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 1922

post #57631 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jima4a View Post

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.

 

Thanks!  I will indeed post my impressions, but in the Submersive thread ;)

 

Yes, I have used symetrical around-the-MLP for some time and been happy with the results. I am going to try a broader spread in line with that TH interview - I have an open mind on which is best - maybe neither is - might depend on all manner of factors.

post #57632 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Hi 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:
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:
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

I hadn't thought of you ... since just before the election. wink.gif

I think Audyssey, philosophically, was about "room" correction, i.e. improving all seats (within certain limitations). This depends on all/most seats having common problems. But otherwise, it is a net sum game; improving one seat comes at the expense of the others. Eventually, they relented and began advising on optimizing the "audiophile" seat. So much baggage has been accreted to that term that I don't know what, if any, sub-text Chris had. (Our precious room correction has been tainted by audiophiles. eek.gif) Perhaps we should use MLP as I don't see anything wrong with it. While I haven't tightened my pattern since moving to Pro, I do have a denser pattern around the .. audiophile seat. wink.gif And after moving my seats forward 6" I had to raise the front three positions ... to get acceptable results in the rear row. Keeping them at front row ear level put them outside the dispersion window of LCR and caused the dreaded brittle highs from LCR. Raise the mic for those three seats by ~3" and badda boom - fixed.

Jeff
post #57633 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

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.
Yes, that must have been the case. smile.gif
Quote:
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.
And that is where my theory comes in that they were philosophically wedded to being room correction. But the reality of the market caused them to abandon their dreams accommodate the I-want-to-optimize-my-MLP crowd.
Quote:
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

Tomlinson's contributions go past THX to Advent and even past that to a high end phono pre-amp. Tom was the protegé of Henry Kloss (partner of Henry Villchur in Acoustic Research, the "K" in KLH and then with Cambridge Soundworks). It was Tom's circuitry behind the Advent Dolby "B" processor. And Chris Kyriakakis is the protegé of Tom Holman.
Edited by pepar - 11/19/12 at 11:20am
post #57634 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post



BTW, I have two *very* big boxes sitting in my hallway with the tops open.

Woo HOOOO!
post #57635 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

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).
That's been my experience as well. If the algorithm finds a peak only at a single seat, I doubt it will pull down that peak only to create dips at all the other seats. If the measurements are confined around that single seat, then the room correction algorithm has no reason not to address that peak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

The other factor at play though is familiarity with Harman's How To Listen program and I thought the narrow cluster sounded smoother.
Likewise, Harman's room correction comparison found that their own algorithm optimized for a single seat was preferred to the same algorithm optimized for multiple seats. So there is some data out there confirming your experience that optimizing for multiple seats doesn't improve the sweet spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

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.
One of the things folks might want to try, either by taking separate measurements or observing a real time analyzer, is moving the mic around the main listening position to see where the response changes significantly. If it doesn't change much when the mic is moved a couple of feet in any direction, then they have a 4 foot diameter to work within and don't have to be super precise when placing the Audyssey mic. On the other hand, if the response falls off a cliff when the mic is moved a few inches, then they might want to re-think the location of the MLP. The Audyssey algorithm will thank you for the latter.
post #57636 of 70896
^^^

real good point there in the last paragraph...
post #57637 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

One of the things folks might want to try, either by taking separate measurements or observing a real time analyzer, is moving the mic around the main listening position to see where the response changes significantly. If it doesn't change much when the mic is moved a couple of feet in any direction, then they have a 4 foot diameter to work within and don't have to be super precise when placing the Audyssey mic. On the other hand, if the response falls off a cliff when the mic is moved a few inches, then they might want to re-think the location of the MLP. The Audyssey algorithm will thank you for the latter.

Assuming seats are comfortably within the dispersion "window" of LCR, aren't the main seat to seat variations below Schroeder, and isn't this where acoustical treatments, i.e. bass traps, come in?
post #57638 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^

real good point there in the last paragraph...
+1

Excellent point in that last paragraph Sanjay! Hadn't even considered that because most folks seem to have a hard time rearranging their rooms.


