"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 1865

Keith, I just recently read somewhere else that a Hi-Fi system will sound the best when there in nobody in the room!!! Ha!

I don't normally follow Markus767's 'discussions' as they never seem to lead anywhere - this one appeared to be an exception for a while, but I can live without knowing whatever conclusions he may, or probably won't, come to. I was trying to get a view on distilling down all the hypothesis, speculation, graphing and 'yes it does, no it doesn't' debate into something that might actually help users in the real world.  But you are right - it is too tiresome to bother with.

 

How do they know? :)

They use long cables from in-room mics to laptop in another room and they watch the graphs very carefully!!!!!

 

Ah yes - the category of users who listen with their eyes.

Most apt! And a great day to you too.

+1

Markus,

Please find attached a document explaining the procedures for adjusting the subwoofer distances after running MultEQ XT32. I don't know if this qualifies as evidence to you, but it has graphs, which I know you like.

We had discussed this document I put together back in April / May timeframe, I believe, but I think you were absent from the thread at that time. The document can also be found in my Audyssey Setup Guide post linked in my signature below. Don't ask me to explain it to you, I just assembled the document to capture the procedure identified by Mark Seaton and brought to the AVSForum community by CraigJohn.

I hope this helps.

Mark

Subwoofer Distance Tweak Instructions & Examples (Requires Acoustic Measurement Tools).doc 1688k .doc file

I thought I recall a couple of posts in there discussing adjusting the sub distances individually, but it has been some time, and my brain frequently acts like a FIFO buffer. Perhaps that is in there, and you missed it, or perhaps I did not include it, or perhaps I am mis-remembering. All of the above are possible, but if some others with better memories do not chime in, we can just inquire with Mark Seaton or CraigJohn.

I looked at the adjustment process instructions I wrote, and it does say to adjust both at the same time, but then in step 5 it states to start making finer adjustments. I think we should clarify this and then I can update the instructions. Sorry, I just cannot remember definitively.

Mark

As I posted recently (and a number of times previously), I adjust the distance setting on each of the two sub channels separately.  Flattest response is achieved with a significant adjustment on Sub1, but only a minor adjustment on Sub2.

 

I have always adjusted the sub distances separately for each sub too, and my bass currently sounds the best it has ever been (and measures OK too). I can believe I have been doing it wrong of course - I wasn't even consciously aware that I was supposed to adjust each sub by the same amount, so I never actually tried to do it. Something perhaps for the next time I do a calibration, although that will be no time soon as I am happy right now with the setup and am spending what spare time I have watching movies, not charts.

 

I perhaps should mention that I measure a single point too. I am not interested in getting a good result right across the room - just where I sit.

My FIFO buffer brain has been running on a very short cycle time lately.

Mark

Markus, are we going to see some pre-optimization ideas that are based on your analysis of single point measurement graphs that maybe useful for the Audyssey users? Just asking?

Feri, isn't there a wealth of information out there regarding various approaches to optimizing in-room response for subs? I don't think we are talking about frame-breaking knowledge here, are we? Are pre-optimization techniques OT for this thread?

Let's read between the lines Jerry, I just wanted to poke our Markus to come back with his own findings. On a serious note I do respect what he does, coz I do belive in "keep talking, something has to come out". Agree?

On a second note, why only subs? Isn't there anything to do in the mid- to upper frequency range in the name of pre-optimization?

 

I agree, Feri, I think Markus' discussion has been interesting.  As far as pre-optimization of mid to upper frequencies, of course there are recommendations in that area as well, but this conversation specifically addressed low frequencies and whether Sub EQ HT improved or did not improve end results.

Agree Jerry, but when someone has his measuring gear pulled out why limit it to only low frequencies? Couldn't the discussion be turned around to full range? Or is it to much to ask?

See Ya later, it's getting too late already in my neck of the woods!

Feri, you can optimize subs by moving them around because their output is, more or less, non-directional. Main speakers are where they are for imaging with respect to the picture on the screen, and surrounds are where they are because of their relationship with the listener(s).

There seems to be a Markus post that has been deleted ...

Jeff

Markus,

Here is a measurement taken at the primary LP with 3 Submersive HP's, all connected to one subwoofer output, and all placed at dissimilar distances to the primary LP. The speaker/subwoofer crossover was set at 80 Hz. This is the subs and the CC measured together:



The only difference between these traces is the subwoofer Distance setting. The Blue trace is the Audyssey set Distance of 10.4. The Green trace is my re-adjusted Distance setting of 13.8. These values are applied to all 3 subs simultaneously because they are all on the same subwoofer output.

I then re-setup my system so 1 sub was on Sub1 and 2 subs were on Sub2. The Sub2 subs were equidistant to the LP and where further away than the Sub1 sub. Since I had moved the subs around, I re-ran Audyssey and I once again got a poor blend at the crossover frequency. Unfortunately I did not save the graph of that response. However, I did record the adjustments I made:



The green trace is the best I could do by adjusting both Sub1 and Sub2 by the same amount. The Blue Trace is the additional output I got by adjusting Sub1 and Sub2 by *different* amounts. Note that I didn't lose anything below the crossover point. This the most effective setup I have found for my subs. They sound fast, tight and articulate, and it goes without saying that they dig deep and get LOUD.

Craig
Edited by craig john - 8/20/12 at 8:09pm

^ Craig, too bad you didn't calibrate and measure with the subs split across two sub channels before you altered the sub positions. Since you made two changes (position and connections), it is a little more difficult to compare the two results. Just looking at the graphs, the first one actually looks a little bit better in the low range. Of course, your ears are the final judge, and both graphs look pretty darn good.

My configuration and results are exactly like yours--three subs on two channels, with independent distance adjustments to achieve flattest response. After all, I learned this from you!

For what it's worth, I've found that fixed but different subs distances work across calibrations. My 3 subs are connected to a MiniDSP where each is set at a different distance: the ones that give the smoothest pre-calibration blend from all 3. It's a bit difficult to say with certainty but I have seen little or no improvement the few times I've tried to vary the MiniDSP distances after calibration. Varying the receiver-based distance of the 3-subs-as-one after calibration has the usual dramatic effect.

Bottom-line: sub-sub integration appears to be Audyssey independent at my place, while subs-mains integration is heavily Audyssey dependent.
Edited by ReneV - 8/20/12 at 8:55pm

Hi Jerry,

When I moved the subs, I did it so the 2 subs that were on the same sub-out would be equidistant to the LP. Also, I didn't mention it, but those two graphs are not "comparable" as the upper graph is the CC + subs and the lower graph is the L/R's + subs. I wasn't trying to show a comparison as much as I was using them to explain the results I got with different setups.

Craig

Thanks for your clarification.