or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Sherwood R-972 User Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sherwood R-972 User Thread - Page 85

post #2521 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbfranco View Post

When 'm trying to auto calibrate with trinnov mic, it does the tree bursts per speaker (as if there was no problem), but I only get completely wrong measures from Front L and R, and no other measure from all other speakers (7.1 system plus Sub).
Have you ever seen this level of problem?

 

If you search the thread you'll see I had the exact same issue with one of the units I tried... no number of resets would help.


Edited by Charles R - 5/3/13 at 7:13pm

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2522 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhazard View Post

Do a factory reset before taking a measurement.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I've did some resets. The problem remains the same. Bizarre measurementes for Front and Left and no other speaker found.
Any other advice?
Tks

Fred
post #2523 of 3153
What kind of speakers do you have? Do you have the mic on a tri-pod? placement of the microphone is very critical.
post #2524 of 3153
Front and center are b&w cm series. Surrounds are 4 kef monopoles.
I've used a small tripod and tried many speaker positions, including very near the speaker. Keeps doing only 3 burts but doesn't find the speakers ( only fronts with all wrong measures).
post #2525 of 3153

Sdrucker,

 

  There is no EQ system that can correct for a bad room.  Corrections in the frequency or the time domain does not stop sound from bouncing around your room.  They don't change the physics of sound, they TRY to compensate for them.  If you can do some treatments in your room it will give the best sound.  The next questions you should be asking is what type of treatments (absorption, diffusion, etc.) and where should they be placed.  Absorbing first reflections is often not the best solution but it really depends on how the speakers are interacting in your room.  Too many variables and I don't want to derail this thread.

post #2526 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbfranco View Post

Hi Folks,
I just purchased a R-972 from A4L.
When 'm trying to auto calibrate with trinnov mic, it does the tree bursts per speaker (as if there was no problem), but I only get completely wrong measures from Front L and R, and no other measure from all other speakers (7.1 system plus Sub).
Have you ever seen this level of problem? Any advice? Could it be a deffective microphone?
Thanks in advance!

Fred

Did you experiment with the volume levels? It seems that for me my system needs to be louder than what I listen to it at to get an accurate reading. I think Stereo_Jeff on this forum used tot work for Sherwood. You may contact him for advice. Also, over at " R972 Trinnov User Notes" http://www.avsforum.com/t/1397757/r972-trinnov-user-notes you can ask Curt Hoyt, audio specialist with Trinnov, about this. I'm impressed with how much time he will take with us R-972 owners.
post #2527 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

No, I'd use either XT32 or Trinnov. I'm not about to try to overlay them, and create issues with competing priorities.

My speakers are symmetrically placed, so that's not a problem per se; the reflections are more about room configuration (an L-shaped room, where the left side of our listening/living room opens into our dining room), furniture placement, wall surfaces etc. As for the phantom center, I've read some suggestion on this thread that it may work better with Trinnov than some centers, but that's a bridge too far given that I've got a powered center that I'm happy with for music, anyway.

My thought was to keep the Denon because I know everything works with it in the equipment chain, and to avoid complications with setups that might or not work with the Sherwood (and to focus the learning curve on Trinnov rather than HDMI handshake or audio issues with the R-972). But if the poster is correct about there being no A/D conversion on analog multichannel inputs, it's a moot point anyway. This _might_ work with a Denon 4520, which has a Zone Out which can output multichannel HDMI output on one Zone (the Denon 4311 doesn't have multichannel HDMI out AFAIK; I think it downmixes to two-channel if you use the HDMI Monitor Out, even in passthrough mode).

I guess I'll stick with XT32 and look into the treatment route...we've had enough discussion of the shortcomings of Audyssey on the Pro thread and REW on the time domain that it got me thinking of moving into Trinnov. Thanks for the feedback.

There really hasn't been that many 3rd party measurements posted that give a good indication of the behaviour of Trinnov's filters on the time domain.Most people who have used Trinnov don't seem particularly interested in taking measurements or looking at time domain results.They like what they hear with the re-mapping and that's about all that really matters to them.

I'd personally like to see more 3rd party measurements of the time domain behaviour of Trinnov and how it compares with other DRC systems,but I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon.
post #2528 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

I'd personally like to see more 3rd party measurements of the time domain behaviour of Trinnov and how it compares with other DRC systems,but I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon.
Steven, lots of folks would love to see objective comparisons of aspects of the various RC products, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Think about it......one needs to own or borrow multiple RC products, install them in the same system/same room, make sure they understand the product well enough to adjust the many settings so as to bring out its best performance and then, and only then........take measurements.

