or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "OFFICIAL" Pioneer MCACC thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"OFFICIAL" Pioneer MCACC thread - Page 131

post #3901 of 5311
PickleJuice - the 2.5 for 8k will be most of it

drop it a bit to say +1.5dB for 8k

to compensate a bit - up the 16k - so I'd try 16k at -3.5

basically when I manually tweak the EQ - I try and keep elements of the original auto cal, but make them less extreme - if that makes sense.

as I said - try:

+1.5 for 8k
-3.0 for 16k

see how you get on smile.gif

mine tries to apply a gain at 16k - to be honest I'm not convinced of the worth of any EQ at 16k - so I always turn to flat - ie 0
post #3902 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by PickleJuice View Post

Ok so I played around a bit redoing all of the calibrations tonight and I'm convinced that my tinny sound problem lies with the center channel speaker.

Symmetry and All Ch Adjust both sound similar and very tinny but Front Alight doesn't. However Front Align is very dull sounding.

So I do think tweaking the EQ on the center in Symmetry is the ticket however I have no clue where to begin.

Here is what my EQ results are for the center channel on Symmetry with small speaker setting at 80hz cross:
+2.5 for 125
+3.5 for 250
-2.5 for 500
-4.0 for 1k
+3 for 2k
-1 for 4k
+2.5 for 8k
-4.5 for 16k
+1.5 for Trim

So which setting would should I adjust to reduce the tinny sound?

Also can someone please explain what exactly Trim does and the affect of adjusting this up or down?

Also another issue I've noticed is that the vocals seem to be too quite compared to the special effect sounds. How can I improve that?

Thanks in advance.

i would suggest using Front Align and tweak the low frequencies from there.

but for your settings above for Symetry, i would do the following

+3db to 125
+2db to 500
-3db to 2K
-1.5 to 8k

these are ADDITIONAL to your listed values, so +3db to 125 would be 5.5db for 125

Trim is a compensated value for the eq that's been applied to your speaker. to my knowledge, for example if the average eq that has applied to your center equal to -2, then trim will up by +2 to compensate.

additionally, go to your Standing wave menu and up the SW trim value by 2.5 or 3db, that'll give a fuller lower end sound to your system.

do all the above then report back.
post #3903 of 5311
Mark / Howzz,

I tried both of your recommendations but it didn't help much. The main scene I use to hear how tinny it sounds is in Hunger Games when the forest is on fire and fireballs are flying at Katnis. Instead of hearing clean fire sounds or fireball explosions, it almost sounds like crumbling aluminum foil.

Anyways I decided to stick with the original settings for now with an x-curve of 1db. It's a decent compromise for now until I get an expert in my house.

Thanks.
post #3904 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by PickleJuice View Post

Mark / Howzz,

I tried both of your recommendations but it didn't help much. The main scene I use to hear how tinny it sounds is in Hunger Games when the forest is on fire and fireballs are flying at Katnis. Instead of hearing clean fire sounds or fireball explosions, it almost sounds like crumbling aluminum foil.

Anyways I decided to stick with the original settings for now with an x-curve of 1db. It's a decent compromise for now until I get an expert in my house.

Thanks.

i am sorry to hear that it didn't work for you.

when it comes to audio calibration, it's not an exact science. the MCACC, or Audissey is only a baseline. you'll have to tweak from there. i suggest you do some googling on frequency response and eq. once you understand what each band represent, you can tailor your calibration to your liking.

once you understand a bit about frequency scale, i would compare MCACC's calibration results between Front Align and All Channel, from that point you'll be able to tell in a way the characteristics of your speakers. remember All Channel calibration's goal is to flatten out all your speakers's response, meaning what MCACC perceives as flat. now what's desirable is VERY subjective, this is where tweaking comes in. if MCACC's all channel eq has most of your midrange and high scale lower than they started out with, chances are that means your speaker(s) is colored towards the bright side. in contrary, if the all channel eq has your mid range and high end bumped UP, chances are your speaker(s) is colored towards the dark side. to use an analogy of wine, some tasters like it dark and warm, while others like their wine bright and dry, each could be desirable to each of their own. once you understand the FR scale, you can fine tune the eq to your liking.

if i had to take a while guess, i can only assume that your mains have a characteristic of recessed mid range but warm color. hence will give you a dull sound when you calibrate towards Front Align. if so All Channel should bring out the mid by flattening out and bumping the 500~5khz scale, in theory, you'll just have to up the lower end scale to compliment the mid. and if High end is too bright, which will give you the tiny sound, you should then lower the 6~8khz band to compensate. my guess is, you're the dark and warm kind of wine guy, so naturally All Channel will sound bright and tiny to you. that doesn't mean you can't fine tune the setting to your liking. the thing is, a slightly more pronounced mid range and high end will give you a better detail of imaging and soundstage, but too much will become fatiguing. you'll have to find out how much low end will satisfy you, and how much mid/high will make you go wow, each person's standard is different, not to mention each speaker is different too. plugging someone's setting to yours will only be another baseline for you to tweak.

