"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #1) - Page 2014

 

So am I but I am crossing over at 100Hz too - on the suggestion of Mark Seaton. Definite improvement to my ears by handing over more to the subs. Mark has set up a few M&K S150s and he says he invariably finds they work better at 100Hz or even 110Hz XO. Usual reasons I guess, although I am not short of amp power or headroom.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/60360#post_23039136

I have a question about CLIPPING, and don't know if audyssey has anything to do with it. So I know audyssey sets 75db as reference, and that would be 0 on the dial. What about above 0? Does audyssey set max volume before it starts to clip? I have a onkyo 3009 and max volume is +18, I've gone as high as +10 with no signs of distortion. Just wondering if I can safely go higher with out damaging my speakers. Is it a avr thing or a audyssey thing?

P.S. I'm running external amps. Pair of XPA 1's and a XPA 3

Ivan thinks it has to do with room issues. He came over and tried running Audyssey too and we kept getting 110hz. The center speaker though was set to 80hz after Audy reported the F3. My previous speakers, RC-10s, were set to 60hz by Audy. Same spot as current speakers

I've had the same issue with my speakers, xover was being set to 120 hz, likely due to room issues... Not much one can do about it unfortunately. Setup still sounds good.

The mic was likely not at tweeter height for the centre speaker. The next time you re-cal, try placing the mic a little lower or higher, so that it is not at tweeter height for your L/R speakers. Carl did that and his crossovers came down from the 120-150 Hz range to the 80-100 Hz range.

Guess it depends on which does a better job of reproducing the 80-100 Hz range: the M&K speakers or the Seaton subs. In this case I'm guessing it's the latter.

Right on the bat I definitely will have to try that this week! Thanks!

Also here's a Q, would having multiple subs allow for people to set their crossovers higher?

Sounds like someone needs to host an Audyssey Intervention GTG .

I EQd my Denon 4310 system, first with the SVS AS-EQ1 and then with the MultiEQ XT in the AVR. So if I had the subwoofer volume set properly with the SVS unit, then why would the Audyssey software in the AVR tell me it was too soft by several dB? I did turn up the subwoofer's own volume control until the AVR said it was right, and it did sound right when I was done. Despite complaints about my choice of adjectives:), I did post that the result was a dramatic improvement over my previous calibration, and I still thinks so.

I can eliminate several possible factors:

1. Dynamic EQ was turned off in the AVR during the entire calibration process.

2. Both systems measure the subwoofer level from the first listening position, and this position was the same (as close as I could make it using a mic stand) for both calibration runs.

3. I used the correct Audyssey mic for each calibration.

4. There was no appreciable background noise at any time (I live on a quiet street, it was Sunday morning to boot, and there were no motors or furnaces or fans running anywhere).

What am I missing?

I have a Denon 1613 and after it got done with the 6 spots for the mic the next window had two bars one said analyzing and I forget what the other said. While it was filling the first bar i noticed it said "remove the mic now" on the bottom of the screen so I walked over and removed it. As soon as I did it went to the next sceen about setting up the network. Did it have a chance to set up correctly or did removing the mic screw thigns up. Thanks.

Not in my experience, unless the sub is somehow deficient at upper bass frequencies (above 100Hz), in which case using multiples of that sub will give you the SPL you need. If you are talking about directionality, then raising the crossover into the bottom end of male vocals will still be problematic: instead of appearing to come from a different direction than your centre speaker (when using a single sub) it will appear to come from all around you (when using multiple subs).

Hello Dahlyn-in general, with Audyssey programs, requiring six positions, or more, there are two main steps after the mic positions have been completed: analyzing and storing-do these ring a bell? The analyzing stage will require you to depress "enter" to complete this program. At the end of the analysis, the results will be available for you to view ie: speaker configuration and size, speaker distance, speaker levels, speaker crossover frequencies. The next "bar" would be "store results": if you hit enter, than the parameters you just reviewed, would be stored and now the Audyssey setting would be operational for the six position setup you just performed.

Yup, otherwise it would not have directed you to remove the mic.

Hmm also the reason I'm hesitant to lower the mic anymore is because my couch backing would get in the way

What speakers are you running?

Your explanation of Reference level calibration is inaccurate.

Audyssey uses a 75db test tone to measure the SPL at the MLP, and adjust the trims accordingly to reproduce THX Reference levels. It doesn't "set 75db as Reference".

THX specs call for each satellite channel to be able to reproduce a maximum SPL of 105db and the LFE channel a max of 115db. Meaning when the Main Volume is set to '0', the loudest SPL each of the LCR and surrounds can individually produce at the MLP is 105db, and 115db for the LFE channel. Of course, the audio mixer might not EVER mix ANYTHING in a particular movie anywhere close to that loud.

Now that said, bear in mind, if you happen to have Dynamic Volume On, that acts as compression. It limits dynamics and how loud things can get.

Also, obviously, if you're watching a very quiet movie at +10db, they may be talking louder, but there may not be any really loud material.

Now if you have efficient sensitive speakers, powered by XPA-1's, with Dynamic Volume and/or any other type of compression setting set to OFF, including Dynamic EQ and you can STILL listen to say, the train crash in Super 8 or the pod emergence in War of The Worlds at +10db without distortion or clipping, the good news is, you've got some incredible speakers (+10db is perceptually twice as loud, but takes 10x the watts to produce). The bad news is, you're probably stone deaf.

