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 2105

post #63121 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

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.

The lower the frequency the less the orientation matters, ...while the higher the frequency the more the orientation counts. Since the Audyssey mic bundled with our AVRs/AVPs was tested and calibrated in an upright position and its corresponding calibration file was burned into the AVR/AVP, IMHO it should obviously be a no-brainer into which direction the mic should face during auto setup. Right? smile.gif
post #63122 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

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?

 

Sanjay has given the definitive answer (as ever...).


Edited by kbarnes701 - 7/3/13 at 4:27pm
post #63123 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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?

 

Yes, that is true. It just makes it easier to see the extent of the problem at a glance.

post #63124 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."
?

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?

 

Fairly insignificant then really - a 1 inch wavelength is about 13,000Hz. I think you have made my point for me! :)

 

Happy to move on, sure.

post #63125 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

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.

 

I’d be guessing because it makes no difference! ;)

post #63126 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

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.

 

And as I have found, when adding treatments it is very easy to absorb 5dB. I was surprised at how much I had to turn up the MV to get the same SPL.

post #63127 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

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.

 

I never said it was "better" pointing down.  I am saying it makes no difference - omni being omni (except maybe at 13,000Hz).

 

The real issue, before we got sidetracked, was about the Audyssey mic and the way it should be pointed (up) and whether this impacts negatively on an Audyssey calibration of in-ceiling R, L and C speakers due to the mic now being pointed close to directly at the speakers as opposed to at 90 degrees to the (conventional) speakers.  I still maintain, based on reports in this thread concerning in-ceiling speakers wrt to Audyssey that Audyssey doesn't do a great job on in-ceiling (main) speakers and that is probably/possibly because of the odd mic orientation wrt to the in-ceiling speakers. It is, and never was, more than a hypothesis though.

post #63128 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post

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.

The lower the frequency the less the orientation matters, ...while the higher the frequency the more the orientation counts. Since the Audyssey mic bundled with our AVRs/AVPs was tested and calibrated in an upright position and its corresponding calibration file was burned into the AVR/AVP, IMHO it should obviously be a no-brainer into which direction the mic should face during auto setup. Right? smile.gif

 

Absolutely. The issue was only wrt to in-ceiling (main) speakers. I made the remarks I have just repeated to Fitz and then the subject took on a life of its own, å la Frankenstein's monster (but less interesting) ;)

post #63129 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

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.
Understood, I was simply pointing out that there is an alternate approach which doesn't require wasting amplifier power.
post #63130 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVLDARI View Post

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?

So what do you guys think? Can I turn the subwoofer on and off electronically w/o messing up the Audyssey settings?
post #63131 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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.
I'm not clever and I can place two subs on opposite walls. If I can do it, anyone can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

But why would such configuration only reduce ringing, but not the direct sound itself?
It does reduce the direct sound but that's more than compensated for by the output of a second subwoofer. So you not only end up with less ringing and improved response, but more bass in the room. Besides, at low frequencies, it doesn't make sense to separate the "direct sound" from what the room is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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?
Not when that null is at the peak of the other sub.

See page 14:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt3.pdf
post #63132 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I'm not clever and I can place two subs on opposite walls. If I can do it, anyone can.
It does reduce the direct sound but that's more than compensated for by the output of a second subwoofer. So you not only end up with less ringing and improved response, but more bass in the room. Besides, at low frequencies, it doesn't make sense to separate the "direct sound" from what the room is doing.
Not when that null is at the peak of the other sub.

See page 14:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt3.pdf



As a Revel and JBL owner I appreciate that link smile.gif lots of good info in there.
post #63133 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And as I have found, when adding treatments it is very easy to absorb 5dB. I was surprised at how much I had to turn up the MV to get the same SPL.

There's no perfect solution and imaging and timing as you guys should well know are far more important to the overall sound and why would you need to turn up the volume an extra 5db ? Is it to put back what you tried so hard to correct say in example a 50 hz mode your room favored that acoustic panels or audyssey has tamed ? I'm not sure I follow the logic here, Am I missing something. I personally find my room requiring less volume with greater tactile sensation at MLP. I can understand if you over do it, having to turn things up to get the same output may be one thing and also a misplaced panel can do this as well. I only have 4 panels for bass with the GIK Monster trap in the back corner which is where my room loads with bass and (2) 24x24 x4 up front and a 48x24x4 located 6 feet behind the MLP ( which I plan on trying diffusion there) I taken done various listen with them all out and back in one at a time and i've any more than what i have sucks the life out the bass and with none in the room I lose some tactile sensation and articulation. Adding audyssey XT32 to this recently, has only improved things further as my bass is stealthy and slams the MLP.

