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 2108

post #63211 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Has anyone else tried a "smaller" mic pattern, centered more around the MLP? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. I'm going to try this but with the holiday it's just been too loud around my house.

Thanks,
John.

 

Yes, numerous among us do it that way. Some of us have only one listener who is critical (my own situation) and we cluster the mic pattern more tightly around the MLP. This is contrary to Audyssey's instructions, so must be regarded as somewhat arcane, but some have measured their response using the mic positions as instructed and also in this way, and not only do they hear an improvement from clustering around the MLP, but they also measure an improvement. YMMV.

 

If you search this thread you will find considerable discussion of the topic.

post #63212 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, numerous among us do it that way. Some of us have only one listener who is critical (my own situation) and we cluster the mic pattern more tightly around the MLP. This is contrary to Audyssey's instructions, so must be regarded as somewhat arcane, but some have measured their response using the mic positions as instructed and also in this way, and not only do they hear an improvement from clustering around the MLP, but they also measure an improvement. YMMV.

If you search this thread you will find considerable discussion of the topic.



That's good to know and it makes a lot of sense to me. Im the only one in my house that cares about the sound that much anyway. My 17 year old son is medically attached to his earbuds and ps3 blue tooth. I need no wife approval but I have a gf that has a better ear than most men I've met. Thanks kb smile.gif
post #63213 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

That's good to know and it makes a lot of sense to me. Im the only one in my house that cares about the sound that much anyway. My 17 year old son is medically attached to his earbuds and ps3 blue tooth. I need no wife approval but I have a gf that has a better ear than most men I've met. Thanks kb smile.gif

It would also be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has done both ways but finally returned to the wide clustering method (as the maker recommends even for a single listener).

Anyone?
post #63214 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

BTW, with only one post, how do you get 10 'thumbs ups', especially as that one post has none?  Just interested...
You start off with 10 thumbs up (i.e., get 10 points for joining AVS).
post #63215 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

It would also be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has done both ways but finally returned to the wide clustering method (as the maker recommends even for a single listener).

Anyone?



I hear ya. The tighter pattern was recommended to me because of my acoustically poor room. The traditional pattern did/could not deal with my problems. So this is worth a try at least. The perfect measurements or graph isn't really important to me and I feel if I get into that it will just drive me crazy. So I'll depend ony ears. But yes I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who has done it both ways and hasn't formed an opinion as the right and wrong patterns. As far as I know there are no set in stone mic positions.
Edited by comfynumb - 7/5/13 at 8:45am
post #63216 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

I have only what Jerry have shared (no without-Audyssey measurements with the same hardware). But, looking to my own measurements, all the stuff (ringing) happens within 'first meter' of delay. Then it falls to 0 in the % scale and it is straight line starting from that, and on the dB scale it looks like noise below -55dB (it is with very poor ADC, it depends on the noise floor of the measurement hardware, but looking to the Jerry measurements it looks that there is very little noise in them).

 

I checked my records, Igor, and I don't have any REW measurements with Audyssey turned off for the time period when the XT vs. XT32 measurements were made.  My listening room is in a constant state of change, so any measurements taken earlier that year will not be accurate for a comparison.

post #63217 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I hear ya. The tighter pattern was recommended to me because of my acoustically poor room. The traditional pattern did/could not deal with my problems. So this is worth a try at least. The perfect measurements or graph isn't really important to me and I feel if I get into that it will just drive me crazy. So I'll depend ony ears. But yes I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who has done it both ways and hasn't formed an opinion as the right and wrong patterns. As far as I know there are no set mic positions.

The only set-in-stone mic position is the starting position at the MLP. BTW, even if you make both patterns the next question will be how to judge which one is better. My take is to listen to some music you know very well and listen carefully, especiall for bass.

Meantime, if you'd like to share some of those acoustically poor room conditions for troubleshooting you have come to the right place. Some photos would also help identify those problems. smile.gif
post #63218 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Changing the subject, I had some new window treatments installed yesterday, so I figured I should run a fresh Audyssey calibration in case the treatments altered the room 's audio characteristics.  (Typical behavior for me.)  While I was measuring the post-calibration results using REW, I thought I would have a little fun.  I measured left, right and center from the MLP, using an EMM-6 calibrated mic oriented towards the ceiling, as I usually do.  Then, I flipped the mic 180 degrees and measured the same speakers from the same spot, with the mic pointed directly downwards (the tip at ear height as well, of course).  Here are the results:










So, based on this small test, which I am sure some of you will find flawed, it seems as if having the mic pointed straight up, or straight down, is not all that important.  HST, I will continue to point the mic towards the ceiling, otherwise I would not sleep well at night.

Thanks, Jerry. I am not here to win an argument, only to understand this thing better and, hopefully, to provide the best and most accurate information to others.

