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 2103

post #63061 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

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 .

Zero on the MASTER VOLUME is reference only AFTER the speakers and subwoofer have been calibrated to , uh, make zero on the master volume reference. SO the calibration on the individual channels (the actual number) just needs to be whatever is right. Different speakers have different sensitivities. And if you sit twice as far from your speakers as another person, they will test up to six dB quieter even if they are the exact same speakers. The calibration needs to be whatever it needs to be.

Setting the sub's own volume control so it is at 75 dB with the particular test sound simply makes it easier for the receiver to dial the subs in to the correct calibration. Nothing more and nothing less. If the sub is calibrated correctly, unless there are unusual circumstances it literally does not matter if the sub channel level is zero, minus ten or plus ten. Makes exactly zero difference. Because you're just trying to get the sub to the "correct" level so that it will be at reference at zero on the master volume Although there are plenty of people who like to get their subs into plus or minus three dB or so on the sub channel, whether they really really need to or not . . .

If your subs happen to have linear volume controls they are exactly as loud at 1/10 volume as the same sub with a log volume control would be at one half. Where the sub's volume controls are set means nothing unless you know an awful lot, not only about that potentiometer, but the gain structure of the sub itself. Differences between SPL in pre-EQ and post EQ conditions typically has a lot to do with the EQ itself. A nice ten or fifteen decibel peak in anarrow range in teh bass will make the subs test much higher without EQ (pre autosetup) than post EQ.
Edited by JHAz - 7/2/13 at 6:56pm
post #63062 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

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

Again with the "slimmed down version" talk. Jeez. The AV1HD/5308CI upgrade as well as the Onkyo 818 and 929 simply do not include Sub EQ HT along with XT32.
post #63063 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post

The models I was referencing were the new Onkyo 929 and the Denon AVR X4000 The Denon advertises the Sub EQ HT.

Both models feature Dynamic EQ as well as Dynamic Volume. Note that these are all unique features ... Dynamic EQ (boost bass/surround audio at volume levels < 0db), Dynamic Volume (normalizes volume by raising lower level dialog and lowering loud explosions), Sub EQ HT (sets the trim and delay for dual subwoofers).
post #63064 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Both models feature Dynamic EQ as well as Dynamic Volume. Note that these are all unique features ... Dynamic EQ (boost bass/surround audio at volume levels < 0db), Dynamic Volume (normalizes volume by raising lower level dialog and lowering loud explosions), Sub EQ HT (sets the trim and delay for dual subwoofers).

Thanks, my room is only 12.5x21x9 so I don't know if I will add dual subs. The configuration just doesn't really allow it. SVS recommended going to a SB 13 Ultra over my PB 12 NSD.
post #63065 of 70886
I've been able to make some significant improvement in my Audyssey results vs. what I posted about two days ago by trial and error with the positions. It is helping. I still can't get it to sound as good (subjective, I know) as my old 2809/XT did, but it's getting closer. Instead of totally destroying all bass, now it's attenuating around 60Hz by about 6dB (compare with 10dB at about 80Hz and 100Hz).

Should fiddling so much with the positions make such a difference? / should it be necessary? At what frequency ranges and attenuation levels is this likely to actually be a measured room property vs. being a measurement problem? (roughly 12'x12' room - is 60Hz a plausible mode?)

Also, post-Audyssey on both, I'm finding that about -53dB on the 4311 sounds about the same loudness as -33dB on the 2809. Both are set to relative-to-reference volume. Shouldn't they more or less match post calibration? Would the receiver thinking it's -20dB different change how much or how little equalization DynEQ is applying (I thought DynEQ was intended to be a much smarter version of Fletcher-Munson)?

