AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1724

post #51691 of 62273
3/14/12 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey!steve! View Post

The crossover was going to be my next question because I was reading conflicting material regarding that. I read that you should set the the XO to the middle along with the volume. But you are saying that I should just turn the XO all the way to the max and the 2eq Audyssey will do the rest?

Yes. If there is an OFF or BYPASS switch use that. You have to eliminate the XO in the sub or you will be having two conflicting XOs going on at the same time. If there is no switch turn it to the highest setting. The other thing you read was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey!steve! View Post

I do like the trim on the speakers, I tried tuning the speakers using an SPL meter and the settings were completely different then Audyssey, but I think Audyssey sounds better.

The Audyssey mic and software are probably more accurate than the SPL meter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey!steve! View Post

I only have two concerns regarding the trim, my front and center channel speakers are off on the measurement by a foot each. Should I correct this or just leave it alone?

That's interesting. Usually Audyssey gets speaker distances spot on. Are you sure? Are you measuring from the tweeter to the mic at the MLP before you move the mic from position 1? Once you have moved the mic you may not be putting it back into the same place? Depending on your AVR, it may only have a finesse of 6 inches in the distance settings, so the results can show 6 inches off even if it is only half an inch off. So I'd expect 6 inches of variance to be possible but a foot seems too much. When you run the calibration again, before you do position 1, measure from the tip of the mic to the tweeter of each speaker and then compare with the final Audyssey result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey!steve! View Post

Also the surround and surround back speakers are the same speakers, should the XO's set by Audyssey be the same? Currently Audyssey sets the surrounds at 70 and the rears at 90.

Not necessarily. Audyssey EQs for the in-room response of the speaker and room combination. There could be some influence of the room on the speaker which causes, for example, boundary gain to affect one speaker and thus produce a deeper response. As the surrounds and the rears occupy very different positions in the room, I’d expect the XOs to be set differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey!steve! View Post

Once again thanks a lot, I have my first movie night in my new house with friends coming up and I would love to have the system calibrated correctly.

You’re welcome. Come back if you need anything else. Because I am in the UK and most of the regulars here are in the USA, I usually get this time of day on the thread all to myself - the other dudes are still in bed Just in case you're wondering why nobody else has chimed in...
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #51692 of 62273
3/14/12 at 5:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbrault View Post

I've search bat pig guide and the forum but I was not able to find what I'm looking for. I have a Denon AVR-1712 and when I set my system using audyssey auto calibration the sound level is way too low. I always have to raise all channel level by at least 5db. Am I doing something wrong???

Ideally, Audyssey expects you to be listening at 0 dB on your volume control or "Reference" level. I am usually at -20 for TV and -10 for movies, so it depends on what your definition of "too low" is.
Reply
Reply
post #51693 of 62273
3/14/12 at 5:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbrault View Post

I've search bat pig guide and the forum but I was not able to find what I'm looking for. I have a Denon AVR-1712 and when I set my system using audyssey auto calibration the sound level is way too low. I always have to raise all channel level by at least 5db. Am I doing something wrong???

What setting is your Master Volume control showing when you listen at levels that you feel are not 'way too low'?
Reply
Reply
post #51694 of 62273
3/14/12 at 8:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Forgive the double post, but there are two distinct things going on here. Refer to my post about the sub distance first, and get that aspect sorted. Then look at this one:

The issue with regard to music is a thorny topic. Audyssey works best with movie soundtracks because these are mixed to a known 'reference' standard. Music is not mixed to any standard and is at the whim of each mixer or producer. Chances are you have got Dynamic EQ engaged (it defaults to ON after running the calibration). DEQ boosts certain frequencies in order to account for human psychoacoustics where certain frequencies fall off faster than others as volume diminishes. So as you move the MV from 0dB reference, these frequencies will diminish faster than, for example, the mid range where the human voice lies. DEQ cleverly makes adjustments in real time for this effect and compensates for it very well when listening to movies, where the reference level is known.