Your results do not shock me at all. They are more or less as I predicted and as theory would predict. First, the difference is only in the top octave, becoming a bit more significant toward 20k. Second, essentially the only major contribution of the upside down mike setup is going to take place with reflected sounds from near directly above, which are usually much lower in magnitude than the direct sounds from the speakers. Direct sounds more from the sides will be largely unaffected by the mike orientation. Your curve combines both, and, of course, the direct sound is predominant, reducing the measured effect of the mike's vertical polar response issue. But, that is also what we hear when listening, nonetheless. Also, of course, rooms and speakers may differ in the amount of reflected HF energy they generate.

So, I think I indicated that there might be a small, "tiny" is what I think I said, difference based in this perhaps obscure fine point about mike orientation. No difference is not correct. Some may think the difference insignificant, which is not the same thing, exactly. But, as I also said, given the choice, I would rather pass the most accurate response information on to Audyssey or any other measurement protocol, if only by even a little bit. So, again, the choice is clear to me: point the mike up. It might be a little more accurate in the top octave.

Ok, so I think we have put bounds on the problem. It is not huge. I think we have also learned that even a complete 180 degree reversal of the mike does not cause a day/night difference. By extension then, response from even high speakers - ceiling speakers, high surrounds, DSX height - are also not going to be affected that much by lack of grazing incidence on the mike. So, once again, the whole grazing incidence concept, which has been blown out of proportion, starting with Chris, is really not meaningful at all. Just point the mike up at ear level, and you are done. You cannot do any better than that.

Thanks again for your hard work on this and many other issues.
post #63219 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


It would also be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has done both ways but finally returned to the wide clustering method (as the maker recommends even for a single listener).

Anyone?

 

Well, as I reported in an earlier post, I ran a fresh Pro calibration yesterday.  Given the recent discussion regarding a tight mic placement vs. the mic placement that is the default recommendation by Audyssey, I decided to experiment.  I am like Keith and several others in this thread--for 95% of the time, I am the only listener.  I have only two chairs in my listening room, and the chair I sit in is centered so that I benefit from being in the sweet spot.  For quite some time, my mic positioning has been "tight", i.e. no more than 12 inches in any direction from the MLP.  I have experimented with up to 14 mic positions, but am back to 8 positions because I have never perceived, nor measured, any improvement by adding the additional positions above 8.

 

Yesterday, I decided to use a more Feri-like (wink.gif ) mic positioning, i.e. 24 inches between mic positions.  I have only had several hours of exposure to the new calibration, but I always play several familiar music pieces, both 2ch and Mch, in order to assess the calibration.  TBH, I cannot hear any difference.  Both the "tight" and the "traditional" mic placements produce excellent sound at the MLP.  And before you ask, I don't care about any other listening positions.  Unfortunately, I was not able to use measurements to spot any differences, because there were other factors in my listening room that had changed (new window treatments, as reported earlier).

 

So, my initial conclusion would be that it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, especially if the objective is to optimize a single listening point.  What mic pattern will I use in the future?  Probably the "tight" pattern, simply because the mic placements are a bit easier.

post #63220 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

The only set-in-stone mic position is the starting position at the MLP. BTW, even if you make both patterns the next question will be how to judge which one is better. My take is to listen to some music you know very well and listen carefully, especiall for bass.

Meantime, if you'd like to share some of those acoustically poor room conditions for troubleshooting you have come to the right place. Some photos would also help identify those problems. smile.gif



Good recommendations thanks and I'll post my results an concerns soon. IF I can get it quiet enough in my room smile.gif
post #63221 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzcaraldo215 View Post


Thanks, Jerry. I am not here to win an argument, only to understand this thing better and, hopefully, to provide the best and most accurate information to others.

Your results do not shock me at all. They are more or less as I predicted and as theory would predict. First, the difference is only in the top octave, becoming a bit more significant toward 20k. Second, essentially the only major contribution of the upside down mike setup is going to take place with reflected sounds from near directly above, which are usually much lower in magnitude than the direct sounds from the speakers. Direct sounds more from the sides will be largely unaffected by the mike orientation. Your curve combines both, and, of course, the direct sound is predominant, reducing the measured effect of the mike's vertical polar response issue. But, that is also what we hear when listening, nonetheless. Also, of course, rooms and speakers may differ in the amount of reflected HF energy they generate.

So, I think I indicated that there might be a small, "tiny" is what I think I said, difference based in this perhaps obscure fine point about mike orientation. No difference is not correct. Some may think the difference insignificant, which is not the same thing, exactly. But, as I also said, given the choice, I would rather pass the most accurate response information on to Audyssey or any other measurement protocol, if only by even a little bit. So, again, the choice is clear to me: point the mike up. It might be a little more accurate in the top octave.

