile.gif Why not move on?! cool.giftongue.gif
There is nothing bad in PEQ. Yes, it have its own problems... same as FIR have its own problems. They are just different. And their advantages are different also. The very long 16ktap FIR filter can be as good at correcting low frequency response as few (much less in number) parametrics in this range... True... FIR have an advantage - easy to calculate the 'all at once' filter (assuming you know the math well), but parametric have another advantage - it is easy to edit the resulting filter to your liking, selectively any aspect of the frequency response. But you cannot just change few taps in FIR to your liking, it is needed to recalculate the whole filter if you need to apply some correction to what the automatics have done.
IgorZep is offline  
post #1900 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 04:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post


This is why I mentioned 2EQ... And have you guessed why it has no taps in the sub? This is because that comparable number of taps in this channel would do precisely nothing to the frequency response in the sub range wink.gif

No Igor, that's not the case, you haven't been here long enough to know that Chris K. once explained years back at the Audyssey thread that 2EQ was an explicit request from Onkyo to Audyssey to elaborate a "dumbed down" version of their RC software by no EQ'ing in the sub channel just to enable Onkyo to be competitive at the lower end market segment with an "El Cheapo" solution. Dig the Audyssey thread and you will find Chris's words there. Denons don't have 2EQ on board. Ever wondered why? Coz with plain MultEQ they still were able to counter attack the competitive edge they had to face when Onkyo came out with the 2EQ. Cool, ain't it? cool.gif
mogorf is offline  
post #1901 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 05:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
cadett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houma, La.
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
FWIW. There are videos out there that show you how to configure Minidsp. I remember watching one, don't remember where though.
cadett is offline  
post #1902 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadett View Post

FWIW. There are videos out there that show you how to configure Minidsp. I remember watching one, don't remember where though.

Great info, thanks for your contribution! eek.giftongue.gif
mogorf is offline  
post #1903 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ

Please forgive my ignorance of Audyssey (and my laziness to wade through the material for the answer), but can you take the results from your Audyssey calibration and add a 4dB cut from 46Hz to 49Hz? I can do that in about 10 seconds with my DSP.

And please remember that, as someone did point out, this is IN ADDITION to Audyssey (or, in my case, MCACC) calibration, not in place of it.

 

And, heck, it's a $100 toy!

biggrin.gif


Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #1904 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 05:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
cadett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houma, La.
Posts: 808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Great info, thanks for your contribution! eek.giftongue.gif

Hey, I do what I can, when I can! Sometimes it isn't very much wink.gif
cadett is offline  
post #1905 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 06:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by angryht View Post

Moving to the center of the front wall appears to have removed the dip at 70 Hz, but introduced a hump at about 35 Hz and 30 Hz.
Good to hear the dip is gone. One last suggestion for subwoofer placement, now that you have it up front, can you place it against the front wall (still at the centre line)? As you mentioned previously, this will involve moving your centre speaker temporarily. IF the measurement doesn't improve, then the midpoint of the back wall seems to be your best bet.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1906 of 10741 Old 03-07-2013, 06:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Guys, remember that your Room EQ is trying to optimize for multiple seats. Your single measurement will only show the results for one position. The reason the Auto Room EQ is not as optimal there is because it examined what else was going on in the room and picked a compromised filter setting that didn't make any seat horrible while trying to smooth out the overall response. To mimic that, you need to do some kind of spatial (multi position) averaging.

If you have just one seat, then you don't have to worry about the above. If you do, check the other seats to make sure post EQ you have not made things a lot worse. This is why you want to use multi-sub, sub placement, etc. to get things as close as you can before resorting to EQ.
cadett likes this.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is online now  
post #1907 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 02:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, this is what I have been reading about over the last couple of days. PEQ is a terrific tool when used for this purpose. Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ, as evidenced by his arithmetic above - he's adding apples to oranges and coming up with bananas.

Keith, seems not only Igor but you also missed the fact that 2EQ has no taps (repeat: no taps) for the subwoofer channel!! mad.gif BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! smile.gif Why not move on?! cool.giftongue.gif

I didn't miss it Feri. I know why 2EQ doesn't have any taps for the sub channel - you walked right into Igor's carefully laid trap!  I must admit I almost did too and even posted a reply, which I quickly deleted when I realised his point there.

