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 3

post #61 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

...I had a sub trim of -12 (the max) yet my subs were fully equalized...

Wow, I hadn't noticed that. Are you breaking the "If it says -12, turn those damn subs down and rerun autosetup!" rule?



Still tryin to upload my certs...
post #62 of 5252
Thread Starter 
I am not taking one side or the other on this but just reporting my efforts to learn more and get better SQ.

I just called Luke back and questioned him on this issue again. He patiently clarified that Audyssey filters operate in a +9/-15 range. So sub channel trims near the extremes can limit how much Audyssey can do to cut the room peaks and thus flatten the overall response. In my case, I have huge peaks at 40 and 50 Hz in the room and with the sub channel trim of -10.5 the full needed correction could not be applied. This was negatively affecting the result. OTOH Luke says they do not want people needlessly chasing "0" trim but he likes +/-3 as a good general target. Interestingly, IME prior to Pro, my impresssion (no measurements, mind you) was that it actually sounded better to me when I got the sub trim closer to 0 vs -10. I'd attributed it to placebo.

irt Council's results, a couple of questions come to mind. Council, are you sure -12 is proper trim so you do have reference-level bass? Had you done any recent calibrations (without the Behringer DC with sub ch trim at less neg than -3?
post #63 of 5252
So I guess it's better to go against the sub level trim section and set my subs lower. My last calibration I set each sub to the lowest recommended level of 71.5db but still had the levels pegged at -12 after calibration. I will have to try it out at each sub at 65db and see how it goes. I don't trust the after graphs, I go back ad check the response with my SMS-1 and they are not as flat as I was hoping but still sound good.
post #64 of 5252
My subs read 79/80dB during the level matching screen (I am only using one sub out on my Denon). Therefore I expected Audyssey to come back with a -5 to -8 trim. It didn't. It came back with -12. I haven't had time to lower my gains and re-run Audyssey yet.
post #65 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjaudio View Post

So I guess it's better to go against the sub level trim section and set my subs lower. My last calibration I set each sub to the lowest recommended level of 71.5db but still had the levels pegged at -12 after calibration. I will have to try it out at each sub at 65db and see how it goes. I don't trust the after graphs, I go back ad check the response with my SMS-1 and they are not as flat as I was hoping but still sound good.

I have been trying to calibrate my newly acquired dual subs as well and the trim is set to -12. I will ignore the 75db setting and start at 65db while doing the calibration tonight.
post #66 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Hi again counsil. I am a bit out of my depth but my question had to do with the possibility that the poor XT32 results you were getting without the Behringer might have improved with lower sub levels.

It also looks to me per your subs "Before" response that your setup required much less correction than mine. I wonder if dialing in time alignment with the Behringer might have improved overall response in the room- do you have a pre-Behringer cert to compare to?

I'm still unsuccessful at getting my cute-generated pdf to upload. You posted your graph in the body of your post. How do you do that?
post #67 of 5252
Thread Starter 
A "Luke tip": One can optimize the speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, etc. using the Pro kit by comparing the "Before" graphs from successive runs.

To make things go faster for subs, I unselected all but FR/L and CC, ran only 3 mic positions before calculating, then just viewed "Draft" results without loading the filters to the AVR. That went pretty quickly.
post #68 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Hi again council. I am a bit out of my depth but my question had to do with the possibility that the poor XT32 results you were getting without the Behringer might have improved with lower sub levels.

It also looks to me per your subs "Before" response that your setup required much less correction than mine. I wonder if dialing in time alignment with the Behringer might have improved overall response in the room- do you have a pre-Behringer cert to compare to?

I'm still unsuccessful at getting my cute-generated pdf to upload. You posted your graph in the body of your post. How do you do that?

The image had already been uploaded to home theater shack and he embedded the URL from that site into his post here. My images are always embedded because I upload them to my server and put links to them there in my posts.
post #69 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

A "Luke tip": One can optimize the speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, etc. using the Pro kit by comparing the "Before" graphs from successive runs.

To make things go faster for subs, I unselected all but FR/L and CC, ran only 3 mic positions before calculating, then just viewed "Draft" results without loading the filters to the AVR. That went pretty quickly.

