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 2114

post #63391 of 70910
I have a question regarding bass boost by DynamicEQ. There are several occasions reported by members where DynamicEQ was notoriously blamed for excessive bass boost.
Which of the following will have louder bass level?
Setup A: Master volume of -10dB. DynamicEQ off.
Setup B: Master volume of -15dB. DynamicEQ on.
post #63392 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

I have a question regarding bass boost by DynamicEQ. There are several occasions reported by members where DynamicEQ was notoriously blamed for excessive bass boost.
Which of the following will have louder bass level?
Setup A: Master volume of -10dB. DynamicEQ off.
Setup B: Master volume of -15dB. DynamicEQ on.

Hi,

I fear some lack of undersranding what DEQ is supposed to do. OK, let's look into some more details in a nutshell. Even though DEQ makes an electric boost in the low frequency range it does it because our ears have a loss of bass as the volume is turned down. Hence, the boost applied by DEQ is supposed to compensate for that loss resulting in the same percived frequency range we would hear at 0 dB reference level. Tip: leave DEQ on. Hope this helps. smile.gif
post #63393 of 70910

^Sky, it seems to me the answer will depend on the source (and RLO offset, if any). 

 

I'd expect that with film (reference level) material and RLO=0, you'd not find much diff at all between those settings.
 

post #63394 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

Aha! You didn't say you used XLR to RCA plugs smile.gif the main thing is to get rid of your hum. What happens when you use regular RCA's? I suggest to use a cable with regular RCA"s. really I doubt you'll hear any difference between the two and if it gets rid of the hum you can eliminate the Art, or try the RCA to RCA and the cheater plug. Or just run Audyssey again and see what you think. I had a hum with a Parasound HCA1500a that I briefly swapped just to try with my new speakers. I couldn't deal with it and plus my Sunfire amp sounded better.

Well the Mackie only has balanced outs and the Denon only has RCA. I have been using XLR to RCA wires from Monoprice. One end is terminated XLR and the other end is terminated RCA, no device/adapter in the middle... I had bought 4 so I tried swapping the pair I was using with the pair I never used before and the hum is still there.

I guess the consensus is to eliminate the hum through traditional methods. I thought the Art T8 was an easier way to do this, and was advertised everywhere as having no audible impact on the sound, but Audyssey seams to think otherwise. I do to now...

Thanks for the help guys
post #63395 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If the calibration is undertaken in the exact same circumstances as previous calibrations, then the results are always exceptionally consistent. Determined and motivated members such as Jerry have measured this and, by using exact same mic positions particularly (in Jerry's meticulous case by marking them out with adhesive dots) results are always consistent from one calibration to another.

While not being nearly as meticulous in my methods as Jerry, I too aim for consistency of mic positions and also get very consistent results. So if you are finding that the results from one cal to the next are "very hit and miss" then I suggest paying very close attention to the setup prior to the cal. We know from experience with REW that moving the mic even a small distance (~1 inch) can give very different measured results. This is not to say that Cal A will be substantially better or worse than Cal B, but that it will definitely be different. 

Audyssey have also undertaken highly controlled tests for consistency and have found that, given the circumstances mentioned above, there is very little difference between any two calibrations.

Since this is the case Keith, I just wish we knew the very best place to get the best result. Following the mic placements from the FAQ can produce a better reading than another, with maybe the mic only 1" or 2" different from the previous EQ. Your room and Jerrys might be almost perfect, so maybe your Audyssey results are more consistent than many others.

If Jerry never ever tries another position than the dots marked on the floor, how does he ever know that a different position might produce a better result?

BTW guys....Doing my first REW tonight so hopefully I can post some results for your expert help.cool.gif
post #63396 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFM View Post

Well the Mackie only has balanced outs and the Denon only has RCA. I have been using XLR to RCA wires from Monoprice. One end is terminated XLR and the other end is terminated RCA, no device/adapter in the middle... I had bought 4 so I tried swapping the pair I was using with the pair I never used before and the hum is still there.