another tip for standing wave. if your standing wave measurement adjustment has a lot of wide concave adjustments, it's usually bad to my opinion, wide concave adjustment usually will dull out the sound, if that's what auto MCACC standing waves gives you, you might have to do a multi-point standing wave measurement to fix the dead zones. smaller and narrower the concave the better in my opinion.
post #3905 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

i am sorry to hear that it didn't work for you.

when it comes to audio calibration, it's not an exact science. the MCACC, or Audissey is only a baseline. you'll have to tweak from there. i suggest you do some googling on frequency response and eq. once you understand what each band represent, you can tailor your calibration to your liking.

once you understand a bit about frequency scale, i would compare MCACC's calibration results between Front Align and All Channel, from that point you'll be able to tell in a way the characteristics of your speakers. remember All Channel calibration's goal is to flatten out all your speakers's response, meaning what MCACC perceives as flat. now what's desirable is VERY subjective, this is where tweaking comes in. if MCACC's all channel eq has most of your midrange and high scale lower than they started out with, chances are that means your speaker(s) is colored towards the bright side. in contrary, if the all channel eq has your mid range and high end bumped UP, chances are your speaker(s) is colored towards the dark side. to use an analogy of wine, some tasters like it dark and warm, while others like their wine bright and dry, each could be desirable to each of their own. once you understand the FR scale, you can fine tune the eq to your liking.

if i had to take a while guess, i can only assume that your mains have a characteristic of recessed mid range but warm color. hence will give you a dull sound when you calibrate towards Front Align. if so All Channel should bring out the mid by flattening out and bumping the 500~5khz scale, in theory, you'll just have to up the lower end scale to compliment the mid. and if High end is too bright, which will give you the tiny sound, you should then lower the 6~8khz band to compensate. my guess is, you're the dark and warm kind of wine guy, so naturally All Channel will sound bright and tiny to you. that doesn't mean you can't fine tune the setting to your liking. the thing is, a slightly more pronounced mid range and high end will give you a better detail of imaging and soundstage, but too much will become fatiguing. you'll have to find out how much low end will satisfy you, and how much mid/high will make you go wow, each person's standard is different, not to mention each speaker is different too. plugging someone's setting to yours will only be another baseline for you to tweak.

another tip for standing wave. if your standing wave measurement adjustment has a lot of wide concave adjustments, it's usually bad to my opinion, wide concave adjustment usually will dull out the sound, if that's what auto MCACC standing waves gives you, you might have to do a multi-point standing wave measurement to fix the dead zones. smaller and narrower the concave the better in my opinion.

Wow thanks for all the info! I will start reading up on EQ bands to at least give it a shot. I really do have a tinny sound that is unnatural and not just considered bright so I would like to fix it. I think I will put up some standing wave pictures to analyze on here because I don't understand them at all and the graphs do show a few dips. Only problem is I have to wait until I have more time for all of this. It's definitely very time consuming!

Thanks.
post #3906 of 5311
^^^ no worries, we're here to help.

i've had my VSX1120 for three years and i didn't start messing with manual MCACC settings until a year ago. it's a lot and seem overwhelming, but once you're used to all the settings and understand EQ bands, there really isn't much more to it. the trick is every room and speaker is different, so settings work for one person won't produce same result for another.
post #3907 of 5311
Anybody have a new workflow for MCACC besides what's on the first page? I've been using that.
post #3908 of 5311
personally, it depends on your speaker and if you like your speakers set as Large or Small. but usually for me

1. Full auto first run and have MCACC map it to all three different calibration settings.

2. check the standing wave graph, if you see some "wide" dips, copy the modes to different memory slots and run multi point standing wave eq

3. depending on personal taste, if you want to fine tune one of the calibrations, copy to another slot and fine tune the eq manually and standing wave manually.

that's all.

you can always check the before and after inside manual MCACC room calibration. ideally, on paper, you want all frequencies to be around the same height level on the graph, but this is where personal taste comes in. so the final result can vary base on how you like your system sounds. there's no absolute.
post #3909 of 5311
Is it possible to change which MCACC Memory is being listened to through iControlAV 2012.
I've tried and concluded that it cant be done. Been using the standard remote which is hard to navigate in the dark.

Thx
post #3910 of 5311
This is a long thread so having not read through all pages I don't know if this has been covered before but here goes.

Currently tweaking my Pioneer SC-LX56 as per the guide up front of this thread, with some added extra steps.

Following the first "Full Auto" step, as well as changing the speaker size to small and checking the crossover is at 80Hz, I also use an SPL meter to make sure all the channel levels are equal.

Then I run the "Auto" stage (with "Keep SP System") and proceed from there up to the last stage, run the advanced EQ calibration and then proceed to this next step, not mentioned in the page 1 guide of the thread.

