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 2102

post #63031 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

Thanks for chiming in Beastaudio - I should have had you on that list as well (so many good experts to keep track of). Also thank you fitzcaraldo. I did things strictly by the book last time around. Since so many more sonically attuned than myself have had success with this more MLP favored method, I'm going to go invest an hour into giving this a try this weekend. Loving that I now have the ability to save settings.

Anything you didn't like with doing it strictly by the book?
post #63032 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

BTW -- back in the day Markus did do measurements of the FR after Audyssey correction with two different mic patterns, one wide (Audyssey recommended) and one tight. The tight pattern did show improved FR afterwards at the MLP (focusing on two measurements at the left/right ears of the listener), for what it's worth.

EDIT: found it: http://mehlau.net/audio/multeq_xt32_mic_pattern/

And those graphs were measured at a single point at the MLP after calibration, eh? Again, one single measurement, not even an averaged RMS!!!

What happened to the good "olde" advice to do as intended by the maker and allow one or two weeks for your ears to get accustomed to reference calibration?
post #63033 of 70885
Thanks Batpig, that graph was very interesting. It did seem like there were maybe three areas with a bit of improvement. I wonder if I'll be able to tell the difference with my own ears...if so great of course. I figure while I'm already tweaking everything I might as well 'play' a bit while I am in my 'trial' period (read that as "my wife won't get pissed yet" smile.gif)

Mogorf - to answer your question, I am in love with the sound. When I first transitioned to Audyssey multieq a number of years ago I was similarly enamored. I got that feeling again within the last week. While I am still in my 'grace period' at home I might as well try and get it maximized and get a bit of a learning experience along the way.
post #63034 of 70885
Question please?

Audyssey states place mic at ear height listening position. Also mic height = to tweeters, which is often not quite at ear height...... Certainly not when one has a number of risers......

If we lived in a perfect world our listening position would be one seat, ears at the same level as the tweeters.


Ok this isn't a correct mic position, but I'm interested what might happen with a position say higher and lower than the ears.

With a 1 foot higher mic position than ears (closer to the ceiling) would the highs or low end be increased after XT32?
With a 1 foot lower mic than ears height, what would be the result?

With a 1' higher mic position than the tweeters, what would the result be, more highs or lows?
With a 1' lower mic position than the tweeters, what would the result be, more highs or lows?
post #63035 of 70885
^ Now that you have your mic and are developing your REW skills, why don't you test this out and report the results?
post #63036 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

^ Now that you have your mic and are developing your REW skills, why don't you test this out and report the results?

No one knows here?
post #63037 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

^ Now that you have your mic and are developing your REW skills, why don't you test this out and report the results?

No one knows here?
I think this would depend greatly on your listening space. For example, if the floor is more reflective than the ceiling or vice versa.
post #63038 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

And those graphs were measured at a single point at the MLP after calibration, eh? Again, one single measurement, not even an averaged RMS!!!

What happened to the good "olde" advice to do as intended by the maker and allow one or two weeks for your ears to get accustomed to reference calibration?

As was just posted by BP, if one is more concerned about the MLP over whole-area response flatness, then one should possibly do a tighter cluster. Unless I am demoing for a discerning listener such as the folks on this site, none, and I repeat NONE of my other friends and guests would ever say they heard something better or worse by doing it both ways. They aren't tuned in to listen to small nuances between a proper "by the book" calibration vs a tight cluster. On the other hand, I am, so I go for the method that gets me the best result at the MLP, and a tight cluster does that, while still doing a 95% good job for the rest of the other 5 seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Question please?

Audyssey states place mic at ear height listening position. Also mic height = to tweeters, which is often not quite at ear height...... Certainly not when one has a number of risers......

If we lived in a perfect world our listening position would be one seat, ears at the same level as the tweeters.


Ok this isn't a correct mic position, but I'm interested what might happen with a position say higher and lower than the ears.

With a 1 foot higher mic position than ears (closer to the ceiling) would the highs or low end be increased after XT32?
With a 1 foot lower mic than ears height, what would be the result?

With a 1' higher mic position than the tweeters, what would the result be, more highs or lows?
With a 1' lower mic position than the tweeters, what would the result be, more highs or lows?

If your main mic level is dead center of the room (height wise) and you move it up a foot towards a reflective ceiling, you will get different results. If I move mine up 6 inches and it brings the mic above the back of the chair by a far enough margin, I get a pretty different result.