That's pretty cool and a way to use the kit for more ... real time .. measuring. For downright simplicity, though, you can't beat the XTZ/Omnimic solutions. I use REW and still drool over how easy it is to use those. The right tool for the job is not necessarily always the most feature complete one.

Jeff
post #70 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Of course the Audyssey cert AFTER graphs are not real measurements. I'm trying to get more adept with the OmniMic system. But my OmniMic graphs do not sync well with Audyssey before OR after graphs so I'm messing up somewhere.

But I really need to focus on getting more day job work done and then still have some time at the end of the day to enjoy this great-sounding HT!
post #71 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

My subs read 79/80dB during the level matching screen (I am only using one sub out on my Denon). Therefore I expected Audyssey to come back with a -5 to -8 trim. It didn't. It came back with -12. I haven't had time to lower my gains and re-run Audyssey yet.

Chris has stated that the process used to measure level in the "dual sub level match" screen is not as accurate as the Audyssey "chirp" during MultEQ. I think that first level match screen just uses a standard pink noise tone for the subs. So the results can (and usually will) be different.
post #72 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

But my OmniMic graphs do not sync well with Audyssey before OR after graphs so I'm messing up somewhere.

Are you using the averaging function of OmniMic and measuring in the same (approximately) positions that you do with Audyssey?

If you do this it will be much closer but I'm not sure how much smoothing Audyssey does with their graphs -- it appears to be a lot !
post #73 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I just called Luke back and questioned him on this issue again. He patiently clarified that Audyssey filters operate in a +9/-15 range. So sub channel trims near the extremes can limit how much Audyssey can do to cut the room peaks and thus flatten the overall response.

Maybe I'm not very smart but I don't understand this. Can anyone patiently explain the logic here? There are a lot of missing steps in this syllogism.

Mark
post #74 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post

Are you using the averaging function of OmniMic and measuring in the same (approximately) positions that you do with Audyssey?...

Yes, but averaging 3-5 measurements over a 4 sq ft area around MLP doesn't seem to make much difference to the curves.

I focused mostly on the subs and the response up to 200 Hz. I stretched out the FR screen so I could see more detail in the low freqs. The Omni "no Audyssey" graph shows a peak at 70 and 100, a dip between them and another at 120, about 10 dB variance overall. The "Audyssey engaged" graph looks MUCH flatter, within +/1 2dB except for a peak at 48-52 Hz of 4dB. Not bad, really. Averaging does not appear to be an option with the OmniMic Bass Decay screen

For my last calibration, with subs at -6.5, the Audyssey Certificate Subs curve initially showed about +/-1dB flat all the way till roll offs at the ends below 20 and above 120or so. I may not have finalized that properly as I was taking the wife to dinner and in a hurry. I later had a problem getting that file to upload to the A website so I recalled it on the laptop and recalculated it without adding any new mic positions. Strangely, it now shows a 2dB bump below 30 Hz, then the rolloff. But not bad at all, much better than the results with subs at -10.5 and even -9.5. Still trying to post graphs....
post #75 of 5252
Thread Starter 
post #76 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Yea! Jeff has kindly offered to host the recalcitrant pdf files:

http://www.peparsplace.com/storage/C...substoohot.pdf

http://www.peparsplace.com/storage/7_1240HzCert.pdf

Wow. That's a pretty massive difference between the 2 Pro runs!

Mark
post #77 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

A "Luke tip": One can optimize the speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, etc. using the Pro kit by comparing the "Before" graphs from successive runs.

No EQ is in effect during Audyssey setup, so why would the "before" graphs differ other than in sub level?

I could see some differences if speaker distance settings were in effect, due to the effect on phase, but aren't they zeroed too?
post #78 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

A "Luke tip": One can optimize the speakers, subs, acoustic treatments, etc. using the Pro kit by comparing the "Before" graphs from successive runs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

No EQ is in effect during Audyssey setup, so why would the "before" graphs differ other than in sub level?

Because changing speaker position, sub location and adding/subtracting acoustic treatments would make a difference.
post #79 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

It also looks to me per your subs "Before" response that your setup required much less correction than mine. I wonder if dialing in time alignment with the Behringer might have improved overall response in the room- do you have a pre-Behringer cert to compare to?

Here is the Audyssey Pro certificate that goes with this graph (which I posted previously)...