Is there any way short of the Audyssey Pro kit to get useful Audyssey curve data out of the 2809 so I can get a general comparison feel vs. what the 4311 is doing? Unfortunately, the 2809 has a VCR-era user interface.
post #63066 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post


Setting the sub's own volume control so it is at 75 dB with the particular test sound simply makes it easier for the receiver to dial the subs in to the correct calibration. Nothing more and nothing less. If the sub is calibrated correctly, unless there are unusual circumstances it literally does not matter if the sub channel level is zero, minus ten or plus ten. Makes exactly zero difference. Because you're just trying to get the sub to the "correct" level so that it will be at reference at zero on the master volume Although there are plenty of people who like to get their subs into plus or minus three dB or so on the sub channel, whether they really really need to or not . . .

.

I understand there is some averaging going on, but his speakers all have a negative trim level (including his center channel of -12) and his sub registering +5 to keep up after he level matched his subs at 75) seem counter intuitive. Someone mentioned he had "capable subs" because of this but I don't understand how that conclusion was come up with...If he had negative numbers for the sub in the same scenario would that mean that the subs were less capable?

I am not trying to be argumentative-- just haven't seen someone get positive numbers for their sub in the Klipsch community and I'm trying to get my head around it..
Edited by Zen Traveler - 7/2/13 at 7:32pm
post #63067 of 70886
I have XT32 – quick question: after I do the full Audyssey setup can I play with the speaker “electronic” arrangement w/o disturbing the measurements. What I mean specifically is that sometimes I like to listen to music in just two channel stereo (no sub). So I turn off the subwoofer through my Onkyo settings, listen for a while, and then turn the subwoofer back on. When I turn the subwoofer back on, does it retain the measurements from earlier or do I lose those when I turn it off initially?
post #63068 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post

I understand there is some averaging going on, but his speakers all have a negative trim level (including his center channel of -12) and his sub registering +5 to keep up after he level matched his subs at 75) seem counter intuitive. Someone mentioned he had "capable subs" because of this but I don't understand how that conclusion was come up with...If he had negative numbers for the sub in the same scenario would that mean that the subs were less capable?

I am not trying to be argumentative-- just haven't seen someone get positive numbers for their sub in the Klipsch community and I'm trying to get my head around it..
Exactly why does Audyssesy have me turn my gain on subs almost off and turn around and say oh **** lets turn the trim up on pre-pro way above reference to make up for it ?
post #63069 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

Zero on the MASTER VOLUME is reference only AFTER the speakers and subwoofer have been calibrated to , uh, make zero on the master volume reference. SO the calibration on the individual channels (the actual number) just needs to be whatever is right. Different speakers have different sensitivities. And if you sit twice as far from your speakers as another person, they will test up to six dB quieter even if they are the exact same speakers. The calibration needs to be whatever it needs to be.

Setting the sub's own volume control so it is at 75 dB with the particular test sound simply makes it easier for the receiver to dial the subs in to the correct calibration. Nothing more and nothing less. If the sub is calibrated correctly, unless there are unusual circumstances it literally does not matter if the sub channel level is zero, minus ten or plus ten. Makes exactly zero difference. Because you're just trying to get the sub to the "correct" level so that it will be at reference at zero on the master volume Although there are plenty of people who like to get their subs into plus or minus three dB or so on the sub channel, whether they really really need to or not . . .

If your subs happen to have linear volume controls they are exactly as loud at 1/10 volume as the same sub with a log volume control would be at one half. Where the sub's volume controls are set means nothing unless you know an awful lot, not only about that potentiometer, but the gain structure of the sub itself. Differences between SPL in pre-EQ and post EQ conditions typically has a lot to do with the EQ itself. A nice ten or fifteen decibel peak in anarrow range in teh bass will make the subs test much higher without EQ (pre autosetup) than post EQ.
Thank you for your thoughts and reply smile.gif
post #63070 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

Exactly why does Audyssesy have me turn my gain on subs almost off and turn around and say oh **** lets turn the trim up on pre-pro way above reference to make up for it ?

When it has you set the sub level, it doesn't know your other speakers are unusually high sensitivity. So once it finds that out, it has to turn up the sub trim to accommodate it's desire to set the level of all speakers the same.

