or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK] - Page 731

post #21901 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Jerry and Keith, you guys are on the bleeding edge (or alternately way too far down the rabbit hole!) on sub calibration.
smile.gif
If these questions belong in a different thread, I'll repost:
Are you doing gain-matching on identical subs or only mis-matched pairs?
Do you do this moving them to the center of the room thing just once unless you add/change subs or bass treatments?

My subs are all the same. I move the subs to the center of the room to conduct the gain-match, although there is evidence that this step provides little difference from careful mic placement with the subs in place. Since gain-matching removes the effects of the room, I don't think re-doing the gain-matching would be necessary when adding treatments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif 

 If Jerry can drag FOUR big subs to the centre of his room, then that should be an inspiration to anyone wavering on this point smile.gif

I work out at a fitness center three times a week just so I can lift my subs, Keith. Although the furniture moving castors are sounding a lot better....
post #21902 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I use a standard 15-300Hz sweep. Run a sweep, observe the response at the crossover frequency, adjust the distance, re-run the sweep, examine the crossover again. Rinse and repeat...

Make sure you are looking at the unsmoothed response.

Thanks Jerry!

I'll be working on this ASAP. So far, I was able to compete steps 1 and 2 (Gain-matching procedure and Run Audyssey - 8 positions).

To be honest I'm fairly new to REW and I was having a hard time to configure it correctly, until I found your step-by-step guide (thanks for preparing that guide!). I was playing a bit with REW last night and I'm in the learning process on how to measure, prepare graphs, etc.

I'll post a couple of questions at the REW thread. So, if you have a minute please check on those newby questions. Once again thanks for all the help!
post #21903 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

smile.gif 

 If Jerry can drag FOUR big subs to the centre of his room, then that should be an inspiration to anyone wavering on this point smile.gif

I work out at a fitness center three times a week just so I can lift my subs, Keith. Although the furniture moving castors are sounding a lot better....

 

LOL. No pain, no gain, Jerry :)

post #21904 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

My subs are all the same. I move the subs to the center of the room to conduct the gain-match, although there is evidence that this step provides little difference from careful mic placement with the subs in place. Since gain-matching removes the effects of the room, I don't think re-doing the gain-matching would be necessary when adding treatments.
I work out at a fitness center three times a week just so I can lift my subs, Keith. Although the furniture moving castors are sounding a lot better....

I have had two back surgeries while in my 40s and since I have carpeting in my room all I do is flip the ULS-15s on their side and then push them along the floor. Added benefit, that side gets a buff job. Then I flip it over to it's other side to push it back into place and buff the other side. biggrin.gif
post #21905 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by hometheatergeek View Post


I have had two back surgeries while in my 40s and since I have carpeting in my room all I do is flip the ULS-15s on their side and then push them along the floor. Added benefit, that side gets a buff job. Then I flip it over to it's other side to push it back into place and buff the other side. biggrin.gif

 

Good idea.  I'll bet those subs are shiny, Al!

post #21906 of 23164
Ah, I been so spoiled by the remotely controlled digital vol controls and multiple customizable modes on my Velodynes that I'd forgotten about other types of vol controls.

I now recall the potentiometer style on my old Polk sub, so you're right, there's no way to accurately match even two matching subs with that sort of continuos analog style of Vol control without measuring.

But even given that style of control, if you've done it and say, taped the controls so they can't shift, then I should think there'd no need to redo that just to do a new calibration, correct?
post #21907 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Ah, I been so spoiled by the remotely controlled digital vol controls and multiple customizable modes on my Velodynes that I'd forgotten about other types of vol controls.

I now recall the potentiometer style on my old Polk sub, so you're right, there's no way to accurately match even two matching subs with that sort of continuos analog style of Vol control without measuring.

But even given that style of control, if you've done it and say, taped the controls so they can't shift, then I should think there'd no need to redo that just to do a new calibration, correct?

