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 2035

post #61021 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

^^
All of this is quite interesting. In my room, I also have the sofa with the MLP about 6" from the back wall. We have Mythos Gem XLs for surrounds, which have dual angled mid-range/bass drivers. Since I can't do the classic Audyssey surround model, and I can't do wall mounts, I have the Gem XLs on 60" adjustable height Sanus surround stands. The speakers have been angled toward the MLP, close to two feet above the sofa, but not completely facing the front wall. Both speakers are LT five feet from the arms of the sofa as well.

However, while it 'works', I've never been completely happy with the surround bubble, which for more aggressive music surrounds can seem diffuse; if movie surround effects weren't good, I'd have spent time trying to work on it. And I've had other priorities with the subs, crossovers, etc.

So after reading Sanjay's post, and the one I found on Ask Ausyssey, I adjusted the Gem XLs so that the front of each speaker faces short side walls/corners, away from MLP. I then played some test MC music (with and without Dynamic EQ), and found that the front soundstage was a little clearer, and there was a more natural three-dimensional feeling to front stage vocals, which may back up Sanjay's and others' point. Also, background vocals and audience applause were a bit less jarring. The DEQ surround boost was still too loud, but to my ears a little less so. So far, the only downside is that a live, stadium recording sounded, well, more stadiumlike, but I'll test on movies tonight to see if it's an artifact of my test source.

This weekend I'll save my previous calibration, and rerun Audyssey Pro (with appropriate pre/post measurement of the surrounds, before and after Audyssey, with both positions) to see if there's more than a placebo effect at work. Granted it's not ideal, but it would be nice icing on the cake to get this better--at least until I can move the couch.

If I were really lazy, I'd leave the Pro calibration as is, adjust Sub db with the REW SPL, and do any adjustments in the Target Curve Editor (I like the mains and sub except for minor TCE adjustments or maybe PEQ), but "lazy" people don't use REW or obsess about 3 db dips LOL....

 

I was never really happy with the surround bubble and immersion until I switched to, initially, dipoles (Emotiva's terrific ERD-1s, no longer available) and currently my M&K SS150 Tripoles. The latter give the best of all worlds as they function well on 'direct' effects from the surround channels and also give a superbly diffuse presentation for ambience.  I value the immersive bubble greatly and it adds a lot to my enjoyment of well-mixed movies, where sometimes subtle spatial clues and environmental noise contribute a lot to the feeling of 'being there'. I don't think I would go back to monopole surrounds now. 

post #61022 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I was never really happy with the surround bubble and immersion until I switched to, initially, dipoles (Emotiva's terrific ERD-1s, no longer available) and currently my M&K SS150 Tripoles. The latter give the best of all worlds as they function well on 'direct' effects from the surround channels and also give a superbly diffuse presentation for ambience.  I value the immersive bubble greatly and it adds a lot to my enjoyment of well-mixed movies, where sometimes subtle spatial clues and environmental noise contribute a lot to the feeling of 'being there'. I don't think I would go back to monopole surrounds now. 

Even though we tend to underemphasize them - if not ignore them - in post-calibration measurements, surrounds are hard to get 'right' IMO. I had direct-firing bookshelf surrounds (DefTech Studio Monitor 350s) on the advice of the Magnolia guys during the pre-Audyssey days of ignorance, but once I got into Audyssey, I found that they only were pleasing for a very narrow spot on MC music (the 'sweet spot' was maybe an inch wide!), and horribly artificial on movies. That led me to the DefTech Gem XLs, which have worked out reasonably well, although not as immersive as I'd like, for at least movies, and not as much of a wraparound surround bubble for music. I'd considered picking up bipoles for surrounds, but decided against it because I would have had reflections against our living room window, given their configuration (ugh).

Having said that, I took an iPhone photo of my previous surround placement prior to last night, so I can do an A/B comparison, before and after the adjustment to 'side/corner'firing, for my L/R surround before Audyssey. If the FR response is more or less identical +/- 3 db for each speaker individually, I might leave them alone and do any level/trim adjustments based on the current calibration. But if my guess is right, there's going to be more changes than that with the surrounds due to different reflection patterns (hopefully better, not just different), so I'll do the full rerun if that's the case. Even so, I'd be surprised if the crossover (120 Hz) needs to change for them, or anything other than level (maybe +/- 1 db on the trim?) or distance (who knows).

