"OFFICIAL" Pioneer MCACC thread - Page 121

Now you should know better than to base anything on a manufacturer's price

A quick search and Vann's sells them for $339. I agree it's still not "cheap" but significantly less. DonH50 is correct about using a miniDSP and REW but when I last checked into that option, they seemed to require a lot more time and effort. Either way, good luck.

It would detect the signal. Just through the PS3 alone, if I popped in a move it would change to cinema mode and if I popped in a game it would change to game mode.

Is it best to run MCACC again after you change the Xover from what it set it to? I'm thinking yes so it can calibrate again with the set Xover data?

Or does it not matter?

No, it's not necessary to run it again. Changing the speaker settings to Small and crossing them at 80hz will have no impact on the calibration.

That's counter-intuitive. How do you know?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think my MCACC actually set my crossover (from 200 to 150, before I knew that I really needed 100) on its own. Is that not something that it does?

That's what i always thought but others in this thread have said it's best to run it again after changing it so MCACC can calibrate the room with, for example, an 80hz setting rather than the 100hz it originally found. The "keep speaker system" is there for that reason, no?

I would really like a final say on this.

In the very beginning it was thought that you needed to run MCACC again after changing the speakers from Large to Small and applying a crossover. However, many of us discovered that it had no effect on the calibration. Most of the time the AVR will set your speakers to Large and calibrate down to 63hz so by changing the setting to Small and applying the crossover to say 80hz, you're telling the system to engage bass management and send those frequencies below the crossover to your sub. Since MCACC does not EQ the sub, those frequencies are unaffected.

Now in the example above where MCACC selected a crossover of 100hz and speakers set to Small, if you lower the crossover to 80hz, you should re-run MCACC since the frequencies between 80hz and 100hz were not part of the original calibration.

That makes sense. That's how i've always been doing it so MCACC can calibrate with the Xover i chose below the original setting.

This makes MCACC so much better than audyssey because with audyssey if you change the Xover below what it found you can't re calibrate it.

I think there is (still) some confusing on what MCACC does and doesn't do... please correct where I am wrong as these are some conclusions I have drawn...

 

• MCACC does not EQ the sub (at all). It simple sets distance, levels, etc). Not even down to 63hz.
• It doesn't matter (at all) what each speaker is set at (Small or Large) when running MCACC. It still EQs each speaker down to 63hz.
• Afterwards you can change a speaker to either Small or Large and the EQ (settings) aren't changed.
• There is no need to or relationship between running Auto and Full outside of selecting Keep various settings when running MCACC later on.

 

I'm basing the above on what I read here and my own experience. I have read various other accounts which on the surface appear to be Voodoo... as in I don't understand the logic behind them of which I might be 100% wrong.

 

My overall conclusion is the sub is bypassed (during EQ) and the EQ process EQs all of the other channels down to 63hz regardless of any other setting (when set to Large it simply doesn't display the 63hz value on the graph) and there is no relationship between various EQ runs outside of the Keep various settings options.

 

With this in mind since I have powered subs in my Fronts and Sides I'm better off setting Sub to no as MCACC will at least correct them down to 63hz where if I set them to Small (with Sub set to yes) they will still be producing the bass (at least the Fronts as I have them connected to the .2 outputs) without any EQing at all.

Edited by Charles R - 3/19/13 at 7:13am

Ok I've got my experienceto share and I'm sure it's going to get me flamed, but nevertheless I'll let it loose as I'm curious to see what everyone thinks (especially those using smaller speakers in their setups). Hopefully it gets some good conversation going.

For context, my setup:
- Totem Dreamcatcher (minimonitor) mains
- Totem Dreamcatcher (centre)
- Totem Storm sub (adjustable crossover down to 40Hz)
- Monitor Audio in walls for the rear surrounds (with integrated back boxes)
- Pioneer Elite VSX-31

After weeks of tinkering with all the settings, running the MCACC etc, my settings end up the complete opposite of what would seem logical. And the final result is massively superior in sound to any of the other settings I played around with prior.

So the thinking originally would be to try and match up the amp crossover in the menu with the stature and dynamic ability of my speakers, and the sub crossover and the speaker identifications as small as I'm using minimonitors.

I started by letting MCACC do its thing (and it did make very nice improvements in sound, so kudos to Pioneer for their calibration software). It EQ'd the harshness out of the high end and a lot of the boxy sound of the Dreamcatchers that pre calibration was giving me fits.

