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 158

post #4711 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post
 
 
Perhaps I have a different model pro mic (APM1), as I recently purchased the audio-technical AT8410a clamp and it doesn't even come close (slips right through without even touching) to holding my pro mic (I should have measured the mic to be sure before I bought, but I was being lazy:p) - it does however, work well with my miniDSP umik-1 eek.gif

 

That's odd. Here's a picture of it with the actual Audyssey Pro mic in it:

 

post #4712 of 5258
quote name="kbarnes701" url="/t/1346723/the-audyssey-pro-installer-kit-thread-faq-in-post-1/4710#post_23747082"]
That's odd. Here's a picture of it with the actual Audyssey Pro mic in it:



[/quote]

Quite the mystery, here is a couple of pictures of mine, you can see that it isn't even close to fitting. I think my pro mic is about 7/16" or maybe around 10 mm in diameter and the AT8410a will accept a minimum of 16.8 mm or 11/16" according to the literature enclosed with the shock mount. Maybe the shock mount is different or has changed rolleyes.gif.

[http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/278596/
post #4713 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

quote name="kbarnes701" url="/t/1346723/the-audyssey-pro-installer-kit-thread-faq-in-post-1/4710#post_23747082"]
That's odd. Here's a picture of it with the actual Audyssey Pro mic in it:



[/quote]

Quite the mystery, here is a couple of pictures of mine, you can see that it isn't even close to fitting. I think my pro mic is about 7/16" or maybe around 10 mm in diameter and the AT8410a will accept a minimum of 16.8 mm or 11/16" according to the literature enclosed with the shock mount. Maybe the shock mount is different or has changed rolleyes.gif.

[http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/61/id/278596/

 

Most odd. The only thing I can think is that they have changed the design. 

post #4714 of 5258
If anybody knows of another shock mount that will work with a diameter of 10 mm or so I would love to find one - I hate that flexible goose neck holder. I have searched, but most of the ones I come up with don't even list a minimum size.
post #4715 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

If anybody knows of another shock mount that will work with a diameter of 10 mm or so I would love to find one - I hate that flexible goose neck holder. I have searched, but most of the ones I come up with don't even list a minimum size.

 

 

I hear people complaining about the goose neck holder, and I always have to ask, are you using a small piece of tape to secure the mic cable to the boom arm to keep its weight from tugging at the holder?  When I use the tape, I find the holder to be reasonably stable during an entire calibration.

 

post #4716 of 5258
I use your tape suggestion and the clip which does help, but I still have to fiddle with it every time I move it when measuring as the tip typically ends up leaning forward (and it is a mickey mouse fix if you know what I mean rolleyes.gif). I have been using the pro kit for a year and a half and wasn't going to buy a shock mount until I got the miniDSP umik-1 to use with REW (because of your handy guide) and wanted to use the audyssey boom stand for both mics and thought the shock mount was a good idea eek.gif My BAD!
post #4717 of 5258
I think it is a great idea if you find one that fits!
post #4718 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

If anybody knows of another shock mount that will work with a diameter of 10 mm or so I would love to find one - I hate that flexible goose neck holder. I have searched, but most of the ones I come up with don't even list a minimum size.

You might be able to use what you have with a mod, on the inside facets of the clip, line them with a foam tape (type you find at Home Depot or Lowes for sealing doors/windows). I noticed that there is none in your pictures. Mine came with foam inside (which is no different than the type you can buy). We've actually done this with many clip-type mic holders to add isolation and to 'cushion' the clamp on the mic so that the mic is protected. I think it will work well and is an easy fix. The mic will be snug and cushioned - a good combination.

Something like this:

post #4719 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavchameleon View Post

You might be able to use what you have with a mod, on the inside facets of the clip, line them with a foam tape (type you find at Home Depot or Lowes for sealing doors/windows). I noticed that there is none in your pictures. Mine came with foam inside (which is no different than the type you can buy). We've actually done this with many clip-type mic holders to add isolation and to 'cushion' the clamp on the mic so that the mic is protected. I think it will work well and is an easy fix. The mic will be snug and cushioned - a good combination.

Something like this:

I was looking at Keith's picture and thinking there was some kind of foam inside the clips, but I couldn't think of an easy way to line it with foam so your suggestion is awesome and it worked perfectly biggrin.gif.
post #4720 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

I was looking at Keith's picture and thinking there was some kind of foam inside the clips, but I couldn't think of an easy way to line it with foam so your suggestion is awesome and it worked perfectly biggrin.gif.

