AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 42

post #1231 of 4236
2/27/12 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

I just installed 3.5 .i had been using 3.4. With the same data it had different priorities for my mains.

3.4 : 80. Hz, 40hz, 70 hz, 60 hz
3.5: 80hz, 70hz, 40hz, 60 hz

Is the algorithm different for priortization in 3.5?

This has been my experience:

Audyssey makes bug fixes in every release of Audyssy MultEQ Pro but they do not publish, nor admit to, them unless you ask about a specific bug that they just happened to fix in a newer release. They are very tight lipped regarding bug fixes and I don't blame them.

Consumer:
Installer:
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #1232 of 4236
2/27/12 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post
This has been my experience:

Audyssey makes bug fixes in every release of Audyssy MultEQ Pro but they do not publish, nor admit to, them unless you ask about a specific bug that they just happened to fix in a newer release. They are very tight lipped regarding bug fixes and I don't blame them.

Consumer:
Installer:
The issue Jmschnur has reported is likely not related to the software upgrade. Rather, it is the way the software works. For example, I ran a Pro calibration over the weekend and recorded the recommended crossovers in a worksheet. To see if the calculation algorithm results in consistent recommendations, I loaded the saved measurements from the weekend calibration and let Pro run he calculations a second time.

As you can see in the attached file, the second set of recommendations do not match the first. Strangely, 40 Hz disappears completely from the second set of recommendations. Perhaps this is a bug, or perhaps the algorithm is so complex that it returns different results each time (which would be upsetting).

So, is it a bug and, if so, is it significant to warrant a case with Audyssey TS?

Edit: why can't I see the attached PDF on my iPad???

 

Pro Crossover Test.pdf 262.63671875k . file
Reply
Reply
post #1233 of 4236
2/27/12 at 1:57pm
Since you have the records, could you ask Luke about this ? In my case 80 was top for both. 40 and 70 were reversed.
Reply
Reply
post #1234 of 4236
2/27/12 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Since you have the records, could you ask Luke about this ? In my case 80 was top for both. 40 and 70 were reversed.

Sure, I'll be glad to.
Reply
Reply
post #1235 of 4236
2/27/12 at 3:44pm
thats really odd
I always save a few calibration
and reload a lot
but have never seen that happen
hmmm - be interesting to hear their response
post it on ask Audyssey
Reply
Reply
post #1236 of 4236
2/27/12 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hclarkx View Post

I'd like to toss this subject out for comment since I don't recall seeing it in any of the Audyssey forums. When I first got my hands on a Pro Installer kit I used it to help identify the best sub locations in my HT. I moved the sub to the feasible locations and ran a single mic location & measurement first at my chair and then at my wife's chair. I looked at the two "before" plots and moved the subs around until I found the best locations. Since I had two subs, I picked locations where the two subs would be highly complementary at the two seats. This was before the SubEQ came along but might still be worth doing to ensure the needed corrections are well within the SubEQ's correction capability. For those without a SubEQ, it's even more beneficial.

What I particularly found was that the poor sub locations could indeed cause problems that were well beyond full correction by Audyssey. One was a dip in the response that was about 20 db deep. It fell at a different frequency at each seat. As you experts might guess, that was with a sub on the right or left walls about even with the seats. The direct wave and reflected wave are both strong and meet out-of-phase at the seat.

I ended up with one corner sub to the left of the mains and one to the right at a point 2/3 of the way across the wall (this spot excites fewer of the lower room modes). Neither sub had peaks or valleys beyond about 8 db and both were less with both subs connected. Not surprisingly, both subs are equidistant from the listening position.

REW can be used for this purpose, but most of those on this forum have the Pro kit and can easily use it for this purpose.

If this isn't clear, let me know. If it makes sense, maybe it can go into the second post in the thread on use of the Pro kit.

Thank you for the excellent post. I'm using dual subwoofers with XT32, and will be using REW to fine tune the initial placement in the near future. This placement will be especially critical for me, as I will be replacing my current subwoofers with infinite baffle manifolds, which require holes to be cut in the floor. It's nice to hear of some real world experience with these types of measurements.
Reply
Reply
post #1237 of 4236
2/27/12 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GPBURNS View Post

thats really odd
I always save a few calibration
and reload a lot
but have never seen that happen
hmmm - be interesting to hear their response
post it on ask Audyssey

If memory serves me correctly, it is recommended to run the COMPLETE cal because dropping the former cal's data into a new run gives inconsistent results. (Saving & using former cals are OK as long as no changes [to them] are made at that time)
Reply
Reply
post #1238 of 4236
2/27/12 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by calentz View Post

If memory serves me correctly, it is recommended to run the COMPLETE cal because dropping the former cal's data into a new run gives inconsistent results. (Saving & using former cals are OK as long as no changes [to them] are made at that time)

No changes. Just the data reloaded to change the effect of xovers. Priortization was different but I used 3.4 first then 3.5.
Reply
Reply
post #1239 of 4236
2/27/12 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by calentz View Post

If memory serves me correctly, it is recommended to run the COMPLETE cal because dropping the former cal's data into a new run gives inconsistent results. (Saving & using former cals are OK as long as no changes [to them] are made at that time)

Let me clarify:

- You can't re-start a calibration by loading original measurements and adding new measurements with MultEQ XT32. This is a known issue that Audyssey has acknowledged. If you want to add more measurements, you have to start over.

