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 1921

post #57601 of 70896
Read the guide, but not seeing what the optimal distance is for 2eq mic locations. Do I want the 2nd and 3rd to be just outside the listeners (outside) ear or dead center of the head? What is the optimal min and max distance away from the 1st mic position for 2nd and 3rd as well?
post #57602 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by porschedrifter View Post

Read the guide, but not seeing what the optimal distance is for 2eq mic locations. Do I want the 2nd and 3rd to be just outside the listeners (outside) ear or dead center of the head? What is the optimal min and max distance away from the 1st mic position for 2nd and 3rd as well?

 

This should answer it for you:

 

d)3.   Where should I position the mic for best results?

post #57603 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_mike View Post

You will need to do a full Audyssey setup once you have the sub setup correctly, but to get the sub level right just run a minimum position setup and check the levels that get set - then do the full setup once.

Thanks Mike. Just want to make sure I get this right...

TO do what you suggest do I run step one and then Cancel out of the auto calibration? At that point will I be able to check the levels again? Or if I cancel does it not reset them? Im not sure what you mean by "run a minimum position setup"...
post #57604 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


He was answering the question "why not have two different settings - one for multiple listeners and one for a single listener?". The answer was that there's no point because when you measure for multiple listeners it also gives the best result for a single listener. IOW, follow their advice, which has not changed since Audyssey was launched, that the best practice is to measure multiple locations in the room, and not cluster around the MLP if there is only one listener. Doesn’t seem to be any room for interpretation there.

Sure there is. Multiple locations = multiple locations. The mic locations are simply providing data points for the fuzziness to do its work. As long as the user provides a reasonable mix of locations, the system is happy. Heck, look at the recommended mic placement from your FAQ - IIRC, only 3 of the 8 placements are actually in a listening location.

My point was that the article isn't a setup guide. Nowhere does it specifically discuss how to setup Audyssey in a given room. It speaks in general terms about the evolution of the system, and how, because of their fuzzy logic implementation, multiple locations around the room provide the best result. Making mic placement a dogma, when we all know the variability of response form a small change in mic placement doesn't make any sense.

If a user thinks about how Audyssey works, thinks about their room and listening habits, a reasonable mic pattern should emerge. Maybe it's spread all over the place, maybe it's tight around the MLP, but in either case, it's getting multiple inputs to do its thing. Taking a tight placement to extremes would be just as dumb as taking a 'room" placement to extremes, so as long as you're sane about it, no worries.
post #57605 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

I didn't take it like you seem to have at all. It's interesting that he says improving the room also improves the MLP. Good. Didn't see anything about mic location except where he uses "seat" as description of mic placement.
What he's talking about is the logic of the system, using multiple mic placements to arrive at a single solution. So, you routinely have multiple listeners, you spread out the mics. You routinely don't, then you tighten them up. The system in either case gets several inputs which it goes fuzzy on.
The article was written at the very beginning of Audyssey as we know it, then edited a few years later. An interesting historical document, and worth the read, but hardly a definitive piece on how to do it.

I missed the part where there was one tighter pattern - around the "audiophile's" seat - and another pattern to use if there are multiple listeners. In fact, what I read is exactly the opposite. Otherwise, they'd have gone with two settings ....

Should I go back and read it again? Or can you quote the part that supports your position? I might have missed it ... Or perhaps you read the same thing I did and simply have a different interpretation? Or maybe, in spite of what the inventors say, you simply prefer to do it your way? No problem if that's the case, but don't put YOUR words in THEIR mouths.

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 11/18/12 at 12:46pm
post #57606 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

JD and batpig are the Denon authorities (I am in the Onkyo camp) so take their word rather than mine (and Audyssey's website too TBH). If I have got it wrong in my chart, I will correct it asap - and thanks for pointing it out. JD, batpig???

There's no question that XT32 on its own is better than XT with Pro.

There's even a FAQ for it smile.gif

a)9.   Which is best - XT plus a Pro Kit, or XT32 on its own?