Glad it worked. I have a couple different ones and some came with foam and others not. Easy to add as you noticed and makes for a great fit. I'm not sure if they changed the actual clip portion. I have a couple spider mounts that are the same brand, but different plastic clips inside. I'm assuming they don't make their own and that the size is dependent on the supplier (easily interchangeable within the spider-mount assembly).

Just a note, after a few years the bands can become lax and stretch. They can easily be replaced - available from most places that sell spidermounts - and even on Ebay/Amazon.
post #4721 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post

I was looking at Keith's picture and thinking there was some kind of foam inside the clips, but I couldn't think of an easy way to line it with foam so your suggestion is awesome and it worked perfectly biggrin.gif.

You could also use a roll of velcro tape.The kind that doesn't have an adhesive backing. Just wrap it around the mic until you get the desired diameter.
post #4722 of 5258
OK, this is probably a stupid question, but here goes..

I ran the Audyssey Pro Kit on my Marantz 8801. After everything was done I uploaded it to the 8801 and everything was completed successfully. After playing around a bit I noticed that the Audyssey setting was set to off after I completed the calibration.

My question is - After you upload the pro data to the 8801 does the on/off setting for Audyssey do anything, does it toggle between the pro calibration and the standard calibration (pro = off and standard = on). or is off = out of the box 8801 uncalibrated and on = Pro calibration?

Thanks in advance.
post #4723 of 5258
Upon completing a Pro calibration, Audyssey should be enabled in the AVR. There is no toggling back and forth between a consumer calibration and a Pro calibration. If Audyssey was disabled, then either you did something after the calibration was completed, e.g. changed the speaker configuration, or simply turned Audyssey off in the menu by mistake. Or perhaps you think you saved the configuration to the AVR, but you didn't. There is no way to tell.

Did you save your measurements? If so, you can re-load them and skip directly to the filter calculation step, saving a whole lot of time. If you didn't save the measurements, then that is something you should get in the habit of doing.
post #4724 of 5258
I finally whipped out my new pro kit from storage. Bought a license and ran a quick 3 position calibration for my PR-SC5509 to get a feel for the software. I will first run a normal 8 position XT32 calibration and see what differences come up, then compare it to a 8 position Pro calibration. Ideally im after the curve editor portion since I saw what normal XT32 was doing in in Music and Movie mode when measured in REW with my UMM-6.

I found my subwoofer levels way too high for the initial Pro configuration. Much higher than via the Processor itself and normal XT32 when you set the sub levels at 75dB's. I have to double check if I messed up something with my sub settings. Im using a pair of B&W DB1's mid room on opposite wall sides and a pair of B&W CTSW10's in the rear corners to fill in the gaps.
post #4725 of 5258
I would re-check things. We have seen no indication that Pro sets sub levels high. If anything, based on REW measurements, my subs are consistently set to between 70 and 72dB, in other words several dB low.
post #4726 of 5258
How have you setup your 4 subs in the Audyssey calibration?
post #4727 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

How have you setup your 4 subs in the Audyssey calibration?

Two subs are in front at the 1/4 and 3/4 points of room width, equidistant from the MLP, and on sub channel 1. The other two subs are co-located on the back wall at the room mid-point, on sub channel 2. All subs are gain-matched.
post #4728 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by windshear View Post

I finally whipped out my new pro kit from storage. Bought a license and ran a quick 3 position calibration for my PR-SC5509 to get a feel for the software. I will first run a normal 8 position XT32 calibration and see what differences come up, then compare it to a 8 position Pro calibration. Ideally im after the curve editor portion since I saw what normal XT32 was doing in in Music and Movie mode when measured in REW with my UMM-6.

I found my subwoofer levels way too high for the initial Pro configuration. Much higher than via the Processor itself and normal XT32 when you set the sub levels at 75dB's. I have to double check if I messed up something with my sub settings. Im using a pair of B&W DB1's mid room on opposite wall sides and a pair of B&W CTSW10's in the rear corners to fill in the gaps.