Oh and Audyssey had me turn my subs gain down to its 10 o'clock position wink.gif
post #63134 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVLDARI View Post


So what do you guys think? Can I turn the subwoofer on and off electronically w/o messing up the Audyssey settings?

Sure.  If you turn off the sub all the distance/level settings are retained but the EQ is defeated.  If you return to using the sub, Audyssey should be switched on but you might have to do it manually.  Might depend on the specific prepro.  The Marantz 8801 has a "Restore Defaults" option.

post #63135 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

I personally find my room requiring less volume with greater tactile sensation at MLP.
Adding several bass absorbers to your room resulted in more bass, with more tactile feel than before, which required you to reduce the volume level?

That's like saying you put a dry sponge on a wet countertop and ended up with more water than before.

The only way that's possible is if the bass trap was generating bass rather than absorbing it away. Doesn't sound like an effective "absorber" (but would make for a good shallow-depth subwoofer)
post #63136 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Adding several bass absorbers to your room resulted in more bass, with more tactile feel than before, which required you to reduce the volume level?

That's like saying you put a dry sponge on a wet countertop and ended up with more water than before.

The only way that's possible is if the bass trap was generating bass rather than absorbing it away. Doesn't sound like an effective "absorber" (but would make for a good shallow-depth subwoofer)

I didn't follow the thread up to this point but I see the statement of bass absorbers increasing perceived bass as entirely plausible -- if you are sitting in or close to a null caused by bass reflection from a rear wall then partially absorbing at that interface will increase the bass perception at the seating point...
post #63137 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggie View Post

I didn't follow the thread up to this point but I see the statement of bass absorbers increasing perceived bass as entirely plausible -- if you are sitting in or close to a null caused by bass reflection from a rear wall then partially absorbing at that interface will increase the bass perception at the seating point...
Sure, but you've accomplished that perception by removing bass energy from the room. I was simply pointing out earlier that the same can be accomplished using an approach that adds bass to the room.
post #63138 of 70896
So I have an Onkyo TX-NR709 and I recently moved to a new home as well as purchased a new 5.1 setup based on Bic Acoustech PL-89 IIs. I've never had this problem before calibrating with my old speakers in my old house, but now it keeps complaining the ambient noise is too high. Normally each speaker produces 10 chirps, but I noticed the sub produces 3 sets of 10 chirps at differing volume levels before complaining about the ambient noise. I did it during the day multiple times, at night, every single noise source turned off. Curtains closed, etc. Any ideas? And if you think the mic is defective (it does hear the subwoofer for the volume setting test), what is the model to replace it with?

EDIT: So the test worked, but it didn't detect the subwoofer. It can hear the subwoofer and I can set it to 75db volume, and it does chirp, but it said "no subwoofer".
Edited by clangro - 7/3/13 at 9:07pm
post #63139 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Sure, but you've accomplished that perception by removing bass energy from the room. I was simply pointing out earlier that the same can be accomplished using an approach that adds bass to the room.

Adds or smooth's? If I wanted more bass I'd move my MLP to the rear corner of the room but at the cost of way to many other factors! Maybe more clarification is necessary , my space is not dedicated but a living room and had we been discussing dedicated spaces perhaps more flexibility for the MLP wouldn't require such absorption . But as the other post noted I'm indeed close to the null in the room and have we forward of that position and backward as well but the trade off's where more than I was willing sacrifice for the sake of bass alone, enter those bass traps and treating first reflection points and "viola" best of both worlds eek.gif while not as good as a built from the ground up room with good nodes but close enough to enjoy the music and movies with a greater since of Fidelity and for me that's mission accomplished wink.gif For now biggrin.gif
post #63140 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Adds or smooth's?
Does both, since you can smooth the response by adding bass (adding sub) to the room. Just as you chose to improve response by removing bass (bass traps) from the room.
post #63141 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.
Thanks for the explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Or a 7 inch thick GIK monster bass trap wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And as I have found, when adding treatments it is very easy to absorb 5dB. I was surprised at how much I had to turn up the MV to get the same SPL.
Does a 6" bass trap even works below 50Hz? Or do I need 12"? I've read that standard bass traps are for frequencies above 100Hz....below that, we need electronic EQ like Audyssey
This is my waterfall chart (after eq) in a fully concrete living room that is open to the rest of the house. Currently, I only have a 2 x 6" traps straddle at the front corners and 2 x 4" at the sidewalls. I think I need 12 inchers but doubt it'll work below 50Hz. FYI, the 50Hz area is a background hum/noise.