EDIT:

The FAQ answer does list the 3808, 4308, 4810 and 4310 as being Pro kit installer ready. But not the 3811.

Anyone able to confirm if the 3811 is Pro-ready?

Thank you. I'm blind and didn't realize the second column didn't mean it couldn't have Pro. Your work here with this particular topic is good enough for me, thanks again.

On the other topic of XT/Pro vs XT32, I now sort of remember that a primary complaint with non pro calibrations is the midrange bump (if I'm not mistaken; is that what happens?), whereas this can be dialed out with the Pro version. So tell me if my impression is way off here, but in such a case the XT-Pro IS better than XT32 . . . ?
post #57607 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jostenmeat View Post

Thank you. I'm blind and didn't realize the second column didn't mean it couldn't have Pro. Your work here with this particular topic is good enough for me, thanks again.
On the other topic of XT/Pro vs XT32, I now sort of remember that a primary complaint with non pro calibrations is the midrange bump (if I'm not mistaken; is that what happens?), whereas this can be dialed out with the Pro version. So tell me if my impression is way off here, but in such a case the XT-Pro IS better than XT32 . . . ?

The "midrange compensation" (it's a dip, not a bump) can be de-selected in Pro, but some/many have found that it is preferable to leave it in when ... they cross that bridge. And that includes me who thought "well ... MY speakers won't need that" ... I was very wrong. Five seconds of Chaka Khan made it (painfully) obvious.

Pro/XT is better than XT. XT 32 is better than Pro/XT. Pro/XT 32 is better .
post #57608 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Interesting isn’t it?  There's stuff in there that I haven't seen explicitly mentioned before - maybe they were more forthcoming way back in 2007 when they were keen to get their product onto the market. I thought that comment about all the AVR manufacturers wanting two settings was interesting - one for a single listener and one for multiple listeners - and TH's response that they didn't ever do this because they had found that by improving the response for multiple listeners it also gave the best for a single listener anyway. Lots of other good stuff there too - a worthwhile read for any Audysseyholic.

I did think of you - and all of the others who think they need to tighten up the measurement pattern - when I read that. I doubt that Tomlinson's reply will dissuade anyone though. wink.gif I think Audyssey caved on it because those who bought into the other research that went into MultEQ didn't buy into that part - and they didn't want to alienate customers.

Forgive me if you had already posted on it, but did you percei
ve an improvement in the MLP by narrowing the pattern?

Jeff
My personal take on it:
Despite what Tom H said about EQ'ing the room vs for a single seat, if you read the way the clustering algorithm works, you understand that the wider the variances between measurements, the more the results will have to be a compromise, whereas the more consistent the measurements, the simpler and more precise the correction will be (for one FR curve).

As with Keith, I personally thought that the narrow cluster did improve the sound at my MLP, but of course, I had no way to quickly a/b the two, so auditory memory comes into play. The other factor at play though is familiarity with Harman's How To Listen program and I thought the narrow cluster sounded smoother. This as it turns out, was borne and confirmed with REW measurements. The narrow cluster showed a smoother, flatter FR with measurements using the REW mic within a 1' circle. Since I don't sway like Stevie Wonder while watching movies, or rock back and forth like a mental patient, I didn't feel a need to take REW measurements outside the 1' circle.

After confirming that a narrow Audyssey pattern produced a flatter FR at my MLP, I proceeded to see what pattern was optimal and how few measurements I could use to produce optimal results. I tried narrowing it down to 3 measurements and at first, tried a triangle with the 1st measurement located where the middle of my head would be.

I wound up with a very simple pattern in my room. 3 measurements, the first being approximately between my ears in my normal seating position, the 2nd taken 9-10" forward of that and the 3rd, 2" back from the 1st, all in a straight line at the same height. In my room, this calibration procedure produces a flatter FR than the wider Audyssey recommended pattern with 8 measurements, when measured with REW at position 1, as well as 6" to the left, right and forward of position 1.

Would I recommend my Audyssey calibration procedure to anyone else? An emphatic "NO, not unless you have measurement equipment to determine the results". For folks without independent measurement capability, stick to the standard recommendations.

