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 2104

post #63091 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

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.

Any idea why his sub trim is out of whack when it almost never happens to others? My initial sub set thingy always tells me to turn it down since I made a change - I ignore it and the trim is always ~3 db lower than it used to be. In other words, although course, it's accurate and consistent for me.

I still think he should set his sub higher and ignore the initial sub thing, which oddly, accommodates your explanation as well as mine (I'm 99% sure you're right, but I'd want to see some documentation.)
post #63092 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

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. 

 

 

Fitz, likewise.

 

 

Quote:
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'm sorry but I just don't buy into subjective "intuitively obvious". It isn’t in the least obvious to me that an omnidirectional mic would be omnidirectional in one direction only. You have made several statements that the mic will work in a particular manner and that it will not work in another manner - I am just asking if you have objective evidence that your assertions are facts or simply your own opinion. If they are facts, then it would be easy to see the difference on a REW graph by taking a measurement with the mic oriented one way and a further set with the mic oriented the other way. I am just wondering if you have done this, or seen evidence of it?  If not, then I am wondering how you can be so certain that, for example, "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."  If it is the former, perhaps you'd link to the graphs that settle this once and for all. If it's the latter, then by all means express your opinion - of course - but state that it is an opinion rather than presenting it as a fact.

 

Quote:
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 at all suggesting that we turn our mics upside down. The discussion arose because I said that the mic should point upwards!  I also said that if it points upwards, then wrt to ceiling speakers, it is not at the Audyssey-recommended orientation, which assumes conventional speakers.  It isn't "one artist's sketch" - it is an instructional image from one of the best sites on the Internet for the appropriate use of measuring the response of a given room wrt to the optimisation of speakers in that room.  The author of the site is a massively experienced acoustician and I refuse to believe that he does not know 

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." 

 

Quote:

I am not getting your thick headedness on this at all. Is it personal based on something I have said?

 

Not at all Fitz. I am not in any way "having a go" at you personally and I have the utmost respect for your views. I am just trying to clarify the position that's all. Please do not take it personally as it is not intended that way.

post #63093 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post


Any idea why his sub trim is out of whack when it almost never happens to others? My initial sub set thingy always tells me to turn it down since I made a change - I ignore it and the trim is always ~3 db lower than it used to be. In other words, although course, it's accurate and consistent for me.

I still think he should set his sub higher and ignore the initial sub thing, which oddly, accommodates your explanation as well as mine (I'm 99% sure you're right, but I'd want to see some documentation.)

 

What kind of documentation are you looking for?

 

It's a pretty simple concept.  If you set your sub lever higher at the start of the calibration, Audyssey will set the final trim lower to get a 75dB sub level.  If you set the sub level lower, Audyssey will set the final trim higher to get a 75dB level.  Regardless of what you do, Audyssey will try and set the trim to achieve 75dB.  The only real issue is if Audyssey "runs out of room" and can't set the trim high enough (or low enough), which manifests as a trim of +12 (or -12), in which case the sub trim is not correct.

post #63094 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The only real issue is if Audyssey "runs out of room" and can't set the trim high enough (or low enough), which manifests as a trim of +12 (or -12), in which case the sub trim is not correct.
A quibble: my understanding is that the maximum trim levels are +/- 15dB when using Onkyo and Integra equipment.
post #63095 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post


A quibble: my understanding is that the maximum trim levels are +/- 15dB when using Onkyo and Integra equipment.

 

Fine, but it doesn't change the message of my post.

post #63096 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

Any idea why his sub trim is out of whack

It's not.

Also, everything Jerry said smile.gif
post #63097 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen Traveler View Post

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.

 

The room.

post #63098 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post

the impact of the room is huge: a big dip at 38Hz

If you think about any other usefull test I could perform, please feel free to ask
Can you temporarily move your subwoofer to the middle of room width and measure again (no AntiMode, no XT32, no other speakers)?
post #63099 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post





Waterfall




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.




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

 

Hi - that is a terrific post - you have done a lot of work. And your English is terrific also!

 

My initial comment would be on the waterfalls. Would you please go back into REW and make them again, but this time extending out to only 450ms?  At the moment, you have some fairly severe ringing at 800ms and I would imagine this would be audible. If you remake the graph using 450ms we can see the true extent of the problem.

 

I would expect, from the photo, that this would be the case - Audyssey can't do much in the time domain (other than as a byproduct of what it does in the frequency domain) so it would be unreasonable to expect it to control that ringing. You may be able to improve on it substantially if you a) move the sub to a different place, b) add one or more additional subs, c) treat the room with acoustic panels, d) all of the above. 