If you ant to play around, set your subs to ~80 db at the listening position, ignore Audyssey when it prompts you to lower it, and do your calc.
post #63071 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

When it has you set the sub level, it doesn't know your other speakers are unusually high sensitivity. So once it finds that out, it has to turn up the sub trim to accommodate it's desire to set the level of all speakers the same.

If you ant to play around, set your subs to ~80 db at the listening position, ignore Audyssey when it prompts you to lower it, and do your calc.
Great idea ! Thanks I'll mess around with it tomorrow and see how that works out .
post #63072 of 70886
Beastaudio, I'm happy to let you know that with my upgrade to an xt32 receiver, x4000, I've now been able to remove the 20hz high pass filter you'd once recommended when I was running multieq and having my sub overdriven biggrin.gif
post #63073 of 70886
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?

Very much appreciate that beastaudio! Thanks in advance. smile.gif
post #63074 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

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 .

I have the Integra 80.3.....Four SVS SB-13Ultras on SUB1 and two 12" Velodyne on SUB2, I set both to 78db when selecting on XT32 EQ and they end result is always approx. -3 for both SUB1 &2 on the 80.3. If I set SUB 1/2 on 75db the result would be similar maybe to what you get, +5
post #63075 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

I have the Integra 80.3.....Four SVS SB-13Ultras on SUB1 and two 12" Velodyne on SUB2, I set both to 78db when selecting on XT32 EQ and they end result is always approx. -3 for both SUB1 &2 on the 80.3. If I set SUB 1/2 on 75db the result would be similar maybe to what you get, +5
Interesting , I think I'll run Audyssesy again and try between 78 and 80db and hopefully that will put my trim on the 80.3 in the - 3 to -5 area . Btw nice collection of subs you have there ! That many subs must be pretty intense . I know with just my PB 13 ultra and PB 12 Plus with heavy LFE it's like getting hit in the chest with a 2x4 lol . Can't imagine what four would be like eek.gif
post #63076 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about Audyssey elsewhere in AVS and some of the certified experts/calibrators are suggesting that for setups with very few seats that clustering the mic positions tightly around the MLP is preferrable.

I'm curious you guys (Keith, Batpig, SOM, AustinJerry, et all other resident thread experts) are using this method and keeping the results over the standard one in the FAQ?

 

In my HT the only seat that matters is my seat, so I take 7 measurements around the MLP and just two in the only other seat. That seems to work well for me. Best idea is to experiment and see what you prefer. For any HT with several seats, or where one is looking for good sound at all seating positions, the standard Audyssey mic placements are recommended. 

post #63077 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

As
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Hi Fitz,

I think I did pick up on your point, but I am not sure I agree with it. I am not sure than an  "omni mike is only truly omni more or less in its top hemisphere."   
 I have seen more than one instance, from respected sources, where, for example, a mic such as a UMM-6 is being used with REW and it is mounted so that the tip is pointing down towards the floor. I assume that if it is omnidirectional, then it is omni-directional and not 'half omni-directional'. Either way, there is no doubt that Audyssey's advice is to point the mic up towards the ceiling and when used in this way, with regular main speakers mounted with tweeters roughly at ear height, the mic is not pointing anywhere near directly towards the speakers. With in-ceiling R, L and C speakers this is not the case and the mic is pointing much more 'at' the speakers. 


When you say "
And, ceilings or walls above the horizontal plane of the speakers or ear level can introduce a whole lot of audible reflected energy from the front, sides and rear..." 
  this would imply that floors and walls below the horizontal plane 
don't themselves introduce a whole lot of audible reflected energy and, again, I am not sure if this is true or not. It seems to me that reflected energy will come from any reflective surface that the speaker can 'see', regardless of its position above or below the tip of the mic. 


WRT to height speakers, I think this is not too relevant. The major contribution to the sound is from the L, C and R speakers. Indeed, in the REW measuring thread, we 
don't even bother to measure the contribution of the surround channels or height channels. Any corrections Audyssey makes in those channels will be insignificant compared with the contribution to the sound of the L, C and R. It is when the main speakers are in the ceiling that the worries occur.