Dead center on line with the tweeters is where most speaker designers design to have the best response to the listener. That is why it is suggested to listen on a plane with the tweeters. There are too many room variables to really state a good answer to your question. The answers will never be the same for any two people that are reading, much less have ever read this thread. bottom line.
post #63039 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

If your main mic level is dead center of the room (height wise) and you move it up a foot towards a reflective ceiling, you will get different results. If I move mine up 6 inches and it brings the mic above the back of the chair by a far enough margin, I get a pretty different result.

Dead center on line with the tweeters is where most speaker designers design to have the best response to the listener. That is why it is suggested to listen on a plane with the tweeters. There are too many room variables to really state a good answer to your question. The answers will never be the same for any two people that are reading, much less have ever read this thread. bottom line.

Im absolutely sure the results are different but what does it do to the sound, louder, deeper, brighter, better, worse, etc etc etc....?
post #63040 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

BTW -- back in the day Markus did do measurements of the FR after Audyssey correction with two different mic patterns, one wide (Audyssey recommended) and one tight. The tight pattern did show improved FR afterwards at the MLP (focusing on two measurements at the left/right ears of the listener), for what it's worth.

EDIT: found it: http://mehlau.net/audio/multeq_xt32_mic_pattern/

And those graphs were measured at a single point at the MLP after calibration, eh? Again, one single measurement, not even an averaged RMS!!!

Incorrect. Not surprised that your selective memory blocked out the original discussion from years ago, but all you had to do was actually click the link and read what was written to refresh yourself. Actually you don't even have to read, you can just look at the pictures.
Edited by batpig - 7/1/13 at 11:45pm
post #63041 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Incorrect. Not surprised that your selective memory blocked out the original discussion from years ago, but all you had to do was actually click the link and read what was written to refresh yourself. Actually you don't even have to read, you can just look at the pictures.

Dear batpig, I really don't care who makes the graph, but once I see conclusions made out of one single graph I do go up in arms, coz such single graphs will never show what our ears (two of them at the same time) hear. Don't you agree? BTW, multiple averaged measurement technique is not an Audyssey "thing", other RC systems do it in the exact same spacial manner. smile.gif

Take care! smile.gif
post #63042 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

If your main mic level is dead center of the room (height wise) and you move it up a foot towards a reflective ceiling, you will get different results. If I move mine up 6 inches and it brings the mic above the back of the chair by a far enough margin, I get a pretty different result.

Dead center on line with the tweeters is where most speaker designers design to have the best response to the listener. That is why it is suggested to listen on a plane with the tweeters. There are too many room variables to really state a good answer to your question. The answers will never be the same for any two people that are reading, much less have ever read this thread. bottom line.

Im absolutely sure the results are different but what does it do to the sound, louder, deeper, brighter, better, worse, etc etc etc....?
What he's saying is that you can't infer this from such a simple description because there are far too many variables.

Here are just a few brief examples

- take tweeter dispersion for one. Some speakers are designed with very even dispersion characteristics both on the horizontal and vertical plane. Some are designed for very good characteristics on a wide horizontal plane, but limited vertical plane. The difference between the 2 designs is easily heard if tweeter height = seated ear height. Speaker 1 sounds equally good when seated as when standing. Speaker 2 will sound noticeably different when standing vs seated.

THX speakers are designed with limited vertical dispersion to reduce the effects of reflections off the floor and ceiling. If you look through the measurements of a bunch of different speakers on Stereophile's website, you'll note that some speakers have very good dispersion characteristics and will sound good seated or standing. Some on the other hand, have such narrow vertical dispersion that you wouldn't want to have your ears more than 5" above or below the tweeter. Some even have asymmetric dispersion where you wouldn't want to have your ears more than 6" below, or 2" higher than the tweeter.

- then you have to account for the room's reflectivity and how much reflection you're getting from the ceilings and floors

Those are only 2 variables, and they can already skew the results in either direction between the possible combinations and permutations.


Max
post #63043 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

BTW -- back in the day Markus did do measurements of the FR after Audyssey correction with two different mic patterns, one wide (Audyssey recommended) and one tight. The tight pattern did show improved FR afterwards at the MLP (focusing on two measurements at the left/right ears of the listener), for what it's worth.