Regardless, it's an argument for why we actually need to listen to our systems, not just measure and trudge through graphs. I don't think I'd have thought about trying the different placement if Sanjay hadn't gotten me thinking in his advice to Chicago Chris. I just hope I don't inadvertedly turn my HT apps or studio MC music into a version of the weird Denon "Rock Stadium" DSP mode. And no, doing side wall or ceiling firing isn't the "Chicago Way" rolleyes.gif but it may work for particular configurations.

Wow...it's hard to believe that I've only had the Pro Kit and an Audyssey XT32 system for barely a year. It feels like it's been since the Clinton Administation sometimes...eek.gif
Edited by sdrucker - 3/22/13 at 11:55am
post #61023 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

 
Even though we tend to underemphasize them - if not ignore them - in post-calibration measurements, surrounds are hard to get 'right' IMO. I had direct-firing bookshelf surrounds (DefTech Studio Monitor 350s) on the advice of the Magnolia guys during the pre-Audyssey days of ignorance, but once I got into Audyssey, I found that they only were pleasing for a very narrow spot on MC music (the 'sweet spot' was maybe an inch wide!), and horribly artificial on movies. That led me to the DefTech Gem XLs, which have worked out reasonably well, although not as immersive as I'd like, for at least movies, and not as much of a wraparound surround bubble for music. I'd considered picking up bipoles for surrounds, but decided against it because I would have had reflections against our living room window, given their configuration (ugh).

Having said that, I took an iPhone photo of my previous surround placement prior to last night, so I can do an A/B comparison, before and after the adjustment to 'side/corner'firing, for my L/R surround before Audyssey. If the FR response is more or less identical +/- 3 db for each speaker individually, I might leave them alone and do any level/trim adjustments based on the current calibration. But if my guess is right, there's going to be more changes than that with the surrounds due to different reflection patterns (hopefully better, not just different), so I'll do the full rerun if that's the case. Even so, I'd be surprised if the crossover (120 Hz) needs to change for them, or anything other than level (maybe +/- 1 db on the trim?) or distance (who knows).

Regardless, it's an argument for why we actually need to listen to our systems, not just measure and trudge through graphs. I don't think I'd have thought about trying the different placement if Sanjay hadn't gotten me thinking in his advice to Chicago Chris. I just hope I don't inadvertedly turn my HT apps or studio MC music into a version of the weird Denon "Rock Stadium" DSP mode. And no, doing side wall or ceiling firing isn't the "Chicago Way" rolleyes.gif but it may work for particular configurations.

Wow...it's hard to believe that I've only had the Pro Kit and an Audyssey XT32 system for barely a year. It feels like it's been since the Clinton Administation sometimes...eek.gif

 

I'm told, but IDK from experience, that monopole surrounds are preferred for m/c music. Given you are more concerned with optimising for music than movies, I'd have thought your choice of surround speakers was right for you, although it would be 'less right' for me. Hopefully some of your current placement limitations will be removed after the Big Event this Fall.... :)

post #61024 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'm told, but IDK from experience, that monopole surrounds are preferred for m/c music. Given you are more concerned with optimising for music than movies, I'd have thought your choice of surround speakers was right for you, although it would be 'less right' for me. Hopefully some of your current placement limitations will be removed after the Big Event this Fall.... smile.gif

Or worse, we'll have a whole new set of "reflections"....

Re monopoles, that's why I started with the StudioMonitors once I had my Mythos system. The problem is that, as if you don't have them positioned exactly right, you don't get much of a sweet spot relative to other possible surrounds w.r.t. music, and definitely not for movies IMO. I mean, they sound great, but you have to be almost stationary to really appreciate them in our setup (and we don't use vises LOL). Otherwise they don't have the same 'surround' feel that you get from other speaker varieties. Of course, this is just my own experience. Clearly with a more optimal Audyssey setup (and maybe different monopoles), YMMV.

There was a guy on the Mythos ST thread that explained the Magnolia reason to me in a PM, and I think he used to work for them at one point in a Design Center.