Edited by Skylinestar - 7/3/13 at 11:48pm
post #63142 of 70896
A page back i wrote about my headache with multieq xt, my two subs and not beeing able to get the same result two times in a row... It was suggested that i should manually turn them on, I did. I was allso adviced to test if i would get different results if i dident move The mic around, tried that aswell.

Turning them on manually dident change anything - worth a shot though. Testing without moving The mic around did give me two equal results - both crap -, but that was a sucess! :-)

Then i started to play around.. It seems i am getting the best result if i turn the subs up a tad too high, forcing audyssey to set the sub's gain to about -5. If i get to close to 0 or +2 etc. It will distort on certain tones..

I can allso confirm that changeing the subs volume on the sub kills it's dynamic abilities and the attack at naturally has.
post #63143 of 70896
Hi, Guys

Pls pardon me for asking a stupid question.

In the Onkyo 1009 manual, the following is stated:

Audyssey MultEQ XT offers two ways of measuring: the “Audyssey Quick Start” and “Audyssey MultEQ XT Full Calibration”.
• “Audyssey Quick Start” uses the measurement from one position to perform the speaker setting only.
• “Audyssey MultEQ XT Full Calibration” uses the measurement from eight positions to correct room response in addition to the speaker setting.

I always only take measurement for 3 positions because I only have a 3-seater sofa, & I then let Audyssey does the calibration. But does it mean that Audyssey is not doing Full calibration because I don't take measurement from 8 positions? Does it mean that my 3-position calibration quality is inferior to a 8-position calibration quality?

Thanks.
post #63144 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVLDARI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVLDARI View Post

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?

So what do you guys think? Can I turn the subwoofer on and off electronically w/o messing up the Audyssey settings?

 

Yes.

post #63145 of 70896

<

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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.
I'm not clever and I can place two subs on opposite walls. If I can do it, anyone can.
 

 

I'm not as clever as you, and I managed it as well. :)  And the results were fabulous, as my recently posted comparison graph showed.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

But why would such configuration only reduce ringing, but not the direct sound itself?
It does reduce the direct sound but that's more than compensated for by the output of a second subwoofer. So you not only end up with less ringing and improved response, but more bass in the room. Besides, at low frequencies, it doesn't make sense to separate the "direct sound" from what the room is doing.
 

 

Again, I can testify to this. When I added a second sub, way back when, the biggest impact was in reducing the ringing.  IMO, everyone should have two subs or more - the difference between one sub and two or more is astonishing (when one is clever enough to place them optimally of course).

 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

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?
Not when that null is at the peak of the other sub.

See page 14:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt3.pdf
 
 
It's astonishing that there are apparently experienced AV enthusiasts who still do not understand the benefits of multiple subs.
post #63146 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiofan1 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And as I have found, when adding treatments it is very easy to absorb 5dB. I was surprised at how much I had to turn up the MV to get the same SPL.

There's no perfect solution and imaging and timing as you guys should well know are far more important to the overall sound and why would you need to turn up the volume an extra 5db ? Is it to put back what you tried so hard to correct say in example a 50 hz mode your room favored that acoustic panels or audyssey has tamed ? I'm not sure I follow the logic here, Am I missing something. I personally find my room requiring less volume with greater tactile sensation at MLP. I can understand if you over do it, having to turn things up to get the same output may be one thing and also a misplaced panel can do this as well. I only have 4 panels for bass with the GIK Monster trap in the back corner which is where my room loads with bass and (2) 24x24 x4 up front and a 48x24x4 located 6 feet behind the MLP ( which I plan on trying diffusion there) I taken done various listen with them all out and back in one at a time and i've any more than what i have sucks the life out the bass and with none in the room I lose some tactile sensation and articulation. Adding audyssey XT32 to this recently, has only improved things further as my bass is stealthy and slams the MLP.