 

PEQ and FIR are totally different things so you can't really compare them. I seem to recall you getting all confused before about the difference between a graphic and a parametric equaliser (with an argument with Markus wasn't it?) ;)

 

Did you not see the example graphs I posted of how PEQ can vastly improve Audyssey's result?

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1908 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 02:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post


This is why I mentioned 2EQ... And have you guessed why it has no taps in the sub? This is because that comparable number of taps in this channel would do precisely nothing to the frequency response in the sub range wink.gif

No Igor, that's not the case, you haven't been here long enough to know that Chris K. once explained years back at the Audyssey thread that 2EQ was an explicit request from Onkyo to Audyssey to elaborate a "dumbed down" version of their RC software by no EQ'ing in the sub channel just to enable Onkyo to be competitive at the lower end market segment with an "El Cheapo" solution. Dig the Audyssey thread and you will find Chris's words there. Denons don't have 2EQ on board. Ever wondered why? Coz with plain MultEQ they still were able to counter attack the competitive edge they had to face when Onkyo came out with the 2EQ. Cool, ain't it? cool.gif

 

You are a marketing man's dream, Feri :)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1909 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 02:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ

Please forgive my ignorance of Audyssey (and my laziness to wade through the material for the answer), but can you take the results from your Audyssey calibration and add a 4dB cut from 46Hz to 49Hz? I can do that in about 10 seconds with my DSP.

And please remember that, as someone did point out, this is IN ADDITION to Audyssey (or, in my case, MCACC) calibration, not in place of it.

 

And, heck, it's a $100 toy!

biggrin.gif

 

You are right on all counts there. I have even posted some example graphs but Feri has been strangely silent about them ;)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1910 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 03:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! smile.gifWhy not move on?! cool.giftongue.gif

 

Feri, I assume you missed the post on the previous page where I have a quick example of the kind of thing PEQ can do to a post-Audyssey curve. Here they are again:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which of the above two curves would you prefer in your system?  The first one (Audyssey alone) with the evident problem from 60Hz to 200Hz, or the PEQ one where that problem has been fixed?

 

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing again I think, PEQ has an undeniable purpose, as does Audyssey. Neither is perfect. Using both achieves more than using just one.

 

Can you please post the REW graphs of your Audyssey-corrected system so we can see why you are so sure it has done such a perfect job in your room and needs no further attention? Just your centre channel will be fine, or your sub - anything will help us see why you are so convinced Audyssey is all that is required. 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1911 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 04:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Feri, I assume you missed the post on the previous page where I have a quick example of the kind of thing PEQ can do to a post-Audyssey curve. Here they are again:










Which of the above two curves would you prefer in your system?  The first one (Audyssey alone) with the evident problem from 60Hz to 200Hz, or the PEQ one where that problem has been fixed?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing again I think, PEQ has an undeniable purpose, as does Audyssey. Neither is perfect. Using both achieves more than using just one.

Can you please post the REW graphs of your Audyssey-corrected system so we can see why you are so sure it has done such a perfect job in your room and needs no further attention? Just your centre channel will be fine, or your sub - anything will help us see why you are so convinced Audyssey is all that is required. 

Keith, can you show us the waterfall graphs of each of these two curves, respectfully? Would be interesting to see. wink.gif
mogorf is offline  
post #1912 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 05:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You are a marketing man's dream, Feri smile.gif

Huh?
mogorf is offline  
post #1913 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 06:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
angryht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Good to hear the dip is gone. One last suggestion for subwoofer placement, now that you have it up front, can you place it against the front wall (still at the centre line)? As you mentioned previously, this will involve moving your centre speaker temporarily. IF the measurement doesn't improve, then the midpoint of the back wall seems to be your best bet.
You bet. I'll do that, put that sub against the front wall, this weekend.