However, you specifically mentioned CDs and music wrt to your 'boomy' bass. This is probably because you listen, like most people, at way below 0dB and so DEQ is affecting your FR - but because music mixes are all over the place, chances are that DEQ is boosting your bass too much. There is a setting called Reference Level Offset in your menus somewhere - locate this and try setting it to 5dB or 10dB or 15dB as you feel best. What this does is 'trick' your AVR into thinking it is playing louder than it is (by the offset you choose) and thus it diminishes the effect of DEQ. IOW, when you set the MV to -10dB, with a RLO of 10dB, then DEQ is doing nothing at all. Or try turning DEQ off altogether when listening to music and see if you prefer it that way. For movies, you can leave RLO set to 0dB or, if you feel the bass and especially the surrounds are too 'hot' then try a RLO of 5dB for movies too (which is how I do it myself).

If this is all confusing, please ask again and either I or someone will try to explain it slightly differently. It can be a bit confusing at first

EDIT: Jeff makes a good point. There is only so much correction that Audyssey can apply. If the room and the sub within the room are really bad, acoustically, then you may be asking too much of Audyssey. Have you experimented with the sub's position in the room at all? Moving it a few feet can make a dramatic difference. If you are able to post a photo of your room this would help with diagnosis of the problem - just a mobile phone photo will do - you don't need to call in Herb Ritts

Hi Keith, let me start by saying that the "Boominess" I mentionmed before was best described as more of an over emphasis of a certain lower frequency if that makes more sense. I have always liked clean, accurate, bass, I have never been a fan of the over bloated sound of some set ups, again this is my own opinion and taste, to each there own. BTW, after I ran Audyssey, I did turn off DEQ and DVol so those factors were not in the equation.

Last night I heeded your advice Keith and did the following: I ran the quick Audyssey setup just to make sure the sub was at 75db......I must have raised the sub volume when trying to make my adjustments and forgot about it because it read 85 db. I set the sub back to 75 DB and unplugged the mic. I set the sub distance back to the 16.4' that Udyssey had originally applied and also the original sub level trim of +2.5 db (I may have quoted the incorrect Sub level trim on my earlier post)
Well, problem solved it must have been a combination of the sub distance change, and for sure the sub Vol being at 85 db.
I played the same music/movie tracks and everything sound really good.

Thanks a million Keith and others.

PS. I assume its still Ok to tweak the sub level trim as I see fit but I should leave the actual volume on the subwoofer itself alone, correct?

Paul
Reply
Reply
post #51695 of 62273
3/14/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbrault View Post

I've search bat pig guide and the forum but I was not able to find what I'm looking for. I have a Denon AVR-1712 and when I set my system using audyssey auto calibration the sound level is way too low. I always have to raise all channel level by at least 5db. Am I doing something wrong???

As already noted, if you feel the volume is too low on all sources, rather than bumping up all channels by 5db, simply raise the master volume; however, if it's only one particular source device that has the issue you can raise the setting (p. 72) for that particular source to bring it up to the level of the other sources at the same master volume. Also note that if you set Dyn Vol to YES in the AUTO SETUP routine, it defaults to "Evening" so you may want to try setting that to OFF.

For more help on your new 1712, join us in the Denon XX12 Owner's thread linked in my sig, especially reviewing the setup/troubleshooting tips/general info listed in posts #3-6.
Reply
Reply
post #51696 of 62273
3/14/12 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hidefpaul View Post


PS. I assume its still Ok to tweak the sub level trim as I see fit but I should leave the actual volume on the subwoofer itself alone, correct?

Paul

Yep.
Reply
Reply
post #51697 of 62273
3/14/12 at 9:30am
I usually bump my trim level up because I like more bass. I wondered if this would cause any problems.
Reply
Reply
post #51698 of 62273
3/14/12 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezff View Post

I usually bump my trim level up because I like more bass. I wondered if this would cause any problems.

I have to bump my by about 3dB, too. I always do it on the sub itself. I try not to move it, but it just needs the slightest boost.

However, I'm finding that using DynamicEQ compensates for having to boost my sub level, manually.
Reply
Reply
post #51699 of 62273
3/14/12 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hidefpaul View Post

Last night I heeded your advice Keith and did the following: I ran the quick Audyssey setup just to make sure the sub was at 75db......I must have raised the sub volume when trying to make my adjustments and forgot about it because it read 85 db. I set the sub back to 75 DB and unplugged the mic. I set the sub distance back to the 16.4' that Udyssey had originally applied and also the original sub level trim of +2.5 db (I may have quoted the incorrect Sub level trim on my earlier post)
Well, problem solved it must have been a combination of the sub distance change, and for sure the sub Vol being at 85 db.
I played the same music/movie tracks and everything sound really good.