In any event, that was before I took the advice I got on AVS ahead of the big box guys, naturally smile.gif.
Edited by sdrucker - 3/22/13 at 1:48pm
post #61025 of 70905
I believe that direct-radiating monopoles tend to be most popular for particular types of multichannel music. Specifically, for those cases where the listening position is among the musicians. That provides appropriate directionality for each of the instruments. More often, multichannel recordings, especially those of live concerts, place the listening position in the audience. In that case, reflective bipole or dipole surround sound is appropriate because the rear channels are primarily providing the room ambiance and applause.
post #61026 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quite. Fortunately it is easy for Chris to experiment with aiming the speakers in different ways, re-running Audyssey and listening. I am fairly sure now that it isn't his technique or mic placement etc that is causing the problem, and it isn’t an Audyssey problem as such, but the solution lies in the various tips he has been given so far. I hope he reports back with a success story after further experimentation.

Thanks kbarnes and all that replied. Gonna need at least the weekend to report back. We are having the living room painted so nothing is in order. Once we get the room back in place, i'll re run Audessy with my rears firing toward wall ) on sides of couch and also try Sanjays technique of firing away from the mic.

One other question, my sub has a low pass filter setting on it. Not clear what I set this too when i do the calibration. Thanks!
post #61027 of 70905
Audyssey sets my rear crossovers anywhere from 120 to 80 htz. So my question is when I rerun audyssey (always chasing the perfect sound lol) and finish the 8 postions sometimes it sets the crossover at 120. Is it then ok to lower to 80. It's hard because you never know what it's set at on my avr till after I complete the calculation. Avr is Marantz 7007.
post #61028 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

So after reading Sanjay's post, and the one I found on Ask Ausyssey, I adjusted the Gem XLs so that the front of each speaker faces short side walls/corners, away from MLP. I then played some test MC music (with and without Dynamic EQ), and found that the front soundstage was a little clearer, and there was a more natural three-dimensional feeling to front stage vocals, which may back up Sanjay's and others' point.
This is also the reason that most of the absorbtion in my room is on the front wall. Even in this day of surround sound, the front soundstage remains absolutely critical for me. That is where my attention will be focused, whether watching movies or listening to music.

Having a 7.1 set-up means that my Rear speakers are pointing more or less towards the front of the room, so sounds that are intended to come from behind me are reflecting off the front wall. The situation is slightly worse for my Side speakers: they are closer to the front wall (louder reflections) and, since they are point towards the listening position, it is their off-axis response that is reflecting off the front wall.

Do I really want to hear all that surround information, however subtle, in the middle of my front soundstage? No. So I had a friend walk a hand mirror along the front wall: where ever I saw a reflection of one of my 4 surrounds, I put a large piece of thick absorbtion. I liked the results enough that I eventually ended up covering up roughly ±40° from the centre line.

Just an extension of my earlier reply to you (completing the thought, so to speak).
Edited by sdurani - 3/22/13 at 6:56pm
post #61029 of 70905
I am sure a lot you you are going to disagree but I am curious, but do you think of the following article. I posted it as well in acoustic treatment thread to get their perspective as well.

"Speaker Engineer Questions Home Theater Equalization Process
Paul Hales, founder of Pro Audio Technology, wonders why installers tune home theaters with unreliable microphones and measurement techniques, adding that musicians don’t tune Steinway pianos to suit the room.
By Robert Archer, March 22, 2013

Pro Audio Technology and founder Paul Hales have a growing legacy of producing well engineered products that can withstand the rigors of high-demand home theater playback, with systems capable of producing more than 130dB of volume.

Highlighting Pro Audio Technology’s ability to reproduce high SPLs is its demo that features Cream’s 2005 reunion show Blu-ray disc and legendary drummer Ginger Baker’s drum solo.

The key to the wide dynamics of this demonstration, Hales contends, is the use of minimal equalization (EQ) in home theaters above the standing wave/modal region. Hales says the industry has become too reliant on automatic room EQ, and he questions the quality of the microphones and techniques used to gather the data used to measure home theaters.

Hales says the best way to get quality sound in a home theater is to make an accurate speaker and treat the room. He adds that if there is something between the listener and the speakers, such as an acoustically transparent screen, installers should then look at compensation tools to correct the problem.

The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts. “People are designing with their eyes [a reference to using plotted graphs] and are not listening to what their ears are telling them.”