I guess the consensus is to eliminate the hum through traditional methods. I thought the Art T8 was an easier way to do this, and was advertised everywhere as having no audible impact on the sound, but Audyssey seams to think otherwise. I do to now...

Thanks for the help guys



I gotcha. I would think the monoprice cables are good ones. Something on that electrical circuit is most likely the culprit a dedicated line to that piece or your gear could eliminate it. No guarantees I know these can be tricky and good luck.
post #63397 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

I have a question regarding bass boost by DynamicEQ. There are several occasions reported by members where DynamicEQ was notoriously blamed for excessive bass boost.
Which of the following will have louder bass level?
Setup A: Master volume of -10dB. DynamicEQ off.
Setup B: Master volume of -15dB. DynamicEQ on.

 

As Feri just said, DEQ is meant to compensate for the way we hear bass frequencies as loudness is decreased. In a calibrates system, such as one where Audyssey has just been properly run, the bass is calibrated as 'correct' at 0dB on the Master Volume. As you decrease the volume with the MV, DEQ progressively boosts the bass (and the surrounds) so that perceptually the bass is as loud (subjectively) at the new MV setting as it was at 0dB. IOW, the perceived loudness of the bass doesn’t change. This makes it difficult to give a meaningful answer to your question because in A) you will find the bass is significantly lower than it was when the MV was 0dB and in B) the bass will be perceptually as loud as it was when the MV was 0dB.

 

Most people find that DEQ does a very good job and leave it enabled all the time. If you feel it is overboosting the bassm, you can apply a Reference Level Offset. See here:

 

g)2.   What is Dynamic EQ?


g)3.   What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?

post #63398 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFM View Post

Well the Mackie only has balanced outs and the Denon only has RCA. I have been using XLR to RCA wires from Monoprice. One end is terminated XLR and the other end is terminated RCA, no device/adapter in the middle... I had bought 4 so I tried swapping the pair I was using with the pair I never used before and the hum is still there.

I guess the consensus is to eliminate the hum through traditional methods. I thought the Art T8 was an easier way to do this, and was advertised everywhere as having no audible impact on the sound, but Audyssey seams to think otherwise. I do to now...

Thanks for the help guys

 

Please come back and let us know how you get on.

post #63399 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

I have a question regarding bass boost by DynamicEQ. There are several occasions reported by members where DynamicEQ was notoriously blamed for excessive bass boost.
Which of the following will have louder bass level?
Setup A: Master volume of -10dB. DynamicEQ off.
Setup B: Master volume of -15dB. DynamicEQ on.

 

I took two sets of measurements, one at 80dB and one at 85dB, which on my system occurs at MV settings of -16 and -11, respectively.  Audyssey and DEQ were on.  I measured RLO settings of 0, 5, 10, and 15.  Here are the results, 1/6 smoothing:

 

 

 

Here is a summary of the results:

 

 

So, superimposing the Audyssey only graph at @85dB with the Audyssey+DEQ @80dB, we get this graph:

 

 

So, the two MV settings output the exact same amount of bass at 27Hz (where the curves cross), with Aud+DEW@80dB producing less and less boost up to approximately 150Hz, where the two graphs track at a 5dB difference towards higher frequencies.

 

Does this answer your question?  What does it tell you?

 

@Keith, perhaps this post should be linked in your FAQ under "What does RLO actually do?".

 

And @Feri, no, I did not take multiple measurements across many positions and average the results.

post #63400 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

If the calibration is undertaken in the exact same circumstances as previous calibrations, then the results are always exceptionally consistent. Determined and motivated members such as Jerry have measured this and, by using exact same mic positions particularly (in Jerry's meticulous case by marking them out with adhesive dots) results are always consistent from one calibration to another.

While not being nearly as meticulous in my methods as Jerry, I too aim for consistency of mic positions and also get very consistent results. So if you are finding that the results from one cal to the next are "very hit and miss" then I suggest paying very close attention to the setup prior to the cal. We know from experience with REW that moving the mic even a small distance (~1 inch) can give very different measured results. This is not to say that Cal A will be substantially better or worse than Cal B, but that it will definitely be different. 