Max
post #57639 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Assuming seats are comfortably within the dispersion "window" of LCR, aren't the main seat to seat variations below Schroeder, and isn't this where acoustical treatments, i.e. bass traps, come in?
Sure, but the size of the acoustical treatments that are needed to truly address bass problems IS one of the main reasons that folks resort to equalization. With that in mind, if you are going to use equalization, then you should decide whether you want to optimize for multiple seats or optimize for a single seat. If you are going to optimize for a single seat, then it helps to find out whether that seat is at/near a highly variable area (head in a vise) or in an area where response is somewhat consistent (± a foot or so in every direction).

There is no reason that Audyssey can't be used for systems (stereo or surround) built around a single listener. But if you are going to take a few measurements, clustered tightly around the listener's head, you don't want a couple of outlier measurements being averaged into the calculations, thereby ruining the end results. Personally, if I was equalizing for a single seat, I would measure a roughly 2x2x2 ft box around my head, making sure the response was similar in that 8 cu ft volume. For multiple seats, my approach would be very different (placement, treatments, equalization, etc).
post #57640 of 70896
I'm looking for some help on how best to layout up my DSX system.

There are limited speaker placement options, but I have three positions to place three different pairs of speakers.

In the attached image, I have overlaid the ideal DSX angles on top of my room (which is roughly 18' x 18' with a 12' ceiling).
The positions, nor furniture can be moved (due to windows, walkways, theater screen, livability, etc).

You can see positions 1,2 and 3 in red text. The blue text is labels for each ideal channel. LW = Left Wide, RSS = Right Side Surround. You get the idea.

Pos 3 is for heights.
Pos 2 is for either WIDES, or SIDE SURROUNDS.
Pos 1 is for either SIDE SURROUNDS, or REAR SURROUNDS.

The three pairs of speakers I can place in these positions are...

A) Monopole direct bookshelf speakers. (CAOW1)
B) Dipole surround/effect speakers. (Swan R3)
C) Omni-directional Satellites (Mirage OMD-5).

The two good options I see are...

Pos 3) Direct Heights
Pos 2) Dipole Side Surround (Although not ideal as they are in front of the listening position, but it may work in combo with the rears)
Pos 1) Omni-directional rear surround.

OR...

Pos 3) Omni-directional heights.
Pos 2) Direct Wides (although not ideal as they are too close to the listening position)
Pos 1) Dipole Side Surrounds

Thanks!


Edited by theater_lover - 11/21/12 at 8:12am
post #57641 of 70896
Is it possible to upgrade the multeq version of audssey on the marantz sr7005 ?
post #57642 of 70896
Nope. It's not possible on any recent model Denon or Marantz AVRs (in fact the only units it's ever been accomplised on are the Denon 5308CI ($5000) and AVP ($7500) with the upgrade costing $1000). eek.gif
post #57643 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by theater_lover View Post

I'm looking for some help on how best to layout up my DSX system.

There are limited speaker placement options, but I have three positions to place three different pairs of speakers.

In the attached image, I have overlaid the ideal DSX angles on top of my room (which is roughly 18' x 18' with a 12' ceiling).
The positions, nor furniture can be moved (due to windows, walkways, theater screen, livability, etc).

You can see positions 1,2 and 3 in red text. The blue text is labels for each ideal channel. LW = Left Wide, RSS = Right Side Surround. You get the idea.

Pos 3 is for heights.
Pos 2 is for either WIDES, or SIDE SURROUNDS.
Pos 1 is for either SIDE SURROUNDS, or REAR SURROUNDS.

The three pairs of speakers I can place in these positions are...

1) Monopole direct bookshelf speakers. (CAOW1)
2) Dipole surround/effect speakers. (Swan R3)
3) Omni-directional Satellites (Mirage OMD-5).

The two good options I see are...

Pos 1) Direct Heights
Pos 2) Dipole Side Surround (Although not ideal as they are in front of the listening position, but it may work in combo with the rears)
Pos 3) Omni-directional rear surround.

OR...

Pos 1) Omni-directional heights.
Pos 2) Direct Wides (although not ideal as they are too close to the listening position)
Pos 3) Dipole Side Surrounds

Thanks!
 