The following videos feature Hales explaining his perspective on room equalization and a clip from Pro Audio Technology’s popular Cream system demo.
post #61030 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoChris View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quite. Fortunately it is easy for Chris to experiment with aiming the speakers in different ways, re-running Audyssey and listening. I am fairly sure now that it isn't his technique or mic placement etc that is causing the problem, and it isn’t an Audyssey problem as such, but the solution lies in the various tips he has been given so far. I hope he reports back with a success story after further experimentation.

Thanks kbarnes and all that replied. Gonna need at least the weekend to report back. We are having the living room painted so nothing is in order. Once we get the room back in place, i'll re run Audessy with my rears firing toward wall ) on sides of couch and also try Sanjays technique of firing away from the mic.

One other question, my sub has a low pass filter setting on it. Not clear what I set this too when i do the calibration. Thanks!

This FAQ answer should have all the info you need:

 

f)3.    How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?

post #61031 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebreeze View Post

Audyssey sets my rear crossovers anywhere from 120 to 80 htz. So my question is when I rerun audyssey (always chasing the perfect sound lol) and finish the 8 postions sometimes it sets the crossover at 120. Is it then ok to lower to 80. It's hard because you never know what it's set at on my avr till after I complete the calculation. Avr is Marantz 7007.

 

Basically, no. This FAQ answer explains why:

 

c)4.   Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?

post #61032 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I am sure a lot you you are going to disagree but I am curious, but do you think of the following article. I posted it as well in acoustic treatment thread to get their perspective as well.

I agree with Hales, ...in a room where you can reach 130 dB SPL with a concert film actually nothing really matters...LOL

It's not the room, but the listeners who will need treatment! smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif
post #61033 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I am sure a lot you you are going to disagree but I am curious, but do you think of the following article. I posted it as well in acoustic treatment thread to get their perspective as well.

"Speaker Engineer Questions Home Theater Equalization Process
Paul Hales, founder of Pro Audio Technology, wonders why installers tune home theaters with unreliable microphones and measurement techniques, adding that musicians don’t tune Steinway pianos to suit the room.
By Robert Archer, March 22, 2013

Pro Audio Technology and founder Paul Hales have a growing legacy of producing well engineered products that can withstand the rigors of high-demand home theater playback, with systems capable of producing more than 130dB of volume.

Highlighting Pro Audio Technology’s ability to reproduce high SPLs is its demo that features Cream’s 2005 reunion show Blu-ray disc and legendary drummer Ginger Baker’s drum solo.

The key to the wide dynamics of this demonstration, Hales contends, is the use of minimal equalization (EQ) in home theaters above the standing wave/modal region. Hales says the industry has become too reliant on automatic room EQ, and he questions the quality of the microphones and techniques used to gather the data used to measure home theaters.

Hales says the best way to get quality sound in a home theater is to make an accurate speaker and treat the room. He adds that if there is something between the listener and the speakers, such as an acoustically transparent screen, installers should then look at compensation tools to correct the problem.

The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts. “People are designing with their eyes [a reference to using plotted graphs] and are not listening to what their ears are telling them.”

The following videos feature Hales explaining his perspective on room equalization and a clip from Pro Audio Technology’s popular Cream system demo.

In my experience his comment is true, in an ideal world. Unfortunately most A/V HT users have rooms that must service family needs as well and have restricted budgets so "correct" acoustic treatment can be very difficult. This is where electronic EQ like Audyssey can really help.

In my former life in the UK I designed many radio stations and several large professional recording studio complexes. The process is "simple", you design the room acoustics to perform the way you would like/hope them to and then use minimal EQ to rectify any shortcomings. However, this would only apply to the control rooms the performance areas have to be acoustically designed to "SOUND" the way you want them to be I.E. live, dead etc. The addition of variable acoustic elements then allows you to "tune" the room for the desired sound for the particular style of music. If the miked source sounds bad, no amount of electronic EQ or reverb etc is going to make it sound good. I am of course only referring to acoustic recordings not electronic instruments that are direct injected at line level....and who knows what they should sound like smile.gif

I am one of the lucky HT users and built my music /HT room from the ground up as an extension to my home. The acoustics and speaker placement were primarily designed for listening to stereo and 5.1 music; my first love, but the room fully supports a 2.4:1 projection system and 9.1 film surround HT. The rooms isolation, background noise levels and acoustic treatment were my first concerns and were designed/adjusted within the space and budget limitations to achieve the best non EQ'd response I could, then I used Audyssey XT32 with Pro to "clean" up the remaining room issues; and there were still plenty.