Audyssey have also undertaken highly controlled tests for consistency and have found that, given the circumstances mentioned above, there is very little difference between any two calibrations.

Since this is the case Keith, I just wish we knew the very best place to get the best result. Following the mic placements from the FAQ can produce a better reading than another, with maybe the mic only 1" or 2" different from the previous EQ. Your room and Jerrys might be almost perfect, so maybe your Audyssey results are more consistent than many others.

If Jerry never ever tries another position than the dots marked on the floor, how does he ever know that a different position might produce a better result?

BTW guys....Doing my first REW tonight so hopefully I can post some results for your expert help.cool.gif

 

A mic placement difference of 1 or 2 inches is certainly enough to give very different results.

 

WRT to Jerry (and myself) the 'dot positions' have been arrived at after much trial and error with mic placements. Having found the best spots to use in our own circumstances, we use these same spots repeatedly when we make changes to the room, not when we are trying to evaluate mic positions. 

 

Looking forward to your REW results. Maybe you'd be better off posting them in the REW thread, unless they are Audyssey-specific?

post #63401 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

I have a question regarding bass boost by DynamicEQ. There are several occasions reported by members where DynamicEQ was notoriously blamed for excessive bass boost.
Which of the following will have louder bass level?
Setup A: Master volume of -10dB. DynamicEQ off.
Setup B: Master volume of -15dB. DynamicEQ on.

 

I took two sets of measurements, one at 80dB and one at 85dB, which on my system occurs at MV settings of -16 and -11, respectively.  Audyssey and DEQ were on.  I measured RLO settings of 0, 5, 10, and 15.  Here are the results, 1/6 smoothing:

 

 

 

Here is a summary of the results:

 

 

So, superimposing the Audyssey only graph at @85dB with the Audyssey+DEQ @80dB, we get this graph:

 

 

So, the two MV settings output the exact same amount of bass at 27Hz (where the curves cross), with Aud+DEW@80dB producing less and less boost up to approximately 150Hz, where the two graphs track at a 5dB difference towards higher frequencies.

 

Does this answer your question?  What does it tell you?

 

@Keith, perhaps this post should be linked in your FAQ under "What does RLO actually do?".

 

And @Feri, no, I did not take multiple measurements across many positions and average the results.

 

Good idea, Jerry. I have several updates to do for the FAQ. I will include this info and your graphs (credited to you of course).

post #63402 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

A mic placement difference of 1 or 2 inches is certainly enough to give very different results.

WRT to Jerry (and myself) the 'dot positions' have been arrived at after much trial and error with mic placements. Having found the best spots to use in our own circumstances, we use these same spots repeatedly when we make changes to the room, not when we are trying to evaluate mic positions. 

Looking forward to your REW results. Maybe you'd be better off posting them in the REW thread, unless they are Audyssey-specific?

Thanks Keith I know you guys will help me. Thumbs up to you and Jerry too, you do a marvellous job, you are both very knowledgeable and I trust what you contribute to this forum. You have helped me so much on this at times complicated journey.

I will post the REW results in the other thread, no worry....

Well REW help me too find the best placement for the mic, I would love to know how I find out?
post #63403 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Since this is the case Keith, I just wish we knew the very best place to get the best result. Following the mic placements from the FAQ can produce a better reading than another, with maybe the mic only 1" or 2" different from the previous EQ. Your room and Jerrys might be almost perfect, so maybe your Audyssey results are more consistent than many others.

If Jerry never ever tries another position than the dots marked on the floor, how does he ever know that a different position might produce a better result?

BTW guys....Doing my first REW tonight so hopefully I can post some results for your expert help.cool.gif

 

Murray, let's be clear on what has been claimed.  I said that if attention is paid to the calibration technique, which includes using exactly the same measuring points (at least close), the same number of points, keeping the mic exactly at ear height and pointed at the ceiling, etc., then subsequent calibrations should produce consistent results (assuming nothing else has changed, of course).  I stand by this statement, because my extensive experience running calibrations has proven this over and over again.  I do not find Audyssey to be a capricious product--if it were, I would have discontinued using it long ago

 

Having said that, consistency doesn't depend on how "perfect" the room is.  Good techniques should produce consistent results, whether in an acoustically good listening room, or an acoustically-challenged room.