 

I had a very late night last night, so this might just be me, but I can't follow your numbering scheme above. You have, for example. marked Pos 3 as being for the Heights, but then you say that one of the good options is to put Direct radiating Height speakers at Pos 1. If you can clarify that, I am happy to give you my thoughts on it, and my experience with bipole Heights vs monopoles and monopole surrounds vs dipoles/tripoles.

post #57644 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I had a very late night last night, so this might just be me, but I can't follow your numbering scheme above. You have, for example. marked Pos 3 as being for the Heights, but then you say that one of the good options is to put Direct radiating Height speakers at Pos 1. If you can clarify that, I am happy to give you my thoughts on it, and my experience with bipole Heights vs monopoles and monopole surrounds vs dipoles/tripoles.

That would be because I reversed the numbering. All fixed now.
post #57645 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by theater_lover View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I had a very late night last night, so this might just be me, but I can't follow your numbering scheme above. You have, for example. marked Pos 3 as being for the Heights, but then you say that one of the good options is to put Direct radiating Height speakers at Pos 1. If you can clarify that, I am happy to give you my thoughts on it, and my experience with bipole Heights vs monopoles and monopole surrounds vs dipoles/tripoles.

That would be because I reversed the numbering. All fixed now.

 

:)  OK - it's past midnight here now and I have been in the company of my oldest friend all day and much wine has been consumed. I'll give my thoughts, for what they are worth, tomorrow.

post #57646 of 70896
Nah - come on now - one more glass of Vino.
wink.gif
post #57647 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by theater_lover View Post

I'm looking for some help on how best to layout up my DSX system.

There are limited speaker placement options, but I have three positions to place three different pairs of speakers.

In the attached image, I have overlaid the ideal DSX angles on top of my room (which is roughly 18' x 18' with a 12' ceiling).
The positions, nor furniture can be moved (due to windows, walkways, theater screen, livability, etc).

You can see positions 1,2 and 3 in red text. The blue text is labels for each ideal channel. LW = Left Wide, RSS = Right Side Surround. You get the idea.

Pos 3 is for heights.
Pos 2 is for either WIDES, or SIDE SURROUNDS.
Pos 1 is for either SIDE SURROUNDS, or REAR SURROUNDS.

The three pairs of speakers I can place in these positions are...

A) Monopole direct bookshelf speakers. (CAOW1)
B) Dipole surround/effect speakers. (Swan R3)
C) Omni-directional Satellites (Mirage OMD-5).

The two good options I see are...

Pos 3) Direct Heights
Pos 2) Dipole Side Surround (Although not ideal as they are in front of the listening position, but it may work in combo with the rears)
Pos 1) Omni-directional rear surround.

OR...

Pos 3) Omni-directional heights.
Pos 2) Direct Wides (although not ideal as they are too close to the listening position)
Pos 1) Dipole Side Surrounds

Thanks!

Thanks for clarifying the numbers earlier.

 

FWIW, this is my personal take on it, based on my experience with Height channels and dipole/bipole speakers. At one stage in the development of my HT, I was not using monopoles for my height speakers because the manufacturer of my main speakers did not make a suitable (smallish) monopole for the height channels and I am of the belief that the voicing of speakers is important in creating the overall sound field in a convincing way. Consequently I used dipoles, set to the bipole mode, for my height speakers. I asked Audyssey specifically what their views were on this because they recommend direct radiators for height speakers. Chris replied that they had not evaluated dipole/bipole speakers for height channel use but thought they would "probably be OK". I used the bipoles for some time and was always satisfied with the sound, as they were a) voiced the same as my mains and b) the height 'effects' are fairly diffuse in nature anyway. Later, I changed my speakers and the manufacturer of my new speakers did indeed have a suitable direct radiator for the height channels and so this is what I currently use. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that one was better than the other - both give a useful, pleasing effect. As a result, I believe that you could use either type of speaker for height duty and be happy with the result. I cannot say the same for omnidirectional speakers as I have no experience with omnis at all.

