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 143

post #4261 of 5340
It is best to bump of the sub output in the avr and not use the sub trim or the gain in the back of the sub. A sub will have a max spl due to it's design and the room gain. This way you can put things back or use another preset and not mess with the whole system calibration. Remember that bumping up the sub volume decreases headroom.

Overall SQ is more important to me than move volume in the system. Straying to far from the MCACC settings in my room usually result in decrease SQ.
Edited by derrickdj1 - 6/24/13 at 12:06am
post #4262 of 5340
I'm not talking about using the subs volume on the sub. Nor am i talking about touching the channel level MCACC set. The standing wave menu has a sub trim level. That's where you add +3db.

Haha. Are people really not getting this?
post #4263 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

I'm not talking about using the subs volume on the sub. Nor am i talking about touching the channel level MCACC set. The standing wave menu has a sub trim level. That's where you add +3db.

Haha. Are people really not getting this?

PM sent
Edited by ss9001 - 6/24/13 at 5:46am
post #4264 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Not talking the sub channel level. I don't know why people are getting confused.

The 3db bump i'm talking about is from the standing wave menu.

Yes, the standing wave TRIM level is what I bumped (if you are replying to my post). I do indeed get it. I read the posts (especially yours), I followed the instructions (especially yours), I did what was suggested (by you). And I thank you for it.

I'm not "confused." Just to be clear about it. smile.gif
post #4265 of 5340
^^
good job! congrats smile.gif I saw your post in the other thread where you said it helped, so glad you got it nailed right.
post #4266 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by 117olddude View Post

Yes, the standing wave TRIM level is what I bumped (if you are replying to my post). I do indeed get it. I read the posts (especially yours), I followed the instructions (especially yours), I did what was suggested (by you). And I thank you for it.

I'm not "confused." Just to be clear about it. smile.gif

Glad you got it correct.

My comment was more in general than specifically towards anybody. It just seems like people are not understanding which sub level to adjust and where.
post #4267 of 5340
Just had to track down in the menus where it was. After that it was easy.

Edit- recal'd my system and checked again- trim was set again at -1.5. by MCACC. Seemed a bit anemic. So this time I boosted it to +1.5 (the 3db boost). Last night I had it up to +3, seemed to be rattling stuff on the walls a bit too much (watching The Numbers Station). So this morning after resetting I tried a few scenes of the same with lows in 'em and got less rattle (but still plenty of low punch). Then I put in Cars 2 (got a kid) and tried a few scenes from it. Lots more low end then I recall previously. Speakers set to Small, 80 crossover for the sub. I run from an Oppo 103>bitstream>Direct selected in 1522>Kef 3005 7.1 surrounds. This appears (sounds) like a good tweak. Thanks again. smile.gif
Edited by 117olddude - 6/24/13 at 3:37pm
post #4268 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by 117olddude View Post

Just had to track down in the menus where it was. After that it was easy.

Edit- recal'd my system and checked again- trim was set again at -1.5. by MCACC. Seemed a bit anemic. So this time I boosted it to +1.5 (the 3db boost). Last night I had it up to +3, seemed to be rattling stuff on the walls a bit too much (watching The Numbers Station). So this morning after resetting I tried a few scenes of the same with lows in 'em and got less rattle (but still plenty of low punch). Then I put in Cars 2 (got a kid) and tried a few scenes from it. Lots more low end then I recall previously. Speakers set to Small, 80 crossover for the sub. I run from an Oppo 103>bitstream>Direct selected in 1522>Kef 3005 7.1 surrounds. This appears (sounds) like a good tweak. Thanks again. smile.gif

Thanks for posting your trim settings. What is your sub channel level in your avr?
post #4269 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

Thanks for posting your trim settings. What is your sub channel level in your avr?

What is making the MCACC to fail on setting the bass? I saw several posts about it and happened to my set up too.
post #4270 of 5340
Im having issues with my dual subs not turning on when in "auto" until the avr volume is raised significantly. If it turn my avr on at a low, but decent volume, my 2 subs stay in standby until I up the volume higher than I want for just normal tv watching. Any ideas...channel level, signal strength, etc?
post #4271 of 5340
Assuming the sub's levels are correctly set, that's a problem with the subs, not MCACC. Either leave them on, turn them on manually or via trigger, use one of the switched power strips to turn them on when the AVR turns on, or something like an X10 system that takes the trigger output of the AVR and communicates with remote receivers to turn power on to the subs (the latter is what I do).
post #4272 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

Thanks for posting your trim settings. What is your sub channel level in your avr?