For review here are the three locations overlayed, no EQ:

-Greg
angryht is offline  
post #1914 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 09:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Feri, I assume you missed the post on the previous page where I have a quick example of the kind of thing PEQ can do to a post-Audyssey curve. Here they are again:










Which of the above two curves would you prefer in your system?  The first one (Audyssey alone) with the evident problem from 60Hz to 200Hz, or the PEQ one where that problem has been fixed?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing again I think, PEQ has an undeniable purpose, as does Audyssey. Neither is perfect. Using both achieves more than using just one.

Can you please post the REW graphs of your Audyssey-corrected system so we can see why you are so sure it has done such a perfect job in your room and needs no further attention? Just your centre channel will be fine, or your sub - anything will help us see why you are so convinced Audyssey is all that is required. 

Keith, can you show us the waterfall graphs of each of these two curves, respectfully? Would be interesting to see. wink.gif

 

Sure - but you will have to bear in mind that I have not run a modal analysis sweep with REW (because I don't actually own the PEQ device yet) so there could be significant improvements to be made. Anyway, here are the waterfalls - Audyssey only first, then PEQ then both overlaid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn’t answer my question - which curve would you rather have - the Audyssey on its own curve or the Audyssey + PEQ curve?

 

I look forward to seeing the graphs of the Audyssey response of your system/room as requested earlier.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1915 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 09:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
@Keith,

You know why I'm not gonna comment on those two FR graphs? Because they are both 1 point mic measurement graphs and not averaged graphs, hence the reason you could produce the waterfalls! Sorry for the trick, Bud! tongue.giftongue.gifcool.gif

Nevertheless, it's been discussed so many times that 1 point measurements are practically useless for serious evaluation purposes coz they don't show the real picture of the room. Even with Audyssey for a single seat I think even you are taking the max. number of measurements, but in a rather tight pattern around the MLP, right?
mogorf is offline  
post #1916 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 10:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

@Keith,

You know why I'm not gonna comment on those two FR graphs? Because they are both 1 point mic measurement graphs and not averaged graphs, hence the reason you could produce the waterfalls! Sorry for the trick, Bud! tongue.giftongue.gifcool.gif

Nevertheless, it's been discussed so many times that 1 point measurements are practically useless for serious evaluation purposes coz they don't show the real picture of the room. Even with Audyssey for a single seat I think even you are taking the max. number of measurements, but in a rather tight pattern around the MLP, right?

 

I sit in one point of the room - it is the only point I care about. If you prefer to get the sound perfect for somewhere you don't sit, that's fine by me, but useless for me too. I am the only listener in my HT who matters and so I aim to get the sound optimised for where my head is when I am listening. My head, probably much like yours, occupies rather less than 1 cubic foot of space and, amazingly, that is where I put my mic for testing. You have bought so far in to the Audyssey shctick of "measure even where nobody sits" that you can see no other possibilities. (Incidentally in the Pro instructions Audyssey specifically tell you NOT to measure where nobody commonly sits - so much for that advice).  It is clear to all, except you, that the PEQ'd graph I posted is considerably superior to the Audyssey-only graph, but for you to admit this would require an entire re-evaluation of your Audyssey-based belief system. Fair enough - believe what you like but I know which FR I want - and it ain't the Audyssey-only one.

 

Can I see your graphs of the Audyssey-enabled response in your room now please so I can try to understand why you believe Audyssey is perfect and nothing can possibly improve on what it does?

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1917 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mogorf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I sit in one point of the room - it is the only point I care about. If you prefer to get the sound perfect for somewhere you don't sit, that's fine by me, but useless for me too. I am the only listener in my HT who matters and so I aim to get the sound optimised for where my head is when I am listening. My head, probably much like yours, occupies rather less than 1 cubic foot of space and, amazingly, that is where I put my mic for testing. You have bought so far in to the Audyssey shctick of "measure even where nobody sits" that you can see no other possibilities. (Incidentally in the Pro instructions Audyssey specifically tell you NOT to measure where nobody commonly sits - so much for that advice).  It is clear to all, except you, that the PEQ'd graph I posted is considerably superior to the Audyssey-only graph, but for you to admit this would require an entire re-evaluation of your Audyssey-based belief system. Fair enough - believe what you like but I know which FR I want - and it ain't the Audyssey-only one.

