Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How... - Page 64

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

 Damn it, I came very close this evening to buying the 1124P just to play around with, but I restrained myself :)  I need to learn more first.

Okay, so let us know when you buy it tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickD1225 

Be careful with the Behringer items, i tried an 1124P and it introduced a, hum that i couldn't tame. I returned it and bought a MiniDSP.

Ok thanks. The MiniDSp looks more complicated somehow, which is what has put me off. But I have a long way to go... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorZep 

Originally Posted by mogorf 

What do you think a 12 point PEQ will additinally do for you? 512 + 12 = 524, or 5120 + 12 = 5130, eh?

You still can't compare FIR taps with PEQ bands. You can do much more useful stuff with 12 PEQ bands than with 32 taps of 2EQ... And even hundreds of taps will not be nearly as useful for low frequency EQ as just few PEQ bands.

Yes, this is what I have been reading about over the last couple of days. PEQ is a terrific tool when used for this purpose. Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ, as evidenced by his arithmetic above - he's adding apples to oranges and coming up with bananas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

 Damn it, I came very close this evening to buying the 1124P just to play around with, but I restrained myself :)  I need to learn more first.

Okay, so let us know when you buy it tomorrow.

LOL!  You know me too well..... 

Please forgive my ignorance of Audyssey (and my laziness to wade through the material for the answer), but can you take the results from your Audyssey calibration and add a 4dB cut from 46Hz to 49Hz? I can do that in about 10 seconds with my DSP.

And please remember that, as someone did point out, this is IN ADDITION to Audyssey (or, in my case, MCACC) calibration, not in place of it.

And, heck, it's a $100 toy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

Yes, this is what I have been reading about over the last couple of days. PEQ is a terrific tool when used for this purpose. Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ, as evidenced by his arithmetic above - he's adding apples to oranges and coming up with bananas.

Keith, seems not only Igor but you also missed the fact that 2EQ has no taps (repeat: no taps) for the subwoofer channel!! BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! Why not move on?!

I didn't miss it Feri. I know why 2EQ doesn't have any taps for the sub channel - you walked right into Igor's carefully laid trap!  I must admit I almost did too and even posted a reply, which I quickly deleted when I realised his point there.

PEQ and FIR are totally different things so you can't really compare them. I seem to recall you getting all confused before about the difference between a graphic and a parametric equaliser (with an argument with Markus wasn't it?) ;)

Did you not see the example graphs I posted of how PEQ can vastly improve Audyssey's result?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorZep 


This is why I mentioned 2EQ... And have you guessed why it has no taps in the sub? This is because that comparable number of taps in this channel would do precisely nothing to the frequency response in the sub range

No Igor, that's not the case, you haven't been here long enough to know that Chris K. once explained years back at the Audyssey thread that 2EQ was an explicit request from Onkyo to Audyssey to elaborate a "dumbed down" version of their RC software by no EQ'ing in the sub channel just to enable Onkyo to be competitive at the lower end market segment with an "El Cheapo" solution. Dig the Audyssey thread and you will find Chris's words there. Denons don't have 2EQ on board. Ever wondered why? Coz with plain MultEQ they still were able to counter attack the competitive edge they had to face when Onkyo came out with the 2EQ. Cool, ain't it?

You are a marketing man's dream, Feri :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

 

Feri doesn’t yet understand the difference between FIR and PEQ

Please forgive my ignorance of Audyssey (and my laziness to wade through the material for the answer), but can you take the results from your Audyssey calibration and add a 4dB cut from 46Hz to 49Hz? I can do that in about 10 seconds with my DSP.

And please remember that, as someone did point out, this is IN ADDITION to Audyssey (or, in my case, MCACC) calibration, not in place of it.

 

And, heck, it's a $100 toy!

You are right on all counts there. I have even posted some example graphs but Feri has been strangely silent about them ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

BTW, PEQ is a product of the 20th century, in other words: way outdated! Why not move on?!

Feri, I assume you missed the post on the previous page where I have a quick example of the kind of thing PEQ can do to a post-Audyssey curve. Here they are again:

Which of the above two curves would you prefer in your system?  The first one (Audyssey alone) with the evident problem from 60Hz to 200Hz, or the PEQ one where that problem has been fixed?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing again I think, PEQ has an undeniable purpose, as does Audyssey. Neither is perfect. Using both achieves more than using just one.

Can you please post the REW graphs of your Audyssey-corrected system so we can see why you are so sure it has done such a perfect job in your room and needs no further attention? Just your centre channel will be fine, or your sub - anything will help us see why you are so convinced Audyssey is all that is required. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

Feri, I assume you missed the post on the previous page where I have a quick example of the kind of thing PEQ can do to a post-Audyssey curve. Here they are again:










Which of the above two curves would you prefer in your system?  The first one (Audyssey alone) with the evident problem from 60Hz to 200Hz, or the PEQ one where that problem has been fixed?

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing again I think, PEQ has an undeniable purpose, as does Audyssey. Neither is perfect. Using both achieves more than using just one.