But beyond the MCACC I went into a few weeks of casual trial and error, second guessing, not being overly excited with what I was hearing... then with little else to try, I set every speaker to LARGE, and the amp x-over setting to 50Hz (the lowest possible). I set the sub to PLUS, and made sure I played a bass rich piece of music I'm very familiar with to benchmark the gain knob on the sub and just leave it alone from there and trust it's most neutrally balanced, and if I run into a bloated piece of source material then it's just a poor source and to trust the setting as made by a reference. The Pioneer manual prefaces the use of PLUS as for those wanting more bass, but I think this is misleading. From what I can tell, it just gives the sub all the musical information (which I believe is what it should have), and is the only setting to provide proper bass. I was tentative in approaching as I want to ensure the bass production is realistic, not amp exaggerated, and not overeager. More is not always better. I'm a 2ch purist at heart and I have learned this early in my hi-fi experiences. But after I dialed the gain on the sub in to a proper balance I realize that the PLUS setting isn't (at least from what I can tell) any sort of boosting of the bass signal, but simply the output of all the info from the amp and the sub handles from there. So the end result is not a simulated boost in bass from the amp, it's just a matter of the completeness of the output signal from the amp on this particular channel.

The key to all this is that I see a lot of amp x-over black magic discussions here, and I thought originally that I had to find my own black magic solution like everyone else. Then I've come to the astonishing revalation that I'm going to let all the speakers internal x-overs just do their thing and take it out of the hands of the amp. Then when I switched the sub setting in the amp to PLUS it all just locked into place. I've got the sub x-over set to about 60Hz to a small overlap (however the Storm is a very musical sub so a little overlap is ok if I ever feel the urge to fatten up the midbass) and voila. White magic.

What you say sounds right, but I'm still not entirely sure.

It makes sense that you shouldn't have to change xovers and re calibrate since as you said it calibrated to 63hz anyway, but that's only if it sets it to large. I think Kurolicious has is right.

What would worry me is that you're (a) sending a lot of low frequency energy to speakers that don't have that much useful response below 60Hz, and (b) making your amplifiers work very hard to reproduce those frequencies. The potential result of this is distortion -- and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for low-frequency distortion to be mistaken for definition or "punch."

I hasten to add that this is theoretical, and that what sounds good to you is not just a valid benchmark but arguably the best one. It sounds like you know how to listen carefully, and I'm sure your continued experiments will reveal what works best for you in your room with your equipment. Meanwhile, interesting post!

Be careful setting all the speakers to large. When I first got my SC-1526 I ran MCACC & made sure I went in after to set the speakers to small. I then got some Paradigms for the front & reran MCACC, but I forgot to check the speaker size afterwards. When I was listening to some loud music, the woofer in one of my surround speakers blew.
I think SW normal only sends bass to the subwoofer while the Plus setting sends bass to any speaker set to large. I ended up following advice from another forum member & going into the EQ, bumping up the lowest 3 frequencies & adding 3 to the trim. Sounds great now.

Try to understand that when you set all your speakers to Large, you are disengaging bass management. Therefore, changing the crossover does absolutely nothing. The crossover only affects speakers set to Small.

I think that is not exactly, 100% true. If you understand EQ to mean filtering out peaks and also filling in holes in the frequency response, then there is a narrow, technical sense in which it is true that MCACC doesn't EQ the sub, because it doesn't try to fill in holes. But it does filter out peaks, with its "standing wave" system. So, it does correct the sub's response, or try to anyway.

I'm not sure this is right, but it is the impression I get from reading the MCACC documentation. And since trying to correct a sub's response by filling in holes in the response is problematic, anyway, MCACC may correct the sub's response just as well as calibration systems which claim to EQ subs.

Try to understand that when you have the sub on the "plus" setting, you are not disengaging bass management when you set speakers to Large.

I think there's a better way.

Let's talk about bass octaves: Ultra - 10-20Hz, Low - 20-40Hz, Mid - 40-80Hz, High - 80-160Hz. To an appoximation, we can expect our subs to handle Ultra (hopefully), Low, and Mid/High, and our fronts to take care of Mid and High bass. With the Plus setting, we get Mid and some High bass from both sub and fronts, and that means boom, boom, boom. Too much Mid bass.

With your method, you control the boom by turning down the sub volume, which will moderate the Mid and High bass. So that should work. Unfortunately, it also turns down the Low and Ultra bass, which is too bad.

So try this. Instead of using the sub's volume knob to control the Mid/High bass boom, use the sub's crossover knob. Turning that down will also control the Mid/High bass boom, but without the unintended consequence of also losing Ultra and Low bass.

This has been discussed many times, in many threads. Let's try to summarize. When describing the net effect of "Plus" and "large/small", you should also take into account your source. Here is a table I just made that summarizes my understanding:



When setting SW to "No", I believe the .1 LFE is lost, but I'm not sure. It might be redistributed to large speakers, but I never did an actual test.

Here is what the SC-27 manual has to say about the SW setting and its plus setting (p. 125):
Note: It has been my experience through tests with the LFE sweep of the Avia disk that, contrary to what might be expected, the crossover frequency also affects the .1 LFE channel; freqs above crossover in .1 LFE channel are *lost*. If you disagree with this, test it first with a source that only contains audio in .1 LFE channel!

I believe the above are FACTS based on the manual description, my experimentation with SC-07 and SC-27, and multiple years of following AVS threads. If you believe something to be in error, please say so, but provide references and the AVR model to which your comment applies.