Great result. Glad you got it how you want it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hidefpaul View Post

Thanks a million Kevin and others.

Who's this Kevin fellow?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hidefpaul View Post

PS. I assume its still Ok to tweak the sub level trim as I see fit but I should leave the actual volume on the subwoofer itself alone, correct?

Paul

That is correct. Make any level adjustments in the trim not on the sub itself. It makes it much easier to go back to a known starting point if you want to try a few different level settings before you settle on the one you prefer.
Reply
Reply
post #51700 of 62273
3/14/12 at 10:25am
Who's this Kevin fellow?




SORRY, I MEANT KEITH!!!!

I was was still half a sleep.....no coffee this moning.

Paul
Reply
Reply
post #51701 of 62273
3/14/12 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hidefpaul View Post

Who's this Kevin fellow?




SORRY, I MEANT KEITH!!!!

I was was still half a sleep.....no coffee this morning.

Paul

No worries - just kidding. It's early evening here now so I'm on my 4th cup...
Reply
Reply
post #51702 of 62273
3/14/12 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

XT32 is a significant advance IMO, see this post. But we don't know anything about your room or system. I recommend upgrading the weakest link in your HT sound chain with the overall objective of matching the quality of everything, such as the electronics to the speakers. Got good speakers? A second sub carefully placed to smooth the bass is also a valuable addition if you have not done so, regardless of XT32. I also recommend doing what's practical to fix the acoustics in your room (curtains, rug, formal acoustic tx like bass traps, etc.).

The room is an issue but unfortunately there is little acceptance for room treatments as this is our living room.

I'm considering adding another identical sub-woofer (SVS SB12-NSD) and with XT there are restrictions like symmetrical (with respect to MLP or room?) placement and same distance to MLP as far as I understand after various reading.

In my room that means that the sub-woofers have to be place alongside the front speakers. Currently the single sub-woofer is placed 20 inches away from a corner as this gives better bass at MLP than other WAF placements.

With few options for sub-woofer placement, should I add another sub-woofer when using XT or go for XT32 with no extra sub-woofer but perhaps added in the future?

I also listen to multichannel SACD.

Further details:

The room is 18 feet by 11 feet 4 inches, have drywalls, concrete ceiling and hardwood floor with large parts covered with carpets. One side wall have windows with curtains partly covering them.

The speakers are good (Canton Vento, smallest tower but largest surround and center, approximate MSRP of $7500) and a SVS SB12-NSD sub-woofer. The crossover is set to 80Hz in the receiver.

There is only one placement of speakers that works in the living room: The front speakers are placed on a long wall that has a door at one end, are 10 inches from the back wall and more than 3 feet from closest sidewall. However, both surrounds are placed 3 inches from the back wall pointed at MLP but one surround is placed in a corner.

Distance from MLP to backwall is 20 inches.

Audyssey reports the following distances:

FL 8.9 ft
FR 8.8 ft
C 8.0 ft
SL 7.0 ft (very close to backwall)
SR 6.0 ft (very close to backwall, and also is in a corner, sad to say)
Reply
Reply
post #51703 of 62273
3/14/12 at 11:40am
It's been brought up numerous times how intimidating this huge thread has become for newbies to post questions. The thread title has been edited to identify an FAQ section in post #1, and new FAQs can be added from time to time as necessary.

Is there any interest in starting a new thread, posting the FAQs in the new thread post #1 and linking this thread to the new thread? If this were done, access to this thread would still be possible but it would be "locked" to new posts and would be moved to the non-sticky area while the new thread would become the stickied "Official Audyssey Thread."

The new thread starter would be one of the thread's regulars (eg. kbarnes701, pepar, etc.) whomever is interested and whom would be able to add new FAQs on a regular basis as needed.

Can the regulars please respond back to get an idea if this is wanted or not? Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #51704 of 62273
3/14/12 at 12:14pm
"pepar's" vote would be for doing whatever best helps those with new questions/issues to get those dealt with straight away. And I'd be happy to participate in ... distilling .. existing content to its most helpful essence.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on that - how best to do it, where the "peripheral" chit-chat about Audyssey can take place, etc..