Can you please post the REW graphs of your Audyssey-corrected system so we can see why you are so sure it has done such a perfect job in your room and needs no further attention? Just your centre channel will be fine, or your sub - anything will help us see why you are so convinced Audyssey is all that is required. 

Keith, can you show us the waterfall graphs of each of these two curves, respectfully? Would be interesting to see.

Sure - but you will have to bear in mind that I have not run a modal analysis sweep with REW (because I don't actually own the PEQ device yet) so there could be significant improvements to be made. Anyway, here are the waterfalls - Audyssey only first, then PEQ then both overlaid.

You didn’t answer my question - which curve would you rather have - the Audyssey on its own curve or the Audyssey + PEQ curve?

I look forward to seeing the graphs of the Audyssey response of your system/room as requested earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

@Keith,

You know why I'm not gonna comment on those two FR graphs? Because they are both 1 point mic measurement graphs and not averaged graphs, hence the reason you could produce the waterfalls! Sorry for the trick, Bud!

Nevertheless, it's been discussed so many times that 1 point measurements are practically useless for serious evaluation purposes coz they don't show the real picture of the room. Even with Audyssey for a single seat I think even you are taking the max. number of measurements, but in a rather tight pattern around the MLP, right?

I sit in one point of the room - it is the only point I care about. If you prefer to get the sound perfect for somewhere you don't sit, that's fine by me, but useless for me too. I am the only listener in my HT who matters and so I aim to get the sound optimised for where my head is when I am listening. My head, probably much like yours, occupies rather less than 1 cubic foot of space and, amazingly, that is where I put my mic for testing. You have bought so far in to the Audyssey shctick of "measure even where nobody sits" that you can see no other possibilities. (Incidentally in the Pro instructions Audyssey specifically tell you NOT to measure where nobody commonly sits - so much for that advice).  It is clear to all, except you, that the PEQ'd graph I posted is considerably superior to the Audyssey-only graph, but for you to admit this would require an entire re-evaluation of your Audyssey-based belief system. Fair enough - believe what you like but I know which FR I want - and it ain't the Audyssey-only one.

Can I see your graphs of the Audyssey-enabled response in your room now please so I can try to understand why you believe Audyssey is perfect and nothing can possibly improve on what it does?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

@Keith,

You know why I'm not gonna comment on those two FR graphs? Because they are both 1 point mic measurement graphs and not averaged graphs, hence the reason you could produce the waterfalls! Sorry for the trick, Bud!

Nevertheless, it's been discussed so many times that 1 point measurements are practically useless for serious evaluation purposes coz they don't show the real picture of the room. Even with Audyssey for a single seat I think even you are taking the max. number of measurements, but in a rather tight pattern around the MLP, right?

I should add that the graphs of the PEQ filter effect that I have posted so far are for example only. You cannot make any assumptions about how I will go about measuring the room once I have the actual PEQ unit. These current graphs were produced in a couple of minutes, to demonstrate what can be achieved with PEQ and REW and how simple it appears to be. It is entirely possible that I will measure more than one position around the MLP in order to see what the differences, if any are significant, are. Averaging those graphs is bad practice so will not be done. But the main point is, however it is done the benefits of PEQ overlaid onto Audyssey seem to be significant and to offer substantial improvements to the FR curve, over and above those made by the use of Audyssey alone.

Audyssey can get you so far but it has limitations. XT32 can get you so far, but Audyssey themselves felt it necessary to go one better than XT32 by introducing the Pro Kit. If XT32 was all that was needed then the Pro kit would not have become necessary. The Pro kit allows for adjustments to the curve but they are very crude and limited in nature - one cannot adjust for Q for example. PEW is another tool in the box and I always prefer to use whatever is necessary to achieve the result I want. Some are happy to stop at XT, some are happy to stop at XT32, some are happy to stop at Pro. Personally, I am happy when I know I have exhausted every available means to the end I seek. YMMV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogorf 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 

I sit in one point of the room - it is the only point I care about. If you prefer to get the sound perfect for somewhere you don't sit, that's fine by me, but useless for me too. I am the only listener in my HT who matters and so I aim to get the sound optimised for where my head is when I am listening. My head, probably much like yours, occupies rather less than 1 cubic foot of space and, amazingly, that is where I put my mic for testing. You have bought so far in to the Audyssey shctick of "measure even where nobody sits" that you can see no other possibilities. (Incidentally in the Pro instructions Audyssey specifically tell you NOT to measure where nobody commonly sits - so much for that advice).  It is clear to all, except you, that the PEQ'd graph I posted is considerably superior to the Audyssey-only graph, but for you to admit this would require an entire re-evaluation of your Audyssey-based belief system. Fair enough - believe what you like but I know which FR I want - and it ain't the Audyssey-only one.

Can I see your graphs of the Audyssey-enabled response in your room now please so I can try to understand why you believe Audyssey is perfect and nothing can possibly improve on what it does?

I'm finished here. Sorry.

No need to apologise.

No graphs from you?  In that case I am finished too. You cannot reasonably demand graphs from me and all and sundry and then refuse to deliver your own when asked. I suspect I know the reason why, but as I am finished with this now, I won't pursue that.