Seaton Sound SubMersive1 - Page 262

That isn’t what most people with Audyssey and SubMs are finding. If you bring this to the Audyssey thread, we can explore the issues with your setup further.

 

Audyssey doesn't 'know' you swapped subs. It just listens to the response in the room and creates filters based on the F3. Audyssey can't really 'have an issue' with one particular make of sub (unless that sub uses some complex form of user-controllable DSP like SMS and it has been set up wrongly to start with - but that doesn't apply to the SubM). If you bring this to the Audyssey thread it can be explored more thoroughly.

 

LOL. Darn!  I had forgotten - another user has a similar name and I think I may have been conflating the two.

I'm not going to give up yet...

What PC software and Mic do you guys recommend?

And is there a guide on how to use them properly.

 

Visit the new REW thread linked in my signature. From there you can also download what is turning into the definitive REW user guide (for USB mics and HDMI - the new 'simpler' REW).

For ease of use, simplicity and immediate out of the box results, use either OmniMic or XTZ (I've used both). For a bit less money (if you have to buy an external USB soundcard and a USB mic it is very little difference in the cost), then use REW. The learning curve is higher (for most folks) but it has a lot of functionality.

So can XTZ and OmniMic. But it doesn't matter because SOWK is not using a miniDSP. Nor are you for that matter, (at least not yet.) I can only imagine how much damage you'll be able to do with the combination of a miniDSP, an AntiMode 8033 and Audyssey MultEQ XT. You'll be dangerous, no doubt.

Craig

Why would you speak in the future tense?

Because he doesn't yet have the miniDSP. He can't figure out which iteration will best serve his purpose.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1456883/calibrating-more-then-2-subs/30#post_22947054

But I understand what you're saying.

Craig

posts deleted

knock it off guys

That's the point. I'm not a complete tool and do know a little. But the small variance from the omni-mic graph can't explain the huge difference in sound quality and output from the SubMersive when doing the swap:running Audyssey on it. (The Ultra's set filters look not that different than the SubM set filters based on the measured results from the omni-mic graphs, but they are definitely different audibly)

There is something strange going on and I'm positive if others tested with a swap test, there would be more than a few that would have better results after the swap (the ones that are not impressed with the SubM, they might be having the same issue I am having). If you've never done it then how can anyone say it's not true in their setup? and yes there are tons of people who have had issues with Audyssey and the bottom end. If this helps just one person, then I'm glad.

a couple of issues. First, if you look at measurements of multiway speakers, you see that they way the tweeter and mid/woofer "add up" at the cdrossover point varies quite widely as you move in the vertical direction. SO leaving aside any differences in room behavior, the mic not being at ear height is not hearing what your ears hear in a fairly critical band, which seems highly likely to result in incorrect corrections.

The backs of the chairs will of course eliminate any reflections from behind, so no correction can take account of those reflections.

To fully absorb a sound, typically what I see is that the absorber needs to be at least 1/4 of the wavelength of the frequncy at issue. 2000 Hz is about a 6.75 inch wavelength, and I'm suspecting that's about as low as you are absorbing. Certainly to the extent the seats reflect bass, causing a bass peak right in front of them, (and they won't be perfectly reflective by any means at those frequencies) the fabric is completely ineffective. At 80 Hz, wavelength is 14 feet . . . so absent over 3 feet of absorption, the fabric absorbs nothing.

These things all could add together to give you a bass-shy calibration.

Did I give the impression that I was not using the Mic at Ear level?

That's what the Laser level is for... To make 100% sure every reading is exactly ear level...

I will be buying a boom mic stand, PC software and MIC. Then try again. But it may not be till 2 weeks away for me to find out the benifits.

Being able to measure will make a huge difference. I would measure pre-Audyssey with no EQ, and post Audyssey. Anytime you add or move room treatments, or change subwoofer locations, etc, you will want to measure your room again.

Otherwise you are just guessing.

Here is my pre-Audyssey FR:



Here is my post-A FR:



Because the level of the bass is so much lower post-Audyssey, a lot of people listening to the post-Audyssey result will say, "Audyssey killed the bass." On the contrary, Audyssey *fixed* the bass. It takes a while to get used to the corrected bass, but once you do, you hear details and articulation that were masked by the boominess and bloat of the uncorrected bass.

I restore some of the output by using Pgm2. Here is that curve:



(The first 2 curves are just the subs with an 80 Hz crossover. This curve is subs + speakers. That is why the response doesn't just fall off at 80 Hz like the other graphs.)

Bottom line, before you throw in the towel on Audyssey, try living with the result for a while and see if you don't come to appreciate the improvement.

BTW, it would be interesting to see your OmniMic graphs.

Craig

Hi guys,

I do have a lot going on today so can only jump in for a few quick comments at this moment.

First, please do what you can to keep on the topic of the SubMersive and owners getting the best results. Acoustics being what they are, what works for one will not always work for another.