But is mentioned here

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18372723

The guy there, Ellis DJ, recommends running the Reverb Measurement, with EQ on and then loading the data into the PC MCACC app, checking the "After" graphs for each channel, using that data to help tweak the EQ settings in order to better get a post EQ flat response.

(Tweaking, then rerunning the Reverb measurement to check progress etc)

He does mention there though that the 125HZ range in each channel of the EQ settings should be left alone, no matter how far off it looks in the initial "After" graph. Something to do with the standing wave control being on, and thus the amp integrating this part of the Bass range better than attempting to tweak it in the EQ settings. Would that be right ? (a detailed explanation of why not touching the 125Hz level if that were the case would be appreciated)

Given how far off the 125HZ is from the target level on some of my channels when looking at the initial "After" Reverb measurment (with the front left particularly the 125HZ is 2 to 3dbs higher than everything else.... but my left front speaker is in the most difficult spot of them all I think, given my odd room layout) I am, of course, tempted to tweak that too.

Then once I have run/tweaked the Reverb measurement (EQ On)/EQ settings several times, with the aid of the graphs, in order to get flat across all my speakers, (usually all flat to around the 59DB level), I finish off with resetting channel levels using the SPL meter (and the AVIA disc)
post #3911 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

personally, it depends on your speaker and if you like your speakers set as Large or Small. but usually for me

1. Full auto first run and have MCACC map it to all three different calibration settings.

2. check the standing wave graph, if you see some "wide" dips, copy the modes to different memory slots and run multi point standing wave eq

3. depending on personal taste, if you want to fine tune one of the calibrations, copy to another slot and fine tune the eq manually and standing wave manually.

that's all.

you can always check the before and after inside manual MCACC room calibration. ideally, on paper, you want all frequencies to be around the same height level on the graph, but this is where personal taste comes in. so the final result can vary base on how you like your system sounds. there's no absolute.

Hmm, "wide dips" ? How wide is wide before considering doing that ?!
post #3912 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggle View Post

Hmm, "wide dips" ? How wide is wide before considering doing that ?!

a value of 8 and above is imo subjectively good (narrow), anything about 2~3 or below is wide, and imo bad. you can play around with a wide value and narrow value, chances are you might be able to tell the difference. i have a very sensitive hearing, i can tell a big difference. wide Q coverage of 2~3 gives a very dull sound, while narrow coverage sounds more dynamic. also take the frequency band into account. a lower frequency band like 75 hz with a WIDE Q value of 2~3 will take away a lot of the low end punch, while a Q value of 8 will make the bass sound fast, punchier, and tight. anything between that will give you a slightly softer punch, but gradual roll off. a frequency band of 110hz standing wave adjustment will take away a lot of the details in imaging, which imo negatively affects the surround sound imaging. the problem becomes worse if you have a standing wave Q value that's wide like 2 covering the 110hz band, it tends to dull out the sound. these're all based on my experiment and observations. depending on your sense of hearing, you might or might not be able to tell the difference. if your first pass gives you a wide coverage of somewhere like 2~3 for Q value, OR if it ends up messing with a higher band, that's when i would copy the memory to a different slot, and run a multi-point standing wave calibration to iron out the anomalies. standing wave adjustment ideally should only touch the lower bands, not higher bands 100hz above. again, if anyone disagrees with me, it's not an exact science, you're welcome to experiment on your own. but the above should give you a good place to start.

on a side note, i personally don't find the need to take the reverb measurement necessary. i find MCACC's default reverb measurement delay value to be ideal, but again every person is different, and have different taste. but rule of thumb, a longer delay value (ms) will give you a livelier sound, vs a shorter delay measurement. so i personally find no need to take the reverb measurement and mess with it on the PC. the internal MCACC reverb measurement graph does a decent job telling you what each frequency is doing, and giving you an idea of your speaker's characteristics.

hope this helps.
post #3913 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

a value of 8 and above is imo subjectively good (narrow), anything about 2~3 or below is wide, and imo bad. you can play around with a wide value and narrow value, chances are you might be able to tell the difference. i have a very sensitive hearing, i can tell a big difference. wide Q coverage of 2~3 gives a very dull sound, while narrow coverage sounds more dynamic. also take the frequency band into account. a lower frequency band like 75 hz with a WIDE Q value of 2~3 will take away a lot of the low end punch, while a Q value of 8 will make the bass sound fast, punchier, and tight. anything between that will give you a slightly softer punch, but gradual roll off. a frequency band of 110hz standing wave adjustment will take away a lot of the details in imaging, which imo negatively affects the surround sound imaging. the problem becomes worse if you have a standing wave Q value that's wide like 2 covering the 110hz band, it tends to dull out the sound. these're all based on my experiment and observations. depending on your sense of hearing, you might or might not be able to tell the difference. if your first pass gives you a wide coverage of somewhere like 2~3 for Q value, OR if it ends up messing with a higher band, that's when i would copy the memory to a different slot, and run a multi-point standing wave calibration to iron out the anomalies. standing wave adjustment ideally should only touch the lower bands, not higher bands 100hz above. again, if anyone disagrees with me, it's not an exact science, you're welcome to experiment on your own. but the above should give you a good place to start.