 

And no one said that anyone has found the "perfect" mic placements to produce the absolute best results.  There are far too many permutations and combinations to ever make such a claim.  Nor do I want to spend an exorbitant amount of time trying to squeeze the last drop of perfection out of my system (regardless of my reputation, I know...).

 

Edit:  Anxiously awaiting your first REW measurements.  Post on the REW thread, where we can assist as required.

 

Edit 2:  What Keith said as well...

post #63404 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


And @Feri, no, I did not take multiple measurements across many positions and average the results.

No trouble Jerry, for an explanation in a nutshell IMHO is ok. The only thing it does not show is the dynamic feature of DEQ, i.e. its ability to look into the contents playing and adusting the compensation on the fly (in real time) based on soft or loud passages. But that's another in-depth story of DEQ, eh! cool.gifcool.gifcool.gif

P.s. I clicked on the Aud+DEW@80dB and it opened by MS Outlook in a separate window. Looks like a valid e-mail address! wink.giftongue.gif
post #63405 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Thanks Keith I know you guys will help me. Thumbs up to you and Jerry too, you do a marvellous job, you are both very knowledgeable and I trust what you contribute to this forum. You have helped me so much on this at times complicated journey.

I will post the REW results in the other thread, no worry....

Well REW help me too find the best placement for the mic, I would love to know how I find out?

 

Follow the general guidelines:

 

- First position at the MLP

- Subsequent positions left, right, forward, and backward by ~24 inches.

 

With a complex room like yours, with multiple rows and different seat heights, mic placement can be more complex.  Unfortunately, I have no experience in this area.

 

Here is what I think is a reasonable recommendation, let's call it "walk before you run":  Assume for a moment that you have only one row of seats.  Select mic placements for this row according to the conventional placement recommendations I mentioned earlier.  Hone your REW skills by optimizing the audio for this one row of seats, with the MLP being the best spot, of course.  Experiment with placements, etc., again limiting measurements to one row of seats.

 

Once you are comfortable with your REW skills and have achieved pretty good results for the single row, measure the results for the other rows.  Who knows, you may have arrived at "good enough" and can relax and enjoy your system.  If not, then experiment with other mic placements, but be aware, the complexity increases exponentially.

post #63406 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


No trouble Jerry, for an explanation in a nutshell IMHO is ok. The only thing it does not show is the dynamic feature of DEQ, i.e. its ability to look into the contents playing and adusting the compensation on the fly (in real time) based on soft or loud passages. But that's another in-depth story of DEQ, eh! cool.gifcool.gifcool.gif

P.s. I clicked on the Aud+DEW@80dB and it opened by MS Outlook in a separate window. Looks like a valid e-mail address! wink.giftongue.gif

 

Measuring the dynamic component of DEQ would be a challenge.  I am content with faith in this case, when science fails us.

 

And anything with a format xxxxx@yyyyy is considered by most browsers to be an email address, but not necessarily a valid one.

post #63407 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Murray, let's be clear on what has been claimed.  I said that if attention is paid to the calibration technique, which includes using exactly the same measuring points (at least close), the same number of points, keeping the mic exactly at ear height and pointed at the ceiling, etc., then subsequent calibrations should produce consistent results (assuming nothing else has changed, of course).  I stand by this statement, because my extensive experience running calibrations has proven this over and over again.  I do not find Audyssey to be a capricious product--if it were, I would have discontinued using it long ago

Having said that, consistency doesn't depend on how "perfect" the room is.  Good techniques should produce consistent results, whether in an acoustically good listening room, or an acoustically-challenged room.