EDIT: found it: http://mehlau.net/audio/multeq_xt32_mic_pattern/

And those graphs were measured at a single point at the MLP after calibration, eh? Again, one single measurement, not even an averaged RMS!!!

Incorrect. Not surprised that your selective memory blocked out the original discussion from years ago, but all you had to do was actually click the link and read what was written to refresh yourself. Actually you don't even have to read, you can just look at the pictures.
Good thing most of us know you're posting the info for everyone else, because we know you're never going to win. I always picture the kid with fingers in ears and eyes squeezed shut going, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LAAA". smile.gif


Max
post #63044 of 70885
Hello there Audyssey experts. I recently bought an NAD t787 equipped with multieq xt (not xt 32 - yeah, i know), and I am having a grad time getting an acceptable result.

My setup:

5.2 system

NAD t787 receiver
MK Sound 950 LCR
MK Sound sur55t
2 x MK Sound mx 250

The room:

Rectangular. 3 x 5,3 meters (im from Denmark, hence the metric system). It's a dedicated theater with acoustic treatments.

Now, I know Multieq xt is only designed for one sub. But everywhere it can be used for two subs aslong they are placed symetricly - which they are, down to The last inch.. The subs are levelmatched, and phase is correct. So, everytime i run a calibration i get a different result. Rangeing from pretty good to complete ****. Eihter the volume is too low, or it's too high, sometimes it lacks the punch i know they have, other times it creates a one note type of bass around 80 - 100 hz.. When running it on one sub The result is perfect everytime, and The improvements are clear - it's designed for one sub i know, but... I think on my 15th + calibration now, been experimenting with crossovers, placement of The subs, different patterns for the mic. I cant recreate two results in a row with both subs turned on. So i must be something really fundemental, or the claim: "multieq xt works on two subs" is false. Advice is more than welcome.
post #63045 of 70885
Everywhere i read, it is claimed multieq xt can be used for two subs. Apologies.. Iphone dictionary is f******* me over..
post #63046 of 70885
^Hi Therien. MultEQ can EQ 2 subs.
If you are consistently following proper procedure you should not get such variable results. Assuming that once you've set each sub's phase and level,you're not changing them from cal to cal and you're making some effort to keep mic positions fairly consistent from cal to cal. Properly set up, two subs should sound consistently better than one. Sub placement is critical to smooth bass And one of the great benefits of two vs one sub is using them together to decrease uneven bass response by reducing room modes. It is possible that in your case that the placement is unfortuitous. You could try moving the subs a bit, keeping them equidistant.

If that doesn't help and no one else has a simple solution, it may be that you'll need to measure what's going on in the room with a measurement system such as REW or OmniMic. Then you'd start over by doing a measured sub crawl to find the best sub positions for smoothest FR when firing together, of course keeping in mind practical considerations.
post #63047 of 70885
Hi Soundofmind! Thank you very much for reply. For The record, two subs do sound better than one - in my case, audyssey had to be off though.

I am consistent in, well everything.. I have limited options concerning placement of The subs, only along the front wall. Atm. they are placed between right front and center speaker and left front and center. I have an xtz room analyzer Pro, so i know my room and its problems. There is little to no difference if i place them close against the wall in a corner or put Them as they are right now. The current position seems like best, as it minimizes a room mode around 30hz (which audyssey ignores completely 7 out of 10 times). But i think i got my "simple answer", audyssey is very far from perfect - further than i thought..

I have one last thing though.. Stacking the subs, will attempt that tomorrow..
post #63048 of 70885
Therien, when calibrating two subs connected to a MultEQ XT system's single sub jack using a Y-cable, you should get consistent calibrations every time. This assumes, of course, that nothing changes between calibrations. Mic placement is the hardest thing to control, of course. The fact that you get a good calibration consistently when only using one sub leads me to believe that the placement of the subs results in some acoustic phenomenon in the area of the primary listening point. Perhaps there is a cancellation effect caused by sub phasing and placement that produces a very narrow null at the mic location. This "bad spot" could be very small, and a slight difference in mic placement could produce significant variations in the calibration results. By the way, you don't say in your original post, were the distance and trim settings different for each calibration, or did they remain the same?

To test this theory, you could try a simple experiment. Run a one-measurement calibration with the mic in the primary listening position. Leave the mic in place, and be careful not to move it. Listen to the calibration results. Then run a second one-measurement calibration and listen to the results. If the mic has not been moved, the calibrations should sound exactly the same. Now move the mic a small distance to the left or right, only a couple of cm. Run another one-measurement calibration. Did the results change?