on a side note, i personally don't find the need to take the reverb measurement necessary. i find MCACC's default reverb measurement delay value to be ideal, but again every person is different, and have different taste. but rule of thumb, a longer delay value (ms) will give you a livelier sound, vs a shorter delay measurement. so i personally find no need to take the reverb measurement and mess with it on the PC. the internal MCACC reverb measurement graph does a decent job telling you what each frequency is doing, and giving you an idea of your speaker's characteristics.

hope this helps.

Hmm, the standing wave adjustments in the "Manaul MCACC" section are something I haven't really yet looked into so don't quite fully know how to approach adjusting.

checking though I can see it has set three filters for each of the three channels that can be selected in that menu (Main, Centre and SubWoofer). In each of those channels, the three filters are at the same frequencies, ie 125Hz, 101Hz and 71Hz. The Q (Bandwidth) for all of these is high, 7 or more and the attenuation of those across the board all are around -3.5Db. (all these values can be adjusted, of course)

So if I read you correctly, given that MCACC has set a standing wave filter at 125Hz (Q =9.8, Att = -3.5db) on all channels in my case, your suggestion would be to run a multi point reading ? Or would simply removing the 125Hz notch filter (effectively set the attenuation value to 0Db) have the same effect ?
Edited by Taggle - 4/26/13 at 6:09pm
post #3914 of 5311
The Q of a filter is defined (one way) as the center frequency divided by the bandwidth, fc / BW. Thus narrow/high-Q or wider/low-Q are not intrinsically "good" or "bad"; you need to choose the Q to fit the need. High-Q filters tend to exhibit more time-domain artifacts (ringing) but do not affect nearby frequencies. Low-Q filters usually have better time-domain response and are good for fixing broad FR aberrations.
post #3915 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggle View Post

Hmm, the standing wave adjustments in the "Manaul MCACC" section are something I haven't really yet looked into so don't quite fully know how to approach adjusting.

checking though I can see it has set three filters for each of the three channels that can be selected in that menu (Main, Centre and SubWoofer). In each of those channels, the three filters are at the same frequencies, ie 125Hz, 101Hz and 71Hz. The Q (Bandwidth) for all of these is high, 7 or more and the attenuation of those across the board all are around -3.5Db. (all these values can be adjusted, of course)

So if I read you correctly, given that MCACC has set a standing wave filter at 125Hz (Q =9.8, Att = -3.5db) on all channels in my case, your suggestion would be to run a multi point reading ? Or would simply removing the 125Hz notch filter (effectively set the attenuation value to 0Db) have the same effect ?

i would run multi point and see what you get. but before you do, copy it to another memory slot, so you can make comparisons. again. good or bad is subjective. but based on my extensive tests, too wide of the Q coverage (low Q value), will dull out the sound, in comparison to a narrower Q value. but like i said before, too narrow of Q will make the bass sound too fast and too tight without smooth roll off, so you have to find your own sweet spot. i suggest doing comparisons.

running multi point standing wave "might", and likely will get rid of the 125 or/and 101hz, if it doesn't, then your speaker or environment are likely to be REALLY spiking around those frequencies.

i would run the multi point standing wave and if you get three different filters across lower bands, i would compare the sound of those new findings to the previous ones with the higher bands. my testing have lead me to conclude that higher bands attenuation will cut down on the details of those bands and thus making surround imaging less detailed.
post #3916 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

i would run multi point and see what you get. but before you do, copy it to another memory slot, so you can make comparisons. again. good or bad is subjective. but based on my extensive tests, too wide of the Q coverage (low Q value), will dull out the sound, in comparison to a narrower Q value. but like i said before, too narrow of Q will make the bass sound too fast and too tight without smooth roll off, so you have to find your own sweet spot. i suggest doing comparisons.

running multi point standing wave "might", and likely will get rid of the 125 or/and 101hz, if it doesn't, then your speaker or environment are likely to be REALLY spiking around those frequencies.

i would run the multi point standing wave and if you get three different filters across lower bands, i would compare the sound of those new findings to the previous ones with the higher bands. my testing have lead me to conclude that higher bands attenuation will cut down on the details of those bands and thus making surround imaging less detailed.

I will give it a go. I note there are mixed opinions on using multi point calibrations and its adverse (or otherwise) effect on the resultant sound of the primary listening position, so that will be interesting.