For me, I get better results at the MLP 'in my room with my setup' AND, recalibrating for whatever reason (setup changes) is much faster.


Max
Edited by djbluemax1 - 11/18/12 at 2:29pm
post #57609 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

The "midrange compensation" (it's a dip, not a bump) can be de-selected in Pro, but some/many have found that it is preferable to leave it in when ... they cross that bridge. And that includes me who thought "well ... MY speakers won't need that" ... I was very wrong. Five seconds of Chaka Khan made it (painfully) obvious.
Pro/XT is better than XT. XT 32 is better than Pro/XT. Pro/XT 32 is better .

Ah, so it is a notch, okay I wasn't remembering correctly. Thanks for your confirmation on the advice I was given! To be honest, I'm happy with what XT does for my system, notch or no notch. I will only consider XT32 if and when I upgrade, thanks again, and keep up the good work everyone.
post #57610 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

My personal take on it:
Despite what Tom H said about EQ'ing the room vs for a single seat, if you read the way the clustering algorithm works, you understand that the wider the variances between measurements, the more the results will have to be a compromise, whereas the more consistent the measurements, the simpler and more precise the correction will be (for one FR curve).
As with Keith, I personally thought that the narrow cluster did improve the sound at my MLP, but of course, I had no way to quickly a/b the two, so auditory memory comes into play. The other factor at play though is familiarity with Harman's How To Listen program and I thought the narrow cluster sounded smoother. This as it turns out, was borne and confirmed with REW measurements. The narrow cluster showed a smoother, flatter FR with measurements using the REW mic within a 1' circle. Since I don't sway like Stevie Wonder while watching movies, or rock back and forth like a mental patient, I didn't feel a need to take REW measurements outside the 1' circle.
After confirming that a narrow Audyssey pattern produced a flatter FR at my MLP, I proceeded to see what pattern was optimal and how few measurements I could use to produce optimal results. I tried narrowing it down to 3 measurements and at first, tried a triangle with the 1st measurement located where the middle of my head would be.
I wound up with a very simple pattern in my room. 3 measurements, the first being approximately between my ears in my normal seating position, the 2nd taken 9-10" forward of that and the 3rd, 2" back from the 1st, all in a straight line at the same height. In my room, this calibration procedure produces a flatter FR than the wider Audyssey recommended pattern with 8 measurements, when measured with REW at position 1, as well as 6" to the left, right and forward of position 1.
Would I recommend my Audyssey calibration procedure to anyone else? An emphatic "NO, not unless you have measurement equipment to determine the results". For folks without independent measurement capability, stick to the standard recommendations.
For me, I get better results at the MLP 'in my room with my setup' AND, recalibrating for whatever reason (setup changes) is much faster.
Max

I was taking exception to the other member saying TH's comments were something other than what they were whereas your take is "despite" ... and then you cite your experience. Your experience is simply at odds with Holman's position; you aren't claiming he agrees with you.
post #57611 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jostenmeat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

JD and batpig are the Denon authorities (I am in the Onkyo camp) so take their word rather than mine (and Audyssey's website too TBH). If I have got it wrong in my chart, I will correct it asap - and thanks for pointing it out. JD, batpig???

There's no question that XT32 on its own is better than XT with Pro.

There's even a FAQ for it smile.gif

a)9.   Which is best - XT plus a Pro Kit, or XT32 on its own?



EDIT:

The FAQ answer does list the 3808, 4308, 4810 and 4310 as being Pro kit installer ready. But not the 3811.

Anyone able to confirm if the 3811 is Pro-ready?

Thank you. I'm blind and didn't realize the second column didn't mean it couldn't have Pro. Your work here with this particular topic is good enough for me, thanks again.

On the other topic of XT/Pro vs XT32, I now sort of remember that a primary complaint with non pro calibrations is the midrange bump (if I'm not mistaken; is that what happens?), whereas this can be dialed out with the Pro version. So tell me if my impression is way off here, but in such a case the XT-Pro IS better than XT32 . . . ?

