or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Audessey professional calibration worth every penny
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audessey professional calibration worth every penny - Page 8

post #211 of 394
Tim,

The results on the Monitor Audio calibration look more like it. The 9dB boost reflected in the other post has to be the result of some error in the measuring process. It would only make that correction if that is what was called for at the measuring location(s). Some common calibrating errors are...taking the first measurement somewhere other than the 'sweet spot'; placing the mic too close to a boundry or upolstered furniture; not taking at least 8 measurements within the general listening oval; not using the calibrated microphone; not selecting the proper speaker type/size in the set-up menu.
post #212 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

I know you said that speaker placement was dictated by the layout, but honestly, based on what I see just from the photo very little could help you just as depicted. Subwoofer corner placement will aggravate room modes, L/R speakers are way too close to get a pleasing soundstage (not sure how far you are sitting away) even if you were close, you probably would be too close, center channel in cabinet with no acoustical treatment. As I said before, you need to get the room the best you can as far as placement or treatment before you implement Audyssey or other means of correction. This is fairly typical of what I run into, and folks do expect Audyssey to fix the problems. It can't. Neither could I without making some significant changes. It doesn't matter how many times you upgrade or change out speakers or equipment, the fact is, the application is all wrong. I don't mean to be blunt or critical, and all I am going off is a photo, but these are fairly common problems.

No offense taken. I know the room layout and speaker placement is the biggest problem. I didn't expect Audyssey to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I also didn't expect it to make the sound subjectively worse, which in some areas it did. The main take away was that even though Audyssey made the FR graph flat, it sounded more uneven than without it. However, I have be able to improve things considerably with manual PEQ, measurements taken with Room EQ Wizard, and adjusting the final filter values by ear.
post #213 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post

Tim,

The results on the Monitor Audio calibration look more like it. The 9dB boost reflected in the other post has to be the result of some error in the measuring process. It would only make that correction if that is what was called for at the measuring location(s). Some common calibrating errors are...taking the first measurement somewhere other than the 'sweet spot'; placing the mic too close to a boundry or upolstered furniture; not taking at least 8 measurements within the general listening oval; not using the calibrated microphone; not selecting the proper speaker type/size in the set-up menu.

Yes, the results I posted for the Monitor Audio speakers look good on paper, but subjectively Audyssey broke as much as it fixed. As I mentioned earlier, with Audyssey engaged, the upper bass was hooty and thumpy, and the midrange took on an aggressive quality. And I can say with a good degree of certainty that if you or anyone else that has an ear for sound were to have heard the before and after you wouldn't believe that this was just a case of me not preferring an accurate sound.

While I'm sure that I still have much to learn, I do a have solid understanding of how to take measurements and use EQ. I even worked directly with Chris K. of Audyssey to try to correct the issues I was hearing, and he verified that I was doing everything correctly.

I guess we'll just have to chalk this up as an unusual case. I certainly have no beef with Audyssey. Quite the opposite really. I had placed high hopes on it improving the sound of my much less than optimal speaker positioning. I'm glad that it has helped so many others, I just wish that I were one of them. All is not lost though. As I mentioned in my previous post, taking my own measurements and using manual PEQ has done wonders for the sound of my system.
post #214 of 394
Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?
post #215 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

Yesh. Works great!
post #216 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

....................Audyssey is not the magic bullet. It does not replace the need for proper design, seating and speaker positioning, and treatment,

This is exactly my point.

Regards
post #217 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

Yes I have all three behind my scope screen and works great I have the Pro mic kit.
post #218 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Those of you with specific Audessey calibration experience: have you used it with with AT screens (at least center channel behind the screen) to good effect?

No system, auto or manual, should have a problem with AT screens.

It amazes me the BS that some people still spew regarding AT screens.

Which screen, or cloth, are you using or contemplating?
post #219 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

No system, auto or manual, should have a problem with AT screens.

It amazes me the BS that some people still spew regarding AT screens.

Which screen, or cloth, are you using or contemplating?

I've got the 110" WS Stewart Filmscreen Luxus Deluxe Screenwall StudioTek 130 microperf.

Once the Synthesis® calibration was done, the center channel response graph on the laptop was virtually indistinguishable from the exposed FL and FR, and I could hear no difference whatsoever.
post #220 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

I've got the 110" WS Stewart Filmscreen Luxus Deluxe Screenwall StudioTek 130 microperf.