As I said though my listening environment is awkward and the "Before" EQ graphs show spikes at the 125Hz on the left speaker (and centre) but nowhere near as much on the right. The left speaker also being on the side of the room that has an open plan kitchen area and permanently open corridor to the rest of the flat. (the right speaker is more 'traditional" in its placement, towards a corner or the lounge area. The left effectively being in more open space...

So I am sure the open space on the left vs the more closed space on the right is doing something less than perfect:D

Hmm, none of this still answers the question re the point the guy in the link was making, ie his point not to adjust the 125Hz slider in the EQ settings....
post #3917 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

a value of 8 and above is imo subjectively good (narrow), anything about 2~3 or below is wide, and imo bad. you can play around with a wide value and narrow value, chances are you might be able to tell the difference. i have a very sensitive hearing, i can tell a big difference. wide Q coverage of 2~3 gives a very dull sound, while narrow coverage sounds more dynamic. also take the frequency band into account. a lower frequency band like 75 hz with a WIDE Q value of 2~3 will take away a lot of the low end punch, while a Q value of 8 will make the bass sound fast, punchier, and tight. anything between that will give you a slightly softer punch, but gradual roll off. a frequency band of 110hz standing wave adjustment will take away a lot of the details in imaging, which imo negatively affects the surround sound imaging. the problem becomes worse if you have a standing wave Q value that's wide like 2 covering the 110hz band, it tends to dull out the sound. these're all based on my experiment and observations. depending on your sense of hearing, you might or might not be able to tell the difference. if your first pass gives you a wide coverage of somewhere like 2~3 for Q value, OR if it ends up messing with a higher band, that's when i would copy the memory to a different slot, and run a multi-point standing wave calibration to iron out the anomalies. standing wave adjustment ideally should only touch the lower bands, not higher bands 100hz above. again, if anyone disagrees with me, it's not an exact science, you're welcome to experiment on your own. but the above should give you a good place to start.

on a side note, i personally don't find the need to take the reverb measurement necessary. i find MCACC's default reverb measurement delay value to be ideal, but again every person is different, and have different taste. but rule of thumb, a longer delay value (ms) will give you a livelier sound, vs a shorter delay measurement. so i personally find no need to take the reverb measurement and mess with it on the PC. the internal MCACC reverb measurement graph does a decent job telling you what each frequency is doing, and giving you an idea of your speaker's characteristics.

hope this helps.

My values are always narrow and frequencies over 170 to 280. Like you, i think i have sensitive hearing when it comes to sound. With SW on the sound is kind of warm and full. With it off it thins out. And honestly sounds maby a BIT crisper? I'll check the numbers.

EDIT- The numbers are-

Filter 1- Freq 185hz, Q 9.8, ATT 2.5db.

Filter 2- Freq 229hz Q 4.4, ATT 3.0db

Filter 3- Freq 201hz Q7.8 ATT 3.5db

What do you think about the recommendation of bumping the subwoofer trim by 3db?

Also, when i change the filter channel the standing wave values are all the same. Is this normal? I would think MCACC would apply different measurements to the front/surround, center, and SW channel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

personally, it depends on your speaker and if you like your speakers set as Large or Small. but usually for me

1. Full auto first run and have MCACC map it to all three different calibration settings.

2. check the standing wave graph, if you see some "wide" dips, copy the modes to different memory slots and run multi point standing wave eq

3. depending on personal taste, if you want to fine tune one of the calibrations, copy to another slot and fine tune the eq manually and standing wave manually.

that's all.

you can always check the before and after inside manual MCACC room calibration. ideally, on paper, you want all frequencies to be around the same height level on the graph, but this is where personal taste comes in. so the final result can vary base on how you like your system sounds. there's no absolute.

My EQ measurements have pretty wide variances. I think 125hz is at +6db. Sometimes when i run MCACC it leaves it at 0db. Other frequencies are either -5, -2, +3 etc.
Edited by saprano - 4/27/13 at 7:15am
post #3918 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggle View Post

This is a long thread so having not read through all pages I don't know if this has been covered before but here goes.

Currently tweaking my Pioneer SC-LX56 as per the guide up front of this thread, with some added extra steps.

Following the first "Full Auto" step, as well as changing the speaker size to small and checking the crossover is at 80Hz, I also use an SPL meter to make sure all the channel levels are equal.

Then I run the "Auto" stage (with "Keep SP System") and proceed from there up to the last stage, run the advanced EQ calibration and then proceed to this next step, not mentioned in the page 1 guide of the thread.

But is mentioned here

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18372723

The guy there, Ellis DJ, recommends running the Reverb Measurement, with EQ on and then loading the data into the PC MCACC app, checking the "After" graphs for each channel, using that data to help tweak the EQ settings in order to better get a post EQ flat response.