So yes, in my opinion, in the ideal world, it is always acoustic treatment first and electronic EQ second.
post #61034 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I am sure a lot you you are going to disagree but I am curious, but do you think of the following article. I posted it as well in acoustic treatment thread to get their perspective as well.

"Speaker Engineer Questions Home Theater Equalization Process
Paul Hales, founder of Pro Audio Technology, wonders why installers tune home theaters with unreliable microphones and measurement techniques, adding that musicians don’t tune Steinway pianos to suit the room.

 

 

There isn't any connection between getting a room right for the recording of music and getting one right for the reproduction of music. They are two entirely different things. When recording, one might, for example, want to record in a bathroom if that is the acoustic environment that creatively suits the artist. Would you in any circumstances ever think that playing back a recording in a bathroom would be a good idea?

 

Quote:
The key to the wide dynamics of this demonstration, Hales contends, is the use of minimal equalization (EQ) in home theaters above the standing wave/modal region. Hales says the industry has become too reliant on automatic room EQ, and he questions the quality of the microphones and techniques used to gather the data used to measure home theaters.

 

 

Yes - the bass region is where EQ is most needed. This is why Audyssey took a different approach with XT32 than the one taken with their other versions of MultEQ. XT32 does indeed take a far less 'aggressive' stance when it comes to EQ-ing the upper frequencies. The mics are "good enough" for the job they have to do. They have a calibration file (inside the AVR) which enables them to take care of their FR anomalies to an acceptable standard. Audyssey Pro does, of course, use a high quality calibrated mic and calibrated preamp.

 

Quote:
The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts. “People are designing with their eyes [a reference to using plotted graphs] and are not listening to what their ears are telling them.”

 

 

As I say above, conflating a recording space with a reproduction space is naïve. It is possible to succumb to "graphitis nervosa" where one becomes obsessed with getting the graph to a state of "perfection" even where this is not audible. For example, trying to achieve a response that is flat to +/- 2dB is a waste of time as our hearing cannot resolve that well. One should use commonsense - measure and then listen. Measurements are not a substitution for listening - they are a tool that, properly used, can be very helpful in optimising the SQ of a room, leading to greater listening pleasure. 

 

Quote:
Hales says the best way to get quality sound in a home theater is to make an accurate speaker and treat the room. He adds that if there is something between the listener and the speakers, such as an acoustically transparent screen, installers should then look at compensation tools to correct the problem.

 

Nobody would question the need for high quality speakers, nor for room treatments. The choice of speaker, its placement in the room and good acoustic treatments are, wherever possible, the very first line of approach to optimising the sound in a given room. Once as much as can be done there has been done, then electronic EQ is the finishing touch - the icing on the cake. I think most people in this thread would agree with that.

 

However, for many people, they have neither the time nor patience (nor knowledge, nor possibly cash) to get the basics of speaker choice, placement and treatments right. Many people do not want to travel down the road of buying a calibrated mic and learning how to use REW. Many people have a listening room that doubles as a living room and aesthetics and WAF often preclude the extensive use of treatments. Others have severe placement restrictions (me, for example) and have to rely more on electronic EQ to tame the problems that less than ideal placement can cause. For these people, electronic EQ such as MultEQ XT32 is a genuine godsend. The difference it can make to the in-room sound of a system is astonishing. But nobody would suggest that XT32 is a panacea for all problems and if one uses it then there is no need to take into account the other parameters for good sound. In fact, I wrote a specific FAQ answer just to make this very point:

 

h)7.   If I have MultEQ in my AVR, can I forget about room treatments?

 

So my take on the article you quote is that it is largely correct (apart from conflating recording spaces and listening spaces) but that it is saying nothing especially new. My own journey to excellent sound in my HT started with no room treatments, no Audyssey and a scant understanding of the importance of placement. Then I started down the Audyssey road and realised it had a lot to offer. Along the way I learned of the importance of placement, of multiple subs, of measuring software and of acoustic treatments. As I incorporated what I had learned (and am still learning) on each stage of the journey, my SQ got better and better. Of all the things I have done in the pursuit of good sound, the Number One thing that has made the most difference (and the most cost-effectively) is room treatments. But I would not be without Audyssey either. These things are tools in the acoustic workbox - they are all there to be used and it makes no sense to exclude any, if at all possible. IMO :)

post #61035 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

...The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts...
Wow. Too bad they had to curtail the interview before he explained why you can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. biggrin.gif

That dramatic but irrelevant point aside, I hear 2 valid points.
1. Buy really good speakers for a kick-ass HT.
2. Acoustically treat your room for a kick-ass HT.