Can I see your graphs of the Audyssey-enabled response in your room now please so I can try to understand why you believe Audyssey is perfect and nothing can possibly improve on what it does?

I'm finished here. Sorry.
mogorf is offline  
post #1918 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 10:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

@Keith,

You know why I'm not gonna comment on those two FR graphs? Because they are both 1 point mic measurement graphs and not averaged graphs, hence the reason you could produce the waterfalls! Sorry for the trick, Bud! tongue.giftongue.gifcool.gif

Nevertheless, it's been discussed so many times that 1 point measurements are practically useless for serious evaluation purposes coz they don't show the real picture of the room. Even with Audyssey for a single seat I think even you are taking the max. number of measurements, but in a rather tight pattern around the MLP, right?

 

I should add that the graphs of the PEQ filter effect that I have posted so far are for example only. You cannot make any assumptions about how I will go about measuring the room once I have the actual PEQ unit. These current graphs were produced in a couple of minutes, to demonstrate what can be achieved with PEQ and REW and how simple it appears to be. It is entirely possible that I will measure more than one position around the MLP in order to see what the differences, if any are significant, are. Averaging those graphs is bad practice so will not be done. But the main point is, however it is done the benefits of PEQ overlaid onto Audyssey seem to be significant and to offer substantial improvements to the FR curve, over and above those made by the use of Audyssey alone.

 

Audyssey can get you so far but it has limitations. XT32 can get you so far, but Audyssey themselves felt it necessary to go one better than XT32 by introducing the Pro Kit. If XT32 was all that was needed then the Pro kit would not have become necessary. The Pro kit allows for adjustments to the curve but they are very crude and limited in nature - one cannot adjust for Q for example. PEW is another tool in the box and I always prefer to use whatever is necessary to achieve the result I want. Some are happy to stop at XT, some are happy to stop at XT32, some are happy to stop at Pro. Personally, I am happy when I know I have exhausted every available means to the end I seek. YMMV.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1919 of 10741 Old 03-08-2013, 10:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 16,225
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 303 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I sit in one point of the room - it is the only point I care about. If you prefer to get the sound perfect for somewhere you don't sit, that's fine by me, but useless for me too. I am the only listener in my HT who matters and so I aim to get the sound optimised for where my head is when I am listening. My head, probably much like yours, occupies rather less than 1 cubic foot of space and, amazingly, that is where I put my mic for testing. You have bought so far in to the Audyssey shctick of "measure even where nobody sits" that you can see no other possibilities. (Incidentally in the Pro instructions Audyssey specifically tell you NOT to measure where nobody commonly sits - so much for that advice).  It is clear to all, except you, that the PEQ'd graph I posted is considerably superior to the Audyssey-only graph, but for you to admit this would require an entire re-evaluation of your Audyssey-based belief system. Fair enough - believe what you like but I know which FR I want - and it ain't the Audyssey-only one.

Can I see your graphs of the Audyssey-enabled response in your room now please so I can try to understand why you believe Audyssey is perfect and nothing can possibly improve on what it does?

I'm finished here. Sorry.

 

No need to apologise.

 

No graphs from you?  In that case I am finished too. You cannot reasonably demand graphs from me and all and sundry and then refuse to deliver your own when asked. I suspect I know the reason why, but as I am finished with this now, I won't pursue that. 

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #1920 of 10741 Old 03-09-2013, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
angryht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Good to hear the dip is gone. One last suggestion for subwoofer placement, now that you have it up front, can you place it against the front wall (still at the centre line)? As you mentioned previously, this will involve moving your centre speaker temporarily. IF the measurement doesn't improve, then the midpoint of the back wall seems to be your best bet.

Here's the overlay of the curves with the sub moved to against the front wall. It was pretty much the same as when I had it in front of my center speaker.

Blue = center of front wall
Green = center of rear wall
purple = right wall


Is the winner the rear wall?
Would a second sub help me?

-Greg
angryht is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

Tags
Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew

User Tag List

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