As you can see my sub trim level was well below the proverbial -10.
post #80 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Of course the Audyssey cert AFTER graphs are not real measurements. I'm trying to get more adept with the OmniMic system. But my OmniMic graphs do not sync well with Audyssey before OR after graphs so I'm messing up somewhere.

The Audyssey graphs show a spatial average of all measurements from a single speaker. Is this also how OmniMic works?
post #81 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

Here is the Audyssey Pro certificate that goes with this graph (which I posted previously)...As you can see my sub trim level was well below the proverbial -10.

Yes indeed, so there goes my little hypothesis. The Audyssey Subs After curve looks really great though, about as impressive as your more current graph with the Behringer in place.

So this takes us back to whether the Audyssey After curves are accurate. Sorry if I missed this, but has there been an audible improvement with the Behringer in place that correlates with the better XTZ curves?
post #82 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

The Audyssey graphs show a spatial average of all measurements from a single speaker. Is this also how OmniMic works?

Hi Markus. I am a total newb with OmniMic and it has more features than I know how to use. If I understand your question, yes OmniMic can do averages from a single speaker. Also see my response to audioguy's question just a few posts up. I have been most focused on the averaged curves for the 2 subs together from both Pro and Omni.
post #83 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Hi Markus. I am a total newb with OmniMic and it has more features than I know how to use. If I understand your question, yes OmniMic can do averages from a single speaker. Also see my response to audioguy's question just a few posts up. I have been most focused on the averaged curves for the 2 subs together from both Pro and Omni.

You need to make sure the measurements are properly aligned in time so the average is vaild.
Can you show the graphs (sorry if I missed it)?
post #84 of 5252
Thread Starter 
No I did not post the OmniMic graphs, not sure I saved them properly but i sketched them and took notes so that is what I reported here. I do not understand the time-align stuff. I used the technique I described above, sampling a 3-5 spots in a relatively small area and using the summation feature in the OmniMic software for the combined curve. For a full Pro calibration I use a slightly larger area (almost 9 feet sq) and 8 positions. OOps gotta go to work...
post #85 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

I do not understand the time-align stuff.

You need to, otherwise your summed graphs could be plain wrong.
post #86 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Because changing speaker position, sub location and adding/subtracting acoustic treatments would make a difference.

Ah, brain fade again, thanks.

I tried that awhile back with Pro and it gets old real fast, or real slow I should say.
post #87 of 5252
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post

You need to, otherwise your summed graphs could be plain wrong.

OK, Markus, but as I said, I'm a newb to OmniMic. Clarification: when I say, "I do not understand the time-align stuff," I'm not politely disagreeing. I mean I have no clue what you mean, why it's true or how to do it.
post #88 of 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post
OK, Markus, but as I said, I'm a newb to OmniMic. Clarification: when I say, "I do not understand the time-align stuff," I'm not politely disagreeing. I mean I have no clue what you mean, why it's true or how to do it.
Time alignment means all the wavefronts arrive at the measurement point in phase at the same time. It's the Audyssey "distance" measurement for the MLP. If you're measuring very far from the MLP your numbers could be skewed by phase issues. I don't know what (if anything) Audyssey is doing to compensate for it. I think markus767 might have asked but wasn't answered for trade secret reasons but I could misremember.
post #89 of 5252
Thread Starter 
^Hmmm...Here's what I understand on the topic, which may seem fairly basic, so I apologize to those with a more sophisticated understanding. Feel free to correct me if necessary and further educate me where possible.

Distances (delay) of multiple speakers can only be correct at one spot, with Audyssey or without. That spot, referred to as MLP, is mic pos #1 for Audyssey.

On the topic of using systems for measurements, it has been repeatedly stated by Chris (audyssey) that to more accurately measure what Audyssey is doing, one needs to take multiple measurements at the same mic positions used for Audyssey. There was no mention of time alignment.

I have posted that for OmniMic I used a small grid, less than 2'X2' and for Audyssey I use a slightly larger one, maybe 3'X3'.
post #90 of 5252
SoundofMind, here's an example. 3 measurements. Here are the impuls responses:



Now I've shifted the 3rd measurement by 2ms in time:



This is what the average frequency response from all 3 measurements in both cases looks like:



The two graphs look pretty different. One needs to know what the measuring software is doing in order to obtain valid results.
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)