Duh.
But what about if 2 isn't practical, as is the case for most non-dedicated rooms, or you don't want to spend the time/$ on getting the acoustics perfect with treatments? Geeze, I guess you need some good DSP RC.

Now, if you want smarter RC DSP technology that focuses below the Schroeder Freq, get XT32. If you want a more accurate mic, get an Audyssey Pro kit.
post #61036 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digione View Post

I am one of the lucky HT users and built my music /HT room from the ground up as an extension to my home. The acoustics and speaker placement were primarily designed for listening to stereo and 5.1 music; my first love, but the room fully supports a 2.4:1 projection system and 9.1 film surround HT. The rooms isolation, background noise levels and acoustic treatment were my first concerns and were designed/adjusted within the space and budget limitations to achieve the best non EQ'd response I could, then I used Audyssey XT32 with Pro to "clean" up the remaining room issues; and there were still plenty.
 

 

Paul - do you have a build thread or web page on your HT build? I'd love to take a look if you do.

post #61037 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

...The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts...
Wow. Too bad they had to curtail the interview before he explained why you can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. biggrin.gif

That dramatic but irrelevant point aside, I hear 2 valid points.
1. Buy really good speakers for a kick-ass HT.
2. Acoustically treat your room for a kick-ass HT.

Duh.
But what about if 2 isn't practical, as is the case for most non-dedicated rooms, or you don't want to spend the time/$ on getting the acoustics perfect with treatments? Geeze, I guess you need some good DSP RC.

Now, if you want smarter RC DSP technology that focuses below the Schroeder Freq, get XT32. If you want a more accurate mic, get an Audyssey Pro kit.

 

Innit. As the trendy young dudes in Britain say when getting down and dirty on the street. (It means "I thoroughly concur with your postulation and conclusion, old bean") :)

post #61038 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Paul - do you have a build thread or web page on your HT build? I'd love to take a look if you do.

Sorry but I do not. I originally started a twitter link, but after my contractor went bankrupt and I had less than 20% of my home left from the demolition for my family to live in, my attentions became somewhat diverted. eek.gif

I would be happy to create one and post some of the drawings, photographs and design details, but might need some guidance on how to set up a build thread on AVS; anyone want to PM me?

I see you also live in the UK, I used to lecture in Manchester, well actually Salford, I was responsible for the creation of all the Recording courses (Electronic & Music) at Salford College of Technology and Salford University, I then moved to London where I did most of my less academic work....Then onto the States.

Hopefully someone can guide me as I am a little "lazy".
Edited by Digione - 3/23/13 at 11:46am
post #61039 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digione View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Paul - do you have a build thread or web page on your HT build? I'd love to take a look if you do.

Sorry but I do not. I originally started a twitter link, but after my contractor went bankrupt and I had less than 20% of my home left from the demolition for my family to live in, my attentions became somewhat diverted. eek.gif
 

 

 

Blimey! What a terrible experience that must have been for you all.

 

Quote:

I would be happy to create one and post some of the drawings, photographs and design details, but might need some guidance on how to set up a build thread on AVS; anyone want to PM me?
 

 

 

If you took photographs as the work progressed, leading to its final state as of today, just posting them in a new thread of your own here on AVS with a brief commentary (there's a dedicated sub forum for builds) would be a good  start. It's no biggie if it is too much of an ask though - I was interested because of your background.

 

Quote:
I see you also live in the UK, I used to lecture in Manchester, well actually Salford, I was responsible for the creation of all the Recording courses (Electronic & Music) at Salford College of Technology and Salford University, I then moved to London where I did most of my less academic work.
 

