The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 30

Markus is asking if the measurements were taken with all the other speakers off, as the HF extension of the subs seems remarkable. But in any case, this actually looks pretty good. It should sound pretty good, too. If the bass is tight, punchy, and well imaged/localized (well-mixed kick drum, toms, bass guitar, acoustic bass, etc sound pretty realistic and seem like they're right there in specific spots across the front soundstage in front of you, not muddled, boomy and diffuse), then you're good to go!

As to improving the graph, if you're willing to move the subs around a bit you might well be able to improve those dips from 65-85. It's trial and error and quite a bit of work. Bass traps in tricorners might well help as well. I'm no expert on treatments but seems to me those acoustic panels may be a good idea but are probably not effective bass traps. Dips are "black holes" when it comes to sucking up precious speaker and amp resources to try to fill them so generally we modify the room/placement but don't try to endlessly boost those freqs to get a smoother graph.

As to Pro, because of the nature of your "problem", I'd say Pro could indeed help this issue. One of the features it adds over XT32 is that it will compare the FR of the subs to the mains and calculate the best xover for the best "splice". It will then actually optimize the XT32 filters for that particular xover. I would not at all be surprised if your Pro "After" graphs were better than what you have now. It will almost certainly sound better across the whole spectrum because of it's many advantages I listed above.

As to acoustic treatments, you could post the full FR curves, and all this info, on the acoustic treatments master thread for advice.

AJ, good point. Spike, a few other tips (of course, your implementation depends on other factors such as appearance etc). The CC should be edged forward so it is slightly out front of the cabinet edge and it should be tilted slightly upward so it aims at seated head level of MLP. A carpet or area rug would be nice acoustically. The big coffee table is not a good thing acoustically. I'd consider a smaller, preferably even an acoustically transparent one (wire constructed like Markus'). I'd tilt the surrounds up a bit so they shoot slightly over my head, not into my ear. I imagine you close the curtains when you run Audyssey and when listening. You've done well given the limitations of your space. Your dog is wagging his approval of the SQ in MLP.

Ahhh.. I was wondering what that GIK Pillar bass trap was in the pic-I completely missed your mention of it. That looks good there, but would probably be more effective if put in a real corner.

The Pro before graphs can be quite useful as a measuring tool but has limitations. here's how I see it:

The cons of Pro as your measuring system:
1. It has no real-time capability and is much slower displaying results (measure min 3 mic pos, calc, upload data, download graph, etc). A sub placement exercise ("a measured sub haul" ) could be quite tedious.
2. It only measures FR and displays a simple graph. No waterfalls, decay, etc., etc.

The pros of Pro as your measuring system:
1. You are seeing the summed response from at least 3 spots in a way far more reflective of the data Pro will actually be processing.
2. No additional cost.
3. The measurements are already part of running Pro so no additional connections are required.

Spike, you seem like the kind of hobbyist (doing lots of measuring including placing room treatments, plugging ports, etc.) where spending a couple hundred on having a quicker and more comprehensive measuring system would be well worth it to you. And that probably applies to most folks on this thread.