I agree, without some way of measuring what is going on acoustically in your listening room, this will be a difficult issue to understand and resolve. We can assure you though, XT is perfectly capable of producing consistent calibrations for a two-sub configuration like yours.
Edited by AustinJerry - 7/2/13 at 6:04am
post #63049 of 70885
Therien,

I apologize in advance, if the suggestion below has already been considered and addressed?

Any chance either of these subs might be in an "auto-on" mode (as opposed to being manually switched on)?
I was once bitten with this. My Audyssey test tones were not of long enough duration to fire the auto-on circuitry of my SVS BASH amps.
Switched them manually to on and then started getting consistent results ...
post #63050 of 70885
@ Austinjerry

Hey there, thank you for replying. I forgot my levels! :-)

F: +5
C: +3
L: +5
SR: +3
SL: +3
SW: This changes.. Not every time - sometimes.. Funny note here: It can set it to -2 with a single sub.. And then throw me a +2 with 2 subs... I havent changed the volume - I know, its weird.. When i check with my radioshack SPL meter, it shows a 5+ db increase in output with 2 subs - which is normal.. Most times it is like audyssey doesent pick up on this..

So yes, there is some consistency in levels, distance and all out performance on the satellites. But the subs are all over the place.. But interresting theory. I will put it to the test tonight. I'll let you know how that turns out.

@ cuzed2

I need all the advice/ideas i can get mate, thanks! Yup, they are on automode. Hmmm.. I will definatly set them to on manually when i do a new cal later tonight. A question.. WHen you say they werent long enough to turn the amp on, does this mean you dident hear the sub sweaping? I hear mine sweap perfectly fine.
post #63051 of 70885
Therein,

If I recall correctly one of them seemed to be doing a partial sweep.
post #63052 of 70885
Hmm. Im getting a full sweep - i think biggrin.gif But i will switch them on.
post #63053 of 70885
I have a question for you guys . For some reason when I run Audyssesy with my Integra 80.3 it has me turn my gain on my subs way down so there at 75db . There gain is set around 1/8 to 1/4 but the strange part is then after running Audyssesy it sets the sub trim level on my 80.3 up to +5 . I normally go back and use my spl meter and set my subs at around 77db with my sub trim on my 80.3 at around -3 to -5 . With those settings my gain on my subs is still only at between 1/4 and way less then 1/2 . I have scary bass either way just not sure about having my trim on my 80.3 at +5 . What do you guys think ?
Thanks in advance !
post #63054 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

I have a question for you guys . For some reason when I run Audyssesy with my Integra 80.3 it has me turn my gain on my subs way down so there at 75db . There gain is set around 1/8 to 1/4 but the strange part is then after running Audyssesy it sets the sub trim level on my 80.3 up to +5 . I normally go back and use my spl meter and set my subs at around 77db with my sub trim on my 80.3 at around -3 to -5 . With those settings my gain on my subs is still only at between 1/4 and way less then 1/2 . I have scary bass either way just not sure about having my trim on my 80.3 at +5 . What do you guys think ?
Thanks in advance !

I have speakers like yours that have a high Sensitivity rating and have 2 subs hooked up as well and agree something looks outta whack...After looking at your pics it appears our room is about the same size and I have just set up my system with a new (to me) Denon AVR-4311ci and it also had me lower the subs down to 75 dB. When I did and after running Audyssey my trim levels were all between -5 and -8, including the two subs which were at -5 and -7.5.

Anyway, I am curious what the others have to say. and surely you have negative numbers on your other speakers, right?
Edited by Zen Traveler - 7/2/13 at 2:14pm
post #63055 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post

I have speakers like yours that have a high Sensitivity rating and have 2 subs hooked up as well and agree something looks outta whack...After looking at your pics it appears our room is about the same size and I have just set up my system with a new (to me) Denon AVR-4311ci and it also had me lower the subs down to 75 dB. When I did and after running Audyssey my trim levels were all between -5 and -8, including the two subs which were at -5 and -7.5.