 

Mid range compensation... it can't be tweaked out on MultEQ, but it can be turned off or tweaked to your liking with Pro. HST, almost everyone says when they have tried it both ways, it sounds best when left on. But regardless, XT+Pro is still inferior to XT32 alone simple because of the vastly improved filter resolution of XT32.

 

EDIT: Jeff beat me to it. He's quick on the draw is Jeff :)

post #57612 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

My personal take on it:
Despite what Tom H said about EQ'ing the room vs for a single seat, if you read the way the clustering algorithm works, you understand that the wider the variances between measurements, the more the results will have to be a compromise, whereas the more consistent the measurements, the simpler and more precise the correction will be (for one FR curve).

As with Keith, I personally thought that the narrow cluster did improve the sound at my MLP, but of course, I had no way to quickly a/b the two, so auditory memory comes into play. The other factor at play though is familiarity with Harman's How To Listen program and I thought the narrow cluster sounded smoother. This as it turns out, was borne and confirmed with REW measurements. The narrow cluster showed a smoother, flatter FR with measurements using the REW mic within a 1' circle. Since I don't sway like Stevie Wonder while watching movies, or rock back and forth like a mental patient, I didn't feel a need to take REW measurements outside the 1' circle.

After confirming that a narrow Audyssey pattern produced a flatter FR at my MLP, I proceeded to see what pattern was optimal and how few measurements I could use to produce optimal results. I tried narrowing it down to 3 measurements and at first, tried a triangle with the 1st measurement located where the middle of my head would be.

I wound up with a very simple pattern in my room. 3 measurements, the first being approximately between my ears in my normal seating position, the 2nd taken 9-10" forward of that and the 3rd, 2" back from the 1st, all in a straight line at the same height. In my room, this calibration procedure produces a flatter FR than the wider Audyssey recommended pattern with 8 measurements, when measured with REW at position 1, as well as 6" to the left, right and forward of position 1.

Would I recommend my Audyssey calibration procedure to anyone else? An emphatic "NO, not unless you have measurement equipment to determine the results". For folks without independent measurement capability, stick to the standard recommendations.

For me, I get better results at the MLP 'in my room with my setup' AND, recalibrating for whatever reason (setup changes) is much faster.


Max

 

Wow - that is WAY tighter than the 'tight' pattern I was (am) using. I think I remember now that you have posted it before though. I may give that a try, especially as it will be very quick to do - just for grins. And I can measure the result with my OmniMic nowadays and see how it compares with the 'recommended' pattern I intend to use since reading the TH article. I suspect I will be doing quite a bit of measuring over the next week or so when my F2s arrive. Sorry Jerry , for one reason or another :)

post #57613 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I missed the part where there was one tighter pattern - around the "audiophile's" seat - and another pattern to use if there are multiple listeners. In fact, what I read is exactly the opposite. Otherwise, they'd have gone with two settings ....
Should I go back and read it again? Or can you quote the part that supports your position? I might have missed it ... Or perhaps you read the same thing I did and simply have a different interpretation? Or maybe, in spite of what the inventors say, you simply prefer to do it your way? No problem if that's the case, but don't put YOUR words in THEIR mouths.
Jeff
My position is that this is a historical document, not a setup guide. It therefore is open to interpretation, which we both are doing. The difference seems to be that you insist that yours is the only correct one, which is silly.

There are plenty of actual setup recommendations available from the mouth of Chris, and he often tells people to tighten up the mic placement, and he also makes clear that the point is to give Audyssey multiple inputs from various points about the room. Their basic setup guide says to start at the MLP and work outward. It also says to focus on the main listening area.

What I'm saying is if you consider those two points - focus on main listening area, and give Audyssey the variation it needs to do its thing, a reasonable user can see that mic placement could vary between a multiple user setup and s single user setup, and still satisfy the prerequisites of a proper setup.
post #57614 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

There are plenty of actual setup recommendations available from the mouth of Chris, and he often tells people to tighten up the mic placement, and he also makes clear that the point is to give Audyssey multiple inputs from various points about the room.