- You can load original measurements to select different crossovers, run the curve editor, etc. You don't have to start over as long as you don't add measurements.
Reply
Reply
post #1240 of 4236
2/28/12 at 12:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Let me clarify:

- You can't re-start a calibration by loading original measurements and adding new measurements with MultEQ XT32. This is a known issue that Audyssey has acknowledged. If you want to add more measurements, you have to start over.

- You can load original measurements to select different crossovers, run the curve editor, etc. You don't have to start over as long as you don't add measurements.

Jerry,

I thought that this issue affected only those cases when you had 2 subwoofers and that the issue was resolved if you eq'd the 2 subs as one through a Y-connection?

Are you saying that you can't load measurements and then add more measurements, whether you have 1 or 2 subs?

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #1241 of 4236
2/28/12 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by calentz View Post

If memory serves me correctly, it is recommended to run the COMPLETE cal because dropping the former cal's data into a new run gives inconsistent results. (Saving & using former cals are OK as long as no changes [to them] are made at that time)

I always had a few different saved (completed) calculations -
depending on how many viewers.
bigger the crowd - larger the spread on my data points
Reply
Reply
post #1242 of 4236
2/28/12 at 3:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Jerry,

I thought that this issue affected only those cases when you had 2 subwoofers and that the issue was resolved if you eq'd the 2 subs as one through a Y-connection?

Are you saying that you can't load measurements and then add more measurements, whether you have 1 or 2 subs?

Mark

I have not had chance to run pro on my 80.3 (waiting on firmware)
that is major bug if true -
being able to continue measurements was great feature on my 80.1
Reply
Reply
post #1243 of 4236
2/28/12 at 3:19am
I don't think that it makes any sense to be able to "continue" earlier measurements because even a small deviation of the measuring process or mike position might invalidate the older measurements in comparison to the new ones.
Reply
Reply
post #1244 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:11am
WOOT!! My Pro kit has arrived. All I need now is some Firmware....
Reply
Reply
post #1245 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

I don't think that it makes any sense to be able to "continue" earlier measurements because even a small deviation of the measuring process or mike position might invalidate the older measurements in comparison to the new ones.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. This is a great feature of Pro because it takes a very long time to take the measurements. You can do 8 mic positions, save and then reload in the future, at which time you continue with positions 9-15 or whatever. There should be no way you "invalidate" older measurements.

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #1246 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

WOOT!! My Pro kit has arrived. All I need now is some Firmware....

Meanwhile, you can stare at and admire the mic?

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #1247 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. This is a great feature of Pro because it takes a very long time to take the measurements. You can do 8 mic positions, save and then reload in the future, at which time you continue with positions 9-15 or whatever. There should be no way you "invalidate" older measurements.

Mark

I agree with this especially if nothing has changed in the room and you are just 'adding' more measurements. I usually do 15, but have added more later (did them in approximately the same positions, just a couple inches higher). In the end, the results looked the same though, so as Chris pointed out in the past, there is a point where more measurements do not yield better/different results. It would really depend on the room.
Reply
Reply
post #1248 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

Meanwhile, you can stare at and admire the mic?

Mark

Yep. Just unpacked everything out of the carry-case, admired, and packed away again...
Reply
Reply
post #1249 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yep. Just unpacked everything out of the carry-case, admired, and packed away again...

That's funny! Did the same thing when I got mine since I did not have time in my schedule to run it for a couple weeks. It'll be worth the wait in the end!
Reply
Reply
post #1250 of 4236
2/28/12 at 4:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hclarkx View Post

I'd like to toss this subject out for comment since I don't recall seeing it in any of the Audyssey forums. When I first got my hands on a Pro Installer kit I used it to help identify the best sub locations in my HT. I moved the sub to the feasible locations and ran a single mic location & measurement first at my chair and then at my wife's chair. I looked at the two "before" plots and moved the subs around until I found the best locations. Since I had two subs, I picked locations where the two subs would be highly complementary at the two seats. This was before the SubEQ came along but might still be worth doing to ensure the needed corrections are well within the SubEQ's correction capability. For those without a SubEQ, it's even more beneficial.
What I particularly found was that the poor sub locations could indeed cause problems that were well beyond full correction by Audyssey. One was a dip in the response that was about 20 db deep. It fell at a different frequency at each seat. As you experts might guess, that was with a sub on the right or left walls about even with the seats. The direct wave and reflected wave are both strong and meet out-of-phase at the seat.
I ended up with one corner sub to the left of the mains and one to the right at a point 2/3 of the way across the wall (this spot excites fewer of the lower room modes). Neither sub had peaks or valleys beyond about 8 db and both were less with both subs connected. Not surprisingly, both subs are equidistant from the listening position.
REW can be used for this purpose, but most of those on this forum have the Pro kit and can easily use it for this purpose.
If this isn't clear, let me know. If it makes sense, maybe it can go into the second post in the thread on use of the Pro kit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by S_rangeBrew View Post