Anyway, I am curious what the others have to say. and surely you have negative numbers on your other speakers, right?
Yes my center is maxed as low as it can go -12 and my other speakers are not as low but between -7 and -4 in that area. It just blows my mind Audyssesy does that with my subs . I mean why have me turn my subs gain almost to zeroed out with hardly any gain and then turn around and take my pre/pro trim into the +5 area. Very strange and I've run it multyple times and it always does that . Like I said just for kicks I left it like that this time and watched DREDD on a blu and the bass sounded great nice and tight and hits hard . It's just those settings have me baffled lol . I feel much better having turned the sub gain up a little and having my trim with 80.3 set at -5 or so using my spl meter to get my speakers at around 76 to 77db just a little hot .
post #63056 of 70885
I am looking at two receivers to upgrade to. Both have MultiEQ XT32. Then one has Dynamic EQ and the other has Sub EQ HT. What is the difference between the second two. Will one calibrate any better than the other, or is it just a marketing gimmick?
post #63057 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Dear batpig, I really don't care who makes the graph, but once I see conclusions made out of one single graph I do go up in arms, coz such single graphs will never show what our ears (two of them at the same time) hear. Don't you agree? BTW, multiple averaged measurement technique is not an Audyssey "thing", other RC systems do it in the exact same spacial manner. smile.gif

Take care! smile.gif

Feri, just for you, I will do such graphs, and just for you shall post them. Averaged FR with the standard audyssey config and averaged FR with the clustered FR. I will overlay the MLP graphs for both and then a chosen few seats averaged outside the sweet spot. Sound good to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

I have a question for you guys . For some reason when I run Audyssesy with my Integra 80.3 it has me turn my gain on my subs way down so there at 75db . There gain is set around 1/8 to 1/4 but the strange part is then after running Audyssesy it sets the sub trim level on my 80.3 up to +5 . I normally go back and use my spl meter and set my subs at around 77db with my sub trim on my 80.3 at around -3 to -5 . With those settings my gain on my subs is still only at between 1/4 and way less then 1/2 . I have scary bass either way just not sure about having my trim on my 80.3 at +5 . What do you guys think ?
Thanks in advance !

Sounds to me like you just have very capable subs...The gains at the levels they are will not limit you. seems to me like you hare happy and all good so no worries smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post

I am looking at two receivers to upgrade to. Both have MultiEQ XT32. Then one has Dynamic EQ and the other has Sub EQ HT. What is the difference between the second two. Will one calibrate any better than the other, or is it just a marketing gimmick?

If both have xt32, then both would have dynamic EQ and subeqHT AFAIK. I haven't run across a unit that offers one and not the other except for the av1hd upgrade which was a slimmed down version of xt32. I could be wrong tho
post #63058 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Feri, just for you, I will do such graphs, and just for you shall post them. Averaged FR with the standard audyssey config and averaged FR with the clustered FR. I will overlay the MLP graphs for both and then a chosen few seats averaged outside the sweet spot. Sound good to you?
Sounds to me like you just have very capable subs...The gains at the levels they are will not limit you. seems to me like you hare happy and all good so no worries smile.gif
If both have xt32, then both would have dynamic EQ and subeqHT AFAIK. I haven't run across a unit that offers one and not the other except for the av1hd upgrade which was a slimmed down version of xt32. I could be wrong tho

The Onkyo 818 has XT32 with Dynamic EQ but not Sub EQ. Sub EQ isn't a very big deal if you have the option of multiple locations for your subs.
post #63059 of 70885
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Feri, just for you, I will do such graphs, and just for you shall post them. Averaged FR with the standard audyssey config and averaged FR with the clustered FR. I will overlay the MLP graphs for both and then a chosen few seats averaged outside the sweet spot. Sound good to you?
Sounds to me like you just have very capable subs...The gains at the levels they are will not limit you. seems to me like you hare happy and all good so no worries smile.gif
If both have xt32, then both would have dynamic EQ and subeqHT AFAIK. I haven't run across a unit that offers one and not the other except for the av1hd upgrade which was a slimmed down version of xt32. I could be wrong tho
For sure my subs are very capable there amazing . The concern is 0 is reference on my 80.3 and it sets it past that at + 5 and then it has me lower my subs to a very low setting almost off . Why doesn't audyssesy just have me raise the sub Gains a little more so it doesn't turn the trim level "sub gain" on my pre-pro past reference levels to compensate for it .
post #63060 of 70885
The models I was referencing were the new Onkyo 929 and the Denon AVR X4000 The Denon advertises the Sub EQ HT.
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)