Once the Synthesis® calibration was done, the center channel response graph on the laptop was virtually indistinguishable from the exposed FL and FR, and I could hear no difference whatsoever.

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ.
post #221 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ.

Yep, probably. I'm just too friggin' old I guess. When's Bose or Wilson gonna come out with in-ear tympanic membrane replacements? Then I'd be rockin'.
post #222 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I'm sure that if you had better ears, you would hear that the all of the emotion in the sound has been stripped away, and of course you've erased the microdynamics and "air" around the instruments, all because of that damn AT screen and use of EQ.

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.
post #223 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.
post #224 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.

I would beg to differ. I heard a very respectable calibrator with tons of practical experience feel this way. he was even hired by few folks who hang around here in the high-end forum and Sim2 Thread in particular.
post #225 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Sound aside, how about the picture? Many folks worry that these screens provide inferior picture quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

MANY people do not. some alarmists with little or no practical experience do.

The Stewart Microperf is pretty highly regarded, and I'll add to that regard. for years I used a very nice Da-Lite solid screen, which worked very well with my Seleco CRT PJ at 1080i. When I moved to my current house, the Da-Lite came with me, and I used it until the Synthesis® install began. The JBL tech highly recommended getting an AT screen, and after some equivocation, I agreed.

At the same time I went with a Mitsubishi 1080p LCD projector, and I started to second-guess the decision due to the reported "moire problem." However, it was all for naught, as the screen performs marvelously and having the CC behind the screen really anchors the soundstage.

The StudioTek material is terrific in my totally light controlled room (no windows), and the picture is outstanding. Occasionally on very small lettering, like rolling credits, there's a bit of roughness on some scrolling letter edges, but I've never seen any issues with picture quality with this THX certified screen from my 12' seating position.

If I put my face up close, yes, I can discern the holes on bright backgrounds, but why would I do that?

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

As I recall, the Synthesis® calibration software had a profile for this screen. That's why I wondered if anyone had done a similar set up with Audessey.
post #226 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I would beg to differ. I heard a very respectable calibrator with tons of practical experience feel this way. he was even hired by few folks who hang around here in the high-end forum and Sim2 Thread in particular.

You say you heard a calibrator, but you didnt say what you heard. Perhaps you could clarify that.

If you are saying he states current AT screen materials provide inferior PQ, lets get him in here so we can get his feet to the fire. Its total shite.
post #227 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

I understand that it may not be something you need, but the X2 certainly has some advantages.
post #228 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

You say you heard a calibrator, but you didnt say what you heard. Perhaps you could clarify that.

If you are saying he states current AT screen materials provide inferior PQ, lets get him in here so we can get his feet to the fire. Its total shite.

I didn't want to give his name without his permission, but he is well-known. Pretty sure you know him

I will talk to him and see if he wants to post. It would surely be interesting
post #229 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post

The Stewart Microperf is pretty highly regarded, and I'll add to that regard. for years I used a very nice Da-Lite solid screen, which worked very well with my Seleco CRT PJ at 1080i. When I moved to my current house, the Da-Lite came with me, and I used it until the Synthesis® install began. The JBL tech highly recommended getting an AT screen, and after some equivocation, I agreed.

At the same time I went with a Mitsubishi 1080p LCD projector, and I started to second-guess the decision due to the reported "moire problem." However, it was all for naught, as the screen performs marvelously and having the CC behind the screen really anchors the soundstage.

The StudioTek material is terrific in my totally light controlled room (no windows), and the picture is outstanding. Occasionally on very small lettering, like rolling credits, there's a bit of roughness on some scrolling letter edges, but I've never seen any issues with picture quality with this THX certified screen from my 12' seating position.

If I put my face up close, yes, I can discern the holes on bright backgrounds, but why would I do that?

Stewart quoted me a price of $3979 to replace the screen material only with the newer Microperf X2, but I'm not putting that kind of coin into solving a problem that I don't have.

As I recall, the Synthesis® calibration software had a profile for this screen. That's why I wondered if anyone had done a similar set up with Audessey.

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.
post #230 of 394
screen research is very nice as well. there are some arguments to be made as to why it is better... however i would park them pretty firnly in the inaudible campground. (ie, and limitations can be compensated for) now if you are a bat, you would hate ANY AT screen. the simple fact is that the same physics that allow you to safely stare into the microwave while waiting for the popcorn to pop allow the sound to pass unmolested (ok, firmly within compansation range) through an AT screen.