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #51705 of 62273
3/14/12 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

"pepar's" vote would be for doing whatever best helps those with new questions/issues to get those dealt with straight away. And I'd be happy to participate in ... distilling .. existing content to its most helpful essence.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on that - how best to do it, where the "peripheral" chit-chat about Audyssey can take place, etc..

Jeff

I’d vote for a new thread to contain the FAQ.

The thread would be locked after Post 1 so that it would not become an 'active' thread. Then novices could simply be referred to the new thread for the answer to their FAQ. If they needed any further help, they could seek it in this thread - their feedback by way of additional queries could be incorporated into the FAQ where appropriate, so the new thread should get better and better at dealing with noob questions as time goes on.

The FAQ thread would also, of course, contain a link to this thread. This solution would preserve the continuity of this amazingly successful thread, with all of its huge store of knowledge for those prepared to look for it while at the same time giving noobs somewhere to go to get their FAQs answered, without filling this thread with repetitive posts about 'small or large' etc.

I'd suggest that anyone interested in compiling the FAQ made a start on it ahead of the new thread being opened so that the new thread would have meaningful content right from the get-go. I would be happy to contribute to the FAQ answers. First step would be to compile a list of potential FAQs.
Reply
Reply
post #51706 of 62273
3/14/12 at 12:50pm
OK, how about the new thread have the FAQ in post #1, but there also be a few editable "reserved" posts after it - and then be locked WRT new posts. (Existing posts could be edited.) The FAQ could be kept simple with brief explanations while the follow-ons could delve a bit deeper.

Just a thought on allowing some flexibility so it doesn't get boxed in.

Jeff
Reply
Reply
post #51707 of 62273
3/14/12 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

OK, how about the new thread have the FAQ in post #1, but there also be a few editable "reserved" posts after it - and then be locked WRT new posts. (Existing posts could be edited.) The FAQ could be kept simple with brief explanations while the follow-ons could delve a bit deeper.

Just a thought on allowing some flexibility so it doesn't get boxed in.

Jeff

Good idea.
Reply
Reply
post #51708 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:02pm
Feri, where did your post go? Your thoughts are valid and should be discussed.
Reply
Reply
post #51709 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Feri, where did your post go? Your thoughts are valid and should be discussed.

I deleted it because at first read I didn't realize the meaning of a "locked" thread. I'll redraft it and will send it again.

Thanks for your care.
Reply
Reply
post #51710 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

OK, how about the new thread have the FAQ in post #1, but there also be a few editable "reserved" posts after it - and then be locked WRT new posts. (Existing posts could be edited.) The FAQ could be kept simple with brief explanations while the follow-ons could delve a bit deeper.

Just a thought on allowing some flexibility so it doesn't get boxed in.

Jeff

Jeff,

Why don't you just start one? You are the longest standing member in this thread and have added more to it than anyone has. The new thread should be yours.
Reply
Reply
post #51711 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

It's been brought up numerous times how intimidating this huge thread has become for newbies to post questions. The thread title has been edited to identify an FAQ section in post #1, and new FAQs can be added from time to time as necessary.

Is there any interest in starting a new thread, posting the FAQs in the new thread post #1 and linking this thread to the new thread? If this were done, access to this thread would still be possible but it would be "locked" to new posts and would be moved to the non-sticky area while the new thread would become the stickied "Official Audyssey Thread."

The new thread starter would be one of the thread's regulars (eg. kbarnes701, pepar, etc.) whomever is interested and whom would be able to add new FAQs on a regular basis as needed.

Can the regulars please respond back to get an idea if this is wanted or not? Thanks.

Hi jd, thanks for your efforts and endavours for striving to make improvements of this huge thread.

So, here's my take.

Wouldn't two Audyssey related threads, one in the Sticky-Threads area and another one in the Normal-Threads area lead newbies to a bit of confusion? Occasionally some might even want to make double posting, you know, just to be sure their queries are read and answered.

Or, in this case as I see a "locked" thread means no further posts in that thread are possible. Could lead to another confusion if another short FAQ would not be drafted on how to use that thread.