(Tweaking, then rerunning the Reverb measurement to check progress etc)

He does mention there though that the 125HZ range in each channel of the EQ settings should be left alone, no matter how far off it looks in the initial "After" graph. Something to do with the standing wave control being on, and thus the amp integrating this part of the Bass range better than attempting to tweak it in the EQ settings. Would that be right ? (a detailed explanation of why not touching the 125Hz level if that were the case would be appreciated)

Given how far off the 125HZ is from the target level on some of my channels when looking at the initial "After" Reverb measurment (with the front left particularly the 125HZ is 2 to 3dbs higher than everything else.... but my left front speaker is in the most difficult spot of them all I think, given my odd room layout) I am, of course, tempted to tweak that too.

Then once I have run/tweaked the Reverb measurement (EQ On)/EQ settings several times, with the aid of the graphs, in order to get flat across all my speakers, (usually all flat to around the 59DB level), I finish off with resetting channel levels using the SPL meter (and the AVIA disc)

My reverb measurements are never flat. Some frequencies are, but others are all over the place. This is with EQ.
post #3919 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

My reverb measurements are never flat. Some frequencies are, but others are all over the place. This is with EQ.

Neither are mine initially but then I go and tweak them in the EQ setting, rerun Reverb and keep doing that till they are fairly flat
post #3920 of 5311
don't get sucked into the obsessive compulsorily of making everything completely flat. MCACC's goal is to try compensate for the room and making everything to the ideal flat response. but a COMPLETE flat response imo will sound boring. again, others can disagree. but all systems are colored one way or another, a completely flat response although on paper is ideal, realistically, it just sounds dull and boring. i've had this discussion with my friend countless times who is an emmy award winning sound designer, and he does music for movie soundtracks, while i am in the visual effects industry, hence we have a lot to talk about, he converted me, and convinced me. i was in that hole of compulsive obsessiveness of looking for a complete flat response. one you'll never get a complete flat response, two, it'll just sound boring.

having said all that. my current setup and environment have the 60 and 125hz spike in the eq environment too, but that' because i personally bumped up the two bands in the eq setting to suite my taste, but they're still within range. to me that sounds the most pleasing and warm. again, it's not an exact science, some people like their wine cold and bright, while others warm and dark, and each could be ideal to their own. the eq environment measurement is to give you an idea what the effects of MCACC does to the setup before and after. i can venture to guess that your before and after probably is a HUGE difference. that's all it matters. it does its best to correct and compensate the room, but you won't get a complete perfect flat, nor would i want to. another side note i personally find frustrating, maybe because i am ocd, but MCACC calibration eq will vary by 0.5~2db every-time you run it. so don't be alarmed if you get slightly different results. it's frustrating to me, because "i" have a sensitive hearing and i can hear the difference between 1db, yes i have cat ears. hence i've done a lot of experiments with MCACC and different settings and calibrations. these results are just what "i" find pleasing and ideal. after running so many times, you start to understand the characteristics of your speakers and setup, from there on, you can fine tune the eq to your liking.

i am guessing you guys have a lot of wood floors, tile floors? or bare walls? marble counters? my house is wood floor, with regular painted walls, and some marble counter tops. but i compensate it by having lots of paintings on walls, and cloth based furniture and a giant rug in the living room that rests between me and the front speakers. (it meaning excessive reflections).
post #3921 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

don't get sucked into the obsessive compulsorily of making everything completely flat. MCACC's goal is to try compensate for the room and making everything to the ideal flat response. but a COMPLETE flat response imo will sound boring. again, others can disagree. but all systems are colored one way or another, a completely flat response although on paper is ideal, realistically, it just sounds dull and boring. i've had this discussion with my friend countless times who is an emmy award winning sound designer, and he does music for movie soundtracks, while i am in the visual effects industry, hence we have a lot to talk about, he converted me, and convinced me. i was in that hole of compulsive obsessiveness of looking for a complete flat response. one you'll never get a complete flat response, two, it'll just sound boring.

having said all that. my current setup and environment have the 60 and 125hz spike in the eq environment too, but that' because i personally bumped up the two bands in the eq setting to suite my taste, but they're still within range. to me that sounds the most pleasing and warm. again, it's not an exact science, some people like their wine cold and bright, while others warm and dark, and each could be ideal to their own. the eq environment measurement is to give you an idea what the effects of MCACC does to the setup before and after. i can venture to guess that your before and after probably is a HUGE difference. that's all it matters. it does its best to correct and compensate the room, but you won't get a complete perfect flat, nor would i want to. another side note i personally find frustrating, maybe because i am ocd, but MCACC calibration eq will vary by 0.5~2db every-time you run it. so don't be alarmed if you get slightly different results. it's frustrating to me, because "i" have a sensitive hearing and i can hear the difference between 1db, yes i have cat ears. hence i've done a lot of experiments with MCACC and different settings and calibrations. these results are just what "i" find pleasing and ideal. after running so many times, you start to understand the characteristics of your speakers and setup, from there on, you can fine tune the eq to your liking.

i am guessing you guys have a lot of wood floors, tile floors? or bare walls? marble counters? my house is wood floor, with regular painted walls, and some marble counter tops. but i compensate it by having lots of paintings on walls, and cloth based furniture and a giant rug in the living room that rests between me and the front speakers. (it meaning excessive reflections).