 

I would say that in your room, you are unable to achieve even an approximation of Audyssey's recommended locations for the height channels, so you might prefer (as I do) to use Dolby PLIIz for your height channels, as Dolby's placement recommendations are far les stringent than Audyssey's. My height speakers are up close to the ceiling and a little outboard of my mains. Remember, it is OK to mount height speakers on the ceiling if this brings them more into line with Audyssey's recommendations, but such an arrangement has a very low WAF. PLIIz derives the height information from the surround channels whereas DSX derives it from the front L&R channels and this may be one of the reasons that the placement requirements for both differ. I also found that DSX messes with the surround channels in a way I did not like, whereas PLIIz does not - YMMV on that. Also remember that Height (and wide) speakers are not part of any recognised 'standard' so their use is going to be a matter of preference and there is no right and wrong at this time - nor will be until/unless content is specifically created for these channels. This means that, really, whatever sounds good to you IS good.

 

WRT to side surrounds, I have used monopoles, dipoles and (now) tripoles. Each iteration has resulted in, for me, a significant improvement in envelopment. Bear in mind that I use my HT ONLY for movies and do not do any (serious) music listening there. Some people say that for music, monopoles make the best choice for surround speakers. My own view is that dipoles/tripoles are much better for movies and provide that overall immersion in the sound field that is desired, without excessive localisation of the surround channels. The tripoles have the benefit of good localisation when the content specifically demands it, but give terrific ambiance and envelopment otherwise - the best of both worlds. My surrounds are placed at 90 degrees to the MLP, but there is some latitude with this and you can place them rearwards or even forwards of that position - in fact if I had rear surrounds I would probably move my surrounds forward a little to help create the 'bubble' more convincingly. I do not have rear surrounds because my MLP is unavoidably close to the back wall, as yours is, and I do not feel that I can position rear surrounds effectively as a result. I have toyed with rear surrounds in the ceiling above the listening positions, but not carried it through (yet) as I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of such a non-standard location. I would prefer no rear surrounds at all to rear surrunds that might mess with the 'bubble' I have worked hard to create. Again, YMMV. I would, ideally, move my current tripole surrounds to about 110%, placing them slightly behind me (in the absence of rear surrounds) but this would bring them closer to the back wall than I think is desirable. If my room was deeper, I would definitely try this and see what effect it had on overall envelopment, but then, if my room was deeper I'd have rear surrounds, so the point is circular really.

 

I have no direct experience with wides because my room cannot physically accommodate them, but I would say that it's important to remember that Audyssey's recommendation for positioning is just that - a recommendation. You might find that conventional direct radiating wide speakers would work well as wides if you placed them where you currently have LH/RH marked on your diagram (but obviously at ear level). If I was determined to try wides, this is where I would put them to test their efficacy.

 

I have no experience of omnidirectional speakers at all but personally I would avoid them on the grounds that I have never really seen them recommended for side surrounds over dipoles and for rear surrounds over direct radiators.

 

I don't know if the above has served to help or to confuse, sorry. But my comments are based on actual experience (except where stated) and in a small, difficult room similar, conceptually to yours, sharing many of the placement difficulties. If I had to come down hard with a recommendation, it would be monopoles for the heights, dipole/tripole for the surrounds, monopoles for the wides and monopoles or bipoles for the rear surrounds - but there is no right and wrong answer here and I am sure others will have different views. Some of it will be pure preference (as I have for dipole/tripole surrounds - albeit a preference that is supported by various 'standards' such as THX etc) so given that, the only way to be sure to get what YOU want is to try different things. Problem with that is that experience is a great teacher, but the lessons are very expensive ;)

 

If I can help any more (if I have helped at all!) then don't hesitate to follow up with more questions.

post #57648 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuzed2 View Post

Nah - come on now - one more glass of Vino.
wink.gif

 

:)  I did...

post #57649 of 70896
Maybe a dumb question but...
I searched and think I've found my answer but just want to ask it in hopes of getting a definite answer

Will Audyssey work just as well when using an external amplifier to run some or all speakers?


For example:
Denon 4520, Parasound A 31 (or Parasound A 51) & Rythmik F15 in a 5.1 set up

Can I use the Denon 4520 to power the surround speakers and the Parasound A 31 to power the L R & C? OR Denon 4520 just as a pre/pro and power all speakers with a Parasound A 51?
Will there any detriment regarding Audyssey? Is there anything special or different I would need to do?