 

 
Yes, I have been on the Escape Committee for a long time but I am still here. I did escape to Italy for a year, France for a year and Los Angeles for 3 years but each time I was recaptured and had to come home. I did the sound editing and production of quite a few radio and cinema commercials in Manchester back in the day - always liked the city and the people there. Also did many in Soho/Wardour Street of course too - also enjoyable. 
post #61040 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post




If you took photographs as the work progressed, leading to its final state as of today, just posting them in a new thread of your own here on AVS with a brief commentary (there's a dedicated sub forum for builds) would be a good  start. It's no biggie if it is too much of an ask though - I was interested because of your background.


Yes, I have many photos from digging the footings all the way through to final construction and architectural drawings etc. So I will start a thread in the appropriate forum and post here when I have started it.

Will have to wait until next week as I am in the middle of a proposal for a new A/V production facility up in Buffalo NY. Boy, it was really cold up there.
Edited by Digione - 3/24/13 at 11:21am
post #61041 of 70905
Hey there--now that I moved my Gem XL surrounds to have the front sides face the side walls, I spent several hours last night watching 5.1 DVD and BluRay content (several eps of an old Showtme series, Sleeper Cell, and Star Trek 2009). After playing with Dynamic EQ on/off, at about -20 db and RLO=0 (Dynamic Vol is always off), I've tentatively concluded that I now get a better surround bubble with DEQ off.

With DEQ on, I still get a better imagery than when the Gems were angled more towards the LP, but the positioning feels slightly off center from the MLP. Turning DEQ off snaps it back into place. I also found the bass boost to feel boomier than before with DEQ, and the sound to feel like there's less dynamic range. Of course, my REW plots for the mains+subs are relatively flat at 1/6th (it's on the REW thread). I wonder if I'm picking up subliminal placebo effect from the thread eek.gif, or the removal of subtle surround reflection from the front is improving my imagery overall (front included), but a less "flat" sound with DEQ's boosts is picking up previously subsumed reflections or room modes?

What's strange is that if I try two-channel stereo music or rock/pop Internet radio with Dolby PLII, I find the effect with DEQ to be slightly more pleasing, and maybe even the reverse observations vs. HT movie content (RLO=15 and lower volume of about -25 db on Internet content, BTW). I think the surround boost effect at -25 db may somehow feel more 'natural' for PLII Music, given the curves posted a few days back, but for movies it's a surprise because the DEQ is something I always preferred before for HT use.

I still need to do my surround reassessment on Audyssey this weekend, but it's interesting to me that my movie DEQ perspective seems to have changed from a simple surround redux--with adjustable mounts, I literally turned each Gem XL about 120 degrees, and didn't even need to move the supporting stand's feet at all.
Edited by sdrucker - 3/23/13 at 12:48pm
post #61042 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Hales says the best way to get quality sound in a home theater is to make an accurate speaker and treat the room.
Hales misses the point of room correction/equalization: it isn't for situations where you can solve problems using "accurate" speakers (whatever that means) and room treatments, it is for situations where those two options are limited (for whatever reason: funds, decor, etc).

It's the same thinking that says we no longer need surround processing because we now have discrete 7.1 content or that we no longer need video scaling because we now have 1080p material. Totally misses the point that surround processing and video scaling aren't a substitute for discrete 7.1 and 1080p video, respectively, but for situations where the movie you want to watch doesn't have a 7.1 soundtrack and/or hasn't been released on Blu-ray.

If everyone had the kind of speakers that Hales describes and use of room treatments, not to mention the knowledge to deploy them correctly, then people could get away with not relying on room correction (or making minimal use of EQ). But that's not the situation with consumers. The article might be good advice for people wanting to convert their garage into a mini recording studio, but doesn't seem to understand the consumer audio market.
post #61043 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

What's strange is that if I try two-channel stereo music or rock/pop Internet radio with Dolby PLII, I find the effect with DEQ to be slightly more pleasing, and maybe even the reverse (RLO=15 and lower volume of about -25 db on Internet content, BTW). I think the surround boost effect at -25 db may somehow feel more 'natural' for music...
PLII Music mode has adjustable parameters that let you choose the amount of centre content and surround content that is extracted. Try adjusting the Dimension parameter until you get the type of surround effect you're hearing with the DEQ surround boost.
post #61044 of 70905
Hi, I have the 818 and I am having a issue. What happens is that during regular listening the system will drop volume almost like a quarter mute then very gradually build back up. Has anyone else had this issue? I have tried turning off all of the different volume limiters and cannot find the sweet spot.
post #61045 of 70905
^^
Thx...I knew about them, but I tend to leave PLII center and surround parameter settings alone. other than switching berween PLII and Neo, or music vs. cinema. Might be worth trying if I want to stay away from DEQ in the future. Only for that content, as 'preference', naturally.