About [EDIT- just checked again] 4.0. I run my sound via bitstream to the receiver and then select Direct and then a sound field (Dolby HD or DTS HD if available, otherwise a movie one). This is giving me good results. For music to my speaker B/Stereo setup I run Source Direct./Stereo. I have noticed that I get no eq on those speakers when doing MCACC setup (that I can see). It measures them in the initial Full Auto setup (I can see them on-screen along with my 7.1 speakers) but as soon as the 2nd screen of MCACC begins the screen just shows the 7.1 speakers. I'm really not sure if they are copying the 7.1 settings to the FWs or if there is no eq'ing for them.

I've been doing more playing around with the settings, and it seems that Channel Levels on the remote (#6) does memorize the settings I input and carry them forward. So I am currently bumping up the FR and SR a bit to equal the lefts. Seems to be evening out the sound (again, I could have unequal ears due to the 1960s)

Oh, and too much bumping of the SW trim (more than 3db) can cause some boominess. Be careful with it.
Edited by 117olddude - 6/27/13 at 11:04am
post #4273 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

Im having issues with my dual subs not turning on when in "auto" until the avr volume is raised significantly. If it turn my avr on at a low, but decent volume, my 2 subs stay in standby until I up the volume higher than I want for just normal tv watching. Any ideas...channel level, signal strength, etc?

I assume you ran MCACC, of course. What is the channel level for the subwoofer set by MCACC?

Assuming your subs are not defective, what could be happening is that the subwoofer output might be too low to trigger the activation of the sub. You could try lowering the gain on the subwoofer themselves (both of them) and running MCACC again. This should raise the level of output sent by the AVR to the subwoofer, and should trigger the subs' activation at a lower volume.

Dan
post #4274 of 5340
The preamp signal is to low for activation of the subs in standby mode. An easy fix is to use a Y connector ($3.99 at BB) on the sub. I just leave my sub on and not use the standby . They don't use much power and in my experience , it does not affect the longevity of the sub.
post #4275 of 5340
I just ran MCACC twice. The first time I had the volume dial on the back of my sub at 10oclock. The channel level on the avr came back at -12 for SW after full auto was run. The second run, i decreased the dial on the back of the sub to 9oclock and MCACC came back with -6 for SW. Does this sound right? I feel like those levels, both dial on sub & channel level in avr, are too low.
post #4276 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

I just ran MCACC twice. The first time I had the volume dial on the back of my sub at 10oclock. The channel level on the avr came back at -12 for SW after full auto was run. The second run, i decreased the dial on the back of the sub to 9oclock and MCACC came back with -6 for SW. Does this sound right? I feel like those levels, both dial on sub & channel level in avr, are too low.
No its not to low if you can get it where its closer to -3 it would be better less distortion and more headroom but a lot of people boost their bass to their preference but from experience running it hot is the usual suspect muddy or boomy bass with overhang.
post #4277 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

I just ran MCACC twice. The first time I had the volume dial on the back of my sub at 10oclock. The channel level on the avr came back at -12 for SW after full auto was run. The second run, i decreased the dial on the back of the sub to 9oclock and MCACC came back with -6 for SW. Does this sound right? I feel like those levels, both dial on sub & channel level in avr, are too low.

It's just as Dan said: lowering the gain in the sub itself forces the AVR to raise the sub level. Keep doing that until the sub level set by the AVR is in the same range as the rest of the speakers. Then you can make whatever adjustments you need to make to get the audible bass levels you prefer, if necessary.

It's clear the sub is set too loud, and the channel level, turned down by the AVR to compensate, is not high enough to reliably trugger the auto-on.

"O'clock" doesn't mean much, because it's not a calibrated scale and we have no idea what the settings are relative to.
post #4278 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

It's just as Dan said: lowering the gain in the sub itself forces the AVR to raise the sub level. Keep doing that until the sub level set by the AVR is in the same range as the rest of the speakers. Then you can make whatever adjustments you need to make to get the audible bass levels you prefer, if necessary.

It's clear the sub is set too loud, and the channel level, turned down by the AVR to compensate, is not high enough to reliably trugger the auto-on.

"O'clock" doesn't mean much, because it's not a calibrated scale and we have no idea what the settings are relative to.

Ok. Thank for the reply. So, a sub volume setting on the actual sub is not imporant, correct? I would expect, putting the volume dial on the sub closer to 20% would put the level closer to 0 like the rest of the channels. I had always heard that around 9 or 10oclock, 25% or a bit more, was ideal/recommended.
post #4279 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by goblue1 View Post