Any other comparison model is hugely problematic.
post #2529 of 3153
Does anyone have tips for getting 3D passthrough to work? If I have my HTPC hooked up via HDMI to a panny plasma, it will give a message that 3d is detected and I can hit the 3d button. Through the 972 with passthrough enabled, no such message appears, and when I hit the 3d button it gives the message that 3d content is not detected. This is using TMT.

On SBS content I can "force" it from autodetect to work but blu-rays/AVC/MVC do not work.
post #2530 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by stm69 View Post

Does anyone have tips for getting 3D passthrough to work? If I have my HTPC hooked up via HDMI to a panny plasma, it will give a message that 3d is detected and I can hit the 3d button. Through the 972 with passthrough enabled, no such message appears, and when I hit the 3d button it gives the message that 3d content is not detected. This is using TMT.

On SBS content I can "force" it from autodetect to work but blu-rays/AVC/MVC do not work.

I have my Oppo BDP 103 connected through my 972 to a Panasonic 3D plasma TV and did not have to do anything to get it to pass 3D through it (I do have video scaling turned off but not sure if that matters) I do occasionally see the 3D detected message when there is no 3D content there, so something must trigger that message.
The real test would be to connect the HTPC through the 972 to the TV and play something that you know is in 3D and see if it works. I have a feeling that the TV is just picking up a false signal and giving you that message.
post #2531 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL View Post

Sdrucker,

  There is no EQ system that can correct for a bad room.  Corrections in the frequency or the time domain does not stop sound from bouncing around your room.  They don't change the physics of sound, they TRY to compensate for them.  If you can do some treatments in your room it will give the best sound.  The next questions you should be asking is what type of treatments (absorption, diffusion, etc.) and where should they be placed.  Absorbing first reflections is often not the best solution but it really depends on how the speakers are interacting in your room.  Too many variables and I don't want to derail this thread.

Agreed--which is why I didn't post my REW plots with Audyssey Pro/XT32 here. RC can address observed dips/rises in frequency response to varying degrees of sensitivity, but NOT nulls, delay issues driven by room modes, or issues beyond possibly first reflections that Trinnov might or might not address differently (maybe better) than XT32.

Having said that, I don't think I have a bad room, based on the full-range frequency response plots at 1/12th smoothing, and sub frequency plots with none, but I know enough to know that the ETC and impulse response plots show reflections above what my current RC can accomplish.
Edited by sdrucker - 5/6/13 at 2:31pm
post #2532 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Steven, lots of folks would love to see objective comparisons of aspects of the various RC products, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Think about it......one needs to own or borrow multiple RC products, install them in the same system/same room, make sure they understand the product well enough to adjust the many settings so as to bring out its best performance and then, and only then........take measurements.

Any other comparison model is hugely problematic.

So it seems...

I will say this: as it happens, along with a Denon with Audyssey XT32 Pro, I actually _do_ have an old Pioneer SC-27 with Advanced MCACC in storage, as well as an AS-EQ1 for standalone subwoofer EQ that I keep meaning to get sold on AVS Classifieds.

I could in theory pick up the R-972 (or find someone that wants to visit Chicago with one, LOL) and compare at least Audyssey, MCACC+AS-EQ1, and Trinnov using the same speakers and REW+HDMI measurement gear. The results may not be generalizable, but it would certainly be an interesting thought experiment.

I have a working knowledge of Audyssey Pro, and could refresh my old MCACC experience, but know next to nothing about using Trinnov or the R-972. And while I use REW, I'm hardly an advanced user or have strong knowledge of psychoacoustics.

Other than that, there's the minor problem of time...
post #2533 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Steven, lots of folks would love to see objective comparisons of aspects of the various RC products, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Think about it......one needs to own or borrow multiple RC products, install them in the same system/same room, make sure they understand the product well enough to adjust the many settings so as to bring out its best performance and then, and only then........take measurements.

Any other comparison model is hugely problematic.

That's one of the reasons why I said it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Besides,far fewer people will ever own the more advanced stand alone units and that's another reason you're not very likely to see much in the way of measurements in real rooms.Not to mention, that most of those people that can afford those units aren't even that interested in seeing real in room measurements vs. the predicted results that the system spews out.The marketing has already convinced most of those owners that it's the best system out there and any possible measurements that could contradict that would somehow be considered flawed in some way to them anyway.

You also don't need to have multiple brands of DRC for comparison and the same exact test set-up and test conditions(which isn't absolutely necessary to see results,although that would be the ultimate this vs. that testing) just to see how Trinnov's real in room measurement results look via 3rd party measurement software or a need to tweak it to perfection before measuring just because it has user adjustable parameters vs. the automatic Optimizer routine.You just need a calibrated microphone of reasonable quality with something like REW to look at ETC,waterfall,impulse and magnitude response results in real rooms vs. with no room correction applied to see the results of the system correction before and after.

