or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) - Page 1101

post #33001 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

Hi Feri,
Thanks for the kind words. I can see you were not kidding when you said "seemingly broad" Although I can't share all the data, I can provide a link to Tom Holman's recent AES publication once it's up on the AES site. It will give you an idea of the findings from our measurements over the past few years. But, teaching what to listen for over the internet is going to be challenging...

Not at all Chris. Awaiting the link to Tom Holman's publication when ever available with great interest, indeed. As regards teaching what to listen for, ...as I know you're not "just" a scientist, but you're a teacher, as well, Prof, aren't you? Internet teaching IS a challange for sure, meanwhile I'm ready to sit in this cyber class in the front row with all ears open. No maths, no formulas, no equations please, just plain stuff will do. Still a challenge? Will appreciate the teaching of your "children".
post #33002 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

Yes they do.

Great...thanks Chris.

Quote:


Don't those lights rattle with all the bass floating around?

Not at all. Audyssey does a great job at taming the bass. Sometimes I increase the sub trim by 6 dB when I watch an action flick (at lower MV levels), but 99% of time I use all of the recommended settings by Audyssey Pro.

Believe it or not, with my huge, open basement (~6400 cu ft), the quad Ultras can just barely hit reference levels before distortion kicks in. Unlike some others, I prefer to listen at reference levels. If I kept the volume at -10 MV (or lower) like some others do, quad Ultras would be overkill in my setup.

By the way, XT32 in my Denon 4311 has done wonders for my front sound stage. DSX, for the most part, is awesome as well.

I look forward to what Audyssey can come up with next.
post #33003 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

I can see the resolution giving a smoother response, but why would the average response be louder?

The average response is not "louder". The average response seems the same. The high frequency response seems stronger, with more detail and resolution, but also, "louder". It seems like there is more high frequency energy than there was before, almost as if the target curve had less of a HF roll-off. If it doesn't, then the only explanation is better resolution due to the better filters in XT32.

Either way, I'm lovin' the sound of XT32. My system has never sounded better!

Craig
post #33004 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

A cheap camera tripod would work. The stool could be vibrating...

I'm actually coming from a camera tripod. I made the switch on a recommendation from craig John in a different thread. He suggested the mic boom idea. Having said that, I will try and recreate last nights test using the tripod.

Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I used pillows for over a year (before I became extremely anal ). My sub distance always came out correct. You might try some pillows on your couch just to determine if vibrations are the culprit. Just thinking out loud...

Thanks for the suggestion. I will give this a try later tonight.




Chris,

You still think the problem is with my mic setup, even though I've done 15 plus runs over the last two years without a problem? This all started with my latest sub upgrade.....hmmm.....
post #33005 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post


Believe it or not, with my huge, open basement (~6400 cu ft), the quad Ultras can just barely hit reference levels before distortion kicks in.

You need to double up.

Jeff
post #33006 of 70896
First test. I just duplicated the test from last night using a camera tripod, 7.5ft from sub. Results: 6.1ft; -3dB. There is a difference, but the actual distance is still more than the calculated.

Second test. Same position again at 7.5ft from sub. I used the makeshift stand again, but with a very soft 2" layer of wool under the mic. Results: 5.3ft; -2dB.

Last test. Back to my primary LP, 4ft from sub. Same test as before with the makeshift stand. However, this time I placed a very light layer of 1" foam under the mic. Results: 0.1ft; -5dB.



I am now convinced that the mic is not the issue here. My results seem to be repeatable, just not the results I'm looking for. I have tried everything I can possibly think of to isolate the mic better. Maybe there is some kind of incompatibility issue going on between the sub and Audyssey, or the room. I don't know...

Chris, can I go back after to set the delay for the sub channel manually and still benefit from Audyssey's correction?
post #33007 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post

I just duplicated the test from last night...

Sure you can adjust the delays manually after MultEQ is finished. It won't affect the room correction filters.
post #33008 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

Sure you can adjust the delays manually after MultEQ is finished. It won't affect the room correction filters.

Chris, I tried your suggestion about placing the mic in the palm of my hand. It actually worked quite well from 7-7.5ft away. The calculation came out to 7ft, so basically spot on. But, I can't get this method to work from my primary LP, which is only 4ft away. I'm still getting 0.1ft, and I tried it a handful of times.

So, to sum up, you were right all along. I am simply getting too much vibration. My only chance may be to somehow suspend the mic in mid-air. Sadly, I can't think of how to do this without having a string or line attached to something within the room. To say I'm a little frustrated at this point would be a huge understatement.