Nope, carpet throughout and two acoustic panels at the 'front' end, one behind each speaker. I can't put panels at the first reflection points on the side walls because one the right side that reflection point is more or less all window and on the left is the open out area into the kitchen space and hallway. (But given the room geometry on the left side, the reflection point isn't close, nor is it easy to trace.) It's funny as since the right speaker is closer to a corner I would have imagined that would be the one with the bass spike but instead it's the left, more open spaced speaker that has the spike ?

The way I would approach MCACC though is that it is automatically trying its best to get a flat response for each speaker when you run it. It doesn't get it exactly right though, so I then tweak it further to get it closer to flat.

Having done that, if it sounds fine, then all well and good, if not, at that point I can then raise/lower the freq bands to my taste (bit more bass, less treble etc but first, starting from the 'ideal' position.
post #3922 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

don't get sucked into the obsessive compulsorily of making everything completely flat. MCACC's goal is to try compensate for the room and making everything to the ideal flat response. but a COMPLETE flat response imo will sound boring. again, others can disagree. but all systems are colored one way or another, a completely flat response although on paper is ideal, realistically, it just sounds dull and boring. i've had this discussion with my friend countless times who is an emmy award winning sound designer, and he does music for movie soundtracks, while i am in the visual effects industry, hence we have a lot to talk about, he converted me, and convinced me. i was in that hole of compulsive obsessiveness of looking for a complete flat response. one you'll never get a complete flat response, two, it'll just sound boring.

having said all that. my current setup and environment have the 60 and 125hz spike in the eq environment too, but that' because i personally bumped up the two bands in the eq setting to suite my taste, but they're still within range. to me that sounds the most pleasing and warm. again, it's not an exact science, some people like their wine cold and bright, while others warm and dark, and each could be ideal to their own. the eq environment measurement is to give you an idea what the effects of MCACC does to the setup before and after. i can venture to guess that your before and after probably is a HUGE difference. that's all it matters. it does its best to correct and compensate the room, but you won't get a complete perfect flat, nor would i want to. another side note i personally find frustrating, maybe because i am ocd, but MCACC calibration eq will vary by 0.5~2db every-time you run it. so don't be alarmed if you get slightly different results. it's frustrating to me, because "i" have a sensitive hearing and i can hear the difference between 1db, yes i have cat ears. hence i've done a lot of experiments with MCACC and different settings and calibrations. these results are just what "i" find pleasing and ideal. after running so many times, you start to understand the characteristics of your speakers and setup, from there on, you can fine tune the eq to your liking.

i am guessing you guys have a lot of wood floors, tile floors? or bare walls? marble counters? my house is wood floor, with regular painted walls, and some marble counter tops. but i compensate it by having lots of paintings on walls, and cloth based furniture and a giant rug in the living room that rests between me and the front speakers. (it meaning excessive reflections).

Oh i don't like a completely flat sound either. I like speakers to have some type of character to them. It's the reason why i prefer the B&W CM9's and CMC2. Others don't like them because they're colored and warm. But i like that sound.

You guessed correctly that MCACC on and off is a big difference. Off is flat with no weight and detail and is thin sounding. On pulls everything together and makes the sound have so much depth. Dialog sound is especially improved.

I don't have any panels on the wall. Just a large area rug in front of my system. But that one rug helped ALOT. It got rid of alot of slap ehco. Actually all of it. My room is pretty small 1530cuft. So i imagine the subsequent reflections are reduced a little from being absorbed by the rug.
post #3923 of 5311
Interesting discussion going on. Three quick points of a personal preference nature.

1. I must be a freak of nature because I CAN hear the difference of as little as .5 db with any given frequency band. I'll qualify that though by saying that I have spent thousands of hours mixing 2 channel audio in a home recording studio, often using some pretty nice EQ's. I honestly believe most other folks would be able to hear slight shifts like that as well, if they knew which voices in their reference track are affected by the change.

2. I've all but given up on MCACC being credible. Notwithstanding the castration it gives the low end of my system with the simultaneous hyping of my already bright aluminum dome tweeters, the fact that it is wildly inconsistent from one session to the next flies it out the window for me...I'll instead mix to taste.