Meantime, I like the idea of editing the title of this thread. Small step but looks efficient coz it calls attention of newbies to start by reading the FAQ.

All that above is IMHO.
Reply
Reply
post #51712 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

OK, how about the new thread have the FAQ in post #1, but there also be a few editable "reserved" posts after it - and then be locked WRT new posts. (Existing posts could be edited.) The FAQ could be kept simple with brief explanations while the follow-ons could delve a bit deeper.

Just a thought on allowing some flexibility so it doesn't get boxed in.

Jeff

Because a "locked" thread would eventually fall off the grid after a couple of months (although still found via a link or "Search This Forum"), another option would be to simply create a FAQ at this point in the thread ... decide how many posts to reserve and just start setting it up. A link to this group of posts could then be placed in post #1. The problem with editing post #1 of this thread is it requires either the thread starter (who is no longer that active) or a Mod to make the change. Better to have some of the regulars have the capability to make edits to the FAQ.
Reply
Reply
post #51713 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Agreed, Harrison. I have one or two of the FAQs on macros already. Topics I can think of right away that come up repeatedly: small or large for speakers, what should the XO setting be, what is LPF of LFE and where should I set it, what mic positions should I use, should I use all mic positions, why do I need to measure in places nobody sits, where has my bass gone, how do I connect two subs, screen says ambient noise too high, I can’t hear dialogue properly, and many more I can't think of right now.

I haven't checked the faq on the first page of this thread for overlap, or maybe the two should be combined. In any event, here are some quick additions to your list .. for consideration.

Small or large for speakers
Choosing the XO setting
LPF of LFE settings
Choosing mic positions
How many mic positions
Do I need to measure in places nobody sits & why
Where has my bass gone
How do I connect two subs
Where should my sub(s) be located
Screen says ambient noise too high?
I can’t hear dialogue properly
Room acoustics basics
Psychoacoustics basics
Why Dynamic EQ
Why and when Dynamic Volume
Benefits of a pro kit calibration
Using the receiver's graphical frequency response disply
The why's of fractional octave smoothing
Audyssey vs/and room treatments
2EQ vs MultEQ vs XT vs XT32
Benefits of using OmniMic or REW
Height & Width channels
Speaker requirements for height & width

vvvvvvvvvvadditionsvvvvvvvvvvvvv
How movie soundtracks are mixed
How music is mixed
Speaker layout guides
Speaker capability vs room size
mic calibration issues





Harrison
Reply
Reply
post #51714 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The problem with relying on our ears for adjusting the sub distance/splice is that it would take for ever and be so time consuming nobody would want to undertake it. And that is assuming that our ears are reliable enough and our incredibly brief auditory memory is up to the job. I think it would be very difficult to remember the way it sounded in between tests, the tests taking at the very least a few minutes to undertake.

The beauty of using OmniMic is that you can see in a few minutes exactly what difference you have made by adjusting the sub distance by +0.5 feet, +1 foot, + 1.5 feet etc etc etc and then -0.5 feet, -1 foot etc etc etc. In fact when I tried it I only needed to do two or three runs and I could see the difference clearly. I am sure I would have found it very difficult to remember the differences and would have had to repeat the tests ad infinitum before I had confidence in the results.

Keith, of course you are right and I fully agree with you if someone wanted to use real life program materials (film or music) to get rid of the dip at the XO slice. It would be nearly "mission impossible".

But hey, we all can have an audio signal generator hooked up to our gear, right? Now, the way I tweaked my XO splice by ear was like this. XO= 80 Hz. Run a sweep from 40 Hz to 160 Hz. See how pro I am? Notice, it's 1 octave below and 1 octave above the 80 Hz XO. Set up a long duration time for the sweep, REW allows max. 60 sec, but surely enough. IMHO, for this test we don't really need auditory memory, all we need is to listen to the level (changes) of the sweep when it reaches the XO. If we hear a slight decrease of volume at the XO with the original Audyssey measured distance untouched that means the dip exists. Adjust the distance of the sub by iteration and listen again. When the dip disappears you're done. Took me about 10-15 minutes.