 

I would say that once they have been gain matched then they are gain matched, so no need to repeat it. I would also say I am no expert on gain matching ;)

post #21908 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

I would say that once they have been gain matched then they are gain matched, so no need to repeat it. I would also say I am no expert on gain matching ;)

 

I agree--no need to re-do it again unless you have accidently altered one of the gain controls.  The On/Off toggle switch is on the back of my sub, so if I'm not careful, I might touch the analog gain control when I access the switch.  And my gain controls are extremely sensitive--if I breathe on the control, I get at least a 1dB change!  eek.gif

post #21909 of 23164
Right, thnx guys.

Given my situation with identical sub models with digital controls, a max variance of 10' in placement from MLP and a measured delta of only about 1.5 dB measured at MLP I doubt there's much to be "gained". wink.gif

I intend to try the sub/sat splice distance tweak when I get up and running with an independant measurement system.

Though I alreay have three measuring systems eek.gif they each have limitations that make them pretty useless for such fine adjustments. I'll need to obtain and learn REW or OmniMic.

The Audyssey Pro kit with its calibrated mic, graphs with 1/3 octave smoothing. Each of the subs came with a mic and a built-in Velo SMS measuement/EQsystem, graphs at 1/5.
post #21910 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

I would say that once they have been gain matched then they are gain matched, so no need to repeat it. I would also say I am no expert on gain matching ;)

 

I agree--no need to re-do it again unless you have accidently altered one of the gain controls.  The On/Off toggle switch is on the back of my sub, so if I'm not careful, I might touch the analog gain control when I access the switch.  And my gain controls are extremely sensitive--if I breathe on the control, I get at least a 1dB change!  eek.gif

 

Hehe. Sounds like a job for the gaffer tape, Jerry. I just got a brand new roll of black gaffer in the mail today. I seem to use it for everything. A nice strip over the gain knob should help prevent any unwanted movement. 

post #21911 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post



Though I alreay have three measuring systems eek.gif they each have limitations that make them pretty useless for such fine adjustments. I'll need to obtain and learn REW or OmniMic.
 

 

I would strongly recommend, as an ex-Omnimic user, that you go with REW. The new HDMI/USB interface version isn't all that hard to master, and there is the great thread on it in which Jerry hosts his essential Guide. REW is just so much more flexible (and a lot less expensive) than OM. One of the biggest advantages, for me, is that you can do one measurement or set of measurements and then perform all manner of operations after the event - eg you can make waterfalls, ETCs etc all from the 'core' measurement without having to get the gear out all over again because you didn’t initially realise you'd want a waterfall of, say, just the subs or the subs + C speaker. You can also make measurements of the full spectrum each time (15Hz to 20kHz) but then later just make graphs of, say, 15Hz-300Hz for bass frequency analysis. It is way more sophisticated than OM. All you need, assuming you already have a laptop, is a calibrated mic from Cross Spectrum Labs - $99. Plus REW which is free. Plus Jerry's Guide.

post #21912 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I would strongly recommend, as an ex-Omnimic user, that you go with REW. The new HDMI/USB interface version isn't all that hard to master, and there is the great thread on it in which Jerry hosts his essential Guide. REW is just so much more flexible (and a lot less expensive) than OM. One of the biggest advantages, for me, is that you can do one measurement or set of measurements and then perform all manner of operations after the event - eg you can make waterfalls, ETCs etc all from the 'core' measurement without having to get the gear out all over again because you didn’t initially realise you'd want a waterfall of, say, just the subs or the subs + C speaker. You can also make measurements of the full spectrum each time (15Hz to 20kHz) but then later just make graphs of, say, 15Hz-300Hz for bass frequency analysis. It is way more sophisticated than OM. All you need, assuming you already have a laptop, is a calibrated mic from Cross Spectrum Labs - $99. Plus REW which is free. Plus Jerry's Guide.

As another ex-OmniMic user, I'll also point out that while you can start measuring frequency response within 15 minutes with OmniMic, the users thread is all but dormant, and the Guide, while simple, essentially leaves you on your own for best practices and next steps.

I resisted it too for a time, but since Jerry's Guide is periodically revised by him based on software updates and REW thread issues that arise, and many of the Audyssey users you know are there learning as we adjust our setups, "resistance is futile". tongue.gif
post #21913 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Look at it this way, Keith. When it comes to dialing in the best bass, there is no "one way" to do it.