Anyway, thanks for all your help Chris. I'm sure you are about sick of me by now.
post #33009 of 70896
BRAC I am one who has followed your story with great interest, because my calculated sub distance is consistently about 15" shorter than measured. This is with camera tripod sitting on the soft pillowy couch as well as mic stand with boom reaching over the couch and not touching anything other than the floor 3' farther back.

My subs amp is at least 15' away in the basement and I thought maybe that was a factor, but this problem has been discussed here before. Chris has Just recommended that the distance be entered manually.

Anyhow it is always of interest to see if there is any new info on the subject. It seems like a common enough issue that somebody would figure it out (Audyssey ).
post #33010 of 70896
There might be something else at work, but BRAC's test confirms for me that isolating the mic from vibrations is very important. His step 3 at 4' is an example, IMO, that nothing can isolate a mic at such a close distance.

Jeff
post #33011 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post

My only chance may be to somehow suspend the mic in mid-air. Sadly, I can't think of how to do this without having a string or line attached to something within the room.

Try suspending the mic from some helium balloons.
post #33012 of 70896
Just completed my first XT/32 calibration with Pro on an Integra DHC 80.2. Initially, the sound is very impressive, especially in the mid/upper bass and lower midrange vs. an Integra 80.1. The Pro graphs with XT/32 are much smoother in that range, confirming what I hear. There used to be some roughly +/- 2 dB ripples in the corrected response there.

But, here is my question. The recommended crossover frequencies are now a fair bit lower in some channels than with XT/Pro. Is this normal and to be expected with XT/32?I tried to duplicate the same calibration mike positions, but this is impossible to do exactly, as we know.

If I am correct, all channels now have the same filter resolution. So, there is no longer a need to increase x-overs post calibration (to 80 Hz or so) in order to direct more output to the more linear sub channel. In XT/32, all channels now appear to be equally smooth and linear.
post #33013 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin R. Anderson View Post

Try suspending the mic from some helium balloons.

Actually, the thin membranes and trapped gas inside can resonate and throw off the readings. Use of larger, heavier balloons might be preferred. But, yes, helium is a better gas to use than hydrogen would be, as its sonic resonance characteristics are better. It's also safer than hydrogen. KA-BOOM.
post #33014 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

Just completed my first XT/32 calibration with Pro on an Integra DHC 80.2. Initially, the sound is very impressive, especially in the mid/upper bass and lower midrange vs. an Integra 80.1. The Pro graphs with XT/32 are much smoother in that range, confirming what I hear. There used to be some roughly +/- 2 dB ripples in the corrected response there.

But, here is my question. The recommended crossover frequencies are now a fair bit lower in some channels than with XT/Pro. Is this normal and to be expected with XT/32?I tried to duplicate the same calibration mike positions, but this is impossible to do exactly, as we know.

If I am correct, all channels now have the same filter resolution. So, there is no longer a need to increase x-overs post calibration (to 80 Hz or so) in order to direct more output to the more linear sub channel. In XT/32, all channels now appear to be equally smooth and linear.

Other reasons remain as to why one would use a higher crossover, but higher filter resolution on the sub channel has been dropped from the list. As to why it is recommending lowers points than XT/Pro, perhaps XT 32 is able to correct lower and make lower points viable?

Jeff
post #33015 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

It's also safer than hydrogen. KA-BOOM.

Oh, the humanity.
post #33016 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin R. Anderson View Post

Try suspending the mic from some helium balloons.

Am I totally off my rocker to even be considering this?


Has anyone else here had to go to such lengths to eliminate vibrations? I can't be the only one with a small room and nearfield placement...
post #33017 of 70896
For anyone interested in the recent Tom Holman paper entitled: "First Results from a Large-Scale Measurement Program for Home Theaters", please PM me with an email address and I will send you a copy. It's bigger than the forum limit on uploads.
post #33018 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjgarrison View Post

BRAC I am one who has followed your story with great interest, because my calculated sub distance is consistently about 15" shorter than measured. This is with camera tripod sitting on the soft pillowy couch as well as mic stand with boom reaching over the couch and not touching anything other than the floor 3' farther back.

My subs amp is at least 15' away in the basement and I thought maybe that was a factor, but this problem has been discussed here before. Chris has Just recommended that the distance be entered manually.

Anyhow it is always of interest to see if there is any new info on the subject. It seems like a common enough issue that somebody would figure it out (Audyssey ).

Can you give me some more specific details? Like, is your sub placed nearfield? How big is your room? And, what model is your sub? It may be beneficial to compare notes...


I am happy, and sad, to see that I'm not the only one having this problem. With more of us, we may be able to come up with some kind of workaround. I am very seriously considering that balloon idea.
post #33019 of 70896
"Introducing the exclusive Audyssey magnetic levitation microphone stand isolation adapter" in 3, 2, 1 ...


v/r,
C-F
post #33020 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post

Can you give me some more specific details? Like, is your sub placed nearfield? How big is your room? And, what model is your sub? It may be beneficial to compare notes...