People have been doing this for years in both Pro and consumer circles with other DRC systems.Why would Trinnov be any different in this regard.It doesn't have to be a laboratory comparison test to other systems just to see Trinnov's results.
Edited by StevenLansing - 5/6/13 at 5:40pm
post #2534 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

So it seems...

I will say this: as it happens, along with a Denon with Audyssey XT32 Pro, I actually _do_ have an old Pioneer SC-27 with Advanced MCACC in storage, as well as an AS-EQ1 for standalone subwoofer EQ that I keep meaning to get sold on AVS Classifieds.

I could in theory pick up the R-972 (or find someone that wants to visit Chicago with one, LOL) and compare at least Audyssey, MCACC+AS-EQ1, and Trinnov using the same speakers and REW+HDMI measurement gear. The results may not be generalizable, but it would certainly be an interesting thought experiment.

I have a working knowledge of Audyssey Pro, and could refresh my old MCACC experience, but know next to nothing about using Trinnov or the R-972. And while I use REW, I'm hardly an advanced user or have strong knowledge of psychoacoustics.

Other than that, there's the minor problem of time...

That would be interesting to see and time consuming.
post #2535 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

That's one of the reasons why I said it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Besides,far fewer people will ever own the more advanced stand alone units and that's another reason you're not very likely to see much in the way of measurements in real rooms.Not to mention, that most of those people that can afford those units aren't even that interested in seeing real in room measurements vs. the predicted results that the system spews out.The marketing has already convinced most of those owners that it's the best system out there and any possible measurements that could contradict that would somehow be considered flawed in some way to them anyway.

You also don't need to have multiple brands of DRC for comparison and the same exact test set-up and test conditions(which isn't absolutely necessary,although that would be the ultimate this vs. that testing) just to see how Trinnov's real in room measurement results look via 3rd party measurement software or a need to tweak it to perfection before measuring just because it has user adjustable parameters vs. the automatic Optimizer routine.You just need a calibrated microphone of reasonable quality with something like REW to look at ETC,waterfall,impulse and magnitude response results in real rooms vs. with no room correction applied to see the results of the system correction before and after.

People have been doing this for years in both Pro and consumer circles with other DRC systems.Why would Trinnov be any different in this regard.It doesn't have to be a laboratory comparison test to other systems just to see Trinnov's results.

You should join us on this thread, if you aren't following it already:


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449924/simplified-rew-setup-and-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-and-how-to-interpret-graphs
post #2536 of 3153
Thanks, and as a follow up to my post,I would assume that the test software would be set-up properly and the individual be familiar with it before using it to see the results properly.wink.gif
post #2537 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

Not to mention, that most of those people that can afford those units aren't even that interested in seeing real in room measurements vs. the predicted results that the system spews out.The marketing has already convinced most of those owners that it's the best system out there and any possible measurements that could contradict that would somehow be considered flawed in some way to them anyway.
Near as I can tell, the number of folks who use third-party tools to verify results is, in general, very small, and your observation isn't limited to users of any particular product or price range. Personally, I do use such gear to see what's happening - Trust, but verify!

Quote:
You also don't need to have multiple brands of DRC for comparison and the same exact test set-up and test conditions(which isn't absolutely necessary to see results,although that would be the ultimate this vs. that testing) just to see how Trinnov's real in room measurement results look via 3rd party measurement software...
I'm sorry, I was responding to this statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

I'd personally like to see more 3rd party measurements of the time domain behaviour of Trinnov and how it compares with other DRC systems...
in which you expressed a desire for comparative measurements, which certainly would need to be conducted using the same room/setup in order to draw any useful conclusions. I you're looking for simple before and (third-party, e.g. REW) after measurements, didn't you do this when you had your own 972?

Quote:
.....or a need to tweak it to perfection before measuring just because it has user adjustable parameters vs. the automatic Optimizer routine.You just need a calibrated microphone of reasonable quality with something like REW to look at ETC,waterfall,impulse and magnitude response results in real rooms vs. with no room correction applied to see the results of the system correction before and after.
Sure you do. Forget Trinnov for a moment and reflect upon the HUGE Audyssey thread, wherein many, many users need help, not only to properly conduct basic setup, but to squeeze every ounce of improvement from their system by modifying Xover and/or gain and/or distance delay settings. Why would anyone simply "set and forget" when, by adjusting parameters ex post facto, they can often improve performance?
post #2538 of 3153
I said I would "personally' like to see systems compared and how that wasn't likely to happen.I would like to also just see peoples measurement results in their own rooms with Trinnov.but very few people own such systems or are willing to measure them.