I find that presenting Audyssey with gain-matched subs results in a better calibration. In my perspective, gain-matching is an absolute thing. Each sub's gain is adjusted to produce the same output level, independent of room effects, measured by a closely placed mic. Regardless of the trim values that are set by the Audyssey calibration, the subs are still gain-matched, since the gain controls have not changed.

So, I don't think the question is whether the subs are still gain-matched if the trims are different. I think it is a question of what produces the most desirable results. Take an extreme example. Let's say we have two subs, one is 20' away from the MLP, and one is 1' away from the MLP. They are gain-matched prior to the calibration, and Audyssey sets the far sub with a trim of +10, and the near sub with a trim of -10. Now we halve the difference, and set both subs to a trim setting of 0. Do you think this will result in the best sound? You probably won't be able to hear the contribution of the far sub because the near sub's output will be overwhelming. Yet, this is what you are advocating by "gain-matching" the subs after the calibration.

As they say, YMMV. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Agreed - at the end of the day what matters is the result you get, and there is no doubt your result is very good indeed.


I'm not sure about that. I don't think they are still gain matched if the trim levels are set at different values. They were definitely gain matched when you set each sub to the same value, but those values have now effectively been overridden by the AVR trims. I am no expert on this and would welcome a comment from Craig or Mark really. It doesn't seem all that important either way, in the sense that what is important is how it sounds and yours sounds (and measures) great - but for academic interest I'd like to know.

Very good point. IDK TBH. Craig has always been totally adamant that the trims should be set on a 'split the difference' basis. Point No 11 in the Audyssey FAQ answer on gain matching says:

"11. If the trim levels set by Audyssey are different for the two subs, then they are no longer gain-matched. To re-establish the gain-matched status, take 1/2 of the difference in trim levels, add it to the sub with lowest trim, and subtract it from the highest sub trim. Now the subs are gain-matched once again."

I am fairly sure that I would have taken this info directly from a post made by Craig somewhere here on AVS. If for no other reason, I'd like to get to the bottom of it just to ensure the accuracy of the FAQ.

Otherwise I am in total agreement with your remark that "whatever produces the most desirable results" is the way to go.

EDIT: I have PMd Craig and asked him to drop by if he has time...

Hi guys! Interesting discussion. smile.gif

The goal of gain-matching is to ensure that all the subs are working equally. This ensures that they all have the same headroom and no sub will compress or distort before any other sub in the system. If one sub compresses/distorts before the other sub(s), it will be the "limiting factor" for the entire sub system. If you want to be able to use the full capabilities of all the subs in the system, and of the entire sub system, gain-matching is the only way to get there. If one sub is working harder than the other sub(s), either because it's gain is set higher, or because it is receiving a stronger input signal, it will be the limiting factor for the entire system.

Audyssey doesn't use gain-matching. It uses level-matching. With level-matching, the input signals to the subs can be different, so even if you gain-match before running Audyssey, you won't be gain-matched after running Audyssey. In Jerry's example above, where Audyssey sets one sub 10 dB higher than the other, the higher set sub is using 10 times the amplifier power of the other subs... all the time. In addition, driver excursion will be tripled or quadrupled depending on driver size and frequency. Here is a calculator that shows the effect on driver displacement based on SPL and frequency: http://www.baudline.com/erik/bass/xmaxer.html Check out what a 10 dB increase does to driver excursion.

To ensure that the subs are all working equally after I run Audyssey, I perform the procedure Keith described above. I have 2 subs on Sub1 output and 1 sub on Sub2 output. The subs are all gain-matched prior to Audyssey, and afterwards, they are usually 6 dB different, with the 2 subs on Sub1 set 6 dB lower. I then "split the difference"; I raise Sub1 3 dB and lower Sub2 3 dB. Now they are all receiving the exact same input signal, (except for the Distance setting.) I do this before I take any measurements or perform any other optimizing steps, such as the Distance tweak. I don't find that it has a negative impact on the FR:

3 Submersives, No speakers, 80 Hz Crossover, Prg1:


Of course, there is one forum member who likes to point out, (ad nauseum), whenever I post about gain-matching, that gain-matching is only necessary if you have headroom issues. If your system will play as loud as you want without compression or distort from any of your subs, then gain-matching is unnecessary. However, if you use the calculator above and check the excursion required to produce 115 dB at 15 Hz with two 15" drivers, you need 34.5 mm of excursion. Mark Seaton has never published the T/S parameters of his drivers, so we don't know their xMax, but I doubt it is 30+ mm.