But, but, but,...Jerry, recently you have made two measurements with different mic pattern placements (one as usual and one as Feri's suggestion) and you said there we no significant differences when listening to the results, if I remember well. Then we tried to conclude something like a well treated room is not as sensitive to mic placement patterns (apart from the first placement at the MLP, of course) as a non-treated room would be.
post #63408 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post


But, but, but,...Jerry, recently you have made two measurements with different mic pattern placements (one as usual and one as Feri's suggestion) and you said there we no significant differences when listening to the results, if I remember well. Then we tried to conclude something like a well treated room is not as sensitive to mic placement patterns (apart from the first placement at the MLP, of course) as a non-treated room would be.

 

Saying that consistency can be achieved in a good or bad room is not the same as saying that a good room is more forgiving of sloppy techniques then a bad room.   

post #63409 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Measuring the dynamic component of DEQ would be a challenge. 

Why a challenge Jerry? Keep the MV setting constant at, say, -20 dB and change the input level. Say, it's done with 4 different input levels with 5 dB increments it would show a 20 dB range of how the dymanic part of DEQ works. cool.gif

Expected result: the softer the passage the higher the bass boost will be. smile.gif
post #63410 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

And no one said that anyone has found the "perfect" mic placements to produce the absolute best results. 

Correct no one mentioned the "perfect" mic placement, but Keith mentioned you and he had found the "best" for your circumstances.

Having found the best spots to use in our own circumstances
post #63411 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Follow the general guidelines:

- First position at the MLP
- Subsequent positions left, right, forward, and backward by ~24 inches.

With a complex room like yours, with multiple rows and different seat heights, mic placement can be more complex.  Unfortunately, I have no experience in this area.

Here is what I think is a reasonable recommendation, let's call it "walk before you run":  Assume for a moment that you have only one row of seats.  Select mic placements for this row according to the conventional placement recommendations I mentioned earlier.  Hone your REW skills by optimizing the audio for this one row of seats, with the MLP being the best spot, of course.  Experiment with placements, etc., again limiting measurements to one row of seats.

Once you are comfortable with your REW skills and have achieved pretty good results for the single row, measure the results for the other rows.  Who knows, you may have arrived at "good enough" and can relax and enjoy your system.  If not, then experiment with other mic placements, but be aware, the complexity increases exponentially.

Thanks for that, will follow those instructions.
post #63412 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


Correct no one mentioned the "perfect" mic placement, but Keith mentioned you and he had found the "best" for your circumstances.

Having found the best spots to use in our own circumstances

 

Sometimes we say things without thinking that that we will be taken completely literally.  Speaking for myself only, I think I would say that I have found a measurement pattern that produces not only consistent results, but results to my liking.  Hopefully you will achieve the same.

post #63413 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Measuring the dynamic component of DEQ would be a challenge. 

Why a challenge Jerry? Keep the MV setting constant at, say, -20 dB and change the input level. Say, it's done with 4 different input levels with 5 dB increments it would show a 20 dB range of how the dymanic part of DEQ works. cool.gif

Expected result: the softer the passage the higher the bass boost will be. smile.gif

Feri - this was already done in a recent discussion where you were a very active participant. Need I remind you that your hypothesis was correct and the measurements clearly showed more boost with softer input....... Or...... COMPRESSION wink.gifeek.gif
post #63414 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Sometimes we say things without thinking that that we will be taken completely literally.  Speaking for myself only, I think I would say that I have found a measurement pattern that produces not only consistent results, but results to my liking.  Hopefully you will achieve the same.

Yes I understand what you mean. My room is very complex with three rows of seating all at different heights. The results are not always consistent even though my mic placements have very much been remembered and marked by the fixed seating. I also draw a diagram every time and write everything down so I try to stay consistent too. Without staying consistent its impossible to know which placement might be better than the other.

I found I got a better result last night by actually moving my 1st mic position MLP, to a slightly different position than I have always done, it was far better!
Usually I have placed the mic in the centre between the three rows of raised seating....
Last night I choose to move the 1st position to the centre of the mid and back rows (further away from the front row)
I now also leave the front row out of the equations and just have two mic heights between the mid and back rows....
This "time consuming" testing can produce better results in very difficult rooms.