What do your final (measured verification) curves (LF and full-range with the center) look like? How do you measure with REW? Positions, averaged, etc?
post #4729 of 5258
My choice of words was maybe not clear. I should have said that at the point where you try to reference the individual sub levels to 75dB initially, it "seems" a lot louder via pro than via normal XT32 in the processor. I will measure when I get a chance to see if this is the case . Its not that pro is setting the levels wrong, it gets the trims close to what the internal version had. Im surprised to see that the pro version has all my loudspeakers 6cm further away, except the back surrounds where it has them 12cm closer. Maybe I have the mic higher since it is taller than the inbox version. That could explain the 2 surround distances.
post #4730 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

What do your final (measured verification) curves (LF and full-range with the center) look like? How do you measure with REW? Positions, averaged, etc?

Sorry I don't quite understand what you are asking. Are you referring to the measurements im making with REW? Im primarily concerned with the main listening position, the other seats are irrelevant to me, so most measurements are done there.
post #4731 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by windshear View Post

Sorry I don't quite understand what you are asking. Are you referring to the measurements im making with REW? Im primarily concerned with the main listening position, the other seats are irrelevant to me, so most measurements are done there.

My point is that it's impossible to get accurate LF acoustic response measurements at one point in the world of small room acoustics regardless of whether it is your primary seat or not. LF is just too complicated for "one spot." ...if that makes any sense. Audyssey would never recommend one measurement position even for a one-seat theater. The common understanding for the multiple positions for Audyssey runs is for the listening positions, but believe me, those multiple positions are also so that it can make as accurate an LF analysis as possible. You need to do the same with your REW (or any analysis tool). Remember the technique that had to be used when using the old Radio Shack meter? When setting the LF channel using the test tone (narrow band), you were advised to move the meter around and take an average. That's because one spot will not be accurate. And that's at the narrow band test tone in your AVR/AVC. Imagine if it was full-bandwidth pink noise!

When dealing with LF acoustic room correction, you need a reasonably good analysis tool, but you must use measurement protocol that will render accuracy...to the max extent possible, anyway. If your REW is sophsitcated enough to average multiple positions, that's perfect. If it won't do that, if i will average a ten second sample, you can slowly move the mic around the primary listening position (plus or minus a seat left and right, and a couple feet fore and aft), then stop the sample to read the ten second "soak." That will give you a far more accurate LF acoustic analysis than one spot.
post #4732 of 5258
Well, I agree that using multiple mic positions as Audyssey recommends is the best way to get a good calibration. However, I don't agree with your recommendations regarding the post-calibration assessment using REW. BTW, my disagreement would apply to any measurement system, not just REW. I mention this because it seems like you are somewhat unfamiliar with REW.

I am one of those people who is only interested in the quality of audio at the MLP. While I agree if the objective is to provide the smoothest bass response across a number of seating positions, multiple measurements will give the best picture. However, if only optimizing the MLP is the objective, measuring only from the MLP is perfectly acceptable. REW has the capability of taking multiple measurements, and to take an average of those measurements, but an average has IMO little value. Why should I care about an average when all I am interested is the MLP?

BTW, discussions of measurement systems is OT for this thread. If you are interested in discussion REW, please join us in the REW thread.
post #4733 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Well, I agree that using multiple mic positions as Audyssey recommends is the best way to get a good calibration. However, I don't agree with your recommendations regarding the post-calibration assessment using REW. BTW, my disagreement would apply to any measurement system, not just REW. I mention this because it seems like you are somewhat unfamiliar with REW.

I am one of those people who is only interested in the quality of audio at the MLP. While I agree if the objective is to provide the smoothest bass response across a number of seating positions, multiple measurements will give the best picture. However, if only optimizing the MLP is the objective, measuring only from the MLP is perfectly acceptable. REW has the capability of taking multiple measurements, and to take an average of those measurements, but an average has IMO little value. Why should I care about an average when all I am interested is the MLP?

BTW, discussions of measurement systems is OT for this thread. If you are interested in discussion REW, please join us in the REW thread.

I'll make this quick response then move on...maybe to that thread. That said, I don't wish to discuss measurement systems, but your specific post relative to Audyssey is the subject. Audyssey is a measurement system, as well.

To answer your question: It's because of the complexity of axial modes in small room acoustics. I don't know REW, but don't need to in the case of understanding the idiocyncracies of axial room modes of LF acoustic response. REW cannot change that science. I don't know the specifics of your room (dimensions/proportions, MLP location in that) but in most average residential rooms, shifting to the other armrest of your seat can change what you hear in the LF. Just sayn' smile.gif

FWIW, I have tons (about a decade's worth when we didn't have anything as helpful as Audyssey. The closest would have been the Synthesis system correction utility) of experience with professional and residential room correction, including Audyssey Pro Installer, and the "old-school" THX program taught a decade ago when it was a week of fire hose in the face on acoustics taught by Tony Grimani. I'm just trying to help shake out a good result for you with Pro. smile.gif
Edited by Cam Man - 10/27/13 at 5:55pm
post #4734 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
 
Audyssey would never recommend one measurement position even for a one-seat theater. The common understanding for the multiple positions for Audyssey runs is for the listening positions, but believe me, those multiple positions are also so that it can make as accurate an LF analysis as possible. 