Speaking of volume, either my audio ears are getting more sensitive wrt DEQ, or I'm succumbing to threadis nervosa. I usually preferred ALC or THX mode when I had a Pioneer AVR.

Regardless, if Keith is really listening to movies at -5 db (0=reference) with no DEQ, no Dvol, and RLO off, in a room smaller than my own 23x17, he must have much more tolerance for loud than I do, or went to too many King Crimson concerts back in the day!
Edited by sdrucker - 3/23/13 at 1:57pm
post #61046 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digione View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post




If you took photographs as the work progressed, leading to its final state as of today, just posting them in a new thread of your own here on AVS with a brief commentary (there's a dedicated sub forum for builds) would be a good  start. It's no biggie if it is too much of an ask though - I was interested because of your background.
 

Yes, I have many photos from digging the footings all the way through to final construction and architectural drawings etc. So I will start a thread in the appropriate forum and post here when I have started it.

Will have to wait until next week as I am in the middle of a proposal for a new A/V production facility up in Buffalo NY. Boy, it was really cold up there.

That would be terrific!

post #61047 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdrucker View Post

^^
Thx...I knew about them, but I tend to leave PLII center and surround parameter settings alone. other than switching berween PLII and Neo, or music vs. cinema. Might be worth trying if I want to stay away from DEQ in the future. Only for that content, as 'preference', naturally.

Speaking of volume, either my audio ears are getting more sensitive wrt DEQ, or I'm succumbing to threadis nervosa. I usually preferred ALC or THX mode when I had a Pioneer AVR.

Regardless, if Keith is really listening to movies at -5 db (0=reference) with no DEQ, Dvol, and RLO off, in a room smaller than my own 23x17, he must have much more tolerance for loud than I do, or went to too many King Crimson concerts back in the day!

 

-5dB with DEQ ON, Stuart. I always leave it on - at -5db it ain't really doing much anyway.  DVol has never, and will never, be turned on here :)  RLO is off these days, permanently. Since I heavily treated the room I find that I can listen at louder levels with no problem. I suspect that various reflections were causing it to 'sound loud' before and now these have pretty much gone away, it doesn't actually seem all that loud at -5dB. Well, it IS loud of course - I mean subjectively. At -5dB it subjectively seems to me to be about as loud as the cinemas locally, AFAICT. Of course, it can vary depending on content but -5dB is a typical level for me. If I played The dark Knight Rises at -5dB I think I would need emergency surgery, for example.

 

Incidentally, while Fripp, Bruford etc may have given me (no, did give me) tinnitus, in every other respect my hearing is terrific. Damn - now I have written the word 'tinnitus' I can hear it - first time today since getting out of bed...

post #61048 of 70905
After running aud. My crossover sets like thie, fronts 40hz, center 60hz and surrounds 60hz. Do i still need to tweak or just leave it what aud. Set?
post #61049 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by caloyzki View Post

After running aud. My crossover sets like thie, fronts 40hz, center 60hz and surrounds 60hz. Do i still need to tweak or just leave it what aud. Set?

You may set all your speakers to "Small" now and raise the c/os to 80 Hz. Keep it like that for a couple of days, maybe a week or two till you get used to the overall SQ and have a desire to do more tweak or not. In the meantime, you may find an excellent blog in my sig line explaining a bit more on what Large vs. Small is all about.
post #61050 of 70905
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

I am sure a lot you you are going to disagree but I am curious, but do you think of the following article. I posted it as well in acoustic treatment thread to get their perspective as well.

"Speaker Engineer Questions Home Theater Equalization Process
Paul Hales, founder of Pro Audio Technology, wonders why installers tune home theaters with unreliable microphones and measurement techniques, adding that musicians don’t tune Steinway pianos to suit the room.
By Robert Archer, March 22, 2013

...........................
The bottom line when thinking about equalizing a home theater: approach it from a musician’s perspective. “No one tunes a Steinway [piano] to compensate for the room,” he asserts. 

 

Of course, that analogy is an old red herring (and I am sure that Paul Hales knows that.)

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)