WRT to awareness of major struggles with Audyssey and in-ceiling speakers, there are more than 1,000 references to them in this thread so someone, somewhere is having issues with them and Audyssey wink.gif


I do not profess to have the answers to this issue, but everything I have read so far would suggest to me that it is important for the Audyssey mic to be pointed towards the ceiling and this assumes that the speakers are not also in the ceiling.  If I am correct, then Audyssey will struggle to correctly calibrate in-ceiling L, C and R speakers. If you are right, it 
won’t. I guess we need some people with in-ceiling speakers who have had a good -- or bad -- calibration result from Audyssey to come forward smile.gif


EDIT:  Here is just one example from a highly-respected source of an omnidirectional mic (
Behringer ECM8000 electret measurement microphone) 
being oriented with the tip facing down - this is from HifIZine's excellent 'how-to' on subwoofer integration (recommended reading for everyone here). I would be truly astonished if that site had made such a fundamental error in an otherwise definitive 'how-to guide'.







The url for the source is: http://www.hifizine.com/2011/06/bass-integration-guide-part-1/

As I discussed in the Official Audyssey thread, I think the diagram is incorrect and misleading. The mike is upside down. Whether doing an Audyssey calibration or independently measuring room response, reflections from the ceiling or high on the walls will be blocked as a function of frequency by the body and base of the mike this way. Those reflections are part of the rooms' sonic signature and more important than reflections from the floor or lower walls, as they will be damped by carpeting or blocked by furniture, including the chair in the diagram. For an accurate measurement, the mike needs to "see" not just the direct speaker response, but also the room reflections, since both combine to give the room's response, as we all know quite well.

The blocking action of the bottom of the mike will vary as a function of frequency, being progressively attenuated more in the highs and less in the lows. As a result, its pickup upside down will be skewed toward the lows and not linear. To amplify what I have been saying, even an "omni" mike is not truly omni in its lower hemisphere response pattern as a function of frequency. To get the most accurate picture of room response, it needs to be pointed up. This is what Audyssey has been saying all along, and for good reason. If only omni mikes were truly omni in every direction, it would not matter. But, better to fully or partially block lower floor and lower wall reflections by the body and base of the mike than those from the ceiling and upper walls.

The concept of "grazing" response is also highly misleading. If you point the mike up at ear level, you are going to get grazing response as a natural byproduct, but only from the speakers and not necessarily from room reflections. So, I find the term meaningless. Just point the mike up, as we have been told. It is that simple.

 

I find it incredible that the creator of HifiZine would use the mic incorrectly.

 

Do you have some objective evidence for your assertion that " reflections from the ceiling or high on the walls will be blocked as a function of frequency by the body and base of the mike this way."?

post #63078 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Spot on Mo, and I bet Keith will even have a diagram for you when he chimes in. I Usually do ear level dead center of the MLP, Left ear ,right ear, then the same three spots a foot or so in front of the MLP and then left edge seat and right edge seat behind the MLP.

Nothing wrong with the approach beastaudio, really! But setting up your system other than the maker suggests IMHO is another case of Reference vs. Preference. Again, it's your system, feel free to experiment, but be aware that what you are doing is not the "intended use". If it sounds better for you then that is all that counts, eh?! Welcome to Preference Land! smile.gif

 

What is the 'Reference' you are referring to for mic positions?  

post #63079 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

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 .

 

You're confusing the trim levels with Reference level which is 0dB on the master volume control. In order to achieve Reference level when the MV is at 0dB, the trims will usually need to vary from 0dB, because of the efficiency of the speakers, distance from MLP etc.

 

Setting the sub 'volume control' to 'almost off' isn't an issue - it is a gain control not a volume control and the sub will still deliver its rated power.

post #63080 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFactor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post

I understand there is some averaging going on, but his speakers all have a negative trim level (including his center channel of -12) and his sub registering +5 to keep up after he level matched his subs at 75) seem counter intuitive. Someone mentioned he had "capable subs" because of this but I don't understand how that conclusion was come up with...If he had negative numbers for the sub in the same scenario would that mean that the subs were less capable?

