"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1800

Thanks for the response!!! The reason I put #1 where it is is because that is where I sit 95% of the time for watching tv and when watching movies with the wife - she sits on the loveseat. If I am at home alone watching a movie I will then sit in the middle of the couch (currently #2 on the sketch). Based on this (95% of time at end of couch and 5% of time in center of couch) should I leave # 1 and #2 where they are or should I flip flop them?

Unfortunately, relocating the sub (or any of the speakers or furniture) is not an option because of an 8 month old skooting around. In addition, the SV Sub is a monster (2 x 12" downfiring subs in a cherry enclosure) so it would really look odd having it sit at the front wall. Right now it looks like an end table slightly pushed away from the end of the couch. I have moved it away from the corner some, but not as much as I would like, but it will have to do where it is currently located.

Regarding the set-up it is not ideal, the front mains and center are too high, but they are angled down and the FL and FR are towed in slightly (as much as they can without looking like cr*p). The surrounds are hanging from the ceiling pointed inwards and down at 45 degrees, but like I said, moving any of the speakers or sub is just not an option so I am hoping Audyssey corrects for some of my poor set-up.

Here is a second go at the 8 positions - I will use a shorter tripod for positions 1,2,3, and 5 and then lengthen it to keep same mic height for 4, 6, 7, and 8. Thoughts on these 8 positions - 2' separation left to right and 3' between back row and front row.

I agree on the recommendation to switch 1 and 2. I also agree that the measurement points should not be quite so spread out. Perhaps two measurement points behind the MLP? The first measurement point should always be along the center line of your listening area, equidistant from left and right mains. While I appreciate the difficulties in protecting AV equipment from children, and vice-versa, the left and right front speakers would benefit sonically if they were not placed right against the front wall. As for the subwoofer placement, Feri's suggestions are good, but ultimately you need to select the location the is the best compromise between good sound and WAF.

Feri's suggestion of including several photos is a food one. Good luck!

Best would be to flip-flop them. Audyssey is going to create a so-called acoustic bubble (aka sweet-area instead of a sweet-spot) in the vicinity of your listening area, but the main criteria is to do #1 at dead center. Then you may move around in your bubble at your convenience.


Unfortunate, indeed, but in the end you will be the only one qualified to answer the question: "How does it sound?"

Have fun and enjoy!

Thanks guys...here is probably close to my final positions....four along the main listening row and four in front of it by about 3'. Thoughts on these 8 positions -

Or should I take three along the main listening row, three in front of it and two behind it? The only problem with taking two positions behind the main listening row is that there will only be about 1' between main listening row and measurements behind couch and MAYBE 1' between two positions behind couch and the back wall. Thoughts? Thanks again!!!!!

If your front speakers are toed in, then this could be OK. If they are aimed straght ahead, then positions #4 & #8 may be too far off axis from the front speaker on the right.

Is your front left speaker *really" on the right side?

Oops...got all the labels reversed..hehehe.

If I go with two rows of four I will 'squeeze' them in a little closer to make sure the four outer measurements are inside outer boundaries by a foot or two. What about two rows of three with a row of 2 behind the couch - per my previous post the row of two behind the couch would probably be about a foot behind couch row and only a foot in front of rear wall. Is this a better set up or would the two rows of four be a better set up??

Yeah, stay away from the back wall. Run setup with this config and listen.

Jeff

Why not just place the mic in the positions 1-6 that Audyssey recommends moving positions 7 and 8 diagonally forward from #1 rather than to the rear (due to the back wall being so close)?

Thanks. For now I'll stick with the two rows of four separated by about 3' and then 'squeeze' the rows in spacing each point apart by maybe 1.5' instead of two feet. I will take some real measurements tonight to see how far from the back wall to position 1 is and ask if the distance is too tight to squeeze in a couple measurements behind the couch. What would you say should be the minimum distance between the back wall and a measurement point, 1', 2', 3'???? Thanks!!!

Thanks for all the help!!

There's a picture from a previous post that might be of use.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post21659558

It's on page 1685 about halfway down if that link doesn't work. Conversation back then seemed to think that putting 7 & 8 in the middle like that would make more sense based on seating position and that would seem to be true in your case as well.

Thanks. I can easily do the positions 1,2,3,4,5,and 6 as shown the schematic, but (and I apologize in advance) don't understand what you mean by moving positions 7 and 8 diagonally forward. I take this as putting 7 and 8 back to where 4 and 6 are located. I must be missing something - sorry for my ignorance, but can you please clearify where you mean I should put 7 and 8? Do you mean between 4/5 and 5/6 making the front row have five measuring points??