Ok. Thank for the reply. So, a sub volume setting on the actual sub is not imporant, correct? I would expect, putting the volume dial on the sub closer to 20% would put the level closer to 0 like the rest of the channels. I had always heard that around 9 or 10oclock, 25% or a bit more, was ideal/recommended.
Depending on the sub mfg they usually recomend an initial setting and then you use room correction or eq and level match such as HSU has a 9 o:clock starting point and in my system in order to level match mine had to be lowered to 8;30.
This does not limit the subs ability or volume while listening you turn up the master volume on your AVR so does the volume on your sub but if you already have the sub cranked to high it has lost some or most of its headroom.
The volume knob on the sub is as important as the volume knob on your AVR and if set correctly should give you the performance you are looking for if the right size sub was purchased for the size room its being played in.
post #4280 of 5340
My understanding is the correct volume setting on the subwoofer is the one which results in as close to neutral volume (0.0 dB) as possible after MCACC has been run. I achieved that with my SC-27 and the sub volume knob set midway between the 10:00 and 11:00 positions (not sure if 10:30 is an appropriate term) but that's my sub and the actual volume setting between subs can vary significantly. I positioned a piece of masking tape on the back of my sub so I could mark the final location of the knob for future reference.

The Auto setting on a sub may not work properly if it doesn't receive a sufficient signal. There are ways to correct this via adjustments, but why change settings which could affect overall quality when it's easier to just change the sub to the On setting. The manufacturer of my sub says it uses no additional power and doesn't affect reliability. Although I would rather purchase a new sub than ship mine elsewhere, all the electronics are on a single board, the component which will most likely fail, which can be easily removed for repair or replacement.

As a side note, some sub manufacturers provide recommended settings for their subs which should provide a good starting point. Mine even provides settings to use during the MCACC process, then suggests some changes to try after the MCACC process finishes, but none of those changes involve readjusting the sub volume knob.
post #4281 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

Depending on the sub mfg they usually recomend an initial setting and then you use room correction or eq and level match such as HSU has a 9 o:clock starting point and in my system in order to level match mine had to be lowered to 8;30.
This does not limit the subs ability or volume while listening you turn up the master volume on your AVR so does the volume on your sub but if you already have the sub cranked to high it has lost some or most of its headroom.
The volume knob on the sub is as important as the volume knob on your AVR and if set correctly should give you the performance you are looking for if the right size sub was purchased for the size room its being played in.

Perfect example. My sub is also an HSU (VTF-15H) and HSU recommended I start with the volume knob at 9:00 as well. But I had to raise my volume knob to 10:30 in order to achieve neutral volume. Goes to show there are too many variables which could affect what the final setting of the volume knob on the sub should be... i.e. room size, sub placement, etc. So people shouldn't be concerned just because their volume knob is set to a different position than someone else's. MCACC will lead you to the correct setting.
post #4282 of 5340
Hey guys Had a power surge and my vsx-321-k-p in my bedroom is dead had a surge proctecter, the fuse looks good any help would be great...
post #4283 of 5340
Quick question, I am upgrading my pioneer 1020k to a 1222k. I know that the power output of the 1222 is going to far outclass the power output of the 1020k. However, I am curious as to the sensitivity of the MCACC. I haven't received the new amp yet (got it for $479 on Newegg), so I am wondering, what improvements have been made to MCACC in the last two years, specifically between these two models? I did notice that the description of the 1222k states that it measures speaker distances down to the inch, whereas the 1020k only did 1/2 foot measurements. So, are people finding MCACC to give more accurate results on the 2012 models?

Thanks
Edited by pmanyon - 7/3/13 at 9:45pm
post #4284 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmanyon View Post

Quick question, I am upgrading my pioneer 1020k to a 1222k. I know that the power output of the 1222 is going to far outclass the power output of the 1020k. However, I am curious as to the sensitivity of the MCACC. I haven't received the new amp yet (got it for $499 on Newegg), so I am wondering, what improvements have been made to MCACC in the last two years, specifically between these two models? I did notice that the description of the 1222k states that it measures speaker distances down to the inch, whereas the 1020k only did 1/2 foot measurements. So, are people finding MCACC to give more accurate results on the 2012 models?

Thanks

Pmanyon, I hate to be the one to say it, but I will: don't be surprised if you hear little or no difference between the two receivers. The difference in output power is likely to be significant only under very extreme circumstances (such as running 4 ohm speakers) if ever, and MCACC is essentially unchanged.

Certainly it has several useful features that may make it a worthwhile upgrade, but if your concern was that the old AVR was very underpowered for your combination of room and speakers, this isn't the degree of an upgrade that's likely to correct that. Remember, it takes a doubling of output power to produce just a 3dB increase in SPL, and in practical terms the 1020 and the 1222 are similar in power output.

Of course, the SC1222 does have pre-outs, so you can always add external power amps that really can solve the low-power problem, so it's a useful step towards future upgrades.
post #4285 of 5340
I have to agree with rdclark. I have an Elite vsx-23 and bought an open box SC-35 and for my use and requirements the 35 wasn't that much of an improvement for my needs so I sold it and kept the 23. What I mean is, if there is a big difference between the 35 and the 23 I wasn't able to take advantage of it. The 23 does everything I need a receiver to do. If my memory serves me well the 23 was basically Elites version of the 1018.