TIA
post #57650 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeGuy View Post

Will Audyssey work just as well when using an external amplifier to run some or all speakers?

Mine works GRRRREAT !
post #57651 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeGuy View Post

Maybe a dumb question but...
I searched and think I've found my answer but just want to ask it in hopes of getting a definite answer

Will Audyssey work just as well when using an external amplifier to run some or all speakers?

For example:
Denon 4520, Parasound A 31 (or Parasound A 51) & Rythmik F15 in a 5.1 set up

Can I use the Denon 4520 to power the surround speakers and the Parasound A 31 to power the L R & C? OR Denon 4520 just as a pre/pro and power all speakers with a Parasound A 51?
Will there any detriment regarding Audyssey? Is there anything special or different I would need to do?

TIA

Yes, Audyssey works fine with external amps. Many of us in this thread, me included, run a prepro plus external amps or use the preouts on an AVR to run external amps. Audyssey doesn't care about the amps or where they 'live' and your calibration will be exactly the same as if you had a typical AVR with internal amplification.

 

You can use the Denon to power the surrounds and the Parasound for the main three channels - that is a good way to set up with the gear you have. Same if you use the Denon just as a prepro with 5 external amp channels.

 

I think it was a good question and perhaps ought to be in the FAQ too. I'll find somewhere to put it there.

post #57652 of 70896

this is also what i do in my 6.1 system (no center):

2 x 2 channel amps for the front and side speakers,

and 2 channels from the AVR for the back surrounds

 

it works 100%.

post #57653 of 70896

Happy Thanksgiving to all my American friends here on AVS!

post #57654 of 70896
Yes, the day we give thanks for what we have, followed by the day we act like animals to get what we don't have.
post #57655 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Yes, the day we give thanks for what we have, followed by the day we act like animals to get what we don't have.

Soooooo true!!
post #57656 of 70896
Code:
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy View Post

Soooooo true!!

Yes..as in 'Black Friday' and AV Sales LOL. Or possibly to 'get what we don't really need but want'. Pass the shiny new toy...

Happy Turkey Day for the Americans among us!
post #57657 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Yes, the day we give thanks for what we have, followed by the day we act like animals to get what we don't have.

 

Oooh, you cynic, you :)

post #57658 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Nope. It's not possible on any recent model Denon or Marantz AVRs (in fact the only units it's ever been accomplised on are the Denon 5308CI ($5000) and AVP ($7500) with the upgrade costing $1000). eek.gif

Wouldn't you also consider the NAD receivers with their MDC modules in this category? I believe all units can be upgraded to XT while next year there is speculation of an MDC module to upgrade these same receivers to XT32 (although not confirmed TTBOMK...for Keith!).
post #57659 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Thanks for clarifying the numbers earlier.

FWIW, this is my personal take on it, based on my experience with Height channels and dipole/bipole speakers. At one stage in the development of my HT, I was not using monopoles for my height speakers because the manufacturer of my main speakers did not make a suitable (smallish) monopole for the height channels and I am of the belief that the voicing of speakers is important in creating the overall sound field in a convincing way. Consequently I used dipoles, set to the bipole mode, for my height speakers. I asked Audyssey specifically what their views were on this because they recommend direct radiators for height speakers. Chris replied that they had not evaluated dipole/bipole speakers for height channel use but thought they would "probably be OK". I used the bipoles for some time and was always satisfied with the sound, as they were a) voiced the same as my mains and b) the height 'effects' are fairly diffuse in nature anyway. Later, I changed my speakers and the manufacturer of my new speakers did indeed have a suitable direct radiator for the height channels and so this is what I currently use. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that one was better than the other - both give a useful, pleasing effect. As a result, I believe that you could use either type of speaker for height duty and be happy with the result. I cannot say the same for omnidirectional speakers as I have no experience with omnis at all.