Bottom line, if I wanted a subwoofer system that could hit full Reference Level with 3 dB of headroom, I would never set it up with one sub set 6 to 10 dB higher output than the other sub(s) in the system. I would ensure they are all outputting the exact same level. Gain-matching prior to Audyssey and signal-matching post Audyssey are the ways to get there. If that is not important to you in the design of your system, then use whatever approach you feel gives you the best result.

Craig
post #21914 of 23164
I think this might be a semantic issue.

When a person "gain matches" multiple subs, it's not gain matching, it's signal and gain matching. The gain part is inherent to the subs and is writ in stone.

Now you run Audyssey, and there is a discrepancy in the levels. You're still gain matched, but no longer signal matched. If you want to get back where you started, you have to rebalance the signal.
post #21915 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I would strongly recommend, as an ex-Omnimic user, that you go with REW. The new HDMI/USB interface version isn't all that hard to master, and there is the great thread on it in which Jerry hosts his essential Guide..
Well stated Keith, thnx!
post #21916 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post



Bottom line, if I wanted a subwoofer system that could hit full Reference Level with 3 dB of headroom, I would never set it up with one sub set 6 to 10 dB higher output than the other sub(s) in the system. I would ensure they are all outputting the exact same level. Gain-matching prior to Audyssey and signal-matching post Audyssey are the ways to get there. If that is not important to you in the design of your system, then use whatever approach you feel gives you the best result.

Craig

Craig, I agree with what you say. However, I am having difficulty reconciling the fact that the frequency response curve before I re-balance the sub trims is better than after the trims are re-balanced. I posted a graph showing this.

There is something I did that is slightly different than what you describe. I performed the sub distance tweak before I re-balanced the trims. Perhaps this influenced the frequency response differences.
post #21917 of 23164
Shouldn't all this be in its own dedicated thread as none of the recent talk has to do with the 4311.... Jes' sayin is all. wink.gif
post #21918 of 23164
^True, but as often happens with popular and reliable model threads, after awhile things really settle down. So there's more leeway for in depth somewhat OT discussion, especially if no one minds and it is done within bounds. I can't tell you how many things I've learned of in exactly this way.

As to this particular discussion, IMO these particular posters are so well informed, polite and helpful that they regularly set an example for us all as to how to conduct ourselves on this AVScience forum. Data is presented, standardized technique is specified, and findings/opinion respected. How refreshing! smile.gif
post #21919 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Bottom line, if I wanted a subwoofer system that could hit full Reference Level with 3 dB of headroom, I would never set it up with one sub set 6 to 10 dB higher output than the other sub(s) in the system. I would ensure they are all outputting the exact same level. Gain-matching prior to Audyssey and signal-matching post Audyssey are the ways to get there. If that is not important to you in the design of your system, then use whatever approach you feel gives you the best result.

Craig

 

Craig, thanks for responding to my PM and posting the lucid explanation above. I have taken the liberty of using some of your post to amplify the original Audyssey FAQ answer on this topic (suitably credited to you, of course). Anyone wishing to see the amendment can find it here:

 

f)8.    How does Audyssey handle complex multiple subwoofer setups?

 

The only remaining issue under Any Other Business, is that of Jerry's graph which shows a better FR when he does NOT fully gain-match his 4 HSUs. The only difference I can see between your method (and mine) is that Jerry does the sub distance tweak before he gain-matches as opposed to after. IDK if that makes a deal of difference but I guess it could.

post #21920 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post



Bottom line, if I wanted a subwoofer system that could hit full Reference Level with 3 dB of headroom, I would never set it up with one sub set 6 to 10 dB higher output than the other sub(s) in the system. I would ensure they are all outputting the exact same level. Gain-matching prior to Audyssey and signal-matching post Audyssey are the ways to get there. If that is not important to you in the design of your system, then use whatever approach you feel gives you the best result.