 

The recommended multiple mic positions are not really specifically anything to do with LF analysis.

 

You have to remember why Audyssey do it the way they do. The Audyssey objective is "every seat is a good seat". This is not an objective shared by everyone - some have the objective of "the best sound at one seat". Audyssey is definitely not trying to optimise the sound at any particular seat - it is looking for the best compromise across the seating area. By definition, this means that it is highly unlikely that any one seat is optimal, post-calibration. By using a range of multiple mic positions, Audyssey is able to use sophisticated weighting or 'averaging' in order to create the least seat to seat variance. This is in line with its objective of providing a good sound for every seat in the theatre. When the theatre has just one seat (or just one that anyone cares about) Audyssey's 'prime objective' has been changed and so the requirements of mic positioning have also been changed.

 


EDIT: the 'common understanding' here is actually NOT that the different mic positions are tied to "listening positions". In fact, Audyssey specifically advise that one should not put a mic 'in every seat'.

post #4735 of 5258
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post

I'll make this quick response then move on...maybe to that thread. That said, I don't wish to discuss measurement systems, but your specific post relative to Audyssey is the subject. Audyssey is a measurement system, as well.

To answer your question: It's because of the complexity of axial modes in small room acoustics. I don't know REW, but don't need to in the case of understanding the idiocyncracies of axial room modes of LF acoustic response. REW cannot change that science. I don't know the specifics of your room (dimensions/proportions, MLP location in that) but in most average residential rooms, shifting to the other armrest of your seat can change what you hear in the LF. Just sayn' smile.gif...


Cam, welcome to the thread!   We appreciate input from folks with sophisticated acoustics experience.  And since this thread is not exactly hopping we can certainly tolerate some amount of OT discussion particularly as it relates to optimizing results with Pro.  That said, this thread is often more focused on troubleshooting Pro related problems or tips on using the curve editing, MRC, etc. 

 

Most of the folks here are avid hobbyists who have by necessity become acquainted with acoustic principals, and most have also become experienced with measurement systems that allow a more accurate, detailed picture of what's going on in the room than that provided by the Pro graphs with their 1/6th octave smoothing.  REW via calibrated usb mic/HDMI has provided stiff competition for  OmniMic  so Jerry invited you to join the considerable action over on the REW thread

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449924/simplified-rew-setup-and-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-and-how-to-interpret-graphs

 

Your points are well taken. The optimize-for-MLP fellows like myself use a tight pattern of mic placements over an area of at least a few square feet in the horizontal plane with mic pos #1 square between the ears at MLP.  I even vary the height by a few inches on several samples as the modes are present in 3 dimensions.  That technique is intended to allow adequate sampling by Audyssey of the modes affecting MLP. 

post #4736 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post


Cam, welcome to the thread!   We appreciate input from folks with sophisticated acoustics experience.  And since this thread is not exactly hopping we can certainly tolerate some amount of OT discussion particularly as it relates to optimizing results with Pro.  That said, this thread is often more focused on troubleshooting Pro related problems or tips on using the curve editing, MRC, etc. 

Most of the folks here are avid hobbyists who have by necessity become acquainted with acoustic principals, and most have also become experienced with measurement systems that allow a more accurate, detailed picture of what's going on in the room than that provided by the Pro graphs with their 1/6th octave smoothing.  REW via calibrated usb mic/HDMI has provided stiff competition for  OmniMic  so Jerry invited you to join the considerable action over on the REW thread
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449924/simplified-rew-setup-and-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-and-how-to-interpret-graphs

Your points are well taken. The optimize-for-MLP fellows like myself use a tight pattern of mic placements over an area of at least a few square feet in the horizontal plane with mic pos #1 square between the ears at MLP.  I even vary the height by a few inches on several samples as the modes are present in 3 dimensions.  That technique is intended to allow adequate sampling by Audyssey of the modes affecting MLP. 