Thank you for the excellent post. I'm using dual subwoofers with XT32, and will be using REW to fine tune the initial placement in the near future. This placement will be especially critical for me, as I will be replacing my current subwoofers with infinite baffle manifolds, which require holes to be cut in the floor. It's nice to hear of some real world experience with these types of measurements.

Good points. Great idea, I added some links in the second post. BTW, I'd mentioned this "value-added feature" of using Pro for sub placement here. I listed some "pros and cons" of Pro as a measurement tool here. It was then pointed out to me by fellows with dedicated measuring systems, and more experience measuring than I, that systems like REW, OmniMic, etc., are better and faster. The most dedicated measurers point out that the graphs with far less smoothing can reveal much more, and thus be even more useful, than the Pro graphs.
Reply
Reply
post #1251 of 4236
2/28/12 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post


Jerry,

I thought that this issue affected only those cases when you had 2 subwoofers and that the issue was resolved if you eq'd the 2 subs as one through a Y-connection?

Are you saying that you can't load measurements and then add more measurements, whether you have 1 or 2 subs?

Mark

Here is the issue as I experienced it. When you re-start Pro, load the original measurement file, and start with the first new measurement position, the software will go through the sub distance measurement again, i.e. chirp sub1, then chirp sub2, then chirp both subs together. Since the sub distances were already determined during the first set of measurements, it's unclear how this second sub measurement affects the results. Luke at Audyssey has acknowledged that this is a software limitation (bug) that cannot be fixed, given the limited processing power allocated to RC in today's AVR's.

My thinking is that this bug would affect systems with either one or multiple subs. However, I have not tested the one-sub scenario.
Reply
Reply
post #1252 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

WOOT!! My Pro kit has arrived. All I need now is some Firmware....

Any news on that?
Reply
Reply
post #1253 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

The most dedicated measurers point out that the graphs with far less smoothing can reveal much more, and thus be even more useful, than the Pro graphs.

I don't even generate then anymore.
Reply
Reply
post #1254 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:04am
February is almost over by now ... and nothing here yet
Reply
Reply
post #1255 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Any news on that?

Yes - Chris reported on Audyssey's site that it was now scheduled for "early March".
Reply
Reply
post #1256 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:25am
2012?
Reply
Reply
post #1257 of 4236
2/28/12 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetsmart88 View Post

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. This is a great feature of Pro because it takes a very long time to take the measurements. You can do 8 mic positions, save and then reload in the future, at which time you continue with positions 9-15 or whatever. There should be no way you "invalidate" older measurements.

Mark

exactly
being able to control ambient noise with 3 teenagers
for extended period is not that easy
my best results have been in the 16-22 measurement range
takes awhile with 7.2 speakers
Reply
Reply
post #1258 of 4236
2/28/12 at 9:30am
OK. So I have the 4311 with XT32. I am very happy with Audyssey XT32 (compared to the lower XT in my older Onkyo receiver). Dual sub calibration is much better.

I am looking for feedback from other 4311 owners who have made the jump to Audyssey Pro. What were your results... and do you feel the investment was justified... given the cost of the installer kit?

Thanks,

Jx
Reply
Reply
post #1259 of 4236
2/28/12 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jxhopper View Post

OK. So I have the 4311 with XT32. I am very happy with Audyssey XT32 (compared to the lower XT in my older Onkyo receiver). Dual sub calibration is much better.

I am looking for feedback from other 4311 owners who have made the jump to Audyssey Pro. What were your results... and do you feel the investment was justified... given the cost of the installer kit?

Thanks,

Jx

I bought mine used for a little less than new, my thinking was that if the results weren't much of an improvement I could always sell it. I had moved from Denon 4310 with XT to 4311 with XT32 and was impressed with the significant improvment in SQ with my room so I wasn't really expecting much more from the pro, but I think it has made a worthy improvement upon XT32, especially in clarifying the mid range and expanding the soundstage to completly surround me in sound. For me the ability to measure many more mic positions and the nice boom/mic setup was itself worth the price of the pro kit.
Reply
Reply
post #1260 of 4236
2/28/12 at 10:07am
^^^ I concur. The 'sound bubble' just seems a bit larger with the Pro and the integration of mains with the sub seem smoother. I feel it was worth it. The only 'issue' is that it takes a lot longer to do the measurements (I timed it at 4min 50 sec per measurement position in my system - 11.2, well, technically 11.1).
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1)