Take a look at the drawing in ObiChad's post, the green marks will be the positions for #7 and #8.

^^

+1

Keith - First off, best wishes to you for a speedy recovery. Obviously we miss you here!!

Back to the subject... first off, I do not think this is an Onkyo vs. Denon issue. The situation you describe (and for which the FAQ bit in question was written) AFAICT only applies to a very specific SUBSET of Onkyo/Integra products (namely the x007 Onks and x.1 Integras). I think even the vast majority of dual-sub-output Onkyos work the "normal" way, with both sub outs receiving an identical signal (no independent time/distance and level adjustment).

If there are any other Onkyo/Integra products that also do it this way, somebody please enlighten me.

My sense is that the vast majority of receivers do it this way. So IMO the FAQ should be ammended such that the note about the y-cord thingy is stashed as a "footnote caveat" warning people that if their non-XT32 AVR allows for separate distance/level adjustments on the two subs, they should use the y-cord. Everyone else can just do it the regular way and then the general advice about dual sub setup is applicable.

I agree with SoM here, I do think it's a bit lame when mfgr's "cripple" certain features, but is this really such a 'deal breaker' as some are opining?

1. You still get the 512x resolution on the sub channel
2. Let's not forget that you also still get the monster jump in resolution from XT for the satellite channels (that eponymous 32x increase from 16x to 512x) which as we know is crucial to bass performance above the xover
3. We've also seen a lot of evidence that XT32 just does its thing *differently* than older versions of MultEQ, resulting in a better allocation of resources in the filters (i.e. avoiding all that "hair" in the high freq's)

The ONLY thing you lose is the independent setting of distance/level for the two subs. XT32 + SubEQ HT will still EQ the subs as a combined unit, just like the "crippled" version in the Onkyo 818. The level matching part is easy. So if your subs are relatively equidistant (or especially if you have the measurement capability to optimize the dual sub locations before running MultEQ) you aren't really losing that much here. If it allows them to bring in XT32 at a much more consumer friendly price point, I think it's a good thing.

I think people are overreacting to the importance of this omission.

Excellent post, batpig! I think the "value" of the SubEQ feature is hugely overrated. First, I think level-matching is the wrong way to set up multiple subs, and gain-matching makes a lot more sense. So that part of SubEQ is worthless, IMO. Second, I think the separate Distance settings is pretty meaningless. The Distances are only correct at one, single listening/measuring position. At every other position in the room, the relative Distances will be "wrong". Therefore, the whole thing is totally arbitrary... and meaningless. If "timing" of the subwoofers is really critical, there are multiple other ways to affect this.

What surprises me is that the elimination of the feature can save significant money on the MSRP of the receiver. It would only seem to require a small increase in processing power. The R&D engineering has already been done, so there would be minimal cost involved there. Is the licensing of SubEQ from Audyssey that expensive?

Craig

Thanks!!! I have done some measurements and the seating positions on my couch are just over three feet from the back wall so putting any measurement behind the couch are out of the question. Also based on the distance between my FL and FR I will only be able to do three points left to right if I space them 2-3' apart. Three on the couch then two in front of them and then three more as shown in the figure. Now from my seating position to my center channel is ~13 feet. In front of couch sits a leather ottoman that is same height as seating height of couch. So how many feet between row of points on couch and row with two points should be, 2'-3' and then another 2-3' to front row of three?? 3' would put front row almost in middle of living room.

And finally, some points will be on the couch, some will be on the ottoman, and some will be from the floor. I assume correct thing to do is to adjust tripod so the microphone height is always the same (slightly above back of couch which is where my ears usually fall anyway), correct??

But don't you believe dialing in the subwoofer distances post-calibration yields a much smoother frequency response around the crossover? Without an independent distance parameter for each subwoofer, wouldn't the ability to do this tweak be compromised?

Furthermore, aren't you then pretty much limited to equidistant subwoofer placement and the associated compromises that brings?

Agree with comments regarding level matching being solvable via other means (ie gain knob on subwoofer itself).

You are confusing the subwoofer blend with the speakers to the subwoofer blend with each other. The ability to set different Distances for Sub1 and Sub2 is an effort to impact the subwoofers blend with *each other*, not the blend with the speakers. I absolutely agree that the ability to "time" the speakers with the subs is critical to excellent bass response. I am far less convinced that it is important to "time" the subwoofers with respect to each other.