Mind you Im not the only one out there who has a dedicated room with floor risers, which is obviously more difficult to sort than a simple room.

BTW.
Who else has a dedicated room with floor risers here and or side sloping walls to the screen, I've never asked this question?
post #63415 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

Feri - this was already done in a recent discussion where you were a very active participant. Need I remind you that your hypothesis was correct and the measurements clearly showed more boost with softer input....... Or...... COMPRESSION wink.gifeek.gif

Thanks bp, but no need to remind,...I just wanted to point out to Jerry that this kinda measurement should not be a challange. smile.gif
post #63416 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post


I found I got a better result last night by actually moving my 1st mic position MLP, to a slightly different position than I have always done, it was far better!

Far better by what measurement?
post #63417 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

To ask for detailed suggestions and advice, which certain people are always happy to give in spades, while knowing at the time of asking that such suggestions would never be implemented or even seriously considered is very poor form IMO. If people routinely did this, then the givers of advice would soon give up giving advice and who could blame them? 

Even sadder in some ways, the people who gratuitously ask for such advice, without ever intending to take it when given, are also experiencing systems that are bound to sound relatively poor. They may delude themselves that their systems "sound good" and, in the absence of any means of comparison, become used to sub-par sound, but they will never experience what their systems can truly sound like once optimised. 

The suggestions to use acoustic science to calculate optimum speaker and subwoofer placements yield substantial benefits - far greater than the benefits of using electronic EQ alone - and best of all, it is a FREE upgrade. Having experienced the difference myself, I recommend that if someone is only going to use ONE method of optimising their sound, this is the one they choose. Even people like myself, who initially thought there were no alternative placement possibilities due to room layout, size etc, have proven to themselves (with expert guidance) that this is not necessarily the case. In my case, all that was required was to move the L and R speakers about 12 inches and one subwoofer about 36 inches. Not only is the sound better, but the room looks better aesthetically too! I won’t post the 'before' and 'after' graph again as surely everyone is bored with it by now, but it is objective confirmation of what my ears are hearing. 

I don't know if this was directed at me. If it was, you've misunderstood my post. I fully intend to tweak every aspect of my sound system, however, due to the sheer size of my screen and speakers, I have very little wiggle room until I fabricate my own false wall. Given the suggestions for placement, I've done all I can do unless I a) Convert my subs to sealed enclosures b) Place my front soundstage behind the screen. Until I decide on those, I am pretty much stuck, so there's nowhere to go from here except to actually sit down and watch some content.
post #63418 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Far better by what measurement?

Not by any measurement but by my ears.
Four subs up front and two in the rear, they are better balanced with the main speakers plus delays with the new 1st mic measurement. Smoother.wink.gif
post #63419 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Not by any measurement but by my ears.

So you are saying a preference. What about all of the other people in all of those other seats in those "three rows"? Do they all have the same preference or do you know best?

This is why many people strive to come close to the Audyssey Reference target curve as derived over decades of research in Audyssey Labs and various listening rooms. This provides sort of a "base level", a common denominator, if you will, as opposed to counting on what sounds good to your "ears" being best for everyone else.
post #63420 of 70910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

So you are saying a preference. What about all of the other people in all of those other seats in those "three rows"? Do they all have the same preference or do you know best?

This is why many people strive to come close to the Audyssey Reference target curve as derived over decades of research in Audyssey Labs and various listening rooms. This provides sort of a "base level", a common denominator, if you will, as opposed to counting on what sounds good to your "ears" being best for everyone else.

Gee, your post sounds like I'm breaking all the rules of Audyssey!

I think you need to go back and read the post I made....
I never mentioned anything about changing anything from the book, I never deviate from that!

I aim for the best sound I can get over all the rows, some people on here only care about one seat.

I said the 1st mic position I used yesterday was slightly different to the one I had always used. When you have three rows of seats over risers one needs to decide which of the three rows is going to be the MLP, you cant have three MLP.

For me, the mid and back row are the most important for me and my guests, the new mic position I used was between these to rows, that I called the MLP and that was my compromise.
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)