 

How does the bass sound, subjectively?  Is it tight and well-controlled, starting and stopping on a centime?  Can you hear every note of a bass guitar with equal emphasis and loudness?  Or is the bass a little 'flabby' and 'lumpy' with some notes 'hidden' by others?

post #63100 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The only real issue is if Audyssey "runs out of room" and can't set the trim high enough (or low enough), which manifests as a trim of +12 (or -12), in which case the sub trim is not correct.
A quibble: my understanding is that the maximum trim levels are +/- 15dB when using Onkyo and Integra equipment.

 

Correct, Selden. As a Denon man, Jerry is used to a max limit of +/-12dB for the sub.

post #63101 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Correct, Selden. As a Denon man, Jerry is used to a max limit of +/-12dB for the sub.

Best is always to check the exact brand/model specs. E.g. just looked up the Onk 818 and for the sub trims it says:

Level calibration: Subwoofer:

–15.0dB to 0.0dB to +12.0dB in 0.5 dB steps.
post #63102 of 70896
Here come the Waterfalls with a 450ms time window:

Bypass


Antimode


XT32


I can't say anything about the way the bass sound with one correction or the other, as I did not have time to do any real listenning (had the amp since Monday night).
I'll know more after this week end.
post #63103 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I would expect, from the photo, that this would be the case - Audyssey can't do much in the time domain (other than as a byproduct of what it does in the frequency domain) so it would be unreasonable to expect it to control that ringing. You may be able to improve on it substantially if you a) move the sub to a different place, b) add one or more additional subs, c) treat the room with acoustic panels, d) all of the above. 
How does adding more subwoofers reduce the ringing?
post #63104 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post

Here come the Waterfalls with a 450ms time window:

Bypass


Antimode


XT32


I can't say anything about the way the bass sound with one correction or the other, as I did not have time to do any real listenning (had the amp since Monday night).
I'll know more after this week end.

I think you should settle with Audyssey XT32. Both the FR and the decay looks best.

P.s. Don't really u'stand why Keith wanted to you cut the graphs from 800ms to 450ms. The 450ms decay can also be seen on the 800ms graphs. Keith?
post #63105 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morg81 View Post

Here come the Waterfalls with a 450ms time window:

I can't say anything about the way the bass sound with one correction or the other, as I did not have time to do any real listenning (had the amp since Monday night).
I'll know more after this week end.

 

As Keith suspected, a 450ms time window, which is more realistic to reveal bass ringing, has uncovered some issues in your listening room.  I recommend you conduct the listening tests and, if you feel an improvement is warranted, that you consider room treatments to control the ringing.  What you really want to see is something like this:

 

post #63106 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


I think you should settle with Audyssey XT32. Both the FR and the decay looks best.

P.s. Don't really u'stand why Keith wanted to you cut the graphs from 800ms to 450ms. The 450ms decay can also be seen on the 800ms graphs. Keith?

 

Not Keith, but it is easier to interpret the waterfall if the time window is adjusted such that the bass resonance is just disappearing into the noise floor.  If this happens at 800ms, this indicates severe ringing.  In a really nicely-controlled room, modal ringing would disappear by 350ms.  In the REW thread, which both Keith and I participate in, we have agreed to publish waterfall graphs with a 450ms time window, simply because it facilitates easy interpretation.

 

Otherwise, no reason.  OK?

post #63107 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Not Keith, but it is easier to interpret the waterfall if the time window is adjusted such that the bass resonance is just disappearing into the noise floor.  If this happens at 800ms, this indicates severe ringing.  In a really nicely-controlled room, modal ringing would disappear by 350ms.  In the REW thread, which both Keith and I participate in, we have agreed to publish waterfall graphs with a 450ms time window, simply because it facilitates easy interpretation.

Otherwise, no reason.  OK?

Thanks Jerry for making that clear. smile.gif
post #63108 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post


How does adding more subwoofers reduce the ringing?

 

I think it is a combination of all three of his recommendations that has the potential of reducing ringing.  Moving a sub to a different location can reduce ringing.  Adding a second sub can allow for even more flexibility in placement while also improving overall bass response and, potentially, bass ringing.  Achieving really good bass response is not an exact science--if it were, we would all have perfect bass. 

post #63109 of 70896
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."
?

This was a bit difficult to track down on the web. But, for those still having difficulty understanding that the plastic and metal bits in the base and body of an otherwise omni mike do not transmit sound as well as when it is received in free air at the other end of the mike, please see the following:



Omnidirectional

An omnidirectional (or nondirectional) microphone's response is generally considered to be a perfect sphere in three dimensions. In the real world, this is not the case. As with directional microphones, the polar pattern for an "omnidirectional" microphone is a function of frequency. The body of the microphone is not infinitely small and, as a consequence, it tends to get in its own way with respect to sounds arriving from the rear, causing a slight flattening of the polar response. This flattening increases as the diameter of the microphone (assuming it's cylindrical) reaches the wavelength of the frequency in question. Therefore, the smallest diameter microphone gives the best omnidirectional characteristics at high frequencies.

