The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 131

Mine was an inference from the greater frequency limitations in the ARC implementations in progressively less expensive Anthem gear.

I thought it was combining FIR and IIR, but probably my memory was wrong and it was with some another EQeing technology, if so, then yes, processing power can be saved then for better purpose

This suggestion was what it needed.
I had always left DEQ on. I think I may have tried toggling it on/off while tweaking, but the slight boost in bass and volume probably fooled my ears into thinking it was better. I never did an extended listening test with it off until your suggestion.

My usual listenig volume is -25 to -15 db and the DEQ seems to have been boosting the highs and lows like you thought. It also seems to have made the music more open, and certainly more pleasant to listen to.

Thanks much for the suggestion,

Tom

Most happy to have been of some help.

Continued happy listening!

ARC only uses IIR filters and if they are high quality,they can still be computationally complex.

I ran Pro again yesterday after making some changes to the room.

 

While it was running, I read the in-program help. One thing caught my eye:

 

"Only measure at positions where people will commonly listen".

 

This struck me as odd. It is against the usual Audyssey advice, which is to measure the room not listening positions. It implies that in a HT where only one position is 'commonly listened' to (like my own for example) that one should only measure around that one seat.  Anyone got any thoughts?

 

I also noticed again something I have meant to bring up before. We know that Pro has 'issues' wrt to the way it handles the subs, and we also know that it is highly unlikely that Audyssey will ever fix the bug where the sub distances are incorrectly set after a reload of a measurement set (and also when running a new calibration entirely IME, where Pro just leaves the sub distance for one of the subs at whatever t was set to before). But what I am puzzled by is this:

 

When the subs are pinged as one (ie every time after the initial level and distance setting), Pro reports that it is measuring the subs and then it goes on to 'transferring Sub 1 response' first for Sub 1 and then for Sub 2. What is that all about?  Surely as the two subs are measured as one, only one set of filters is possible?

Edited by kbarnes701 - 2/27/13 at 3:31am

 

As for the "only measure where people sit", how does Pro know where anyone is sitting?  Stay the course--use the measuring technique which has been providing good results for you.  No need to over think.

 

How Pro is handling your subs is a little more troubling.  On the issue of sub distances being wrong after re-loading a measurement file, we all agree on this behavior.  However, I have not heard of anyone else having sub settings unchanged when running a new calibration.  This has certainly never happened to me, and I have done a fair number of Pro calibrations over the last several years.  And finally, I get the message "transferring data for sub1+sub2", never a separate transfer for each sub channel.  I have no idea why Pro's behavior would be different for you, unless it's a differences in how our two AVR models handle the measurements.  This sounds like a question for Luke.

Keith, when Audyssey (or other RC's) measure multiple positions and then create "optimized" filters, they will, of necessity, be sub-optimal for any individual seat. In other words, they're a compromise.

If (big if!) you're the only one listening, not only is there no point in measuring other seats, but you'll get sub-optimal filters for your seat. Dunno if Audyssey will keep multiple cals, but if it does, create one with measurements only at and near your single seat, and another for the multiple seats used when friends or family join you. Try them both and see which you prefer in your sweet spot.

Slightly OT, my Trinnov will show the correction for all measured positions, allowing me to see which are sufficiently different that I may choose to discard them when creating the filters. To make a long story short, after many listening trials and in my almost-always single seat listening room, I use only one measurement position. YMMV.
Edited by RUR - 2/27/13 at 8:27am

Right, we can over think this. I also think we also tend to expect more precision from Audyssey or other EQ than is practically possible given the extreme complexity of sound patterns in the room. The continuously variable nature of room acoustics which we measure samples of only at discrete points still requires some spatial averaging to be more accurate, given that we turn our heads, lean slightly or slouch sometimes while listening, at least I do.

It may be a compromise, but I think a two point measurement, one for each ear head in a vice-style, would be less useful and accurate than using more points. Chris has advocated doing measurements 2 feet in front of the listening positions, as well as the main listening positions, as well. Others have advocated adding some positions at a foot or so above the listening positions, especially if using dipolar speakers with limited vertical dispersion. I have not tried that yet, but I will. Personally, I have a 3 seat sofa, and I measure all around it, over the backs, fronts and side arms, plus I add several center weighted positions about a foot apart over the center of the center cushion. I am quite pleased with the sound at the sweet spot, but also everywhere else on the sofa.

