or Connect
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 110

post #3271 of 5250
Craig

Who says that you couldn't get even better results with a different approach? Your room is obviously well damped at low frequencies. Other's might not have that luxury.
But that's not the point. Gain/level-matching in itself is not a optimization technique that yields smooth frequency response or low modal ringing. How could it?

P.S. Can't read your spectrogram. How long is the impulse window? Can you export impulse responses from your software? Would like to have a look at it.
post #3272 of 5250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

... in a system with 3 to 6 dB, (or greater), of disparity in the level settings of the subs, there can be a significant benefit to gain-matching. Craig
Very clear, very helpful response, thank you!
post #3273 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Craig
Who says that you couldn't get even better results with a different approach?
Better results in what regard? Flatter FR? Lower modal ringing? My system already has both of those PLUS deep extension and massive output capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Your room is obviously well damped at low frequencies.
Yes, it is. The entire ceiling is a big bass trap. It consists of 1" acoustic fiberglass ceiling tiles, (Capaul Open Plan), suspended 4" below the overhead joists, which are stuffed with 10" of pink, fluffy fiberglass. I also have 10" thick bass traps in the front corners extending out 3" from the corners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

But that's not the point. Gain/level-matching in itself is not a optimization technique that yields smooth frequency response or low modal ringing. How could it?
I didn't say gain-matching was an optimization technique used for smoothing frequency response or to reduce modal ringing. What I said was that it can be used in a system that achieves flat frequency response and low modal ringing. The randomly placed subs, the bass traps and XT32 flatten the FR and reduce modal ringing. The multiple, gain-matched subs provide the high output and deep extension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

P.S. Can't read your spectrogram. How long is the impulse window?
250 milliseconds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

Can you export impulse responses from your software? Would like to have a look at it.
I think it can. I've never tried it. I'll check tonight when I get home.

Craig
Edited by craig john - 10/18/12 at 1:31pm
post #3274 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Yes, it is. The entire ceiling is a big bass trap. It consists of 1" acoustic fiberglass ceiling tiles, (Capaul Open Plan), suspended 4" below the overhead joists, which are stuffed with 10" of pink, fluffy fiberglass. I also have 10" thick bass traps in the front corners extending out 3" from the corners.

You have to admit that's not the Average Joe's living room. Especially not here in Europe where a lot of houses have rigid walls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I didn't say gain-matching was an optimization technique used for smoothing frequency response or to reduce modal ringing.

But that's exactly how it was presented by some posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I think it can. I've never tried it. I'll check tonight when I get home.

Thanks!
post #3275 of 5250

I had the following PM earlier and my reply to it is below. Would anyone care to make any observations?  I think both the questions merit inclusion in the Pro FAQ.

 

------------

 

 
User's question:
 
I was thinking about buying the pro kit and came across your FAQ, which is brilliant. thanks for compiling that! few quick questions for you:
 
1) with an XT receiver (2312ci), would the pro kit make enough of a difference to justify the cost? would i be better off saving the money for an XT32 receiver?
 
2) is it possible to obtain the pro kit for less than the $520 that perfect home theater has it listed for?
 
3) i have dual subs. i am guessing the pro kit will not allow my XT AVR to EQ each sub on its own, but please let me know if it does.
 

 

My reply:

 

 

Glad the FAQ is useful for you. Please have a look at the MultEQ FAQ as well as the Pro one - a good understanding of basic Audyssey helps a lot with the Pro kit too.

 

1. This is a subject that has been discussed quite a bit before and it is a marginal call I think. Pro utilises the underlying version of Audyssey MultEQ as its base, so a Pro calibration on an XT unit will not be as good as a Pro calibration on an XT32 unit. The biggest difference between XT and XT32 is that the latter allocates far more of its resources to EQ-ing the bass (where EQ is needed most) and fewer resources to EQ-ing the upper frequencies. XT32 is a very significant step up from XT for this reason. When I upgraded from XT to XT32 I was staggered at the difference it made. Remember that if you buy the Pro kit for the 2312 you will also have it for any upgrade to XT32 later of course. Personally, I would get an XT32 unit before I got the Pro kit and then add the Pro kit later if I felt the need. Again, if your room is well treated, then the benefits of any form of electronic EQ will be smaller anyway, so this is another factor to take into account. This is an interesting question you raise and I ought to add it to the FAQ - I will raise it in the Pro thread and get a general view and then add it.

 

2. Not really. If they are out of stock Audyssey will sell you one direct but the price is pretty much the same.

 

3. Another good question and one that ought to be in the FAQ. You are right - Pro uses the 'base' version of XT so it's capability in that area is limited to the capability of the unit. If your subs are identical and located at equal distances from the MLP it doesn't matter all that much IMO.