Thank you, guys, for the kind words and feedback. The mic positioning protocol you describe in the last paragraph is excellent for an MLP-priority scenario, and what I was steering toward in the conversations. You jumped right on it for me. smile.gif I woulld suggest that the verification meaurements with REW or any tool use the same protocol of mic positioning and averaging. Apple to apples. EDIT: That brings up an REW/Audyssey question. Do you use the Audyssey Pro mic with REW? If so, steer me to a link about that on the REW forum, please. Thank you.

I will happiliy look more into REW because I'm interested in seeking out a new tool or two myself.

Cheers. smile.gif
Edited by Cam Man - 10/28/13 at 8:24am
post #4737 of 5258
There have been a number of people who have tried the commercial mic with REW. Since the commercial mic doesn't require an external amp to provide phantom power, it works like any simple mic would. However, since I am unaware of any calibration file for the Audyssey mic for use with REW, the accuracy of measurements comes into question. Some have reported that the mic is useful for comparisons, e.g. while you are experimenting with speaker locations, but little else.

The Pro mic, on the other hand, requires the external amp to provide the phantom power. I haven't heard of anyone being successful in getting it to work with REW. And, of course, it doesn't have a calibration file for REW either.

If you will be developing REW skills as a tool to help you analyze and improve your audio, you will likely be using it over and over again. In this case, investing in an inexpensive mic like the Dayton Audio UMM-6 or the MiniDSP UMIK-1 (both available from Cross Spectrum Labs for ~$100) makes good sense. And having a laptop with A HDMI connection makes things really easy.
post #4738 of 5258
Thread Starter 

^Cam, unfortunately AFAIK the calibration file for the Pro mic is not available to us mere mortals in a file usable by REW.  However, a good calibrated usb mic is only around $100.

 

Keith has compiled some hugely helpful info in that REW thread here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449924/simplified-rew-setup-and-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-and-how-to-interpret-graphs#post_22790113

I quote:
 
"The first MIC Option, and the one I recommend, is the Dayton UMM-6 USB Mic calibrated individually, by a human being (who has his own very high quality/expensive calibration mic/rig and a lot of experience) at Cross Spectrum Labs.
 
 
This Mic is only $90.00 and he charges $9.00 for shipping. He also ships Worldwide.
 
If you are a member of HTShack, which is where most of the support for REW is and where JohnAV, the writer/owner of REW hangs out, simply put your username in the notes when you order and he'll give you $10.00 off if you order before Jan 1st! After Jan 1st, he will still give you $5.00 off! "
 
edit: now I see that Jerry has responded as I typed
post #4739 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cam Man View Post
 
 I woulld suggest that the verification meaurements with REW or any tool use the same protocol of mic positioning and averaging. Apple to apples. 

 

Why?  The objective is not to compare the REW measurements with the Audyssey measurements (which is impossible anyway) but to evaluate what Audyssey has done in the room. How Audyssey did it is of no consequence in this scenario. All that I am interested in when using REW is that it shows the results at the MLP, so that is where I put the mic.

post #4740 of 5258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post


Your points are well taken. The optimize-for-MLP fellows like myself use a tight pattern of mic placements over an area of at least a few square feet in the horizontal plane with mic pos #1 square between the ears at MLP.  I even vary the height by a few inches on several samples as the modes are present in 3 dimensions.  That technique is intended to allow adequate sampling by Audyssey of the modes affecting MLP. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Why?  The objective is not to compare the REW measurements with the Audyssey measurements (which is impossible anyway) but to evaluate what Audyssey has done in the room. How Audyssey did it is of no consequence in this scenario. All that I am interested in when using REW is that it shows the results at the MLP, so that is where I put the mic.

I think we are speaking across purposes for the same objective. Maybe not, but I'll articulate better and you decide. I don't care how Audyssey did what is did either, but I do want to verify what it did.

First, do you regard Soundofmind's Audyssey mic technique of clustering the positions closely around the MLP centern point valid? If not, then that would explain why you would not want to verify the results of Audyssey with the same mic technique with REW. That technique uses points "within a few square feet" and that is a small area...like your head and how you might move shifting your weight around in your seat, leaning to one side for a while, etc.. And you don't have just one ear.

I think that Soundofmind's techique will provide good results for MLP listening, maybe better than a single mic position. Verifying it by putting the REW mic in the same positions for an averaged look at those postions seems to be quite logical; like I said earlier...apples to apples.

What say you, professor(s)? smile.gif
Edited by Cam Man - 10/28/13 at 5:47pm
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)