Ok, so I think we have put bounds on the problem. It is not huge. I think we have also learned that even a complete 180 degree reversal of the mike does not cause a day/night difference. By extension then, response from even high speakers - ceiling speakers, high surrounds, DSX height - are also not going to be affected that much by lack of grazing incidence on the mike. So, once again, the whole grazing incidence concept, which has been blown out of proportion, starting with Chris, is really not meaningful at all. Just point the mike up at ear level, and you are done. You cannot do any better than that.

Thanks again for your hard work on this and many other issues.

 

Another piece of information which is relevant, IMO, is that I have been on a crusade the last several months to eliminate as many early reflections as possible, and have been making good progress.  The differences between the two mic orientations might have been more significant, had I not been covering everything in sight with treatments.  I think this discussion has been worthwhile, and thanks for your insights as well.

post #63222 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post


Good recommendations thanks and I'll post my results an concerns soon. IF I can get it quiet enough in my room smile.gif

 

Comfy has been participating in the REW thread, Feri.  Don't try and steal him away!  smile.gif

post #63223 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Well, as I reported in an earlier post, I ran a fresh Pro calibration yesterday.  Given the recent discussion regarding a tight mic placement vs. the mic placement that is the default recommendation by Audyssey, I decided to experiment.  I am like Keith and several others in this thread--for 95% of the time, I am the only listener.  I have only two chairs in my listening room, and the chair I sit in is centered so that I benefit from being in the sweet spot.  For quite some time, my mic positioning has been "tight", i.e. no more than 12 inches in any direction from the MLP.  I have experimented with up to 14 mic positions, but am back to 8 positions because I have never perceived, nor measured, any improvement by adding the additional positions above 8.

Yesterday, I decided to use a more Feri-like (wink.gif
 ) mic positioning, i.e. 24 inches between mic positions.  I have only had several hours of exposure to the new calibration, but I always play several familiar music pieces, both 2ch and Mch, in order to assess the calibration.  TBH, I cannot hear any difference.  Both the "tight" and the "traditional" mic placements produce excellent sound at the MLP.  And before you ask, I don't care about any other listening positions.  Unfortunately, I was not able to use measurements to spot any differences, because there were other factors in my listening room that had changed (new window treatments, as reported earlier).

So, my initial conclusion would be that it probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, especially if the objective is to optimize a single listening point.  What mic pattern will I use in the future?  Probably the "tight" pattern, simply because the mic placements are a bit easier.

Good post Jerry, thanks for sharing your experience. Could the case that you could practically not identify differences be attributed to having good (very good) acoustical treatments in your room? In Audyssey terminology the clusters grouped from each measurement do not show significant differences so the final filter for your room is easily calculated? Just thinkin' out loud! smile.gif
post #63224 of 70896
I think there's likely something to that. Jerry also has multiple subs, and has worked hard on measuring and placing them, which means that the spatial variation of his bass response isn't significant, and thus as you suggest could result in fairly minimal differences between "wide" and "tight" patterns.

Referring to Markus' measurements of this same experiment, where he apparently was focused entirely on the bass frequencies (<300Hz), the graphs of the "wide" pattern show much greater point-to-point variation than the "tight" pattern. And the measurements of the left/right ear positions show the result, a flatter overall response with the tight pattern for that main listener. It seems logical that the lower the spatial variability of your "before" response is, the more similar the "after" calibration will be with different mic patterns.
post #63225 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I hear ya. The tighter pattern was recommended to me because of my acoustically poor room. The traditional pattern did/could not deal with my problems. So this is worth a try at least. The perfect measurements or graph isn't really important to me and I feel if I get into that it will just drive me crazy. So I'll depend ony ears. But yes I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who has done it both ways and hasn't formed an opinion as the right and wrong patterns. As far as I know there are no set in stone mic positions.

The placement of the microphone is arbitrary and there is no set pattern. However, I see no point in measuring behind where one's head would normally be placed. So arbitrary for me, means there is no perfect symmetry in its placement and it would be next to impossible to duplicate the locations of the mike. The bigger deal is setup and placement of speakers, including toe-in, which will dramatically affect what Audyssey hears and then folds into its calibration result.
post #63226 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

The placement of the microphone is arbitrary and there is no set pattern. However, I see no point in measuring behind where one's head would normally be placed. So arbitrary for me, means there is no perfect symmetry in its placement and it would be next to impossible to duplicate the locations of the mike. The bigger deal is setup and placement of speakers, including toe-in, which will dramatically affect what Audyssey hears and then folds into its calibration result.



Hi, I'm set il in 5.1 but my surrounds are approx 3 feet and 30 degrees behind the MLP, this can't be helped for now. In getting some bad reflection from the surrounds which I can cut down on to a certain point. As suggested to me and my own thoughts are to get 3 mic positions slightly behind the MLP. I do agree speaker placement is critical and I've done all I can IMO.
post #63227 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post


The placement of the microphone is arbitrary and there is no set pattern. However, I see no point in measuring behind where one's head would normally be placed. So arbitrary for me, means there is no perfect symmetry in its placement and it would be next to impossible to duplicate the locations of the mike. The bigger deal is setup and placement of speakers, including toe-in, which will dramatically affect what Audyssey hears and then folds into its calibration result.