I couldn't measure in my room with the R-972 because my laptop audio input doesn't function properly when performing the input levels tests anymore.I think the soundcard has crapped out.I used REW in the past with parametric EQ's and room treatments and found that both could help reduce modal ringing and improve the impulse response.The EQ however had less of an effect and was over a very limited area.

In my opinion if your going to use an advanced automated room correction system,then it makes sense to test those systems as an automated system.I not saying that it isn't OK to adjust to taste or use superior intellect to intervene ,but I want to see what the algorithms can due on their own before tweaking,since a big part of the marketing focuses on the "intelligence" of these systems and how they give excellent results over the use of cruder manual EQ calibration methods.

Isn't one of the biggest parts of the marketing about the "acoustician in the box" aspect of these systems? I know Audyssey made the claim that MultEQ's algorithm was tested against Tomlinson Holman until it could do just as good of a calibration job as he could or better.It after all was originally conceived as a system that could calibrate theaters instead of Tom having to spend so much time doing so.
post #2539 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

I said I would "personally' like to see systems compared and how that wasn't likely to happen.I would like to also just see peoples measurement results in their own rooms with Trinnov.but very few people own such systems or are willing to measure them.

Dr. Rich has measured the two good room correction systems currently available on AVRs, Trinnov and ARC, using the same loudspeakers in the same room. Different subs, I think, but that shouldn't matter much.

I believe you have his BASS piece on Trinnov, as IIRC you taught me how to order it. His 2-part review of ARC is currently up at hometheaterhifi.com.
post #2540 of 3153
You mentioned the two "good" room correction systems measured by Dr. Rich.
Those ones left out then must be the even "better" ones, aren't they wink.gif
post #2541 of 3153
The "trust but verify" measurements happen regularly for those with the means, desire or need to make it happen. I've participated many times in independent verification measurement sessions, with motion picture studio clients as well as in several high end home theaters. The same can be done for the R972. R972 users are unique, because R972s are used anywhere from bedrooms, family rooms to custom designed home theaters that include acoustical treatments. It's a basic, but very powerful tool. It lacks measurement data, but it doesn't mean for a moment that you can't measure it if you want to!

Ideally, if one wants to get the best out of the R972, one would need to have an external measurement system- which could be used for verification after calibration, but equally importantly- before calibration. A great example of this is measuring for best subwoofer position. Typical sub placement can result in very dramatic output differences caused by room modes. That leads to some lucky users claiming excellent bass, while those who suffer room mode issues claim the R972 sounds anemic. The R972's max 6dB boost (chosen to not damage speakers) won't compensate for a broad 12dB (or greater) dip often found with some placements. What can you do? There's freeware on the internet you can use with an inexpensive mic to find the correct sub placement that can be used to identify the best location. As well, you will then know better what you have. It also may bring the sub in line with the 6dB correction. To get the best results, one has to learn and do it yourself and/or get some help- hired or not.
post #2542 of 3153
USB music playback- the R972 will play music from the USB input- but, for reasons not know to me, Trinnov correction is OFF/bypassed on the USB input.
The ideal way to play "computer audio" is to connect from a SPDIF out on the computer to a digital in on the R972. There are several USB > SPDIF converters that are quite good for this purpose.
post #2543 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Dr. Rich has measured the two good room correction systems currently available on AVRs, Trinnov and ARC, using the same loudspeakers in the same room. Different subs, I think, but that shouldn't matter much.

I believe you have his BASS piece on Trinnov, as IIRC you taught me how to order it. His 2-part review of ARC is currently up at hometheaterhifi.com.



That's what I mean,other than Dr.Rich's review of Trinnov in both the R-972 and the original touch screen professional unit,there aren't really any 3rd party measurements available to see.He has also reviewed several Audyssey equipped units as well as the SEQ and has taken measurents of those.He has stated several times in those reviews about how well Audyssey does based on his measurements.

I know a few here on this forum have posted some of their measurements of Trinnov as well.Most of them are just of the magnitude response though,which isn't always the most important measurement to look at.

Thanks for the info on ARC.I'll check that one out.
post #2544 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt_Trinnov View Post

The "trust but verify" measurements happen regularly for those with the means, desire or need to make it happen. I've participated many times in independent verification measurement sessions, with motion picture studio clients as well as in several high end home theaters. The same can be done for the R972. R972 users are unique, because R972s are used anywhere from bedrooms, family rooms to custom designed home theaters that include acoustical treatments. It's a basic, but very powerful tool. It lacks measurement data, but it doesn't mean for a moment that you can't measure it if you want to!