Not according to either Welti or Geddes. Both of those multi-subwoofer setup techniques assume that the same mono, non-time-aligned signal is sent to all subwoofers. I do the same in my system, but I verify and optimize the response with measurements.


If you mean "gain-matching"... yes.

Craig

Haven't been reading about the 818 but it seems its XT32 is "different" than the other XT32 implementations?

^No, XT32 is fully implemented. Read batpig's post above with the following sentence to clarify the discussion that has been going on over the past few pages:

The 818 has XT32, but Onkyo chose not to include Audyssey's SubEQHT on the 818, so the 818 is not capable of pinging two subs individually for level and distance before EQing them together.

Some folks are bemoaning SubEQHT's absence in the 818. The discussion hinges on how important that SubEQHT function is. My stance is that SubEQHT appears seems to be a valuable function, in that it improves SQ if you have two nonequidistant subs. But a lot of folks have only one sub, or have two subs equidistant from MLP. For them, the 818 is likely to be the hottest "audiophile on a budget" bargain available once the last Denon 4311s are gone (the 4311 has SubEQHT and is Audyssey Pro capable so outclasses the 818 in potential SQ).

OTOH. some others are questioning if SubEQHT has any value at all, in part because it may only improve SQ at MLP. IMO that is unlikely to be true and is certainly far from being established. I was able to plug my two nonequidistant subs into the 4311, and it took care of level-matching and setting distances and EQing them together and yielded a wonderful result. Many others report the same.

Now, said wonderful bass SQ may be able to be tweaked yet further, but will require measuriing eqpt and effort. I don't consider that evidence that SubEQHT is not valuable in itself for non equidistant subs.

I wonder how big a fraction of that crowd has something like a MiniDSP to fix sub-sub integration once and for all. I suspect it's quite a few, not that that necessarily resolves anything about the SubEQHT issue at hand.

Ran Aud. last night for the first time- Denon 4311 system with 2 subs at the front of the room. During step 1- got the sub warning to turn subs down. Now the subs before measurement were in the 76-77 DB range(per Aud mic).
After Aud calibration the sub levels were at -10.5db and -11.5 DB respectively-the fronts were in the -4 to -4.5 range.
I was reading in AVS that I should turn the subs up to read close to 0 db( in -3 to plus 3 range). Not sure how I get there given that Aud to me to turn subs down before first measurement?
If I adjust subs is there an easy way to rerun or do I have to do all 8 locations again?
After measure and save is Aud done or do I have "to turn it on" to set speakers? How do I do that?

Thanks!
RT

FAQ UPDATE

The section on using dual subs has been extensively updated to take account of AVRs with MultEQ and MultEQ XT and twin sub outputs, but where the sub outputs are effectively 'internally Y-corded' together. Examples include Denon units.

2. How do I connect and set up two subwoofers? (click here)

I'm not so sure. If the 818 is offering XT32 at under $1000 then it has a unique market segment there. Dual sub capability only affects people with dual subs of course, but even then, how important is it? In the 'fully featured' XT32 AVRs, Audyssey sets the level and distance individually and then EQs the two subs as one. In the 818, it isn't hard to set the levels individually by hand before doing the Audyssey run. And wrt to the distance settings, it has been fairly comprehensively proven in the Pro thread that Audyssey often gets these distances (delays) 'wrong' anyway, and there are frequently substantial benefits to be obtained by post-Audyssey tweaking of the sub distances using independent measuring gear. The 818 will EQ both subs together (as one) just like other AVRs with 'fully featured' XT32.

I can see why Onkyo would 'cripple' the 818 in this way for market segment differentiation, but for guys on a budget this is a great and cheap way into XT32 IMO. The only thing lacking is the ability to set distances individually (which isn't hard to do manually anyway, and which Audyssey often gets wrong anyway).

XT32 for less than $1,000? Once the brilliant Denon 4311s are all gone, the 818 will be a 'half price' route to XT32, with very little real world loss of capability. IMO

There's a whole section on this in the FAQ (and in the Setup Guide).

D. Mic & Mic Placement Issues (click here)

I agree. Just said the same, before I got to your post. XT32 for less than a grand - what's not to like?

Thanks batpig - much appreciated.


I've changed the FAQ. Happy to make further amends if anyone cares to make suggestions.

Thanks to everyone who has sent me their kind 'get well' thoughts, both in the forum and via PM. It is much appreciated. I am back in action now, although tiring easily at the moment. It will be a few days before I am back to normal posting I think (some might say that's not a bad thing! )