Hope this helps a little to clear things up.

Dan.
Edited by info_dan - 3/22/13 at 3:03pm

 

I found if you set Sub to No the .1 channel is sent to the Fronts (only) even if you have other speakers set to Large.

question. i ordered 4X JBL L820 to upgrade to a 9.1 setup. currently have 5.1.

in the manual, it says that if setting up 7.1/9.1, they recommend you to position the surround L/R on the sides, as oppose to at 120 degree rear. but it also says that 5.1 sources will be played through the surround sides. my question is, will it upmix the 5.1 surround signal and spread it across the surround side and the surround back? because if not, i'd rather place the surround sides slightly to the rear at about 120 degree angle, so when playing 5.1 source it'll make surround feel more depth.

please chime in.

The table is great Dan, thanks. I don't know if it's wrong or right content wise, but I think it's the best way to lay this out, and Pioneer should take note.
Obviously from the amount of mass confusion on this x-over / speaker size issue, this is telling us that the way this info is currently explained in the manuals, it's simply not apparent as to all the cause and effect.

To Greg, I wasn't using the gain to reduce boom, I was using it to get the bass weight in line with what I believe it should be based on my experience with how certain source material sounds on more simplified 2 channel equip. And yes I am using the sub's built in low pass dial to ensure it isn't trying to extend up into the mid bass too much. I listen to a lot of music through my HT system as well so I'm tuning the sound more towards this and if the bass isn't exactly dialed in for movie content then that's just the way the cookie crumbles. With all the different interpretations of what a mix should be on movies it's all pretty futile anyways to have a setting that is a catch all.

Thanks to everyone else who has posted in reply to my original. Some interesting discussion around this. Looking forward to more.

 

I'm running 7.2 and have my surrrounds on the sides (roughly 90 degrees) and with straight 5.1 material I find little if any difference than when I had them closer to 120 degrees. The receiver (VSX-53) asks where your sides are located (side or rear) and how it adjusts accordingly I don't have a clue. Based on your setting you'll probably have 5.1 mixed to 7.1 so to a large degree it's a mute issue.

 

Really hard to A/B 90 degrees versus 120 degrees but if I had to guess I prefer 90 degrees... the audio appears to have a little more presence. Which I guess one could say less depth... so I'm sure it's a personal preference. 

I think I recall that my previous Onkyo AVR had a setting for putting a virtual side surround for 5.1 sources in a 7.1 system in between the physical side and back surrounds. But I don't recall seeing such a setting in my Pioneer receivers. I'd guess the Pioneers would do something like this in an "impure" mode that upmixes 5.1 to 7.1.

Wrong. The crossover only affects those speakers set to Small. Speakers set to Large with the PLUS setting receive a full range signal and the sub also receives that same full range bass.
Edited by Kurolicious - 3/25/13 at 5:55am

^^ I believe GregLee is correct, although I am not sure what the last part of your post means. So, maybe you are correct, too.

The Plus setting means bass management is engaged with large speakers. The full range speaker gets the full range and frequencies below the crossover are also sent to the sub.
Edited by BIslander - 3/25/13 at 7:30am

would you mind do me a huge favor. since you have a VSX 53, and it seems that you have the similar setting in your MCACC. would you mind changing the setting and A/B between "on the side", or "in rear" in the speaker SP setting. i just found it on page 79 of my manual http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/StaticFiles/Manuals/Home/VSX1120-K_OperatingInstructions1015.pdf

apparently it tells you that these two options have something to do with shifting the side surround in 5.1 mode to diagnally. i am wondering if this means if you choose "on side", it shifts and upmixes the surround signal to the rear surround so it seems like it's coming from an angle as oppose to the side.

since you already have your setup up and running, it'll really help me save time, and trouble of getting yelled at from the wife for drilling so many holes on the wall. would you mind testing both setting and see if "on side" mode does distribute 5.1 surround signal to the rear surround speaker, and if i am correct, "in rear" mode just keeps the surround signal to the side surround only and doesn't do any upmix.

please it'll be really helpful for me, and put me out of my misery.

What you're saying, and Info_Dan's chart implies, is that with the Plus setting the speakers set to Large receive a full range signal and the crossover only affects the bass being sent to the sub. If that's true, which I don't think it is, there is no evidence to support this theory. Even the manual doesn't describe the Plus function as being a crossover for the sub only. However, if someone has tested this and found this to be true, I'm all ears.

I have not tested it (not a Pioneer owner). But, other manufacturers such as Denon and Onkyo use the crossover to control what gets sent to the sub from large speakers with the "double bass" setting. Sending a full range signal to the sub would seem to be a poorly designed feature as higher frequencies would almost certainly be localizable.

Yes. And since crossover "affects the bass being sent to the sub", and since that is one of the things bass management does, evidently with Plus, bass management is engaged. (We just seem to be tangled up by semantics, here.)