 

---------------

 

Thanks for any comments - Keith

post #3276 of 5250
^^^

1) no. yes.
2) not that i'm aware of, although used ones occasionally pop up on agon.
3) no. however, clarify it to be "the subs are always eq'd together, pro kit or no pro kit regardless of the version of audyssey". xt32 + sub eq (gotta add on that sub eq part since onkyo decided to cheap out and not include it) allows independent delays/levels.

how's that?
post #3277 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^

1) no. yes.
2) not that i'm aware of, although used ones occasionally pop up on agon.
3) no. however, clarify it to be "the subs are always eq'd together, pro kit or no pro kit regardless of the version of audyssey". xt32 + sub eq (gotta add on that sub eq part since onkyo decided to cheap out and not include it) allows independent delays/levels.

how's that?

Thanks Chris. I'll wait a while to see if anyone else chimes in and then add these to the Pro FAQ.

post #3278 of 5250
I think the response to #1 should be clear: a standard calibration using XT32 is likely to produce better results than a Pro calibration on XT. So, if it is a question of which is the best bang for the buck, upgrading to XT32 is the clear winner, IMHO.
post #3279 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I think the response to #1 should be clear: a standard calibration using XT32 is likely to produce better results than a Pro calibration on XT. So, if it is a question of which is the best bang for the buck, upgrading to XT32 is the clear winner, IMHO.

 

Concurred. Thanks AJ.

post #3280 of 5250
Thread Starter 
^+1
post #3281 of 5250
i have denon 4311 and two subwoofers:
1st re audio xxx 18 in 9cuft sealed with clone labgruppen fp14000
2nd jbl4645c with behringer ep4000

which is your opinion for best usage of XT32?

1) use the subs each with each own sub out and let xt32 do its job or
2) use the subs as one (re audio lpf 40hz) and (jbl hpf 40hz) with the help of minidsp?

thank you for your help
post #3282 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

^+1

I'll add the new Q and A to the FAQ later today.

post #3283 of 5250
@ourania...

good question, but we need a bit more data...

1) do you have a frequency sweep for each of the subs?

2) what is the relative output between the two?

mismatched subs can sometimes be difficult, especially when their capabilities are different... if one is significantly different than the other, the "lesser" sub could easily be overdriven...

i'd try it both ways... if it was me, when doing them "combined" (off one sub output), i would attempt to get it as flat as possible in the area that you are crossing the two subs by using the minidsp before running audyssey...

sorry that the answer isn't more definitive... redface.gif if we know the answer to the two questions posted above, we might be able to give a "better" answer...
post #3284 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

@ourania...
good question, but we need a bit more data...
1) do you have a frequency sweep for each of the subs?
2) what is the relative output between the two?
mismatched subs can sometimes be difficult, especially when their capabilities are different... if one is significantly different than the other, the "lesser" sub could easily be overdriven...
i'd try it both ways... if it was me, when doing them "combined" (off one sub output), i would attempt to get it as flat as possible in the area that you are crossing the two subs by using the minidsp before running audyssey...
sorry that the answer isn't more definitive... redface.gif if we know the answer to the two questions posted above, we might be able to give a "better" answer...

thank you for your help.
1)i don't have a frequency sweep.
i will buy in the near future the xtz room analyzer and i will post the results.
2)can you explain what is the relative output?
post #3285 of 5250
^^^

you are welcome... smile.gif

as far as #2 goes... that meant "how much spl will each sub provide at various points on the frequency scale"...
post #3286 of 5250
This may not be of use to many people, but as an 80.3 owner, I suddenly was having problem connecting via ethernet to the Integra to calibrate - it would connect, then drop and lock up.

I discovered that because I was using an IP control app for the Integra on my iPad, there must have been contention issues for control (later found this note in supplemental documentation on Audyssey's site, but I think it's listed in an Integra receiver document). I needed to quit my control app on the iPad to allow Audyssey to function properly.
post #3287 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^
you are welcome... smile.gif
as far as #2 goes... that meant "how much spl will each sub provide at various points on the frequency scale"...

the only measurements that i can provide is from www.data-bass.com

jbl 4645c
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=68&mset=73

re audio xxx18
http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=9&mset=37

i don't know if this helps...
post #3288 of 5250
^^^

yes, it does... give us a bit of time to digest the graphs (work is getting in the way right now), and let's see what they tell us...
post #3289 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

This may not be of use to many people, but as an 80.3 owner, I suddenly was having problem connecting via ethernet to the Integra to calibrate - it would connect, then drop and lock up.
I discovered that because I was using an IP control app for the Integra on my iPad, there must have been contention issues for control (later found this note in supplemental documentation on Audyssey's site, but I think it's listed in an Integra receiver document). I needed to quit my control app on the iPad to allow Audyssey to function properly.

Yes, thanks. That has come up before and is one of the troubleshooting measures taken by Pro calibrators. In fact, I'd guess that it is part of a pre-calibration checklist item.
post #3290 of 5250
post #3291 of 5250

As some of you know, my new Seaton Submersive F2s have been held up in UK Customs and I am still not in possession of them.