The above is a quote from here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone#Electret_condenser_microphone



Keith - can we all move on?
post #63110 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

How does adding more subwoofers reduce the ringing?
Ringing occurs when the wave length of certain bass frequencies matches the length of certain dimensions of your room. Because of this match, the energy from those particular frequencies will continue to bounce back and forth between opposite walls, lingering (ringing, resonating) long after other frequencies have decayed.

When sound at a particular frequency hangs around longer, you have more sound at that frequency. On a measurement that shows amplitude, you'll see this "more sound" as a peak. On a waterfall chart, where you trade amplitude resolution for temporal resolution, the peak won't look as severe but you'll see that it hangs in the air for a longer amount of time.

These resonances (modes) have polarity. So if I placed a subwoofer to my right against the side wall and another subwoofer to my left directly opposite on that side wall, the modes being excited by the right sub would be at opposite polarity from the modes being excited by the left sub. Peaks that the right sub was creating would be met by dips that the left sub was creating, and vice versa. Since peaks and dips represent sound pressure level, think of it as areas of low pressure meeting high pressure.

When these opposites meet, (you guessed it) they cancel. And that's how adding an additional subwoofer can reduce ringing.
post #63111 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Ringing occurs when the wave length of certain bass frequencies matches the length of certain dimensions of your room. Because of this match, the energy from those particular frequencies will continue to bounce back and forth between opposite walls, lingering (ringing, resonating) long after other frequencies have decayed.

When sound at a particular frequency hangs around longer, you have more sound at that frequency. On a measurement that shows amplitude, you'll see this "more sound" as a peak. On a waterfall chart, where you trade amplitude resolution for temporal resolution, the peak won't look as severe but you'll see that it hangs in the air for a longer amount of time.

These resonances (modes) have polarity. So if I placed a subwoofer to my right against the side wall and another subwoofer to my left directly opposite on that side wall, the modes being excited by the right sub would be at opposite polarity from the modes being excited by the left sub. Peaks that the right sub was creating would be met by dips that the left sub was creating, and vice versa. Since peaks and dips represent sound pressure level, think of it as areas of low pressure meeting high pressure.

When these opposites meet, (you guessed it) they cancel. And that's how adding an additional subwoofer can reduce ringing.

Or a 7 inch thick GIK monster bass trap wink.gif
post #63112 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Or a 7 inch thick GIK monster bass trap wink.gif
Only if you want to improve the bass by using a lossy method (using abosorption to convert sound to heat), thereby making your subwoofer amp work harder and reducing its headroom.
post #63113 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Ringing occurs when the wave length of certain bass frequencies matches the length of certain dimensions of your room. Because of this match, the energy from those particular frequencies will continue to bounce back and forth between opposite walls, lingering (ringing, resonating) long after other frequencies have decayed.

When sound at a particular frequency hangs around longer, you have more sound at that frequency. On a measurement that shows amplitude, you'll see this "more sound" as a peak. On a waterfall chart, where you trade amplitude resolution for temporal resolution, the peak won't look as severe but you'll see that it hangs in the air for a longer amount of time.

These resonances (modes) have polarity. So if I placed a subwoofer to my right against the side wall and another subwoofer to my left directly opposite on that side wall, the modes being excited by the right sub would be at opposite polarity from the modes being excited by the left sub. Peaks that the right sub was creating would be met by dips that the left sub was creating, and vice versa. Since peaks and dips represent sound pressure level, think of it as areas of low pressure meeting high pressure.

When these opposites meet, (you guessed it) they cancel. And that's how adding an additional subwoofer can reduce ringing.

Sanjay, one would need to be very clever to setup two subs in the way you described and of course all this would work when the wave length of certain bass frequencies matches the length of certain dimensions of the room. But why would such configuration only reduce ringing, but not the direct sound itself? Or in other words, wouldn't this kinda setup as you described cause an immediate null, even if its at a mere 1 cubic centimeter in space?
post #63114 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post


This was a bit difficult to track down on the web. But, for those still having difficulty understanding that the plastic and metal bits in the base and body of an otherwise omni mike do not transmit sound as well as when it is received in free air at the other end of the mike, please see the following:



Omnidirectional

An omnidirectional (or nondirectional) microphone's response is generally considered to be a perfect sphere in three dimensions. In the real world, this is not the case. As with directional microphones, the polar pattern for an "omnidirectional" microphone is a function of frequency. The body of the microphone is not infinitely small and, as a consequence, it tends to get in its own way with respect to sounds arriving from the rear, causing a slight flattening of the polar response. This flattening increases as the diameter of the microphone (assuming it's cylindrical) reaches the wavelength of the frequency in question. Therefore, the smallest diameter microphone gives the best omnidirectional characteristics at high frequencies.