I don't think MCACC has really been upgraded much in the last 4-5 years but I could be wrong.
post #4286 of 5340
I have to agree with rdclark. I have an Elite vsx-23 and bought an open box SC-35 and for my use and requirements the 35 wasn't that much of an improvement for my needs so I sold it and kept the 23. What I mean is, if there is a big difference between the 35 and the 23 I wasn't able to take advantage of it. The 23 does everything I need a receiver to do. If my memory serves me well the 23 was basically Elites version of the 1018.

I don't think MCACC has really been upgraded much in the last 4-5 years but I could be wrong.
post #4287 of 5340
It is my understanding that getting the sub closer to 0, is correct but it does not increase more headroom for the sub. The sub design and amp determine the max spl. It is only a matter of how fast you will reach the max spl adusting the trim or avr level for the sub. It will change the sub input signal. Upping the sub level reduces headroom. If there is not enough sub volume or extension, it may be time to consider a sub upgrade.

On a side note, I got a Berhinger INUKE 3000 DSP amp for my subs. The only real advantage of the PEQ is to boost the 20 Hz response and cut the mid-bass bump at the XO over MCACC. I can adjust phase with it but MCACC seems to do that with an adjustment of the sub distance. People with Auddyssey base avr's make sub EQ such a major point over MCACC. Using the PEQ to knock down a peak is good but from what I can see so far, there is not a lot to do under 63 Hz. I will have to play with it some more since I just got it yesterday and am on the learning curve.
post #4288 of 5340
I realize that the 1222k is not leaps and bounds better than the 1020k in power, but it is better. The 110 watt per channel rating given to the 1020k is at 8 ohms with 1 channel driven. 80 watts per channel with two channels driven. The 1222k lists the output at 120wpc. In a review of the sc-61, which is essentially the same receiver, it was tested right around 120 watts per channel with all channels driven. Is that not a pretty decent upgrade? As for the MCACC, it seems as if only the distance sensitivity has changed, but there are other features I like on the 1222k, like the ability to add a wireless adapter and use airplay, pandora, etc. right on the receiver. I am in the process of upgrading my speakers anyway, so I am going to make sure to get ones that work well with the 1222k. Anyway, I sold my old receiver for $225 and actually got this one for $479, so I didn't take too big of a risk with the $250 I spent to get an $1100 dollar receiver.
post #4289 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmanyon View Post

I realize that the 1222k is not leaps and bounds better than the 1020k in power, but it is better. The 110 watt per channel rating given to the 1020k is at 8 ohms with 1 channel driven. 80 watts per channel with two channels driven. The 1222k lists the output at 120wpc. In a review of the sc-61, which is essentially the same receiver, it was tested right around 120 watts per channel with all channels driven. Is that not a pretty decent upgrade? As for the MCACC, it seems as if only the distance sensitivity has changed, but there are other features I like on the 1222k, like the ability to add a wireless adapter and use airplay, pandora, etc. right on the receiver. I am in the process of upgrading my speakers anyway, so I am going to make sure to get ones that work well with the 1222k. Anyway, I sold my old receiver for $225 and actually got this one for $479, so I didn't take too big of a risk with the $250 I spent to get an $1100 dollar receiver.

The biggest upgrade for the 1222 / 1522 is the class D3 amplification, which pretty much run super cool compare to my onkyo, which you could fry an egg on top of it.
post #4290 of 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmanyon View Post

I realize that the 1222k is not leaps and bounds better than the 1020k in power, but it is better. The 110 watt per channel rating given to the 1020k is at 8 ohms with 1 channel driven. 80 watts per channel with two channels driven. The 1222k lists the output at 120wpc. In a review of the sc-61, which is essentially the same receiver, it was tested right around 120 watts per channel with all channels driven. Is that not a pretty decent upgrade? As for the MCACC, it seems as if only the distance sensitivity has changed, but there are other features I like on the 1222k, like the ability to add a wireless adapter and use airplay, pandora, etc. right on the receiver. I am in the process of upgrading my speakers anyway, so I am going to make sure to get ones that work well with the 1222k. Anyway, I sold my old receiver for $225 and actually got this one for $479, so I didn't take too big of a risk with the $250 I spent to get an $1100 dollar receiver.

As I pointed out, it would take twice as much power to achieve a 3dB increase in maximum SPL, which is not much louder. This is not twice as much power, or even half again as much power. If you are having insufficient-power issues, this alone will not solve them, although the ability to use external amplification with it is a step down the road to a solution.

As I also pointed out, its additional features alone may well be a good reason for an upgrade. And you've clearly managed the financial part of it so that, for $250 out-of-pocket, I'd definitely say you've done well. I just wanted to make sure you weren't expecting too much from the amplifier section.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the 1222.
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