I am not trying to be argumentative-- just haven't seen someone get positive numbers for their sub in the Klipsch community and I'm trying to get my head around it..
Exactly why does Audyssesy have me turn my gain on subs almost off and turn around and say oh **** lets turn the trim up on pre-pro way above reference to make up for it ?

 

The trim is not 'way above reference'. The trim setting is nothing to do with the reference setting of 0dB on the master volume. If it really bothers you to see the trim set to +5dB, then turn up your sub a little, re-run Audyssey, ignore the 75dB warning screen thing, and you will have a trim at lower than +5dB. It won't make any difference to the sound, but if it makes you happier, then there is no harm in doing it. 

post #63081 of 70886

Email notifications not working again here.

post #63082 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I find it incredible that the creator of HifiZine would use the mic incorrectly.

Do you have some objective evidence for your assertion that " reflections from the ceiling or high on the walls will be blocked as a function of frequency by the body and base of the mike this way."
?

Keith - I have the greatest respect for you and all you have contributed here and elsewhere. But, really. It is so intuitivitvely obvious that it is trivial, yet you want documented proof? You just have to think in three dimensions rather than in two. So, let me turn this around. What is it about the nature of sound emanating from speakers that keeps the sound from going up and down as opposed to just sideways, and in either case plus all the other angular possibilities in between, then reflecting toward the listener off of all the room surfaces?

I think it is just as obvious that the bottom of the mike will block sound unlike the top, which is open. Just look at the damn thing. Are you honestly suggesting, based on one artist's sketch, that we all turn our mikes upside down, totally contrary to everything Audyssey has said?

I am not getting your thick headedness on this at all. Is it personal based on something I have said?
Edited by fitzcaraldo215 - 7/3/13 at 7:08am
post #63083 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The trim is not 'way above reference'. The trim setting is nothing to do with the reference setting of 0dB on the master volume. If it really bothers you to see the trim set to +5dB, then turn up your sub a little, re-run Audyssey, ignore the 75dB warning screen thing, and you will have a trim at lower than +5dB. It won't make any difference to the sound, but if it makes you happier, then there is no harm in doing it. 

My question is this given he (The Factor) has an Integra and I have a Denon AVR-4311ci but both are using Audyssey. We both have similar speakers with the same Sensitivity rating and both were instructed to lower our subs to 75 dB. My room is approx. 2,000 cu ft and it appears his is close to the same size. I realize there are a lot of variables but if we start from a baseline (or is it bassline wink.gif ) of 75 dB and then run Audyssey, what dynamics would make the EQ program raise his gain by 5 dB and lower mine by the same amount which would be a 10 dB difference? Outside of his center channel the rest of our speaker gains also look similar.

Btw, I understand all that matters is that we both are happy with how it sounds, but I would think using similar speakers in the same size room starting with the subs at 75 dB would give approx. the same gain comparatively speaking...If not, what could be the reason for him having +5 and me -5 on the sub channel? Fwiw, on my Denon it broadcasts the level on the screen and lets me know when it gets to 75 dB and I assume that the Factor is doing the same--I am not sure how the Integra works.
post #63084 of 70886
Hi,

I bought a Denon X4000 3 days ago, and wanted to measure how Audyssey MultEQ XT32 performs compared to my Antimode 8033-S for auto-calibrating my sub (SVS PB12-NSD).

I ran some tests (a lot actually!) to compare the sub equalization performed by Audyssey MultEQ XT32 versus Antimode 8033-S. I also measured the LFC impact.
The following is the translation of the original post I wrote in French for another HC forum, so please forgive me if you find a lot of bad wording or grammatical mistakes...