Craig

Craig, I agree with what you say. However, I am having difficulty reconciling the fact that the frequency response curve before I re-balance the sub trims is better than after the trims are re-balanced. I posted a graph showing this.

There is something I did that is slightly different than what you describe. I performed the sub distance tweak before I re-balanced the trims. Perhaps this influenced the frequency response differences.

 

I just wondered the same thing. Craig and I do this step last. I feel a bout of further measuring coming on, deep in the heart of Texas :)

post #21921 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

Shouldn't all this be in its own dedicated thread as none of the recent talk has to do with the 4311.... Jes' sayin is all. wink.gif

 

Strictly speaking you are, of course, correct. I hope that nobody with a 4311 question has been ignored or deterred by this diversion. I agree with SoM that, so long as the true purpose of the thread is respected, it does no harm to occasionally digress and many people may find some new information which they have never otherwise considered (thus not looking elsewhere, in a dedicated thread, for it). This new information may help them get even better results from their system and their 4311 and its dual sub outlets and Audyssey XT32.

 

I hope the digression hasn't caused any problems for you and I am sure the thread will soon be back on course.

post #21922 of 23164
^Keith and Jerry, is there a thread for this topic? It seems there should be, as this topic of tweaking multiple subs has been coming up more and more often in Audyssey , Audyssey Pro, etc.
post #21923 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I just wondered the same thing. Craig and I do this step last. I feel a bout of further measuring coming on, deep in the heart of Texas smile.gif

True, I'm off to measure doing things the other way. It really doesn't take that long to do, and it would be nice to get to the bottom of it. Stay tuned.
post #21924 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I just wondered the same thing. Craig and I do this step last. I feel a bout of further measuring coming on, deep in the heart of Texas smile.gif

True, I'm off to measure doing things the other way. It really doesn't take that long to do, and it would be nice to get to the bottom of it. Stay tuned.

 

I knew we could rely on you, Jerry. You are the Supreme Grand GraphMeister  for sure. :)

post #21925 of 23164

Well, I tried it your way:  gain-matched the trims and then tried the sub distance tweak.  Result: no difference in the results--the response curve is noticeably worse after gain-matching.

 

 

Once again, my theory is that the response characteristics of the two subs in the back of the room are emphasized when the trims for those subs are increased.  The rear subs have a distinct peak at 65Hz, which coincides with the peak in the after gain-matching measurement.  I'm not sure what is causing the 65Hz peak.  This does not coincide with a room mode.  The two rear subs are side-by-side at the width mid-point.  Since the response when combined with the front subs is reasonably flat, the 65Hz peak has not been a concern.

 

 

So, I think this has been an interesting exercise, and points out that there are no absolutes when it comes to optimizing bass response.  Now back on-topic.

post #21926 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Well, I tried it your way:  gain-matched the trims and then tried the sub distance tweak.  Result: no difference in the results--the response curve is noticeably worse after gain-matching.

 

 

Once again, my theory is that the response characteristics of the two subs in the back of the room are emphasized when the trims for those subs are increased.  The rear subs have a distinct peak at 65Hz, which coincides with the peak in the after gain-matching measurement.  I'm not sure what is causing the 65Hz peak.  This does not coincide with a room mode.  The two rear subs are side-by-side at the width mid-point.  Since the response when combined with the front subs is reasonably flat, the 65Hz peak has not been a concern.

 

 

So, I think this has been an interesting exercise, and points out that there are no absolutes when it comes to optimizing bass response.  Now back on-topic.

 

Excellent sleuthing, Jerry. IDK what is causing this either, but I do know which response graph I would rather have!  I think your work here is done and a large cold one is now in order.

 

It shows the value of independent measuring and not simply relying on SOP too.

post #21927 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Excellent sleuthing, Jerry. IDK what is causing this either, but I do know which response graph I would rather have!  I think your work here is done and a large cold one is now in order.

 

It shows the value of independent measuring and not simply relying on SOP too.