I am happy, and sad, to see that I'm not the only one having this problem. With more of us, we may be able to come up with some kind of workaround. I am very seriously considering that balloon idea.

My room is big: 3000+ cu ft
My sub is a DIY project. Infinite baffle and it is centered right below the center speaker.
Distance to center is a little under 8 feet, and distance to the sub is just a few inches more at ~8.1 feet or so. Audyssey calculates the distance at 6.9 feet every single time I have run it and that has been a lot of times.
Like I said the interconnect to the sub's amp is 15+ feet long; same return length for the speaker cables.
post #33021 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjgarrison View Post

My room is big: 3000+ cu ft
My sub is a DIY project. Infinite baffle and it is centered right below the center speaker.
Distance to center is a little under 8 feet, and distance to the sub is just a few inches more at ~8.1 feet or so. Audyssey calculates the distance at 6.9 feet every single time I have run it and that has been a lot of times.
Like I said the interconnect to the sub's amp is 15+ feet long; same return length for the speaker cables.

No real similarities there... Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Maybe I'm just over thinking all of this. Perhaps I should just set the actual distance and be done with it.
post #33022 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRAC View Post

No real similarities there... Oh well, it was worth a shot.

Maybe I'm just over thinking all of this. Perhaps I should just set the actual distance and be done with it.

I'd re-measure with the rig that produced the least distance error and then follow up by setting it manually.
post #33023 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

For anyone interested in the recent Tom Holman paper entitled: "First Results from a Large-Scale Measurement Program for Home Theaters", please PM me with an email address and I will send you a copy. It's bigger than the forum limit on uploads.

Chris -

Thanks.

Here is a link to the Audio Engineering Society (AES) abstract for people - link:

Quote:


P27-1 First Results from a Large-Scale Measurement Program for Home Theaters
Tomlinson Holman, Ryan Green, University of Southern California - Los Angeles, CA, USA, Audyssey Laboratories, Los Angeles, CA, USA

The introduction of one auto-equalization system to the home theater market with an accompanying reporting infrastructure provides methods of data collection that allows research into many practical system installations. Among the results delivered are histograms of room volume, reverberation time vs. volume and frequency, early arrival sound frequency response both equalized and unequalized, and steady-state frequency response both equalized and unequalized. The variation in response over the listening area is studied as well and sheds light on contemporary use of the Schroeder frequency.
Convention Paper 8310
post #33024 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I'd re-measure with the rig that produced the least distance error and then follow up by setting it manually.

That is exactly what I had in mind.
post #33025 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

Just completed my first XT/32 calibration with Pro on an Integra DHC 80.2. Initially, the sound is very impressive, especially in the mid/upper bass and lower midrange vs. an Integra 80.1. The Pro graphs with XT/32 are much smoother in that range, confirming what I hear. There used to be some roughly +/- 2 dB ripples in the corrected response there.

But, here is my question. The recommended crossover frequencies are now a fair bit lower in some channels than with XT/Pro. Is this normal and to be expected with XT/32?I tried to duplicate the same calibration mike positions, but this is impossible to do exactly, as we know.

If I am correct, all channels now have the same filter resolution. So, there is no longer a need to increase x-overs post calibration (to 80 Hz or so) in order to direct more output to the more linear sub channel. In XT/32, all channels now appear to be equally smooth and linear.

I've also done a MultEQ Pro calibration on MultEQ XT32 on a Denon 4311 and I have experienced exactly the same thing. The xovers were a lot lower.

I went through the same line of reasoning that you had (same filter resolution for satellite speakers and subs) and tried out the lower crossovers. Right now, however, I've gone back to the higher crossovers (80 Hz, as opposed to 40 Hz) because it seems to sound better.


Mark
post #33026 of 70896
Good morning all:

I've had this problem before and never got a "satisfying" answer (lol, not that one necessarily exists) so I just waited to upgrade my AVR and lo and behold, it's reared its ugly coconut again.

First let's understand these items:

1. I've owned and used the identical 7 Channel 200 WPC Sherbourn external amplifier through all (4) Audyssey-equipped AVRs.

2. I've owned and used the identical Def Tec 7 channeld array of loudspeakers throughout: BP 2000 mains, CLR 3000, SM 450 (rears), UIW 65's (sur)... and just recently added a pair of BP 20s for wides.

ALL utilize the same 6 1/2 mids and identical tweeter...the 2000's and 3000 have powered subs, in addition. All are rated 91-92 sens, 1 W, 1M.

All loudspeakers have remain indentically arranged in the identical room.