Not only that but when he was here he would say the 2 or 3 mic position measurements mentioned would "guarantee" bad sound. In fact IIRC he has. You also have to wonder what it does wrt the time domain part of the algorithm - I bet nothing good.
post #57615 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

My position is that this is a historical document, not a setup guide. It therefore is open to interpretation, which we both are doing. The difference seems to be that you insist that yours is the only correct one, which is silly.
There are plenty of actual setup recommendations available from the mouth of Chris, and he often tells people to tighten up the mic placement, and he also makes clear that the point is to give Audyssey multiple inputs from various points about the room. Their basic setup guide says to start at the MLP and work outward. It also says to focus on the main listening area.
What I'm saying is if you consider those two points - focus on main listening area, and give Audyssey the variation it needs to do its thing, a reasonable user can see that mic placement could vary between a multiple user setup and s single user setup, and still satisfy the prerequisites of a proper setup.

If you want to disagree with what the "historical document" says because you want to do it differentlly and you are achieving your desired result, that is fine. You are solid ground. My issue is with you somehow "re-interpreting" TH's statements.
post #57616 of 70896
One of the comments in that interview that I found amusing though, was when Tom mentions that there are some things you can't electronically correct "like first reflections". Something that's also confirmed (at least for Audyssey) by independent measurements.


Max
post #57617 of 70896
Hi Jeff,
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I did think of you - and all of the others who think they need to tighten up the measurement pattern - when I read that. I doubt that Tomlinson's reply will dissuade anyone though. wink.gif I think Audyssey caved on it because those who bought into the other research that went into MultEQ didn't buy into that part - and they didn't want to alienate customers.
Forgive me if you had already posted on it, but did you perceive an improvement in the MLP by narrowing the pattern?
Jeff
I don't know if I'm one of the "others" you thought about, smile.gif but I recently re-ran Audyssey and tightened up my mic placements clustered more closely around the primary LP. I posted diagrams of my old and new mic patterns, the resultant FR measurements and my listening impressions here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1349395/craig-johns-theater/210#post_22428636 I think my "new" mic pattern provides the system with good info about the "space" while prioritizing the primary LP. Reading this part of the interview I think reinforces that my new mic pattern is a viable approach:
Quote:
Chris takes over, "So part 1 was, we knew if you EQ for the single sweet spot then every other position would suffer from much poorer frequency response. (And that was one of the reasons for the bad name 1/3 rd octave equalizers were given.-Tom) Initially Denon and every other potential customer thought 'let's have two modes'. One for a sole listener and one for when you have several listeners in a room. Well, it turns out if you EQ a whole room the audiophile seat gets better. If you take more of the problems of the room into account you're fixing a bigger area than just the audiophile seat so there's no need for two modes."

Chris continues, "The approach other people have taken is to throw DSP at it. There are room correction units on the market that do just that. They can do 8000-tap FIRs and you need 3 DSPs per channel. But if you want to be in a consumer product you have to make some computing decisions. So that was the thinking that went into Audyssey's Dynamic Frequency Allocation.

I then asked "Does it give the same response at each listening location? How is it possible, for instance, if you have a standard D'Apollito-style center channel which is known to have a lobe which points mostly toward the audiophile seat." Chris responds, "By measuring the response at different locations we use a fuzzy-logic based clustering approach which, after computation, makes the sound at the audiophile seat better. The average assigns equal importance to each seat, an importance of 1. Now by applying a weighting factor automatically we use an approach based on pattern recognition. It doesn't have anything to do with what we know about acoustics," Chris stresses. "This is the leap of faith. It is the first application of fuzzy logic that I know of in audio."

"If we were to treat the time domain version of these responses and say which of the criteria are closer to each other as far as pattern similarity, then I find for instance that seats 1, 3 and 5 in the room are "clustered" as far as similarity, seat 2 is by itself and seats 2 and 4 are similarly grouped together."