I did the calibration for a good friend who listens by himself from only one chair. I did 8 points, just all around the chair. I must say it sounded pretty good there, but it also sounded better elsewhere in the room, but there was no point I thought in calibrating anywhere else. Life is too short to try every possibility.

But, the bottom line is that Audyssey is not meant to be or is it capable of providing perfect sound anywhere or everywhere. Passive treatments or anything else cannot do that either. It can only make the sound in the room better by partially removing many common room and speaker induced faults in the horrendously complex sound fields in the room near the listening point or points. To me it does that extremely well, and that is all I expect from it. If I can tweak it to do a little better, I am happy to try that, too.
Edited by fitzcaraldo215 - 2/27/13 at 9:27am

+1.  Since I am the only one in my listening room for most of the time, I settled long ago on a single-seat measuring pattern consisting of multiple points closely spaced (within 12").  I try and account for various positions of my recliner, and various postures I find myself in, ranging from alert to comatose.  The results of this approach are actually quite pleasing.

Bought myself a pro setup. You can see the differences below. I am finally happy with the sound. i used midrange comp and roll off 2.
Setup: Front phonar p4 edma (modification)
back phonar M4 edma (modification)
Center phonar C4 edma (modification)
Sub svs sb13-ultra
receiver denon 4311



before



After

I have often compared the EQ screens for a standard and a Pro calibration, and they are usually pretty close to each other.  The fact that yours are quite different leads me to believe that something else has changed in addition to just upgrading to Pro.  Perhaps slightly different microphone placements, more measuring positions, or something else.  Regardless, if it sounds better, congratulations.

I have done 12 measurements instead of 8. The positions are exact the same as with the cheap microphone.
i am very happy with the results the high sounds are less sharper and voices are sounding more full. Normally i switched a lot between the options of my 4311 and i got fustrated about the sound sounding not like what i expected. After the pro setup i dont need to change a thing, it sounds always good.

 

 

Pro doesn’t know where anyone is sitting - but the operator does. It's clearly saying that if there is only one listener, measure just for the one seat, if there are two listeners measure both seats etc etc. That is the exact opposite of all the Audyssey advice I have ever seen which says to measure the room not the seats. There's even a FAQ question IIRC that asks "why do I need to measure where nobody sits?"  According to that Pro in-prog help, you don't! It seems odd that this advice is contrary to all the other advice from Audyssey. FWIW, I ignore the in-prog help as it is riddled with errors.

 

 

 

 

I ran two Pro cals recently - one today and one yesterday. Both new cals. On both, the sub distance was set at 9.6 feet for Sub 1. This is actually the distance *I* set for sub 2 (after the distance tweak). This happens every time. Might be Onkyo 5509 specific.

 

 

 

Again, it must be an Onkyo thing then. It doesn’t inspire confidence in Pro IMO. It transfers measurements for TWO subs, even when the two are treated as one for all measurements after the first?? Weird.  Maybe it just transfers the same data twice. 

 

I am using Pro ver 3.5 BTW not 3.6. I wonder if that might make a difference, although there was no mention of the sub behaviour in the release notes IIRC.

 

While I'm bitchin'.... the Pro offered crossovers are all over the place. I get totally different offerings every time I calibrate. Sometimes I am offered 100Hz, sometimes not. Sometimes it reads my mains as 40Hz, other times not. This is with almost identical mic placements and no room or speaker changes. Again, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

 

Audyssey seem to have abandoned us Pro users, having taken several hundred bucks off us. There is virtually no support, definitely no documentation and no bug fixes either. Not a great state of affairs IMO.

 

Wow, somebody is having a bad day.  As I said before, I think it is time to present these issues to Audyssey and see what they say.

 

Agreed entirely. I am the only listener (who cares) so I cluster the measurements around my seat and have done this for years now. I am convinced it gives the best result for one seat.

 

What I was questioning is that Audyssey have always asserted that one must measure the room not the seats and have specifically said on many occasions (see them at Ask Audyssey) that even where there is a sole listener, one should follow their mic placement guidelines and measure the whole room. Chris K has said that this is essential in order "to give the algorithms as much information as possible". Yet right there in the Pro in-program help it says the exact opposite. I find that odd.

 

I'd like to try Trinnov one day - what AVR do you have?

 

:)  Sorry Jerry, did I come across as snippy?  I wasn't intending to.

