or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › RTA graph for the MCACC lovers out there
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RTA graph for the MCACC lovers out there  

post #1 of 94
Thread Starter 
Someone else may have done this but we were very curious to see the exact effects of Pioneers MCAAACAACCCAACCCAACCC effects on a systems overall frequency response. I had heard a lot about it here so and was wondering how well it worked.

So we took Sencores SP295 Contractor version sound analyzer to a showroom where the 49TX was running a Klipsch reference system. Not being familiar with the product as we are not Elite dealers we found it very easy to use without a manual. We didn't have a lot of time to work with and may not have done everything exactly right but doing a quick and dirty RTA we were impressed.

First, we turned off the MCACC and then did a manual setup of the levels and speaker distances. The Sub was set about 20 db too high (surprise). Then we pumped pink noise through all the channels via Avia's 5 channel wideband pinknoise. Then took a before MCACC real time analysis.

We then we hooked up the mic and let the Auto Calibration do it's thing. Then took another RTA sample as our after graph. The spl levels in the before and after are not exactly the same but you can see that the before has a very bad 13 db dip and peak in the 30-50 hz region and several other very uneven area's in the bass response up to about 150hz. The blue is the after and is much much better as you can see.

I came away very impressed with how well this works and now hope that Pioneer continues it's development. Sad thing is that the coolness of such a system is lost on the average HT consumer. What I'd really like to see is Pioneer liscense it to other companies as well. I could be wrong but I don't thing the smaller OEM type companies have the R&D dollars to make calibraiton systems like this for their 5k ish seperates so to see it liscened to companies like Anthem, B&K, Sunfire, Rotel, Adcom, etc. would be my hope if in fact they cannot come up with something similiar.

Anyway awesome stuff and it is just going to get better I hope. The Black line is the before

http://www.audiovisionsystems.com/images/mcacc rta.jpg
post #2 of 94
Phyre3 haha you are implying that the average Pioneer owner is not worthy of such a nice feature, and MCACC would be much better used by, say, Sherwood owners :D
post #3 of 94
What's the difference between the manual and auto MCACC settings?
post #4 of 94
Wow!

That is one flat frequency response!! No wonder the midrange and high end sound so good and clean!!

Thanks for posting the graphs.
post #5 of 94
DaveFi:

There are too many variables to mention. For starters:
  • Different microphones between SPL meter and MCACC.
  • Different test tones.
  • The presence of a person in the sweet spot during manual calibration.
What's the difference? To human ears: probably not too much. If you like mathematical perfection: some, but still not too much, at least at this price. If you're really a perfectionist, you should be thinking Levinson. :p

Hamster
post #6 of 94
I only brought this up because I'm considering the 812 and the 912. I suppose it's worth the extra $50 the the automatic MCACC. I'm really sucky at calibration.

I'm going to take the CompTIA HIT+ exam soon so I'll have to learn how to do all this stuff anyways.
post #7 of 94
phyre3,

Which Klipsch Reference speakers were being used? I suspect it was the 7s, but it would be nice to know.

Thanks for the information!!!! There are many folks that say the Pioneer does not work, and the Klipsch speakers do not put out a flat frequency response. Your professional grade equipment provides a better frame of reference.

Bill
post #8 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveFi
I only brought this up because I'm considering the 812 and the 912. I suppose it's worth the extra $50 the the automatic MCACC. I'm really sucky at calibration.

I'm going to take the CompTIA HIT+ exam soon so I'll have to learn how to do all this stuff anyways.
With the non-Elite models, the MCACC feature does not do frequency equalization, it just sets the db levels for each channel.
post #9 of 94
Thread Starter 
Hi Guys. It was 7's (big boys) that were the speakers.

haha I'm not saying that MCACC is too good for Pioneer users only that average consumers of gear that is readliy available at many stores don't appreciate such things. It makes me sick to think about all the folks out there with the typical 5.1 system they bought for surround sound that are listening to PL or PLII because they havent set their DVD and or reciever up to decode DTS or DD.

Also that I wish some so called higher end gear had stuff like that. I suspect the hardcore audiophile crowd will never accept any equilization but I guess they don't usually accept multichannel either.

We are hard core B&K guys and love it but I can't see any gear in the world that would not benefit from MCACC or something like it.
post #10 of 94
Finally we can lay this to rest!

The MCACCACCA function DOES flatten room response!

I was told that it shaped to the room to be more like "Air Studios". I never thought that made any sense at all.

-Brian
post #11 of 94
Interesting and somewhat surprising results. As I understand the MCACC, the EQ bands are an octave wide, with the lowest centered at 63Hz, and it only correct the mains, not the sub. So it's surprising to see that sharp peak and null at about 36 and 44 get smoothed out. I wonder if that's a simple matter of getting the sub and mains correctly time aligned, rather than any EQ function? If the time alignment is off, you can get comb filtering like what you see on the "before" line.
post #12 of 94
Quote:
I was told that it shaped to the room to be more like "Air Studios".
Looks like the Air Studios curve is a typical "house curve" -- mostly flat but shelved up some in the bass.
post #13 of 94
Thread Starter 
I didn't know that about the EQ bands Catapult thanks. We did the distances with a tape measure in the before graph. Whatever made the difference it worked.
post #14 of 94
Yeah, I think some Pio owners have noticed MCACC didn't set the sub distance to the measured distance and they wondered if it was a mistake. Depending on the sub, phase shifts of the built-in crossover can add extra delay so the acoustic measurement of the MCACC is probably a more accurate way to do it.
post #15 of 94
IIRC, you need to use an MLS-based impulse response signal to account for both amplitude and phase (time) components to be represented in the frequency graph.