With the R-972's being used by more people I'm hoping to see more measurements being posted of Trinnov.Audyssey has been more widely available in numerous products for a longer period of time and there have been numerous measurements taken and people have dragged it through the mud as well as praised it.Trinnov hasn't been subjected to that same kind of consumer scrutiny yet in my opinion to get a good enough idea of how well it's correction works in the common man's room and that goes for Dirac Live and others as well.

There’s not enough measurements out there to see or people putting them through the paces like Audyssey already has been and continues to go through.Many have posted about the measurement results not living up to the claims or matching measurement results marketed by Audyssey and their room correction has been involved in independent verification measurement sessions with studio clients as well.They even use MultEQ in the calibration of many of the dubbing stages at USC's cinema school.Being that's Audyssey's home turf it's probably no surprise.I imagine they got a lot of feedback and measurement data from those dubbing stages and engineers because of that.
post #2545 of 3153
Hi Can anyone help me connect two different make of subs. I used a splitter at the sub out of the 972, but the subs where not db matched. It sounded very good in music using trinnov but not so great in HT. Is there a way I can set the subs output to be the same then run trinnov, or maybe try running one sub at a time then together.

I do have a radio shack meter to check the db's. Its the only thing I have to take measurements with. The subs are PSA XS 15 and the Outlaw EX. I know having the same subs would be better, but had the outlaw first.

Playing music early with the 972 and the speakers just disappear with a wall of sound, just a great unit.

Thanks in advance for any help
post #2546 of 3153
So, I got a R-972 from ac4less and it came with old firmware. If I'm reading it correctly version 1.30. I do not have any way to update it to the latest. You need Windows and an RS-232 port and I have neither.

Boy, is that firmware bad. I basically cannot get the unit to do anything successfully without many, many tries. I did do a room calibration but I could not hear any difference with it on versus it off.

I'll be sending it back.

Now, why can't someone make a Trinnov-only box for like $500? Same as what's in the R-972 (32bit, etc) just not shackled to the disaster of the Sherwood unit wink.gif
post #2547 of 3153
You would think it would have the newer firmware. Maybe AC4L would send you another one, but check what firmware the unit has before shipping.

In my room, the 972 bested the denon 4311 and onkyo 885 with parasound 2100 in HT bypass and Oppo 95. My system never sounded so good with the 972 and a cambridge 640c cd player. Also using a 2ch amp with the 972

I would give it another shot, unless you are going to connect it to cable or sat. provider with hdmi cable

Of course this is my opinion .

BTW I sold the 4311 and oppo 95 and the 2100
post #2548 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenLansing View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Dr. Rich has measured the two good room correction systems currently available on AVRs, Trinnov and ARC, using the same loudspeakers in the same room. Different subs, I think, but that shouldn't matter much.

I believe you have his BASS piece on Trinnov, as IIRC you taught me how to order it. His 2-part review of ARC is currently up at hometheaterhifi.com.



That's what I mean,other than Dr.Rich's review of Trinnov in both the R-972 and the original touch screen professional unit,there aren't really any 3rd party measurements available to see.He has also reviewed several Audyssey equipped units as well as the SEQ and has taken measurents of those.He has stated several times in those reviews about how well Audyssey does based on his measurements.

I didn't know that Dr. Rich also reviewed and measured a second-tier room correction system. Any links?

Back to first-tier systems, here is his ARC review:
Part 1: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/audio-calibration/audio-calibration-reviews/anthem-room-correction-arc-system-part-1.html
Part 2: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/audio-calibration/audio-calibration-reviews/anthem-room-correction-arc-including-a-subwoofer.html
post #2549 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post

So, I got a R-972 from ac4less and it came with old firmware. If I'm reading it correctly version 1.30. I do not have any way to update it to the latest. You need Windows and an RS-232 port and I have neither.
wink.gif

You update the firmware via the USB port on the front of the unit w/ a memory stick. No rs-232 port required. Version 1.47 is the latest. Instructions are contained in this thread. Look back to Feb. 2012 time frame.
post #2550 of 3153
Quote:
Originally Posted by .jss designs View Post

You update the firmware via the USB port on the front of the unit w/ a memory stick. No rs-232 port required. Version 1.47 is the latest. Instructions are contained in this thread. Look back to Feb. 2012 time frame.

The only USB related instructions I could find were for updating the bass curves for +3db and +6db. These were posted here May 22, 2012

In the firmware from the sherwood site there are at least 2 factory.hex files and a bunch of other things. Unless I'm looking at the wrong file?
The one I got is named R%2D972%20Firmware.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Sherwood R-972 User Thread