I interject and ask if the sound the system is reading is mainly direct sound and first order reflections and the answer was "No". "The response that we're taking is quite long. It's 8000 samples over 200 milliseconds. If you look at the time response, it has a pattern. But if the seats have similar problems, they will fall into similar clusters as set up by our pattern recognition method. Where it gets fuzzy is that a particular seat can belong to more than one cluster. In other words, what it says is that based on our theory that seat #2 has 80% of the characteristics of seat #3 but 20% of the characteristics of seat #1. So there are no hard boundaries."

"So now we have six responses which we've clustered into 3 groups. From each response we elect a representative of the cluster. It's not any one (exactly within the cluster), it's one that represents each one in the cluster in the optimal way. That's called a cluster centroid. So now, of the 3 clusters you have, you have 3 representative responses. So you do it again until you finally end up with the "President response" which represents the constituent responses in the optimal way. So the final representative response is the one we take and invert. When we invert we are inverting proportionally and non-linearly."

I think it's important to note that Chris said that EQ'ing for the whole space makes the primary seat "better." He didn't say the primary LP would be optimized:
Quote:
"Initially Denon and every other potential customer thought 'let's have two modes'. One for a sole listener and one for when you have several listeners in a room. Well, it turns out if you EQ a whole room the audiophile seat gets better. If you take more of the problems of the room into account you're fixing a bigger area than just the audiophile seat so there's no need for two modes."

If you read Chris' comments about how the clustering works, it seems obvious that clustering around the primary LP will optimize the primary LP more than spreading the measurements out throughout the entire listening area. I can't see how there is anything "wrong" with that.

Craig
post #57618 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

If you want to disagree with what the "historical document" says because you want to do it differently and you are achieving your desired result, that is fine. You are solid ground. My issue is with you somehow "re-interpreting" TH's statements.
I see what you're saying, but not where I said "it." Maybe you missed the "So" in my post - to me that means everything after the "So" is my interpretation, therefore not putting words in anyone's mouth. Before the "So" was my attempt at an objective overview of the article (in terms of your post.)

As to the basic question, CJ makes an excellent point - careful reading tells me that Chris says (my interpretation) compared to no EQ, EQing for a large area will improve the MLP. This is a licensed product to CE manufacturers, so compromises need to be made (this is implied in the article) so of course if they can improve the MLP at the same time as a larger area they'd go with that option (as opposed to multiple setups.) Nowhere does it say that you can't improve the MLP more. And, most importantly, the way I read it, the comparison between an Audyssey close vs. wide mic spacing is never mentioned or implied. The comparison is to older EQ systems, parametric and such, and their limitations.

What we should be doing is celebrating with wondrous amazement what TH had to go through back in the day with THX compared to what we can do in the privacy of our own homes now. As long as you get the mic placement correct of course tongue.gif
post #57619 of 70896
Spreading the measurement further out will possibly improve the listening for the other listeners further out but at the same time will unfortunately (most of the time) decrease the listening experience (correction quality) at the main listening position, because more and more compromises have to be made to "average" it out.
The best room and speaker correction results will usually occur for the main listening position, when measuring in a sort of restricted listening sphere about 1 feet wide (radius) around the exact center of your (virtual) head at the main position. Further effects have to be taken into account (handled) when an asymmetrical listening position or sitting near a wall etc. come into play.
Edited by gurkey - 11/19/12 at 1:06am
post #57620 of 70896
Does anyone know If you can run Audessy XT32 without a subwoofer, and then add it after? I would like Audessy to calibrate all speakers but not the sub and then manually EQ it with my Behringer Inuke DSP6000.

This is because Audessy does something in it's EQ that bottoms out my sub quicker then if I manually EQ it to the same end result regarding flat frequency response. Why this is, I have no idea. I have a idéa that it maybe raises the dips more than it takes down my nodes, resulting in less headroom?
post #57621 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

 
What I'm saying is if you consider those two points - focus on main listening area, and give Audyssey the variation it needs to do its thing, a reasonable user can see that mic placement could vary between a multiple user setup and s single user setup, and still satisfy the prerequisites of a proper setup.