And while a particular calibrator may not like them, that would be his opinion.

there are lots and lots of folks who have built theatres that are no holds barred and they chose AT. we can say that there is a trade off for having the sound come from the right place... but it is just no longer a valid observation in almost all cases.

Stewart, SMX, Screen Research, all make excellent products.
post #231 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.

well, if they are more expensive... they must be better. (and they are from france!)

post #232 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

How about Screen Research? Theirs are ISF certified and more expensive I think.

Stewart Filmscreen is about 2.5 miles from my house, and I had the chance to see everything. Of course, I had to buy from a dealer, but I was happy with the treatment all the way around.

I have no experience with Screen Research, and I'm not likely to fly to their facility to get a feel for the company and its products. Maybe someday I'll see one in an installation.

I'm happy now; no need to look for something else at this time.
post #233 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

I didn't want to give his name without his permission, but he is well-known. Pretty sure you know him

I will talk to him and see if he wants to post. It would surely be interesting

OK. I am correcting myself. I just pmed him and he told me that I didn't interpret him correctly.

He is basically saying they have their merits for the right set up and do not necessarily negatively impact the picture. Even though they can if not set up correctly.
post #234 of 394
that is a pretty accurate statement.

but it is an accurate statement for most gear.
post #235 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

well, if they are more expensive... they must be better. (and they are from france!)


I think theirs is the only ISF and THX-certified screen. I guess it is a safe bet to believe it should be as good as it gets. Or maybe I am being brand-oriented here (quite likely)

I didn't experience neither Stewart nor Screen Research first hand.
post #236 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

that is a pretty accurate statement.

but it is an accurate statement for most gear.

How can you disagree with a statement like that, right? well he said more, but I didn't want to share it in fear of saying something not accurate again

I don't think he wants to post here, so will leave it at that.
post #237 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

OK. I am correcting myself. I just pmed him and he told me that I didn't interpret him correctly.

He is basically saying they have their merits for the right set up and do not necessarily negatively impact the picture. Even though they can if not set up correctly.

Thats some serious lame ass retraction. Anything can be detrimental if not set up correctly. Thats like saying a Ferrari is not as fast when it has no fuel in it.

I'd also be interested in how you set up an AT screen. You just install it in the correct position. Perhaps hes saying that it effects the PQ if you install it in a position other than where the projector is pointed.
post #238 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldmachine View Post

Thats some serious lame ass retraction. Anything can be detrimental if not set up correctly. Thats like saying a Ferrari is not as fast when it has no fuel in it.

I'd also be interested in how you set up an AT screen. You just install it in the correct position. Perhaps hes saying that it effects the PQ if you install it in a position other than where the projector is pointed.

No. I don't think he is retracting. It was me who misunderstood and put some words into his mouth that he never intended. It was part of a casual conversation. Can happen.
post #239 of 394
Well, I will say it. I didn't think the Stewart was all that great when I saw it at Cedia. As the Stewart guy told me, if you get far enough back then you don't see the perfs. I was at about eight feet already. SMX was the first time I thought that at screens were there. I am not sure about the effects on sound quality, but SMX wipes the floor with Stewart. I even thought Chris Seymour's screen was better than Stewarts.
post #240 of 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

Well, I will say it. I didn't think the Stewart was all that great when I saw it at Cedia. As the Stewart guy told me, if you get far enough back then you don't see the perfs. I was at about eight feet already. SMX was the first time I thought that at screens were there. I am not sure about the effects on sound quality, but SMX wipes the floor with Stewart. I even thought Chris Seymour's screen was better than Stewarts.

The fact that perfs are visible at any given distance is not an issue in itself, that simply limits it to a minimum size of application. On my own screens the perfs are invisible way before the seating distance.

Can you explain, and hopefully quantify, how the SMX wipes the floor in terms of PQ. Here are some areas of interest.....

1. Color saturation

2. ANSI CR

3. Moire

4. Resolution effects

If floors are being wiped, it sounds like there has been a major technical breakthrough that unaware of. I'm very interested indeed.

Here is an example of the microperf X2 on a 14ft scree, taken close up.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...italian&page=8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Audessey professional calibration worth every penny