Oh and Audyssey had me turn my subs gain down to its 10 o'clock position wink.gif

 

You misunderstand the purpose and effect of acoustic absorption. This isn't the place to go into it in detail, and there are many helpful sites just a Google away, but essentially, when you use absorption you are removing energy from the room. It is obvious that this will be the result - you are reducing the energy of the ringing in the bass, so clearly in order to reduce something you have to end up with less of it. In this case, you end up with less energy and this will then require the MV to be turned up by a corresponding amount if you wish to have the same overall SPLs as you did prior to using the absorption. 

 

Where you are going wrong is when you say "...is it to put back what you tried so hard to correct say in example a 50 hz mode your room favored that acoustic panels or audyssey has tamed ?"  No - you are not "putting the ringing back" by turning up the volume. You are simply raising the overall energy that is left (minus the energy from the ringing, which has now been removed) in order to get the SPL back to where it was.

post #63147 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Adding several bass absorbers to your room resulted in more bass, with more tactile feel than before, which required you to reduce the volume level?

That's like saying you put a dry sponge on a wet countertop and ended up with more water than before.

The only way that's possible is if the bass trap was generating bass rather than absorbing it away. Doesn't sound like an effective "absorber" (but would make for a good shallow-depth subwoofer)

I didn't follow the thread up to this point but I see the statement of bass absorbers increasing perceived bass as entirely plausible -- if you are sitting in or close to a null caused by bass reflection from a rear wall then partially absorbing at that interface will increase the bass perception at the seating point...

If you are sitting in a null, just moving so you are out of the null will increase the perceived level of the bass - but that isn't the issue under discussion.  Audiofan seems to be saying that he added bass absorbers and somehow ended up with MORE bass. That is impossible - if the bass absorbers were absorbing, then they will, by definition, remove something not add something, Sanjay's example of a dry sponge on a wet countertop is a brilliantly simple way of explaining it.

post #63148 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

And as I have found, when adding treatments it is very easy to absorb 5dB. I was surprised at how much I had to turn up the MV to get the same SPL.
Does a 6" bass trap even works below 50Hz? Or do I need 12"? I've read that standard bass traps are for frequencies above 100Hz....below that, we need electronic EQ like Audyssey
This is my waterfall chart (after eq) in a fully concrete living room that is open to the rest of the house. Currently, I only have a 2 x 6" traps straddle at the front corners and 2 x 4" at the sidewalls. I think I need 12 inchers but doubt it'll work below 50Hz. FYI, the 50Hz area is a background hum/noise.

 

It is very difficult (aka 'impossible') to control low bass with acoustic panels as you say. They would simply be too thick to be practical in most domestic rooms. Better control will come from using two or more subs, plus optimally locating the subs in the room wrt to the dimensions of the room (modes). EQ will also help of course as you say, but it is the icing rather than the cake.

post #63149 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Ong View Post

Hi, Guys

Pls pardon me for asking a stupid question.

In the Onkyo 1009 manual, the following is stated:

Audyssey MultEQ XT offers two ways of measuring: the “Audyssey Quick Start” and “Audyssey MultEQ XT Full Calibration”.
• “Audyssey Quick Start” uses the measurement from one position to perform the speaker setting only.
• “Audyssey MultEQ XT Full Calibration” uses the measurement from eight positions to correct room response in addition to the speaker setting.

I always only take measurement for 3 positions because I only have a 3-seater sofa, & I then let Audyssey does the calibration. But does it mean that Audyssey is not doing Full calibration because I don't take measurement from 8 positions? Does it mean that my 3-position calibration quality is inferior to a 8-position calibration quality?

Thanks.

 

Forget 'Quick Start' - it's a red herring.

 

You are doing a "full calibration" but using only 3 mic positions. That isn't good practice and you will get better results by using all the mic position your version of MultEQ allows (8 in the case of XT). 

 

Info here:

 

d)2.   Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?

post #63150 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therien View Post


Then i started to play around.. It seems i am getting the best result if i turn the subs up a tad too high, forcing audyssey to set the sub's gain to about -5. If i get to close to 0 or +2 etc. It will distort on certain tones..

 

That is fine. You were probably overdriving the sub amp's input when you had the trim in positive territory. 

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)