 

That's your opinion and it's fine - it just isn't what TH says in that article. He specifically says that there is no need for a multiple user setup and an alternative single user setup (which is why they resisted the calls from the AVR makers to do it that way) and also says that setting up for multiple users also gives the best result for a single user (hence no need for the two different settings the AVR makers though they wanted). Somehow you have managed to read the article and draw the exact opposite conclusion to what it says!

post #57622 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

One of the comments in that interview that I found amusing though, was when Tom mentions that there are some things you can't electronically correct "like first reflections". Something that's also confirmed (at least for Audyssey) by independent measurements.


Max

Yes indeed. Thank god Feri isn't here right now or he'd have apoplexy! :)

post #57623 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I don't know if I'm one of the "others" you thought about, smile.gif but I recently re-ran Audyssey and tightened up my mic placements clustered more closely around the primary LP. I posted diagrams of my old and new mic patterns, the resultant FR measurements and my listening impressions here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1349395/craig-johns-theater/210#post_22428636 I think my "new" mic pattern provides the system with good info about the "space" while prioritizing the primary LP. Reading this part of the interview I think reinforces that my new mic pattern is a viable approach:
 
If you read Chris' comments about how the clustering works, it seems obvious that clustering around the primary LP will optimize the primary LP more than spreading the measurements out throughout the entire listening area. I can't see how there is anything "wrong" with that.

Craig

 

Hmm. Thanks for that Craig. I may well do my new calibration something similar to your diagram. I was using a similar pattern to your 'before' diagram, but over just two seats. For my new test I will still do some mic positions 'out in the room' so to speak, but will focus the bulk around the MLP as you suggest.

 

BTW, I have two *very* big boxes sitting in my hallway with the tops open.  The contents of the boxes are currently sitting in my HT room, allowing the electronics inside to come up to room temperature before installation and switch on. I'm not saying what is in the boxes out of consideration for Jerry :)  But the new line appended to my sig may give a clue LOL! I will report back in the appropriate thread when all is set up, calibrated and tweaked.

post #57624 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

What we should be doing is celebrating with wondrous amazement what TH had to go through back in the day with THX compared to what we can do in the privacy of our own homes now. 

+1000 on that!

post #57625 of 70896
Congratulations on your new subs! I'm certain your elated.
post #57626 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Congratulations on your new subs! I'm certain your elated.

 

Thanks Theresa!  I sure am!  I have connected them up without Audyssey on for now, just to give them a blast and check all is working OK etc. All I can say is they are weapon grade!  Audyssey and tweakery next....

post #57627 of 70896
With the Omnimic I discovered one of my tweeters is rolling off about 15db above 10kHz, certainly helps explain the laid back quality I thought was attributable to Audyssey. Even Audyssey can't fix a failing tweeter.
post #57628 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey and tweakery next....

Please don't be bashful about reporting the results, Keith. wink.gif
post #57629 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Hmm. Thanks for that Craig. I may well do my new calibration something similar to your diagram. I was using a similar pattern to your 'before' diagram, but over just two seats. For my new test I will still do some mic positions 'out in the room' so to speak, but will focus the bulk around the MLP as you suggest.

BTW, I have two *very* big boxes sitting in my hallway with the tops open.  The contents of the boxes are currently sitting in my HT room, allowing the electronics inside to come up to room temperature before installation and switch on. I'm not saying what is in the boxes out of consideration for Jerry smile.gif  But the new line appended to my sig may give a clue LOL! I will report back in the appropriate thread when all is set up, calibrated and tweaked.


Congrats on getting your subs through customs! Would like to hear your impressions once you have time with them. wink.gif

When I first ran XT on my TX-NR1008 I had imaging issues in my MLP by adding my second seating position so I learned to focus my measurements symmetrically around the MLP.
post #57630 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey and tweakery next....

Please don't be bashful about reporting the results, Keith. wink.gif

 

Moi?  Bashful?  :)

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)