And finally I think this method could also be useful to verify Omnimic measurements by ear!
Reply
Reply
post #51715 of 62273
3/14/12 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


Keith, of course you are right and I fully agree with you if someone wanted to use real life program materials (film or music) to get rid of the dip at the XO slice. It would be nearly "mission impossible".

But hey, we all can have an audio signal generator hooked up to our gear, right? Now, the way I tweaked my XO splice by ear was like this. XO= 80 Hz. Run a sweep from 40 Hz to 160 Hz. See how pro I am? Notice, it's 1 octave below and 1 octave above the 80 Hz XO. Set up a long duration time for the sweep, REW allows max. 60 sec, but surely enough. IMHO, for this test we don't really need auditory memory, all we need is to listen to the level (changes) of the sweep when it reaches the XO. If we hear a slight decrease of volume at the XO with the original Audyssey measured distance untouched that means the dip exists. Adjust the distance of the sub by iteration and listen again. When the dip disappears you're done. Took me about 10-15 minutes.

Why can't pink noise and a spectrum analyzer do this as well?
Reply
Reply
post #51716 of 62273
3/14/12 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Because a "locked" thread would eventually fall off the grid after a couple of months

While that is normally true, it wouldn't be the case this time because all that the new thread would be there for is for regulars here to link to with their answer to FAQs. When someone asks, for the 1,917th time "should I set my speakers to small when Audyssey has set them to large?", instead of giving a long and meaningful response, also for the 1,917th time, all that would be needed is to say "please see the FAQ at which has the answer you seek".


Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

(although still found via a link or "Search This Forum"), another option would be to simply create a FAQ at this point in the thread ... decide how many posts to reserve and just start setting it up. A link to this group of posts could then be placed in post #1.

That would work but I can't personally see why it is better than a separate FAQ thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

The problem with editing post #1 of this thread is it requires either the thread starter (who is no longer that active) or a Mod to make the change. Better to have some of the regulars have the capability to make edits to the FAQ.

Agreed.
Reply
Reply
post #51717 of 62273
3/14/12 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmschnur View Post

Why can't pink noise and a spectrum analyzer do this as well?

It can do of course, but wouldn't you like to verify those graphs with an ear test?
Reply
Reply
post #51718 of 62273
3/14/12 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hclarkx View Post

I haven't checked the faq on the first page of this thread for overlap, or maybe the two should be combined. In any event, here are some quick additions to your list .. for consideration.

small or large for speakers
Choosing the XO setting
LPF of LFE settings
Choosing mic positions
How many mic positions
Do I need to measure in places nobody sits & why
Where has my bass gone
How do I connect two subs
Where should my sub(s) be located
Screen says ambient noise too high?
I can't hear dialogue properly
Room acoustics basics
Psychoacoustics basics
Why Dynamic EQ
Why and when Dynamic Volume
Benefits of a pro kit calibration
Using the receiver's graphical frequency response disply
The why's of fractional octave smoothing
Audyssey vs/and room treatments
2EQ vs MultEQ vs XT vs XT32


Harrison


Excellent start, H.
Reply
Reply
post #51719 of 62273
3/14/12 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Keith, of course you are right and I fully agree with you if someone wanted to use real life program materials (film or music) to get rid of the dip at the XO slice. It would be nearly "mission impossible".

But hey, we all can have an audio signal generator hooked up to our gear, right? Now, the way I tweaked my XO splice by ear was like this. XO= 80 Hz. Run a sweep from 40 Hz to 160 Hz. See how pro I am? Notice, it's 1 octave below and 1 octave above the 80 Hz XO. Set up a long duration time for the sweep, REW allows max. 60 sec, but surely enough. IMHO, for this test we don't really need auditory memory, all we need is to listen to the level (changes) of the sweep when it reaches the XO. If we hear a slight decrease of volume at the XO with the original Audyssey measured distance untouched that means the dip exists. Adjust the distance of the sub by iteration and listen again. When the dip disappears you're done. Took me about 10-15 minutes.

And finally I think this method could also be useful to verify Omnimic measurements by ear!

While your method may well work, Feri, how is that easier than using OmniMic, which also eliminates any subjectivity wrt to 'hearing' the 'slight decrease of volume' at the XO?
Reply
Reply
post #51720 of 62273
3/14/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Excellent start, H.

+1, looks like a great list!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1)