 

A cold one at 9:30am?  eek.gif  We have Blue Laws here in Texas--no alcohol purchases on a Sunday before noon.  That's why I normally sleep late on the weekends!

post #21928 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Excellent sleuthing, Jerry. IDK what is causing this either, but I do know which response graph I would rather have!  I think your work here is done and a large cold one is now in order.

 

It shows the value of independent measuring and not simply relying on SOP too.

 

A cold one at 9:30am?  eek.gif  We have Blue Laws here in Texas--no alcohol purchases on a Sunday before noon.  That's why I normally sleep late on the weekends!

 

LOL. It's almost 4pm here of course. Sometimes I forget the time difference between us!

post #21929 of 23164
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuzed2 View Post

This is a huge thread with lots more reading required, so I hope it is OK if I shortcut to a few questions:

I have just purchased a 4311, and am coming from a Marantz 7002; which has been a wonderful sounding and reliable AVR (albeit a bit dated).
My main motivation to upgrade is multiple SVS cylinder subs, and I'm looking forward to further optimization with XT-32 and Sub EQ.
A few questions:

1) My 4311 is lightly used. Therefore I believe the first thing I should do is to check the software rev. level. How is this done, and what is the latest rev. that is best to have?

2) My Marantz 7002 was "processor limited" such that I could only run Audyssey if the Audio codecs (Dolby/DTS) were decoded upstream. In other words if I bit-streamed and allowed the 7002 to decode the audio, I could not run Audyssey at the same time. I assume the 4311 has the horsepower to decode the audio and apply Audyssey simultaneously?

3) I have been running a Marantz M9000, 5 channel amp. I realize it probably has no output advantage over the 4311. However; when I used it with the 7002; the 7002 would run cooler. I will initially be configuring the 4311 to drive 7 channels. If I use 5 of the 4311 preamp outputs to drive the separate amp, and the amp for everything except my 2 back surrounds; is there any configuration changes I have to make (amp assignment,etc..)? Perhaps it is as simple as connecting the MM9000 to the 4311 pre-outs?

Thanks in Advance!

First; my THANKS AGAIN! for an excellent thread with all things 4311 and Audyssey.
Regarding my transition to my almost new 4311:

Yesterday I replaced my trusty old Marantz 7002 with my 4311.
I ran the micro-processor reset, then made ally my connections (utilizing my Marantz MM9000 for the first 5 channels via the 4311 pre-outs, and the rear 2 surrounds powered directly from the 4311 amp outputs.
I then alternately moved my 3 SVS cylinders to the center of the room for gain matching (actually did this twice, as my first effort left the output too high for Audyssey to run).
Next; I ran Audyssey with a 7.2 speaker configuration (2 front subs on sub channel 1 and the rear sub on channel 2).
My very first listening impression was very favorable. I will provide more details of this Audyssey after lunch...
post #21930 of 23164
My first listen of some familiar AIX high res tracks was very favorable! The sound stage seemed more immersive (placebo effect?), However I am also certain the SQ from the surrounds was noticeably improved (from the Marantz without Audyssey engaged).

Before I go in again and verify with REW, and before I make any manual tweaks.
This is how Audyssey set my system

All speakers were set to small which is the desired setting (I am running DIY SEOS waveguide speakers up front with a worst case low end roll-off of 70Hz.
Distance check: It was very close for the distances of the front speakers and reasonably close for the subs. Front 2 subs (CH1) was accurate at 11.3', and the rear sub (CH2) was just a bit far at 7.2' (instead of the actual 6').

Crossovers; this was a bit odd:

Front's DIY SEOS with 12" mid-bass drivers were set for 120Hz (these measure good to 70Hz)
Center DIY SEOS with 4" mid-bass drivers was set for 100Hz (measures good to 50Hz)
Side Surrounds RF35s were set to 80Hz (specs say the -3db point is 81 Hz)
Rear surrounds Klipsch 6" in ceilings were set to 40Hz (no backer boxes, they could have lower FR due to the cavity they are mounted in?)

Next up:
I will be running REW and will then start experimenting with resetting all of the crossovers to 80 Hz, and will start experimenting with the sub distance for the crossover splice.
So into the "rabbit hole" I go :-)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The "Official" Denon AVR-4311CI/AVR-A100 thread [NO PRICE TALK]