I would say that in your room, you are unable to achieve even an approximation of Audyssey's recommended locations for the height channels, so you might prefer (as I do) to use Dolby PLIIz for your height channels, as Dolby's placement recommendations are far les stringent than Audyssey's. My height speakers are up close to the ceiling and a little outboard of my mains. Remember, it is OK to mount height speakers on the ceiling if this brings them more into line with Audyssey's recommendations, but such an arrangement has a very low WAF. PLIIz derives the height information from the surround channels whereas DSX derives it from the front L&R channels and this may be one of the reasons that the placement requirements for both differ. I also found that DSX messes with the surround channels in a way I did not like, whereas PLIIz does not - YMMV on that. Also remember that Height (and wide) speakers are not part of any recognised 'standard' so their use is going to be a matter of preference and there is no right and wrong at this time - nor will be until/unless content is specifically created for these channels. This means that, really, whatever sounds good to you IS good.

WRT to side surrounds, I have used monopoles, dipoles and (now) tripoles. Each iteration has resulted in, for me, a significant improvement in envelopment. Bear in mind that I use my HT ONLY for movies and do not do any (serious) music listening there. Some people say that for music, monopoles make the best choice for surround speakers. My own view is that dipoles/tripoles are much better for movies and provide that overall immersion in the sound field that is desired, without excessive localisation of the surround channels. The tripoles have the benefit of good localisation when the content specifically demands it, but give terrific ambiance and envelopment otherwise - the best of both worlds. My surrounds are placed at 90 degrees to the MLP, but there is some latitude with this and you can place them rearwards or even forwards of that position - in fact if I had rear surrounds I would probably move my surrounds forward a little to help create the 'bubble' more convincingly. I do not have rear surrounds because my MLP is unavoidably close to the back wall, as yours is, and I do not feel that I can position rear surrounds effectively as a result. I have toyed with rear surrounds in the ceiling above the listening positions, but not carried it through (yet) as I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of such a non-standard location. I would prefer no rear surrounds at all to rear surrunds that might mess with the 'bubble' I have worked hard to create. Again, YMMV. I would, ideally, move my current tripole surrounds to about 110%, placing them slightly behind me (in the absence of rear surrounds) but this would bring them closer to the back wall than I think is desirable. If my room was deeper, I would definitely try this and see what effect it had on overall envelopment, but then, if my room was deeper I'd have rear surrounds, so the point is circular really.

I have no direct experience with wides because my room cannot physically accommodate them, but I would say that it's important to remember that Audyssey's recommendation for positioning is just that - a recommendation. You might find that conventional direct radiating wide speakers would work well as wides if you placed them where you currently have LH/RH marked on your diagram (but obviously at ear level). If I was determined to try wides, this is where I would put them to test their efficacy.

I have no experience of omnidirectional speakers at all but personally I would avoid them on the grounds that I have never really seen them recommended for side surrounds over dipoles and for rear surrounds over direct radiators.

I don't know if the above has served to help or to confuse, sorry. But my comments are based on actual experience (except where stated) and in a small, difficult room similar, conceptually to yours, sharing many of the placement difficulties. If I had to come down hard with a recommendation, it would be monopoles for the heights, dipole/tripole for the surrounds, monopoles for the wides and monopoles or bipoles for the rear surrounds - but there is no right and wrong answer here and I am sure others will have different views. Some of it will be pure preference (as I have for dipole/tripole surrounds - albeit a preference that is supported by various 'standards' such as THX etc) so given that, the only way to be sure to get what YOU want is to try different things. Problem with that is that experience is a great teacher, but the lessons are very expensive wink.gif

If I can help any more (if I have helped at all!) then don't hesitate to follow up with more questions.

I'll need to digest all of that after Thanksgiving, but it is helpful. Thanks.
post #57660 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Nope. It's not possible on any recent model Denon or Marantz AVRs (in fact the only units it's ever been accomplised on are the Denon 5308CI ($5000) and AVP ($7500) with the upgrade costing $1000). eek.gif

Wouldn't you also consider the NAD receivers with their MDC modules in this category? I believe all units can be upgraded to XT while next year there is speculation of an MDC module to upgrade these same receivers to XT32 (although not confirmed TTBOMK...for Keith!).

TTBOMK you are right, BICEBW of course.... ;)

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)