3. The one good thing MCACC does do, IMO, is show you how your room stands below 150hz. However, since MCACC is so inconsistent given all the same conditions this must be concluded only after averaging several tests, noticing similarities of what its dipping in the standing frequencies parametric EQ (whatever they call that thing). Again, once you understand your room, you can clear out many of its results and mix to taste.
post #3924 of 5311
Question, I'm running 7.1 JBL 500 pro bass reflex bookshelf speakers my response on speakers are 75 hz- 20 kHz what should I set the x-over to?
80hz or 100hz? Should I also change them to loud or keep them small? Any help would be great
post #3925 of 5311
131 pages of posts and the last post basically says 'Don't bother except for the bass' which the MCACC doesn't even do anything for. Now I Am Really Confused.....eek.gif

I think I am going to have to spend half a day on just working on this to learn it for myself. Still, so very much good information in this thread, thanks to all who have contributed...
post #3926 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrummingdude View Post

Interesting discussion going on. Three quick points of a personal preference nature.

1. I must be a freak of nature because I CAN hear the difference of as little as .5 db with any given frequency band. I'll qualify that though by saying that I have spent thousands of hours mixing 2 channel audio in a home recording studio, often using some pretty nice EQ's. I honestly believe most other folks would be able to hear slight shifts like that as well, if they knew which voices in their reference track are affected by the change.

2. I've all but given up on MCACC being credible. Notwithstanding the castration it gives the low end of my system with the simultaneous hyping of my already bright aluminum dome tweeters, the fact that it is wildly inconsistent from one session to the next flies it out the window for me...I'll instead mix to taste.

3. The one good thing MCACC does do, IMO, is show you how your room stands below 150hz. However, since MCACC is so inconsistent given all the same conditions this must be concluded only after averaging several tests, noticing similarities of what its dipping in the standing frequencies parametric EQ (whatever they call that thing). Again, once you understand your room, you can clear out many of its results and mix to taste.

i agree mostly. which is why after so many calibrations, i already know the characteristics and the average value of what i should be getting. and tweaking from that point on really is personal taste and to tailor towards your liking. i still however find MCACC very helpful in a way that it blends all your speaker together and blends together with the room. the eq might not be ideal, but like i said, once you know your speakers, and know your eq, it's not too difficult to adjust and fine tune from there. trouble is for most users, it might not be easy and could be overwhelming if it's their brand new setup. i know it took me three years to start messing with manual MCACC settings.
post #3927 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by darenwh View Post

131 pages of posts and the last post basically says 'Don't bother except for the bass' which the MCACC doesn't even do anything for. Now I Am Really Confused.....eek.gif

I think I am going to have to spend half a day on just working on this to learn it for myself. Still, so very much good information in this thread, thanks to all who have contributed...

i think "don't bother except for bass" is a very personal opinion. i don't think you should take it as fact.

the best you can do is use MCACC calibration as a baseline, and fine tune the eq and play around with the standing-wave to get YOUR best result. also depending on system, room, and personal taste, some might prefer one calibration type than the other. but since MCACC provides three, you can choose based on your needs and liking.
post #3928 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tk111 View Post

Question, I'm running 7.1 JBL 500 pro bass reflex bookshelf speakers my response on speakers are 75 hz- 20 kHz what should I set the x-over to?
80hz or 100hz? Should I also change them to loud or keep them small? Any help would be great

that's a very subjective question and answer. i personally like setting my speakers to Large, because i like the sound it produces (fuller). even tho 5 out of my 7 speakers don't go below 55hz. it's a very subjective thing, my best recommendation is to test the difference between the two and see which one you like better. it's very easy to tell by testing a loud action filled scene. some might prefer one than the other.

as far as cross over frequency, i would set it to 80. the thing with XO, it's not a hard cut off, but more of a roll off. so you don't have to worry too much. but setting XO too high will localize the effect, meaning you'll start being able to tell the direction of the bass, which is NOT good. 80 seems to be a good baseline for most people. but based on your setup, i would say you definitely don't want to go below 75hz.
post #3929 of 5311
Ok I
Quote:
Originally Posted by howzz1854 View Post

that's a very subjective question and answer. i personally like setting my speakers to Large, because i like the sound it produces (fuller). even tho 5 out of my 7 speakers don't go below 55hz. it's a very subjective thing, my best recommendation is to test the difference between the two and see which one you like better. it's very easy to tell by testing a loud action filled scene. some might prefer one than the other.

as far as cross over frequency, i would set it to 80. the thing with XO, it's not a hard cut off, but more of a roll off. so you don't have to worry too much. but setting XO too high will localize the effect, meaning you'll start being able to tell the direction of the bass, which is NOT good. 80 seems to be a good baseline for most people. but based on your setup, i would say you definitely don't want to go below 75hz.
ok I will keep it at 80 so large will produce a more theater sound?is that because there bass reflex? Should I set only the front left and right or fronts and surrounds to large?
post #3930 of 5311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tk111 View Post

Ok I
ok I will keep it at 80 so large will produce a more theater sound?is that because there bass reflex? Should I set only the front left and right or fronts and surrounds to large?
My center is also a bass reflex speaker should I set that to large as well? I really want the best theater like sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "OFFICIAL" Pioneer MCACC thread