An RTA measurement system only accounts for the amplitude portion.

That's why I find the 3D waterfall frequency charts so useful in the ETF5 software. It clearly shows any bass anomolies.
post #16 of 94
Thread Starter 
If we had more time we could have set the speaker distances up manually/acoustically with the audio analysis with has decay analysis and other cool stuff.
post #17 of 94
Thread Starter 
It is possible that the Air Studio's response curve has a slight bass hump as that is usually pleasant to our ears but I can't say that for sure as that could be anything from room to speakers.
post #18 of 94
Quote:
Interesting and somewhat surprising results. As I understand the MCACC, the EQ bands are an octave wide, with the lowest centered at 63Hz, and it only correct the mains, not the sub. So it's surprising to see that sharp peak and null at about 36 and 44 get smoothed out.
Catapult,

You have to remember that these are Klipsch RF-7's they are massive they have dual 10" woofers and can go pretty low and are considered "LARGE" speakers. But now the question is if you set them to small like everyone does since most peoples' speakers aren't large enough to be actually considered large do they peaks get fixed if the bass is sent to sub instead of the fronts? Phyre you might have to go back and do another test.:D

Daniel Smith
post #19 of 94
Thread Starter 
Great point. When we set everything up manually we set them to Large. If MCACC set them to small and that is resposible then that is a huge possiblitly. I'll see if I can find out if the MCACC changed them.
post #20 of 94
No MCACC loves to set a lot of speakers to Large when they should be set to small. I have Klipsch RF-5s, RC-7, and RS-7 and they all have 8" woofers but aren't considered Large speakers but MCACC sets them that way so I have to go and manually change them to small after performing MCACC. So my question is if I set them to small do I lose the "desirable" bass hump since that info would be sent to the sub instead of the fronts. You might have to set everything to small and then run the AVIA pink noise test and find out if they bass hump is still there when sent through the sub instead of the RF-7s.

Daniel Smith
post #21 of 94
The MCACC will definitely set the RF-7's as "large." So, I tend to agree with Catapult as to why the original peaks/dips in the 25-50Hz region was magically tamed. It is most likely due to a more accurate delay setting on the sub by the MCACC.

As for the "coloredness" of the Klipsch speakers that some people claim, I believe that it has more to do with the distinct dispersion characteristics of their exponential horn designs, which will not be fully represented in one-point, steady-state RTA data such as the one shown above.

Anyway, thanks for very interesting data, phyre3.


PS: So, people posting here are not "average" consumers with "typical" gears??? :D
post #22 of 94
Great data phyre3:

I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to accomplish the results.

Maybe some naysayers will come over to the MCACC side now. It is so simple that non-tweakers will be able to get really good sound and, as I found, even tweakers have a hard time beating the MCACC settings.

Thanks again...

Mike
post #23 of 94
I second that phyre3-great info. I believe most data suggests that the ear is very sensitive to frequency response errors. In any event, I agree that this is the wave of the future and correction of room response and speaker room interaction errors is the next big thing as computational power increases. Hope that costs come down as well so that it really becomes available on all medium to high end products.
post #24 of 94
Quote:
In any event, I agree that this is the wave of the future and correction of room response and speaker room interaction errors is the next big thing as computational power increases. Hope that costs come down as well so that it really becomes available on all medium to high end products.
Yeah, and you know who has been serious about this??? -- BOSE!

Bose ADAPTiQ 5-location EQ System

At least on the face value, it seems significantly more advanced than the Elite MCACC.
post #25 of 94
A really newbie question here. I'm assuming the VSX-43TX does not have the same auto MCACC that the 45TX has, correct? What is the main difference?

Thanks,
post #26 of 94
Phyre3,
Thank you so much, good job!
post #27 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by sushi
Yeah, and you know who has been serious about this??? -- BOSE!

Bose ADAPTiQ 5-location EQ System

At least on the face value, it seems significantly more advanced than the Elite MCACC.
They certainly have the money to do this and other things in a big way. I remember Ken Kantor (of NHT speaker fame) saying that anybody that thinks that Bose does not have the resources to build a high quality audiophile speaker is misguided.

I don't have experience with either system, but I am really following this.
post #28 of 94
I read somewhere in the early BOSE newsletters that they use a curve that is supposed yeild "a perception" of better sound, not acurate sound. I could not find that original anouncment.
post #29 of 94
I do like the idea of sitting in 5 different places and the SYStem judging the sound.

Although I have felt the 45, even though it doesn't do this, does a good job for the other listening locations.

Question is what methodology do they use to finally setup the room and how does it work in real life balancing the effects.

It would be interesting if Pioneer would take this next step.

Mike
post #30 of 94
Quote:
Originally posted by jhuang
A really newbie question here. I'm assuming the VSX-43TX does not have the same auto MCACC that the 45TX has, correct? What is the main difference?

Thanks,
jhuang,

The 43TX has all of the adjustability of the 45, but will not do it automatically as the 45 will.

I had a Sony 333ES with even more adjustability but no auto setup and could not get it to sound as nice as the 45 even after hours of tweaking manually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › RTA graph for the MCACC lovers out there