The environment:
- non dedicated non treated room (6m75 x 4m58 x 2m45)
- sub is a SVS PB12-NSD (supposed to be quite flat between 20 et 150Hz) at 80cm from a corner of the room
- this sub has a built in DSP that is used to obtain this flat answer (probably some IIR filters), so there might be phase rotations
- Denon X4000 with d'Audyssey MultEQ XT32
- Antimode 8033-S between the sub exit of the Denon and the input of the Sub
- the mics (ECM8000 for REW and the Audyssey and Antimode mics) are straped to a tripod, at hear height and at the central listenning position onour sofa (2 seats sofa, listenning position is at 3m70 from the front wall, 3m from the rear one)

Map of the room:


Photo of the room:


Theoritical room modes:


Calibration protocol I used:
1) Antimode autocalibration
2) Antimode set to Bypass, then Audyssey calibration with 8 spots (in red in the map)
3) Denon set to all speakers SMALL + 80Hz bass management cut off
4) M-Audio FastTrack USB is plugged to the Right AUX1 input of the Denon with a RCA cable
5) in REW the soundcard has been "calibrated" and the standard ECM8000 calibration file is used
6) the right speaker is OFF (it is a auto-amplified monitor, a M-Audio DSM3)

Mesures protocol I used
1) Denon volume set to 0dB > about 75dB mesured by Audyssey from the sub
2) REW mesures are done with 4 Sweeps from 15 to 150Hz / and a 1/24ème octave smoothing
3) mesure with XT32 OFF and Antimode BYPASS
4) mesure with XT32 ON and Antimode BYPASS
5) mesure with XT32 OFF and Antimode ON
6) to 12) mesure with XT32 ON and Antimode BYPASS, and LFC ON from 1 to 7

If you want the REW file just ask.

And here are the results:

1) Frequency response of the 3) 4) and 5)


2) No correction (XT32 OFF - Antimode BYPASS)

SPL & Phase


Waterfall



3) With Antimode correction (XT32 OFF - Antimode ON)

SPL & Phase


Waterfall



4) With XT32 correction (XT32 ON - Antimode OFF)

SPL & Phase


Waterfall




My analysis:
No correction
1) the impact of the room is huge: a big dip at 38Hz (-8dB) then two pics, at 40 and 50Hz (+15dB), then again a dip at 60Hz (but the 80Hz bass management cut off might have some impact on that). In the end between 15 et 60Hz the frequency response is +/- 9dB eek.gif
2) Waterfall analysis: the 40Hz pic is reducing regularly in time > it must be a room mode (mode 0.1.0). Indeed the theoritical calcul of the room modes estimate one at 37.5Hz, thanks to the 4.58m wide of the room > must be this one
3) Waterfall analysis: same thing for the 50Hz pic > room mode (2.0.0) at 51Hz theoritically, thanks to the 6.75m lenght of the room
4) phase isnot regular at all > DSP corrections from the SVS ?
6) one good thing: the SPL at 15Hz is still quite descent

Antimode 8033-S
1) better! The 38Hz dip is a little smaller, and the 40 and 50Hz pics are gone. In the end the SPL between 15 and 60Hz is between +/-5dB

Audyssey XT32
1) even better!!! No more dip at 38Hz, and the two pics are still gone. In the end the SPL between 15 and 60Hz is between +/-3dB

General comments
1) when comparing the phase diag of the Antimode and XT32: in both case the phase rotation at 40Hz is gone with the pic.
2) one last measure I would like to perform: adding the Antimode and XT32 correction! I did not have the time to do a full XT32 calibration (was 11pm and our baby was sleeping), but I hope to find some time to do it in the upcoming days.


And last but not least, the impact of the Audyssey LFC:


As you can see the difference between LFC levels is not that big, but the difference with or without LFC is HUGE!