For what it's worth, if the speakers are about 10 feet away, they'd need to be 98db/w/m with a power handling of 500watts or 100db/w/m with a power handling capacity of 300watts, or even higher sensitivity to have a chance of playing real 115db peaks at the MLP without distortion or clipping. With the THX specs and the summed speaker response, it's possible to hit 125db peaks with all speakers and subs blasting away on a LOUD soundtrack (the train crash in Skyfall is close IIRC). +10db for 135db peaks = permanent hearing damage, so my guess is Dynamic Volume or some other compression is active.


Max

Sure, but what Mark said and Roger measured may or may not be what is occurring with CheYC. Until there are measurements, we are all only speculating.

Well, the others that have had the same issue also have somwhat similar sub systems that I guess are a little unconventional in most cases. I run 8 18" sealed subs, DIY style. As I said, they measure well, and I like Audyssey's calibration for the most part, so I guess what I need to do is get the DCX back in the chain where I can cut the input sensitivity to the amp a shade and then that should fix everything


Thanks!! No I am in a concrete bunker, so the tripod shouldnt be moving a whole lot. I will try some other orientations though

 

I wasn't really referencing CheYC - just saying what I had found in my own experience when comparing the two. Roger did measure, and posted the results and there is a clear difference to be seen in his graphs. There will be numerous other factors to bring into play though - the quality of the subs, the way they interact with the room and so on. I think it's safe to assume that Roger has good quality subs, properly set up, in a well treated room, with minimal or no ringing etc... not many of us can say the same, so we may perceive the difference to be greater, or less, better, or worse, than Roger (and Mark) found. It's not worth arguing over IMO because, as you said yourself, it is number 89,836 on the list of 89,837 things to do...

I don't doubt Mark or Roger, but someone new observing, without measuring, that changing the LPF on LFE made a "profound" difference in the way the system sounded doesn't cause me to automatically think of Mark/Roger. My first thought is that moving the LPF from 120Hz to 80Hz on LoTR TT epic battle scene and hearing tighter bass means ... well, I'd love to see a waterfall of the space.

Jeff

 

I concur. The difference is not 'profound' IME and IMO but it is discernible. You have Total Recall (2012) I believe - play the first couple of minutes of it with the LPF in both modes and see what you find. If you have Taken, try the scene where Mills is in the brothel on the construction site looking for his daughter - especially the gunshots when he is discovered causing mayhem, and the gunshots when he returns fire. You won’t actually hear the difference there as 'tighter' because the bass is darn tight anyway in that movie, but you will hear a clear difference. Similarly, in the same chapter when the oil drums explode.The shotgun scenes with the old lady in Ratatouille also reveal the difference fairly well, as does the scene where the ceiling falls in at the end of that section. And of course the thunderclap when Remy is smoking his mushroom (LOL - these rats eh?) on the roof.

I remember this coming up for discussion in the context of sloppy engineering on 5.1 music mixes - obvious extraneous noises, garbage and non-instrument sounds, weren't they? Where did it expand to include movies, and what evidence do we have that what is "wrong" is fixed with 80Hz LPF? I was onboard with changing it for music. Or rather I understand it being changed though I've never heard the crap and don't plan on changing the setting in my system.

Why are we talking about filtering out the contents of movies in the LFE channel between 80-120 Hz when we all know that this range is there intentionally, while all contents in the LFE track above 120 Hz are filtered out during recording/mastering/encoding.

I have to agree with Jeff that a waterfall of the room may need a close scrutiny once "profound" differences are experienced in this tiny 1/2 octave range.

 

I think you'd have to ask Roger and Mark that, Jeff. They are both of the view that 80Hz LPF of LFE makes for 'less boominess' in the bass. If you follow the links in my FAQ answer, they give their reasons there.

 

Roger Dressler, perhaps the most authoritative source on AVS, opines that some mixers will apply an artificial boost in the 80Hz to 120Hz region to compensate for less than brilliant sound systems "less than magnificent subwoofers" in typical movie theatres. He goes on to say that this tends to create a 'boominess' that can be removed by changing the LPF of LEF to 80hz. 

 

IOW, just because it is there intentionally doesn't mean that it is right.

 

If you follow the links in my FAQ answer, Roger and Mark can explain it to you themselves ;) 

 

Edited because some members feel that my paraphrasing of Roger's words was misleading. 

Edited by kbarnes701 - 3/6/13 at 3:49am

 

Neither Roger nor Mark (nor me for that matter) said the differences are profound. They are subtle but audible (from my own tests). Instead of speculating on Roger's and Mark's reasoning, why not just go to the links provided and see what they have to say. Neither of them is known for being lacking in knowledge of bass management. 

Alrighty, I am now up to speed on setting the LPF from 120Hz to 80Hz issue as Mark and Roger see it. I doubt that I'll ever take the time to try it. "Some mixers" doesn't even come close to being a compelling reason to fiddle with it, IMO.

I have to admit that I personally have never noticed extraneous sounds in the LFE channel. Can anyone provide an example?

Apparently, the lossless LFE channel is functionally capable of carrying full-bandwidth audio, unlike the limited bandwidth LFE channel used by the lossy encodings. Imposing a 120Hz low pass filter to the LFE channel is an option in Dolby's lossless encoding software that could easily be overlooked by the person doing the mixing. I came across a description of that feature in Dolby's software documentation when looking up information on the upsampling features that Dolby announced a few months ago. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's optional in the DTS encoder, too.

See Dolby TrueHD pdf

OK, ...so..., um,... what is the meaning of "less than brilliant"? How brilliant should a sound system be? Do we need to apply "Fuzzy Logic" to solve the problem?

 

Why are you asking me?  Ask Roger Dressler - I am sure he will be happy to explain what he meant. The links are in the FAQ.