 

I have more or less given up asking Audyssey anything as their replies these days seem either vague or evasive. IIRC you asked them in detail about the 'reload sub bug' and got the brush-off, for example.

 

I might ask them, just to see how they reply.

I find it odd, too.

It's a dedicated 2ch room with no AVR, but a Trinnov ST-2 PRO. I also have simple setups in the family room and MBR using Denons with Audyssey.

If Keith is a true man of unlimited means, there's this product:
http://www.ada.net/products/ht/cinema-reference-mach-IV.php

You could buy a boatload of Pro kits for what it costs, though. 'Trust and verify' is considerably simpler IMO.

If I had the $$$, I would buy it. After all, this is our hobby!

What about the time ? The little extra time I have for the hobby right now (aside from casual/superfluous HT viewing & listening) is devoted to getting REW measurements down. So much to do, so little time....

The Trinnov MC Pro would have more flexibility and offer more of an upgrade path than the ADA would,and cost you less.

I am also the lone listener 95% of the time, and when my wife watches a movie with me we occupy the one main listening position together.
I was thinking of doing a new Pro reading and was wondering what mic positions you guys are doing for your 'one listener' runs ??

Keith/Jerry/others, you say you are clustering your readings around the one position--

Are you using 8 positions ??
Does Pro allow you to use less than 8 positions ?? If possible I was thinking of doing just 5 positions in a diamond configuration around the mlp.
How close is your cluster?? Within 1-2 ft of the mlp, or within 4-5 ft of mlp ??

Since I've save my last reading I'm willing to do some experimenting, but would like to do so standing on the shoulders of some of you giants,

Tom

 

I use 9 positons commonly in a regular grid pattern around my own seat. No 1 obviously where my head is - the rest evenly distributed - 2 and 3 about 1 foot each in front of 1, then the rest the same formation but 1 foot to each side.  Pro allows for less than 8.

 

I am considering, when I get the chance, of trying a cal where all 9 positions are even closer - say all within a 2ft diameter circle. One of the great things about Pro is that if you don't like the result of a particular cal you can go back in and reload the last good one you saved.   Just experiment away...

 

I'd like to experiment as well with a 'bubble shaped' configuration, ie in the vertical as well as horizontal plane.

The variability of detected crossovers in successive calibrations goes exactly to what I said earlier. People may blame Audyssey for this, but it is really about slightly differing mike positions and the complex variability of the sound field in the room, assuming all else is equal, including background noise levels. But, it is further reinforcement for spatially averaging a reasonable number of measurement positions.

I too have found moderate changes in calculated xovers on successive calibrations, but nothing too wild. Again, there is nothing wrong with just overriding everything with 80hz, assuming the calculated xover point is below that. Actually, that works quite well.

 

Good points. In fact, the last Pro cal I did (I checked) offered me 100Hz for the LF and RF, 110Hz for the Centre and Surrounds and 100Hz for the Heights (all within the first 4 choices and mostly the second choice), so not far from my desired 100Hz. I left them as calculated but previously have upped them to 100Hz in the AVP with no apparent detriment to the sound. But IIRC this was the first cal to offer me those (but it was after installing treatments so that goes to our point). 

 

I am wildly happy with my SQ, so please don't take my whining in the other post too seriously ;)

 

I use a pattern like this:

 

 

 

I used to use more measurment points but reduced the number to eight because the Denon 4520 had an issue with slow data transfer times using Pro (which has since been resolved with a FW update).  I liked what I was getting with eight points, so haven't returned to a higher number.

 

HST, I would recommend taking at least eight measurement points.

The problem really is that Audyssey doesn't disclose how MultEQ processes the collected data. We know it uses minimum-phase filters which can give an idea what acoustical problems MultEQ can and can't handle. The topic isn't trivial though. If you're interested, here's an excellent article by Mathias Johansson (Dirac Researc) which I highly recommend: http://www.dirac.se/media/12044/on_room_correction.pdf

In the end probably the best advice one can give is to stick to Chris Kyriakakis' recommendations at https://audyssey.zendesk.com/home

 

I experimented with up to 14 mic positions. I found that any more than 8 or 9 made little or no difference (in my small room) and in any case, if one is mainly concerned with measuring just the main seat, it's hard to do more than about 10 anyway.

I do fine with 6 positions (Pro). Had a installer tell me that the more positions you do depending on the size of the room, the flatter it will be. 6 to 8 positons in a small to medium room is ideal.