 

I disagree.  One of the recurring themes in this thread is what seems like a degree of unpredictability from one calibration to another.  Being of an engineering mentality, I learned that repeatability produces consistent results in calibrations.  I use the same mic pattern every time, and I even go to the trouble to measure the distances between the points and mark them with a adhesive dots.  This repeatability allows me to focus on assessing the results of other changes, such as speaker placement, room treatments, etc. which, as you correctly say, are much more important in delivering optimal sound.

 

@Feri, I'm sure the work I have done with speaker placement, multiple subs, and extensive treatments will all influence the calibrations.  It's possible that these factors could also minimize the differences between the "tight" and "standard" mic placements.  It's difficult to know for sure, because we can't peek under the Audyssey covers to see what is really happening.

post #63228 of 70896
in your guys opinion how well does the Audyssey calibration work?
post #63229 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

I think there's likely something to that. Jerry also has multiple subs, and has worked hard on measuring and placing them, which means that the spatial variation of his bass response isn't significant, and thus as you suggest could result in fairly minimal differences between "wide" and "tight" patterns.

Referring to Markus' measurements of this same experiment, where he apparently was focused entirely on the bass frequencies (<300Hz), the graphs of the "wide" pattern show much greater point-to-point variation than the "tight" pattern. And the measurements of the left/right ear positions show the result, a flatter overall response with the tight pattern for that main listener. It seems logical that the lower the spatial variability of your "before" response is, the more similar the "after" calibration will be with different mic patterns.

I think I saw Markus's room on a photo once, and if I remember well he had much less treatments in that room than Jerry has in his and also Markus has one sub (as seen in the above link). Probably all these differences are the reason why the wide pattern had much greater point-to-point variations in Markus's case and practically nil for Jerry.

Are we into something conclusive tonight Guys? smile.gif
post #63230 of 70896
is there anyone available that i can talk to about my home theater setup and my Audyssey I really do need a little help
post #63231 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamafan35611 View Post

is there anyone available that i can talk to about my home theater setup and my Audyssey I really do need a little help

Go ahead please. You may start with a list of your gear, avr + speakers/sub(s), description of your room, maybe a photo or 2 would also do good to start off. smile.gif
post #63232 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamafan35611 View Post

is there anyone available that i can talk to about my home theater setup and my Audyssey I really do need a little help

 

Have you read the several excellent documents available in this thread that are designed to answer the most common questions?  There are links to both the Audyssey setup guide and the Audyssey FAQ in Mogorf's signature a few posts back.  I recommend you read both of these documents in their entirety and then return here with specific questions. 

 

@Feri:  I think we should always encourage new thread participants to do a little homework before asking questions here.  It should be almost like "the price of admission".  This way, we aren't answering the same questions over and over again.  JMHO.

post #63233 of 70896
yes i have read allot of FAQS about this
post #63234 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Have you read the several excellent documents available in this thread that are designed to answer the most common questions?  There are links to both the Audyssey setup guide and the Audyssey FAQ in Mogorf's signature a few posts back.  I recommend you read both of these documents in their entirety and then return here with specific questions. 

@Feri:  I think we should always encourage new thread participants to do a little homework before asking questions here.  It should be almost like "the price of admission".  This way, we aren't answering the same questions over and over again.  JMHO.

Agreed. smile.gif
post #63235 of 70896
thats fine if you dont wanna help that is ok
post #63236 of 70896
is there anyone here willing to help me
post #63237 of 70896
is there anyone here willing to help me
post #63238 of 70896
Everyone here is willing to help you. We've already tried to give you help. But if you don't provide any information about your problems, and seem to be unwilling to answer questions about your setup, how can we??
post #63239 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamafan35611 View Post

thats fine if you dont wanna help that is ok

I would go ahead and ask your questions, but if it turns out that they are addressed in the FAQ mentioned above - then you may simply get pointed towards them again. smile.gif
Regards, Mike.
post #63240 of 70896
ok I will tell you everything you need to know. I have a Denon 591 and i have to use the Rocketfish Wireless Kit for my surround sound speakers due to running wires is almost impossible. As of right now it just seems my surround sound dont have the full effect that it should. I am not sure if i have my speakers in the correct place I dont know if my DB is set right for each speaker. Also when I am watching a loud action movie my 2 surround sound speakers sometimes crack and pop. I have ran the audyssey setup i know 3 times and then i manually try to fix the DB of my speakers to try to fix this problem. I really dont know what else you need to know please ask me and I will tell.
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)