Ok, that's all for now, your turn to analyse and comment my measures and analysis wink.gif


New measures and tests that I want to perform:
1) "Full" measure (with the right speaker ON) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with no correction
2) "Full" measure (with the right speaker ON) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Audyssey XT32 ON
3) "Full" measure (with the right speaker ON) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Antimode ON
4) sub measure (right speaker OFF) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with no correction
5) sub measure (right speaker OFF) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Audyssey XT32 ON
6) sub measure (right speaker OFF) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Antimode ON

Then I'll do a new XT32 full calibration (8 spots) with Antimode ON:
7) "Full" measure (with the right speaker ON) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Audyssey XT32 and Antimode ON
8) sub measure (right speaker OFF) from 15Hz to 500Hz at the 3 spots marked 1, 2 and 3 on the map > with Audyssey XT32 and Antimode ON

If you think about any other usefull test I could perform, please feel free to ask smile.gif
post #63085 of 70886
Zen, the way I see it Audyssey goes up and down your FR and is adjusting things +-9db. From a graph that Batpig showed a while back, there's a form of 'normalization' that seems to get applied at the end of the adjustments to account for the overall +-db average that got applied (either to the whole FR range or portions, IDK and it may be proprietary so no one knows). So if your FR curve needed more pluses applied when it normalized at the end of calibration it would give you an overall minus.

caveat: I'm piecing this together from a lot of tidbits and it is still my wild guess based on them. Please correct me if my train of thought is wrong.
post #63086 of 70886
Yes you are wrong tongue.gif

The theoretical "normalization" process is totally independent of the trim levels. It's just not relevant to this particular discussion.
post #63087 of 70886
that was a likely outcome smile.gif

so is it likely as simple as just poor uncalibrated mic differences?
post #63088 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post

I understand there is some averaging going on, but his speakers all have a negative trim level (including his center channel of -12) and his sub registering +5 to keep up after he level matched his subs at 75) seem counter intuitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

When it has you set the sub level, it doesn't know your other speakers are unusually high sensitivity. So once it finds that out, it has to turn up the sub trim to accommodate it's desire to set the level of all speakers the same.

Guys --- let's end this incorrect train of thought right now.

The sub trim level has absolutely nothing to do with the trim level of the other speakers. In fact, none of the trims have anything to do with the trims of the other speakers. If you mix high sensitivity speakers with low sensitivity speakers, some will end up negative and some will end up positive. The calibration simply does what it has to do to get each speaker playing at a specific "reference" volume level (75dB with the test tone, 105dB at full scale).

The fact that it "knows" the other speakers are "unusually high sensitivity" has NOTHING to do with the sub trim. If his subwoofer required a +5dB trim to hit the specified volume, that's what it needs. It wouldn't matter if his other speakers were 102dB sensitivity Klipsch with easy impedance curves or 83dB 4ohm monsters. The sub would come out at +5dB either way.

A couple things to understand:

1. the calibration program is not just setting relative volume, it's calibrating each speaker to a specific ABSOLUTE volume. This means that each speaker is measured independently of the others.

2. the reason the subwoofer trim is so variable, and can be wildly different from that of the speakers, is because the subwoofer has its own volume (gain) control that interacts with the receivers output. Speakers don't have gain knobs, they just play what they play. But by fiddling with the gain knob on the sub you are effectively changing its sensitivity to the voltage input from the receiver.

The explanation for TheFactor's "problem" is much simpler and more innocuous. The method used to set sub level in the "pre Audyssey" check is NOT the same as that used to calculate the trims during the "real" calibration. It's a much coarser method just to help you get in the ballpark of 75dB so the calibration program is guaranteed to not "run out of room" when it sets the sub trim.
post #63089 of 70886
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post


Guys --- let's end this incorrect train of thought right now...

The explanation for TheFactor's "problem" is much simpler and more innocuous. The method used to set sub level in the "pre Audyssey" check is NOT the same as that used to calculate the trims during the "real" calibration. It's a much coarser method just to help you get in the ballpark of 75dB so the calibration program is guaranteed to not "run out of room" when it sets the sub trim.

Jeez Dude! Thanks Mr batpig. You came through yet again. smile.gif
post #63090 of 70886
Thanks Kbarnes ,Batpig and Zen for your input .
Now that makes sense and I was mistaken trim levels for master volume thinking I would be getting some distortion with the trim that high on 80.3 for the subs. So with that being the case it doesn't bother me at all knowing that's not the case since it sounds just as good either way smile.gif
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)