Audyssey is a great tool, but is still a program written by a human making many assumptions of the input it will be given and the connected equipment and environment. I have heard and documented both great results and disappointing results. If it doesn't sound right, work on changing things.

To SOWK,

Feel free to call, e-mail or post on our forum as well where it's easier for me to keep up. I haven't seen anything specific of what weaknesses you were encountering, but a few quick suggestions would be:

1) Re-run Audyssey with the subwoofer a little louder closer to 80dB in the setup section. One strong peak in the pre-EQ response can leave the rest of the range rather low and create some unexpected results.
2) I would recommend trying to link or Y the subs off output one and run them as a single unit rather than 2 outputs. I've seen Audyssey create some really wacky results from 2 separate subs on occasion. If you can measure and confirm the results it's worth trying and tinkering, but it can be a problem if you're flying blind on the result.
3) Double check crossover settings for the main speakers and experiment with different frequency settings, especially since your center and L/R likely have different crossover frequencies.
4) For a given crossover setting do some experimentation by making +1 foot incremental changes to the subwoofer distance from what Audyssey calculated adding up to 6-7 feet. This will affect the overlap region with the main speakers and has an effect related to a phase adjustment. With the right material the difference should be fairly audible (percussive instruments and upper bass sounds).
5) Of course don't be afraid to adjust the subwoofer levels as you mentioned you already have.

What I'm saying is that both my graphs would look very similar to the above graph. One being from the Ultra with Audyssey, then swapped to the SubM and measured with the omni-mic and the other with Audyssey eq'ing the SubM then measured. the measured results of the SubM post Audyssey look very similar, not completely the same but close enough. It's the sound quality difference that is unbelievably huge and the small variance in the graphs can't explain why the huge discrepancy in sound quality. It's only with the SubMersive -Audyssey combo in my setup.

I'm just trying to let others who may experience a similar situation and possibly a quick fix for them. The best fix....no but a fix non the less. I'm gonna try running Audyssey again with Marks suggestions and see if it helps.

I have since sold my Ultra so I can't do the graphs so I'm a bit pooched there. I'm a little nervous running Audyssey again because I no longer have my Ultra if things don't go right.

Still loving your sub Mark. Hopefully I can order another one up this summer.

Please thoroughly review the setup guide, the FAQ and the 101, all linked in Keith Barnes' signature: http://www.avsforum.com/t/759877/seaton-sound-submersive1/7830#post_22954198 Then run Audyssey again according to those guidelines. Post the before/after graphs, as well as the crossover settings, speaker and subwoofer trims and the distance settings. I'm sure the collective knowledge of these subs as well as Audyssey can get to the bottom of your issue. I can assure you, there is nothing specific to the combination of Audyssey and Submersive subs that is causing this problem. It's either some anomaly in the measurements or the results. Whatever it is, I'm sure it's correctable.

Craig

I hope so

What he said.

It is CRITICAL to follow every step of the guide exactly to get predictable results. I had SVS subs before my SubMersives and did not experience any difference except that the sound quality of the SubMersives is a bazillion times better than the PB-13's I had.

Post the data Craig requested and I'm comfortable that the collective IQ points of members can help you out!

I got better result with my 4 Submersives when I moved them to the front corners stacked, and used Pro for calibration. In the final calculation, Pro sees the subs as one signal instead of two even though I had to calibrate the 2 stacks in the menu to 75 db.

 

The thing I don't understand is how you can have an such an allegedly huge audible difference that doesn't show up in measurements. Not everything you measure can be heard - but everything you hear can be measured. 

 

Audyssey is not perfect by any means, but the far from standard procedure you are suggesting is unlikely to be the right solution IMO. The problem needs further investigation.

 

I too had SVS subs prior to my Submersives and did not experience any Audyssey-related anomalies. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but graphs like these can't tell you if the dynamics are being affected in real life situations like in a movie???

 

I don't understand your question, sorry. If you look at Craig's graphs above, with and without Audyssey, then you can see what you would expect to hear in his room, with Audyssey on and Audyssey off (in terms of FR at least). If Craig shows us some Waterfalls, we can also get an idea of what to expect in his room wrt to the tightness of his bass etc. And if he shows us some ETCs we can get an idea of what the imaging and soundstage will sound like. Is there something else that will affect the sound - something that can't be measured?

 

If there is, I don't know what it is. This is why I am puzzled by the assertion that the graphs are almost identical but the sound is vastly different, as well as by the assertion that Audyssey works differently with one type of sub than it does with another, which seems to me to be impossible.

What i mean is that even though the response curve may be flat, what did it take to do it? What i mean by that is, in some people's cases(not necessarily the case here) that it can take up a lot of head room to get that response and therefore reducing dynamics. I am no expert so please correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I understand it. And I am not just talking about audyssey here.

.....and what's going on with decay times.