 

Since installing bass traps a week or so ago, I have been running my system without Audyssey because I couldn't be bothered to run Pro after installing the traps only to have to run it again when the F2s arrive. I initially thought this would be just a day or two.

 

However, as the subs are still not here, I decided today to run Pro again because I realised that if I didn't I would have no objective assessment of the room as a result of simply installing the traps - the new calibration will be with traps + F2s.

 

I ran a 9 point calibration, same as my last one.

 

Would the gurus in this thread please comment on the OmniMic graph for me? It shows 1/24th smoothing and was run with DEQ off of course and the sub distance adjustment tweak carried out.

 

I also changed the XOs in the AVP after running Pro because I wanted to use 100Hz and Pro did not have this as an option for any of the LCR speakers. I know this is frowned upon but it gave me a smoother graph. Comments please would be welcome.

 

Thanks guys.

 

 

1000

post #3292 of 5250
I think the graph looks pretty good. Did you do the distance tweak? It's not clear the trade-offs are with changing the crossovers in the AVR, vs. using one of the Pro-recommended values. My feeling is that there are factors other than simple frequency response that may come into play, but don't know how test it out. My philosophy has been to trust Audyssey where there is uncertainty. Might help if you posted the last pre-treatment graph as well. Do you see a difference? Adding traps in my listening room produced very little change in the frequency response, but a noticeable difference in the waterfall graph. Has that dip at 80Hz always been there?

Regardless, assuming you can beat the customs guys into submission, this will all be moot when the big boys arrive. Looking forward to those measurements!
post #3293 of 5250
Yes, I agree that it looks pretty good. Do you have any waterfall/decay graphs? Before and after?

Jeff
post #3294 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I think the graph looks pretty good. Did you do the distance tweak? It's not clear the trade-offs are with changing the crossovers in the AVR, vs. using one of the Pro-recommended values. My feeling is that there are factors other than simple frequency response that may come into play, but don't know how test it out. My philosophy has been to trust Audyssey where there is uncertainty. Might help if you posted the last pre-treatment graph as well. Do you see a difference? Adding traps in my listening room produced very little change in the frequency response, but a noticeable difference in the waterfall graph. Has that dip at 80Hz always been there?

Regardless, assuming you can beat the customs guys into submission, this will all be moot when the big boys arrive. Looking forward to those measurements!

Thanks Jerry - very helpful. I did do the distance tweak. I got the graph flatter with the XOs at 100Hz than at 80Hz, but of course the XOs were just changed in the AVP, post-cal, which is, IIRC, supposed to be a no-no.

 

Interesting that the substantial installation of treatments in your room didn't change the graph much. Same here  -  I was expecting to see it flatter. I was forgetting that the main influence of the traps will be in decay times rather than FR so thanks for the reminder there.   I darn forgot to try waterfalls! Will do it next time when the F2s arrive.

 

Here is the last graph - this was pre-traps, same mic positions, distance tweak applied, same 1/24th smoothing and XO of 80Hz, which was one of the Pro suggestions (1st suggestion is usually 40Hz which I definitely do not want to use). What do you think?  (Ignore the red line - can't remember what is was for, but it's not relevant). This last graph (below) took a lot of effort to produce and much distance tweakery.

 

1000

post #3295 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Yes, I agree that it looks pretty good. Do you have any waterfall/decay graphs? Before and after?

Jeff

 

Thanks Jeff.

 

Like a dumkopf, I forgot to do the waterfalls!  Novice at measuring still. I was focused on the FR and forgot that the biggest change, post-traps, will be in decay times.

 

Any view on messing with XOs in the AVP after running Pro?  Is it worthwhile to try to improve on the result so far do you think?

post #3296 of 5250
^^^

... wait for it ... here it comes ....

HOW DOES IT SOUND?
post #3297 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

^^^

... wait for it ... here it comes ....

HOW DOES IT SOUND?

 

Freakin' awesome. :)  Well, as awesome as a Submersiveless system can sound... (LOL - sorry Jerry....  couldn’t help it...).

post #3298 of 5250
What crossovers were offered by Pro?
post #3299 of 5250
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

What crossovers were offered by Pro?

Looking at my notes, the top 4 were:  60, 70, 80, Large. Irritatingly, every other speaker other than the front L&R offered 100 somewhere in its selection. Including the centre, but I dislike the idea of setting a different XO (to the L&R) for the centre channel.

 

It's all a bit academic as I seem to offered XOs almost at random - different every time I run Pro, so by the time I do the next cal, next week hopefully if the F2s arrive, I'll probably find 100 somewhere in there.

post #3300 of 5250
Oddly, my fronts are offered slightly different XO's with the SS-150 tripole 90° surrounds than with the s-150 monopoles at 120°. One hundred is just not there for the former, so I seccumb and select 80Hz which is first for L & R and 2nd for C. Fortunately, for hi-res MCH - with five identical S-150's - where my listening is the loudest and the amp pushed the most, 100Hz is available.

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