The above is a quote from here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone#Electret_condenser_microphone



Keith - can we all move on?

 

I don't necessarily want to extend this questionable debate, but over on the RealTraps web site, in the article on creating a RFZ, Ethan Winer has a couple of pictures in which he is measuring reflections coming from his leather couch, and the microphone (an ECM8000) is pointing directly at the floor.  Since Ethan is a respected member of the audio community, I would expect he knows what he is doing, so if anyone is interested in why he orients his mic this way, you could send Ethan a PM (Ethan Winer on Gearslutz.com).  If you do, please share with us.

post #63115 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Only if you want to improve the bass by using a lossy method (using abosorption to convert sound to heat), thereby making your subwoofer amp work harder and reducing its headroom.

+ XT32 and 2200 watt peak capability, headrooms no problem here wink.gif
post #63116 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

+ XT32 and 2200 watt peak capability, headrooms no problem here wink.gif
Absorb 3dB and you've got the equivalent of 1100 watts, absorb 6dB and you've got the equivalent of 550 watts.

By comparison, add another subwoofer and now you've got 2 x 2200 watts.

Better response with less power or better response with more power. You take the former, I'll take the latter.
post #63117 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

What kind of documentation are you looking for?

It's a pretty simple concept. If you set your sub lever higher at the start of the calibration, Audyssey will set the final trim lower to get a 75dB sub level. If you set the sub level lower, Audyssey will set the final trim higher to get a 75dB level. Regardless of what you do, Audyssey will try and set the trim to achieve 75dB. The only real issue is if Audyssey "runs out of room" and can't set the trim high enough (or low enough), which manifests as a trim of +12 (or -12), in which case the sub trim is not correct.

I mean documentation that there's nothing going on in the background to average out the level of all speakers when there's a mismatch. Chris is nothing if not ambiguous in his public writing, but he's stated many times that Audyssey attempts to make all speakers the same (and set to reference.) If it can't do both, how does it resolve it? Just thinking out loud, but one solution would be to bust reference a few db. Whatever, there's probably s simple explanation of OP's sub weirdness - and yes batpig, it is weird/off in my experience, as I have now explained twice smile.gif - and batpig is probably right (as again, I already said.)

According to the OP, he's asked to lower the sub setting, then Audyssey raises it significantly. As I stated, I don't see this as a common issue, and on my particular setup, it's perfectly accurate, even sensing that I made a small change to the port configuration, which raises mid bass a few db. It see this, asks me to lower the level, I don't, and the trim ends up a few db lower. Again as I said, this is accurate and predictable behavior. This is the opposite of what OP is reporting.

Edit: Oops, batpig is technically correct because I used the wrong term - trim - when I meant hmm, setting process or whatever you want to call the entire procedure. This is what's out of whack.
post #63118 of 70896
Well I ran Audyssesy and this time before running XT 32 I set my subs at 78db . So this time it had my sub trim at +1.5 and +2 on both subs . I'm going to test it out with Ironman 2 in a little while . Should be good to go though especially knowing having Audyssesy set the trim higher then 0 is not a issue .
post #63119 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Absorb 3dB and you've got the equivalent of 1100 watts, absorb 6dB and you've got the equivalent of 550 watts.

By comparison, add another subwoofer and now you've got 2 x 2200 watts.

Better response with less power or better response with more power. You take the former, I'll take the latter.

I'll take what I have especially since the cancellation in my room has been dealt with for the most part and it sounds good even at low levels and adding a second will be the icing on the cake.
post #63120 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

I don't necessarily want to extend this questionable debate, but over on the RealTraps web site, in the article on creating a RFZ, Ethan Winer has a couple of pictures in which he is measuring reflections coming from his leather couch, and the microphone (an ECM8000) is pointing directly at the floor.  Since Ethan is a respected member of the audio community, I would expect he knows what he is doing, so if anyone is interested in why he orients his mic this way, you could send Ethan a PM (Ethan Winer on Gearslutz.com).  If you do, please share with us.

Jerry - I am not really interested in prolonging the debate either. Personally, I think the burden of proof is on those who think pointing the mike down is better. As is clear, I don't. And, circumstantial and theoretical evidence now provides some support for my view. Even if it makes no difference, pointing it up cannot hurt. So, I will continue to point mine up. Others may do as they choose.
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)