NOW:

My XT-equipped Denon 3808 and Onkyo 805 set all trim levels post calib from -3 to to -8/9.

Every time, over 2 1/2 years.

Then I got a Denon 3310 with JUST MultEQ, lol (actually thought that ((XT vs reg)) MAY have been the issue after racking my brain for other solutions). Yep, I was THAT stumped.

All was well except that the center was always pegged at the max -12 point. In the past, no speaker was more than -8/9, as mentioned.

I switched it (center) with the left and right outputs...same outcome (center was louder irre of where it was terminated). Distance to the main LP is 8-9 ft for all three LCR. If it means anything, the tones during calib ALWAYS sounded louder with the center.

Please keep in mind that this never occured before with everything else as identical as possible.

I gave up after awhile and figured I'd just wait for my 4311 with XT 32 and see what transpires.

4311 is here, same problem...but now my rears are ALSO pegged at the max -12...though those are pretty close at about 4', all 3 former AVRs had them at -9...maybe -10 once.

What freakin gives here?

Should I somehow conclude something has gone awry with 3 speakers, or that they have became magically more sensitive the instant I bought a new AVR?

The external amp has no gain controls...again, it always worked fine with the 805 and 3808.

I considered the pre amp output voltage of the AVRs, but all 4 units seem to be right ~ 1.2 Vs.

2 worked so to speak, 2 do not.

Audyssey mic inaccuracies?

I'm all ears...eyes...whatever gang.

Oh, and last, what's with the big volume cut when I engage DSX, irrespective of source?

Blu ray playback is more than loud enough at -10 normally, but yesterday I had a half dozen people complaining they were having a hard time hearing much until I got to ~ 0 dbs. Usually this would be all but insufferably loud in my living room. Switching DSX OFF of coursed induced blast-city.

The volume difference is shocking.

This occurs with 2 channel music, directv, and bds.

Just odd stuff.

Help would be appreciated.

Thanks,
James
post #33027 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

My XT-equipped Denon 3808 and Onkyo 805 set all trim levels post calib from -3 to to -8/9.

In that gear, MultEQ XT was setting the levels so that the speakers are all equal to each other. But, it wasn't setting absolute reference level. That started later when Dynamic EQ was introduced. So, it's expected that there would be differences in trim settings when you changed gear.


Quote:


Oh, and last, what's with the big volume cut when I engage DSX, irrespective of source?

Blu ray playback is more than loud enough at -10 normally, but yesterday I had a half dozen people complaining they were having a hard time hearing much until I got to ~ 0 dbs. Usually this would be all but insufferably loud in my living room. Switching DSX OFF of coursed induced blast-city.

The volume difference is shocking.

This occurs with 2 channel music, directv, and bds.

Just odd stuff.

It sounds like you are describing Dynamic Volume and not DSX. DSX has nothing to do with volume. It requires additional Wide and Height speakers to expand the surround stage. If you are, indeed, talking about Dynamic Volume then that is exactly what it's designed to do: It keeps dialog at the level you selected with the master volume and then makes sure that nothing gets too loud. There are three settings (Day, Evening, Midnight) that increasingly control the dynamic range. It is intended to be used when you don't want things to get too loud, but still maintain a usable dynamic range without missing out on the softer content.
post #33028 of 70896
Ok, while I'm still frustrated that 3 of my 9 speakers are at the max cut and therefore prolly not calibrated correctly, I'll live I suppose.

Moving on, I understand DSX and Dyn EQ/Vol perfectly...at least from a purpose standpoint, lol.

Honestly, I'm not crazy about Dyn EQ (just adds too much bass in my opinion, I realize others righfully like it) and have no use for dyn volume...commercials and other dynamic content is ok for me.

What I am saying is that when DSX is engaged (as opposed to just 5.1 or 5.1 + PL IIx) the overall volume decreases. Again Dyn Vol and Dyn EQ are off.

I can understand your (mis)interpretation...like I said, this was odd!

I'm now watching war of the worlds and the vol difference doesn't seem to be rearing it's head switching between DSX and just PLIIx.

I know how this sounds, but please trust I'm speaking of DSX, not Vol or EQ.

Ill experiment some more.

Thanks!

James
post #33029 of 70896
BTW, I'd like to add that XT32 has helped put the most controlled powerful bass my Def Tec Trinity and living room has ever seen, I mean FELT!!

Thanks for a great product.
James
post #33030 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audyssey View Post

In that gear, MultEQ XT was setting the levels so that the speakers are all equal to each other. But, it wasn't setting absolute reference level. That started later when Dynamic EQ was introduced. So, it's expected that there would be differences in trim settings when you changed gear.

Speaking of the 3808... Does it set for absolute reference level after doing the Dynamic EQ upgrade?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)